Army Unable to Select Replacement Pistol

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Itonlysmokesalit
The real fix would be selecting an enhanced lethality round.

The role and need for U.S. "boots on the ground" is dwindling quickly. Except for special forces..the value of a (U.S) life is becoming un affordable. Well over 60% of ground troops need and will need medical/ psyco treatment. Many of this percentage will get on Disability.

It seems that the future need/use for pistols is another money pit.


Well the reasons for the infantry becoming so expensive I believe is tied to policy and the methods we use to fight more than anything. Lets face it, the rules of engagement tie hands behind our servicemen/servicewomen's back. Also doesn't help we are fighting unpopular asymmetrical wars. In many ways we are seeing a return to the early Cold War mentality that "big bang" technology will make the infantry obsolete. However, that proved to be false then and I feel that it will be proved false in the future.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Well the reasons for the infantry becoming so expensive I believe is tied to policy and the methods we use to fight more than anything.


Boots on the ground are expensive, not because of any "rules of engagement". But because of what it costs to move them where they need to be. And to keep them supplied, fed, watered, and stocked with weapons and ammunition. A single bottle of water and a MRE cost the government a fortune by the time they reach a soldier on the battlefield.

 

[Robenstein]

Boots on the ground have always been a significant expense throughout the history of warfare, but my response (to AL's statement) was to the fact that vets require so much aftercare these days, making them expensive relative to what they used to be. When you fight a war poorly, it has a massive negative impact on a larger percentage of them when they come home.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Boots on the ground have always been a significant expense throughout the history of warfare, but my response (to AL's statement) was to the fact that vets require so much after care these days, making them expensive relative to what they used to be. When you fight a war poorly, it has a massive negative impact on a larger percentage of them when they come home.

Yea, I know what you are saying. But proportionately the troops that did the dirty work during WWII under conditions arguably much wortse than the 2000 + year "wars". Didn't require a stitch of the medical and psych attention as today. And obviously medical technology and proportional costs has risen many times the cost of inflation.

I am not saying that the troops of today don't deserve it..I am just saying the paradigm shift just makes them un-affordable. I can't see us in a major ground war in the foreseeable future. We will and must need to use drones in lieu of these tactics.

 

[AMC]

Back on topic. If the Army doesn't want to bother with a completely new pistol design, they should just accept Beretta's M9 A3 offer and call it a day. The troops will get a slightly upgraded pistol with better features, all for LESS cost than the Army is paying per unit for the standard M9 right now. About the only thing extra the Army would have to buy is new holsters. The springs and most of the major wear items are the same between the M9 and M9 A3.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/11/army-declines-m9a3-upgrade/23243689/