So you're saying the Afghanis deserve to be oppressively invaded and ruled by the iron fist of the Soviets? By your own logic, South Korea deserves to fall too.
I guess in a vacuum you have a good point. But the world doesn't live there. So yes, that does change everything in the real world.
Right, but the XM25 is basically the M203 counterpart of current M16s/M4s. As such, one wouldn't say the M203 is a replacement for the M16. But I might be splitting hairs here...
Well, you sound like you know what you are talking about, until you say "That's basically why the Marines exist at all. That's their sole purpose - and why they don't have M1's (tanks)." Marines most definitely have tanks. They have their own Air Force, their own specops, light/medium/heavy brigades, etc...
Read my other replies... And I never said they didn't have tanks - though clearly many read my ambiguous statement to imply that. Which oddly enough, is exactly why I added "tanks", was to hopefully disambiguate my statement.
However, due to their nature, our current enemy is rarely so fortunate. The best they have is typically masonry block, brick, etc. If you know they're behind a wall, they're easy pickins for.50; the KE impact and explosive effect of Mk 211 make a serious mess of things behind such barriers. They'd probably wish they took a grenade instead.
Ya, I read an account of a sniper taking out an RPG team behind a wall with a single Mk211 round. He stated it splattered the walls on the other side of the room. Eeek!
Ya, but the ballistics are pretty horrible after roughly 300 yards. But then again, in the jungles of the Pacific islands, you generally didn't need those kinds of ranges. Which really underscores your points - and how close the contact ranges tended to be. Which in the end, really underscores just how varied the ranges were from theater to theater and battle to battle; including, even in the Pacific.
Go learn some history about Iraq. Saddam was a real son of a bitch. People were commonly rounded up and murdered. Mass graves were common. Everyone to the north were free range targets.
Hate to tell you, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Read my other reply. It was late and I was tired. I was a little confused and it was compounded by ambiguity in my statement.
The Marines absolutely do have tanks. Their preference is for light to medium armor because it can be more rapidly deployed, uses less fuel, is more mobile, and is generally faster. As for M1's (which is heavy, main battle tank), which is what I was talking about, they are extremely large, very heavy, very expensive and time consuming to deliver, and logistical nightmare because of fuel demands. As such, when the Marines are deployed as a reactionary force, they rarely are deployed with M1s. Only after they're established, including supply lines, and in theater, do M1's typically catch up with the rest of the marines.
You need to keep in mind, recent use of the Marines is an exception because they literally had months to transport M1s in theater. As such, they were much more readily available then one would expect for reactionary deployment.
Its not that simple. Yes, a mortar is basically a tube, but it also has a plate which allows for aiming. Aiming is basically trig. The recoil from lobbing such a large round is pretty high. I've heard accounts of people screwing up and breaking toes and feet by getting it below the plate. Additionally, to actually use the mortar, it must be mated with the plate, which is typically heavy and carried by a second soldier.
Basically, a free-standing tube has shit accuracy because you're making completely wild guesses where the round will go. Furthermore, unstabilized, in the heat of combat, is begging for a horrible accident. If not to the crew attempting to use, but to anyone in the general area.
Of course, SMG use has two big advantages. A longer barrel means higher velocity/energy over that of a pistol. That allows for greater accuracy at range. A high rof, IIRC roughly 600rpm-700rpm likely means multiple hits. Furthermore, the fact its a pistole round greatly helped with recoil, meaning you're not completely pissing in the wind when opening up.
You right about about that. I confused my self. The tanks are not not part of their rapid reactionary deployments. Generally speaking, the M1 can't even be in theater until they're already tromping in the wild.
Aside from its low mag capacity and horrible, brick-like, ballistics. When your last line of defense is out of rounds after your first shot (big exaggeration), you've got problems.;)
The whole reason why everyone eventually opted for smaller calibers (such as 7.62x39 or 5.56) post WW2 was because it turned out that the theoretical large range of large-caliber infantry rifles of the day was almost never really exercised.
Different theaters of operation had different experiences. Remember, in the Pacific, they made do with the M1 Carbine, which was basically a.30 pistol round. In other places, 600-800 yards were common ranges. The biggest motivator was that they learned most people missed beyond 300-400 meters and as such, wasted a lot of heavy ammo. The solution was to create a smaller, lighter cartridge which allows for much more ammo to be carried and for its effective range to be more in line with what the typical soldier can actually hit.
As for the optics part, mostly Russians and Germans had optics. The US was extremely slow to make any use of optics and generally speaks, those that did use them were detested by their own; at least in US ranks. As such, for extended ranges, for the US, you're mostly looking at iron sites. Worse, what little lessons were learned with optics following WWII were all but forgotten until Vietnam.
So far the US has been lucky enough to fight wars with significantly underpowered opponents where such doctrine is viable - and even then there has been no shortage of complaints about situations where reliability was an issue, anyway. When it comes to something more serious, do you think it is sustainable? I'm not even talking about some hypothetical engagement with China, but how about, say, a distinctly probable ground invasion of Iran? Or a prolonged engagement with DPRK to defend ROK?
More serious? You means different people with basically the same weapons and tactics? It is largely sustainable so long as those giving the orders actually understand the tactics and why they exist. That's why the US has embraced mixed forces (foot + air + arty + armor). So long as people follow doctrine, things tend to work out very well for US forces. If you look at encounters like "Black Hawk Down", the higher up idiots knowingly departed from doctrine; despite a direct request. Had that not happened, it would have largely been a non-event and certainly not been the protracted engagement that it was. Not to mention, the copters were specifically ordered to do slow, low orbits, which is contrary to basic training and tactics given to those pilots. Basically they were told to be ideal targets and make sure you have absolutely no contingency plan available. But I digress... But hopefully you get the point...
The US is designed around rapid, reactionary forces. That's basically why the Marines exist at all. That's their sole purpose - and why they don't have M1's (tanks). The notion is, move in, take your objective, move out - or converge and re-enforce. Its not like the old days where you march for weeks and months, praying for an air drop (which might actually be in your area) or supply line. These days, extended operations where you can not reload, refit, resupply, clean, eat, etc., is purposely, by design, rare. And generally speaking, the situations where this does happen is for snipers and special ops.
I feel like you're also ignoring and/or forgetting the force multipliers available. You need to keep in mind, one man with a radio and a laser can literally take out an entire brigade of tanks with one airplane and one or two pass.
As for DPRK and ROK, it most certainly isn't what you think. Most of both side's major cities and factories are within arty range of each other. Should something happen, most everything is going to be flattened. Next, a couple of US planes will gain air superiority. Likely afterwards, we'll see massive surrenders. Most people in the North have no food. They've literally stripped the bark off of trees for soups. With the exception of some specialized brigades, most have Vietnam era weapons. What advanced tech they do have is in limited number
Don't remember the name of the video but I saw it in YouTube. It was a extremely well known pistol expert who instructs. In the video he goes through a serious to shooting drills. He uses a 9mm, 40SW, and a 45. While he's equally accurate (its an expert's expert, so no surprise), the time required to complete the drills continues to rise as the caliber increases. To complete the drill with a 45 required something like and extra 2/3 the time to complete with a 9mm.
Add to the fact that 9mm has really good ballistics, excellent energy without a propensity to over penetrate, and best of the three accuracy for follow up shots, the 9mm is really hard to beat. In fact, IMO, its by far, the best general purpose auto round available.
That's all true, until you get into NATO FMJ requirements. And that's why troops dislike the 9mm vs 45. When you have a round which can not impart all its energy, the round with the largest caliber is going to tend to impart more. Which means for FMJ, 45 generally bests 9mm at "knock down." Notice the quotes, it doesn't really exist.
Now then, what's really interesting is, the military has recently starting fielding for evaluation a new type of "FMJ" round (basically a filled PMJ hollow point) for the 9mm which actually allows it to mushroom. Which means, the 9mm + new rounds, its been proving to be more effective than the old slam-bam 1911. I'm hopeful they'll get that ammo approved and widely deployed within the next year.
Which means, in the very near future, 9mm is likely to be the best all around round both on and off the battlefield.
Right, but mortars require time to set up, have relatively lengthy flight times, and typically require correction fire. Not to mention, you must be exposed to observed point of impact. So you have a choice between an inaccurate round which can land anywhere within a large margin of error, requiring you be exposed for extended durations, or a highly precise weapon which can be fired before you get your mortar out of the pack. Beyond that, IIRC, even the lightest mortar the US carries is considered a two man weapon. I wouldn't swear to that last bit though.
The XM25 is no way a replacement for the M16. Its well known they are actively looking to explore M16 improvements and entirely different weapons. Some of those weapons have such features. Typically that means for an "improved" M16 to be competitive, it would have to have those same features.
Granted, I have not seen it in writing either, but based on what I have read, its far from being a leap of faith. Though honestly, my impression is, they're looking to move away from the M16 entirely.
That is true, but it is unclear how useful it is to give a weapon with such range to every single infantryman.
Its actually not questionable at all. Ask any infantryman who served before the M16 was issued. The M1 was accurate out to 1000 yards and was commonly used at those extended ranges in every war before Vietnam.
You also need some decent optics to shoot at such distances accurately, while hitting a man at 200-300m is perfectly possible with iron sights.
Actually, you don't. Its common for rifles to be issued with ladder sights which allow you to select your target's distance and it compensates in barrel rise. They also used a larger, more powerful bullet (.30-06/7.62), which made those distances even more practical than attempting to do so with a 5.56.
You need to keep in mind, most battle tactics include covering fire while you close the gap to more accurate ranges. If I can accurate engage you at 600-700 meters while you need to close to 300-400 meters to obtain the same accuracy, I have a huge advantage for 200-300 meters. That means I stand a good chance of completely stopping your force while receiving minimal causalities on my side.
In Russian army, and those modeled after it, the role of reaching out to those distances is delegated to what's called "designated marksmen" in US armed forces, armed with SVD.
Not really - but close. Their role is to provide suppression fire, allowing the rest of the squad to close the gap. Many mistakenly believe their role is that of a sniper. Its not. They are not trained as a sniper and their weapon comes nowhere near NATO sniper rifle specs (though with the right ammo you can certainly get 1 MOA accuracy with most rifles - SVDs anyways, out to around 600 meters). So which is more likely to move? A squad with an SVD/PSL in support or an entire squad with almost the same accuracy and a squad level weapon which typically meets or beats the SVD/PSL. Exactly.
That exact phrase and its variants often come up when discussing the reliability of AR platform. It's perfectly true, but also very misleading. As one of American troops who saw action in recent conflicts has put it, "It shoots very well when clean; but sometimes, it also needs to shoot when dirty, too". It's a good thing when your troops have enough time and no other worries to spend enough time on weapon maintenance, but war is war, and it's not always feasible. A front-line service rifle should be able to cope with that.
I was very careful to include that phraseology.;) But, tactics have also been adapted to avoid extended, unsupported battles. I'm not saying the weapon never jams. I know it does. But, largely the worst case scenarios are avoided by a combination of mixed tactics; primarily including rapid deployment and extraction.
Let's recap. Bush thought that Afghanistan had bin Laden.
He had training camps there you idiot. Its well documented he's eluded capture numerous times. He was there.
The rest of your post is of equal stupidity its completely without merit. I really wish people who really believe this bullshit would bother to educate themselves before the make themselves sound like a complete idiot. Obvious why you posted anonymously.
Nevermind that bin Laden was extensively trained by the CIA.
Nice way to completely ignore Russia and their invasion. Nope, something like intelligent facts are likely to get in the way of your ranting stupidity.
Ok, selective amnesia secured.
Then we agree...you have selective amnesia.
I can't even stand to respond to the rest of your ignorant rant. Its not the least bit grounded in reality. You've got enough buzzwords here and there to sound like you know what you're talking about to the generally ignorant. But the sad truth is, almost everything you said is complete bullshit and/or a convenient laps of important, well documented facts.
That's why the military has changed tactics and started embedding themselves with the natives. Between that and stopping the use of flash bangs every time they open a door, they've been much, much more friendly to US troops. In fact, embedding has allowed them to kill the militants which would typically come back to murder and intimidate the natives. Needless to say, this has helped to put a stop to a lot of that and helped sway opinion back toward the US.
Far too many anti-war nut jobs (meaning, anti-war who also happen to be nut jobs) have been told the US is absolutely hated over there. That's extremely far from the truth. Some hate us. Some love us. Regardless, most see the US as a necessary evil. Whereas, "most", include those who don't like the Taliban; which is most of the population.
You also need to keep in mind, the total war, fewer people have died than what was regularly killed under Saddam's rule. People understand its war. Their primary complaint is lack of stability, lack of consistent utilities, and general war-lord and mob rule. Of course add to that the Taliban coming back in the next day to murder, rape, and generally pillage, and you have some pissed off people. After all, why should they support you when supporting you is likely to get you and/or your family killed.
I, for one, am not convinced that it solves anything the.50 BMG didn't solve almost a hundred years ago
Then you're not paying attention. A.50 cal machine gun requires a three man team and a fair amount of time to set up. Beyond that, this weapon is far, far lighter, can be carried and deployed by a single solder, and can do with one round what is basically impossible with a machine gun.
There was also some chroming which was to take place and a cleaning kit was always to be issued. McNamara and his group decided they could save money by using traditional powders. They also decided that since the design was inherently jam resistant, the chroming was not required. Likewise, since the action was moderately self cleaning, a cleaning kit was not required. As a result, a weapon which was extremely reliable, and which troops fell in love with during trials, quickly was dubbed the "jam-o-matic" and loathed, after the know it all bean counters got finished with it.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying the Afghanis deserve to be oppressively invaded and ruled by the iron fist of the Soviets? By your own logic, South Korea deserves to fall too.
I guess in a vacuum you have a good point. But the world doesn't live there. So yes, that does change everything in the real world.
Right, but the XM25 is basically the M203 counterpart of current M16s/M4s. As such, one wouldn't say the M203 is a replacement for the M16. But I might be splitting hairs here...
That sounds like serious fun.
Well, you sound like you know what you are talking about, until you say "That's basically why the Marines exist at all. That's their sole purpose - and why they don't have M1's (tanks)." Marines most definitely have tanks. They have their own Air Force, their own specops, light/medium/heavy brigades, etc...
Read my other replies... And I never said they didn't have tanks - though clearly many read my ambiguous statement to imply that. Which oddly enough, is exactly why I added "tanks", was to hopefully disambiguate my statement.
However, due to their nature, our current enemy is rarely so fortunate. The best they have is typically masonry block, brick, etc. If you know they're behind a wall, they're easy pickins for .50; the KE impact and explosive effect of Mk 211 make a serious mess of things behind such barriers. They'd probably wish they took a grenade instead.
Ya, I read an account of a sniper taking out an RPG team behind a wall with a single Mk211 round. He stated it splattered the walls on the other side of the room. Eeek!
I absolutely agree with your last paragraph.
Ya, but the ballistics are pretty horrible after roughly 300 yards. But then again, in the jungles of the Pacific islands, you generally didn't need those kinds of ranges. Which really underscores your points - and how close the contact ranges tended to be. Which in the end, really underscores just how varied the ranges were from theater to theater and battle to battle; including, even in the Pacific.
Go learn some history about Iraq. Saddam was a real son of a bitch. People were commonly rounded up and murdered. Mass graves were common. Everyone to the north were free range targets.
Hate to tell you, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Read my other reply. It was late and I was tired. I was a little confused and it was compounded by ambiguity in my statement.
The Marines absolutely do have tanks. Their preference is for light to medium armor because it can be more rapidly deployed, uses less fuel, is more mobile, and is generally faster. As for M1's (which is heavy, main battle tank), which is what I was talking about, they are extremely large, very heavy, very expensive and time consuming to deliver, and logistical nightmare because of fuel demands. As such, when the Marines are deployed as a reactionary force, they rarely are deployed with M1s. Only after they're established, including supply lines, and in theater, do M1's typically catch up with the rest of the marines.
You need to keep in mind, recent use of the Marines is an exception because they literally had months to transport M1s in theater. As such, they were much more readily available then one would expect for reactionary deployment.
Sure, why not? A mortar is nothing but a tube.
Its not that simple. Yes, a mortar is basically a tube, but it also has a plate which allows for aiming. Aiming is basically trig. The recoil from lobbing such a large round is pretty high. I've heard accounts of people screwing up and breaking toes and feet by getting it below the plate. Additionally, to actually use the mortar, it must be mated with the plate, which is typically heavy and carried by a second soldier.
Basically, a free-standing tube has shit accuracy because you're making completely wild guesses where the round will go. Furthermore, unstabilized, in the heat of combat, is begging for a horrible accident. If not to the crew attempting to use, but to anyone in the general area.
That's a fine weapon and highly prized today. If for no other reason that its accurate and reliable. But "thumb crunchers", they are.
I hope it works out you can get one of those pieces of history.
Still a case of fighting against US-created foes
Not in the sense you imply.
Still not viable or comparable. This weapon system is dramatically more effective, user friendly, and portable given its mission profile.
Excellent point!
Of course, SMG use has two big advantages. A longer barrel means higher velocity/energy over that of a pistol. That allows for greater accuracy at range. A high rof, IIRC roughly 600rpm-700rpm likely means multiple hits. Furthermore, the fact its a pistole round greatly helped with recoil, meaning you're not completely pissing in the wind when opening up.
You right about about that. I confused my self. The tanks are not not part of their rapid reactionary deployments. Generally speaking, the M1 can't even be in theater until they're already tromping in the wild.
Aside from its low mag capacity and horrible, brick-like, ballistics. When your last line of defense is out of rounds after your first shot (big exaggeration), you've got problems. ;)
The whole reason why everyone eventually opted for smaller calibers (such as 7.62x39 or 5.56) post WW2 was because it turned out that the theoretical large range of large-caliber infantry rifles of the day was almost never really exercised.
Different theaters of operation had different experiences. Remember, in the Pacific, they made do with the M1 Carbine, which was basically a .30 pistol round. In other places, 600-800 yards were common ranges. The biggest motivator was that they learned most people missed beyond 300-400 meters and as such, wasted a lot of heavy ammo. The solution was to create a smaller, lighter cartridge which allows for much more ammo to be carried and for its effective range to be more in line with what the typical soldier can actually hit.
As for the optics part, mostly Russians and Germans had optics. The US was extremely slow to make any use of optics and generally speaks, those that did use them were detested by their own; at least in US ranks. As such, for extended ranges, for the US, you're mostly looking at iron sites. Worse, what little lessons were learned with optics following WWII were all but forgotten until Vietnam.
So far the US has been lucky enough to fight wars with significantly underpowered opponents where such doctrine is viable - and even then there has been no shortage of complaints about situations where reliability was an issue, anyway. When it comes to something more serious, do you think it is sustainable? I'm not even talking about some hypothetical engagement with China, but how about, say, a distinctly probable ground invasion of Iran? Or a prolonged engagement with DPRK to defend ROK?
More serious? You means different people with basically the same weapons and tactics? It is largely sustainable so long as those giving the orders actually understand the tactics and why they exist. That's why the US has embraced mixed forces (foot + air + arty + armor). So long as people follow doctrine, things tend to work out very well for US forces. If you look at encounters like "Black Hawk Down", the higher up idiots knowingly departed from doctrine; despite a direct request. Had that not happened, it would have largely been a non-event and certainly not been the protracted engagement that it was. Not to mention, the copters were specifically ordered to do slow, low orbits, which is contrary to basic training and tactics given to those pilots. Basically they were told to be ideal targets and make sure you have absolutely no contingency plan available. But I digress... But hopefully you get the point...
The US is designed around rapid, reactionary forces. That's basically why the Marines exist at all. That's their sole purpose - and why they don't have M1's (tanks). The notion is, move in, take your objective, move out - or converge and re-enforce. Its not like the old days where you march for weeks and months, praying for an air drop (which might actually be in your area) or supply line. These days, extended operations where you can not reload, refit, resupply, clean, eat, etc., is purposely, by design, rare. And generally speaking, the situations where this does happen is for snipers and special ops.
I feel like you're also ignoring and/or forgetting the force multipliers available. You need to keep in mind, one man with a radio and a laser can literally take out an entire brigade of tanks with one airplane and one or two pass.
As for DPRK and ROK, it most certainly isn't what you think. Most of both side's major cities and factories are within arty range of each other. Should something happen, most everything is going to be flattened. Next, a couple of US planes will gain air superiority. Likely afterwards, we'll see massive surrenders. Most people in the North have no food. They've literally stripped the bark off of trees for soups. With the exception of some specialized brigades, most have Vietnam era weapons. What advanced tech they do have is in limited number
Don't remember the name of the video but I saw it in YouTube. It was a extremely well known pistol expert who instructs. In the video he goes through a serious to shooting drills. He uses a 9mm, 40SW, and a 45. While he's equally accurate (its an expert's expert, so no surprise), the time required to complete the drills continues to rise as the caliber increases. To complete the drill with a 45 required something like and extra 2/3 the time to complete with a 9mm.
Add to the fact that 9mm has really good ballistics, excellent energy without a propensity to over penetrate, and best of the three accuracy for follow up shots, the 9mm is really hard to beat. In fact, IMO, its by far, the best general purpose auto round available.
That's all true, until you get into NATO FMJ requirements. And that's why troops dislike the 9mm vs 45. When you have a round which can not impart all its energy, the round with the largest caliber is going to tend to impart more. Which means for FMJ, 45 generally bests 9mm at "knock down." Notice the quotes, it doesn't really exist.
Now then, what's really interesting is, the military has recently starting fielding for evaluation a new type of "FMJ" round (basically a filled PMJ hollow point) for the 9mm which actually allows it to mushroom. Which means, the 9mm + new rounds, its been proving to be more effective than the old slam-bam 1911. I'm hopeful they'll get that ammo approved and widely deployed within the next year.
Which means, in the very near future, 9mm is likely to be the best all around round both on and off the battlefield.
Right, but mortars require time to set up, have relatively lengthy flight times, and typically require correction fire. Not to mention, you must be exposed to observed point of impact. So you have a choice between an inaccurate round which can land anywhere within a large margin of error, requiring you be exposed for extended durations, or a highly precise weapon which can be fired before you get your mortar out of the pack. Beyond that, IIRC, even the lightest mortar the US carries is considered a two man weapon. I wouldn't swear to that last bit though.
I never read past the part where you said aks have a smaller caliber. Aks use 7.62 M-4/16 uses 5.56.
You're being very rude since you don't know what you're talking about.
Notice he said, AK-74, not AK-47. The AK-74 uses 5.45x39mm. Last I checked, 5.45 is smaller than 5.56.
The XM25 is no way a replacement for the M16. Its well known they are actively looking to explore M16 improvements and entirely different weapons. Some of those weapons have such features. Typically that means for an "improved" M16 to be competitive, it would have to have those same features.
Granted, I have not seen it in writing either, but based on what I have read, its far from being a leap of faith. Though honestly, my impression is, they're looking to move away from the M16 entirely.
That is true, but it is unclear how useful it is to give a weapon with such range to every single infantryman.
Its actually not questionable at all. Ask any infantryman who served before the M16 was issued. The M1 was accurate out to 1000 yards and was commonly used at those extended ranges in every war before Vietnam.
You also need some decent optics to shoot at such distances accurately, while hitting a man at 200-300m is perfectly possible with iron sights.
Actually, you don't. Its common for rifles to be issued with ladder sights which allow you to select your target's distance and it compensates in barrel rise. They also used a larger, more powerful bullet (.30-06/7.62), which made those distances even more practical than attempting to do so with a 5.56.
You need to keep in mind, most battle tactics include covering fire while you close the gap to more accurate ranges. If I can accurate engage you at 600-700 meters while you need to close to 300-400 meters to obtain the same accuracy, I have a huge advantage for 200-300 meters. That means I stand a good chance of completely stopping your force while receiving minimal causalities on my side.
In Russian army, and those modeled after it, the role of reaching out to those distances is delegated to what's called "designated marksmen" in US armed forces, armed with SVD.
Not really - but close. Their role is to provide suppression fire, allowing the rest of the squad to close the gap. Many mistakenly believe their role is that of a sniper. Its not. They are not trained as a sniper and their weapon comes nowhere near NATO sniper rifle specs (though with the right ammo you can certainly get 1 MOA accuracy with most rifles - SVDs anyways, out to around 600 meters). So which is more likely to move? A squad with an SVD/PSL in support or an entire squad with almost the same accuracy and a squad level weapon which typically meets or beats the SVD/PSL. Exactly.
That exact phrase and its variants often come up when discussing the reliability of AR platform. It's perfectly true, but also very misleading. As one of American troops who saw action in recent conflicts has put it, "It shoots very well when clean; but sometimes, it also needs to shoot when dirty, too". It's a good thing when your troops have enough time and no other worries to spend enough time on weapon maintenance, but war is war, and it's not always feasible. A front-line service rifle should be able to cope with that.
I was very careful to include that phraseology. ;) But, tactics have also been adapted to avoid extended, unsupported battles. I'm not saying the weapon never jams. I know it does. But, largely the worst case scenarios are avoided by a combination of mixed tactics; primarily including rapid deployment and extraction.
Let's recap. Bush thought that Afghanistan had bin Laden.
He had training camps there you idiot. Its well documented he's eluded capture numerous times. He was there.
The rest of your post is of equal stupidity its completely without merit. I really wish people who really believe this bullshit would bother to educate themselves before the make themselves sound like a complete idiot. Obvious why you posted anonymously.
Nevermind that bin Laden was extensively trained by the CIA.
Nice way to completely ignore Russia and their invasion. Nope, something like intelligent facts are likely to get in the way of your ranting stupidity.
Ok, selective amnesia secured.
Then we agree...you have selective amnesia.
I can't even stand to respond to the rest of your ignorant rant. Its not the least bit grounded in reality. You've got enough buzzwords here and there to sound like you know what you're talking about to the generally ignorant. But the sad truth is, almost everything you said is complete bullshit and/or a convenient laps of important, well documented facts.
That's why the military has changed tactics and started embedding themselves with the natives. Between that and stopping the use of flash bangs every time they open a door, they've been much, much more friendly to US troops. In fact, embedding has allowed them to kill the militants which would typically come back to murder and intimidate the natives. Needless to say, this has helped to put a stop to a lot of that and helped sway opinion back toward the US.
Far too many anti-war nut jobs (meaning, anti-war who also happen to be nut jobs) have been told the US is absolutely hated over there. That's extremely far from the truth. Some hate us. Some love us. Regardless, most see the US as a necessary evil. Whereas, "most", include those who don't like the Taliban; which is most of the population.
You also need to keep in mind, the total war, fewer people have died than what was regularly killed under Saddam's rule. People understand its war. Their primary complaint is lack of stability, lack of consistent utilities, and general war-lord and mob rule. Of course add to that the Taliban coming back in the next day to murder, rape, and generally pillage, and you have some pissed off people. After all, why should they support you when supporting you is likely to get you and/or your family killed.
I, for one, am not convinced that it solves anything the .50 BMG didn't solve almost a hundred years ago
Then you're not paying attention. A .50 cal machine gun requires a three man team and a fair amount of time to set up. Beyond that, this weapon is far, far lighter, can be carried and deployed by a single solder, and can do with one round what is basically impossible with a machine gun.
There was also some chroming which was to take place and a cleaning kit was always to be issued. McNamara and his group decided they could save money by using traditional powders. They also decided that since the design was inherently jam resistant, the chroming was not required. Likewise, since the action was moderately self cleaning, a cleaning kit was not required. As a result, a weapon which was extremely reliable, and which troops fell in love with during trials, quickly was dubbed the "jam-o-matic" and loathed, after the know it all bean counters got finished with it.