Welcome to Gaia! ::

Requiem ex Inferni's avatar

Eloquent Streaker

Gill_Of_Octane
1. The M16A2 does not support any under barrel grenade launcher. Its the M16A4 that has the ability to attach a M203 grenade launcher.
Wrong. The M203 was originally designed for use with the M16A1, and as a result it's very much compatible with the A2.
Suicidesoldier#1
Machine_Gun_Blues
Despite history and specs on certain weapons - its still remained a life rule of the military.


A weapon is as only good as the soldier.

Lethality does not lie within the caliber but the strategy and mind it is placed under. Its imperfections and perks are suppose to be honed and mastered by the soldier holding it already.

If something jams and you can't get it out or know how to fix it? Its on you. I don't care what anyone says - it should be common sense to any soldier.


Not to mention, the M4 and M16 have gone under many different changes and are not as badly produced now. I dont hold loyalty to such weapons for the simple fact that anyone can be re-trained or learn more on them or any other different weapon. Some other brands aside from your regular American Colt have produced some really reliable and very mean M4/M16 copies.


Why the military wont change it? Because theyre a bunch of cheap bastards and ever since the beginning of war - its always been the lowest bidder who had made our gear.

Make best with what you got really. Even with the best weapons and gear, it really does not make much of a difference out in the field - especially if we still have things like artillery, air support, the Navy and Airforce.


What if we went into combat wielding machetes?

Or if our commanders sent us in wave after wave with misshapen spears to down the enemies trench while they had machine guns?


And slaughtered millions?

Would that be on the soldier?


Wait, whenever a weapon jams it's his fault?

Fo real? O_o


"What if" situations don't really apply to the reality of what I'm saying. A machete is not a M4 or M16 - so I don't know why you went with the medieval weapon approach. Our commander would never do that.

If a weapon jams - the soldier should know by instinct and training as to how to fix quickly it in the first place. There is a reason why we are trained for it and why we get so accustomed to our rifle.

Secondly- if the rifle jams in the first place, it means the soldier has failed to keep up with his weapon in keeping it clean.

"Yeah but what if a soldier is in prolonged combat and does not have time to clean his weapon?"

Bullshit.

First off it takes me roughly 2 minutes to field strip and efficiently clean out an M4 or M16.

Secondly - real combat is as slow as watching paint dry - gun fights don't last that long and its not like soldiers are having to barricade into bunkers with limited supply while enemy troops are popping off rounds all over the place like it was WW2.

Also history I really do think would repeat if you placed a new rifle into the military.

Soldiers would think its the next best thing and would assume things on its superiority like they did with the M16 in Vietnam - they would get lazy and not maintain it.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Machine_Gun_Blues
Suicidesoldier#1
Machine_Gun_Blues
Despite history and specs on certain weapons - its still remained a life rule of the military.


A weapon is as only good as the soldier.

Lethality does not lie within the caliber but the strategy and mind it is placed under. Its imperfections and perks are suppose to be honed and mastered by the soldier holding it already.

If something jams and you can't get it out or know how to fix it? Its on you. I don't care what anyone says - it should be common sense to any soldier.


Not to mention, the M4 and M16 have gone under many different changes and are not as badly produced now. I dont hold loyalty to such weapons for the simple fact that anyone can be re-trained or learn more on them or any other different weapon. Some other brands aside from your regular American Colt have produced some really reliable and very mean M4/M16 copies.


Why the military wont change it? Because theyre a bunch of cheap bastards and ever since the beginning of war - its always been the lowest bidder who had made our gear.

Make best with what you got really. Even with the best weapons and gear, it really does not make much of a difference out in the field - especially if we still have things like artillery, air support, the Navy and Airforce.


What if we went into combat wielding machetes?

Or if our commanders sent us in wave after wave with misshapen spears to down the enemies trench while they had machine guns?


And slaughtered millions?

Would that be on the soldier?


Wait, whenever a weapon jams it's his fault?

Fo real? O_o


"What if" situations don't really apply to the reality of what I'm saying. A machete is not a M4 or M16 - so I don't know why you went with the medieval weapon approach. Our commander would never do that.

If a weapon jams - the soldier should know by instinct and training as to how to fix quickly it in the first place. There is a reason why we are trained for it and why we get so accustomed to our rifle.

Secondly- if the rifle jams in the first place, it means the soldier has failed to keep up with his weapon in keeping it clean.

"Yeah but what if a soldier is in prolonged combat and does not have time to clean his weapon?"

Bullshit.

First off it takes me roughly 2 minutes to field strip and efficiently clean out an M4 or M16.

Secondly - real combat is as slow as watching paint dry - gun fights don't last that long and its not like soldiers are having to barricade into bunkers with limited supply while enemy troops are popping off rounds all over the place like it was WW2.

Also history I really do think would repeat if you placed a new rifle into the military.

Soldiers would think its the next best thing and would assume things on its superiority like they did with the M16 in Vietnam - they would get lazy and not maintain it.


...the m16 was touted as a "self cleaning rifle" and no training on how to clean the weapon was given. A weapon, even the best weapon in the world in the hands of the best soldier, can still jam at any moment. To claim that you can control the future without a doubt is absurd.

Quote:

A weapon is as only good as the soldier.

Lethality does not lie within the caliber but the strategy and mind it is placed under. Its imperfections and perks are suppose to be honed and mastered by the soldier holding it already.


Again, what if we were wielding machetes? Oh that's right, it would be superbly difficult to fight an individual WITH A ******** GUN. In theory, my fists are weapons- does that mean we shouldn't issue weapons at all? After all, it's the soldiers fault for not being able to kill someone 500 yards away with "strategy mind" powers.


For Christ's sake man. Why have tanks and planes and machine guns and sniper rifles? A weapon is everything. "Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless."


Second of all you never know when a bad guy is going to come around the corner. The last thing you want is for your weapon to be in multiple pieces instead of pointing at the bad guy- it would be foolish, and stupid, to take your weapon apart IN COMBAT.

Besides, who gives a ********? We'd just tell them it was s**t and that it wouldn't work unless you took good care of it, even though that wasn't the case in the first place. ._.
Suicidesoldier#1
Machine_Gun_Blues
Suicidesoldier#1
Machine_Gun_Blues
Despite history and specs on certain weapons - its still remained a life rule of the military.


A weapon is as only good as the soldier.

Lethality does not lie within the caliber but the strategy and mind it is placed under. Its imperfections and perks are suppose to be honed and mastered by the soldier holding it already.

If something jams and you can't get it out or know how to fix it? Its on you. I don't care what anyone says - it should be common sense to any soldier.


Not to mention, the M4 and M16 have gone under many different changes and are not as badly produced now. I dont hold loyalty to such weapons for the simple fact that anyone can be re-trained or learn more on them or any other different weapon. Some other brands aside from your regular American Colt have produced some really reliable and very mean M4/M16 copies.


Why the military wont change it? Because theyre a bunch of cheap bastards and ever since the beginning of war - its always been the lowest bidder who had made our gear.

Make best with what you got really. Even with the best weapons and gear, it really does not make much of a difference out in the field - especially if we still have things like artillery, air support, the Navy and Airforce.


What if we went into combat wielding machetes?

Or if our commanders sent us in wave after wave with misshapen spears to down the enemies trench while they had machine guns?


And slaughtered millions?

Would that be on the soldier?


Wait, whenever a weapon jams it's his fault?

Fo real? O_o


"What if" situations don't really apply to the reality of what I'm saying. A machete is not a M4 or M16 - so I don't know why you went with the medieval weapon approach. Our commander would never do that.

If a weapon jams - the soldier should know by instinct and training as to how to fix quickly it in the first place. There is a reason why we are trained for it and why we get so accustomed to our rifle.

Secondly- if the rifle jams in the first place, it means the soldier has failed to keep up with his weapon in keeping it clean.

"Yeah but what if a soldier is in prolonged combat and does not have time to clean his weapon?"

Bullshit.

First off it takes me roughly 2 minutes to field strip and efficiently clean out an M4 or M16.

Secondly - real combat is as slow as watching paint dry - gun fights don't last that long and its not like soldiers are having to barricade into bunkers with limited supply while enemy troops are popping off rounds all over the place like it was WW2.

Also history I really do think would repeat if you placed a new rifle into the military.

Soldiers would think its the next best thing and would assume things on its superiority like they did with the M16 in Vietnam - they would get lazy and not maintain it.


...the m16 was touted as a "self cleaning rifle" and no training on how to clean the weapon was given. A weapon, even the best weapon in the world in the hands of the best soldier, can still jam at any moment. To claim that you can control the future without a doubt is absurd.

Quote:

A weapon is as only good as the soldier.

Lethality does not lie within the caliber but the strategy and mind it is placed under. Its imperfections and perks are suppose to be honed and mastered by the soldier holding it already.


Again, what if we were wielding machetes? Oh that's right, it would be superbly difficult to fight an individual WITH A ******** GUN. In theory, my fists are weapons- does that mean we shouldn't issue weapons at all? After all, it's the soldiers fault for not being able to kill someone 500 yards away with "strategy mind" powers.


For Christ's sake man. Why have tanks and planes and machine guns and sniper rifles? A weapon is everything. "Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless."


Second of all you never know when a bad guy is going to come around the corner. The last thing you want is for your weapon to be in multiple pieces instead of pointing at the bad guy- it would be foolish, and stupid, to take your weapon apart IN COMBAT.

Besides, who gives a ********? We'd just tell them it was s**t and that it wouldn't work unless you took good care of it, even though that wasn't the case in the first place. ._.


As far as I know and with being in the Army and knowing its history - the Army actually did issue out cleaning kits for the M16 in 1965 - since alot of the SEALS and Green Berets were essentially the first to go in with them.

It was a public notion that the M16 was self cleaning and it became military-wide, and the people who believed it were the dumb asses. I've spoken to many Vietnam war Veterans, both Infantry and SF.

And again with the melee weapons - I'm talking about what we have right now. You are undermining and ignoring my point. Ideally a soldier should be trained up to the point of being able to make tactical choices with he is given. Guns or not - it all applies and what you are saying is very unrealistic.

If a weapon jams during a room clearing, you kneel down to the side and stay down away from the point man's direction and tend to your rifle while the squad moves in and someone covers you're sector of fire. The squad moves fluently and has the ability to compensate for such a situation - however a jam SHOULD NOT happen in the first place because it is the soldiers responsibility to keep up with cleaning it.

Ever heard of modern tactics? I didn't think so. Again, theres a reason why we are trained.

"Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless."

No... more like without discipline you are accountable and a threat to your own life and the ones around you.

Training does not make the outcome to a future - what Im saying is that soldiers are trained to adapt to a situation and execute.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Machine_Gun_Blues
Suicidesoldier#1
Machine_Gun_Blues
Suicidesoldier#1
Machine_Gun_Blues
Despite history and specs on certain weapons - its still remained a life rule of the military.


A weapon is as only good as the soldier.

Lethality does not lie within the caliber but the strategy and mind it is placed under. Its imperfections and perks are suppose to be honed and mastered by the soldier holding it already.

If something jams and you can't get it out or know how to fix it? Its on you. I don't care what anyone says - it should be common sense to any soldier.


Not to mention, the M4 and M16 have gone under many different changes and are not as badly produced now. I dont hold loyalty to such weapons for the simple fact that anyone can be re-trained or learn more on them or any other different weapon. Some other brands aside from your regular American Colt have produced some really reliable and very mean M4/M16 copies.


Why the military wont change it? Because theyre a bunch of cheap bastards and ever since the beginning of war - its always been the lowest bidder who had made our gear.

Make best with what you got really. Even with the best weapons and gear, it really does not make much of a difference out in the field - especially if we still have things like artillery, air support, the Navy and Airforce.


What if we went into combat wielding machetes?

Or if our commanders sent us in wave after wave with misshapen spears to down the enemies trench while they had machine guns?


And slaughtered millions?

Would that be on the soldier?


Wait, whenever a weapon jams it's his fault?

Fo real? O_o


"What if" situations don't really apply to the reality of what I'm saying. A machete is not a M4 or M16 - so I don't know why you went with the medieval weapon approach. Our commander would never do that.

If a weapon jams - the soldier should know by instinct and training as to how to fix quickly it in the first place. There is a reason why we are trained for it and why we get so accustomed to our rifle.

Secondly- if the rifle jams in the first place, it means the soldier has failed to keep up with his weapon in keeping it clean.

"Yeah but what if a soldier is in prolonged combat and does not have time to clean his weapon?"

Bullshit.

First off it takes me roughly 2 minutes to field strip and efficiently clean out an M4 or M16.

Secondly - real combat is as slow as watching paint dry - gun fights don't last that long and its not like soldiers are having to barricade into bunkers with limited supply while enemy troops are popping off rounds all over the place like it was WW2.

Also history I really do think would repeat if you placed a new rifle into the military.

Soldiers would think its the next best thing and would assume things on its superiority like they did with the M16 in Vietnam - they would get lazy and not maintain it.


...the m16 was touted as a "self cleaning rifle" and no training on how to clean the weapon was given. A weapon, even the best weapon in the world in the hands of the best soldier, can still jam at any moment. To claim that you can control the future without a doubt is absurd.

Quote:

A weapon is as only good as the soldier.

Lethality does not lie within the caliber but the strategy and mind it is placed under. Its imperfections and perks are suppose to be honed and mastered by the soldier holding it already.


Again, what if we were wielding machetes? Oh that's right, it would be superbly difficult to fight an individual WITH A ******** GUN. In theory, my fists are weapons- does that mean we shouldn't issue weapons at all? After all, it's the soldiers fault for not being able to kill someone 500 yards away with "strategy mind" powers.


For Christ's sake man. Why have tanks and planes and machine guns and sniper rifles? A weapon is everything. "Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless."


Second of all you never know when a bad guy is going to come around the corner. The last thing you want is for your weapon to be in multiple pieces instead of pointing at the bad guy- it would be foolish, and stupid, to take your weapon apart IN COMBAT.

Besides, who gives a ********? We'd just tell them it was s**t and that it wouldn't work unless you took good care of it, even though that wasn't the case in the first place. ._.


As far as I know and with being in the Army and knowing its history - the Army actually did issue out cleaning kits for the M16 in 1965 - since alot of the SEALS and Green Berets were essentially the first to go in with them.

It was a public notion that the M16 was self cleaning and it became military-wide, and the people who believed it were the dumb asses. I've spoken to many Vietnam war Veterans, both Infantry and SF.

And again with the melee weapons - I'm talking about what we have right now. You are undermining and ignoring my point. Ideally a soldier should be trained up to the point of being able to make tactical choices with he is given. Guns or not - it all applies and what you are saying is very unrealistic.

If a weapon jams during a room clearing, you kneel down to the side and stay down away from the point man's direction and tend to your rifle while the squad moves in and someone covers you're sector of fire. The squad moves fluently and has the ability to compensate for such a situation - however a jam SHOULD NOT happen in the first place because it is the soldiers responsibility to keep up with cleaning it.

Ever heard of modern tactics? I didn't think so. Again, theres a reason why we are trained.

"Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless."

No... more like without discipline you are accountable and a threat to your own life and the ones around you.

Training does not make the outcome to a future - what Im saying is that soldiers are trained to adapt to a situation and execute.


I'm just going to go out on a limb here.

Which tactics and strategies are you referring to?


Also a gun can jam at any moment.

Again, you are a moron.


That's like saying it's a cancer patients fault for getting cancer becuase they should have taken care of themselves more.

It just doesn't work that way, the very fact they are doing anything at all makes them liable for cancer, and the same thing for any problem a person might run in to, it's just ******** life.


Also, again, the M16 was praised as a self cleaning rifle and no manuals were given to soldiers.

The M16's were dropped in Vietnam and the M14's were collected, that was all.
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
I think the last thing this country needs is to spend more money on the military than we already are.


Unless it would make us more effective.

More effective = winning wars faster = less money spent.
Giving us better guns won't make the war any shorter.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
I think the last thing this country needs is to spend more money on the military than we already are.


Unless it would make us more effective.

More effective = winning wars faster = less money spent.
Giving us better guns won't make the war any shorter.


Kill the enemy faster...?

Win the war faster.


Also military funerals are expensive.

Considering that our only defense is offense more lives could be saved.
The M16 was still widely used, and the problems discussed weren't all that prevalent later on, once they actually got the appropriate cleaning kits.

Training doesn't just mean "shooting." Apart from having to actually get people trained appropriately for marksmanship, which wouldn't take more than a couple days (which for an entire branch, would mean months), you also have to work out the kinks, put the supply into the works, and most importantly - train. Again, not just shooting. People have to get used to their guns. Learning how to clean a gun quickly and field strip it is a big thing and takes longer. You can't just "make the ergonomics like an M16." It's an entirely different weapon. If you make the ergonomics like an M16 and they wield it like it is one because it feels the same, you're still not going to fire the same. The weight and balance will be different. Some people will need to adjust to it, which means you have to redo a good portion of the rifle training.

Good guns won't change the length of the war by much. What it will do is stack the body counts differently.
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
I think the last thing this country needs is to spend more money on the military than we already are.


Unless it would make us more effective.

More effective = winning wars faster = less money spent.
Giving us better guns won't make the war any shorter.


Kill the enemy faster...?

Win the war faster.


Also military funerals are expensive.

Considering that our only defense is offense more lives could be saved.
Why would marginally better guns kill the enemy faster? You point the gun at them, fire, and they die just as fast as if they were using a more "effective" weapon.

Wars aren't about having the most effective guns. They only need to meet certain requirements which the majority of our weapons seem to excel at, or we wouldn't be using them. Battles are won by positioning, and strategy, not how fast a round leaves a person's skull.
Suicidesoldier#1
Machine_Gun_Blues
Suicidesoldier#1
Machine_Gun_Blues
Suicidesoldier#1


What if we went into combat wielding machetes?

Or if our commanders sent us in wave after wave with misshapen spears to down the enemies trench while they had machine guns?


And slaughtered millions?

Would that be on the soldier?


Wait, whenever a weapon jams it's his fault?

Fo real? O_o


"What if" situations don't really apply to the reality of what I'm saying. A machete is not a M4 or M16 - so I don't know why you went with the medieval weapon approach. Our commander would never do that.

If a weapon jams - the soldier should know by instinct and training as to how to fix quickly it in the first place. There is a reason why we are trained for it and why we get so accustomed to our rifle.

Secondly- if the rifle jams in the first place, it means the soldier has failed to keep up with his weapon in keeping it clean.

"Yeah but what if a soldier is in prolonged combat and does not have time to clean his weapon?"

Bullshit.

First off it takes me roughly 2 minutes to field strip and efficiently clean out an M4 or M16.

Secondly - real combat is as slow as watching paint dry - gun fights don't last that long and its not like soldiers are having to barricade into bunkers with limited supply while enemy troops are popping off rounds all over the place like it was WW2.

Also history I really do think would repeat if you placed a new rifle into the military.

Soldiers would think its the next best thing and would assume things on its superiority like they did with the M16 in Vietnam - they would get lazy and not maintain it.


...the m16 was touted as a "self cleaning rifle" and no training on how to clean the weapon was given. A weapon, even the best weapon in the world in the hands of the best soldier, can still jam at any moment. To claim that you can control the future without a doubt is absurd.

Quote:

A weapon is as only good as the soldier.

Lethality does not lie within the caliber but the strategy and mind it is placed under. Its imperfections and perks are suppose to be honed and mastered by the soldier holding it already.


Again, what if we were wielding machetes? Oh that's right, it would be superbly difficult to fight an individual WITH A ******** GUN. In theory, my fists are weapons- does that mean we shouldn't issue weapons at all? After all, it's the soldiers fault for not being able to kill someone 500 yards away with "strategy mind" powers.


For Christ's sake man. Why have tanks and planes and machine guns and sniper rifles? A weapon is everything. "Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless."


Second of all you never know when a bad guy is going to come around the corner. The last thing you want is for your weapon to be in multiple pieces instead of pointing at the bad guy- it would be foolish, and stupid, to take your weapon apart IN COMBAT.

Besides, who gives a ********? We'd just tell them it was s**t and that it wouldn't work unless you took good care of it, even though that wasn't the case in the first place. ._.


As far as I know and with being in the Army and knowing its history - the Army actually did issue out cleaning kits for the M16 in 1965 - since alot of the SEALS and Green Berets were essentially the first to go in with them.

It was a public notion that the M16 was self cleaning and it became military-wide, and the people who believed it were the dumb asses. I've spoken to many Vietnam war Veterans, both Infantry and SF.

And again with the melee weapons - I'm talking about what we have right now. You are undermining and ignoring my point. Ideally a soldier should be trained up to the point of being able to make tactical choices with he is given. Guns or not - it all applies and what you are saying is very unrealistic.

If a weapon jams during a room clearing, you kneel down to the side and stay down away from the point man's direction and tend to your rifle while the squad moves in and someone covers you're sector of fire. The squad moves fluently and has the ability to compensate for such a situation - however a jam SHOULD NOT happen in the first place because it is the soldiers responsibility to keep up with cleaning it.

Ever heard of modern tactics? I didn't think so. Again, theres a reason why we are trained.

"Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless."

No... more like without discipline you are accountable and a threat to your own life and the ones around you.

Training does not make the outcome to a future - what Im saying is that soldiers are trained to adapt to a situation and execute.


I'm just going to go out on a limb here.

Which tactics and strategies are you referring to?


Also a gun can jam at any moment.

Again, you are a moron.


That's like saying it's a cancer patients fault for getting cancer becuase they should have taken care of themselves more.

It just doesn't worth that way, the very fact they are doing anything at all makes them liable for cancer, and the same thing for any problem a person might run in to, it's just ******** life.


Infantry Squad Tactics - FM 3-06.11 Chapter 3 basic stuff that you can just google too.

If you have ever been to combat or have actually sat down and shot 3000+ rounds through a rifle in one sitting at a range - you would know that it only jams because of how you reload or manage the weapon. A rifle or gun is nothing more than a tool - how you manipulate it determines the outcome of whats going to happen to it and what it does.

My personal best, I've shot 1250 rounds through a 1911 pistol - only had one jam and with my issued M4 - I've put roughly about 5000 rounds through it at a range and its never jammed - except for a double feed that was my fault.

Im going off alot of personal first hand experience and common sense - and I'm still alive, so calling me a moron? Stop being childish. Your making yourself look like some CoD fanboy who reads too much online about guns and thinks he knows everything firsthand.

The day a cancer patient picks up a gun is the day I'll take your comparison seriously.

Judging by your past antics as to how you think tactics are operated - I really will go out and say that you know nothing of war.
Skyburn
The M16 was still widely used, and the problems discussed weren't all that prevalent later on, once they actually got the appropriate cleaning kits.

Training doesn't just mean "shooting." Apart from having to actually get people trained appropriately for marksmanship, which wouldn't take more than a couple days (which for an entire branch, would mean months), you also have to work out the kinks, put the supply into the works, and most importantly - train. Again, not just shooting. People have to get used to their guns. Learning how to clean a gun quickly and field strip it is a big thing and takes longer. You can't just "make the ergonomics like an M16." It's an entirely different weapon. If you make the ergonomics like an M16 and they wield it like it is one because it feels the same, you're still not going to fire the same. The weight and balance will be different. Some people will need to adjust to it, which means you have to redo a good portion of the rifle training.

Good guns won't change the length of the war by much. What it will do is stack the body counts differently.


This is what Im trying to say as well.
I'm not saying we don't need new rifles. The M16's would be good to phase out. But just that, phase them. People these days jump on bandwagons and want everything changed instantaneously. Pick a good rifle, not one that's pretty like the XM8, but one that speaks for itself. Start it off in a few test groups. Pick a Ranger battalion or two, maybe an MEU, right before they deploy so they can train stateside with the weapon's makers, then get to combat test it, and see how they like it. Get genuine feedback. If it's all good, start issuing them out to groups Stateside and monitor how best to train soldiers to get proficiency and do it rapidly, and then start issuing to groups overseas.
Skyburn
I'm not saying we don't need new rifles. The M16's would be good to phase out. But just that, phase them. People these days jump on bandwagons and want everything changed instantaneously. Pick a good rifle, not one that's pretty like the XM8, but one that speaks for itself. Start it off in a few test groups. Pick a Ranger battalion or two, maybe an MEU, and see how they like it. Get genuine feedback. If it's all good, start issuing them out to groups Stateside and monitor how best to train soldiers to get proficiency and do it rapidly, and then start issuing to groups overseas.


I'm for this notion as well.

With whats coming up ahead for the Army though, its gonna be a while. I remember when they started testing the SKAR series but nothing came up of it and it faded away.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Skyburn
I'm not saying we don't need new rifles. The M16's would be good to phase out. But just that, phase them. People these days jump on bandwagons and want everything changed instantaneously. Pick a good rifle, not one that's pretty like the XM8, but one that speaks for itself. Start it off in a few test groups. Pick a Ranger battalion or two, maybe an MEU, right before they deploy so they can train stateside with the weapon's makers, then get to combat test it, and see how they like it. Get genuine feedback. If it's all good, start issuing them out to groups Stateside and monitor how best to train soldiers to get proficiency and do it rapidly, and then start issuing to groups overseas.


Well clearly we need to slowly replace them it's the only logical thing to do.

I'm just saying that if we WERE to replace them all at once it really wouldn't cost us that much.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Machine_Gun_Blues
Suicidesoldier#1
Machine_Gun_Blues
Suicidesoldier#1
Machine_Gun_Blues


"What if" situations don't really apply to the reality of what I'm saying. A machete is not a M4 or M16 - so I don't know why you went with the medieval weapon approach. Our commander would never do that.

If a weapon jams - the soldier should know by instinct and training as to how to fix quickly it in the first place. There is a reason why we are trained for it and why we get so accustomed to our rifle.

Secondly- if the rifle jams in the first place, it means the soldier has failed to keep up with his weapon in keeping it clean.

"Yeah but what if a soldier is in prolonged combat and does not have time to clean his weapon?"

Bullshit.

First off it takes me roughly 2 minutes to field strip and efficiently clean out an M4 or M16.

Secondly - real combat is as slow as watching paint dry - gun fights don't last that long and its not like soldiers are having to barricade into bunkers with limited supply while enemy troops are popping off rounds all over the place like it was WW2.

Also history I really do think would repeat if you placed a new rifle into the military.

Soldiers would think its the next best thing and would assume things on its superiority like they did with the M16 in Vietnam - they would get lazy and not maintain it.


...the m16 was touted as a "self cleaning rifle" and no training on how to clean the weapon was given. A weapon, even the best weapon in the world in the hands of the best soldier, can still jam at any moment. To claim that you can control the future without a doubt is absurd.

Quote:

A weapon is as only good as the soldier.

Lethality does not lie within the caliber but the strategy and mind it is placed under. Its imperfections and perks are suppose to be honed and mastered by the soldier holding it already.


Again, what if we were wielding machetes? Oh that's right, it would be superbly difficult to fight an individual WITH A ******** GUN. In theory, my fists are weapons- does that mean we shouldn't issue weapons at all? After all, it's the soldiers fault for not being able to kill someone 500 yards away with "strategy mind" powers.


For Christ's sake man. Why have tanks and planes and machine guns and sniper rifles? A weapon is everything. "Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless."


Second of all you never know when a bad guy is going to come around the corner. The last thing you want is for your weapon to be in multiple pieces instead of pointing at the bad guy- it would be foolish, and stupid, to take your weapon apart IN COMBAT.

Besides, who gives a ********? We'd just tell them it was s**t and that it wouldn't work unless you took good care of it, even though that wasn't the case in the first place. ._.


As far as I know and with being in the Army and knowing its history - the Army actually did issue out cleaning kits for the M16 in 1965 - since alot of the SEALS and Green Berets were essentially the first to go in with them.

It was a public notion that the M16 was self cleaning and it became military-wide, and the people who believed it were the dumb asses. I've spoken to many Vietnam war Veterans, both Infantry and SF.

And again with the melee weapons - I'm talking about what we have right now. You are undermining and ignoring my point. Ideally a soldier should be trained up to the point of being able to make tactical choices with he is given. Guns or not - it all applies and what you are saying is very unrealistic.

If a weapon jams during a room clearing, you kneel down to the side and stay down away from the point man's direction and tend to your rifle while the squad moves in and someone covers you're sector of fire. The squad moves fluently and has the ability to compensate for such a situation - however a jam SHOULD NOT happen in the first place because it is the soldiers responsibility to keep up with cleaning it.

Ever heard of modern tactics? I didn't think so. Again, theres a reason why we are trained.

"Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless."

No... more like without discipline you are accountable and a threat to your own life and the ones around you.

Training does not make the outcome to a future - what Im saying is that soldiers are trained to adapt to a situation and execute.


I'm just going to go out on a limb here.

Which tactics and strategies are you referring to?


Also a gun can jam at any moment.

Again, you are a moron.


That's like saying it's a cancer patients fault for getting cancer becuase they should have taken care of themselves more.

It just doesn't worth that way, the very fact they are doing anything at all makes them liable for cancer, and the same thing for any problem a person might run in to, it's just ******** life.


Infantry Squad Tactics - FM 3-06.11 Chapter 3 basic stuff that you can just google too.

If you have ever been to combat or have actually sat down and shot 3000+ rounds through a rifle in one sitting at a range - you would know that it only jams because of how you reload or manage the weapon. A rifle or gun is nothing more than a tool - how you manipulate it determines the outcome of whats going to happen to it and what it does.

My personal best, I've shot 1250 rounds through a 1911 pistol - only had one jam and with my issued M4 - I've put roughly about 5000 rounds through it at a range and its never jammed - except for a double feed that was my fault.

Im going off alot of personal first hand experience and common sense - and I'm still alive, so calling me a moron? Stop being childish. Your making yourself look like some CoD fanboy who reads too much online about guns and thinks he knows everything firsthand.

The day a cancer patient picks up a gun is the day I'll take your comparison seriously.

Judging by your past antics as to how you think tactics are operated - I really will go out and say that you know nothing of war.


So in other words you have no idea what you are talking about?

Figured as much.


As everyone knows, anything can happen to anyone.

Target shooting is not the same as being in combat.


Yes, if you stay in a perfectly clean room and never got shot at or are expected to roll around in the dirt, it will be easy not to have a jam.

Idk, it's poor maintenance to go into a war at all with a gun. rolleyes


Perhaps we should get tools serving man, instead of man serving tools?

Yeah, that would be nice.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games