Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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....
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.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
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.