http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/assault.rifle/index.html Ability to switch calibers and add a barrel that extends effective point target range to 600-700 meters. USSOCOM has begun training with them, expects to field them next year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR Wow, that's interesting. I like that it isn't black. Is its superiority to the M4 so great that it is worth buying a new rifle to replace it?
2x the effective range. Or they can swap out the chamber and fire 7.62 rounds for more short-range stopping power. In other words, hell yes.
The M16/M4 don't have to be black either - it's pretty easy to bolt on colored furniture. The M4 is Vietnam-era technology. They looked at the SCAR on FutureWeapons, and the ease of changing calibers is trivial - no tools required. You can run different calibers on a M16/M4, but it's a heck of a lot of work. I can't remember if it was the SCAR or another assault rifle, but one of 'em fires with an open chamber. As a result, it runs cooler and can cycle faster.
I think the one constant in the US Army since the end of the Civil War has been choosing crappy US designed rifles. I find it shocking and unpatriotic that we are changing that trend.
Agreed. The russkies defo made the best allround gun. Although so much depends on what you are doing - in urban environments a cheap reliable gun that gets as much lead in the air as possible tends to outweigh other factors
To be fair, the M16/M4 platform isn't crappy. In fact, it's quite accurate. However, it fouls a lot easier than, say, a Kalishnakov. So it's good, provided you can keep it clear of sand and gunk, keep it well lubricated, and have a good supply train. The AK will keep firing even when on fire.
Agreed. If anything it smacks of "germaness". An over engineered gun from a different design philosophy. Meant for infantry engagements. IIRC it has a much higher muzzle velocity. Which means it is more accurate and hits you harder. ie it is a better killer etc. Some of these factors don't matter if you are a wealthy country like the US. EDIT: The first assault rifle - the excellent "Sturmgewehr" MP43
Exactly. The M-16 was designed to be used by well-trained professional soldiers who knew both how to shoot and to maintain their weapon; the AK was designed to be used by guerilla fighters with little or no weapons training (didn't the actual Soviet Army use a different version of the weapon?). Both are effective at what they were designed for.
They have the reputation, but there are plenty of problems with the AK series as well. I admit all I have is book knowledge (and my father, who rather disliked it while doing time in the Yugoslavian navy), but I think I'd go with German weapons, particularly the modern G36, which did extremely well in American reliability testing.
The AR15 was designed to be used by well-trained professional soldiers who knew both how to shoot and to maintain their weapon. The armyized M-16 had actual problems, especially when paired with the traditional ammo the Army wanted to use. It was designed to be an Army rifle. They just had different priorities. And, yes, it is an old design (47 as in 1947) that was supplanted long ago by the AKM and later the AK-74 (and now with some units using the AK-103).
according to war nerd, the "doom style" weapon of choice for urban warfare is the RPG Which tallies with what i've read about the siege of berlin and the chechens The US Army never has been big on infantry rockets though?
I ran into one guy on CoD4 who used the RPG as an assault rifle. It was annoying - and pretty effective.
Until you pop around the corner and your opponent is 2 feet away from you The helicopter in that game is ridiculous in head-to-head mode. Thing hangs around for 2-3 minutes and mows you down any time you pop up, and there's usually no way to shoot it down.
I have totally been a proponent of this even before I ever read War Nerd. In police actions the main weapon is the assault rifle. In modern war the main weapon is the RPG. Infantry is just too mobile and armored, and you don't get a long time to shoot before you are targeted, so you have to make one shot that counts. Israel got mauled by Hezbollah using networks of fixed emplacements designed to employ just this tactic. The LAW rocket was used a lot in Vietnam. But the modern method of American combat seems to be to fix the enemy location using ground troops and then blast them with a small smart weapon launched from a drone/helicopter/aircraft. It's better than putting yourself into danger to launch the explosive, but it is very expensive.
Six months from now, after having paid tens of millions of dollars, if will be revealed that the barrels dont all fit, the ammo is mislabeled, they misfire every 50 rounds and the manufacturer cant deliver them. At that time 20,000 more will be ordered and paid for in advance. Then Bush will leave office and the whole expenditure will be classified for the safety of the troops.
Agreed. In Berlin the Wehrmacht had an obscene number of disposable panzerfaust (for-runner to the rpg2). In a city environment, the drawbacks of the weapon were minimised and all the advantages maximised. Attacking forces, whether armored or otherwise, need to be prepared to take outrageous losses - which of course Stalin was prepared to take Apparently these weapons became critical for house to house fighting. The attacking infantry preferred to remain indoors - so an assault gun or tank was used to punch an initial hole in a house row, then the infantry could advance through internal walls by using the rockets indoors. So rockets followed by troops rushing with grenades and assault rifles. These tactics merely enhanced the slaughter of course, as counter attacking troops simply used the same tactics to retake the room. The US army did pioneer the tactic of using a very high caliber assault gun like 155mm at point blank range to clear houses - but of course that exposes the gun to enormous risk. The problem is that all the advantages wealthy armies tend to have are nullified in city fighting. As for this new weapon - it just sort of screams out the issues the US Army is facing. There seems to be such an overall aversion to getting anyone killed
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-05-26-11-27-05 "The regular Army, though, has invested heavily in M4 and M16 rifles and has no plans to get rid of them."
I don't think anything will come from this. There will always be some controversy over bullet size, but small bullets just have too many advantages for a military to give up as their standard round. It makes guns easier to shoot, it reduces the weight troops carry and gives them more shots, and it reduces overall logistics. A big fast round isn't more deadly if it never hits the target. For close it urban fighting, it isn't bigger bullets that are needed, it is rounds like American police have, which deform and stay in bodies and don't go through walls as easily. But armies can't use those.
The fact that police are allowed to use rounds that are considered too uncivilized for warfare is scary.
