Do any of the military types here have a problem with this?

[Verres]

I was trying to point out that I do not believe in the war as a whole. I foolishly assumed you might see this as being slightly relevant to the original topic of this thread

[Az]

weird. In the IDF SS109s are used by sharpshooters, and the standard issue is the regular bullet. We've been all getting regular bullets.

Oh and you're right about the ability of non-foot soldiers to fight as foot soldiers. For example, in the IDF, Though we all do pass rifle school, we end up as 'Rifleman 02' at graduation, when there are Rifleman 03, 04, 05, 07, and IIRC, 11. Their basic training is a bit longer.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Darsnan
What concerns me, though, was an article in the ABC News last night where a Senator stated that he's getting angry phone calls from parents of GI's being shipped to Iraq now saying their kids are being sent without the kevlar inserts into their flack jackets! Thats gotta be depressing to the soldiers in that they are being sent by their government into Harm's Way, but they aren't going to be given an essential piece of equipment!


D

Most likely, they're getting their Kevlar issued in the field, since there's a fair number of vests with superficial external damage, but perfectly good Kevlar. It makes more sense to take care of that stuff in the field than it does to fly them in with new Kevlar, then fly out damaged vests to be repaired back here then shipped (yet again) out to whoever would get them next, only to eventually get shipped (yet again) over to Iraq.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Verres
I was trying to point out that I do not believe in the war as a whole. I foolishly assumed you might see this as being slightly relevant to the original topic of this thread

A few months ago, say in early March or prior, it might have been. Right now, the war is there, and liking it or not liking it isn't going to make it go away.

And BTW, I opposed it for lack of an adequate casus belli, for lack of urgency to go when we did, and for the failure to make enough of a case in the international community (not necessarily the UN ) so that the "coalition of the willing" was actually a little more willing.

That's all water under the bridge now - we're there, like it or not.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Azazel
weird. In the IDF SS109s are used by sharpshooters, and the standard issue is the regular bullet. We've been all getting regular bullets.

We still used the standard ones on the range I think, and they can be optional issue. You guys probably have millions of the other ones lying around, and the M855/SS109 is more expensive to make. It's a mixed bag - if you've got some ******* in a brick or adobe or block building who pops up at a window to shoot at you then ducks down below, you just plink him right through the wall. If you've got some crazy in a street charging at you, it can take more fire to drop him.

Oh and you're right about the ability of non-foot soldiers to fight as foot soldiers. For example, in the IDF, Though we all do pass rifle school, we end up as 'Rifleman 02' at graduation, when there are Rifleman 03, 04, 05, 07, and IIRC, 11. Their basic training is a bit longer.

I'd guess your 11's would either be senior NCO's, or maybe specialized like Rangers or commandos or something. Most of the difference is learned on the job. The question is are you learning it from real infantry, or hobbyists.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Azazel
The AK, and weapons with similar loading mechanisms maybe heavier, but at least they don't jam! Our commander promissed to teach us about the Galil, though.

The Galil is sweet.

[Lefty Scaevola]

I assume the buracracy would be more to get additional USA weapons issued to the tankers, than to use the captured AK-47s.

[Sava]

I'm a little bit disappointed that our military isn't being given the supplies to get the job done. I'm also disappointed that the Colt M16 and M4's still are unreliable and require high maintenance. Our military should have the best equipment for the lowest price... i.e. most efficient. Perhaps we should rethink this trend towards privatization and using for-profit companies as the main supplier of weapons.

[Az]

I'd guess your 11's would either be senior NCO's, or maybe specialized like Rangers or commandos or something. Most of the difference is learned on the job. The question is are you learning it from real infantry, or hobbyists

11 are SO, and so are 07. I don't remember which is which.

This is hardly relevant, since I am going to be in the rear. Only child, must have parents' permission to go to combat. Plus, I am getting a pretty sweet deal THIS way. I am getting education right after school, for free. The trade-off is 6 years in the army, though those will be as an officer, only 3 of those will be on real pay.


About the Galil: After that M16-in-the-sand shock I had, I look forward, though I heard it lags in accuracy, and is heavier.


Fun fact: now I am carrying an antiquity of sorts. One of the rifles that you guys shipped here in 73'.(engraved on it '10-73 ANAD'). Actually, I think it was one of the first M16s produced ever. The writing says 'Colt AR-15 Property of U.S. Government M16', and then a visibly later added engravement says 'A1'.

[Sava]

What is the general consensus about the German HK-G36 Assault Rifles? I've never fired or seen one up close. I've fired M-16, M4 Commando, and an AK47... how reliable is the G36? Would it be a viable alternative to the Colt guns that are standard issue in the US military?

[Az]

IIRC, the general concensus on the G36s, is that they rule.


but what about the G11?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm a little bit disappointed that our military isn't being given the supplies to get the job done.

They are dear. There is a longstanding BOIP for PDW's for armor pukes, and the BOIP is what it is because it isn't common practice in the grand scheme of things for armor pukes to patrol dismounted.

I'm also disappointed that the Colt M16 and M4's still are unreliable and require high maintenance.

Which is primarily bullshit. My posts here over the years on the subject of military firearms should demonstrate that I'm not a great fan of either weapon, but all weapons require maintenance, and accurate weapons require more under operational conditions in the field. The old style Kalashnikovs can take a lot of neglect and fowling before they misfire, but their accuracy at range and rate of fire is far less than any same-type NATO issue weapon. If you look at what Kalashnikov currently offers, from the AK-74 on to the 100 series, they've dropped the "durable piece of crap for untrained knuckledraggers" legacy of the AK-47 and gone in the same general engineering direction as the US, Europe and Israel.

The unreliability knock on the M-16 series has always been popularly exaggerated, and field maintenance is pretty damned easy.

Our military should have the best equipment for the lowest price... i.e. most efficient. Perhaps we should rethink this trend towards privatization and using for-profit companies as the main supplier of weapons.

What "trend towards privatization" and since when has a state-owned not "for profit" company been a supplier to US forces? Any issue weapon design for US forces has to go through the Army Infantry Board before it can be authorized for procurement, and getting weapons designs past the Infantry Board isn't easy. Crap designs don't make it.

There is no "best equipment for the lowest price" - there are a lot of distinct choices out there, and most are considerably more expensive than the M16A2 and M4A1.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Azazel
IIRC, the general concensus on the G36s, is that they rule.


but what about the G11?

The FASS-90/StG-90/SG550 series by SIG are better weapon overall than the G36.

The G11 is a cute "Starship Troopers" piece of **** that works great under range conditions and scripted field trials. I'd still like to have one, but it wouldn't be my piece of choice if my life depended on it.

[Sava]

What about the SG552 Commando? How does that stack up?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Go old style and semi auto - the H&K PDW. Small round, but never jams and high rate of fire.

What "trend towards privatization" and since when has a state-owned not "for profit" company been a supplier to US forces? Any issue weapon design for US forces has to go through the Army Infantry Board before it can be authorized for procurement, and getting weapons designs past the Infantry Board isn't easy. Crap designs don't make it.

In theory maybe, but in practice, no. Just read 'About Face' or 'Steel my soldier's hearts' both by Colonel David H. Hackworth. That is enough to show that the AR-15, and the M-16 sucks in field conditions.

[Az]

I'd still like to have one

[Ned]

Had the Iraqi police had M-16's and not AK47's, the tragedy of the their being confused for the enemy the other night would have been avoided.

[Chemical Ollie]

I got training for 3 personal weapons during my time in the military.

1) K-pist M/45 B (9 mm sub-machine gun). A very rugged weapon with only a few moving parts. The only reason it ever jammed was that empty cartridges sometimes got stuck in the peace-time cartridge collector (used to prevent red-hot cartridges flying into your buddy's collar and burning him). And that was rare. I liked the accuracy at short range and I was the best shot in my company as long as I had the K-pist. It was also easy to clean. When officers didn't see, I sprayed it with triclorethane, brought it into the shower to remove the dirt and put on some fresh grease. But I read that it was quite useless at long range in real combat. The Swedish UN soldiers in Kongo 1962 complained that it didn't penetrate the wooden shields the Baluba tribe warriors used. This didn't prevent the K-pist to be used by US special forces in Vietnam. It's extreme realiabity makes it a very good short-range weapon.

2) AK 4 (7.62 mm assault rifle) I volontered to get it, but I soon got to regret that. It was harder to clean, heavier and bulkier to carry, more prone to jam and worst of all, the sight did not fit my personal preference at all. I dropped from the best shot in the company to below average and I didn't even qualify for the Marksman Badge. Yuk!

3) AK 5 (5.56 mm assault rifle) My wartime unit got issued these rifles at my first repetition excercise. It was a very sexy little toy, easy to carry, cool looking and extremely accurate. Scoring a headshot on a non-moving target at 300 meters was a piece of cake. On the other hand, it was a nightware to clean and very vulnerable to minor disturbances. One of my magazines had a damage on the magazine lips (is that the correct term in English?) and it jammed all the time.

The K-pist is still my favorite. Given my experience of jamming and non-jamming weapons, I fully understand if the Yanks prefer the reliable AK-47. On the other hand, the "spray and pray" doctrine of the Americans will cause even more friendly and allied casualties if the US themselves start to use the same rifle as the enemy, as some of you already pointed out.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Go old style and semi auto - the H&K PDW. Small round, but never jams and high rate of fire.



In theory maybe, but in practice, no. Just read 'About Face' or 'Steel my soldier's hearts' both by Colonel David H. Hackworth. That is enough to show that the AR-15, and the M-16 sucks in field conditions.

Hackworth is well known for his opinions. Experienced infantry are by definition complete troglodytes when it comes to making major switches in weapons types, operational doctrine, etc. More than anything else, though, God help you when you want to change the basic combat weapons, and no cow is more sacred then the infantryman's rifle.

In the late 30's up to the beginning days of WW2, you had a similar sort of thing with the M1 Garand (a great rifle) replacing the '03 Springfield. (God's own rifle, if you listened to most old timers back then). The USMC was even worse, with their "My Rifle" dogma. According to the Marines, although that M1 piece of **** might be suitable for those army pukes who couldn't shoot anyway, the Marines were by God real riflemen, and a Marine with an '03 could keep up the rate of fire and fire with more accuracy than any army puke with that piece of **** kid's toy. Gotta love Uncle Sam's Misguided Children - what they lack in brains they make up for in attitude and style.

The M14 was in most respects a pretty vanilla change from the M1, and it was well received as in most respects. The only downside to it was that the government spec considered the .308 / 7.62 x 51 NATO round to be an "intermediate" round suitable for a full auto capable rifle, because it was cut down from the .30-06 round (which kicks like a pissed off mule on steroids) used in the M1 and Springfield. Except for the fact that in full auto the M14 was pretty wild, to put it mildly, it was a great rifle. It was very much evolutionary from the M1, not a radical change.

Gene Stoner's designs (AR-10, AR-15/M16, the Stoner weapons system that the SEALs used as the M63A1, etc.) were radical changes in every respect. A new round, the 5.56mm x45, new materials (synthetic plastics, leading to the "If it's Mattel, it's swell" putdown), new action type, completely new design philosophy for new small unit tactics, etc.

The inbuilt prejudices against these changes were huge, and just about anything that could be construed to discredit the AR15/M61 design was construed that way regardless of facts. Of all the claims about jams, misfires and general unreliability of the original AR15/M16, the huge majority fell into three areas: bad ammo, improper field maintenance by poorly trained troops in violation of standard procedures, and target fixation leading to excessive full auto firing.

The ammo problem was caused by the rapid change to 5.56 x 45 as the Vietnam war built up. As an "economy measure" ordered by the government, millions of rounds of 5.56 were produced with old powder from surplus artillery munitions, and this powder burned dirty as hell.

In 'Nam, grunts who didn't know better had a tendency to think that WD40 was ****ing liquid duct tape in aerosol form. They WD40'd the hell out of everything, causing in many cases primer seepage and dissolution of the machine oil in various parts of the weapons action, due to WD40 flooding and it's solvent effects.

Other problems included things like taping clips end to end, leaving the exposed end to get bent, dinged, and crap in it. Barrel burn and misfeeds due to excessive full auto fire were also problems, but these were attributed as defects in the weapon design, rather than defects in the soldier and his training.

The difference is that over time, the Army Infantry Board and other review / audit groups who looked into the M16 performance issues got past the myths, rumors and assumptions into the actual facts. Hackworth's opinions have stuck with the initial informal rumor mill perceptions.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Had the Iraqi police had M-16's and not AK47's, the tragedy of the their being confused for the enemy the other night would have been avoided.

Not necessarily. The simple fact that they were coming out of Indian Country where no US forces were, in vehicles, apparently firing in the direction of the US checkpoint, would tend to muddy up the issue a bit.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
On the other hand, the "spray and pray" doctrine of the Americans will cause even more friendly and allied casualties if the US themselves start to use the same rifle as the enemy, as some of you already pointed out.

That's twice now you've referred to my use of the term "spray and pray" describing the Iraqi approach to the US checkpoint without NV gear, as "American" "doctrine" which it is not.

"Spray and pray" is fairly universal in close urban combat settings, but is not at all a favored US approach.

[Chemical Ollie]

I'm sorry for that, it's nothing personal, but the expression is pretty cool and colourful. Perhaps I should go back to the "shoot first and ask the questions later" terminology to describe the situation?

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm a little bit disappointed that our military isn't being given the supplies to get the job done.

A friend of mine spent several years as a supply sargent, and she'd bounce off the walls claiming the Generals never were willing to keep the supplies flowing, but I'm not sure she was unbiased, she did have a temper, even though she was attractive, she'd gone through 6 husbands by age 40.

Also, the situation there is so messy, you can't do it perfectly.

[The Mad Monk]

she'd gone through 6 husbands by age 40.

I'm torn between admiration and horror.

[The Mad Monk]

I've been thinking about the 120 rounds issue -- it dosen't look like a hell of a lot, but how much do you expect to go through in a firefight? What's an optimal load? I suppose in many way "limitless" would be optimal, but that would be rather difficult to lug around.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I'm sorry for that, it's nothing personal, but the expression is pretty cool and colourful. Perhaps I should go back to the "shoot first and ask the questions later" terminology to describe the situation?

Q. What do you call a crew of an armored vehicle after it's been hit by MBT or missile fire?

A. Shake-n-bake (helps if you're familiar with the American food item)

Q. What do you call an artillery fire mission on a soft target?

A. Shred-n-Spread

Q. What do you call the targets of a napalm (or nowadays that napalm is out of fashion, overpressure FAE ordnance) attack?

A. Crispy Critters (another American food reference, from an old cereal)

Grunt humor tends to be a bit hard-edged, but we really don't spray and pray except in places like Mogadishu where the number of targets exceeds the supply of ammo.

The US approach is more "massive application of firepower" and it's the bastards (poor or otherwise) on the receiving end that do the praying.

[Chemical Ollie]

I know grunt humour very well. One of my best buddies (I will drink with him next Saturday) has been on 7 UN missions to Lebanon, Bosnia and Hebron. He has been sprayed by AK-47 rounds (none hit him), bombed by the Israel Air Force, shelled by Serb artillery and personally hit by intifada stoning. He has picked up casualties, both friends and foes, who were hit by bullets, RPGs and hand grenades. From this, he has grown very cool and non-sentimental. Or more frankly: he's not normal.

Where am I aiming with this post? I don't know. Perhaps I should log off before I get to drunk to do nothing but trolling. Good night...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Hackworth is well known for his opinions. Experienced infantry are by definition complete troglodytes when it comes to making major switches in weapons types, operational doctrine, etc. More than anything else, though, God help you when you want to change the basic combat weapons, and no cow is more sacred then the

I'm not sure about Hack being a troglodytes when it comes to chances in operational doctrine. He pretty much wrote the book on how to beat any guerrilla insurection, and that after fighting a Korea (a conventional war)

In the book, Hackworth states that the M16 didnt have enough power to penetrate the bush that is found in the jungle. It also had to be kept extremely dry, or it would jam. In the jungle, its always wet, and the dirt is very humid, so it sticks to the parts inside. When building a firebase, they found one NVA/VC complete with weapon. It had been buried a few months. Hackworth picked up the AK 47 and fired the gun until the clip ran out.

The fact is that, most of the wars that have been fought since WW II have been guerrilla style. It doesn't matter how accurate your gun is at 600 meters, because most of the time, you cannot see that far - whether its in the jungle, or in the mountains, or in an urban setting. What you need is a gun that wont fail you, can penetrate the bush, and can kill with three shots to the chest.

[Spiffor]

Azazel:
Were you in boot camp these last 3 weeks ?

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
On the other hand, the "spray and pray" doctrine of the Americans will cause even more friendly and allied casualties if the US themselves start to use the same rifle as the enemy, as some of you already pointed out.

Spray and pray couldn't be farther from the truth when describing US military training.

US troops are trained for accuracy. The AK I believe was the true spray and pray weapon at close range. Not a US design.

There is a reason the M16 isn't even fully automatic anymore...for pete's sake...

but, whatever...people may believe whatever they want...and they will.