Why We Fight

 

Veteran's Day

Today is Veteran's Day!

It is not Memorial Day, even if it is Remembrance Day in the rest of the English speaking world.  Easy to get them confused.

It it not Armed Forces Day.

Today is for those living people who no longer serve.

Not those still in service.

Not those who've gone ahead of us down that last path.

Those groups have their own days.

So take your favorite veteran to a movie, buy them a meal, get them a drink, get them laid, say, "thank you," like you mean it!

Go with them to the places where they get free grub and pay full price and thank the restaurant for doing it. 

Happy Birthday Jarheads!

Even though the modern form of the Marines is actually from July 11, 1798, we celebrate their birthday from today in 1775.

Happy Birthday to the Men's Department of the Navy. 

Y+ 37

Thirty seven years ago the Berlin Wall came down.

So did I.

This is also the anniversary of me jumping, not to the back deck as planned, but into a ditch next to the tank.  Or it might be tomorrow.

We were awake and over-alert for too many hours and I had a bit of trauma going on, so I don't remember the exact day.

Hell, I didn't remember it was associated with the Berlin Wall for years. 

Security Classifications Are Strange

 

I can, practically, get scalable drawings of the entire W54 SADM nuke.

I can't get the weight of the explosive filler in a 40mm thermobaric round.

BLINK BLINK 

I Love The Concept

Way back in the OICW days, the idea of a grenade that air-burst just past the barrier the bad guys were hiding behind had an instant appeal.

The problem with it is the interface.

The operator lases for range, adds or subtracts from that distance for the burst distance and then the computer in the sight tells the round when to go boom after firing.

That transmission was a problem for a long while, but it appears that the XM25 shows that it can be reliable.  The XM25 isn't, quite, ready for prime time and even with hand made rounds it had some issues.

But I see that we're pressing forward with the concept with Barrett taking over the design of the weapon.

TL9 stuff at TL8!  Or TL9 depending on which edition you're using. 

Concussive

File under "obvious when you think about it".

The suppressor on the M7 and XM8 is necessary because the insane chamber pressures and short barrels mean the muzzle blast is otherwise a health hazard.

Even with hearing protection, I am told. 

That's got me wondering just how high the pressure IS at a bare muzzle.

It also has me wondering just how quiet the weapon is, because the M7/XM8 advocates are quick to point out that an M4 is longer and heavier with a suppressor too.

But I know how much quieter an M4 is with the issue suppressor, it's nearly naked ear safe.  That's worth the extra length and mass.

If a suppressor is needed to bring it back to M16 bare muzzle sound pressures...  Couldn't we get the same thing from 5" more barrel and lower chamber pressures?

I ask because 6.8x51mm is emulating .270 Winchester in bullet weight and velocity; the big difference is pressure and barrel length.

.270 is using 24" of barrel, but far lower pressures.

It makes me wonder if my Savage is quieter than an XM8. 

M7 To M8

It's interesting reading about the changes to the M7 rifle that lead to the XM8 rifle that are based on troop feed back.

Almost exactly as if the M7 was a prototype that did troop trials and resulted in a production version!

And troop trials is something that's been sorely missing from weapons procurement since, at least, the Johnson administration.

When you skip handing a new weapon to a private, you lose a lot of important information about how the gun will get treated, used and abused.

Why did we stop troop trials?

The troops keep preferring the wrong gun.  That's why the M14 is a T44 not a T48 (aka FAL).  That why so many pistol competitions led to the M1911 being retained.  It's among the reasons the M4 carbine kept trucking on.

Troop trials find flaws in designs and that leads to politically connected companies not getting contracts!  Gods forbid a congressman not get feathers to line their nest! 

Troop trials take time and, sometimes, you need to get something out the door in quantity and fix it on the fly.  You do this too many times and you get to thinking this is the normal way of things.

This happened when production problems with the M14 led to MacNamara saying, the troops need a rifle, the M16 is a rifle and the Air Force is happy with it, therefore the Army will be happy with it too (even if I have to order them to be!)

It's actually astonishing, considering the political pressure being brought to bear that the Army got a different version of the M16 from the Air Force AND that it got to the troops, as the XM16E1, as quickly as it did.

Vietnam served as the M16's troop trial.

I seem to recall that rollout was a bit bumpy... 

I Was Mistaken

A long while ago I stated remembering that the Army kept us, arms and ammunition well separated unless we were actually on the range and going shooting.

I misremembered something.

The ammo racks of the tanks were loaded with war-shot ammo unless we were going to the range for gunnery.  I also recall, now, removing all that ammo from the tank before going to Graf and experiencing my first round of being responsible in the paperwork for anything at all thanks to my minty new stripes on one of those trips.

Literally nothing but discipline keeping us from loading up an APFSDSDU round and picking a target.

Come to think on it, literally nothing but self control keeping us from firing up a tank and rolling out the gate with it too.

The Army did make us dismount all three machine guns and keep them in the arms room.  Ammo for the MG's was kept in the bunkers a longish ways away.

Same same for our pistols and the tank's M16. 

Prepare For War With Whom

UK calls up 95,000 veterans.

They say it's just a drill, but I've noticed a couple articles about the normal British citizenry being more effective about the incoming tide of immigrants.

I can't help but wonder if this is really a precursor to quelling an incipient rebellion.

But if it is a rebellion starting, I hope they feel free to use the words from our declaration of independence to list their grievances. 

Memories

Saw a compilation of military fails.

One of them was a group of Marines looking in a grassy field for a missing suppressor.

I remember during Reforger hearing about a unit that had lost an M9 near where we were operating.

We all looked at each other in the turret for a moment and simultaneously said, "free pistol!"

Hey, it's not like we signed for it!

Sadly, we did not find it. 

Finally Some Good News

Deserter's conviction reinstated!

I can't believe this shit is still going on, nice to see resolution happening.

To Be Fair

If we're going to count all the variations of the M1816 musket as a single service weapon, then we really should count all the variations of the AR-15 as a single weapon.

The M16 series (including the M4 series) is the king of service life, 1966 to 2022 or 56 years.

56 and counting since the M7 roll-out has not been smooth by any measure and many units, INFANTRY battalions, not support units, are still rocking the M4A1.

If we count each variation as its own weapon the M1865 is still the shortest in service, but the average number of years we stick to a specific design drops precipitously.

Even within some very short lived designs, like the Krag, there's several sub-versions.

Sometimes it's hard to tell how long a weapon was the primary infantry arm because they didn't replace the old ones, just stopped issuing them in favor of the new one.

This is true of the M1816 series and the Krag.  Units might have all the same gun, they might have a few of each.

Yes Yes It Does

Reader Technomad asks, "Why would the Navy adopt a different rifle in the first place? Wouldn't that complicate things?"

Yes and no.

Back in the late 19th century, the Navy and Army used completely different and independent supply and procurement systems.

It didn't matter that the Navy adopted a different rifle and cartridge from the Army because there was no interoperability requirement.

Small arms for the Navy was often an afterthought as well.

I would not be surprised that the reason the Navy uses the same rifle as the Army now is because they bought Army rifles when the Lee didn't live up to expectations and discovered how much cheaper they were because of the bulk discount the Army got and that they didn't have to spend any money on the development.

Or they didn't bother developing their own guns for the same costs reasons while the USMC starting growing past a ship-board infantry requirement into an expeditionary force.

It should be noted that the Jarheads have reverted to having their own rifles with their adoption of the M27, phase-out of the M4, and rejection of the M7 and XM8.

A New Record!

The Krag-Jørgensen was he official service rifle of the US Army from 1894 to 1903; until replaced by the M1903.  Nine years.

The M14 was the official service rifle of the US Army from 1957 to 1966; until replaced by the XM16E1.  Nine years.

Both are noted as having incredibly short lives. 

The M7 was the official service rifle of the US Army from 2022 to 2026; until replaced by the XM8.  Four years!

The XM8 appears to have an adoption process so truncated that it makes the rushed development of the M7 seem positively sedate.

SIGH. 

203mm 2A44

The Soviets made an 8" howitzer too.  It was introduced in 1975 and it's still in service.

The 2A44 gun is mounted on the 2S7 Pion self propelled gun.

The rounds weigh 227 lb. or 240 lb.

A nuke round was developed. 

I have ranges from wikipedia. 

Ukraine managed us US 8" projectiles. 

This is just about all I know about this gun.

I assume there's an HE round, because every howitzer has one.

FASCAM?  DPICM?  Chem?  Smoke?

Base bleed?  Rocket Assist?

Who knows!

A copy of Jane's Artillery '95-96 is en route.  Maybe it will have some answers.

Sort of related:  There's scanty information online about the gun on the M110 and M110A2 SPG's too.  Still digging there too.

I Can Think Of Several Finer Groups Of People

Pat Harrigan (R-NC) wants LEOSA style carry for current and former Special Forces personnel.

He says he can think no finer group of people...

First, fuck you Pat.

Second, I can think of a finer group who is far more deserving of national reciprocity.

Everyone.

I've been opposed every and all LEO sop law ever proposed or passed.

We don't need more "only ones" legislation.  We need more everyone's.

I especially love the quote, "If enacted, the law would represent a significant expansion of gun-carry rights for service members and veterans, creating a new nationwide benefit not currently available to most civilians."

Let me amend that:

If enacted, the law would represent a significant expansion of gun-carry rights for SOME service members and SOME veterans, creating a new nationwide benefit not currently available to most civilians. 

An infinitesimally small portion of service members and veterans, I might add. 

For Future Reference

 

A Modest Proposal

First, since the Department of War gets substantial exemptions from the evironmental bullshit laws...

Let's build some nuclear power plants!

Call them training centers for the Navy and use standardized designs they are already using in subs and carriers.

Yes, they are teeny reactors compared to the "real thing," but we can compensate by building lots and lots of them.

Electricity production is a byproduct and we can sell it to the local electrical monopoly or direct to customers at cost.  Or at the local rate.  Doesn't matter.

Any protesters get stroppy and they're threatening a military base not a Department of Energy facility.

I think we could do the same thing with refineries in places like California.  Fuel production is a vital national defense necessity.

Run it like Lake City and let them sell overruns to the public. 

Hmmmmmmmmmm