[MikeG]

Yes, sadly ironic that we've more or less circled back around to 7x57 ballistics, oh, only 120-something years after discovering how (painfully) effective it was in the Spanish-American war

The Brits learned the same hard lesson in the Boer war, and were almost as stubbon as us.

"Not Invented Here" syndrome is alive and well, all over the globe. Wasn't there a theory floating around that Winchester introduced the .270, after investing some time and money in an experimental 6.8mm cartridge for the Chinese government, that never came to pass and they were stuck with tools / equipment / bullets that they had no other use for?

I guess it takes at least a hundred years to 'forget' that someone else, somewhere else, already invented what you need!

 

[MikeG]

Note, a common theme in military history, is developing weapons for the next war that would have been really useful in the previous one..... which sometimes works out well, and sometimes not. Time will tell.

 

[MikeG]

The Sherman would have had much higher survivability if it had a diesel engine, not gas. Probably a supply chain issue, one less fuel to ship, but they burned pretty spectacularly when hit, as will anything with a full gas tank that takes incoming fire.

Probably the majority of German heavy tanks taken out by the Americans weren't by Shermans, but when the Army Air Corps finally started putting pilots on the ground to call in air strikes. Dependence on air strikes lead to a temporary German success in the Battle of the Bulge, due to poor weather that grounded planes. Once the weather cleared.... it was curtains.

T-34 and especially the later T-34 with either the 85 or 90mm gun, forget which, was a far better tank than anything we had, and that fact was unfortunately proven in Korea.

"Best light/medium tank" is a dubious label, ranks right up there with "best survivability of a Smart Car when hit by a cement mixer".... yes, there may be a different, but mainly you don't want your Smart Car to run into a cement mixer, for ultimate survivability Just sayin'

Shermans, with bulldozer blades, were what got us through Normandy, so they weren't all useless. Just had a specific purpose. Light, move fast with jeeps and trucks, and keep up with infantry. But hardly the 'land battleships' of the day.

Getting somewhat back on topic, I've talked to infantrymen who served recently. Biggest complaint they have is packing well over 100 pounds with each step. Said the load wasn't too bad in a vehicle, but step a few feet on the ground, in a HOT climate, and it was pretty miserable. Something to think about.

 

[MikeG]

"Not invented here." Explains why the previous 130-140 year's worth of knowledge / experience / history was discarded, and "magically" we found a NEW, never invented before cartridge configuration, that met all the 'new' specs.....

Practically any cartridge with some sort of reasonable case capacity, can penetrate whatever amount of body armor in existence, with the right bullet. As hunters have known (or should have known) for centuries, it's the bullet impact on target that does the work. We just couldn't give the soviet x39-based case the nod, no matter how capable it or its offspring are. Embarassing!

Put some tungsten-core bullets in practically ANYTHING and you can penetrate all the body armor you want. Heck a fast-twist 5.56 could likely have done all they wanted, with the right bullet.

'Splain how the 'new' stuff is all that different from various European 6.5 and 7mm cartridges over the years (it isn't). Heck a .250 Savage with the "right" bullets would do pretty well, I suspect. Oh wait it was already invented.... we can't have that

 

[MikeG]

Well, one thing that did occur to me is overlap with civillian / commercial chamberings, if this extreme high pressure version comes to pass. There are doubtless a few wildcats around for .308 necked down to .270, but a lot fewer wildcat rifles for high-pressure rounds to find their way into than some poplular off-the-shelf cartridge.

The 'regular' .270 Win is probably out, if for no other reason than the shorter case gives a shorter action, and you're carrying less brass around as well (or whatever else the cartridge case is made out of). Not a huge consideration for most hunting but most deer hunters aren't wandering the woods with several hundred rounds..... at least, you'd think not!

But, a smaller diameter case also gives less brass to tote around, per round. So, basing something on the 7.62x39 would make more sense if ammo weight is a consideration. However, I don't expect the military to ever adopt anything on the soviet design, as a point of pride. Why they didn't gin up this new cartridge on the 6.5mm bore size is beyond me, if weight is the least consideration. Get the same penetration out of a smaller diameter bullet, but that smaller diameter bullet will weigh less. Or go 6mm, .25 cal, etc.

Maybe they read too much Jack O'Connor and decided that the .270 bore size is magic!