Krugerrand
05-21-2010, 09:15 AM
I thought a few folks around here may find this an interesting read.
The U.S. military's workhorse rifle — used in battle for the last 40 years — is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban's more primitive but longer range weapons.
As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the performance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round largely discarded in the 1960s.
The M-4 is an updated version of the M-16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. It worked well in Iraq, where much of the fighting was in cities such as Baghdad, Ramadi and Fallujah.
But a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don't retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.
Read on: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_bullet_wars
What I find sad is that the article is peppered with how the Soviets found this all out in the 1980's. It's sad to learn from the School of Hard Knocks when the lessons should have been text book. Of course, it's sad that we didn't learn from the Soviets that Afghanistan is not a good place to fight a war.
The U.S. military's workhorse rifle — used in battle for the last 40 years — is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban's more primitive but longer range weapons.
As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the performance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round largely discarded in the 1960s.
The M-4 is an updated version of the M-16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. It worked well in Iraq, where much of the fighting was in cities such as Baghdad, Ramadi and Fallujah.
But a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don't retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.
Read on: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_bullet_wars
What I find sad is that the article is peppered with how the Soviets found this all out in the 1980's. It's sad to learn from the School of Hard Knocks when the lessons should have been text book. Of course, it's sad that we didn't learn from the Soviets that Afghanistan is not a good place to fight a war.