My Rant (Military-esque)

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Fruscainte, Sep 29, 2009.

My Rant (Military-esque)

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Fruscainte, Sep 29, 2009.

  1. Fruscainte

    Fruscainte New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    80
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Florida
    First and foremost don't be going around here with "PROOF PL0X" (I'm new here, this is what I'm accustomed to from previous forums). I'll gladly post some links later on, but for now I'm just sticking to my rant. Now, without further adieu`

    -----------------------------------------

    The M-16A1/A2 assault rifle. Worst f*cking assault rifle in bloody history, but for some reasy it's appraised as a demi-god like thing. Seriously, this thing freaking sucks. I've shot it a few times, and it may be a bit more accurate than; oh say, a G3, or an AR-15 (which I've both also shot) but to readjust the sights you need to spend a few seconds with a bloody ballpoint pen. I remember when I got just a little smidgen of mud in the chamber, after about 6 shots it jammed up.

    Not to mention the ineffectiveness practically. The barrel is so delicate that you can't stick a bayonette on it or anything, only a grenade launcher and maybe a laser sight. How does those help in close quarters, when your opponent is approaching with bayonetted weapons and you have to take out some flimsy dagger?

    -

    Dragonskin armor. Seriously, what the F*ck. This body armor is EXPODENTIALLY (sp?) stronger than Kevlar. Just as a little background, Kevlar is hardly bulletproof. It only protects against pistol ammo, not even all pistols and shotguns if they're shooting from a retardedly long range. Also, US soldiers (for the most part) have to purchase their own in the mainland force.

    Now, let's look at some statistics from -PROFESSIONAL TESTS- (There are dozens of video's of it on youtube and articles on google). The Dragonskin works very simply, it is a bunch of scales (as said) that instead of taking in the blunt of the impact like Kevlar it spreads out in the scales so the person takes little or no shock.

    They put this armor on a test dummy and shot an AK-47, an entire clip from about 50 yards into the chest all at once. Only two got through. Now, of course in a real combat situation someone wouldnt often get all 30 shots off into someone at once. So, what does that tell you? This body armor is freaking amazing.

    It's also MUCH lighter, and it's MUCH cheaper to make. By much, I mean literally hundreds if not thousands (I dont got an exact number, pardon go look it up). Want to know why we're not using them in our forces? Because some dipsh*t in the project put one up on Ebay or something. Seriously, that's it?

    ----

    Missle defense system. What's with people so against this thing? Do people not know how a bloody nuke works? They think if we shoot the nuke out of the sky, it'll blow up right above their countries and have massive fallouts and such. Let me put this in big bold letters.

    NO IT WILL NOT

    I'll give a quick lesson here. A nuclear warhead works like this: There either Plutonium or Uranium buldged up in said warhead (depending on what kind it is, but it all works the same nonetheless) and it has dozens and dozens of charges on each side equally.

    When the bomb is ready to go off, the charges go off in such a specific order (down to the nano-second) so the plutonium/uranium blasts and rams into each other at the exact right speed, distance, and time. If this sequence (the charges going off) is but a FRACTION of a mili-second off, even with one charge, the Nuke won't go off. You'll just have a giant heap of Plutonium or Uranium falling from the sky. Which is expodentially less severe than a whole nuke.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but why do people have a problem with this system then? We shoot the propulsion system out of the missle, it drops like a rock (literally) into the ocean or whatever. There is such a little chance of the nuke actually going off it's ridiculous to put it into a debate as why not to do it.

    ----

    I can think of more if I spent some time, but that's it for now.
     
  2. darkone

    darkone Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,698
    Likes received:
    6
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Mississippi
    US army?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the size of an M-16 round is tiny compared to most other ARs? 5.56 compared to 7. something soemthing. Quite a bit smaller, and a lot less energy. So simply for that I think we need to upgrade. But a lot of countries that use larger guns are slowly adopting smaller more full of rounds weapons like the M-16.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2009
  3. Fruscainte

    Fruscainte New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    80
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Florida
    The gun is advanced, yes. The bullets are much larger than some other AR's, however the viability of it and the inability to adapt with it is it's greatest dowfall. I gave reasons above, so I wont reiterate them.

    Let's go real time here, I'll use a classic example of AK-47 vs M-16 (despite how worn out the argument is). Yes, the M-16 may be more accurate, shoot farther, and more damage. However, how effective is that in a jungle enviorment; let us say where it jams every clip or two where the AK-47 can keep up sustained fire.

    I'd much rather take versatility, easier handling, durability and so forth over the size of a bullet and a bit more high tech equipment if the latter is always bugging up. Personally.
     
  4. darkone

    darkone Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,698
    Likes received:
    6
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Mississippi
    You in the military?

    What was I thinking anyway? 7. bla bla, what is the rest of this figure?
     
  5. PancakeChef

    PancakeChef New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    756
    Likes received:
    3
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    United States
    I have heard this rant/argument many times about how unreliable the M-16A2 can be. I have a few friends that are currently serving in the US military in the army I'll have to ask what they think.
     
  6. asdf

    asdf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes received:
    6
    Trophy points:
    0
    5.56 WAS the upgrade from 7.62. it is lighter (i.e. you can carry more clips) and more accurate than the old 7.62mm round. a big fat round is useless if you're not hitting anything with it. if you need power AND accuracy, drop the AR and call in a sniper.
     
  7. Fenix

    Fenix Moderator

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes received:
    11
    Trophy points:
    0
    Man.

    I want ImaGine. to post in this thread.
     
  8. darkone

    darkone Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,698
    Likes received:
    6
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Mississippi
    Yea me too.
     
  9. Jshep89

    Jshep89 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    534
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    yeah i work with a lot of vets..... i'll ask them but all i hear is them actually praising the M-16....
     
  10. PancakeChef

    PancakeChef New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    756
    Likes received:
    3
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    United States
    I just asked a friend of mine thats in the millitary about the M16A2 and he says as long as you keep it clean it rarely jams and that he has fired over 500 rounds in a session without it jamming once. He also says it could be the magazine and not the rifle itself. This is coming from a soldier that is serving and uses the weapon all the time. Finally he says he prefers the M16A2 over the AK because the AK has too much recoil for his taste and that he would bet his life on a M16A2.

    The thing about the delicate barrel, he says yes you can stick a bayonet on it and that they used to have basic training where you stab a piece of hard wood and yank it out and run back. Personally he says if you havn't went through basic training in any branch of the US military you need to stop talking and that is the polite version.

    Also on a side note, this isn't your previous forum you'll have to make due with the rules of this site.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2009
  11. Fenix

    Fenix Moderator

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes received:
    11
    Trophy points:
    0
    Funny thing is, the AK actually has more stopping power (as far as I know). It fires a slower but larger slug. Where the M16's bullets will go right through you at close to medium range, an AK bullet will leave a large and rather messy hole where their lung used to be.


    As far as intercepting/crippling a nuke, it's far more complex than that. Let me expound.

    (A) It's a missile. Those generally travel crazy *** fast. Why do you think they can shoot down a plane going MACH 1.5-2+? That would be like trying to shoot the logo of a Ferrari as it's screaming past you.
    (B) Ok, so, you have take-Vegas-for-all-it's-worth luck and manage to shoot out the propulsion system. Gratz, the warhead is still armed and ready blow at the push of a button. Most nuclear weapons have a, for lack of a better term, self-destruct mechanism (generally designed to keep the technology from falling into the wrong hands, but also to blow it incase it falls short of the intended target).

    And that's with a conventional mobile-based missile. When you factor in an ICBM, things get reaaaaally tough. Instead of shooting the logo of a Ferrari, you're shooting the beak off a dive bombing falcon. From 10k away. And you don't know where the falcon is diving from.

    The BIGGEST problem of programs like Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is that is almost no way to predict when a missile launches, very difficult to plot its course from launch, and insanely hard to keep track of it long enough to draw a trajectory. And that was when ICBM's were still atmospheric. Nowadays, they have the capability of extra-atmospheric trajectories, literally flying through the exosphere.

    It's really not simple.
     
  12. Aurora

    Aurora The Defiant

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,732
    Likes received:
    15
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    The Netherlands
    I think that most of the criticism on a missile defence system isn't pointed towards if it's possible or not. NASA managed to get a sattelite-ish vehicle next to a comet, and shot a probe at it. That happened like, a billion miles away. Add to that the speed of the comet, (insanely fast) and I really start to doubt if shooting a missile is as hard as you said. I mean, they've tested this stuff, right?

    The problem lies in it's indirect offensive capabilities. If a country becomes "immune" to missile attacks, then it can nuke other countries without having to fear being nuked back. It's that simple, I think. It makes other countries feel very unsafe. Think of the recent missile tests in North-Korea. Or even more recent: Iran. It's not like they can defeat (if there is such a thing as a "win" in a war) other countries in a full scale war, it's about the damage that such a system could do. A missile defence system takes away the most powerfull weapon a country has, while the defending country can still use it.

    How would you feel if you heard that the Taliban was developing such a system, hm?
     
  13. Fenix

    Fenix Moderator

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes received:
    11
    Trophy points:
    0
    Ehhh.

    Not really.

    NASA knew exactly where the comet would be. Simple math. As I stated, it's hard to plot a missile's route. Anyways, the distance helps. It's easier to catch a ball than block a punch, no?

    Also, and this may be nitpicking, but even if a country is immune to missile attacks, it does not mean it's immune to nukes. It's totally fictional, but watch/read Sum of all Fears (I liked it :< ). Suitcase bomb yadda yadda.
     
  14. Aurora

    Aurora The Defiant

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,732
    Likes received:
    15
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    The Netherlands
    Fenix: There's always the suitcase bomb!
    Aurora: That's fiction! Nukes need to be big and detonated a few hundred feet in the air for maximum blast radius.
    Fenix: But it still could knock out a power plant/military base.

    etc.

    We were talking missiles. ;p
    Also, I think that predicting where a missile is going shouldn't be a problem. If they can track it in real time, then why would it be impossible to alter the course of the defensive missile to that? Not claiming to be an expert here, but I've seen my fair share of documentaries on this. Cruise missiles can alter their course, so I think it's safe to assume that a much smaller and agile missile can do the same.
     
  15. Fenix

    Fenix Moderator

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes received:
    11
    Trophy points:
    0
    That's what I'm saying, they can't track it real time :p

    As for the little roleplay, depends on what you're trying to do. If you're going for destruction, yes, midair detonation. However, if you're looking for a localized blast with minimal infrastructure damage but maximum loss of life, you detonate it at ground level.
     
  16. Aurora

    Aurora The Defiant

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,732
    Likes received:
    15
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    The Netherlands
    If you want death and no damage, detonate a neutron bomb. Or if you're an evil dictator: bioweapons. That's something which I actually can worry about sometimes. If a nuke hits a house, the people inside probably wouldn't even live long enough to notice it. Bioweapons are freaking slow and painfull, and you don't need nucleair plants to be build. Your neighbours could be making one in their garage right now, and you wouldn't notice. :/

    Now for the tracking thing again. One more idea left, and then it would start to get unrealistic.
    I really, really doubt that all technology of any country is accessable to the general public. Not talking Skynet from Terminator 3 here, but there's probably already something more advanced out there. Why use tech that you don't need yet in public?

    But as I said: just guessing. Maybe I should leave you Amaricans alone. Talk about your guns. ;p
     
  17. Imagine.

    Imagine. New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    The M-16 series of rifles are hardly the worst assault rifles in history. It's early beginnings were plagued with problems that have mostly been resolved as with all modern assault rifles. I'll admit that the AK-47 wins for ruggedness, power, and cleaning because all you have to do is dip a piece of cloth in motor oil and run it down the barrel and TADA It's clean! The AK-47 is an excellent weapon system because of its simplicity but to just claim the M16 is **** is by far outrageous.

    The M16 was developed because it was lightweight and shot more rounds downrange than the Russian AK-47. This was with the mindset that the additional rounds were considered to be a force multiplier coupled with research that smaller rounds shot at higher velocities were as lethal and accurate as heavier rounds. Even the Russians adopted a round similar to the 5.56 mm. Search for the AK-74 which fires 5.45 mm rounds. This lightweight approach held true as troops also had to carry heavier loads on their person.

    The weapon when properly maintained is as reliable as it can get. That is why when you are first issued an M-16, you are given extensive classes on weapons maintenance. It is literally drilled into your mind.

    Let's talk M16A1:
    It had barrel rifling for 1:12 twists making one angry bullet. This is when it was firing the 55-grain 5.56 mm. It really tore things up as the A1's muzzle velocity is 3,250 fps. But it had it's problems and so the A2 was born.

    M16A2/A3:
    They dropped the barrel rifling from 1:12 to 1:7 to accommodate heavier rounds (i.e. 66 and 77 grain and others in between) This time the M16A2 was firing 66-grain 5.56 mm ammunition but the heavier round came out at 3,100 fps.

    Both systems have been improved upon over the years and there is a much better variant available in the M-16A4. Heavier... but way better... like srsly.

    When you are first issued the weapon, you must mechanically zero it and then adjust to your preference. It may take a while depending on the shooter because weapons are affected by trigger squeeze and breathing which is why battle sight zero is very important! The windage and elevation knobs are there for a reason. Use them.

    Given that you sound like a weekend shooting hobbyist, you may be using the civilian version of the M16 which does not carry the bayonet lug. I would not even compare the civilian version with the MILSPEC one. I would also like to point out that fixing bayonets makes the rifle unwieldy. Why use bayonets when you've got the M4 Carbine and combat knives?

    The M-16 system is prone to jams due to dust, debris and just like PancakeChef's friend mentioned, magazines. But name me a rifle that isn't made of stamped parts that doesn't.

    What are you talking about?! The AR platform has so much options available that adapting to certain situations is a cinch! Want to fire a bigger round? Just purchase another upper receiver chambered for 6.5 GRENDEL, 6.8 REM SPC, COLT 7.62, and other calibers and you are golden. Want a telescopic buttstock? Get one. The AR platform just has so much accessories to offer, it is insane especially now that the M-16A4 with RAIL system is available.

    The M-16 fires a smaller and lighter round (5.56x45mm NATO) Stopping power is poor. Penetration is great. The round may or may not fragment on impact... but when it does... damage is extensive.

    The AK-47 fires a much bigger and heavier round (7.62x39mm WARSAW) Stopping power is great. Penetration is great. I'd use the AK-47 in CQC because of its reliability but I would like to note that it is an unwieldy weapon. Great for spraying and praying which is what a lot of insurgents do any way...

    I am in favor of the M16 series because I am mostly familiar with it and because It just feels right in my arms! What I think would improve the weapon system and clear it of the injustice of the mouse killer round is if we adopt an intermediate round such as the 6.5 or 6.8.

    Dragon Skin Armor is definitely not cheaper than Interceptor Body Armor though it offers way better protection. Dragon Skin is not lighter. It is 20 pounds heavier. Dragon Skin is not issued because it failed tests and the cost is simply too great to purchase for each individual soldier/marine/airman/sailor. The military thinks about cost, hands down. Currently, there are military members in theater testing out the armor so it may or may not get a second chance to prove itself!

    You have to remember that weight is a big issue when on OPS (Refer to M16 post) Currently the load of all gear put together is upwards of 90 pounds and that is not even combat load.

    I cannot believe what Obama has done short changing our allies by not delivering on promised missile defense systems. Not only that! He said that these technologies were unproven and yet... we fielded them with success. Does anyone remember when North Korea promised it would send an ICBM (Taepodong-2) towards Hawaii during the 4th of July celebrations? Why then did we deploy "unproven" missile defense systems? As CINC... this guy fails completely and this is from first hand experience.

    Just to clarify:

     
  18. Fenix

    Fenix Moderator

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes received:
    11
    Trophy points:
    0
    Tell the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that a nuke ins't slow and painful. Tell that to all the downwinders during the nuclear testing era. Sure, there's the initial blast. But the real killer is that of the radioactive fallout. It can last literally decades and we have the capability to make a 'dirty bomb,' one where the fallout would be measured in centuries.

    There is more advanced than what we had 40 years ago, naturally. The problem stems from the fact that the weaponry itself is also more advanced. Stronger motors, smaller warheads with the same payload. That's not even taking into account ICBM's similar to the Minuteman III, ICBM's known as MIRVs. These nukes break up in the upper atmosphere and can have anywhere from three to twelve independently targeted warheads. It's like trying to shoot down rain, except rain doesn't have the possibility of completely destroying a city.
     
  19. Aurora

    Aurora The Defiant

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,732
    Likes received:
    15
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    The Netherlands
    Dirty bomb as in the game Fallout? But about the radioactive part: I was only talking about being hit by one. I would rather be hit directly by that shockwave, then get some creepy disease.

    Nice ownage, ImaGiNe..
     
  20. Jshep89

    Jshep89 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    534
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    Okay, so I asked some combat vets and they all agree on the AK-47 point. They say that because its more durable it can be relied on more. I mean its like a glock you bury it in sand, cover it with mud, or let it gather rust it will still shoot. The only thing the M-16 A4 has over it is its accuracy in long range.

    The dragonskin armor wasn't issued because it didn't pass field testing. It literally shattered during various field tests.

    As for the missile defense system.... yeah I think they should implement it, but reasons for why they haven't may be because it didn't pass field tests, or they found something that can do the job better.