Capt. Toleran Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Sorry, not me (but the author), that's the title of the article here: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003536.html Interesting snippet from a soldier who traded his broken M-16 for a M-14, and the issues he dealt with. I know there are some M-14 fans here (myself included), so I thought I would post it. Now don't post anything gauche and lock this thread up, usnobill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Thanks for the tale Capt.! I've had a perverse civvie fascination for the M-14 in Iraq service ever since I stumbled on the first picts of them on army.mil. It looked almost as odd as if i had spotted a modern soldier carrying an old M1 Garand! (though I don't think the Army could scrounge that far down the bottom the equipment barrel!) I doubt we'll see any 'reissued' M14s in the game - heck, we may have to wait til the Marine module to see an M16 in-game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Not all that odd, since he is using it scoped, and scoped M21 sniper rifles basically are M14s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Originally posted by AdamL: Mike D, Does the US side not have a proper rifle? All the troops have carbines? I never heard that before. Define "proper". Canada doesn't issue the long C7 anymore either - AIUI all troops in Afghanistan are using the shorter version as well - though some have 16" barrels, putting them shorter than the rifle and longer than the carbine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 The deal is no perceived need for a full fledged battle rifle I would suppose, but I thought the M14 was being used in larger numbers as a sharpshooter weapon. Some guys I've talked to here have expressed a desire for the same thing - such as keeping 1 or 2 FN rifles per section, right in the infantry sections - but I don't know if there is an actual tactical need for such or if that is just wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Originally posted by AdamL: No M16's in a hardcore sim modeling a major war involving the US army is surprising. Whatever though. It's not surprising in that the actual US Army is not using them anymore; as stated, neither is Canada. UK, too, went to the SA80 ages ago - no one seems to be using full size battle rifles any more. Engagement ranges are shorter, and I suppose the corollary is that artillery is smarter for reaching out to longer ranges without excessive collateral damage? Dunno, but if the real Army isn't using them, makes sense not to see it in a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I think Stryker Brigade was among the first to go all M4 so its no surprise a Stryker Brigade game would stick with 'em. I only discovered this last year and it came as quite a shock to me too. I hadn't thought M4 and M16 were really all THAT different! Where's that piece of reference I stumbled on just last night (rummages through the magazines strewn across his floor)... Ah, here it is. Procurement plans for 2008: - $98 million to buy 59,000 M4 carbines to re-equip troops - $596 million for 7,000 new Humvee vehicles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Two questions being conflated, I think. By some standards the M-16 is already a carbine. It is meant for volume of fire under 300 yards. But in Iraq, even the M-16 is seen as too much weapon, and the M-4 is preferred by most of the soldiers. The main reason is they are usually fighting mounted, and it is difficult to maneuver even an M-16 inside a vehicle. When they aren't mounted they are frequently clearing houses, and want a weapon they can rotate forward of their body to reach around corners and such. Many units have an SOP, though, to designate one man per squad as the squad marksman, equipped with a full M16, A4 model with modular rail for attachments, using a fixed 4x sight. He gets the job of reaching out for longer shots. In addition, there are formal sniper teams in most battalions (certainly in the Marines). These are 3 man teams equipped with 1-2 M24 bolt action rifle with full rifle caliber, sometimes a 50 cal rifle, both scoped obviously, and the last team member with M203 for close in security. These are not operating with the ordinary squads, though. Instead they interdict. They saw heavy action in Fallujah where there were stable front lines for days, with an open enemy in possession of territory etc. In Afghanistan where ranges are much longer in mountain terrain and more ops are heliborne then leg, rather than continually mounted, scoped full caliber weapons are regularly used. FWIW... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsobill Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 sorry i have to post this really really gauche stuff here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Okay unsobil, so now CM has become my SECOND favorite game. About M4 & M14. The two topics may not be entirely unrelated. M4's designed for up-close house-to-house fighting. M14 was dusted off (mostly by reserve units I believe) to provide the troops with more punch at the other extreme - punch holes thru cinderblocks at ranges that would stop a short-barrel 5.56 round. Use an M14 inside a residential building and there's no telling who may get struck four walls away! [ June 11, 2007, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 M16s are still in use by support units, such as Base Support Battalions and Quartermaster Companies. The Army does have designated sniper teams at the company level, they use a mix of M14s,M21s and M24s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Originally posted by Splinty: M16s are still in use by support units, such as Base Support Battalions and Quartermaster Companies. The Army does have designated sniper teams at the company level, they use a mix of M14s,M21s and M24s. Correct on the M16 part. However, each PLATOON has a designated marksman team. My recon platoon has 2x M14's. Both my junior and senior scouts have one on their Stryker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 The word from the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is that many of them dislike the M-16 and instead get M-14's issued to them whenever they get a chance. The guns are tough and reliable and that .308 round has some real punch, unlike the .223. The strong stocks are also great for smashing the enemy's face in with the rifle butt. Our troops in combat love them, so that soldier in the article is not alone in his admiration for the M-14 as a highly effective combat rifle at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Originally posted by Lee: The word from the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is that many of them dislike the M-16 and instead get M-14's issued to them whenever they get a chance. The guns are tough and reliable and that .308 round has some real punch, unlike the .223. Isn't that why the M240B is used as a support weapon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Yep, always nice to have a full auto belt-fed .308 nearby for support. But there's no substitute for having a .308 battle rifle on you and ready to use in an instant wherever you might be when you need it. The more, the merrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I hear the same arguments about the replacement of the FN in Canada - old-liners who wish they had a steel buttplate to smash into Charlie's or Ivan's or a Screaming Fantasian's face, plus the "old" NATO standard 7.62x51 round. Dunno; human face is pretty squishy anyway. A bayonet through it or even that plastic butt on the M-16 would probably do a mean job to it, too. Hope I don't have to find out. "You can tell it's Mattel...It's Swell!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 When I first found out the M4 was replacing the M16 I emailed a buddy a picture of the weapon with a comparison pict of the old "Man from Uncle" toy spy gun of my distant distant DISTANT youth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I liked both the M-14 (with the heavy barrel) and the M-16. I also liked that FN-FAL for awhile. But it is hard to beat that .223 ammo when it comes to carrying a few hundred rounds. I never had a problem with lack of penetration by the .223, it traveled thru dense terrain just fine. In that dessert I could see the want for the longer ranged firearm. Urban terrain I would still go with the .223 chambered rifle due to its greater flexibility in acquiring targets quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itael Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Let's leave the technical stuff behind... You gotta love the looks of the M4, it looks so cool compared to the M14/M16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kineas Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 What about the 'devastating' effects of the .223 at close range against soft targets? Practice belied theory in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts