Somehow I messed this gem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
That's about the limit of my options at the moment. Make a suggestion. I'll probably be game.
Come up with a viable solution to the well documented POLITICAL problem in US military procurement. I've come up with one, vote all the B@$terds out but it suffers from lack of adherents -- though that is improving if the last election is a harbinger. We'll see what happens with the next. Congress is capable of adequately instead of selectively supporting the Armed Forces, so far they've only been pretty much forced to do it in existential wars...
Quote:
You have a point but that's not the point.
Unfortunately it is THE point.:(
Quote:
Do you really think any US politician will campaign openly and publicly on the basis of wanting to send US soldiers off to war a substandard personal weapon and other kit to save money or to give a sweetheart deal to a local manufacturer?
Of course not. What a silly question. He will lie and dissemble to his voters and the armed forces and he will insure his efforts are well concealed in the arcane and opaque US Federal Budgeting system. It is no accident that numerous Commission's recommendations that the US Government fully adopt the GAAP (LINK) is deliberately and forcefully rejected by Congress though they are slowly being forced into a corner on the subject.
Quote:
Do you really think that the vast majority of US citizens would want US soldiers to be sent into battle with substandard weapons and kit?
Not at all. However, they are captive to an ill informed and rather militarily ignorant media and mailed or otherwise published announcements by their politicians --so few understand what really transpires. More do every day and many things are getting fixed but it's a long slow effort and is being fought every step of the way. A Century's worth of US Congresses have fought to insure that incumbents are very difficult to dislodge and that accurate information is obscured. That is being attacked -- has been for year but the volume is increasing.
Quote:
This issue is not on the radar because the senior officers seem to care more about their pensions than this particular issue. Now that tells you something.
It tells me that once again you do not understand all you know about what you're saying. The Canadians have a great tradition along that line -- Resigning in protest -- the British less so. The US has almost none and there good and bad reasons for that but the biggest deterrent is that the few time it has been done, the individual was effectively if dishonestly in some cases discredited and his replacements did what was wanted. Once again, you fall afoul of trying to judge the US by other western nations. doesn't work. ;)
The issue is on the Radar, however, it is only one of couple of thousand blips of about the same size and import to the nation as a whole -- it is a ar bigger blip for the Troops but they are only a very small slice of the population. Politicians can count and they count voters -- and count on ignorant voters -- and have constructed a system that aids in perpetuating that ignorance.:mad:
Where do you get this stuff???
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
The chain of incompetence extends beyond the politicians and into the military (whether you like it or not).
Of course it does. So does the chain of crimnal actors so extend (don't forget the, incompetence is not the only sin) -- however, in both cases, the military component is much smaller and much more constrained than is the political side.
Quote:
No, no Ken. Just look at the adoption of 5.56mm, just look at the adoption of the AR-15 with the massive problems and now look at the M4 fiasco.
I was present for the first item and was one of those that worked through that POLITICAL decision that the Army did not wholeheartedly support. :(
The AR-15 adoption problems were a case of military incompetence (and that of military hired civilian employees), period -- the Pols skate on that one. :mad:
The only M4 fiasco is the one you seem to have invented on these pages...:D
Quote:
As much as you would wish to lay all the blame on the politicians there is a significant complicit involvement by serving officers in the process. As much as they would plead that they are doing the best they can they remain party to a series of acts (way beyond what I have mentioned) for which they have no excuse and should not be allowed to have any excuse.
You're wrong on the first issue, there is certainly enough blame to go around -- however, you're treating it like the greatest scandal in town -- it is not, it's just one of many. That's not being blase, just realistic. If you think the same sorts of chicanery and incompetence do not happen in every nation in the world on issues as or even more important, you're living in a dream world.
Okay, they have no excuse -- now what? What do you recommend we do about it?
Better check with your "sources"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
No we are talking about the M4 alone. and to the C8/HK416 you can add the SCAR in both 5.56 and 7.62.
All of which have their problems, though they are different problems than those of the M4 (except for the C8 which has the same problems). You might also talk to some SCAR users...
Quote:
Comparatively the M4 is the poorest of the breed. They knew that before they selected it. That is why it is a fiasco.
Actually, Fuchs is correct, the adoption of the M4 precedes the manufacture of any of the others -- so you're wrong again and the only fiasco is the one you're trying to invent for some obscure reason... :D
Quote:
PS: and discussing this with a good friend from way back (who has carried and fought with a variety of weapons) he commented that I had no frame of reference as the FN was the only weapon I really knew...
You really should listen to good advice -- it, essentially, was don't shoot your mouth off unless you know what you're talking about.
It was adopted for all the reasons discussed ad nauseam earlier in this thread. :rolleyes:
Again, your ignorance of topics on which you purport expertise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
There wasn't much wrong with the RPD. And why the new calibre 7.62x54mm for the PKM?
boggles the mind. :wry:
There was a great deal wrong with the RPD, not least the range and stopping power issues of the 7.62X39. The 7.62X54 is a bigger, more powerful cartridge -- it actually measures about 15mm longer than the earlier mentioned round. :rolleyes:
It is the rough equivalent of the 7.62X51used in the MAG 58 -- which is why the USSR adopted the PKM. New it was not, been around since 1891.
The dreaded acronym surfaceth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
7.62x39 is generally considered to be a good cartridge - its primary shortcoming is the rather low MV and thus a high bullet drop at longer ranges than it was meant for in the AK.
True, it is a good cartridge, better than the 5.56 as a combat cartridge IMO but both suffer from a range shortfall for some situations and terrain.
Quote:
I'm also somewhat skeptical about the effectiveness (or necessity) of machine gun suppressive fires beyond the effective range of the RPD.
See the underlined element above... ;)
Quote:
The dispersion is unavoidably (well, unless you use a turret-mounted gun) awful...
It's only awful if you do not use it as the advantage it provides -- at longer ranges, the MMG becomes an area weapon with many benefits -- particularly in the defense. Plunging fire is particularly useful and relies on that dispersion for much of its effect.
Quote:
it's difficult to detect an assault rifle muzzle fire or its muzzle blast dust from beyond 300 m in daylight and every officer who thinks that his infantry should leapfrog over 350m in face of the opposition of an infantry squad and without a huge deal of obscuration should be fragged.
I'd go with trained properly or fired; fragging is a bit extreme :D . However, your point is valid.
Quote:
You could of course want a fire base farther away from the enemy fighting positions than the jump-off point for the assault element. In that case I'd ask why would you insist on keeping your base of fire distant enough to allow them the use of even artillery against it?
You may not have Artillery due to priority of fires or for other reasons. Same applies even to own mortars. No one weapon provides all the answers, properly allocating and synchronizing their use is what the senior people get paid to do and the good ones will make use of all their assets in accordance with the ol' METT-TC bit...
Redundancy is a combat imperative.
Quote:
The range of the RPD looks thus only like a lethality problem and not so much like a tactical problem to me. Kills by machine guns at more than 300 m aren't terribly often even with a heavier machine gun, though. You can usually use scoped rifles, indirect fire support or simply keep your position unknown when you see suitable targets at such ranges.
True in many, perhaps even most cases but the MG has it uses at extended ranges and, at shorter ranges, the increased lethality and shoot through (walls, etc.) capability is, umm, beneficial...:wry:
But I only used that acronym once and buried it in the middle of the post. :D