|
wkdshadow -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 8:20:41 AM)
|
That's simply physics. You can only stop so much inertia and so much thermal energy. While IEDs were relatively primitive during the start of the war, relatively limited to cruedly improved ordinance and unexploded munitions from wars people have forgotten about, the insurgents have learned.
EFPs - explosively formed penetrators - are a great example of this. Explosively formed penetrators use superplasticity of various metals and extreme velocities achieved through linear charges of high explosives such as the easily synthesized RDX("C4". Also easily stolen or picked up off the field). When you've got metal flying at you at around 8000m/s, carrying more inertia than a modern anti-tank sabot round, there's not much to be done other than "Don't run over that, don't stop no matter what!"
What's not excusable is poor supply of ammunition to infantry because you don't want to contract out to increase output. There's also the matter of the government actively denying soldiers the lubrication needed to reliably cycle their direct-impingement operated rifles(the m16 and m4) - which shove the still burning gunpowder right back into the chamber, gunking everything up - in a dusty enviornment.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=FTE%20Archive.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=21&rnd=19.888845171579405
Getting onto a slight side tangent:
As someone who lives in Arizona(yes, I just moved back to Arizona, but I lived here for 3 years previously) and has dealt with dust, I can attest that Breakfree CLP attracts dust even when you wipe your weapon down. It's oily! Dry silicone lubricants work better in mine, and other's experience. Also, why are we still using direct impingement weapons when it's been a known problem since Vietnam, was the source of senatorial investigations, and there's been numerous weapons programs to replace said rifles, and there's been reliable alternatives to begin with?
Complaints have also existed for years about the 5.56x45mm. It's a small round that leaves small holes and small wound channels, because below 2400fps it doesn't fragment at the cannalure. This makes 14" carbines ineffective in alot of situations without proper shot placement, and 16" carbines ineffective past about 30m to 60m depending on the barrel. If you're shopping for a 5.56, and you're going to see range, you grab a 20" barrel. The round was pushed through NATO standardization, and soldiers have reported sub par performance in comparison to the eastern bloc 7.62x39mm(AK47, SKS) and 5.45x39mm(AKS-74u, successor to AK47, introduced 1974, comparable recoil to 5.56) since it's inception.
Even after Project SALVO(I think I got the name wrong, correct me someone, I'm sleep deprived) which determined that a soldier firing in 3 to 5 round bursts vs semi automatic fire increased the likelyhood of rounds striking the enemy during the same period of time, semi automatic patern rifles were still distributed to the forces for years before being updated with new trigger groups. Similiarly, there was another program after(or was it during?) Vietnam that showed soldiers tended to hold down the trigger and run dry, "spraying and praying". Again, we still manufactured and distributed rifles with the full auto trigger pattern for years before switching from the M16A1 trigger group to the M16A2. I'd like to point out that in Vietnam the M16(Then popularly "The Stoner", after the designer) wasn't even issued with a cleaning rod or instructions for cleaning, and soldiers were told it was "self lubricating".
Despite these two programs which determined these chararistics of modern battlefield conditions, we still pushed the 5.56x45mm through NATO and issue it as our standard munition, displacing the 7.62x51mm which has superior ballistics under the premise of decreased controlability in automatic fire(which is a mode of fire the main battle rifle of the military does not have as currently issued). Most users of the m240b(7.62x51mm) vs the m249(5.56x45) that've seen combat are going to laugh at you when they ask whether they'd have the 5.56 SAW or 7.62x51mm.
Anyways, the US government has ignored it's soldiers experienced reports time and time again, as well as it's own weapons programs... the most recent example coming to mind being the cancelation of the XM8(again, another 5.56) program and the approval of the SCAR-L and SCAR-H - much to soldiers complaint as the XM8 been shown to be a more reliable(piston driven vs direct impingement again) weapon, and the SCAR is heavy.
But, don't take my word for it. Ask a few soldiers that've seen combat, ask someone who've used various rifles. I'm sure there's plenty of vietnam, gulf war, and second gulf war vets on the boards here.
|
|
|
|
