m4 or not m4
that is the question.
back on august 3rd, cliff over at 'right side of lowell' examined the us choices for outfitting the afghan army, between our own m16 and the russian ak47. well, the AP just released their coverage of a "detailed study of the attack [on US troops in the village of wanat in 2008] by a military historian" that found US weapons failing "repeatedly at a 'critical moment' during the firefight", and they just put another log on that fire, to say the least. the next series of quotes from tom coburn can't be far behind.
the question for the afghan quartermasters was expressed as an interest in accuracy as well as durability, and the psychological edge provided by the "black rifles". well, my original comment to cliff was perhaps regarded as a bit flip, but it was sincere--no army on the planet, not least of all our own, is as accurate with a rifle as the swiss, and this has been the consistent case for the better part of a century. observing that our weapons continue to appear over-engineered and under-performing under the hardest conditions, it wouldn't hurt to consider the expertise of the world leaders. and if it's not accuracy that's most important, than there's been nothing to out-perform the kalishnikov when the going gets tough, and it seems pretty stupid to me to land, broken, in between. (which is to say, tom coburn isn't wrong).
but what do i know--i'm just a civilian. i will say that my planned purchase of a demonstration of my civil conscience was just determined beyond any doubt to be an AK. last thing i'd like to hear when standing contested ground would be the impotent clack of a jammed weapon.
back on august 3rd, cliff over at 'right side of lowell' examined the us choices for outfitting the afghan army, between our own m16 and the russian ak47. well, the AP just released their coverage of a "detailed study of the attack [on US troops in the village of wanat in 2008] by a military historian" that found US weapons failing "repeatedly at a 'critical moment' during the firefight", and they just put another log on that fire, to say the least. the next series of quotes from tom coburn can't be far behind.
the question for the afghan quartermasters was expressed as an interest in accuracy as well as durability, and the psychological edge provided by the "black rifles". well, my original comment to cliff was perhaps regarded as a bit flip, but it was sincere--no army on the planet, not least of all our own, is as accurate with a rifle as the swiss, and this has been the consistent case for the better part of a century. observing that our weapons continue to appear over-engineered and under-performing under the hardest conditions, it wouldn't hurt to consider the expertise of the world leaders. and if it's not accuracy that's most important, than there's been nothing to out-perform the kalishnikov when the going gets tough, and it seems pretty stupid to me to land, broken, in between. (which is to say, tom coburn isn't wrong).
but what do i know--i'm just a civilian. i will say that my planned purchase of a demonstration of my civil conscience was just determined beyond any doubt to be an AK. last thing i'd like to hear when standing contested ground would be the impotent clack of a jammed weapon.
posted by kad barma at 2:22 PM
5 Comments:
Kad
This is a hot issue in some circles and not everyone is on the side of the AK-47. Earlier today I read a long, interesting EMail from a now civilian Marine Corporal.
He talked about his own experience putting a lot of bullets down range from an M-4 and argues that properly maintained the M-4 and its brother, the M-249 are good weapons. The question was asked, where was the "A Barrel"? (The M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon comes with two barrels and the bag for the second is used for changing out the barrel when the first is too hot.)
Apparently the M-4 comes in a short barrel and a long barrel version, the first being for "Para" use and MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain). Neither apply here. The short barrel version heats up a lot quicker than the long barrel version.
Someone suggested the troops really want the M-14, the new weapon of my youth. And maybe not just because it fires the 7.62 mm round.
None of this is to say the M-4 might not be the wrong weapon. Look at the US Navy and the Mark XIV submarine torpedo at the beginning of our participation in World War II. Their Lordships back in the US Navy Bureau of Ordnance would not admit there was a problem. Months passed with large numbers of attack failures. Even tests in the fleet failed to convince the Bureaucrats. Finally, the problems were identified. How many were put at risk? Way too many.
This needs to be looked at, but it needs solid analysis.
Regards — Cliff
My focus is always diverted away from proper maintenance and recommended usage towards real-life situations where neither are followed. Humans are remarkably perverse as well as adaptive, and the pragmatist in me would rather go with that flow than against it. If guys and gals in the heat of the moment forget to swap barrels, or to have cleaned their weapon properly, that's a serious point. I would say the best weapon works WITH a person's tendencies, not against them.
But, of course, I'm no expert. Which, once again, points me to the weapon that works best with a decided lack of expertise.
Kad
Someone this AM noted that it costs about $17,000 to outfit an infantryman today.
They then talked about the M-8 rifle, which the US Army spent money developing. The commenter said: "A new rifle like the M-8 is, what, maybe a grand? So why not just try it? Fifteen thousand soldiers with an M-8 apiece would not exactly break the bank..."
Something I had either not known or forgotten, at one point the the Army Acquisition folks were not purchasing the right bullets for the M-16, resulting in poorer than spec performance.
Frankly, Curtis LeMay was the one pushing the M-16, but Maxwell Taylor stood in the way. Finally, SecDef Robert McNamara made the M-16 come to life.
The idea, put forward from time to time, to go with the Soviet Designed AK-47 might work if we were doing all our fighting in Cities, but we are all over the place in Afghanistan, so I am not convinced it would be a step in the proper direction. Like you, I do think we need a weapon that is as Murphy-proof as possible.
Regards — Cliff
Wasn't recommending we honor Mikhail or his Russian manufacturer with the gun for ourselves, but just observing the Afghans are in different circumstances. I still swear we ought to go with the Swiss model until we can build something better ourselves. Like you said, it's only a grand out of a lot more than that, and we ought to be choosing better. (And don't get me started about the Humvee armor).
Cliff, I appreciate the military history as always; Kad, I'm very much with you on that 2nd comment. I've never stood out in a good way as a marksman on either pistol or rifle (and to be totally forthcoming, I have stood out in a not-so-good way) but my knowledge of Firefights 101 is this:
Your initial goal is to REPEL the people shooting at you, and the way you do that is to shoot back in their direction. In other words, what matters first and foremost isn't whether you can blow a hole through GW's nose on a quarter from 300 yards away (unless you're some kind of special sniper) but whether you can competently turn the safety off, aim, and fire.
If you can't fire the weapon, it seems like that first goal isn't being met..and if you've got 100 other things to worry about beforehand and during the exchange, it seems like maintenance and barrel-switching aren't what you want to be thinking about. I'm with you on exercising the KISS principle here.
Talking about marksmanship makes me think about a cultural difference in the military between Southerners (highly over-represented in the ranks) and Northeasterners (very under-represented in the ranks). Growing up in New Jersey with two parents who worked in offices, guns were just never a consideration...I literally had never touched a real one until OCS. When I did, the fear of doing something wrong probably overrode the desire to earn the machismo points brought by good marksmanship. That was one of the few honest-to-goodness cultural differences I noticed between self and peers, whose backgrounds were more likely to have involved guns and the outdoors.
..I think I was able to earn a free pass on some of this stuff the past few years but *making it* in CA is going to require some re-direction (so if you see me trapseing around to and from the Y, in ACUs with 50 lbs. on my back, now you know why..)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home