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?

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by Napoleon

Kenna

Member since Dec 2007

69452 posts

Posted on 9/29/17 at 8:38 am to LSU alum wannabe

So..what I get from all off this is, we should have got buddy buddy with uncle Ho in the 40's, then denied France's claim to Indochina.

Unlike the other communist countries Vietnam did preserve a national identity above all. They also looked towards the west for trade.(They are an ally now)

Seems we share a lot of blame for putting stopping communism above ending colonialism.

I never knew that the Vietnamese independence speech started out with a Thomas Jefferson quote.

While this may lean left, I thought a good job was done showing the mistakes made by three democrats who made the war worse.

Truman's decision to back France's claim to the colony.

Kennedy not wanting to pull out until afterc the election.

Johnson sending in ground troops while telling Americans he is pulling back. The last two put party politics before the nation's interests.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by AbuTheMonkey

Chicago, IL

Member since May 2014

8037 posts

Posted on 9/29/17 at 9:16 am to LSU alum wannabe

quote:

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?

It depends on the kind of soldier, really. Also, it's important to note that the M-16/M-4 is pretty damn reliable in the grand scheme of things - you just can't stick it in the sand for a year and still shoot it like you can with an AK.

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

Accuracy, number of rounds you can carry, weight, arguably a little more lethal round (this is debated, but the 5.56 tears through flesh in a way that the 7.62 does not - it tumbles instead of just blowing a hole).

quote:
What is the standard soldier/marine handed in combat today?

M-4 usually. Short-barreled M-16, for all practical purposes. There are all sorts of fancy attachments (sights, lasers, etc.) that today's soldiers use that they didn't have back then as well.

This post was edited on 9/29/17 at 9:17 am

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Ace Midnight

Between sanity and madness

Member since Dec 2006

89798 posts

Posted on 9/29/17 at 9:41 am to LSU alum wannabe

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: