Interesting Article: "US Army Outgunned by Afghan Insurgents?"

[Jpanzer 1,265]

[YARP 300]

All the more reason for the US to go to 7.62x51. No need to run out and develop a specialty cartridge for something we already know works well and have plenty of (in stock and production).

[ktcm7271 999]

Time to dust off the M-14's again. 7.62 x 51 and 20 per mag, that will help our boys. Or even the FN FAL 7.62 x 51, semi or full selector. I didn't like the .30 carbine as an m.b.r. but love it as a c.q.w. The 5.56 is nice for capacity, recoil, and penetration, but lacks knock down power at range. We should not have this problem in our military.

[Bean.223 365]

Come on, what he's describing is the advantage the deafening army normally has. While Im sure the Major knows what he's talking about I think he is not taking into account the ability to call in close air support.

[G O B 3,516]

Maybe we should send the troops S-.308's?

[ajole 1]

That entire thing is simply wrong. I mean total BS.

The TO&E for a rifle Platoon has more weapons than that...A Lt Infantry company has about 100 M16/M4's, 18 Saws, 18 M203 Grenade launchers, 2 M249's, some Javelins, 2 mortars....

here's the link to show it...

TO&E Here

[22_Shooter 1,560]

It's about time to quit worrying about that shit hole. Pull our boys (and ladies) out and drop a fucking NUKE on that shit box. Game over. Bye bye. Nice to know ya. Sorry bout'cha.

 

EDIT: -1? LOL.

EDIT2: Thanks for the hookup, fellas.

Edited March 3, 2010 by -Shooter-

[eric1785 15]

7.62x63 all the way, plenty of power to destroy, be funny as hell when a infantry guy rolls around the corner with a good ol B.A.R, man they really

knew how to do it back in the day, not some little 22 cal bullet bullshit.

[sonofliberty 6]

The war profiteers don't want American soldiers to have weapons with maximum effectiveness. They want sub-standard weapons in the hands of the grunts so that wars can drag on for a decade or more. This way their industry booms while the rest of the economy falls to shit because we spent our national fortune on their bullshit weapon systems. Think about it like this: If there was some kind of awesome weapon that simply killed the enemy with 100% effectiveness, the weapon makers would be fools to sell it to the government because they would only sell one and then their entire business would be obsolete! What does some fat-cat asshole care if young kids are coming back from one of the worst places on Earth with parts blown off? What do they care if their guns suck? If they could make as much money outfitting the troops with Ruger 10/22's then they would be lobbying for that! Regardless of what you think about the reasons for going to war in the first place and whether or not the U.S. should still be there, the question remains the same no matter what far flung corner of the world the fighting occurs in: Why do we as Americans let those with vast amounts of money and a feudal mindset continuously make the world a worse place for all of us? It is another symptom of over-capitalization. Everything is becoming a business. War is a business. Medicine is a business. Church is a business. School is a business. Government is a business. Huge corporations are controlling everything and anyone who disagrees with this trend is labelled a Communist. Have we really reverted to McCarthyism? They have a word for what happens when you can no longer tell the difference between the government and the "private sector." The word is FASCISM. Think about it.

[Bean.223 365]

The war profiteers don't want American soldiers to have weapons with maximum effectiveness. They want sub-standard weapons in the hands of the grunts so that wars can drag on for a decade or more. This way their industry booms while the rest of the economy falls to shit because we spent our national fortune on their bullshit weapon systems. Think about it like this: If there was some kind of awesome weapon that simply killed the enemy with 100% effectiveness, the weapon makers would be fools to sell it to the government because they would only sell one and then their entire business would be obsolete! What does some fat-cat asshole care if young kids are coming back from one of the worst places on Earth with parts blown off? What do they care if their guns suck? If they could make as much money outfitting the troops with Ruger 10/22's then they would be lobbying for that! Regardless of what you think about the reasons for going to war in the first place and whether or not the U.S. should still be there, the question remains the same no matter what far flung corner of the world the fighting occurs in: Why do we as Americans let those with vast amounts of money and a feudal mindset continuously make the world a worse place for all of us? It is another symptom of over-capitalization. Everything is becoming a business. War is a business. Medicine is a business. Church is a business. School is a business. Government is a business. Huge corporations are controlling everything and anyone who disagrees with this trend is labelled a Communist. Have we really reverted to McCarthyism? They have a word for what happens when you can no longer tell the difference between the government and the "private sector." The word is FASCISM. Think about it.

 

 

Did your college professor teach you that El Che??? I swear you people all sound like audio copy machines....

[Jpanzer 1,265]

Back to the topic, I recently read where the Army has been testing with the 6.8 round as a possible replacement for the 5.56. Funny, the Russians seem to be moving back towards the 7.62x39 also. It seems both armies might have had it right back in the 1950's!

[Twinsen 86]

The war profiteers don't want American soldiers to have weapons with maximum effectiveness. They want sub-standard weapons in the hands of the grunts so that wars can drag on for a decade or more. This way their industry booms while the rest of the economy falls to shit because we spent our national fortune on their bullshit weapon systems. Think about it like this: If there was some kind of awesome weapon that simply killed the enemy with 100% effectiveness, the weapon makers would be fools to sell it to the government because they would only sell one and then their entire business would be obsolete! What does some fat-cat asshole care if young kids are coming back from one of the worst places on Earth with parts blown off? What do they care if their guns suck? If they could make as much money outfitting the troops with Ruger 10/22's then they would be lobbying for that! Regardless of what you think about the reasons for going to war in the first place and whether or not the U.S. should still be there, the question remains the same no matter what far flung corner of the world the fighting occurs in: Why do we as Americans let those with vast amounts of money and a feudal mindset continuously make the world a worse place for all of us? It is another symptom of over-capitalization. Everything is becoming a business. War is a business. Medicine is a business. Church is a business. School is a business. Government is a business. Huge corporations are controlling everything and anyone who disagrees with this trend is labelled a Communist. Have we really reverted to McCarthyism? They have a word for what happens when you can no longer tell the difference between the government and the "private sector." The word is FASCISM. Think about it.

 

 

Probably because everything you just said was communist. I like the word freedom in your name, it's pretty funny. WE NEED EVERYBODY TO BE EQUAL! WE NEED MORE RULES AND LESS LIBERTY! IGNORE THE RED ARM BANDS, WE'RE GOOD PEOPLE!

[YARP 300]

Back to the topic, I recently read where the Army has been testing with the 6.8 round as a possible replacement for the 5.56. Funny, the Russians seem to be moving back towards the 7.62x39 also. It seems both armies might have had it right back in the 1950's!

 

 

Jpanzer, it's interesting to me that the US military is always trying to better itself in the technology field. Unfortunately, they often seem to go looking for problems that don't exist and not working on the ones at hand, thus creating more problems. The 6.8SPC is an incredibly interesting round in that it gives more range and has a heavier projectile than 5.56 NATO, with less recoil than the 308. It is pretty much a copycat of the 7.62x39, that's where things get a little confusing in the report in my opinion. The whole report is basically stating that through out history the US has chosen guns/ammo that out shoot our enemies in distance and accuracy or in the case of small arms (Thompson sub-gun) sheer firepower and devastation. The report does a very good point of proving that you can't have it all built into one gun. Here is my problem with the 6.8, if it behaves the same as the 7.62x39 what advantage are we really giving are guys on the ground? your just making it so that we can fight at an equal distance as the enemy...it makes no sense why not give our troops the capability to distance themselves out of the enemy's range and still make lethal hits? 7.62x51 for president, that's my vote.

Bean.223- Don't know if you've ever been danger close to close air support but it will make you second guess ever calling for it again. By the way, the Major does talk about air support in the report.

[DLT 1,646]

You know that saying, "there's a tool for every job"? Well, the same applies to rifles. M-16/M4 is good for 0-300 yards. M-14 is good for 0-600 yards. Beyond that, break out the .50 cal. It's just that simple. Perhaps what is needed in Afghanistan is the 20" barrels on the M-16's for better range and at least half of the squad guys to carry an M14 with a lightweight synthetic stock.

[Bean.223 365]

Back to the topic, I recently read where the Army has been testing with the 6.8 round as a possible replacement for the 5.56. Funny, the Russians seem to be moving back towards the 7.62x39 also. It seems both armies might have had it right back in the 1950's!

 

 

Jpanzer, it's interesting to me that the US military is always trying to better itself in the technology field. Unfortunately, they often seem to go looking for problems that don't exist and not working on the ones at hand, thus creating more problems. The 6.8SPC is an incredibly interesting round in that it gives more range and has a heavier projectile than 5.56 NATO, with less recoil than the 308. It is pretty much a copycat of the 7.62x39, that's where things get a little confusing in the report in my opinion. The whole report is basically stating that through out history the US has chosen guns/ammo that out shoot our enemies in distance and accuracy or in the case of small arms (Thompson sub-gun) sheer firepower and devastation. The report does a very good point of proving that you can't have it all built into one gun. Here is my problem with the 6.8, if it behaves the same as the 7.62x39 what advantage are we really giving are guys on the ground? your just making it so that we can fight at an equal distance as the enemy...it makes no sense why not give our troops the capability to distance themselves out of the enemy's range and still make lethal hits? 7.62x51 for president, that's my vote.

Bean.223- Don't know if you've ever been danger close to close air support but it will make you second guess ever calling for it again. By the way, the Major does talk about air support in the report.

 

I admit I must have missed the part when he did talk about air support. So what exactly is his point??? That our Co. COs aren't taking all their possible force of arms with them into the mountains?? Or is this another M16 bashing thread, I am confused.

 

It seems to me if that is the case that the Army is actually doing a pretty darn good job(slow but good) at finding a new rifle. There out there testing EVERYTHING withing the last five years or so.

[reb1861 14]

The m-16 is a good gun that needs a lot of cleaning to make it work right.In the right hands it is a nice close range gun,butt in the open desert its no good sand and grit dont work in a gun that needs to be oiled.The m-14 is hevy,but most troops now ride in a humve or bradly so wait is not a problem.A m-14 updated is the way to go,put on a plastic stock,pistol grip,and a 30 rd mag and you got a hell of a gun!Plus they allredy have them on hand so you dont have to spend millions to get a new gun.

[eric1785 15]

Seems in ww2 all they needed was a .45 a .30 and a .50 i dont think they ever should have changed them, the 06 has alot more energy then a 308, i agree on a 6.8 being a copycat of the x39 it just looks too similar!

[YARP 300]

I admit I must have missed the part when he did talk about air support. So what exactly is his point??? That our Co. COs aren't taking all their possible force of arms with them into the mountains?? Or is this another M16 bashing thread, I am confused.

 

It seems to me if that is the case that the Army is actually doing a pretty darn good job(slow but good) at finding a new rifle. There out there testing EVERYTHING withing the last five years or so.

Bean.223-I will admit that I'm not a real big M16 fan, but I'm not here to bash it. I think what he's trying to say is that for the ranges that they are coming in contact with the enemy, the current round isn't working out. As far as finding a new rifle, the Army has taken on some new rifles they just haven't replaced the current platform completely.

He also isn't saying they are not taking all possible force of arms, it seems that he's just stating that there humping a lot of stuff in to the mountains that isn't getting the job done. As far as testing stuff, thats great, but I'd like to see some real change (other than all the wizets, gidgets, and gadgets) in the rifle/ammunition platform. Hell I'd even be happy if they DID pull out all the old M14s and used those. Maybe they should take some time and figure out how to reduce weight on the soldier (and fast) in order to be able to get around with a bit more ease instead of trying to get rid of all the weight through weapons and ammo.

 

Seems in ww2 all they needed was a .45 a .30 and a .50 i dont think they ever should have changed them, the 06 has alot more energy then a 308, i agree on a 6.8 being a copycat of the x39 it just looks too similar!

I agree with this, to a certain degree. We should always research for further development, however its hard to develop something when the current thing works. 30-06 is HEAVY even in comparison to 308 that's why I'd opt for the 308 over 30 06. The .45 is great, but secretly (really not a secret, I'm a 10mm junkie) I wish they went to a 10mm. The .50, yup, yup you are right, there is absolutely no reason to change this all powerful round.

[mgconnor13 206]

i never felt out gunned when I had my M2 with me I'm all about bringing the biggest gun I can to a fight. Unfortunately big guns fire big bullets and all that stuff weighs a lot. While I would love to have a 308 to patrol with i would hate to drag around 200+ rounds of 7.62x51 up and down the mountains in 50 pounds of armor. There are different weapons for different jobs, till the DOD realize that we're going be be carrying weapons that can do a lot of stuff but no one job exceptionally well. M4s are handy at close range but they suck for any kind of distance shooting. Other hand Barrett is great for long shots but I'm not going to carry that thing all day or try to clear a house with it. There's no gun that can do it all. I like that AK a lot( sights need improvement but that's about it) but I don't see Uncle Sam handing those out any time soon. So screw it, lets just give our troops death rays and call it a day.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Rusty truck

[Bean.223 365]

I think we're all debating over how confused we are over a confusing article....

[nycGUNguy 61]

Pull all our guys and gals out then...

 

Just send in three or four SSBN Ohio Class Tridents with some SSNs to back them up. Empty all tubes on all subs and say goodnight everyone, game over. Or maybe some B52s to carpet bomb the place. War is hell and everyone is affected. Those with the bigger, better weapons win.

 

Just venting,

nyclu3

[TYBOY 33]

I was ARMY AVIATION and was a crewchief/gunner on Blackhawks. I don't know how the Infantry side of the house worked, but if you had a couple of M60's ( replaced by newer version ) you could hit about anything you saw. You could walk that thing into targets you couldn't see with the tracers (beyond 600 meters). I know the infantry had at least one 60 gunner per platoon. Why wouldn't that be effective when the targets are out that far????

[sonofliberty 6]

Pull all our guys and gals out then...

 

Just send in three or four SSBN Ohio Class Tridents with some SSNs to back them up. Empty all tubes on all subs and say goodnight everyone, game over. Or maybe some B52s to carpet bomb the place. War is hell and everyone is affected. Those with the bigger, better weapons win.

 

Just venting,

nyclu3

 

Like I was saying before, there's no money to be made by a quick decisive end to these wars.

[Bean.223 365]

Pull all our guys and gals out then...

 

Just send in three or four SSBN Ohio Class Tridents with some SSNs to back them up. Empty all tubes on all subs and say goodnight everyone, game over. Or maybe some B52s to carpet bomb the place. War is hell and everyone is affected. Those with the bigger, better weapons win.

 

Just venting,

nyclu3

 

Like I was saying before, there's no money to be made by a quick decisive end to these wars.

 

 

Like tactical Nukes and B-52 carpet bombing?? OH YEAH, the Liberals will love that plan.

[Salmonking 149]

Pull all our guys and gals out then...

 

Just send in three or four SSBN Ohio Class Tridents with some SSNs to back them up. Empty all tubes on all subs and say goodnight everyone, game over. Or maybe some B52s to carpet bomb the place. War is hell and everyone is affected. Those with the bigger, better weapons win.

 

Just venting,

nyclu3

 

Like I was saying before, there's no money to be made by a quick decisive end to these wars.

 

 

Like tactical Nukes and B-52 carpet bombing?? OH YEAH, the Liberals will love that plan.

 

 

I love how some people's mentality is NUKE THOSE BASTARDS! THAT WILL FIX EVERYTHING!

 

Um, do you know the PR nightmare that would result from that? The immense lose of life and the international reaction? It'd be a bad day, hell, bad decade. We took shit for using Napalm in Vietnam, this would be soooo much worse. Despite what many liberal douches say, we don't kill civilians (on purpose) in war.

 

I was once told by someone, "We should pull out our troops and turn that desert into glass)." Thank you for you expert opinion General Dumbass.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

So let me get this straight, A .223, with more energy at 400y than a 9mm or 45acp at the muzzle, isn't enough to kill an enemy at 300m? Or maybe they're just not hitting their targets? If you give them a .50 and they miss, it did the same as a missed .22LR. I appreciate the "Go back to .308" because, I think the .223 sucks, BUT the .223 was designed to be a longer range, flat shooting projectile that was low recoil and easily controlled in FA. The BIGGEST argument FOR the .223 is the accuracy at range over 7.62x39.

 

See, the great thing about Iron Sights on an AK is this. Those little numbers on the rear leaf? They work. You know whats un-sure about a $1500 optic? Did you re-sight it when you took it off and put it back on? Did it get banged a little too hard when i dropped it the other day? Are my mounts loose? etc. etc. $1500 is sometimes NOT GREATER than a $10 iron leaf sight.

[Bean.223 365]

Pull all our guys and gals out then...

 

Just send in three or four SSBN Ohio Class Tridents with some SSNs to back them up. Empty all tubes on all subs and say goodnight everyone, game over. Or maybe some B52s to carpet bomb the place. War is hell and everyone is affected. Those with the bigger, better weapons win.

 

Just venting,

nyclu3

 

Like I was saying before, there's no money to be made by a quick decisive end to these wars.

 

 

Like tactical Nukes and B-52 carpet bombing?? OH YEAH, the Liberals will love that plan.

 

 

I love how some people's mentality is NUKE THOSE BASTARDS! THAT WILL FIX EVERYTHING!

 

Um, do you know the PR nightmare that would result from that? The immense lose of life and the international reaction? It'd be a bad day, hell, bad decade. We took shit for using Napalm in Vietnam, this would be soooo much worse. Despite what many liberal douches say, we don't kill civilians (on purpose) in war.

 

I was once told by someone, "We should pull out our troops and turn that desert into glass)." Thank you for you expert opinion General Dumbass.

 

 

Hey dont get me wrong, I say fuck em! Nuke em all!! But we do live in "modern times"

[G O B 3,516]

Lets round up 10,000 wild pigs and drive them ahead of our troops,not only will they force the Islamo-fashists into fits of "cleansing', they will set off IED's and blow bacon everywhere!

[reb1861 14]

Lets round up 10,000 wild pigs and drive them ahead of our troops,not only will they force the Islamo-fashists into fits of "cleansing', they will set off IED's and blow bacon everywhere!

HA HA HA HA!!!!!! Good one.HERE PIGGY PIGGY!!!!!!!

[Paulry 50]

I've got no dog in this, but the one comment that rang true was to stick the 20" barrels back on the AR's! M4 is good for close quarter, but not good for the hill country!

 

Ok, throw in the pigs for good luck! besides the boys need fresh bacon as well!

 

Edited March 9, 2010 by Fluid Power