Quote:
Originally Posted by sigsour
Just for the sake of discussion, because I know that everything I say is purely academic and won't make a lick of difference in the real world, but let's get back to the whole logic of not giving soldiers the best rifle out there.
Argument 1: Have to retrain armourers
Rebuttal: armourers are like car mechanics, once you know how to tear one apart you pretty much know how to tear up most other types. Furthermore the gas piston design predates WW2, and every single semi-auto rifle other than the M16/M4 series has it including many SWAT team and Special Forces weapons. I don't buy it that an armourer who takes pride in his job is not going to know how to fix a gas piston system
Argument 2: Have to retrain soldiers
Rebuttal: So? There were many more M1 Garands that were replaced, there were many M14s that were replaced. Just give soldiers a day or two to train them how to dissassemble the stuff. How difficult can it be? The time saved later on will pay for itself. Many armies around the world have gone through the same thing before - sure you could say they have a smaller army, but they also have a smaller budget.
Argument 3: It costs a lot of money?
Rebuttal: Let's be reasonable. Many armies use more than one type of rifle. There's no reason why a gas piston rifle can't be given to infantry troops in appropriate environments like Afghanistan and Iraq. Troops stationed on carriers, in South Korea, Okinawa, Europe, the Americas etc can still be fitted with regular M16s. I think this is a reasonable suggestion and I think will save money very quickly due to more effective combat, and less insurance payouts.
|
Well, I agree with your arguments here. But when it comes to real life, everything is different from ideals i.e. a realistic world is TOO different from an idealistic world.
Tell you the truth, everything is about money. MONEY MONEY MONEY. If you don't have the money, then you can't buy a house, a car, foods, drinks, daily necessities, airsoft, and not even raise a family (talking about getting married? You need money to support a family!!!).
Say, if you have a $1000.00 CAD monthly salary only, and you have to live on that including the rent, what would your budget plan look like?
And say, if you have a $5000.00 CAD monthly salary instead, what would your budget plan look like now?
When you think about money, everything about the US army getting a less-desirable M4 will make sense.
Let's take a look at another example. Say, you are a leutenant leading a 40-men reinforced marine platoon in Iraq. Do you want everyone of your precious/valuable man to have an ok M4 carbine that can still shoot, or do you want only 20 of them having a much better HK416, and rest of them having only a pistol to fight, providing that an M4 is $800.00 USD and an HK416 is $1600.00 USD? (i.e. simple mathematics).
Of course, I agree with you about the weapon swapping among units stationed in different combat zones. However, since military units are constantly moving and deployed to different locations at different times, it is easier for them to have synchronized all the equipments instead of thousand different equipments. For example, you don't see the US 1st Armoured division to use M1A2 tanks in Iraq and all of sudden they can only use the old M60A3 in Europe, right?
If you think that the US (or Canadian) military needs more money, then tell the Democrats (most of them are anti-war) to quit stopping the war fundings and weapon research fundings!!!
Well, here are my few simple opinions, and they may not be right. If this is regarding airsoft, then HA, if you can get me any airsoft gun that out-perform any other airsoft gun with a reasonable price, I will take it right away.