The proliferation of body armor made that round a necessity in near-peer conflicts. China has body armor on their troops that can stop 5.56. More militaries will adopt body armor over time because it's getting very very cheap for governments to do so. We've been lucky to only be fighting soft targets since the 5.56 round got fielded. The 6.8x51mm round also has way better ballistic coefficients for its ammo, meaning that shot placement will improve across all distances and have less bullet drop at range (the minute of angle tightens up basically).
Even against soft targets, when you look at typical engagement distances in Kunar/Nuristan in Afghanistan, there's a reason that the grunts started packing designated marksman rifles like the M14 and the Marines' modified M16A4s that they fielded in Helmand. The enemy got wise and realized that if they start engagements from 400y out or more, they can lace the groundwork in between the point of ambush and the enemy with IEDs and make the enemy come to the IEDs they buried in cover/concealment spots between where the Marines/Soldiers are and where they needed to advance to. It also made returning fire more difficult because positive identification of the guy shooting at you from 400y away is made more difficult, and you can't return fire without positive ID, and even if you can, your minute of angle is going to open up quite a bit at that distance and the return fire will be less accurate.
I guess all of this is to say that I'm a fan of 6.8x51mm in terms of where warfare is heading. Volume of fire means less when there are civvies around and the enemy wears ceramic plates that you need to bust through to kill them.
What is your take on the new 6.8 mm? It seems to run counter to the carry more bullets paradigm.
The proliferation of body armor made that round a necessity in near-peer conflicts. China has body armor on their troops that can stop 5.56. More militaries will adopt body armor over time because it's getting very very cheap for governments to do so. We've been lucky to only be fighting soft targets since the 5.56 round got fielded. The 6.8x51mm round also has way better ballistic coefficients for its ammo, meaning that shot placement will improve across all distances and have less bullet drop at range (the minute of angle tightens up basically).
Even against soft targets, when you look at typical engagement distances in Kunar/Nuristan in Afghanistan, there's a reason that the grunts started packing designated marksman rifles like the M14 and the Marines' modified M16A4s that they fielded in Helmand. The enemy got wise and realized that if they start engagements from 400y out or more, they can lace the groundwork in between the point of ambush and the enemy with IEDs and make the enemy come to the IEDs they buried in cover/concealment spots between where the Marines/Soldiers are and where they needed to advance to. It also made returning fire more difficult because positive identification of the guy shooting at you from 400y away is made more difficult, and you can't return fire without positive ID, and even if you can, your minute of angle is going to open up quite a bit at that distance and the return fire will be less accurate.
I guess all of this is to say that I'm a fan of 6.8x51mm in terms of where warfare is heading. Volume of fire means less when there are civvies around and the enemy wears ceramic plates that you need to bust through to kill them.