Quantcast

Camo design for U.S. Army chosen by political committee made our soldiers MORE visible. But for 8 years our soldiers were forced to wear them. Is this an example of why politicians should let military experts handle most military matters?

tncdel 2012/07/01 00:04:45
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • frank 2012/07/02 20:33:05
    YES [comment as you wish].
    frank
    Most of congerss only care about how much does it cost, not will it save lives.
  • Vision of Verve 2012/07/01 14:09:57
  • Don Leuty 2012/07/01 09:18:37
    YES [comment as you wish].
    Don Leuty
    +2
    Shades of Robert McNamara. His involvement in cutting costs on the M-16 cost a lot of lives. There are a number of things that need to be left in the hands of those in the know.
    Not just in the military. The impetus to achieve the world's most perfect surface on the Hubble mirror led to completely ignore testing the figure it at 0-g.
  • RobHom Don Leuty 2012/07/01 14:28:49
    RobHom
    +1
    McNamara was an f'ing douchebag.... He should have been forced to do a HALO jump over Hanoi without a chute!!
  • Don Leuty RobHom 2012/07/01 16:26:52
    Don Leuty
    +2
    That's a little harsh. I think a one year supply of corn cob toilet wipe is sufficent. That was harsh on the Vietnamese, that is.
  • RobHom Don Leuty 2012/07/01 22:27:13 (edited)
  • Don Leuty RobHom 2012/07/02 05:06:45
    Don Leuty
    +2
    That has it's merits. White phosphorus has some properties that might prove desirable in this instance.
  • RobHom Don Leuty 2012/07/02 12:16:04
    RobHom
    +1
    Most definitely!!
  • mwg0735 2012/07/01 07:45:39
  • RobHom mwg0735 2012/07/01 14:27:51
    RobHom
    I've always wondered why the Air Force wore cammies to begin with! But hey, the blue was kind a cute....
  • Kane Fernau 2012/07/01 00:47:12
    YES [comment as you wish].
    Kane Fernau
    +2
    Democrats would put our fighting men in skirts if they could.
  • Vision ... Kane Fe... 2012/07/01 14:10:12
  • Dan 2012/07/01 00:39:24
    YES [comment as you wish].
    Dan
    +2
    Go back to the first M16. Many claim that it cost American lives in Viet Nam before the bugs were finally (somewhat) worked out.
  • RobHom Dan 2012/07/01 14:26:30
    RobHom
    +1
    The M-16 was a piece of crap....it was a "mattie mattel" piece of flimsy junk that would jam in a heart beat... I was in Vietnam when the conversion came....all of us were pissed when they took our M-14's!! Their excuse was that the M-14 was to long and bulky....so cut the freaking barrel off. If an M-16 round hit a twig....it would fly off somewhere...the M-14 round cut the twig and kept on going....and it was far more accurate to boot.
  • Don Leuty RobHom 2012/07/01 16:37:37
    Don Leuty
    +1
    The official line was accuracy out to 600 meters and allowed the troop to carry more round. McNamara was looking only at the cheaper logistical load. 5.56mm (.223) vs 7.62mm (.308). Chinching at Ford is one thing, but not where our soldiers lives hang in the balance. After chroming the chamber, faulty extractions dropped dramatical.

    Now the penny pinchers have the matty spitting rounds in 3-round bursts. Heaven help us all. The IE's will rule the world.
  • RobHom Don Leuty 2012/07/01 22:39:01 (edited)
  • Dan RobHom 2012/07/01 17:48:17 (edited)
    Dan
    I've heard that from many Nam vets. Some say they ditched their M16 for an AK. Others say that's bull because many GI's would shoot at the sound of an AK and you didn't want to be near one. All agreed that the M16 was, like you said, junk. I was in the regular army 1986-1990. I found the M16 to be high maintenance. If you didn't clean it every few minutes it would jam (only a slight exaggeration). Of course I do realize in training they weren't going to use their newest best weapons. And near the Korean DMZ we were a "speed bump" so the same goes there. I often said the M16 was very accurate and fun to shoot but certainly would not be my first choice in combat. (I volunteered for the M60 when I was in Korea, much heavier on a road march though!) The AK on the other hand was well known for being drug behind a vehicle on a rope through mud and muck and you'd still be able to pick it up and shoot it. I also heard from Iraq vets that the M16 couldn't penetrate through heavy wooden doors that Ak's were shooting out of. Replaceing the 45 with the 9mm was not popular either. So often the experts know so little. A coworker even told me about a 30 year old automotive engineer who had never even changed his own oil. When he tried for the first time he ended up having the car towed in and someone else finished the job. You see this everywhere. Makes me wonder.
  • RobHom Dan 2012/07/01 22:48:59
    RobHom
    +1
    No, No...AK bad. Fire one...you'd get lit up in a heartbeat.... The AK...if Russian made... the Kalishnikov....(sp)....was one helluva weapon....but the Chicom model, which was also the SKS...semi-auto...was pretty much a throw away gun.

    Oh, we had our 16's....had to...but we got our hands on other weapons... One of my guys scrounged up a BAR....another a WWII 30 cal MG....I had a British Enfield bolt action 303. Yes the AK could take a beating an keep on ticking...but so could the M-14.... At least when we had the 14's...if we were low on ammo we could break the belts of the 60's....and if you hit the little f'er....he was down for the count. We dum-dummed alot of our rounds...and we would sometimes build a belt of all tracers to make the dinks think we were running mini-guns!

    16's were only good for close in fighting...its what they were designed for. We were supposed to chuck .223 bullets at an enemy firing 7.92mm at us....oh gosh oh golly.
  • Dan RobHom 2012/07/02 00:16:58
    Dan
    +1
    I know what you mean about the AK vs SKS. I helped put a fiber stock with pistol grip on an SKS and it did seem like the SKS was not made with good craftsmanship. Still fun and accurate though. I've never fired an M14. I'd like to someday. Me son is kind of a historical gun enthusiast. I bought him a Nagant (they're cheap) for Christmas a couple years ago, that was a hit. One of my brother in laws (also a Nam vet) has an M1 carbine. I'd like to get an M1 Garand someday. My dad used one in Korea, but they're popular and not cheap.
  • RobHom Dan 2012/07/02 00:26:17
    RobHom
    Getting your hands on an M-14....you'd have to rob a Federal Armory....which by the way is not a good idea. The M-14 was a selectable fully automatic weapon...took about 4 seconds to go through a clip of 20....it had a cycling rate of 550 to 600 rounds per minute... You can buy M-1A1's though which is the non automatic version that cannot be converted....most of them are not cheap either though...many that are for sale are usually "match grade".... I brought a 1939 Nazi Mauser back from Vietnam... all the serial numbers matched...and it had been on cosmoline all those years.... My apartment was broken into and it and other items were stolen.... The Nagant is a pretty good rifle...it was the standard infantry issue of the Soviet Army in WWII... The M-1 Garand was a good rifle as well...
  • tncdel 2012/07/01 00:38:56
    YES [comment as you wish].
    tncdel
    If FDR and Truman hadn't stopped Patton from liberating all of Europe up to the Russian border, we wouldn't have had a Europe divided between free capitalism and communist oppression. Same with Truman stopping MacArthur from liberating all of Korea.
  • Dan tncdel 2012/07/01 01:04:08 (edited)
    Dan
    North Korea was a bit more complicated. I would have very much liked to see Korea unified under the South but at times McArthur was his own worst enemy. Downplaying reports of large numbers of Chinese forces in North Korea didn't help anyone. To be fair the Government all but dismantling our superior military just before the Korean war was also a major factor. Politicians thought the A bomb was the end to all wars. That is another good example of politicians failing because they did not want to listen to military experts. That is one reason I like to elect representatives with some military (or even law enforcement) experience. They're not as likely to be so naive.
  • Don Leuty Dan 2012/07/01 16:40:11
    Don Leuty
    I guess they suffer from equal opportunity deafness. They don't listen to civilian experts, either.
  • Stryder 2012/07/01 00:18:10
    YES [comment as you wish].
    Stryder
    +1
    Just one of many.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/28 08:29:52

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals