New direction for the Army Org series...

[jmowreader]

Folks, I think I've exhausted the Army Organization series. Unless you want me to talk about communication lines from corps to the rifle platoon (they pass out coffee before they start that lecture), I better switch gears.

I am thinking about an equipment series. Starting with "what is wrong with the M-16 rifle" (a shorter post would be "what is right about it" but the DU software won't take a blank message) and going into all sorts of different weapons of war.

As long as we have troops in the field, there will be DUers asking "what does this mean?" And as long as we have DUers with questions, we veterans should provide the answers.

You can request a piece on your favorite instrument of death! Just follow these simple rules:

1. It must be a piece of Army equipment. Don't ask me how a submarine works. I have no idea.
2. It must be a piece of unclassified equipment. I am not going to bring the wrath of Ashcroft down on Skinner!
3. It should be either a piece of American or Soviet hardware.

Other than that, ask away!

[Eloriel]

1. I want a communication piece.

Please

Eloriel

[TacticalPeek]

2. If you'll be critiquing weapons,

start with the M-9 Baretta, as yet less entrenched than the M-16.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. Ah, the M-9...

Basically adopted to standardise American troops' sidearm ammunition with that of the weapons carried by most other NATO countries, if I'm not mistaken...kind of telling that most of the elite tactical operations/special forces teams still carry the M1911A1 .45, eh?

[TacticalPeek]

4. Thank God the Marines keep their store of .45's

which they modify.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. Yep...

and, the Marines being as they are advance-deployed amphibious infantry troops, first to hit the beaches or go in by chopper in most any conflict, they tend to stick with weapons that WORK instead of changing for change's sake...I don't know this for a fact, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Corps subjected the M9 to torture-testing alongside the M1911 to see which fared better.

Reminds me of a story I heard about the Marines in WWII: The troops in the Pacific started receiving shipments of the then-new M1 rifle. They then subjected it to various indignities, rolling it in mud, dropping from height, etc...nothing really that outside the sort of conditions a Marine would face in actual combat anyway. The M1's didn't pass the test...the old bolt-action '03 Springfields did, so the Marines stuck with the Springfields.

[OldSoldier]

8. Ugh...

The M-9 is too painful to contemplate, but I'll touch on it here briefly.

The M-9 pistol is the Army's way of joining NATO instead of the other way around which is what usually happens. (The other way we joined NATO was when we went from the 105mm main gun on the M-1 Abrams to the 120mm main gun on the M-1A1 Abrams. Everyone else in NATO was standardizing on the 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore cannon, which is made in Germany, for its tank main guns. Finally we got around to buying it--the US hates buying weapons from non-US countries. This was one of the best things the Army ever did; this is the best tank cannon in the world. The tankers love it for three reasons: it makes better holes in enemy tanks, it is more accurate (meaning it's more likely to make holes in enemy tanks), and it uses consumable-cartridge ammunition. The cartridge in consumable-cartridge ammo is made from gunpowder dipped in plastic; when the round is fired, the case burns as part of the charge. It did require reconfiguring the whole tank to accept the new gun--the ammo storage rack is different, the gun carriage is different, all the ballistics data in the computer is different--but Rheinmetall helped, and now a good tank is a great tank.)

Let's say you worked in Acquisition Command. One day, your boss came to you and said, "we need 100,000 9mm pistols and a million magazines. Go forth and acquire." Would you:

a) Call three gun makers, get bids, take the lowest one.
b) Call three gun makers, order a case of guns from each, pick a Military Police unit, send said guns to said unit, give them a year with said guns, and purchase their favorite.
c) Buy twelve guns, four from each of the three manufacturers, send twelve second lieutenants out to the range with them, then purchase their favorite.
d) Ask all your buddies in the shop who like guns what gun they'd get if they had to buy a lot of them, then order 100,000 of the most popular choice.
e) Call every police department on the East Coast and buy the gun they like best.
f) Create a set of specifications for a "super pistol" and challenge every gun maker in the world to meet them. Include some things that are mutually exclusive, like light weight and long life. Test fifteen guns from fifteen manufacturers. Flunk all fifteen guns. Reopen competition with different specs. Flunk all fifteen guns again. Reopen competition with different and lowered specs. Choose cheapest gun that meets weight requirements. Replace slides six times before you realize too much metal was shaved off the slide to make the gun meet the weight requirement. Realize further that you can't call the manufacturer to have them come get these things and fix them under warranty because you were the one who came up with these bizarre specs.

If you chose anything but f, you don't really work in Acquisition Command.

The gun they chose to be America's 9mm service pistol is a Beretta 92FS. To get it to the weight they wanted, the frame is made of light alloys. Right now you're thinking, "but Jim, aren't pistols supposed to be made from steel?" That the Berettas' frames all crack, and some firers have been whacked in the face by flying slides when the frames broke and the slides came off during recoil, would seem to suggest that.

Who uses this gun? Military police, officers, some military intelligence troops.

(Come to think of it, a little rant on US Army Acquisition Command might not be bad...)

[SadEagle]

6. On mortars?

This is perhaps way too basic, but it would be great if you could comment on the mortars that have been used a lot lately to attack various 'coalition' targets. For me, lacking any knowledge of artillery, it's just very hard to understand what kind of threat they pose/what kind of damage they can do...

Thanks..

[OldSoldier]

7. Artillery's a good topic, thanks

I can do that.