U.S. Soldiers Hate New High-Tech Gear 619
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."
Just Like The M16 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just Like The M16 (Score:5, Informative)
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:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
"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".
Re:Just Like The M16 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just Like The M16 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:2, Informative)
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.
from my personal experience... (Score:2, Informative)
I was Infantry (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Just Like The M16 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Get the basics right first (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unsurprising, but not as you would think (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just Like The M16 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:1, Informative)
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 (Score:1, Informative)
Here's a blast from the past... Homeboy Nyte Sytes [archive.org]. 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 (Score:1, Informative)
assault rifles are a compromise (Score:3, Informative)
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:Just Like The M16 (Score:0, Informative)
I am guessing you have never held either of those rifles in your hands, right?
From Wikipedia:
(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:I was part of Landwarrior Development (Score:3, Informative)
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.