- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Vietnam War (Ken Burns)
Posted on 9/29/17 at 1:43 am to bamagreycoat
Posted on 9/29/17 at 1:43 am to bamagreycoat
quote:
he original M-16 and to a lesser extent the M-16A2 service rifle are very high maintenance rifles. They require constant care, lubing, and cleaning. The AK-47 is a very rugged weapon in comparison, perfect for jungle combat. The NVA and VC did have an advantage in that area. The M-14 was the rifle that was used before the original M-16. My uncle told me some Marines refused to use the M-16 at first and had to be threatened with court martial to give up their M-14's.
The M-16/M-4 was designed for a professional soldier. The AK-47 was designed for a draftee or child soldier, to put it crudely. Difference in cultural attitude, approach, and social engineering is important when talking about national weaponry.
This post was edited on 9/29/17 at 1:54 am
1
Posted on 9/29/17 at 8:26 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
The M-16/M-4 was designed for a professional soldier. The AK-47 was designed for a draftee or child soldier, to put it crudely. D
Not military. Never claim to be, so I must ask. Which idea is better? Shouldn't a soldiers weapon just fricking work with minimum maintenance? Conditions are beyond control. Should a combat weapon be fickle?
Was there any advantage to an m-16 compared to an Ak-47 in 1968?
What is the standard soldier/marine handed in combat today?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News