4 U.S. Weapons of War That Need to Be Retired Now

The political situation in Israel at the time meant that they had to try to get more homegrown weaponry. And if you go by movie appearance than the Ingram is way more popular.

 

Actually, the design is the way it is for many reasons.

Originally, they were rather crude, lots of stamped metal so easy to manufacture. And although the 9mm is the "Standard version", they made conversion kits to make them fire lots of other rounds, from .22 to .45, .380, and .40. The ability to make caliber changes by only replacing a few parts was a key concept when it was designed (in the early days Israel often took any ammunition it could acquire).

And whenever a new pistol ammo is created, you can guarantee that a conversion for the Uzi will follow shortly.

 

Oh I agree as far their use for HOUSE CLEARING.

But as far as battle FIELD....FIELD conditions....I wouldn't want one.

I want my BARRET!!

AboveAlpha....p.s...and my Knife....and some wire....my Sig....Colt 45....an Overunder M-16 Varient with Grenade Launcher....a few Caymores....a LGB-6....a cell phone....a Sat Phone....and an issue of Hustler.

AboveAlpha

 

You know...I abhore violence.

But I am well trained and capable of extreme acts of violence.

The thing is.....when it comes down to it....unlike the United States and most of Europe where people have a RIGHT to complain and get drunk and make money and do and say pretty much what they want....it is NOT like that for everyone in the world and I have been to some places that are so F@#%ED UP I have a hard time talking about them.

It is REAL EASY for a person who is safe at home on their computer in a warm home in the winter or a cool airconditioned home in the summer or tropics when such a person has at their fingertips access to food, water, medicine, Police, Fire and if they live in the U.S., Europe, Japan...etc...they are PROTECTED BY THE U.S. MILITARY....thus they don't have to worry about a group of Soldiers putting a bag over their head in the Middle of the Night and forcing them to join the ranks.

It's REAL EASY for such a person who has neber known war or famine or disease upon a national level to say...."THE UNITED STATES SHOULD STAY OUT OF THIS NATION OR THAN NATION AND WE SHOULD LEAVE OTHER NATIONS ALONE!!"

REEEEAL EASY TO SAY....unless you happen to be a member of the Political Opposition in such a Nation and you must fight just to stay alive as your nation is run by murderers and warlords.

Yeah...it's real easy to say....NOT ME!!! I WON'T HELP!!!

And it's also REAL EASY for the same person who refuses to help TO BE THE FIRST ONE COMPLAINING WHEN THEIR ELECTRICITY GOES OFF FOR 5 MINUTES BECAUSE THEY ARE MISSING THE END OF THEIR SITCOM!!!

And it;s REAL EASY for this kind of person to claim that the U.S. should stay out and not help....because this person is not the one doing the dying.

AboveAlpha

 

Preaching to the choir here brother.

I consider myself a "militant pacifist". I find violence disgusting, and something only to be done as a last resort. But if it needs to be done make it as short and brutal as possible as a deterrence to others not to behave the same way.

And of all the countries I have been in over the years, not once did I have anybody overseas treat me badly, or say anything but kind words to me. In fact, the vast majority I talked to thanked me for doing what I could to help them out.

The only negative words I have ever had were said to me by my "fellow Americans" here in the US. Who like you said live in relative comfort and safety, and have no concept what things are like in the rest of the world.

And to understand how few in this country ever travel overseas, only around 34% of the US population even has a passport. So only 1 in 3 are actually able to leave and return to the country legally.

And that is up tremendously from the 6% number that was the norm prior to 2001. The surge is not actually in passports (that number has actually remained in the 6-8% range), but in those with the cards that are good for Canada and Mexico. Travel North and South of the border now requires either a card or passport, so those that never planning on going anywhere other then our border neighbors do not bother with anything else.

 

Well that's just is it isn't it?

When you are a citizen of a Continental spanning nation surrounded by allies and massive oceans protected by a Navy with Military Caabilities existing at the highest level in Human Military History...and you don't have to worry about anything....unless you fly out ans EXPERIENCE what Billions of People all over the Planet have to deal with on a daily basis just to stay alive.....such a persons perspective is extremely limited.

AboveAlpha

 

My deer rifle is a Winchester pre-64 Mod. 70 chambered for the Winchester .270.

 

Very good!

 

"LGM-30G Minuteman III

Though the missiles have been upgraded many times, the weapons are old and increasingly costly to maintain. Nor has the U.S. Air Force, which is charged with maintaining the doomsday arsenal, been a particularly good steward of these systems. Bad behavior has been rampant—many officers have been caught cheating on exams and abusing subordinates. Morale has all but collapsed.
Meanwhile, the weapons will need to be replaced at some point—and that will cost billions.

Boeing F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet

Extending the service life of the Hornet is proving to be costly and difficult. Much more difficult than the Navy or Boeing ever imagined. Add to that the fact that there is a shortage of technicians who can perform the work, which means there is a massive backlog of Hornets that are in need of repair.

Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM

The missile is very vulnerable to digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammers—which are found on the most advanced Russian and Chinese fighters like the Sukhoi Su-35S Flanker-E. American pilots say they expect they will have to fire several missiles to hit a single target. “Even with my six AIM-120's in the F-22, sometimes it is not enough,” one senior Air Force pilot told the National Interest. “The Pk [probability of kill] of those missiles is low against a DRFM jamming fourth gen+ threat.”
The AMRAAM must be replaced sooner rather than later—it’s great to have the world’s best fighters, but it’s a huge problem if their weapons can’t hit the broadside of a barn.

М-16 / М-4

The fundamental problem with the M-16 series is its direct gas impingement design—that design is prone to fouling, because the firing mechanisms are exposed to the exhaust from the cartridge when the weapon is fired. That means the weapon must be kept meticulously clean at all times—something that is not always possible in combat."

The F/A-18 super-hornet should have another 5-15 years on it. Most of the worlds air forces are not to par with ours, and the Russians, Chinese, and European Union have some stuff the could destroy or easily destroy them however they're just coming out and cost a lot so they have few of these. As for the Minute Man, it's old but with the exception of Russia, no one can shoot down these misses. A large salvo, say 15 at one city, with over ride even Russia's systems and at least one will get through

The other missile, attached to fighter aircraft, can shoot down 90% of the aircraft around the world if not higher. The advanced stuff Russia and China have are in small numbers. Yet, they do need to get an upgraded one to destroy these threats.

The M-4/M-16- the M-16's a bit outdated, and it gives us less firepower than most of our enemies who have fully automatic weapons, which puts us at a huge disadvantage in urban combat. An M-4 that could switch between fully and semi would be great. We switched to semi-automatic during Vietnam as an ammunition saving thing, and to increase accuracy, but their are times a fully automatic would be wonderful.

 

I wonder what the Ukranians would say to that sentiment.

 

All this talk about this and that rifle, as if rifles fight wars. The main ingredient in battle is the man holding the rifle, not the rifle. A trained and determined man with an AK or M4 or FN or plain semi-auto AR is going to kill you just as dead. If his AK can't touch you at 500 yards, he will bide his time until you are at 250 yards and kill you - and it wont matter how great your rifle is because dead men don't shoot back.

 

As the Ukraine has even less in the way of a Military than Russia currently does....the Russian Military Incursion into the Ukraine existed at about the same level or extent of STUDENTS OF AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES INVADING FLORIDA FOR SPRING BREAK!!!

Did you SEE any of the video of Russian Forces sitting on and getting rides from T-72's??

It looked about as organized as a bunch of Bikers riding Harleys heading up to STURGIS for a Party!!!

Except in the Bikers case...their Harley Motors made the trip.

In the case of Russian T-72's....not so much.

AboveAlpha

 

The new AK-12 has an effective firing range of 600M same as an M-16. The new rifle was initially turned down by the Russia MOD in 2013 due to large surplus invitories of AK-74's but Putin must have over ruled them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-12

 

I have seen pictures of US infantry in top of Sherman tanks in WW2 going from one battle to the next.

 

Your wrong about that.

Believe me....a person is much better off being shot by a guy firing an AK-47 than if he was shot by another guy firing an M-16 or M-16 Varient.

The M-16, M4 and Varients of firing the 5.56 x 45mm NATO Round obtains such a high level of velocity and spin that when this round impacts FLESH the rounds high rate of spin translates into a TUMBLING ACTION that causes enormous amounts of physical trauma within the Human Body.

The AK-47's heavier 7.62x39mm will tend to go through and through the Human Body and this does not cause as much physical trauma and Soldiers shot by an AK-47 have a much higher rate of survival than Soldiers who were shot by an M4, M-16 or Varient of.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Yes.....IN WORLD WAR TWO!!!!

Not now.

That alone should tell you something.

AboveAlpha

 

Ukraine & Russia have both been using the AK-74 since the 1970's & it uses a 5.45 X 35mm cartridge
that does tumble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74

It tells me that both the Amricans & Russians are travelling between battle feilds in a situation where the risk of being shot at sitting there is deemed acceptable under the cercumstances.

Freddy.

 

The Sherman at that time was not a 40 year old tank design.

That photo would be like a photo of US troops riding a M551 Sheridan tank in Afghanistan. We abandoned that tank over 15 years ago, it was no longer viable on the battlefield so was abandoned.

 

What does how modern a tank is have to do with giving troops a lift as long as they are not sitting where they can affect instruments/defience systems?

 

*facepalm*

It is about survivability on the battlefield.

If you only want to give troops a lift, give them trucks or APCs. If you want a tank that has a survivable lifespan on a modern battlefield, give them a modern tank. Not a 40 year old antique.

Although granted, the T-72 is a decent tank - just so long as your adversary is at the "Third World" level of capabilities. Go against the US or NATO with tanks like that, and you are asking to be destroyed in short order.

This is much like the issue most of us serious people have with the Chinese tank inventory. Granted, the most numerous tank in their inventory (Type 59) is not a "bad tank", it is literally a fossil (domestic copy of the T-54, circa 1947). Perfectly fine for dealing with their own civilian population, it would be a catastrophe if they actually tried to use it on the battlefield however.

 

Oh, these "blah-blah M1 is modern T-72 is obsolete" fairy tales. That never gets old, does it?

Just as a tiny reminder, the first one entered production in 1980 and the second one entered production in 1973. T-72 is just 7 years older.

In fact they are both obsolete.

But still, I would prefer travelling on the top of a tank, rather than driving in a coffin HMMWV or an Ural track.

 

One as been continuously updated with the best of the best while the other didn't. And the one that didn't was barely passable as a MBT even when it was brand new. The only thing the T-72 had for it was it's production number. The auto loading mechanism is responsible for a record number of amputation and maiming to the point that Russia restricted the height and weight of the turret crew to minimize the risk.

 

Look at the results in Iraq.

The T-72 against Chieftains and Pattons held their own in the Iran-Iraq War. This was a war where both sides basically had equivalent equipment and training, and it was a decade long stalemate. So if you are comparing the T-72 to the M-60, it is a fair comparison. In this war they gave about as well as they took.

But the T-72 did not fare so well against either Abrams Tanks nor Bradley IFV. In the 1991 Gulf War you had US Regiments with M1 tanks destroying entire Brigades of elite forces in the T-72. In this war (and the sequel in 2003) the results were completely different, pretty much a route for the T-72 and all other Soviet made equipment.

They also did not do so well in Chechen, where almost 10% of the T-72s were destroyed by irregular forces. The Russians still won, because they had more equipment and men then those they were fighting. But they still took surprisingly heavy losses considering who they were fighting.

I will admit, the T-72 is probably one of the finest tanks of it's generation ever made. Easily on par or superior to the M-60 Pershing, but against more modern tanks it comes in at a poor second best. Much like the grades I give to the Chinese tanks. Great for use against their own citizens or third world nations, but the T-72 is well past it's prime for going up against the "major leagues".

 

So you give them a modern battle tank & tell the troops to jump off before you get to the next battle feild. It may not be ideal but in serious long fought wars such as WW2 there are going to be situations where there are not enough opperational trucks & APC's.

 

Nice thing you've pointed that out.
There are at least 21 modification of T-72, which were developed in USSR&Russia only and there are as many foreign ones, I suppose.

That is right, "brand new" M1 with 105 mm gun was hardly a true MBT. Even now it lacks HE frag rounds, which makes it more of a tank destroyer, than a true tank.

Lol worthy. You do realise, that domestic version was superior in both armament and protection to any other tank in the world, when it first appeared, right?

That makes no sence whatsoever. Height and weight are "restricted" due to small volume of fighting compartment and have nothing to do with autoloader design.

Are you really trying to sell, that autoloader is more dangerous than manual reload, while driving offroad and having to put 30 kg round into the gun without touching anything with it's detonator?
And don't forget about that nice armored mechanised blind, which can perfectly well cut your hands of, if you are not cautious enough.
Sorry, not buying.
Using manual reload is uneffective, dangerous and backward at the same time. I have no idea why they have preserved it, while developing Abrams.


Of course you can try to provide statistics for wounds recieved by crew members, while operating T-72 and M1 in peacetime, but I doubt you have wish for it and I bet this data is classified anyway.