Re: M-16 Replacement (yet another Popular Mechanics article)

	Greetings!

On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Brian Burger wrote:

> Probably, but didn't the original (M16a1) version of the M16 have
severe
> teething problems as well? Jamming, breaking, etc? ISTR reading that
in
> Vietnam troops would sometimes throw away their M16s if they could get
> some other weapon to replace it, or at least relegate the M16 to
secondary
> weapon...

	The A1 corrected the original problems with the M-16, which
indeed
had some impressive teething problems, mostly during the initial 6
months
of deployment.

	Yes, almost any new weapon system will go through teething
problems.  However, since the new system has a number of traditionally
fragile or *very* high tech systems, I believe the teething problems are
going to be wicked.

> Or the M1 - lots of people in the mid-80s were supposed to be slagging
the
> thing every chance they got - now it's probably the best MBT
going...and
> it's expensive as hell, compared to, say, russian MBTs.

	Actaully, they were slagging it in the very early '80s.  It is
keen, albiet expensive, but it has a number of limitations.

> People /always/ seem to moan about new weapons systems - especially in
the
> States. Then the systems prove themselves, and the moaners shut up in
a
> hurry. (Heard anyone slagging the M1A2? Post Desert Storm?)

	ESPECIALLY in the 'States?  Try England with the L-85 or Germany
with the G11.... :)  Try Canada with their Goofy German Death Jeep....
:)

	Ken