“Should that be a recommendation for infantry combat? Sorry but being a Security Policeman in a clean, sheltered environment is not quite like extended combat in the villes, treelines, and paddies we lived and fought in.
And “carrying more ammo” but blitzing it away in the brush is also not the same as killing anything - more of a noisemaker.”
If You have an argument with the Army’s Procurement of the M-16 take that up with the Generals of the Army Procurement Dept.There the ones that selected the weapon I didn’t.
By the way I didn’t insult your service in the U.S. Army so why do I detect that your insulting myself as well as others who served in the U.S.AirForce Security Police/Security Forces?
I’m sure a lot of our Security Police guarding the bases in Vietnam and Laos would laugh out loud that they were in a clean sheltered environment.
You maybe right that the M-16 was not a good weapon for use in an environment like you served in during the Vietnam war.Don’t blame me or the Air Force Security Police.Blame the Army Generals who saw something in that weapon that they liked at the time prior to procuring the weapon.
By the way,Thank You for your Service in the U.S.Army.
We - grunts - were out in very filthy, hot, wet conditions for weeks at a time - and sometimes longer. We were also in very large and prolonged firefights. The weapons we had, had to function in really brutal conditions and our M16s failed very often.
I do blame the senior Army officers and senior Marines too for that debacle. It cost a lot of good men.