re: The Vietnam War (Ken Burns)

quote:

---

Should a combat weapon be fickle?

---

No - but all new designs have growing pains.

quote:

---

Was there any advantage to an m-16 compared to an Ak-47 in 1968?

---

Yes. Lighter, could carry more ammo for same weight. Ranges were similar, but effective range is generally better on the M16.

And - let's get to quality control - you had Colt (yeah, I know) QC versus Soviet QC on the rifles themselves. The Soviet rifles were stamped metal and cranked out at high volume. American rifles were forged and far fewer duds made it to the battlefield.

And the ammo - US GI ammo is made to fairly exacting specifications. Although not perfect, there is a high degree of consistent performance in the ammunition, shot to shot. Even to this day, Soviet/Russian lots of 7.62x39mm can have a lot of unstable, poor burning powder, hinky cases - although over the years production of this caliber has gotten better (as it has gained popularity in the West, BTW).

This is an age old debate - each side has supporters and detractors. One of my favorite photographs of all time:

I'm three episodes in now, don't want to rush through it. It's very good and I've learned some things that surprised me even though I was nearly old enough to be drafted for Vietnam and remember much of it quite well.

Dan Carlin in his podcasts talks about how difficult it is to objectively study recent history because people still have their emotions about how it impacted them and their family and friends. So Vietnam is a pretty damn difficult topic for a documentary. I think Ken Burns has done a fantastic job given the difficulty. My one quibble is that I wish he'd spent more time on the cold war backdrop, because that really defined our actions in Vietnam. I'd love to see a Ken Burns do a documentary on the Cold War.