As we see heavier armour being used (The Exo Skeletons MIT is developing, and as we develop those, soldiers will be able to carry more, and we'll see an upgrade in armour, no doubt. Not anytime soon, but within the next 25 or so years maybe), we'll see a change of caliber, yet again. I'm interested in wether or not we'll see a change to lighter rounds to penetrate (Like the 5.7mm), or wether we'll start seeing a use of heavier calibers (Like the 12.8mm).
While using a lighter round might reflect with the newer trend towards shorter ranges and lighter weapons (The US's plans to adopt the XM8 Carbine as a basic weapon), this will compromise their ability to provide accurate fire out to greater ranges, forcing either the use of fire support, or making things all around difficult. But, using a heavier round will increase clutter and weight, veering away from the Army's future plans of "Swarming" (Basically units, highly mobile, and very familiar with the terrain, will disperse in the country side and, when called, will all strike a position from a variety of positions and angles, then disperse again, making it diificult to counter attacks and create defenses).
From a logical point of view, it's diificult to decide. Lighter rounds would create more dependence on fire support, which is bad, while Heavier rounds will create unnecesary stress due to weight and clutter.
Personally, i'm all for a Heavier round. Aside from the fact that the concept of a 12.8mm assault rifle gets me hard, i'd prefer to be able to engage my opponents at a variety of distances, and I would prefer a weapon whose stopping power does not come from placing multiple rounds on target. Accuracy over volume.
What are your opinions on the matter? (And I am aware of the fact that in the next 25 to even 75 years, the opponents of most government armies will probably never even be able to get their hands on this kind of technology, but humour me, alright?)
While using a lighter round might reflect with the newer trend towards shorter ranges and lighter weapons (The US's plans to adopt the XM8 Carbine as a basic weapon), this will compromise their ability to provide accurate fire out to greater ranges, forcing either the use of fire support, or making things all around difficult. But, using a heavier round will increase clutter and weight, veering away from the Army's future plans of "Swarming" (Basically units, highly mobile, and very familiar with the terrain, will disperse in the country side and, when called, will all strike a position from a variety of positions and angles, then disperse again, making it diificult to counter attacks and create defenses).
From a logical point of view, it's diificult to decide. Lighter rounds would create more dependence on fire support, which is bad, while Heavier rounds will create unnecesary stress due to weight and clutter.
Personally, i'm all for a Heavier round. Aside from the fact that the concept of a 12.8mm assault rifle gets me hard, i'd prefer to be able to engage my opponents at a variety of distances, and I would prefer a weapon whose stopping power does not come from placing multiple rounds on target. Accuracy over volume.
What are your opinions on the matter? (And I am aware of the fact that in the next 25 to even 75 years, the opponents of most government armies will probably never even be able to get their hands on this kind of technology, but humour me, alright?)