Another military coverup???

they should get some Kalashnikov and PKM guns

M-16 is good enough weapon, but experience in Iraq shows, that you really cant supply your '2 year pros' with it, as it need expert (somebody that is intressed in keeping his/hers rifle functional.) to take care and operate..


Israelis know this, they even burried Galil and Tavor in favor of these US weapons.

And Galil is a weapon that merges best qualities of both AK-47 (Finnish 7,62 RK 62) and US M-16.

Here more about Israeli experience:

AK-47 vs. US M-16

Thus, the reason for the IDF usage of the M16 over the Galil isn't the cost. It's the pure quality of the M16 over the Galil. Most of IDF troops dislike the Galil and will prefer a CAR15/M4 over it.

this is total bull#

Originally posted by SectorGaza

Thus, the reason for the IDF usage of the M16 over the Galil isn't the cost. It's the pure quality of the M16 over the Galil. Most of IDF troops dislike the Galil and will prefer a CAR15/M4 over it.

this is total bull#

I do kinda know that Galil is better, but im saying that M-16 series isnt that bad..

And what comes to orginal AK, 7,62x39mm round is much better than 5,56x45mm.. Trajectory isnt as flat.. but it is flat enough and the penetration and hit energy much better.

But personally i would cladly have this baby anyday..

IDF Colt M4A1 Designated Marksman System

Murphy's Law of Combat:

Never forget...your weapons were made by the lowest bidder!

What one mentioned about maintenance though, is exactly correct...

Gazrok,

That is a very valid point to keep in mind... also consider, not only was your weapon made by the lowest bidder, it has been used and abused before you got hold of it, so it is in FAR worse shape than the lowest bid could have made it...

Pyros,

Indeed, the M14 is considerably heavier than the M-16, it does carry less ammo, and is very hard to control in full auto. However, consider that one of the main drawbacks to the M-16 is that it is so lightly made as to verge on fragility (an accusation NEVER leveled at the M-14). Also, the heavier the weapon, the more stable the firing platform, therefore more accuracy. As far as the full auto capacity, I believe that is wasted on the M-14, as AIMED semi auto fire is far more accurate. Adding in the slight difference in capacity, you are getting away from the main bane of full auto weapons, the Spray-and-Pray mentality.

Instead of throwing every round in a magazine in the direction of an adversary, how about putting a bit of concentration into HITTING the bad guy... because any shot that misses its target is nothing but a loud noise.

Gazrok,

That is a very valid point to keep in mind... also consider, not only was your weapon made by the lowest bidder, it has been used and abused before you got hold of it, so it is in FAR worse shape than the lowest bid could have made it...

Pyros,

Indeed, the M14 is considerably heavier than the M-16, it does carry less ammo, and is very hard to control in full auto. However, consider that one of the main drawbacks to the M-16 is that it is so lightly made as to verge on fragility (an accusation NEVER leveled at the M-14). Also, the heavier the weapon, the more stable the firing platform, therefore more accuracy. As far as the full auto capacity, I believe that is wasted on the M-14, as AIMED semi auto fire is far more accurate. Adding in the slight difference in capacity, you are getting away from the main bane of full auto weapons, the Spray-and-Pray mentality.

Instead of throwing every round in a magazine in the direction of an adversary, how about putting a bit of concentration into HITTING the bad guy... because any shot that misses its target is nothing but a loud noise.

Gazrok,

That is a very valid point to keep in mind... also consider, not only was your weapon made by the lowest bidder, it has been used and abused before you got hold of it, so it is in FAR worse shape than the lowest bid could have made it...

Pyros,

Indeed, the M14 is considerably heavier than the M-16, it does carry less ammo, and is very hard to control in full auto. However, consider that one of the main drawbacks to the M-16 is that it is so lightly made as to verge on fragility (an accusation NEVER leveled at the M-14). Also, the heavier the weapon, the more stable the firing platform, therefore more accuracy. As far as the full auto capacity, I believe that is wasted on the M-14, as AIMED semi auto fire is far more accurate. Adding in the slight difference in capacity, you are getting away from the main bane of full auto weapons, the Spray-and-Pray mentality.

Instead of throwing every round in a magazine in the direction of an adversary, how about putting a bit of concentration into HITTING the bad guy... because any shot that misses its target is nothing but a loud noise.

The Lynx is a combat helicopter, similar to the Apache. The Blackhawk is a transport helicopter made for light-support fire and troop transport. The Apache is the big guns and could decimate a Lynx. To pit a combat helicopter (lynx) to a transport Helicopter is unfair, pit it with the commanche and Apache Longbow I assure you the lynx will go down in a second.

now about guns.

The gun is as only as good as the marksman trainer that teaches how to use it. The M16a2 is a tremendously durable and accurate weapon when used properlly. Jams occur in anything if they get dirty or water-logged. If it isn't cleaned and maintained before and after a battle, it won't work well the next battle.

Wolfofwar;

Tremendously durable? Havent used one too extensively have you???

Actually the Lynx is very useful as a light combat troop ferry/small to medium transport helicopter. Granted, it doesnt have the capacity of the blackhawk, but it is close enough to be compared.

I've had a handle of the civilian model of the M16 and fired it a few times a couple years back when I was 14, handles nicely in my opinion, I liked it.

It's kinda stupid to compare Lynx vs. Apache since Apache is designed for combat air support and attack roles.. Lynx isn't.

Originally posted by Outtis
It's kinda stupid to compare Lynx vs. Apache since Apache is designed for combat air support and attack roles.. Lynx isn't.

That was my point... the Lynx isnt an attack helicopter, it is a general purpose small/medium helicopter.

Wolf,

An aquaintence once attended ThunderRanch for the Urban Tactical Rifle class. He did not purchase a rifle, as he wanted to see what kinds of doodads he might want on one... so he took a friends AR.... After 3 days, almost 2000 rounds, and dozens of malfucntions later, he decided to purchase an AK, and swore to never touch an AR again.

The whole concept of the assault rifle is very interesting.

The Wehrmacht was the first army to employ what we consider to be the modern assault rifle: The StG44, or Sturmgewehr 44.

The StG44 was the world's first truely effective assault rifle. It was introduced by the German army late in WWII, and if the war had continued another year, the SG44 would have replaced every other rifle, light machine gun, and submachine gun in the Wehrmacht, including the antique Karabiner 98k and MP38. After the war the StG44 resulted in the outright replacement of almost every infantry gun in the western world, serving as the direct inspiration for the Russian AK47, the most prolific gun in the world, and the indirect inspiration for practically everything else.

In the early stages of the war, the German army had considered the rifle to be a "support" weapon only. The primary weapon of the infantry was the machine gun, and in a typical squad the soldiers carried considerably more ammunition for their MG34 than they did for their own rifles. The MG34 could pour out considerably more fire than all of the rifles put together, so they were almost an afterthought.

In combat things were never so simple. The machine gun proved to be far too large to be operated on the move, meaning that the troops could use only their rifles while engaged in the blitzkrieg. Of course the static defense they faced had no such limitations, so the attackers were always outguned. These problems were magnified in the cities and towns, where the weapon could not be brought to bear on their targets before they disappeared into the next building.

For this reason the troops started making increased use of submachine guns, forming squads known as assault troops which could keep up a high rate of fire while on the move. Unfortunately the submachine gun's use of pistol-sized rounds made for poor range, and the assault troops were really only useful in urban settings. Once out in the country it was back to the rifles again.

Adding to the confusion was the fact that the Red Army had been in the process of replacing their own rifles in the immediate pre-war era. Increasing numbers of semi-automatic Tokarev SVT38 and SVT40's were reaching the units, meaning that they outgunned their German counterparts considerably.

The solution was to use a round of "intermediate" power, somewhere between that of the full rifle cartridge, and the pistol rounds. Experiments with such intermediate rounds had been going on since the 1930s, but had been constantly rejected for use by the army. By 1941 it was becoming clear that there actually was a problem to solve, and a new round was developed, the 7.9x33mm Kurz (short).

By the end of the war, over 440K StG44's were produced. The assault rifle proved an invaluable weapon, especially on the Eastern front, where it was first deployed. A properly trained soldier with an StG44 had a greatly improved tactical repertoire, in that he could effectively engage targets at long range across open terrain, or in close range urban fighting, as well as provide cover fire in all situations as a machine gun role.

The wisdom of the assault rifle concept has been born out in that, with the exception of a few specialized positions such as the sniper, virtually every soldier in every army today carries a descendent of the SG44.

Interestingly, the original nominclature for this weapon was going to be "MP43", where the MP stoood for "machine pistol". This was kkeeping in tradition with previous German personal automatic weapons, such as the MP-42, or "Schmeisser". Hitler understood the value of this new weapon, and wanted to give it a new, poppaganda-effective name, hence the term Sturmgewehr, or "Assault Rifle".

Haenel machine karbine M 42. 'MKb.42 (h)'

(field test of MP43/STG44/MP44)

They had been working on the cartidge and karbine since 30s.

And in year 1942 these were issued to Most of Waffen-SS Winking divisions combat units for field testing.

Test were very, very successful, and German decided that this new invention was rock bottom.. (assault rifle)

And made decision to arm infantry squads only with that.. replacing Kar 98, Kar 43 and MP 38/40.. (rifles, semi-automatic rifles and smg:s)

And they had plans for STG45. (which is quite similar, but has tech:s of G3, CETME and MP5.)


MKb.42 (h)

Originally posted by dragonrider
Another military coverup, or proof that the US army is sending troops into combat ill equipped with really crappy weapons that only tends to get them killed????

I have voiced my disdain of the M-16 series of weapons for some time now, and THIS is hard and fasts proof of exactly why I say this....

The U.S. Army on Tuesday revealed that all records and documents about the weapons that jammed during the March 23 ambush that led to the death of nine Fort Bliss soldiers were destroyed in the Iraqi attack and that there is no way to trace the weapons' histories.

The Army, responding to an El Paso Times request under the Freedom of Information Act, said any official information about the weapons used by Fort Bliss' 507th Maintenance Company was lost on a supply truck taken into combat.

An official report on the ambush near Nasiriyah said that several weapons, including M-16s, M249 Squad Automatic Weapons and a .50-caliber machine gun, jammed or failed to operate properly during the firefight.

www.borderlandnews.com...

The M1/M1A/M-14 group may well be over 50 years old... but they WORKED... if it ain't broke, dont fix it...

I would guess they were in DEFCON 5 or sumthin? i dunno... i dont think U.S. threw EVERYTHIN' they got...

Everyone keeps nagging about maintainence. yet those who keep screaming about the need for better maintainence of the soldiers wepona seem to forget a crucial factor: reality.

ReaL life combat does not provide you with the oporunity to clean your weapon all the friggin time. Excuse me, Mr Enemy soldier, could you please hold your fire because I have to finish cleaning the grit off my extractor, and the barrel could use a good wipre, give me another 5 minutes and ill be ready to go. WRONG.

In real combat, there so much # going on you aint got time for that #. Even those of us who were able to re assemble our weapons quickly, remeber, a bullet travels within milliseconds.

Theres also many other things going on within the unit and artound that require alot of attention. In the real world, sitting around and cleaning carbon build up and delpleted uranium enriched sand off the delecate parts of your weapon is not feasable.

Add to the factor that soldiers are human, and thus, will more than likely neglect fastidious cleanliness of thier weapons, and what you have is disaster.

Less is more. What combat equipment needs is low maintance high reliability. They need something that requires little care, can take a beating and keep rock and rolling. They eed something that can suffer harsh environments, neglect and abuse, and still save thier lives when the bullets start flying.

Thus, the AK. A weapon that will fire caked in mud, underwater, with any foreign crud imaginable. So while the Americans have to sit and clean thier rifles to keep them functioning, those bearing the AK can simply keep going and going and blast away the whole unit as it cleans and coddles its weak, ineffective, panty waste lab desinged weapons.

The M-16 has to go, period. We need something like the AK that will keep pumping lead into the enemy no matter where the hell youre at.

I would agree with Skadi 100%.

The reason I keep harping on the M1/M1A/M14 family is because they will continue to function regardless of what you do to them. They can be drug through the mud, sand, dumped in a river, and will continue to function without a hiccup. In a desert, the M14 may well run out of ammo, but it will at least fire its very last shot successfully.

When I attended ThunderRanch for the Urban Tactical Rifle Course, I noticed that 8 of the students all had various versions of the AR-15 clones. Every morning, the AR guys would show up at least an hour early to completely strip, clean, lube, reassemble, and test fire thier ARs before class began. (Please note this is NOT feasible in a true combat situation)

The remainder of our class was myself, with an M1A, a 41 year old single mother with an M1 Carbine (shrunken version of my rifle), and 2 guys with AKs.

EVERYDAY, even after such fastidious maintenance, EACH AR suffered at least one malfunction of some type, (2 of them guys had to step out of a course of fire to completely disassemble thier bolts in middle of a course. The instructor took great pleasure in explaining that if they were really under fire, they would be DEAD).

I cannot speak to what the other members did for maintenance on thier weapons, but since I had to drive about 80 miles each way everyday, and since I was firing the most powerful rifle in the class (and my shoulder was telling this to me, since we went through about 1500 rounds in 3 days) I didnt bother cleaning mine once... I also didnt have a single malfunction.

It takes 5 minutes or less to clean a rifle. (and one doesnt have to clean barrel or gas cylinders/rod in combat, just check that there isnt dirt in the 'moving' parts.)

There is allways the time to clean it.

and there is also this one other thing that trooper can do: to try avoid 'dirtying' the rifle at first place.

And that can be done, in dust, in mud, and in snow.

But i do admit, that fine sand is the most difficult kind of 'dirt', it 'goes' anywhere..

If you can find the time during the course of the day in combat to take a dump, get some sleep, eat some food, or read a letter from home, you can find the 10 minutes it takes to give the M-16 a quick cleaning.

Let us not forget what every United States Marine learns in boot camp:

"This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless.

I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than the enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. My rifle and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit.

My rifle is human, even as I am human, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other.

Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy".

If you cant keep you rifle clean in a combat zone you are nothing but a useless sh*t-bum. There may be better weapons out there, but this is the one your country gave. Keep the thing clean and do your damn job.