Avatar feed
Responses: 6
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
7
7
0
RallyPoint Shared Content thanks for the read.
(7)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Maj John Bell
3
3
0
Edited 4 y ago
I always have a question when we look at replacing a weapons systems, when there has not been a significant change in the technology involved.

Why?

Have likely opposing forces made some change in tactics or capabilities that decrease the effectiveness and competitiveness of the old system.

Will the replacements have a significant:
decease in weight?
increase in reliability?
decease in operator maintenance?
decrease in higher echelon maintenance?
increase in maximum rate of fire?
increase in range?
etc. etc. etc.

If not why go through the expense of development?, disposal of unused spare parts of the old weapon?, supporting changes to the upper echelon maintenance changes?, training maintenance personnel? training new operators? etc. etc. etc.

If there is not some clearly significant gain, why not just junk the worn out weapons and replace them with new ones of the same version.

Quite often when there is a call for a new weapon, it seams like Timmy can't possibly ride the red bike he got last year, so mom and dad please buy him a green one.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Maj John Bell
Maj John Bell
4 y
CPT Lawrence Cable - When I was a platoon leader, The Marines had the M16A1. When I was a Company Commander The Marines had the M16A2. I thought the M16A2 was far superior. But to be honest, the reason could have been that the M16A1's were so ragged out that a brand new sharp pointy stick would have seemed superior.
(1)
Reply
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
CPT Lawrence Cable
4 y
Maj John Bell - The Marine M4/M16 doesn't have Full Auto, which was the reason I suggested going back to an Army version that have always had that capability. I enlisted in 1982 and went though OSUT with some M16's that also had seen better days, but the A1 in good condition was a decent weapon. I didn't have a problem with the A2 either. It certainly had better sights, or easier to adjust anyway. I may just be set in my thinking, but in many ways, I like the original platform better than I do the M4, which is certainly handier in a vehicle.
I have been told that the original sights were made to be a pain to adjust so that the soldier would zero his weapon on the range and not screw around with the sights later.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Maj John Bell
Maj John Bell
4 y
CPT Lawrence Cable - [language alert] I am not a fan of riflemen having the choice of full auto. My opinion is that of a Marine infantry officer who never saw combat, but my instructors and the SNCO's that raised me in the FMF continually cautioned me about the wastefulness of full auto by anyone in the fireteam who was NOT the AR man. To quote my favorite Marine Corps Gunner, an infantry CWO4 (who was a Chosin Reservoir veteran and did three combat tours in Vietnam)

"God Damn it sir!!! If everybody is putting out suppressive fires, WHO the FUCK is killing the enemy? The chi-com got more soldiers coming at you than you got bullets. When you run out of rounds, Charlie will make you his bitch!!! So your men need to kill as many as they can you can before you go. Shoot and holler shit is for airplanes, artillery and ass hats."

The good Gunner wasn't even a fan of three round bursts. He once set up a range where we were flat on our bellies behind a concrete revetment. He then fired three well-aimed single shots over each Marine's position that passed within inches of us, through pieces of cardboard attached to our helmets; followed by three three round bursts that were within 15-20 feet of us. Then asked us which one made us think harder about getting "right" with Jesus. Near misses certainly got me thinking somewhere else was a better place to be.

I can't offer an opinion on the M4. It was after my time.
(1)
Reply
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
CPT Lawrence Cable
4 y
Maj John Bell - I have enough Marine friends to know the philosophy, which is certainly different from the Army. When I went though, we had an automatic fire qualification also, so short bursts at the pop up targets. I thought that the low recoil of the M16 made that pretty easy as long as you keep it to short bursts, 4 to 6 rounds.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Edward Joy
1
1
0
If you have seen fifty cal coming at you it looks and sounds like flaming beer cans.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close