OT: Meat on the table...Rand Study

[BBfanboy]

Info I have seen is that the AK-47 is reliable but not very accurate weapon. I wonder how many US soldiers owe their lives to the high accuracy of the M-16?
And if it was used in close-quarters fighting in Fallujah, that was not a good choice - shorter assault weapons should have been made available for house-to-house battles. But like most situations in life, the right tool for the job isn't always available so you make do.
Personally, I think Fallujah should have been surrounded and put under siege. When things get desperate, allow women and children to come out. When they stop coming out, flatten the city with bombs. Wait another month and mop up. Never get into a street fight with intact buildings and an enemy who knows every nook, cranny, ambush point and escape route.

[Alpha77]

AK47 (AKM): Mud Test:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU

So both the M16 and the G3 were better in the "mud test" by these guys.

Edit, in related vids here another "mud test":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9APzYqwXckw

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

They cleaned their weapons once a day at a minimum.

How do you know that?

To what depth of cleaning did they do? You can make something look clean but it won't necessarily be clean. Those people were Rear Echelon soldiers and not combat troops.

What level of training and experience did they have? Those people were Rear Echelon soldiers and not combat troops so they did not train with their weapons that much. Probably just familiarization training and qualification training whether done on an annual basis or sooner. The probably did not train on combat maneuvers.

Russian weaponry doesn't need that level of attention. Then again, Russian weapons were designed by combatants, not corporations hell-bent on profits.

How do you know how much attention that a Russian weapon needs? Who cares who designs it? I would rather have something that works rather than something that does not. Too many Soviet-era weapons which are now Russian did not have the detail that the American weapons have. Too few spare parts also mean that they were idle and waiting for repairs. I actually saw how a Sagger missile "destroyed" a target by flying over it and igniting the fuel poured on top. I would much rather fire the TOW missile that I did not have to try and steer onto the target while also keeping the crosshairs on the target. With the TOW, all I had to do was to keep the crosshairs on the target. Getting feedback from the end user is important and that is one reason why improvements happened, sometimes before deploying the weapon and sometimes later.

*edited for spelling again! [:@]

I don't know where to start, so let's start here:

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showt ... aqi-AK-47s

From the story (where American troops shelve the M4 for AKs...)

Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in Iraq's dusty environment. Many say the AK has better "knockdown" power and can kill with fewer shots.

"The kind of war we are in now ... you want to be able to stop the enemy quick," said Sgt. 1st Class Tracy S. McCarson of Newport News, Va., an army scout, who carries an AK in his Humvee.

Some troops say the AK is easier to maintain and a better close-quarters weapon. Also, it has "some psychological affect on the enemy when you fire back on them with their own weapons," McCarson said.

Most U.S. soldiers agree the M16 and the M4 – a newer, shorter version of the M16 that has been used by American troops since the 1960s – is better for long distance, precision shooting.


Not sure how much time you've spent at the range, but it is axiomatic that the M16/M4 is more accurate than the AK, but not nearly as dependable.

I suggest you do some google searches about both platforms. Many, not all in the US military, loath the M4/M16 for it's unreliability.

It was SOP by the US military to clean the weapons once a day in the Iraqi invasion. Still didn't help the troops.

Btw, Jessica Lynch never fired a shot as her weapon jammed.

[RangerJoe]

You want a simple, inexpensive weapon for close in fighting that has a lot of knockdown power Use the M3 grease gun.

The correct thing would have been a siege.

Also, keeping the Iraqi Army intact instead of sending those men home with no job but with military training. The bad ones could have been weeded out while that would also be a large pool on manpower for rebuilding.

As far as dust and dirt go, use a condom at the barrel and keep the dust port closed.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You want a simple, inexpensive weapon for close in fighting that has a lot of knockdown power Use the M3 grease gun.

The correct thing would have been a siege.

Also, keeping the Iraqi Army intact instead of sending those men home with no job but with military training. The bad ones could have been weeded out while that would also be a large pool on manpower for rebuilding.

As far as dust and dirt go, use a condom at the barrel and keep the dust port closed.

Agreed on the failed occupation. Oh well.

Take care.

[MakeeLearn]

M16

S.P.O.R.T.S.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: dcpollay

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

The US and Japan still can't find a missing F-35, and its 'secrets' may be in danger

"The US and Japan have been conducting a tireless, around-the-clock search for a missing F-35 for a week, but so far, they have yet to recover the downed fighter or its pilot. A life is on the line, and the "secrets" of the most expensive weapon in the world are lost somewhere in the Pacific Ocean.

A Japan Air Self-Defense Force F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter flown by 41-year-old Maj. Akinori Hosomi disappeared from radar last Tuesday, April 9. No distress signal was sent out as the aircraft vanished roughly 85 miles east of Misawa Air Base. "

The lie they are propagating is the Japanese pilot lost spatial orientation thus causing the crash.

Gotta love how they blame a dead man for their failure. Dead men tell no tales, eh?

Do you know the truth, Rusty? If not, you're just trolling here.

My .02 cents. But think about it.

I'm not sure he has the required equipment.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
I am not advocating for the dismantling of the military-industrial system entirely. I am suggesting that the prime criteria for purchasing or developing new weapon systems should be military utility rather than political/economic considerations. Promises made by vendors of how effective their system will be should be tested in realistic ways and financial penalties applied if the system does not work as advertised. Right now we seem to reward duds by giving the companies more money to "fix" the issues.

Leaping to conclusions about the suitability of a weapons platform, particularly one decades in the making apriori is no fix. I've seen this same hand-wringing and pearl clutching before and during the roll-out of the M-16, Bradley, F-22, F-35, the Gerald Ford class of CVN, the Virginia class of SSN, the LCS program and just about every other big ticket item. The problem seems heightened more recently by the poor quality of professional journalism and follow-through and by media trolls that delight in fomenting fear and doubt in some countries in particular.

All of the above weapons systems had teething problems. All of them. But they got worked out through the same system that you decry.

So, if you're concerned about the teething problems and expense of development, fine. Buy those items that are tried and true-tested and verified after decades of work. Will the Canadians be buying F-16s, F-15s or F-18E/Fs to fill their airforce's need to replace those venerable CF-188s? But we don't have the luxury of waiting 40 years between fighter replacement generations. Being cutting edge and having advanced capabilities augurs against the logic of accepting ye olde tech and kit.

Hear ye, hear ye - let it be known that I am about to agree with Poultrylad.

+10 from me