MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

[120mm]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Colt isn't exactly a top-notch arms company, but they're certainly better than the bureaucracy.

Okay; you want to play games, support your above statement. Better than you have so far.

Originally Posted by Fuchs

I don't discuss the M4. Your objection was about the Colt remark. You assert that Colt is top notch, above ordinary. Your burden of proof.

See the top post. YOU asserted that Colt was NOT top notch. I would be surprised if you could actually come up with a valid criticism of Colt. BTW, I know I could, but am tired of playing games with you and will not give you anything. Earn the right to say things like that or go home.

And, btw, your pseudo-intellectual "you cannot prove a negative" is weak sauce. The fact is, you simply are not qualified to honestly make the criticism that Colt is mediocre (there, I fixed it for you... better?)

Originally Posted by Fuchs

That one in combination with argueing against my responses.

Actually, I utterly destroyed your responses. Find better responses next time, maybe.

[120mm]

Originally Posted by SethB

I will offer one qualification to what 120MM said.

American shooting culture, being based largely on hunting anyway, would never inspire the Accuracy International design.

The AI represents one of the plainest rifles extant. It shares more in common with a tractor than a hunting rifle.

Which is of course one of it's greatest strengths.

I have to slightly disagree. Within the last 30 years or so, the "gun games" have impacted weapons design more than hunting.

And within the last 15 years or so, "combat shooting gun games" have dominated US military weapons designs dramatically.

That is why the so-called "Advanced European designs" suffered so awfully to more modular, ergo and frankly fightable US designs like the M4, imo.

The modern weapon sight is a game changer, for instance. For awhile, it appeared as if the US military would eschew sights, when some of the now awful optical sights were coming standard on Euro pieces.

I can easily summarize Euro military small arms for the last 15 years by two statements:

1. Euro military small arms design has been fetishing the mere presence of a gun over its utility. In other words, most of their design effort has been dedicated to convenience of carry of an arm in a vehicle, regardless of how unusable it renders said arm in actual combat.

2. Euro military small arms design has also been fixated on penetrating body armor, to the extent of ignoring what the bullet might actually do to living flesh. Despite there being no credible threat out there to the western world that makes use of said body armor, obtw.

In comparison to the above two points, American small arms development has been top-notch. And that includes Colt's role in said development.

[Fuchs]

To call a company "mediocre" or "not top-notch" is no criticism. Assuming non-mediocrity without evidence is prejudice.


I'll leave it at that, for every reader can form his/her own opinion based on what was already written. I'm sure that non-U.S. readers will on average have a very different impression than U.S. readers.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by 120mm

1. Euro military small arms design has been fetishing the mere presence of a gun over its utility. In other words, most of their design effort has been dedicated to convenience of carry of an arm in a vehicle, regardless of how unusable it renders said arm in actual combat.

Examples?

2. Euro military small arms design has also been fixated on penetrating body armor, to the extent of ignoring what the bullet might actually do to living flesh. Despite there being no credible threat out there to the western world that makes use of said body armor, obtw.

Well that's easy to explain. It's the NATO CRISAT test that creates that problem, and the failure of folks to read the specification correctly. More over the amount of weapons and calibres this has produced is minute. Two by my count.

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Examples?

Well that's easy to explain. It's the NATO CRISAT test that creates that problem, and the failure of folks to read the specification correctly. More over the amount of weapons and calibres this has produced is minute. Two by my count.

A few more, but only two were produced in quantity.

He focuses way too much on the PDW category.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

To call a company "mediocre" or "not top-notch" is no criticism. Assuming non-mediocrity without evidence is prejudice.

I'll leave it at that, for every reader can form his/her own opinion based on what was already written. I'm sure that non-U.S. readers will on average have a very different impression than U.S. readers.

I understand what the story is here and that is that the US would never give the contract to supply personal weapons for the whole military to a foreign manufacturer.

It has to be a US company... if for none other than emotional reasons.

The procurement policy is incompetent and probably as corrupt (as anything out of Afghanistan) but hey... that's the way we do it in the US, right?

Think introduction of the AR15/M-16 and the horror of that!

The soldiers deserve better.

[Fuchs]

Actually, JMA, you should google which companies won U.S. contracts for 9mm pistols, 5.56mm light machine guns, 7.62mm medium machine guns, 25mm grenade weapons, designated marksman rifles and the new USSOCOM assault rifles.

All that foreign small arms suppliers need to do to win against U.S. bidders is to set up a subsidiary in the U.S..They do not only win tenders - they appear to win most tenders that are not merely about producing yet another batch AR-15s.

[Stupendous Man]

Originally Posted by 120mm

[...]

I cannot really follow you here. First off, what is "Euro" weapons design supposed to be?
When you critizise the "European" propensity to employ "awful" optics early on, what kind of gun are you referring to? The G36 and its HKV? The AUG? The SUSAT? Each of those will provide a marksman with a very tangible advantage over the use of irons.
I will concede that the HKV is a miserable piece of equipment, and that there was much better gear already available, but in the mid-90ties, it still represented a quantum leap over any irons; you further need to understand that the G36+HKV was a child of the "peace dividend" era where low cost was the one overriding consideration; and that is a kind of problem the American military never had to face to the same extent after the beginning of the Korean war.

1. Euro military small arms design has been fetishing the mere presence of a gun over its utility. In other words, most of their design effort has been dedicated to convenience of carry of an arm in a vehicle, regardless of how unusable it renders said arm in actual combat.

2. Euro military small arms design has also been fixated on penetrating body armor, to the extent of ignoring what the bullet might actually do to living flesh. Despite there being no credible threat out there to the western world that makes use of said body armor, obtw.

1. Eh? Examples? The G36 ie. has a very poor stock construction (non adjustable, too long for use with body armour) which I have always critisized, but so the has the standard AR.
2. Again, examples? The PDWs employ a niche - they are not meant to be general issue weapons, they are supposed to replace pistols. And an MP7 for example offers far larger utility than any handgun at negligibly larger bulk and weight.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Actually, JMA, you should google which companies won U.S. contracts for 9mm pistols, 5.56mm light machine guns, 7.62mm medium machine guns, 25mm grenade weapons, designated marksman rifles and the new USSOCOM assault rifles.

All that foreign small arms suppliers need to do to win against U.S. bidders is to set up a subsidiary in the U.S..They do not only win tenders - they appear to win most tenders that are not merely about producing yet another batch AR-15s.

I did mention "personal weapons" didn't I? That's the big one, the must have one for a US company.

[Fuchs]

What's impersonal about the M9 pistol?

Did you really narrow it down to the M1 Garand - M14 - AR-15 line?

Well, the U.S. government gave a contract to HK for the XM8 - just not a production contract. The contract was nevertheless substantial enough that it was together with OICW remains into the XM25 contract (HK already had legal claims from the earlier contracts, so the programs were replaced and HK simply got its turnover from a new project).


Besides; no country with a reputable assault rifle producing company buys less indigenous assault rifles for its whole armed services than license-productions.
Finland, Russia, UK, France, Italy, Brazil, India, Austria, Germany ... there's always a national component at least.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by JMA

I did mention "personal weapons" didn't I? That's the big one, the must have one for a US company.

are personal weapons. The first is a Beretta, the second a FNH product. The M16 and M4 were also produced by FNH who replaced Colt as sole source from 1988 until 1993 and has, along with Colt had additional contracts since then. Several other manufacturers also had or have production contracts, including Sabre Defence, a British Company with a plant in Nashville.

The design home of the weapon is not location sensitive nor is license production a problem. By law, actual manufacture of bulk item defense materiel must be in the US to support and maintain a domestic production base.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Ken White

The design home of the weapon is not location sensitive nor is license production a problem. By law, actual manufacture of bulk item defense materiel must be in the US to support and maintain a domestic production base.

Exactly.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by JMA

I understand what the story is here and that is that the US would never give the contract to supply personal weapons for the whole military to a foreign manufacturer.

It has to be a US company... if for none other than emotional reasons.

Neither FNH or Sabre are US companies. They do have plants in the US but they are still foreign manufacturers, so that statement by you is incorrect.

The rationale for US production is not emotional but practical.

The procurement policy is incompetent and probably as corrupt (as anything out of Afghanistan) but hey... that's the way we do it in the US, right?

Think introduction of the AR15/M-16 and the horror of that!

You're shooting at the wrong target.

Yet again.

The culprits are the Congress, not the procurement guys who generally aren't corrupt and much of whose seeming incompetence is caused by the plethora of laws and excessively bureaucratic regulations that govern procurement -- most but not all designed to keep the system honest and avoid the corruption (other than that of Congress which is apparently acceptable... ).

The soldiers deserve better.

Yes. They always do, always did. Worldwide...

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Ken White

The rationale for US production is not emotional but practical.

A state which buys a 100 € tool from a domestic manufacturer can expect about 40-60 € returns in taxes. This halves the price effectively in comparison to an import.
Subsidiaries and component imports complicate the topic, of course..

Many small countries compensate for their inability to buy everything at home by agreeing on offset purchases. They buy a tool for 100 € in another country, but that country pledges to buy tools for typically 80-180 € in return.

Large weapons net exporter countries often reject such deal conditions - and get away with it because of oligopoly market structures (there are only so many fighter jet and SSK designs on the world market...). The U.S. is such an example.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Ken White

You're shooting at the wrong target.

Yet again.

The culprits are the Congress, not the procurement guys who generally aren't corrupt and much of whose seeming incompetence is caused by the plethora of laws and excessively bureaucratic regulations that govern procurement -- most but not all designed to keep the system honest and avoid the corruption (other than that of Congress which is apparently acceptable... ).Yes. They always do, always did. Worldwide...

Always seems to be someone else to blame I notice.

But do tell me what you think of a senior officers who takes up an appointment in procurement knowing full well that the organisation will not serve the best interests of the US fighting soldier... in fact may even be detrimental to his ability to survive a conflict?

Can these accessories before and after the fact ever be forgiven or their conduct condoned in any shape or form?

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by JMA

Always seems to be someone else to blame I notice.

It's not that others always find someone else to blame, rather it is that you always blame the wrong actions or people because you don't know any better.

But do tell me what you think of a senior officers who takes up an appointment in procurement knowing full well that the organisation will not serve the best interests of the US fighting soldier... in fact may even be detrimental to his ability to survive a conflict?

Another superficial gem from you.

Depends on his motive. If he's doing it for the potential of reward, he's criminally wrong. If he's taking a lousy job -- one that I certainly would not want even if the Congress did not interfere so much -- in order to do the best he can and try to ameliorate damage, then I say good for him. Which is he? Or is he someone in between who was not asked if he wanted it but told to do it and is spending his time in that purgatory just waiting to get back to a unit. We do not have solid one job career tracks, people are rotated in and out of various jobs in the foolish attempt to create what the Personnel community calls a 'generalist.' We are large enough that if someone refuses a job or an order, he just gets fired and someone else is moved in; sooner or later, the system finds someone who will comply and not be a rabble rouser. Not a good system but no one has come up with a fix, though many have tried and are trying.

Can these accessories before and after the fact ever be forgiven or their conduct condoned in any shape or form?

You wrongly condemn through either ignorance or malice. You accuse people of wrongdoing with absolutely no knowledge of who does what to who or how our procurement system works. It really does a fair job with most things. Its major flaw is simply overbureaucratization induced by Congress and their quest for Jobs for voters. Really, it's surprising that it works as well as it does.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Ken White

It's not that others always find someone else to blame, rather it is that you always blame the wrong actions or people because you don't know any better. Another superficial gem from you.

The chain of incompetence extends beyond the politicians and into the military (whether you like it or not).

Depends on his motive. If he's doing it for the potential of reward, he's criminally wrong. If he's taking a lousy job -- one that I certainly would not want even if the Congress did not interfere so much -- in order to do the best he can and try to ameliorate damage, then I say good for him. Which is he? Or is he someone in between who was not asked if he wanted it but told to do it and is spending his time in that purgatory just waiting to get back to a unit. We do not have solid one job career tracks, people are rotated in and out of various jobs in the foolish attempt to create what the Personnel community calls a 'generalist.' We are large enough that if someone refuses a job or an order, he just gets fired and someone else is moved in; sooner or later, the system finds someone who will comply and not be a rabble rouser. Not a good system but no one has come up with a fix, though many have tried and are trying.You wrongly condemn through either ignorance or malice. You accuse people of wrongdoing with absolutely no knowledge of who does what to who or how our procurement system works. It really does a fair job with most things. Its major flaw is simply overbureaucratization induced by Congress and their quest for Jobs for voters. Really, it's surprising that it works as well as it does.

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.

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.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by JMA

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.

What M4 fiasco? Almost all NATO SF use the M4/C8/HK416, including UK, and Australian SF. The IDF uses it without complaint and will shortly adopt a replacement with near identical external ballistics. ( a 5.56mm weapon with a >330mm barrel). OK, the Tavor X95 is a lot more reliable, but the bullet will be doing the same thing.

[Backwards Observer]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

OK, the Tavor X95

The Tavor's wikipedia entry states that it was named after Mount Tavor, a location rich with history. Looks like a good place from which to add dignity to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl. Perhaps this is an inappropriate observation, my apologies.

Mount Tabor - Wikipedia

Artillery Quotes

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Backwards Observer

The Tavor's wikipedia entry states that it was named after Mount Tavor, a location rich with history. Looks like a good place from which to add dignity to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl. Perhaps this is an inappropriate observation, my apologies.

Not at all. One of my favourite parts of the country. One hell of climb, and the view is worth it..... maybe.... let me catch my breath.....