U.S. Soldiers Hate New High-Tech Gear

mattnyc99 writes "Land Warrior, the Army's wireless equipment package featuring helmet cams, GPS, laser range-finders and a host of other state-of-the-art electronics, is finally ready for deployment on a global battlefield network in Iraq after 15 years of R&D at the Pentagon. But in a report for Popular Mechanics, Noah Shachtman not only tries on the new digital armor—he talks to troops who don't like it at all. As if that wasn't disheartening enough for the future of tech at war, the real Land Warrior system doesn't even match up to its copycat gear in Ghost Recon 2."

Comments

Just Like The M16

[CastrTroy]

This sounds just like the story of the M16 vs. the AK47. The M16 is a much better gun, designed to be much more sophisitcated. But in the end, it ends up being worse because tight tolerances cause it to jam up, and require cleaning all the time, where-as the AK47 will fire under just about any conditions. The AK47 is also heavier which is really nice when you get into hand-to-hand combat and you can just whack the other guy with it.

Re:Just Like The M16

[arachnoprobe]

The AK47 is also heavier...

I suppose you never carried a weapon around for more than 200feet, right? Nobody would choose the AK over the M16 for any foot-based combat.

And lets not forget that you can't fire the AK47 from prone position cause the mag is too long (Soviet doctrine didn't include that, only storming against your enemy...). Also the AK47 is not the same caliber (7.62 short instead of 5.56), therefore the better comparison would have been to the Heckler & Koch G36 - which is, in fact, superior to the M16.

Re:Just Like The M16

[shawn443]

I have never fired an AK-47 but I have certainly heard of its merits. The M16 however is an awesome weapon. The sighting mechanism allows me to reliably hit a man size target from 500 yards away. As far as jamming, it rarely happens and they are easily cleared. I have had a sand fucked chamber and it still fired true. As long as you have your handy scrub brush and some CLP, there is no excuse for a jam unless your in the middle of the perfect sandstorm. Maybe I am partial, but if the apocalypse comes and I find a stash of AK's and a stash of M16's, I am grabbing all the M16's I can. I want one shot one kill not spray and pray.

Re:Just Like The M16

[UseTheSource]

An M4 (I can never figure out the sequence of these numbers) is a good deal tougher long-term than the antique M16.

Says who? They're basically the same rifle. They have pretty much the same exact receiver assemblies, bolt carrier group and internal parts. All's an M4 is, is an M16 with a 14.5" barrel and a tele-stock (which basically has the same recoil buffer tube as the M16, but without the extra plastic around it to protect it).

Re:Just Like The M16

[UnknowingFool]

The M16 is a much better gun, designed to be much more sophisitcated. But in the end, it ends up being worse because tight tolerances cause it to jam up, and require cleaning all the time, where-as the AK47 will fire under just about any conditions.

That would depend on how you define "better". The M16 is more accurate than the AK-47 but costs more to make. The AK-47 was designed with wider tolerances because the designer felt that most gun battles were at close ranges and thus more rapid fire and better reliability were more important than accuracy. Being from the Soviet doctrine, low cost was almost essential as the Soviet Army could not afford more expensive guns.

Part of the early M16 jamming problem went back to initial manufacturing decisions by the Pentagon. Although the decision to use ball powder instead of stick powder was blamed, many felt that the real culprit was the decision of McNamara and his group not to line the barrel and chamber with chrome. It was a cost cutting decision but by not using a chrome lining, corrosion would occur and would cause jams.

Re:Just Like The M16

[Frymaster]

I suppose you never carried a weapon around for more than 200feet, right? Nobody would choose the AK over the M16 for any foot-based combat.

to be fair, the ak is 9.5lb to the m16's 7.8lb. not a massive difference, and the ak's shorter length compensates for its weight in fast-aim situations.

now, having said that, the m16 has gotten an unfair reputation as a reliability disaster. much of this rep comes from vietnam-era experiences that are 40 years old. the problems with the m16 during vietnam were basically caused by manufacturer's lies and the army's inability to actually read the manual. notably:

• the m-16 was billed as being 'self-cleaning'. sounds patently ridiculous today, but that was the advertising buzz at the time.
• as a result, the army did not issue cleaning kits to ground troops and provided little or no cleaning instruction. this, of course, resulted in total disaster.
• the m16 was tested and spec'd for ammunition made with a particular clean-burning powder (manufactured by dupont i think). production ammunition for vietnam did not meet this spec and was, in fact, significantly more dirty.
• the original m16 spec called for chrome lining of the barrel. production m16's in vietnam didn't have this resulting in some pretty spectacular corrosion

add to this the fact that the finniky m16 was being used in an environment that was humid, hot and dirty and... well, failure was inevitable.

Re:Just Like The M16

[Hijacked Public]

The better comparison would have been the AK74. Almost identical mechanically to the AK47 but in a closer caliber.

Most of the serious consideration the US armed forces have given to replacing the M16 and its variants have been along the lines of what is essentially the same rifle but with a gas piston driven recoil system (HK 416), instead of dumping combustion gas directly into the receiver. That indicates the general design of the thing can still compete with stuff rolling off of drawing boards today.

The G36 may look cool, but it has definite drawbacks, not the least of which is a relatively unproven polymer receiver. It isn't common but sustained fire, particularly with a suppressor attached, can damage it. The zero of the weapon will shift, or it can melt enough to render the thing useless. That and no one trusts polymer magazines in a rifle yet.

Re:Just Like The M16

[eodtech]

The M-16 family of weapons is far superior to the AK-47 family in just about every way. The M-16 is modular in design, much better ergonomics, longer ranged, leaps & bounds more accurate. The M-16 initially had issues with reliability when it was first fielded due to DoD being cheap, they didn't chrome-line the chamber and the propellant used in the ammunition had Calcium Carbonate in it.

The Chrome-lined chamber had been a mandatory requirement as it was learned during WWII in the Pacific theater that ammunition left in chamber for extended period of time would get stuck in a non chrome-lined chamber, the McNamara crew thought this was needless waste of money. Until chrome-lined barrels came to replace them, it became Standard Operating Procedure to discard the chambered round on a daily basis.

The Calcium Carbonate was added to reclaimed propellant by Olin (recycled propellant from older ammo), again a "cost saving" program from the McNamara crew. Calcium Carbonate very rapidly would foul the M-16's gas system, it should be noted if the AK used ammo with the Calcium Carbonate in the propellant it to would jam the AK's gas system.

As far as cleaning the weapon wether it is an AK or an M-16, the user needs to keep it clean and that is done daily or more so depending on the conditions. The AK will jam just as easy if it has been neglected. Also other things can lead to "Jamming"; bad magazines, bad lot of ammunition, etc.

Re:Just Like The M16

[chuckymonkey]

Two pounds is significant. Have you ever cleared a building with one? Why do you think we all went to the M4? It's smaller lighter and much better for urban combat due to its weight than the M16. I have carried both and even though the M4 is just a shorter lighter version of the M16 with a stock that collapses I still prefer it in the urban environment because of the weight. Also desert dust is ugly to firearms like both of them, that's why I had a can of WD40 with me, best thing for cleaning them that I ever found.

Re:Just Like The M16

[norton_I]

The design considerations for a gun to be used in hunting, military action, and law enforcement are all considerably different. It isn't so much a difference in the target (medium sized mammals are all the same), but the goal, the environment, and the acceptable side effects.

For instance, the AK47 and M16 would make poor deer hunting weapons because they have low stopping power (your deer is likely to run off out of sight before dying) in burst fire mode, multiple hits are likely, which is bad if you actually want the meat or hide, as well as making it somewhat more dangerous to fellow hunters.

Regardless of the technical definition of an assault weapon, the guns most often labeled as such were clearly designed for attacking groups of human targets. It isn't always cut and dry, since as you say the round makes a considerable difference in the performance of a weapons. That doesn't mean there is no distinction.

Whether or how to regulate weapons of all types is a much more complicated question, but to argue that there is no distinction between handguns, hunting rifles, and assault weapons is simply ignoring the truth.

Re:Just Like The M16

[purpleraison]

This sounds just like the story of the M16 vs. the AK47. The M16 is a much better gun, designed to be much more sophisitcated. But in the end, it ends up being worse because tight tolerances cause it to jam up, and require cleaning all the time, where-as the AK47 will fire under just about any conditions. The AK47 is also heavier which is really nice when you get into hand-to-hand combat and you can just whack the other guy with it.

Um, I agree and disagree with you, so let me add to what you posted. The m16 has a receiver that jams easily no question about that, but the m16 has gone through numerous modifications over the decades to make it more tolerant to foreign material -- still has a tendency to jam, but nowhere near the levels seen during Vietnam which was where it was first discovered what a prissy bitch this rifle is.

Where I disagree with you is on the weight. Nobody gives a crap about being able to whack a guy with their rifle, but rather how it fatigues you when carrying it in the ready position (which is like 80% of the time). Cutting one pound weight is enough to make people pee their pants in joy, and in reality makes little difference in hand to hand combat (which is approximately 0% of the time, and if it isn't you're probably not reading this because you're dead).

What soldiers care about are; reliability, accuracy, and weight -- in that order.

Re:Just Like The M16

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a blast from the past... Homeboy Nyte Sytes. The solution to all your gangsta cap-poppin' problems.

It appears birdman.org has gone the way of the dodo, as I've had to use the wayback machine to get this... Oh well.

Re:Just Like The M16

[Anonymous Coward]

In the northern US, the AK-47 and M16 may not be as suitable for deer hunting but in the southern states they are fine since deer have thinner skin and are not as heavy. The AK-47 is roughly the same as a 30-30 which has probably taken more game in North America than any other cartridge. The 5.56 NATO round used in the M16 is certainly more powerful than it's parent cartridge, the .222. A lot of turkey, Texas white tail, varmint, and other depredating animals have fallen to the .222, .223, and 5.56mm.

Re:Just Like The M16

[denzacar]

And lets not forget that you can't fire the AK47 from prone position cause the mag is too long (Soviet doctrine didn't include that, only storming against your enemy...). What kind of a idiot told you that?

I am guessing you have never held either of those rifles in your hands, right?

From Wikipedia:

M16A2 and later variants weigh more (8.5 lb or 3.9 kg loaded) because of the adoption of a thicker barrel profile.

AK47 Weight 3.8 kg (9.5 lb) empty, 4.3 kg loaded Now... when I was in the army, we could choose (well.. more or less...) if we wanted to be issued a AK47 or a M16A1.
(Note: That version is lighter - 2.9 kg (6.4 lb) But since most of our AK47 had collapsible stock... it comes to the same weight difference.)

We had to learn to use both AK47 and M16, and we had firing practice with both rifles.

In both cases we have been shooting from a prone position. In both cases we were issued 30-bullet magazines.

Difference? In those conditions almost none.
In real warfare? AK47 is more practical for trench or urban warfare and storming the targets as well because it is shorter.
Collapsible stock version almost half the leght of a M16.
M16 on the other hand has greater range and higher precision.

Now... why did I mention weight? Well... main reason on might choose to haul around an M16 the whole day instead of AK47 was weight.
That, and you felt more cool pointing it around like a pistol (when there were no officers around) - 2.9 kg is nothing for a rifle.

Downside was - it was harder to clean (more parts), during the raising of the flag you had to take it of from your shoulder in unison with other guys in your platoon, and... you had a unique opportunity to write miles of paperwork and kiss your town privileges goodbye if you dropped it accidentally.
Why? Because in 9 out of 10 cases - its plastic stock or grip would break.

When we went to a camping spot, every time, at least one M16 rifle per case (wooden cases, transported in trucks) would arrive with broken grips.
AK47? You could have driven that same truck over it, picked it up, cleaned it - and it would have still worked.
Not that we ever did that, but some of those rifles were produced in 1950's and 1960's and they were still operational.

Now... later versions might be better. But M16A1 is built like a toy.

Re:Yeah...

[seriv]

Look at the first picture in the pics section in the first article listed. Tux sits proud in the top left corner of the boot up screen. So I believe the answer is in fact yes. I suppose the BSOD is even worse when you can actually die as a result....

Re:Huh?

[TubeSteak]

Bitching about newly issued equipment is army tradition.

That's true, but here's the basic question being asked FTFA:

"Army program managers are questioning Land Warrior's most basic premise: Does every soldier need to be wired?"

And if you get to the second page of TFA, it seems like the answer is "no".

from my personal experience...

[rmac1813]

the 'bluefor tracker' (blue-force tracking) system works well when it works. however in a fast paced environment most units in the army don't have time to make it work correctly 100% of the time. this being said i cant see a more advanced system even remotely being useful on the battlefield. from the 15 months i was on the ground in iraq we used blufor tracking maybe 4/5 months for missions. the other 10/11 months it was either not working correctly or wasnt working at all. i can totally relate to having extra and seemingly useless equipment to carry. i dont think "land warrior" will be any better.

I was Infantry

[s2jcpete]

I was an 11B. I humped 80+ pounds whenever we went to the field. We would carry 3+ days worth of MRE's, personal ammo, water. We would split up the radio operator's spare batteries. The spare ammo for the 2 M-60's our platoon would carry. We would carry IV bags, medical supplies, spare clothes. Demolitions, Rope.... the list goes ON AND ON. Point being, when all this crap added up you barely had enough room for spare socks.. forget a sleeping bag, even in 32 degree weather. Now... on top of all that, they want you to hump a helmet camera? a small back mounted pc? They better include a powered exoskeleton because there is no way that is going to happen in any realistic combat scenario.

Re:Get the basics right first

[timeOday]

soldiers would rather have a reliable rifle and body armor than all the geek toys in the world.

Better go back and take away all their radios, GPS, and night vision goggles then.

Re:Unsurprising, but not as you would think

[WillAffleckUW]

Well, I served as a Sergeant (Army). The job of the Sergeant, at least in my units, was to make sure everyone was effective and on-mission. Gear that gets in the way is useless. Ditch it until you need it for another mission, back with the ruck.

I heard this pretty much every time new gear came to the boat. It was never as useful as the old stuff, and breaks more often too. (Sometimes, _very_ rarely, it's actually true.) Sounds like a Seargeant that needs to be busted and someone who will do the job put in his place. The job of a Sgt. is to teach people how to use and integrate the gear into their tactics. If his people don't or won't use the gear - it's his job to find out why, and report the same up the chain.

Wrong. The problem is it gets into the way of doing the job. You already have an extra load for the body armor, the ambient heat is off the scale (Iraq), and they want you to carry more that gets in the way of doing the job? Just look at the flip visor - can't be flipped up, makes you sweat more, makes it hard to use your rifle (unless you fire mid-waist and miss most of the time), and it adds more info than you can handle.

Minimal feedback - think like the mini-map in WoW - something small and unobtrusive out of the main field of vision, in case you get lost or turned around. Same for the camera - downsize so it's a mini-cam like in your cell. Same for the headset - all you need is a micro bud that hangs off your earlobe. That would cut the weight - plus the weight of the batteries - way way way down.

Eugene Stoner designed M16

[charnov]

Eugene Stoner designed the M16 and saw service with the Marines during WWII. He was a professional design engineer with Colt and also designed the current Marine Sniper rifle, the Mk 11 Mod 0, through Knights Armament.

assault rifles are a compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

Assault rifles came about as a compromise with cartridges, logistics (how many rounds can you hump and keep supplied to the front). The military wanted something with the firepower of a subgun, which typically used pistol caliber cartridges (typically 9mm or .45 for small example), but they needed it to be controllable and powerful enough to use out to 300 meters or even better, and full sized battle rifle cartridges (typical ww2, 30-06, .303, 8mm, etc) that had that range and a lot more were found to be not very good in full auto in a hand held weapon, at least to issue to your general grunt as the basic infantry weapon. Hence the compromise cartridge, then they designed guns around that concept. Nowadays they are even thinking of going smaller, to 17 caliber to replace the .223 or to something around 7mm to replace the .308 for the squad autos)(BTW, the ak with the 7.62x39 is plenty good enough for whitetails, it has more or less the same ballistics as the classic "deer harvester" 30-30). Of the two I would say I prefer the ak over the 16, all things considered.

    Part of it also was they (they being most militaries) stopped emphasizing marksmanship as much (plus none of them get raw recruits in huge who had already accrued rifle training and experience coming in like they used to in the olden days), they wanted something they could issue to pretty raw recruits that would be effective enough for the situation even with just an hour's indoctrination into basic handling. Either of those two rifles fit the bill in that respect, the ak or m16, they are designed to be more or less idiot proof given at least marginally consistent ammunition.

    Interesting little point, the soviet rifle before the ak was the sks, which is a greatly scaled down anti aircraft weapon.

With that said, and given I own or have owned "all of the above" and more, I would prefer a semi auto shotgun for close range, and a heavy bolt gun for most other situations when it came to self defense. I like to shoot the "assault" guns, but seeing as how I have no helicopters airdropping me the ammo, I prefer the bolt gun with very expensive glass and actual thought about placed shots. To each their own, all these various guns have a purpose, and self defense against badguys of any kind is as legit as any other.

Re:I was part of Landwarrior Development

[dptalia]

How is it this Land Warrior has gone so far backwards?
Unfortunately, the Army has a LOT of hardiness requirements that slowed Landwarrior down. Mind you, if you want to swim in a swamp for five hours while using your computer, you can do it. But... That adds a lot to the system's weight and size.
I agree, the eye piece is one of the weakest components of the system - not just because it obstructs you vision but the extra unbalanced weight on your helmet causes discomfort and poor fit. Why we're using that over anything else, I don't know. The contracts had already been awarded by the time I joined up.
Wireless is out due to security/hardiness requirements. It actually took several years to engineer those cables. The connectors have to handle water, sand, and all sorts of much. The cables are shielded to prevent EM leakage. And theoretically (I left before any testing) the whole setup is EM hardened.
All this adds up to something bulky and heavy. And, because the specs are defined when the request for proposals is sent out, by the time the actual system is implemented everything is out of date.
On the good side, this iteration of Landwarrior is WAAAAY better than the previous one. Another couple of iterations and it should be really usable.