Yes. But it shouldn't surprise you. War is politics by other means and soldiers dying because a won war guarantees a second term is no different from soldiers dying because fudds wanted to discredit the M16.
>genuine bureaucratic moronation
not only did they frick with the propellant, but they advertised it to troops as a futuristic space gun that never needed to be cleaned -- and this issued them without cleaning kits, which is fricking obscene for an army to do
I was under the impression they weren't just paying attention when they were told about what particular gunpowder works best with the M16 and that it still required regular cleaning (doubly so if you don't use the right powder)
anyone got the link to the Army pdf/report of the m14 vs the m16? I remember they said something like 8 men with M16s had the same combat effectiveness as 11 men with m14s
No. It was a classic combination of the Pentagon and the MIC wanting to cut costs and rush units, consequences be damned. >Ordinance Board >we should chrome line the barrel and chamber like we've done for the M1 Rifle, M1 Carbine, and the M14 >Pentagon and Colt >costs too much, and this rifle is immune to fouling! >said performance was only because of the laboratory tests and special powder >OB we need a way to close the bolt incase of failure to feed >MIC no you don't it costs too much >issue M16 only to SEACOM because they weren't going to trust it against the Soviets >snowflake powder gets used up in under a year due to concripts using it's touted full auto to spray blindly >MIC studies showed that firefights were decided by amount of rounds fired >found out to be completely false but hey MIC sells more ammo >OB holy frick we can't supply anymore snowflake powder WTF are we going to do >use what powder we can >said powder was used for 7.62x51mm >said powder fouled more >chrome lined chambers and barrels resisted fouling >Pentagon a MIC >surprisedpikachuface.jpg
My source is that I made it the frick up. Imagine a world Raiden free of cancel culture, where no one can call me out for my outlandish claims, a world where I can say the N-word!
>but they advertised it to troops as a futuristic space gun that never needed to be cleaned -- and this issued them without cleaning kits, which is fricking obscene for an army to do
Can I get some sources on these, I don't wanna be a homosexual reddittard but I was under the impression that; >"LOL DOESN'T NEED CLEANING"
was lead-paint munching boomer grunts spreading misinfo across combat arms like morons are apt to do. Never heard about the ordinance board actually fricking things up like that.
>genuine bureaucratic moronation
not only did they frick with the propellant, but they advertised it to troops as a futuristic space gun that never needed to be cleaned -- and this issued them without cleaning kits, which is fricking obscene for an army to do
Think I heard about this autism though, but can I get a citation on this too?
You know, there really needs to be a name for the media effect in which there are exponentially more secondary sources available than primary sources. Because while it's accepted fact and all over military coverage sites like Military.com and We Are The Mighty, I can't find direct DOD admission on the cleaning kit issue.
The book, “The Black Rifle: M16 retrospective” has a lot of information about the early years of the M16. There is also an old sales promotional video for the AR-10 from ArmaLite that states that it requires less maintenance than any other contemporary combat rifle and that the GAS SYSTEM is self cleaning. I think it is reasonable to assume that these claims were also made about the AR-15, but someone along the way exaggerated or misunderstood it to mean that that the entire mechanism needed no cleaning.
so it seems.
That's some real petty shit. It shouldn't surprise me though.
Yes. But it shouldn't surprise you. War is politics by other means and soldiers dying because a won war guarantees a second term is no different from soldiers dying because fudds wanted to discredit the M16.
They sabotaged reliability tests, but he problems in combat were because of genuine bureaucratic moronation.
>genuine bureaucratic moronation
not only did they frick with the propellant, but they advertised it to troops as a futuristic space gun that never needed to be cleaned -- and this issued them without cleaning kits, which is fricking obscene for an army to do
That right there is why it sounds more like general maliciousness over simple stupidity.
Yes, this answer and the shit magazines were cause of many jams.
I was under the impression they weren't just paying attention when they were told about what particular gunpowder works best with the M16 and that it still required regular cleaning (doubly so if you don't use the right powder)
anyone got the link to the Army pdf/report of the m14 vs the m16? I remember they said something like 8 men with M16s had the same combat effectiveness as 11 men with m14s
No. It was a classic combination of the Pentagon and the MIC wanting to cut costs and rush units, consequences be damned.
>Ordinance Board
>we should chrome line the barrel and chamber like we've done for the M1 Rifle, M1 Carbine, and the M14
>Pentagon and Colt
>costs too much, and this rifle is immune to fouling!
>said performance was only because of the laboratory tests and special powder
>OB we need a way to close the bolt incase of failure to feed
>MIC no you don't it costs too much
>issue M16 only to SEACOM because they weren't going to trust it against the Soviets
>snowflake powder gets used up in under a year due to concripts using it's touted full auto to spray blindly
>MIC studies showed that firefights were decided by amount of rounds fired
>found out to be completely false but hey MIC sells more ammo
>OB holy frick we can't supply anymore snowflake powder WTF are we going to do
>use what powder we can
>said powder was used for 7.62x51mm
>said powder fouled more
>chrome lined chambers and barrels resisted fouling
>Pentagon a MIC
>surprisedpikachuface.jpg
Nice argument Senator, but how about you back it up with a source?
My source is that I made it the frick up. Imagine a world Raiden free of cancel culture, where no one can call me out for my outlandish claims, a world where I can say the N-word!
>but they advertised it to troops as a futuristic space gun that never needed to be cleaned -- and this issued them without cleaning kits, which is fricking obscene for an army to do
Can I get some sources on these, I don't wanna be a homosexual reddittard but I was under the impression that;
>"LOL DOESN'T NEED CLEANING"
was lead-paint munching boomer grunts spreading misinfo across combat arms like morons are apt to do. Never heard about the ordinance board actually fricking things up like that.
Think I heard about this autism though, but can I get a citation on this too?
>the ordinance board actually fricking things up
That's it. That's the story.
I assume there are some programs BuOrd didn't ruin, but I'm not aware of any.
>Can I get some sources on these
You know, there really needs to be a name for the media effect in which there are exponentially more secondary sources available than primary sources. Because while it's accepted fact and all over military coverage sites like Military.com and We Are The Mighty, I can't find direct DOD admission on the cleaning kit issue.
Surely the military wouldn't lie to cover their ass
here is one: https://youtu.be/RefVroXrSds?t=348
and here's the gold mine. search "cleaning" and "propellant" for your two points
oh I'm an idiot https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a953110.pdf
The book, “The Black Rifle: M16 retrospective” has a lot of information about the early years of the M16. There is also an old sales promotional video for the AR-10 from ArmaLite that states that it requires less maintenance than any other contemporary combat rifle and that the GAS SYSTEM is self cleaning. I think it is reasonable to assume that these claims were also made about the AR-15, but someone along the way exaggerated or misunderstood it to mean that that the entire mechanism needed no cleaning.