re: The Vietnam War (Ken Burns)

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.