Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jbour13
Concept and boastfulness doesn't win wars, execution and adherance to standards do. I love HK stuff but, this is another attempt it seems to make a new looking Army. The fact remains the same, motivated soldiers win the battle. I'm with you on having the more effective capability, but what does this cost. I've not been lucky enough to testbed equipment in battle. But it seems that the Army is evaluating alot of new weapons and support systems in the active battle. This push for newer and better isn't an old concept but it still gets joe killed because he's not had time to get used to the system and it's nuances.
Not many fans of the system around the Army from the persons that I've talked to. I've got a friend at Aberdeen that has played with it and has nothing good to say. Too many options for a soldier and the supply chain gets bogged down with replacement parts.
I've had soldiers come into the gun shop and say that the army should issue something like the S&W M&P because it has the option to change backstraps making it more comfortable to shoot. Could you imagine being an armorer tracking the ones not in use. Imagine yourself as the BN Supply SGT trying to order replacement backstraps because PVT Snuffy lost it.
Military weapons need to remain uniform. The only change to the M-4 weapons system that I hope for is a gas piston operating upper. HK416/ POF/ Alexander Arms all make'em and I like what I've seen. We can hope!  |
Hmmm. Where to start.
The Japanese founded their doctrine on the belief that 'motivated' soldiers win the battle. Effective / modern weapons were ignored and they lost. Motivated, intelligent, and well equipped soldiers with solid leadership win battles.
Armorers who are trained to fix broken weapons no longer exist on TOEs for any Infantry unit I have worked with over the last five years. Supply clerks are now armorers. The Armorers Tool Kits were removed from the TOE years ago.
To the very best of my knowledge, no solider in the three Infantry Brigades I have worked with over the last five years have 'tested' any new weapons or equipment in combat. DoD tests the stuff first. This is followed by NET training at units with MTTs sent from what ever proponent school is responsible for the particular piece of gear. Certainly, new equipment has been issued to units in combat, along with a NET to train them before they use the same gear. Then the Brigade or Division Commander gets his say before a soldier totes the gear into combat. Believe it or not, they even listen to Joe's comments and will say "no" in an instant if they think the gear threatens the lives of their men.
I knew personally eight of the 32 KIA from 1/25th SBCT. None of them or any of the others were killed because they were using 'untested' equipment. I can't say how many I know who were WIA from 1/25 or 3/2 SBCTs. None of them were wounded because they were using equipment they didn't know how to use or 'untested' equipment.
I will say this much however -- uniformity does get people killed or wounded. I have seen incredibly moronic web gear / MOLY SOPs that guarantee a magazine change to be nothing short of an abortion. I have seen the 'system' refuse to allow units to put collapsable stocks on their M-16A2s so Joe could get his rifle up quickly and effectively while wearing his body armor. That type of crap does get folks killed or wounded.
I am fully in support of modular light weapons for the Infantry. Absolutely required and the sooner the better. The XM-8, as a modular weapons design, is absolutely the right concept to follow even if HK isn't chosen as a producer.
Sorry guys -- seen way too much in the last five or so years. And yes, the Infantry is perfectly capable of handling the logistics, training, and support for these systems.
Gene