stgeorge, you are a quaint little man and I find you logically inconsistent. That is to say; your mental faculties are hindered by your prejudice and
it leaves you spouting nonsense at every possible opportunity. You attempt to make this into a personal argument (i.e. I am better than you) but it
is not. This has nothing to do with you or me or any of the other posters in this thread or any of the nations they are citizens of, this is a
discussion about a weapon system.
The AK-47 is an excellent weapon and will likely be around for many more years. The RPG-7 which is so ubiquitous is also quite good but can no longer
compete with the heavier armor on modern main battle tanks or even some of the newer APCs. It will likely still stay around to be employed against
lighter armored targets such as helicopters and the Stryker (which is crap). So in this introduction it would appear that you favor tried and true
weaponry. I will leave aside the fact that even the RPG-7 was cutting edge when it was first introduced and continue on.
Assuming you are talking about machine guns fielded by the U.S. during WWI, the only machine gun worth having gripes about was the French Chauchat
Gun. The problem here was not that the U.S. military had hastily fielded some sci-fi weapon. The problem was that the U.S. (and the British to a
lesser degree) was too slow to field the new technology. In fact, the Browning M1917 was created in 1910! This means that if the U.S. had simply
adopted the new technology earlier, they would have been better off.
Your statement about bolt action rifles is an odd one. If you intended to say that the U.S. should have adopted a new weapon system earlier in WWII
then you are correct. Unfortunately that goes against your other statement in which you seem to prefer tried and true weapon systems which the M1903
was. If you were attempting to say that the bolt action rifles fielded by the U.S. in WWII were faulty equipment then you are quite uninformed. The
M1903 was fielded in various forms as late as the Vietnam War. It was primarily used as a sharpshooter’s weapon.
Your mention of German jet planes has no bearing on the conversation. It supports neither the idea of U.S. equipment being faulty nor does it
demonstrate any danger in fielding sci-fi weaponry. Remember that a jet engine was a revolutionary concept at the time and can easily have been
thought of as science fiction. Your argument here is nonexistent. In fact, you make points against yourself.
The T-34 was the best tank of its time. It used some revolutionary new ideas for armor design. Mentioning it hardly supports your claim that
fielding new technology can be dangerous.
The M-16 and M-60 are just about the only valid points you make. There were some mistakes in their acquisition that the DoD seems to have learned a
bit from. The M-16 was fielded without a chrome plated barrel or a cleaning kit. This was primarily due to a lack of sufficient testing before
adopting them on a wide scale. This seems to be why the XM-8 and XM-25 are scheduled for rigorous testing before their adoption.
Unfortunately this post is quite off topic and so was yours stgeorge. I suggest that we keep further posts on the subject of the merits or drawbacks
of this weapon system and not simply try to smear the militaries of various nations. It comes off as extremely juvenile.
For WestPoint23: I recall reading that the program was going to be pursued as the individual components but I do not recall where. I found a
reference to an article in Army Times that had the information about the program split but I do not have a subscription and so I can not provide a
link. The article was titled “XM8 prototypes surpass M16, Army experts say “ (www.armytimes.com...
I understand that so far the testing has shown the laser to be reliable. I was simply trying to be technically correct when stating that the laser
range finding will not work in all conditions. The emphasis here is on the word “all.” Laser range finding is a fairly mature technology and I would
not expect them to have any problems with its implementation. The other aspects you mentioned (regarding power loss) were things that I covered in my
post. I doubt that the OICW/XM-29 could be brought down to a weight less than the M-16 which weighs in at approximately 8.8 pounds loaded. Even
their target weight was 14 pounds for the XM-29. When they calculated that to be a weight reduction they were assuming that the M-16 was fully decked
out with attachments. I think that they were playing with the numbers just a bit to make it look more viable.
Edit: Had an unfinished thought in there.
[edit on 14-8-2004 by Lerkur]