Riddle me this

[grayfox]

When we look at Army Aviation, Communications, Long Range Fires (MLRS), Artillery, Air Defense, Armor, Medical, NBC, EW, Special Operations, and Logistics, we see all kinds of innovation and advanced systems that actually work, that get upgraded all the time.

Look at the AH-64 Attack Helicopter, currently in the AH-64E Digital Long Bow Net-Centric Apache.

Look at the ATACM, M777, Copperhead Precision-Guided Munitions, MIM-104F PATRIOT PAC-3, MPQ-64 Sentinel, and FIM-92J/K Stinger MANPADS.

Then look at Radios. Advancements in Radios have been hard to keep up with, from SINCGARS to net-centric systems now with BFT and ATAK.

For those who are gun guys and vaguely see what’s been going on with the SOPMOD Block increments, we’ve seen major improvements to optics, electro-optical aiming systems, LASER Aiming Modules, IR illumination, Thermal Weapon Sights, Clip-On Night Vision devices, free-float, suppressors, rail systems, furniture, triggers, slings, coatings, etc.

But when it comes to small arms themselves, the Army gave us the M9 in the 1980s, failed attempts at replacing the AR-15/M16 family, the recent Modular Handgun System which brought nothing of significant to the force, and is now going backwards with a folding stock AR-10 carbine that uses a 1930s Tokarev gas system and weighs 12-14lbs with attachments. There’s a reason why an X is still in the nomenclature.

I remember when the M16A2 came along in the early-1980s. Rapid Deployment Units in the JRDF got it first, including Ranger Regiment, SF, and USMC, then 82nd, 101st, 10th Mountain, 25th, 7th ID, etc. When the XM4 finally became the M4, USASOC, Ranger Regiment, SEALs, and SF got it first, followed by 82nd, 101st, 10th Mountain, and 25th ID.

Misleading articles have said Rangers now have the XM7. Then you see photos like this with guys from Fort Benning Infantry Training Center, not Ranger Regiment:

Remember how fast Ranger Regiment got SCAR-Ls, then ditched them only to go back to SOPMOD Block II M4A1s?

The problem lies not with generic "Army" per se... it lies with the actual people who are in charge of researching and developing the small arms. As long as they remain in charge, the same lack of innovation will prevail.

Plus, and I add this sadly, I think there must be some deep-seated belief they have in ideas like "tech" wins wars, or "hi tech gizmo's are what we need"... instead of seeking out effective, purpose driven arms and munitions for infantries allow them to defeat the enemy (dare I say, "kill them"?) before them. Infantry does not seem to be very important to them any more... how very wrong could a group-thinker bunch be??? Tools are nice but people, motivated warriors, are what wins territory and wars.