Printable View
Old news for all the old-timers but still a pretty good read. It's an 8,000-word excerpt from a book published in 1981 called "National Defense" and gets into pretty good detail on the massive screw-up by the Army, in particular the ammo change.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-story/545153/
That was so frustrating to read.
Thanks for the link. While the subject matter of the article is a little frustrating, it seems pretty well written and concise for what it covers. I had gleaned the gist of the article long before hand, but this put things together nicely. I recommend you click on the link just for the photo if not for the content.
This is no different than any other development program in any other industry.
The Ford Pinto, Chevrolet Corvair, GM's ignition switch, the Apollo-1 fire, space shuttle Challenger and Columbia.... the list goes on ad infinitum.
There are always a handful of people with integrity that know the score, but the institutions won't do the right thing until people die. This will never change.
The system is reactive, not proactive. As Duman said, somebody has to die to bring about change. Predictive analysis is frowned upon, the present is more important to the status quo. I guess all's fair in love & war.
The article was pretty lengthy but certainly interesting enough to keep my undivided attention. I never really understood the AR15’s/M16’s and their AMMO problems enountered in Viet Nam until digesting this article. Thanks for posting that link which I have now got “bookmarked”.[blaster]
Makes me sick thinking of those dead Soldiers and Marines, who could have been alive were it not for the egos of engineers.
I had previously understood the propellant change was deviating from the original design to use 'stick' powder vs. 'ball' powder. The article seemed to focus on the 'IMR' term instead of 'stick' powder, but I've seen this info. before.
When you design anything by committee, it's usually a total cluster. Let the designers and engineers come up with the solution that meets/exceeds the design criteria, then don't allow the bureaucrats to mess with it.
I actually read the whole thing, rare for me to do so. I thought it was very good, I learned a lot!
I'm right there with you. I did a lot of looking into things when I worked with our S3 (Training) prior to deployment, and the bureaucratic nightmare that is the US Army development is awful. A new weapon system is desperately needed, and it looks like they're now looking into the 6.8 for a new caliber with some new style of casing (I can't recall the details ATM). I think this article proves, the AR-15 started out great, but after the Pentagon tried to re-invent the wheel it got messed up. Not saying the M-16/M4 system is bad, but could it be improved? Definitely. My M16 I qualified on in basic was a POS, and my brand new M4 I received prior to deploying wasn't a heck of a lot better- a step up for sure, but still had flaws. The shameful part is that the weapons you can get in the civilian market for a little more $$$ are leagues better than the "Lowest Bidder" systems the military currently issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983