Quote:
Originally Posted by sigsour
And we're saying that the primary object of a soldier's effectiveness must be compromised for $1600? I don't buy that.
I respect soldiers, so obviously I think it's worth $1600 to protect that - especially if you factor in the hidden costs of a failed gun. Millions spent on insurance? Side effects from missing a target who goes on to kill someone else or becomes a suicide bomber?
Anyway - obviously this thread is not directed to anyone here, I just feel it's sad that the bureaucrats who make these decisions don't value those who sacrifice their lives. I think more people would joined the armed forces if they knew they would get the best equipment.
By the way - how many infantry ground battles have the US won since WW2?
|
Troops die. That's their job.
It's the government's job to make it happen in an economicaly frugal manner.
And honestly, the gear we have is by and large pretty damn good. While I appreciate your support, I'd suggest you need to undertake some strategic studies before getting too insenced over the issue. On the topic of small arms, there are undoubtedly dozens of better personal weapon systems out there. But appropriation, if not practical, is useless and creates more problems than it will solve. For the purposes of the US/Cdn army as a whole, the AR system does a damned good job. There's no need for everybody to be Delta or SEAL with custom built rifles for every occasion. Even then, a goodly number of them use armalites.
Think of the logistics behind it: there are hundreds of thousands (likely numbering in the millions) of old weapons that will have to be replaced. Contracts will have to be made for creation, distribution, upkeep and training. Even little things such as cleaning kits and rifle racks will have to be redone, not to mention magazines and experimenting with new bullet loads. Or the cost of cancelling current contracts with firearms manufacturers. Even if a 416 drop-in reciever kit is used, most of these considerations will still apply. The fastest time frame that can get done in is years, and it would cost assloads of money that could do more good elsewhere. Utter logistical nightmare, especially considering that there hasn't been any new revolution in small arms development.
If I was in command of a unit, I'd rather have them fighting with an inferior weapon they know rather than a new one they didn't, especially given the relatively insubstantial disparity between the two. There are a number of historical examples that demonstrate this as well. Remember the army's boondoggle with the AR15 in Vietnam? You don't want to be doing field tests in the middle of a war.
ps. US ground forces have won virtually EVERY tactical engagement they have EVER been in since WW2, and most operational ones. Any failures beyond that were made on a strategic or grand strategic level.
edit: to go back to the airsoft thing - availability is an important thing. It's easy to find a v2 mechbox or mag catch when they're as common as hydrogen. Try finding a replacement parts for a v1/v5 gearbox or a P90 trigger in a time frame that isn't 'weeks to months, if ever'.