R.I.P

Status
Not open for further replies.
patriot.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by Mustang_Cougar:
I guess the "intended purpose" was to get an American defense contractor a series of big contracts to supply vehicles that are poorly armored, relatively slow, notoriously unreliable and difficult to maintain in the field.
tongue.gif


They are not armored vehicles, they replaced the M151 Jeep. They have a wide axle span so they share the same track as the larger M series trucks. They are diesels so they can share the same fuel as the larger trucks, helos and aircraft. It works a lot better when you don't have to transport different fuels, just JP-8.

Overall I think they are a nice piece of equipment.
 
It's great that they're diesels...it's great that they have a wide track.

However, we have been told since the mid-80's that urban warfare (like Panama, Somalia, Iraq, etc.) is the future of military operations. Considering that not a day goes by without a report of an IED killing or maiming a soldier in a HUMVEE, I think that this vehicle is a failure. If the military knew this was the future of armed conflict, why did they not anticipate it and utilize better armor in these vehicles?

They suck. Anytime you can slam a hood or door and have it crack, you've got a fundamental problem with the design. I just think people deserve better, whether they're a soldier/marine or a taxpayer.
 
The HUMVEE was never designed to be used where we're trying use it now, in the way we're using it. It's not made to be an armored vehicle that's used in an unsecure area. It just happens to be what we have lots of.

Most of the equipment we have right now was designed for one thing - to fight a war in eastern ( hopefully not western )europe.

Just like Generals, weapons makers are always fighting the last war...
 
They weigh around 6500lbs in their basic form which is fairly heavy. Once they start getting to heavy it becomes a problem flying them in theater. (or even to the theater) The more it weighs the slower the in-fil or ex-fil will be. More time on the ground loading and unloading is a bad deal for both Soldiers and Airmen.

As a Jeep replacement they work well. In an urban environment they have their limits, but it sure beats walking or a M1008/M1009. I guess the bottom line is that they work well for their intended use.
 
As I mentioned at http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007497;p=1, the USA seems to be supplying modified Ford F350s to folks instead of HMMWVs nowadays. Once again, the civilian market can produce something faster, better, and less expensively than the normal acquisition channels.

(Yeah, yeah, I know this doesn't apply to tanks and fighter jets.)

Oh, and kudos--and a BIG THANKS--to those of you in this thread who have served/are serving!
 
Semper Fi.

1st Truck I cannot open the links because I am on a worksite connection("Weapon" is blocked
frown.gif
) unless I misread.. Did they Change the Scoring for Rifle Qualification? The M16A2 is a very accurate rifle in the hands of a competent rifleman, it would be unfortuante if they did not continue to challenge young Marines.

I qualified expert enough that I was given the privelidge of having an M40 issued. Also, By the early 90's the slide issues with the poorly stamped barreta uppers was corrected. I shot tens of thousands of rounds out of those service pistols and never had an issue.

Expolk, Thanks for your continued service. It's a difficult career and you must be an exceptional officer to continue to have the priveledge. I understand many could think of nothing they would rather do than to serve. :Salute:
patriot.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
"Well, for the last twenty-odd years, maximum qualifying range with an M16A2/A3 has been 300 and 460 meters, respectively. That's like four targets (?) out of forty, most of them being far closer than that. Maybe in the old days they did things differently, but the requirements for qualifying are pretty simple (23/40)."

??? I guess the current scoring uses a 1 point targets while I recall using 5 pt targets. I always qualified expert, most of us did, as the Marines confirmed that scores with the M16 were better than with other rifles. A very good shooter can do better with an M1 Garand or M14 out to 1000 yds, even a bit beyond, but they're harder to shoot well out to either the typical military KD 500 yd range or the highpower 600 yd range. When I shot either the M16 in the military or my bolt gun in highpower my best scores were always at the maximum range as it's a prone position, and one just needs to pay attention to wind; I think that's typical for most.

People always like to pooh-pah accurate long distance rifle fire, but they typically join everyone else in getting under cover when engaged by someone who can deliver accurate long distance rifle fire.


http://www.usmcweapons.com/articles/m16/m16 Qual/currentcourse/currentm16qual.html

The scoring for the range runs like this:
Expert: 40-65
Sharpshooter: 35-39
Marksman: 25-34

http://www.usmcweapons.com/

For that facility, at that time, the scores were Marksman 190, Sharpshooter 210, Expert 220. This was all out of a possible 250.


That's the way I remember it, but my time in the Marines was 1976-80.

We shot the M-16A1, very easy rifle to hit with. My Dad served in WW2, (70th Infantry Div.) as a radio operator. He was issued an M1 Carbine, threw it away and picked up a Thompson gun which saved his life several times.
Joe
 
The M-16 was bound to evolve, but I still miss the A1's full auto mode.
wink.gif
The whole 3-round burst thing just isn't anywhere near as fun
 -
. Thanks for the kind words; it's my pleasure.
 
"My Dad served in WW2, (70th Infantry Div.) as a radio operator. He was issued an M1 Carbine, threw it away and picked up a Thompson gun which saved his life several times."

I had an M1 Garand for awhile, which I accurized for target shooting. Some non-gun owning were interested in doing some shooting so I took them to the club that I belonged to. The had expressed the most interest in the M1 so that's what we shot. We initially shot off of the bench, to make sure that they were getting the sight picture right, and then we tried prone, which they didn't like, and then went to standing. Comments were that it didn't kick as hard as they had expected, it was much louder than they expected, even with plugs and muffs, and they were sure that no one was ever shot by someone with an M1 as it was so hard to hit anything from a standing position :^)

A friend who had gotten me into target shooting asked how the Garand was coming along one day, so I handed it to him with an 8 rd clip thru it. He did it standing, slowly squeezing all rounds off without changing position, and did a bit over a 2in group at 100 yds, something that I could never do. He thought it was doing just fine :^)
 
What's all this gun talk? I couldn't hit crap with either the M14 or the M16 when I was in the Army. My weapons of choice were the Colt .45ACP and Winchester M12 pump shotgun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top