re: How the Army sabotaged the M16

The reason they switched to 5.45 was a study showing most hits from the previous wars came from "unaimed" fire.

Hence, give em lots of ammo and let em shoot.

The m14 might be a better rifle, but it's not a better battle rifle.

quote:

---

The reason they switched to 5.45 was a study showing most hits from the previous wars came from "unaimed " fire.

---

The biggest problem? The 5.56 round is a fricking joke.

If you listen the guys in Vietnam told us this, the guys in Panama told us this, the guys in Somalia told us this, the guys in Iraq told us this, the guys in Afghanistan told us this, the guys in Syria told us this. Etc Etc Etc

It’s a shite, dinky round for killing a man. It always has been.

quote:

---

they were fighting an enemy armed with select fire 30 cal battle rifles with longer barrels, that were easy to field strip, clear & clean. the M14 checked all those boxes with a better round on top of that

---

I take your point, but is it correct to call the AK-47 a battle rifle? I thought that was reserved for semi-auto/fully auto weapons that fired full size rifle rounds (e.g. 7.62 x 51mm in the M14).

Still, the AK-47 round was definitely more powerful than the M16 round.

quote:

---

I've seen that often, but the Constitution clearly covers that: Art. 1., Sec. 9.: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

---

He locked up northern civilian publishers without trial indefinitely simply for publishing things he didn’t like that.

If you believe that’s covered under the constitution or appropriate for a president we aren’t going to see eye to eye.

quote:

---

Meh, amateur hour compared to the Sedition Act of 1918. Curiously, I see many Trump supporters invoking this act a lot lately.

---

If someone doesn't commit sedition they aren't subject to a provision intended for a rebellion.

These were northern citizens, who hadn't done anything material to support the rebellion simply publishing political opposition articles and they were locked up for years or kicked out of the country all together. There is absolutely nothing admirable about what Lincoln did on that front and many even within his party were extremely critical of him for it.

Apparently you're ok with the suppression of free speech if it isn't speech you like?

quote:

---

Probably not as I suspect you hate the Union.

---

Next time you should spend more time working on a logical rebuttal and less time creating a strawman and you'll have a better chance at winning a back and forth.

quote:

---

the AK (and SKS) fire 7.62x39 which is the most common “full size rifle round” in the history of rifles. The AK is select fire (SA/FA).

Not sure what it is you are saying

---

When I think of common full-size (or full power) rifle rounds, I think of 0.30-06 Springfield (7.82x63.3mm),0.303 British (7.92x56.44mm), and 7.92x57mm Mauser and their contemporaries. These were strictly used in bolt-action rifles up through world war II characterized by long range and power. This, I believe, is what set the standard for full size rifle round.

7.62x39 is an intermediate round based on the Soviet experience of running into the Stg 44 Assault rifle and it's 7.92x33mm Kurz round. Germany sought to increase their firepower while not completely sacrificing range.

The distinction for a battle rifle is self loading, full power rifle rounds. Assault rifle is self loading, intermediate round.

When it impacts the troops, you can count on bureaucrats and senior officers to do the wrong thing. They will always side with acquisitions / contractors and self-preservation over the mission and their men. Programs like the F22 and F35 and Army Future Combat Systems are disasters and while they soak up trillions, troops will get substandard rifles or poor body armor, will be sent to combat without armored vehicles, and the entire architecture of the military will be mishandled etc. I saw this when I was in and in 2012 these senior officers then had the balls to come to junior officers and NCOs and tell them they didn't know how to do their jobs. Our senior ranks are absolute hot garbage.

People should look up the story of Task Force Smith, as well. It was the US's first major deployment of combat power into the Korean theater. The unit was decimated and overrun. Poor senior leadership and poor equipment and fielding doomed that unit, even though those dudes fought their asses off.

U.S. Army Major John Garrett conducted extensive research into the battle and wrote “Task Force Smith: The Lesson Never Learned,” a monograph published in 2000 by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College’s School of Advanced Military Studies. In it Garrett convincingly argues that the real responsibility for the mission’s failure lay not with the men who led or comprised Task Force Smith but with the “senior leaders of the 24th Infantry Division, Eighth U.S. Army and higher headquarters who failed to provide the proper operational leadership.…Task Force Smith was deployed to the Korean theater without any concept of how and why it was to be employed.”

Facing a Senate committee MacArthur later said of the Battle of Osan: “I threw in troops from the 24th Division…in the hope of establishing a loci of resistance around which I could rally the fast-retreating South Korean forces. I also hoped by that arrogant display of strength to fool the enemy into a belief that I had a much greater resource at my disposal than I did.” It was a naive and ultimately disastrous gambit, reflective of the hubris that convinced experienced general officers that a small force of American warriors could deter entire NKPA tank and infantry regiments. In all likelihood the North Koreans initially had no idea they were facing an American defensive force. And once they did, it clearly made no difference; their tanks simply rode over and through the Americans. As Garrett wrote, “This brave tiny force was placed in front of the absolute strongest part of the North Korean Army…not out of ignorance of the situation, but out of the thoughtless pride of MacArthur and the failure of any other commander to correct or even see the blunder.”

historynet.com

Something else people should read is an article from the middle of the GWOT called "A Failure in Generalship" that eviscerates senior leadership.

These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America’s general officer corps. America’s generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America’s generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress…

… To prepare forces for war, the general must visualize the conditions of future combat. To raise military forces properly, the general must visualize the quality and quantity of forces needed in the next war. To arm and equip military forces properly, the general must visualize the materiel requirements of future engagements. To train military forces properly, the general must visualize the human demands on future battlefields, and replicate those conditions in peacetime exercises. Of course, not even the most skilled general can visualize precisely how future wars will be fought. According to British military historian and soldier Sir Michael Howard, “In structuring and preparing an army for war, you can be clear that you will not get it precisely right, but the important thing is not to be too far wrong, so that you can put it right quickly.”…

… If America desires creative intelligence and moral courage in its general officer corps, it must create a system that rewards these qualities. Congress can create such incentives by exercising its proper oversight function in three areas. First, Congress must change the system for selecting general officers. Second, oversight committees must apply increased scrutiny over generating the necessary means and pursuing appropriate ways for applying America’s military power. Third, the Senate must hold accountable through its confirmation powers those officers who fail to achieve the aims of policy at an acceptable cost in blood and treasure…

One of the many ills in our military is the personnel system, especially the 'up or out' promotion scheme, that suppresses leadership and promotes likership, whereby people kiss arse, become favorites, become the chosen ones, and they get promoted. A huge problem is that the top leaders of today are the ones that benefited from this system and now use it to push their chosen successors into the best positions, into early promotions, key commands, etc, to set them up for selection to the highest ranks.

Another huge problem is the explosion in the number of generals we have. No military in history that has undergone this type of shift has escaped massive defeat.

Who shapes the military and the flag officer ranks more than anything else: the military academies. They should be shut down.

I was issued the M-16-A1 service rifle in boot camp and outside of those things being totally wore out the slings and clips were pure shite. I bet there is a million sling clips 3 inches underground at Paris Island today. And you had to keep a nail on your left breast pocket to change dope on the front sight aputure.

The troops in Country were first issued AR-15’s with no forward assist and no chamber covers.

Killed a lot of troops as the M-14 didn’t require cleaning to the extent this weapon did.
My DI’s informed us as we cleaned weapons endlessly in the 1980’s…