Do we have an emotional bias that makes us reluctant to part with obsolete or outdated weapons and equipment? If so how do we move past this?

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 May 2018 00:18:01 -0400

Response by Cpl Gabriel F. made May 11 at 2018 12:27 AM

Cpl Gabriel F. — Fri, 11 May 2018 00:27:51 -0400

U.S. Military hangs onto equipment for war. Out dated perhaps but it will still function at the task.
The old soviet now Russian keeps everything much longer as does China. Costs more to desroy at first than to keep it.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2018 1:25 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 May 2018 01:25:47 -0400

Should we all know how to use iron sights? Absolutely. Should we apply that knowledge in conjunction with optics? Yes. If the optics fail, we can fall back. That doesn't mean we discard our future tech. We train to use it and train to adapt when we don't have it. This can be said of any technology that comes our way.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2018 1:36 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 May 2018 01:36:08 -0400

Canada kept the WW1 Enfield Rifle for its Inuit Arctic Rangers until 2015. The bolt action rifle works at 40 below zero F.
https://goo.gl/images/iyocNO

Image: Lee–Enfield - Wikipedia

Found on Google from en.wikipedia.org

Response by SSG Robert Perrotto made May 11 at 2018 5:11 AM

SSG Robert Perrotto — Fri, 11 May 2018 05:11:24 -0400

Iron sites, land navigation using compass map and protractor, field telephones that require wire to laid - all these things will work in the event of an emp - plan for every contingency - and all surprises will be mitigated.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made May 11 at 2018 5:29 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Fri, 11 May 2018 05:29:50 -0400

Some of the old weapons are superior to the newer ones, especially in accuracy, JS.

Response by Barry Davidson made May 11 at 2018 6:08 AM

Barry Davidson — Fri, 11 May 2018 06:08:10 -0400

I think the saying is, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Just because something is old doesn't mean it's inferior.

When I turned 18 I bought a Mosin Nagant 7.62x54 rifle. It took me a while, but I finally learned how to use the damned elevator sight. It was an accurate, powerful, and sturdy firearm. A friend of mine had a Willys he got at a military auction still in the original shipping crate. Put it together, and it went practically everywhere.

As the soldiers and Marines below have said in various ways - hope for the best, prepare for the worst. There's nothing wrong with learning both. I can use a map even though my phone has a GPS feature.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2018 7:26 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 May 2018 07:26:53 -0400

The scope on my 10 is a rather elaborate affair so I had to mount the iron sights offset to the right. It feels strange to turn it over on it's side to sight. Kind of like a G holding his tek sideways to threaten somebody.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2018 8:15 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 May 2018 08:15:36 -0400

An interesting perspective and worth discussing. I may have been among the last Midshipmen to train with the M1911 .45 ACP and M14 7.62 (which at that time, was still in ship's armories). Back then, everyone was a ".45 Fan", and the prevailing "wisdom" was that the M14 was a vastly superior platform to the M16 "family" of weapons. I remember my father (former Infantry NCO) calling it a "toy", and laying out all of the "technical" reasons that a lower capacity, heavier, larger caliber weapon was always "better" than the more modern arms.

However, my own experiences taught me a few lessons. While I still regard the M9 as "inferior" due to overall ergonomics and especially the rotating safety...I fell in love with the M4. I'm very thankful of not having to carry the hefty M14 (or earlier M16 variants) around the mountains of Afghanistan, and think the recoil buffer does improve overall accuracy. Whether we "like" it or not, the battlefield has new tactics relative to new technology...and the inclusion of some things best not discussed here in detail, and the M4's modular capability...have made the U.S. Armed Forces masters of the night fight.

However, the newer variants, modifications and even new platforms now being introduced offer further improvements...many derived directly from combat experiences. Admittedly, some of these changes are "retro"; going back to older wisdom with larger/more powerful ammunition. Even "old" weapons like the M14 and M1911 have held on in Special Operations, owing to the needs of individual missions.

Heck-"Mad" Jack Churchill even stormed Normandy carrying a broadsword- and did pretty well for himself.

I think the key is understanding that all weapons systems were designed for a purpose, and old or new...if someone is truly proficient, they can use any weapon to it's full potential. At the most basic level however, providing personnel with a reliable, accurate, easy to maintain and lethal main weapon should outweigh "group-think" regarding any one system's individual qualities.

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made May 11 at 2018 10:02 AM

SGT Dave Tracy — Fri, 11 May 2018 10:02:24 -0400

First things first, is objectively determine if something is obsolete or inferior to another option. Just because something is "old" doesn't mean its inferior, and there tends to be a bias towards the newest and shiniest, in the believe that new stuff MUST be better, simply because its new. Look at the Air Force wanting to mothball the A10 because they have a new multi-roll plane they say is all things to all people (a simplification, I know, but that is the heart of the issue). There's a lot of reason to believe its roll as ground support--while perhaps fine in its own right--isn't as good as the A10 is in its dedicated roll.

Actually, military aircraft is an area where there are plenty of examples exist where the proven technology is the best. The C-130 and the B-52 have been around since the 50s, and while newer planes have come along, those two are the best at what they do, despite being the oldest in the fleet.

That said, people do tend to prefer "the devil they know", and may push-back against something new and unfamiliar, and to that extent, you're correct that there may be, if not an emotional attachment to the old tech, a comfort level that must be overcome. But it all starts with objectively (the key phrase often ignored in favor of personal or political expedience) determining what the best technology is for the mission at hand.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2018 10:31 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 May 2018 10:31:07 -0400

I find that around the house, right after I finally throw something away, within a short timespan I have a need for it. The old tried and true land nav/iron sights etc still need to be taught, but am all for newer technology that increases our lethality. I didn't see a lister bag until late in my career. They were always around but never seen. They still worked fine and made a good backup for when needed. We made dope changes on the M16A1 with a round tip or nail, but anyone that can fire high expert with iron sights should make a better all-around shooter when given optics.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made May 11 at 2018 11:11 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Fri, 11 May 2018 11:11:33 -0400

How so Chief? True I would trade an M16 or M4 for an M14- due to power, range, ammo conservation. I would trade an M9 for an M1911A1 for the same things- I really hate shooting folks more than once. True also, that there are many new things that work great or better than old- but just cause it's "new" doesn't make it better.

Response by LTC Eugene Chu made May 11 at 2018 11:59 AM

LTC Eugene Chu — Fri, 11 May 2018 11:59:00 -0400

New technology (including weapons) often has greater capability, but less durability. Although more parts may improve what something can do, there is possibility of failure if component breaks down.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made May 11 at 2018 12:20 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Fri, 11 May 2018 12:20:04 -0400

Obsolete is OK if the stuff doesn't exist anymore. Like having to learn how to write backwards for the vertical plots aboard ships. Electronic panel displays made that obsolete and the skills too. So how "obsolete" is a weapon which is effective for the tasks at hand? Maybe newer stuff is perhaps lighter, more efficient, etc. That doesn't make something totally obsolete. It has to be no longer supported, no ammo, no repair, no inventory. Then you have to be into something else. I do have an emotional bias because I was competent and effective with what I had back in the day. Always hated the M9 because I was more effective with the 1911. Obsolete is in the eye of the user, not the beholder.

Response by MSgt Gerald Orvis made May 11 at 2018 2:22 PM

MSgt Gerald Orvis — Fri, 11 May 2018 14:22:37 -0400

I guess I'm stuck in the past and haven't tried out the new weapons or gear. When I went through infantry training regiment, we used M1s and BARs. In boot camp we used M14s. Never saw an M16A1 until I got to Staging Battalion, just prior to being sent to Vietnam. I've also owned and enjoyed shooting an M1903A1 rifle. Iron sights were the thing then - only snipers had scopes - and all navigation was done with map and compass. Now troops have optics for rifles and pistols, and GPS units to navigate for them. Could a modern troop call in artillery with a map and compass? I don'd know. Paper maps and lensatic compasses aren't seen much - I think the Defense Mapping Service stopped printing maps when the new tech came out. But I believe the troops should still be taught the basics on the old equipment, because modern technology can and will fail at the most inconvenient time (Murphy's Law).

Response by Sgt William Pilgrim Jr. made May 12 at 2018 9:52 PM

Sgt William Pilgrim Jr. — Sat, 12 May 2018 21:52:04 -0400

turn the lever for right wind-age clock wise and counter clock wise for left wind age

Response by CW3 Michael Bodnar made Aug 9 at 2018 1:03 PM

CW3 Michael Bodnar — Thu, 09 Aug 2018 13:03:14 -0400

I always train my Soldiers to plot on paper maps and shoot with iron sights and then use their optics. I prefer showing them how to do this because in the event something happens to where computers and optics do not work, they've have the institutional knowledge of how to get the job done. I enjoy technological advancements as much as the next guy but I feel that we rely TOO much on using it to perform our jobs. Flip the switch and we are completely lost - that needs to be fixed.