So, I held an AR-15 tonight.

[Recon_Ninja_985]

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

don't worry, it's not your fault.

the ar-15 is just a shitty rifle.

which is opinion based....


people who actually use them and it's record prove otherwise.

not opinion, fact.

awkward, fragile, inaccurate, unbalanced... the 'people' who use them outside of the country that derives massive funding from its use are rarely considered effective fighting forces, and those that do have a decent record are usually still tied up with the military industrial complex anyway.

all opinions.... false opinions


if it were s**t,the .mil wouldnt be using them.  

[King 0wl]

Fresnel

I'm getting really damn sick of the "you only like it because you're American" line of bullshit. There's plenty of American weapons I hate, and several of them were frontline military weapons in their day. That said, the AR-15 gets a severely bum rap. They're accurate as ********. No mainline infantry weapon is more accurate than an M16. Every competition shooter worth his salt is shooting an AR-15 to win, an antique gun for the fun of it, or a $3000 custom bolt-action job because he's a sadistic ******** who loves the kind of competition that comes from being in the match rifle class. By NRA match rules, you could bring any standard issue military weapon or civilian counterpart. AK-47/74's, AUGs, SA-80s, FAMAS's, even Garands and M1903s (which are popular in the "******** it, I'mma just have fun today" crowd), any one of them is legal. The winner always has an AR.

I should probably start by saying that I don't live in a country where you shoot for competition. Yeah, there exists leagues, but it's pretty much entirely bolt actions and semi-auto nines because of our legislation. I look at a military firearm from a military perspective because all of my experiences with firearms stem from my time in the military.

I don't doubt that a modified AR-15 makes an excellent recreational or sport shooter, what I complain about is its service as a multirole fighting tool.

Fresnel

They're balanced quite well, if you get one with a reasonable, gov't-profile barrel. Mine's a match HBAR, it's a full three pounds heavier than the standard, and it's actually not bad for competition-style shooting, but it's s**t for fast target switching and run-and-gun like you'd find in combat or a 3-gun match.

which is the point I'm making.

Fresnel

It's not as fragile as most people think. I've been negligent with mine, not cleaning it for months on end and firing hundreds of rounds every week. I've never had a jam that wasn't the fault of a bad hand-load or my $10 magazines. Hell, I can't even remember the last time I cleaned it, and my last few hundred rounds have all been Wolf, and Wolf is notoriously dirty. Aside from a funny smell and unusually heavy recoil, there's been no change in operation. My gun will gobble any bullet you care to feed it (within weight restrictions for a 1:7 barrel) and not think twice about it.

Having served with operators using them, and been issued them more than a few times (well, an M4 actually, but they're pretty close), the average number of IA drills per effective kill for the american service weapon is close to five times that for most other developed fighting forces, specifically I refer to the Australian.

Fresnel

Awkward is most certainly an opinion. I find them less awkward than most other rifles, and I've never handled one that felt notably better. I find all long guns to be inherently slightly awkward in that they need two hands, and I don't have a very strong support hand, but the AR is no worse than any other. Some people find it quite comfortable, others not so much. I'm just closer to the first group than the second. The buttstock is fantastic, however, as is the pistol grip. They both revolutionized the industry. All the controls are right where you need them, except the bolt release, but the workaround for that is to just slap the entire side of the receiver when you need it, and that works just fine. It's not ambidextrous standard, but it was designed fifty years ago, in the days of "7% of the market share? ******** 'em." To be honest, I have no idea what you're complaining about.

I'm complaining about just that - "******** the market share". it's that same kind of thinking that fed england the L82, and kept the most effective tools out of a soldier's hands when he needs them. govt tenders are dealt to the lowest bid, so we wind up carrying the gun which will make/save the most money, not the one we need the most. the US is notorious for that kind of s**t, and it's one of the reasons that they're one of the least effective fighting force ($/kill) in the world.  

[King 0wl]

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

don't worry, it's not your fault.

the ar-15 is just a shitty rifle.

which is opinion based....


people who actually use them and it's record prove otherwise.

not opinion, fact.

awkward, fragile, inaccurate, unbalanced... the 'people' who use them outside of the country that derives massive funding from its use are rarely considered effective fighting forces, and those that do have a decent record are usually still tied up with the military industrial complex anyway.

all opinions.... false opinions


if it were s**t,the .mil wouldnt be using them.

hahahahaha

oh ye poor naive child  

[Recon_Ninja_985]

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

don't worry, it's not your fault.

the ar-15 is just a shitty rifle.

which is opinion based....


people who actually use them and it's record prove otherwise.

not opinion, fact.

awkward, fragile, inaccurate, unbalanced... the 'people' who use them outside of the country that derives massive funding from its use are rarely considered effective fighting forces, and those that do have a decent record are usually still tied up with the military industrial complex anyway.

all opinions.... false opinions


if it were s**t,the .mil wouldnt be using them.

hahahahaha

oh ye poor naive child

LEARN

as for your lowest bidder BS comment about quality being s**t, you obviously dont know what requirement specs are. everything is built to .mil spec. they dont take whatever cheap s**t is thrown at them without meeting the standard.

the bulk of your posting is just you talking out of your a**.

the only truth I have seen you post yet is that you agree that the SA-80 sucks balls....at least until a german company had to fix it  

[Fresnel]

Quote:

Fresnel

They're balanced quite well, if you get one with a reasonable, gov't-profile barrel. Mine's a match HBAR, it's a full three pounds heavier than the standard, and it's actually not bad for competition-style shooting, but it's s**t for fast target switching and run-and-gun like you'd find in combat or a 3-gun match.

which is the point I'm making.

Did you miss the part where I said this was my own personal AR, which has three pounds more barrel than a standard AR/M16? Because I said that, and it makes a ******** of difference.

Quote:

Fresnel

It's not as fragile as most people think. I've been negligent with mine, not cleaning it for months on end and firing hundreds of rounds every week. I've never had a jam that wasn't the fault of a bad hand-load or my $10 magazines. Hell, I can't even remember the last time I cleaned it, and my last few hundred rounds have all been Wolf, and Wolf is notoriously dirty. Aside from a funny smell and unusually heavy recoil, there's been no change in operation. My gun will gobble any bullet you care to feed it (within weight restrictions for a 1:7 barrel) and not think twice about it.

Having served with operators using them, and been issued them more than a few times (well, an M4 actually, but they're pretty close), the average number of IA drills per effective kill for the american service weapon is close to five times that for most other developed fighting forces, specifically I refer to the Australian.

We probably fire four times the shots. After watching an ambush in Afghanistan accidentally caught on video, we use a s**t-ton of ammo for NOTHING. Dude was blasting off 40mm like there was no tomorrow. Probably a thousand rounds of 5.56 put downrange for four kills. Nobody was ******** aiming, they were just blasting away. Hardly effective or efficient.

Quote:

Fresnel

Awkward is most certainly an opinion. I find them less awkward than most other rifles, and I've never handled one that felt notably better. I find all long guns to be inherently slightly awkward in that they need two hands, and I don't have a very strong support hand, but the AR is no worse than any other. Some people find it quite comfortable, others not so much. I'm just closer to the first group than the second. The buttstock is fantastic, however, as is the pistol grip. They both revolutionized the industry. All the controls are right where you need them, except the bolt release, but the workaround for that is to just slap the entire side of the receiver when you need it, and that works just fine. It's not ambidextrous standard, but it was designed fifty years ago, in the days of "7% of the market share? ******** 'em." To be honest, I have no idea what you're complaining about.

I'm complaining about just that - "******** the market share". it's that same kind of thinking that fed england the L82, and kept the most effective tools out of a soldier's hands when he needs them. govt tenders are dealt to the lowest bid, so we wind up carrying the gun which will make/save the most money, not the one we need the most. the US is notorious for that kind of s**t, and it's one of the reasons that they're one of the least effective fighting force ($/kill) in the world.

It was the 1960's, EVERY military weapon was built without the left-handed soldier in mind. We were a rifle and a half away from bolt-actions. And the reason we waste so much money per kill is partially because we waste something like fifteen hundred rounds per kill because of suppressing fire, and partially because we're the goddamn USA, we're kings of the ******** universe, and money means nothing to us, so let's wipe our asses with hundreds and fight a war with TECHNOLOGY. I saw a picture a while back of a prototype robot that mounted a pair of AA-12's. The AA-12's had stick magazines. You know what that means? The robot empties its entire 1.5 second, 14-shot payload into a grand total of one insurgent, and the guy next to him bashes the fifty million dollar robot into scrap metal with the butt of the AK-47 he got in trade for a pair of shoes. THAT'S the kind of s**t I'm talking about here.

ETA: Oh, and it's also probably because we haven't NOT been at war with someone since 1930. Constant war really wears down your equipment, causing failures and constant maintenance, driving up costs. We don't have the "let's just stay at home today and not kill people" mentality like the rest of the sane world that gives you guys the advantage of saving money on asstons of maintenance. And the fact that our military is pretty ******** huge makes change difficult to boot, so it's tough to upgrade the equipment every soldier carries.  

[Recon_Ninja_985]

Fresnel

Quote:

Fresnel

They're balanced quite well, if you get one with a reasonable, gov't-profile barrel. Mine's a match HBAR, it's a full three pounds heavier than the standard, and it's actually not bad for competition-style shooting, but it's s**t for fast target switching and run-and-gun like you'd find in combat or a 3-gun match.

which is the point I'm making.

Did you miss the part where I said this was my own personal AR, which has three pounds more barrel than a standard AR/M16? Because I said that, and it makes a ******** of difference.

Quote:

Fresnel

It's not as fragile as most people think. I've been negligent with mine, not cleaning it for months on end and firing hundreds of rounds every week. I've never had a jam that wasn't the fault of a bad hand-load or my $10 magazines. Hell, I can't even remember the last time I cleaned it, and my last few hundred rounds have all been Wolf, and Wolf is notoriously dirty. Aside from a funny smell and unusually heavy recoil, there's been no change in operation. My gun will gobble any bullet you care to feed it (within weight restrictions for a 1:7 barrel) and not think twice about it.

Having served with operators using them, and been issued them more than a few times (well, an M4 actually, but they're pretty close), the average number of IA drills per effective kill for the american service weapon is close to five times that for most other developed fighting forces, specifically I refer to the Australian.

We probably fire four times the shots. After watching an ambush in Afghanistan accidentally caught on video, we use a s**t-ton of ammo for NOTHING. Dude was blasting off 40mm like there was no tomorrow. Probably a thousand rounds of 5.56 put downrange for four kills. Nobody was ******** aiming, they were just blasting away. Hardly effective or efficient.

Quote:

Fresnel

Awkward is most certainly an opinion. I find them less awkward than most other rifles, and I've never handled one that felt notably better. I find all long guns to be inherently slightly awkward in that they need two hands, and I don't have a very strong support hand, but the AR is no worse than any other. Some people find it quite comfortable, others not so much. I'm just closer to the first group than the second. The buttstock is fantastic, however, as is the pistol grip. They both revolutionized the industry. All the controls are right where you need them, except the bolt release, but the workaround for that is to just slap the entire side of the receiver when you need it, and that works just fine. It's not ambidextrous standard, but it was designed fifty years ago, in the days of "7% of the market share? ******** 'em." To be honest, I have no idea what you're complaining about.

I'm complaining about just that - "******** the market share". it's that same kind of thinking that fed england the L82, and kept the most effective tools out of a soldier's hands when he needs them. govt tenders are dealt to the lowest bid, so we wind up carrying the gun which will make/save the most money, not the one we need the most. the US is notorious for that kind of s**t, and it's one of the reasons that they're one of the least effective fighting force ($/kill) in the world.

It was the 1960's, EVERY military weapon was built without the left-handed soldier in mind. We were a rifle and a half away from bolt-actions. And the reason we waste so much money per kill is partially because we waste something like fifteen hundred rounds per kill because of suppressing fire, and partially because we're the goddamn USA, we're kings of the ******** universe, and money means nothing to us, so let's wipe our asses with hundreds and fight a war with TECHNOLOGY. I saw a picture a while back of a prototype robot that mounted a pair of AA-12's. The AA-12's had stick magazines. You know what that means? The robot empties its entire 1.5 second, 14-shot payload into a grand total of one insurgent, and the guy next to him bashes the fifty million dollar robot into scrap metal with the butt of the AK-47 he got in trade for a pair of shoes. THAT'S the kind of s**t I'm talking about here.

ETA: Oh, and it's also probably because we haven't NOT been at war with someone since 1930. Constant war really wears down your equipment, causing failures and constant maintenance, driving up costs. We don't have the "let's just stay at home today and not kill people" mentality like the rest of the sane world that gives you guys the advantage of saving money on asstons of maintenance. And the fact that our military is pretty ******** huge makes change difficult to boot, so it's tough to upgrade the equipment every soldier carries.

if we were to upgrade our arsenal it would be because we wanted something more modern, not necessarily because we needed it.

"Probably a thousand rounds of 5.56 put downrange for four kills. Nobody was ******** aiming, they were just blasting away. Hardly effective or efficient. "

nah, thats perfectly normal. more shooting going out means less shooting coming in.  

[Fresnel]

Recon_Ninja_985

"Probably a thousand rounds of 5.56 put downrange for four kills. Nobody was ******** aiming, they were just blasting away. Hardly effective or efficient. "

nah, thats perfectly normal. more shooting going out means less shooting coming in.

If I were ever a grunt, I would work my a** off to get to be a designated marksman. I can't do that spray-and-pray s**t. Let everyone else do that, I'm going to take aim and pop someone in the head when he looks up.  

[King 0wl]

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

don't worry, it's not your fault.

the ar-15 is just a shitty rifle.

which is opinion based....


people who actually use them and it's record prove otherwise.

not opinion, fact.

awkward, fragile, inaccurate, unbalanced... the 'people' who use them outside of the country that derives massive funding from its use are rarely considered effective fighting forces, and those that do have a decent record are usually still tied up with the military industrial complex anyway.

all opinions.... false opinions


if it were s**t,the .mil wouldnt be using them.

hahahahaha

oh ye poor naive child

LEARN

as for your lowest bidder BS comment about quality being s**t, you obviously dont know what requirement specs are. everything is built to .mil spec. they dont take whatever cheap s**t is thrown at them without meeting the standard.

the bulk of your posting is just you talking out of your a**.

the only truth I have seen you post yet is that you agree that the SA-80 sucks balls....at least until a german company had to fix it

oh yeah and where the ******** did you serve son, to gain your wise and mighty all-knowing omniscient opinions about what is right and proper about ******** yanks soldiers are all the same, even your operators can't tell an arms factory from a school.  

[Recon_Ninja_985]

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

not opinion, fact.

awkward, fragile, inaccurate, unbalanced... the 'people' who use them outside of the country that derives massive funding from its use are rarely considered effective fighting forces, and those that do have a decent record are usually still tied up with the military industrial complex anyway.

all opinions.... false opinions


if it were s**t,the .mil wouldnt be using them.

hahahahaha

oh ye poor naive child

LEARN

as for your lowest bidder BS comment about quality being s**t, you obviously dont know what requirement specs are. everything is built to .mil spec. they dont take whatever cheap s**t is thrown at them without meeting the standard.

the bulk of your posting is just you talking out of your a**.

the only truth I have seen you post yet is that you agree that the SA-80 sucks balls....at least until a german company had to fix it

oh yeah and where the ******** did you serve son, to gain your wise and mighty all-knowing omniscient opinions about what is right and proper about ******** yanks soldiers are all the same, even your operators can't tell an arms factory from a school.

rolleyes  

[King 0wl]

Fresnel

Did you miss the part where I said this was my own personal AR, which has three pounds more barrel than a standard AR/M16? Because I said that, and it makes a ******** of difference.

Nono, I can totally dig that - I'm sure it does make a ******** of difference. Which is my point - As a stock weapons platform, it's a pretty subpar multirole infantry weapon. I'm not debating if its a good weapon for sport or rec shooting, especially with modifications, I'm debating that it's a sensible chocie to outfit a nation with them

Fresnel

We probably fire four times the shots. After watching an ambush in Afghanistan accidentally caught on video, we use a s**t-ton of ammo for NOTHING. Dude was blasting off 40mm like there was no tomorrow. Probably a thousand rounds of 5.56 put downrange for four kills. Nobody was ******** aiming, they were just blasting away. Hardly effective or efficient.

Pretty much my point. The american war machine has been going about thigns the wrong way for the past forty years - they train their soldiers not to think, just to put as much ordnance on target as they can carry to the engagement, and their equipment and performance in combat reflects that.

I don't blame the soldiers for this - once you're in a machine like that, it's pretty impossible to not do what you're being trained to. but that doesn't excuse it.

Fresnel

It was the 1960's, EVERY military weapon was built without the left-handed soldier in mind. We were a rifle and a half away from bolt-actions. And the reason we waste so much money per kill is partially because we waste something like fifteen hundred rounds per kill because of suppressing fire, and partially because we're the goddamn USA, we're kings of the ******** universe, and money means nothing to us, so let's wipe our asses with hundreds and fight a war with TECHNOLOGY. I saw a picture a while back of a prototype robot that mounted a pair of AA-12's. The AA-12's had stick magazines. You know what that means? The robot empties its entire 1.5 second, 14-shot payload into a grand total of one insurgent, and the guy next to him bashes the fifty million dollar robot into scrap metal with the butt of the AK-47 he got in trade for a pair of shoes. THAT'S the kind of s**t I'm talking about here.

no argument from me on this point.

Fresnel

ETA: Oh, and it's also probably because we haven't NOT been at war with someone since 1930.

do you see how this...

Fresnel

we're the goddamn USA, we're kings of the ******** universe, and money means nothing to us, so let's wipe our asses with hundreds and fight a war with TECHNOLOGY.

and this are a self-fulfilling prophecy? usa: ouroboros fighting machine, you dig?

Fresnel

Constant war really wears down your equipment, causing failures and constant maintenance, driving up costs. We don't have the "let's just stay at home today and not kill people" mentality like the rest of the sane world that gives you guys the advantage of saving money on asstons of maintenance. And the fact that our military is pretty ******** huge makes change difficult to boot, so it's tough to upgrade the equipment every soldier carries.

Sure - I'm not arguing why it happens, just whether or not it's the right way to do things.  

[Fresnel]

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

not opinion, fact.

awkward, fragile, inaccurate, unbalanced... the 'people' who use them outside of the country that derives massive funding from its use are rarely considered effective fighting forces, and those that do have a decent record are usually still tied up with the military industrial complex anyway.

all opinions.... false opinions


if it were s**t,the .mil wouldnt be using them.

hahahahaha

oh ye poor naive child

LEARN

as for your lowest bidder BS comment about quality being s**t, you obviously dont know what requirement specs are. everything is built to .mil spec. they dont take whatever cheap s**t is thrown at them without meeting the standard.

the bulk of your posting is just you talking out of your a**.

the only truth I have seen you post yet is that you agree that the SA-80 sucks balls....at least until a german company had to fix it

oh yeah and where the ******** did you serve son, to gain your wise and mighty all-knowing omniscient opinions about what is right and proper about ******** yanks soldiers are all the same, even your operators can't tell an arms factory from a school.

 

[King 0wl]

Fresnel

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

Recon_Ninja_985

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

not opinion, fact.

awkward, fragile, inaccurate, unbalanced... the 'people' who use them outside of the country that derives massive funding from its use are rarely considered effective fighting forces, and those that do have a decent record are usually still tied up with the military industrial complex anyway.

all opinions.... false opinions


if it were s**t,the .mil wouldnt be using them.

hahahahaha

oh ye poor naive child

LEARN

as for your lowest bidder BS comment about quality being s**t, you obviously dont know what requirement specs are. everything is built to .mil spec. they dont take whatever cheap s**t is thrown at them without meeting the standard.

the bulk of your posting is just you talking out of your a**.

the only truth I have seen you post yet is that you agree that the SA-80 sucks balls....at least until a german company had to fix it

oh yeah and where the ******** did you serve son, to gain your wise and mighty all-knowing omniscient opinions about what is right and proper about ******** yanks soldiers are all the same, even your operators can't tell an arms factory from a school.

i lol'd.  

[Fresnel]

n-n-Dimethyltryptamine

Fresnel

Did you miss the part where I said this was my own personal AR, which has three pounds more barrel than a standard AR/M16? Because I said that, and it makes a ******** of difference.

Nono, I can totally dig that - I'm sure it does make a ******** of difference. Which is my point - As a stock weapons platform, it's a pretty subpar multirole infantry weapon. I'm not debating if its a good weapon for sport or rec shooting, especially with modifications, I'm debating that it's a sensible chocie to outfit a nation with them

Fresnel

We probably fire four times the shots. After watching an ambush in Afghanistan accidentally caught on video, we use a s**t-ton of ammo for NOTHING. Dude was blasting off 40mm like there was no tomorrow. Probably a thousand rounds of 5.56 put downrange for four kills. Nobody was ******** aiming, they were just blasting away. Hardly effective or efficient.

Pretty much my point. The american war machine has been going about thigns the wrong way for the past forty years - they train their soldiers not to think, just to put as much ordnance on target as they can carry to the engagement, and their equipment and performance in combat reflects that.

I don't blame the soldiers for this - once you're in a machine like that, it's pretty impossible to not do what you're being trained to. but that doesn't excuse it.

Fresnel

It was the 1960's, EVERY military weapon was built without the left-handed soldier in mind. We were a rifle and a half away from bolt-actions. And the reason we waste so much money per kill is partially because we waste something like fifteen hundred rounds per kill because of suppressing fire, and partially because we're the goddamn USA, we're kings of the ******** universe, and money means nothing to us, so let's wipe our asses with hundreds and fight a war with TECHNOLOGY. I saw a picture a while back of a prototype robot that mounted a pair of AA-12's. The AA-12's had stick magazines. You know what that means? The robot empties its entire 1.5 second, 14-shot payload into a grand total of one insurgent, and the guy next to him bashes the fifty million dollar robot into scrap metal with the butt of the AK-47 he got in trade for a pair of shoes. THAT'S the kind of s**t I'm talking about here.

no argument from me on this point.

Fresnel

ETA: Oh, and it's also probably because we haven't NOT been at war with someone since 1930.

do you see how this...

Fresnel

we're the goddamn USA, we're kings of the ******** universe, and money means nothing to us, so let's wipe our asses with hundreds and fight a war with TECHNOLOGY.

and this are a self-fulfilling prophecy? usa: ouroboros fighting machine, you dig?

Fresnel

Constant war really wears down your equipment, causing failures and constant maintenance, driving up costs. We don't have the "let's just stay at home today and not kill people" mentality like the rest of the sane world that gives you guys the advantage of saving money on asstons of maintenance. And the fact that our military is pretty ******** huge makes change difficult to boot, so it's tough to upgrade the equipment every soldier carries.

Sure - I'm not arguing why it happens, just whether or not it's the right way to do things.

I'd like to point out two things now. One, you're blaming the entire US tactical mind on the weapon we use. The McNamara Warfighting Technique could be blamed for the weapon, perhaps, except that its biggest risk was introducing the 5.56 round. Given that the entire Western world (and many other countries) now uses the 5.56 round standard, you can't really say it didn't work out. The biggest problem with switching guns is that there would be a MASSIVE overhaul, switching literally millions of rifles, which would cost us a ******** of money, and on TOP of that, everyone who wants to sell us a new weapons system is just gouging us. IIRC, the military bulk pricing for the SCAR was $1700-1800 per unit. When an M4A1 goes for $980, that's a BIG ******** difference. Maybe if someone wanted to sell us a gun in the $1100 range, then we can talk about buying something that's only marginally better anyway.

Second, you started this off by insulting an AR-15, and now you're backpedaling that.  

[Recon_Ninja_985]

"Pretty much my point. The american war machine has been going about thigns the wrong way for the past forty years - they train their soldiers not to think, just to put as much ordnance on target as they can carry to the engagement, and their equipment and performance in combat reflects that.

I don't blame the soldiers for this - once you're in a machine like that, it's pretty impossible to not do what you're being trained to. but that doesn't excuse it. "

putting massive amounts of bullets down range IS the correct way to fight an enemy if you want to minimize friendly casualties. if you arent ******** AGGRESSIVE it means they will be, because they arent being shot at so much they will figure out a way to move around you and then kill you, because they would have been allowed that opportunity.

that's how you fight a war in this era, and coincidentally that combined with other modern tactics and hardware has drastically minimized friendly casualties. here we are fighting 2 different wars spanning almost as long as vietnam itself. 60,000 US troops died in vietnam, compare that to only 6,000 for Iraq and Afghanistan combined. a lot's changed since 40 years ago.  

[Fresnel]

Recon_Ninja_985

"Pretty much my point. The american war machine has been going about thigns the wrong way for the past forty years - they train their soldiers not to think, just to put as much ordnance on target as they can carry to the engagement, and their equipment and performance in combat reflects that.

I don't blame the soldiers for this - once you're in a machine like that, it's pretty impossible to not do what you're being trained to. but that doesn't excuse it. "

putting massive amounts of bullets down range IS the correct way to fight an enemy if you want to minimize friendly casualties. if you arent ******** AGGRESSIVE it means they will be, because they arent being shot at so much they will figure out a way to move around you and then kill you, because they would have been allowed that opportunity.

that's how you fight a war in this era, and coincidentally that combined with other modern tactics and hardware has drastically minimized friendly casualties. here we are fighting 2 different wars spanning almost as long as vietnam itself. 60,000 US troops died in vietnam, compare that to only 6,000 for Iraq and Afghanistan combined. a lot's changed since 40 years ago.

Personally, I think the problem is that EVERYONE is only putting lead downrange. Everyone suppresses, nobody actually shoots to kill, and hits/kills are only accidental. That s**t ain't right. Also, it should be noted that there was a lot more combat in 'Nam.