Did Weapons Fail U.S. Troops During Afghanistan Assault?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Martlet said:
You make no sense. Your rush to AK 74 fanboism lacks logic. Who cares how much more accurate? You replace the point with the details as though they matter.

Ohh heeeerrrre we go. Fanboism? What have I said that implies or makes me a "fanboy" of either platform.

Lol. Classic in the bold. Your are right...details don't matter. Like someone telling you "ehh you're thinking too much".

If one chooses to state points in discussions, don't get all salty when someone actually asks you to justify your statements in some way. Christ just come out and say "I dont care if its even 1/8" MOA better...it is my choice"...but ffs say something to back your opinion instead of this general fluff you keep presenting.

You actually claimed:
I'll take an M4 to combat over an AK any day of the week. In my opinion, anyone who says otherwise is either under trained or under experienced.

Now your first sentence is your own personal choice and I am not trying to change your mind. Your second sentence...I will ask you to justify such a ridiculous statement. You could not in this thread justify your personal choice without crapping on someone else's choice or their opinion regardless of reason. That is the definition of a fanboy.

Also and this is important...there is a basic concept which you do not grasp. Being less accurate does not make something inaccurate, just as being less reliable doesn't make something unreliable. [wink]

Your representation is not relevant. You're comparing different weapon classes. If you can't understand even that most basic fact, then I understand why you're lost.

Just because you swapped out a rifle for a carbine doesn't mean they were built for the same purpose. It just means they can be overlapped. I've used a butter knife as a screwdriver. That doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job.

Amazingly all M16 supporters never care about that fact when they compare the M16 with the AK47. Interesting, but I digress.

I understand your analogy. You are implying that in the Afghanistan theater with limited CQB engagements, the M4 carbine is not the best or most effective tool for the job that the US Government could issue to the troops. That the M16A4 would be a better choice. If that is not what you meant by your analogy then please elaborate.
 
Last edited:
The M16 would probably be a better choice for the (most likely) longer range of engagements in Afghanistan. However that has little to do with barrel overheating also...

Why can't anyone stay on topic?
 
"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."

The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute.

Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.

That was the only specific info regarding weapon malfunctions in the firefight being reported on. I had assumed this was the failure being considered. There was a vague mention that a small percentage of users complained of jams; but no stats or specific mention of that from that firefight. To me it sounds like they were simply outgunned, outmanned, and fought the good fight that they were able to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom