" U.S. troops are equipped with inferior, antiquated weapons" Topic

"A two-part expose by The Washington Times' national security reporter, Rowan Scarborough, on the shortcomings of the M4 carbine is a story of institutional ineptitude that has cost soldiers' lives.

However, the sad story of the American rifle also serves as a metaphor for a defense culture that slights the little stuff to fixate on buying big war machines that haven't been employed in serious combat for generations, and probably never will be again.

Propelling this latest rush to buy ships, planes and air- and sea-launched missiles is China, the only country on the planet still worthy of a good dose of American shock and awe. Frustratingly, the Chinese seemed not interested in returning the favor.

The story is different for ground forces, though…"
Full article here.
link

Also
link

Amicalement
Armand

False premise to begin with.

"Frustratingly, the Chinese seemed not interested in returning the favor."

Except they are. Defense/military website abound with articles written on the carriers China is gearing up to field, advanced hypersonic weaponry, stealth planes, etc.

Not speaking here of the quality or ability to field them operationally/strategically, but way baaaaaad premise.

Wonder how well cell phones work in those combat zones? Or how secure they are? Likewise, the fact that beter systems were available – the drones, for example – but just not used?

So not quite as simple a story as made out. As for the old designs – if it works and does it's job, it doesn't need changing. If it doesn't do it's job, then it does need changing. I would assume that it is something that is looked at.

Re Chinese – they are learning. That's the point that is often missed. Their next generation of aircraft, or carrier, or whatever, will be better as they get more technically competent and have more practical experience.

Whenever I've seen US troops, the thing I have never thought is, oh my! those troops are equipped with inferior, antiquated weapons and lack support.

Terms such as 'inferior, antiquated weapons and lack support' are relative.

" U.S. troops are equipped with inferior, antiquated weapons" … Ah … no … And regardless, the PRC can't deploy[force projection] en mass unless they walk, take a bus, truck, APC or train …

From the quotes above, it sounds like Rowan Scarborough may not have the right qualifications to be a national security reporter. Maybe the Washington Times could hire someone who actually knows something…

Rob

While using cell phones and that sort of technology might sound effective, one thing immediately that comes to mind is that they require MUCH more infrastructure than radios in order to work. You'd either have to co-opt a local cell phone network, or establish one of your own (i.e. truck mounted extendable cell phone towers), which have to be supplied with power, need troops to guard (an effective way to cut the network is to simply take out one of these towers), etc. Whereas on the other hand a radio does not require a network per se (just another radio to receive), but when a radio network is established, it's also not as conspicuous…

Damon.

"Maybe the Washington Times could hire someone who actually knows something…" That would be novel … for many in the media …

My brain hurt reading that article.

The Washington Times… Like that's a real newspaper.. Wonder which think tank bought this guy off.

I for one have always thought the M-16 family of weapons to be a bad joke played on our fighting men,(I have broken 2 of them over my knee and another just dropping it when running) I was lucky and was let to use a German made battle rifle that used a 7.62mm round,a LTD (laser target des.)and a radio :).. or other kinds of anti-armor weapons.. When I was in the Navy of all places :)

Given the choice between an M-16 family weapon and my personal SKS, I'd take the M-16 every day.

But then I've only carried an M-16 in a combat zone for a year so what would I know?

Afghans seem to be doing ok with AK47s and bombs made from tin cans…

M-16 has always work for me … and I've used the AK as well … either one, if need be, I'll shot you dead … probably …

The 5.56 round has been criticized for quite some time.

There are far better rounds out there, in the 6mm – 7mm range that are both lightweight, and powerful.

Of course, we and our allies soldiered on during WWII and beyond with the outdated Sherman too, for many years, and in some cases, decades.

No doubt, many troops have been killed when the 5.56 didn't take the enemy out of the fight after the first hit.

His evidence is anecdotal, and scanty at that, i.e. it looks to me as though he has selected only cases that support is argument. There are no citations, and no data tables.

He has to do a better job of making a comparative case.

Of course we have been trying to find a replacement for the M16/M4 for some time … I do think it may be a bit over stated to say " … many troops have been killed when the 5.56 didn't take the enemy out of the fight after the first hit." The M16 is a good weapon … and it will kill you dead … at least from my POV …

I had the oportunity to fire some M16/M4 and I loved!.
Imho not sure about their "stoping power".

Amicalement
Armand

The problem with the 5.56 round (and 6.5 and 6.8) is that at ranges over 150-250 yards, depending on barrel length, the round looses its ability to fragment and performs like a .22lr.

This happens to every rifle round, but it just happens to the 5.56 (and 7.62x39, and most intermediate rifle caliber rounds) sooner because they are lighter rounds.

At close range, they do horrible things to a body.

Unfortunately in these recent wars we are often attacked from a hillside away, which is outside the range of a modern rifle, and so troops with DMR's and light machine guns are the only ones that can return fire. Mortars are also harder to use accurately in very mountainous area's. Hence why the army wants more troops equipped with the Carl Gustav, its excellent at wrecking a small bunker some distance away with a direct shot, rather than trying to walk your mortar onto their PKM's while you are taking fire.

Just offhand, I wonder if there's been any thought given to combat trials with modern AR-10 platforms. Engagement range could be quite a bit better- good for rural Afghanistan…