02-20-2014, 06:40 PM
The article is filled with so much bullsh*t, and we've been through this over and over again. Why didn't they title the article around this guy's statement?
Then it goes on to highlight the critique from an artillery officer who was awarded the Silver Star in Vietnam. (if...therefore...argument) There are so many logical fallacies in the article, it would take about half a day to go through them all. Here's another:
This is a perfect example of how out of touch these "journalists" are not knowing the context of the subject matter they are discussing. Complete freaking retards poking into a subject with no due diligence, as is to be expected.
SOCOM and Crane were addressing the extreme abuse of carbines by some of their component units who normally conduct Immediate Action Drills such as the Australian Peel, where intense full-auto high volumes of fire are burned through the carbines over and over, day after day to get everyone through all the duty positions in the formation, with contact front, left, right, rear, day and night, with and without rucksacks (if applicable i.e. not Squeals).
These types of units have been doing this since the early and mid 1960's with XM177's, M16's, Colt Model 653's, Colt 733's, and Colt 727's before the M4A1, and the decades of experience from those weapons went into the M4A1 and M4. They just wanted to increase the longevity of an already superb design, and that was accomplished.
To equate that with
Guys entering and attempting to clear a built up mud hut complex that had Taliban up in the balconies firing down on them does not equal deaths because of "jams". Article is low rate journalism on display, with logical fallacy after fallacy.
Total bullsh*t. Left-leaning article with word-dropping like "monopoly" and "scandalous" is typical tripe from the Washington Times.
Quote:“For its cost, I consider the M4 to be an amazing assault rifle. Between the M16 and M4, I’ve carried weapons from that family for nearly 30 years and would not trade them for any other fielded families of assault rifles.”
Then it goes on to highlight the critique from an artillery officer who was awarded the Silver Star in Vietnam. (if...therefore...argument) There are so many logical fallacies in the article, it would take about half a day to go through them all. Here's another:
Quote:The first second-guessing on the M4 occurred inside the military in 2000, when U.S. Special Operations Command, in conjunction with gun specialists at Naval Sea Systems Command, conducted an exhaustive evaluation of its version — the heavier-barrel M4A1. At the time, SoCom had no idea it was testing a critical weapon on the eve of two major land wars that would thrust commandos into constant combat.
With SEALs and Green Berets in mind, testers subjected the carbine to the kind of constant barrel-burning fire in harsh conditions that would erupt in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is a perfect example of how out of touch these "journalists" are not knowing the context of the subject matter they are discussing. Complete freaking retards poking into a subject with no due diligence, as is to be expected.
SOCOM and Crane were addressing the extreme abuse of carbines by some of their component units who normally conduct Immediate Action Drills such as the Australian Peel, where intense full-auto high volumes of fire are burned through the carbines over and over, day after day to get everyone through all the duty positions in the formation, with contact front, left, right, rear, day and night, with and without rucksacks (if applicable i.e. not Squeals).
These types of units have been doing this since the early and mid 1960's with XM177's, M16's, Colt Model 653's, Colt 733's, and Colt 727's before the M4A1, and the decades of experience from those weapons went into the M4A1 and M4. They just wanted to increase the longevity of an already superb design, and that was accomplished.
To equate that with
Quote:the kind of constant barrel-burning fire in harsh conditions that would erupt in Iraq and Afghanistan.is absolute bullsh*t. If your unit emplaced a non-camouflaged defense underneath the fields of fire and observation of Taliban, who systematically eliminated your crew-served weapons on the initial volley of the attack, and all you had left was M4's operated by entry-level soldiers with CLP for lube doing mag dumps in an attempt to keep up return fire, it has nothing to do with the M4 anymore, and everything to do with systemic leadership failures, from basic planning, strategy, and defensive tactics, to intelligence. You had complete morons that came up with the combat outpost concept, then executed it, leaving troops to fend for themselves.
Quote:Some of the problems uncovered in 2001 and 2002, such as stoppages or jamming, became evident in the conventional firearm, most infamously in the 2008 Battle of Wanat in Afghanistan in which nine U.S. troops lost their lives.
Guys entering and attempting to clear a built up mud hut complex that had Taliban up in the balconies firing down on them does not equal deaths because of "jams". Article is low rate journalism on display, with logical fallacy after fallacy.
Quote:Troops left to fend for themselves
Total bullsh*t. Left-leaning article with word-dropping like "monopoly" and "scandalous" is typical tripe from the Washington Times.