Tougher training Marines or Army? Number two - Page 4

00SoldierofFortune00 · 08-15-2006, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [R-PUB]trogdor1289

Ferret I don't want to go and anyone who does needs to be drummed out of the Military. I am saying if I am sent I want to have a weapon I have confidence in.

There are plenty of people that want to go, just not for the reasons of being a hero.

[R-MOD]Bob_Marley · 08-15-2006, 08:32 AM

Of course the reason the current 5.56mm round has been found to be ineffective is becuase its being used in a way it wasnt intended to be used. It was adopted in 1979 when it was needed to penetrate Warsaw pact body armour. And, the M855/SS109 round was a good trade off between armour peirceing capability and anti infantry effectiveness.

However, I've never heard of Iraqi insergents wearing body armour. So, by far the cheapest solution would be to reissue M16A1s and .223 remmington (AKA 5.56 M193) as whilst it lacks the armour penetrating capabilites of the Belgian round, it is considerubly more effective as an anti personell round. It also retains the low recoil of a 5.56mm round. Which, even the most avid supporter of the 6.8mm SPC must agree would be increased. Also, the 6.8mm SPC was found to be balisically inferior to the 6.5mm Grendel anyway.

~~Malik~~ · 08-15-2006, 09:34 AM

I don't think the rifle replacement would be as difficult as people think it would be. I know at least for the US and UK armies they get some pretty decent training before they start and if you gave one of these guys a new rifle they'd sure as hell know how to use it. Soldiers aren't taught how to use the AK, but a lot of them use the ones they recover.

Replacing the M16A4 is not as simple as just leaving the old ones back home for the cadets, if you're in training you're going to need to train with the rifle you'll actually be using. Training them with 3 round burst then giving them full auto on the field could lead to accidents happening as they don't know how to handle full auto. Replacing the M16, with say the XM8 would just require a talking to to all the soldiers and a demonstration of it, they wouldn't need to redo basic. The main problems would be in the field, they'd most likely supply it to one company and see how they got on in the field, edit it to their needs and then mass produce it some more. I'd have thought if you've been trained extensively with an M16, the only problem you'd have with a new rifle would be ergonomics, and as the M16 isn't the most comfortably looking design, I'm sure some guys would actually prefer the smooth curves of a next gen XM8 or similar. :P

Fullforce · 08-15-2006, 10:16 AM

To me, the XM8 looks waay oversized. It looks really cool in Ghost Recon 2 etc, and games - but in real life it just looks clunky and just way too big. Might just be me though,

trogdor1289 · 08-15-2006, 02:00 PM

I didn't know that the M16A4 was full auto. As to the XM-8 it just looks stupid but I suppose that doesn't matter if it works right?

=NAA=Spaztik_Ferret · 08-15-2006, 02:56 PM

The M16A4 is full auto? Hmmm I don't beleive that. I would doublecheck your sources Malik.

trogdor1289 · 08-15-2006, 03:09 PM

Lol you should check out Colts PR page for the M16
http://www.colt.com/mil/M16.asp.
The grammar is awe inspiring.

[R-MOD]Bob_Marley · 08-15-2006, 03:15 PM

The M16A4 is not full auto. The M16A3 is. The AR15 variant that looks like an A4 but has full auto has not recived a US desigantion becuase it is not used.

Quote:

Colt M16A4 Rifle is the ultimate rifle in 5.56mm.

And what evidence do they base this on, hmmm?

trogdor1289 · 08-15-2006, 03:26 PM

The M16A4 Rifle barrel is designed to accept the M203 Grenade Launcher which can easily be assembled to the rifle. On that fact lol. Not only is their grammar crap they have the most blatant PR writing ever. You should check out some of the other pages they have for the M4 for example.

00SoldierofFortune00 · 08-15-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malik

I don't think the rifle replacement would be as difficult as people think it would be. I know at least for the US and UK armies they get some pretty decent training before they start and if you gave one of these guys a new rifle they'd sure as hell know how to use it. Soldiers aren't taught how to use the AK, but a lot of them use the ones they recover.

Replacing the M16A4 is not as simple as just leaving the old ones back home for the cadets, if you're in training you're going to need to train with the rifle you'll actually be using. Training them with 3 round burst then giving them full auto on the field could lead to accidents happening as they don't know how to handle full auto. Replacing the M16, with say the XM8 would just require a talking to to all the soldiers and a demonstration of it, they wouldn't need to redo basic. The main problems would be in the field, they'd most likely supply it to one company and see how they got on in the field, edit it to their needs and then mass produce it some more. I'd have thought if you've been trained extensively with an M16, the only problem you'd have with a new rifle would be ergonomics, and as the M16 isn't the most comfortably looking design, I'm sure some guys would actually prefer the smooth curves of a next gen XM8 or similar. :P

They are not cadets here if that is what they are called in the UK.

And I don't think anyone ever suggested using the M16A4 to train recruits or soldiers, but to use the M16A2 for training while the soldiers and marines out in the battlefield actually get the new ones. They are the exact same weapon except for the removable rail.

And it seems easy to replace a weapon, but people who learn to fire weapons in the military have to learn the technique the instructor wants them to learn, and if they are taught to use one weapon, then get a completely new one, it is going to take time again to make sure they know how to use the new one and get ajusted again.

And the XM8 was cancelled for a reason. It had no other drastic improvements over the M16/M4 and it would of been to costly, especially the sight bateries. If it was such the super weapon it was made out to be, it would of probably been adopted because the Army was looking for a weapon that could be multipurpose with one varient for the rifleman, another for machinegunner, one for personal defense, and a sniper rifle varient.

And no one uses full auto, they usually burst when they have an auto feature.

08-15-2006, 08:32 AM	#32
[R-MOD]Bob_Marley Forum Moderator Join Date: May 2006 Yugoslavia Location: Essex, UK Posts: 4,903	Of course the reason the current 5.56mm round has been found to be ineffective is becuase its being used in a way it wasnt intended to be used. It was adopted in 1979 when it was needed to penetrate Warsaw pact body armour. And, the M855/SS109 round was a good trade off between armour peirceing capability and anti infantry effectiveness. However, I've never heard of Iraqi insergents wearing body armour. So, by far the cheapest solution would be to reissue M16A1s and .223 remmington (AKA 5.56 M193) as whilst it lacks the armour penetrating capabilites of the Belgian round, it is considerubly more effective as an anti personell round. It also retains the low recoil of a 5.56mm round. Which, even the most avid supporter of the 6.8mm SPC must agree would be increased. Also, the 6.8mm SPC was found to be balisically inferior to the 6.5mm Grendel anyway.
	The key to modernising any weapon is covering them in glue and tossing them in a barrel of M1913 rails until they look "Modern" enough. El_Vikingo: Bob_Marley, the level 70 pimp, will satisfy your needs. Many thanks to the Forum's no.1 hottie for the sig pretties.

08-15-2006, 10:16 AM	#34
Fullforce Retired PR Developer Join Date: Oct 2005 United Kingdom Location: Bournemouth, UK Posts: 3,716	To me, the XM8 looks waay oversized. It looks really cool in Ghost Recon 2 etc, and games - but in real life it just looks clunky and just way too big. Might just be me though,
	PR Steam Community \| ShackTactical

08-15-2006, 02:56 PM	#36
=NAA=Spaztik_Ferret Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Pensacola, FL. Posts: 291	The M16A4 is full auto? Hmmm I don't beleive that. I would doublecheck your sources Malik.
	I WILL TAKE THIS SIGNATURE OFF WHEN WE GET THE HUEY OR CH-53 IN PROJECT REALITY, MARINES DO NOT FLY BLACKHAWKS

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-15-2006, 09:34 AM	#33
~~Malik~~ Banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Posts: 1,677	I don't think the rifle replacement would be as difficult as people think it would be. I know at least for the US and UK armies they get some pretty decent training before they start and if you gave one of these guys a new rifle they'd sure as hell know how to use it. Soldiers aren't taught how to use the AK, but a lot of them use the ones they recover. Replacing the M16A4 is not as simple as just leaving the old ones back home for the cadets, if you're in training you're going to need to train with the rifle you'll actually be using. Training them with 3 round burst then giving them full auto on the field could lead to accidents happening as they don't know how to handle full auto. Replacing the M16, with say the XM8 would just require a talking to to all the soldiers and a demonstration of it, they wouldn't need to redo basic. The main problems would be in the field, they'd most likely supply it to one company and see how they got on in the field, edit it to their needs and then mass produce it some more. I'd have thought if you've been trained extensively with an M16, the only problem you'd have with a new rifle would be ergonomics, and as the M16 isn't the most comfortably looking design, I'm sure some guys would actually prefer the smooth curves of a next gen XM8 or similar. :P

08-15-2006, 02:00 PM	#35
trogdor1289 Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Classified. Posts: 5,230	I didn't know that the M16A4 was full auto. As to the XM-8 it just looks stupid but I suppose that doesn't matter if it works right?

08-15-2006, 03:09 PM	#37
trogdor1289 Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Classified. Posts: 5,230	Lol you should check out Colts PR page for the M16 http://www.colt.com/mil/M16.asp. The grammar is awe inspiring.

08-15-2006, 03:26 PM	#39
trogdor1289 Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Classified. Posts: 5,230	The M16A4 Rifle barrel is designed to accept the M203 Grenade Launcher which can easily be assembled to the rifle. On that fact lol. Not only is their grammar crap they have the most blatant PR writing ever. You should check out some of the other pages they have for the M4 for example.

Sponsored Links

Sponsored Links