quote:

---

Originally posted by mssrman:
OK, here is your info download on the XM8:

I recently returned from the Natonial Defense Industries Association (NDIA) convention which spotlighted new weapons on the horizon, one of which was the XM8.

Here are a few things that might answer some questions:

First, the XM8 is a very strong candidate, but it is not written in stone as the replacement rifle, despite what some people are saying. There are other developments underway.

Other issues:

There will be iron sight backups on the final version of the rifle.

The sight system is a combined unit that acts in place of the paq4; peq2; and acog, so the rifle will actually remain lightweight - !

Knights armament says they will probably be making adapters for old accessories to be used on the new rifles, but realistically, there will be little need for them.

The accessory attachment system is very easy to use and may not even require tie downs - but you know you will have to tie everything down anyway, so forget this part...

The rifle has FAR fewer moving parts and is much easier to dissassemble and clean. Bye-bye, dental tools!

The final version of the rifle will likely have larger hand guards to deal with problems of heat around the barrel area.

Lethality Issues:
The 6.8 caliber is unlikely for big army, especially considering the cost of a switchover and the desired NATO compatibility requirement. However, some units may get another version down the road. The lethality issue is being addressed, and the 6.8 is an excellent improvement over the 5.56. It's much like a high speed and more accurate AK round.

Conversely, a Colonel from the British Army reported that they do not have nearly as many problems with lethality in the 5.56. They are using an improved version of their bullpup, the L85A2, which is leaps and bounds better in terms of reliability over the L85A1, thanks to many changes including stronger magazines made of steel. Magazines are one of the major reliability issues of the M4/M16 system.

He emphasized, correctly, that not enough attention is being given to barrel length. The L85A2 is a bullpup design which lets it carry an almost full size barrel in the space of an M4 package. The M4 and M16 are often compared as being the same animal, but the shorter barrel on the M4 cuts down on lethality since muzzle velocity is tremendously reduced by taking away the extra length.

An Ammo engineer reaffirmed this, and stressed the reduction in barrel length is a major reason the 5.56 is not as strong a man killer as it is out of a longer one. They are working on hotter powders and different bullets, but the Geneva convention severely limits the alternatives, since we can't use hollowpoints, soft points, exposed lead, etc.

Another alternative is the use of different ammo for different barrel legnths, but considering that we can't even keep up with current demand for ONE round type coming out of our ONLY ammo plant left, this is not a realistic possibility for the near term.

[We had 16 ammo plants during WW2, down to five by the Vietnam war, and now only one left at Lake City. Funny what happens to the small stuff when you spend all your time and money worrying about big toys like Comanche helicopters and Crusader artillery pieces, but I digress...]

WHY NO BULLPUP:

A Colonel from Picatinny arsenal told me that there are a few voices at higher echelons who are dead set against the idea of a bullpup design, citing difficulty low crawling with a bullpup, etc.

The main issue they have, from what others have surmized, is not that the bullpup design is a bad idea, but that it is too much too soon right now. In short, with all that's going on in terms of deployment, the timing is bad and they don't want to risk Joe having to re-learn an entirely new weapons system in the middle of a war. The XM8 is not quite such a big leap.

Personally, I think this is a lame excuse, as it's usually a younger Joe in the TOC who manages to figure out complex networking solutions to all the laptops haphazardly linked together while the experienced Sergeant Major can do little more than stand around and maybe look for a trash can to tell somebody to empty.

I'm sure Joe can handle a few switches in different places quicker than we give him credit for, but what do I know.

The XM8 has a lot of things going for it, but the magazines are not one of them. Yes, they are a big reliability and durability improvement, but they are also much bulkier and will require an entirely new set of pockets and or vests for the LCE's to accommodate them. Also, the little tabs on the side of the plastic magazine that are great to link them together make drawing one magazine difficult without inadvertently pulling out two. Solution: shave off the plastic tabs that link the two magazines together. Chances are your 1SG won't want you to look "too Rambo" clip two magazines together for combat without brigade direction anyway.

And no, the current magazines will not fit in the new rifle, but I am told an adapter is possible. No telling if one is in the works or not.

Meanwhile, if you soldiers out there are concerned with reliability of your magazines, HK has the best magazine for the M4/M16 available, at a price of about $32-34 each. I recommend buying a set if you've had problems with your issued units, but they are a little pricey. Also, because of the assault weapons ban on the sale of new-manufacture high-capacity magazines to civilians, you'll need a letter from your commander saying that they are for military use only, etc. Email HK for details. (sorry, I have no address for them - try the web site)

They are simply the best made M4 mags I've ever seen, which is what I've come to expect from HK by now. With mags like this, why not use them in the new XM8, to keep things compatible? [Again, what do I know.]

CONCLUSION:

The XM8 is a great rifle from what I've learned, although I have yet to fire it. However, it brings nothing new to the table in terms of lethality, as it has the same size barrel, approximately, as the M4. Sure, it can be changed to a longer one, but now what about the reduced space improvements?

In the absence of the 6.8 cartridge in the same type of M4/M16/XM8 layout, it's time to give the bullpup design another look if we insist on using the 5.56 for the foreseeable future.


- Weapons Guy

[This message was edited by mssrman on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 10:36.]

[This message was edited by mssrman on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 10:39.]

[This message was edited by mssrman on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 10:46.]

---

FN FAL Made one of the best riles out there, Kolishnikov Design was also reliable. Daewoo makes a .223 that took the best of those 2 and the M-16 It was also one of the first banned for importation weapons in this country. Bullpups are not the answer, The Marine rifleman is. High tech polymers are not the answer! They can make good stock though. Change the gas system on the M-16 and you will have great contender for the future, I think.

Hudak

Fact is there is only one one true weapon to use in urban warfare. its the same weapon that caused so much fear in the German forces during WWI that they threatened too execute any soldier found in posession of one. The 12 Ga shotgun. At distances up to 100 yds it cant be beat. For urban fighting a 12 Ga belt fed shotgun based on the M60 and firing from an open bolt utilizing a mixture of OO buck and slugs would be a horrendously effective suppression weapon. Our enemies know they cannot defeat us in rural battle, their only hope is to bring us in close where its one on one and they can negate our tech advantage. If we are going to change to a new weapon other than what i've suggested we need to think along the lines of a 7.62 rifle like the AR 10 or FAL. The 5.56 round, especialy from a short barrel is enimic at best. In addition, qualifying once or twice a year with 40 rounds plus zeroing rounds is laughable. You do not make riflemen without spending time on the range. I went to the gulf war with a rifle I had never fired or zeroed in. Soldiers should be given a weapon in basic and keep that weapon with them as they move throughout their careers. Your weapon should be a part of you and as familiar as your kids.

Good point there about keeping one's weapon for the long term. It would actually make a lot of sense. You're undoubtedly aware the Swiss issue a weapon to each of their citizen soldiers and they pretty much keep it for the duration of their military obligation (to age 45 I think).

I realize this is totally unrealistic, but I've always felt that if the government's going to send you somewhere where people are trying to kill you, they should at least let you take your weapon of choice.

Does anyone know anything about the british .224 "BOZ" ?

I agree, the M-16 is out dated; however, I do have a fondness for old Jamming Jenny.

The new weapon looks like something right out of star trek. I sure hold she can hold up to battlefield conditions.

The first poster Sgt truth, you have no idea what you speak of. The 5.56mm cartridge NEEDS a longer barrel length preferably 20" to be effective. The cartridge relies upon fragmentation to incapacitate enemy troops. The effective fragmentation range drops dramatically when you shorten the barrel. A 10" barrelled 5.56mm rifle would be effective out to about 25 yards, which is handgun range. The 14.5" M4 is already too short. Compare USMC and Army reports on how the bad guys drop. The USMC uses 20" barrels and reports no issues with effectiveness whereas the Army M4's are soemwhat spotty. I have effectively hit targets at well past the 460 meter range with the open sighted M16a2. Also current M16's are very reliable if you have properly trained troops that know how to keep their rifle combat ready. The M16 series can accept a wide variety of optical sights including Trijicon's excellent ACOG series. One final point to consider, how many millions of magazines does the military have for the M16/M4 series of rifles? Do we need to waste another couple billion bucks tossing out our inventory of magazines too? If the gee whiz it looks cool crowd would just see the big picture we'd be far better off. Btw, HK makes a gas piston M16 upper now too that would save tons of money over the plastic XM8. Lastly from reports I've seen the G36 is a POS.

This article makes no mention of the new Remington 6.8mm proprietary cartridge that was rumored to be a replacement for the 5.56X45mm? Why the need to continue reinventing the wheel? How much would the taxpayers save by using the proven off the shelf available 7mm-08 Remington? How much more ideal could a battle rifle get than a Galil chambered in 7mm-08? I see no cost per unit projections for the XM-8. It would be nice to know what we are expected to pay for this rifle. The modular shotgun / 40mm grenade launcher are a big improvement over previous systems. At what point will the military follow the sporting rifle trend to stainless rather than blue steel for less maintenance and greater reliabilty? Now if I could only convince IAI to make me a production run of stainless steel 7mm-08 Galil's to sell in our store! http://www.h3tacticaledge.com

Why dump the M16 for the XM8?

Judging from the enthusiasm in the press about the new XM8 assault rifle, maybe it’s time we took a realistic look at the reasons for replacing the M4/M16. Sure, the XM8 looks cool, is new, and may actually have a few advantages over the M4 – but what practical difference does it make to the average soldier on the ground? Let’s examine something other than aesthetics and approach this decision with some well-thought-out, quantifiable system of measurement. How much better is the XM8, if at all? Are the advantages worth the effort of going through the change? If you believe the Army Times and XM8 Program Manager, the XM8 is light years ahead of the M4… Let’s take a look.

Ballistics: In terms of ballistics, the XM8 is identical to the M4 when using similar barrel lengths. Both fire the same M855 5.56mm 62-grain bullet at the same velocities. Both have 20” barrel lengths (standard M16A2), and 14.4” barrels (M4). The M4 also has a 10.5” barrel, which is almost identical in provided velocity to the XM8’s 9” and 12.5” versions. Both weapons produce a muzzle velocity of 3050 fps in the 20” barrel, and 2825 fps in the 14.5”. The shorter barrels are comparable at 2600 in the 9”, 2665 fps in the 10.5”, and 2745 fps in the 12.5” barrel. In regards to ballistics, both weapons provide identical levels of lethality. Regardless of future improvements in bullet or projectile design, both weapons will launch the bullets in exactly the same way, with the same terminal performance on their target.

Portability and Weight (unloaded): The XM8 and M4/M16 are virtually identical in length at 30”/33” (collapsed stock/extended) for the XM8 and 29.9”/33” for the M4. The XM8, when delivered is supposed to weigh 6.25 pounds with the integrated optical sight and laser with a projected cost of $1800. The M4 weighs 5.65 pounds without an optical sight or laser designator and costs the U.S. Government $459. (The M16A2 is approximately one pound heavier and is slightly cheaper.) The military has a number of optical sights in the inventory, the most frequently seen (and heaviest) is probably the M68 Close Combat Optic (www.aimpoint.com) weighing 9.5 oz with the QR mount and priced at $380. The current issue AN/PAQ-4 and AN/PEQ-2, add 18 oz and are priced at $400 each. An M4 equipped with these optics and a backup iron sight weighs in at 6.81 pounds and costs $1639. It is rare to see a weapon equipped with both a PAQ-4 and PEQ-2, but to keep this comparison equal we’ll include both.

Ammunition Capacity: Both use 20 and 30-round magazines. 100-round Beta C magazines are available for both weapons, making them identical in capacity. The M16 version of this magazine is in current production and in used by both military and law enforcement. As a result, cost of the M16 version is likely lower and availability better than the not-yet-produced XM8 version. Eventually though, the cost would be about the same.

Rate of Fire: The rate of fire of the XM8 is 750 rpm. The rate of fire for the M4/M16 is between 700 and 1000 rpm, depending on which buffer assembly is installed, making the two weapons almost identical in terms of automatic rate of fire. It is interesting the XM8 manufacturer makes a big deal out of the sustained rate of fire, which is 85 rpm for 210 rounds versus 50 rpm for the M4. As a veteran of two trips to the desert, I can say that long, drawn out firefights are rare and most of today’s shooting is on semi-automatic and consists of only a few well aimed shots. From a practical perspective, the difference in sustained rate of fire is irrelevant because it is impossible to fire either 50 or 85 rpm accurately.

Barrel Life: H&K, the XM8’s manufacturer estimates a barrel life of approximately 20,000 rounds while the M16/M4 has a barrel life of 15,000 rounds. Given that there have been no improvements in metallurgy or leaps in barrel manufacturing technology, both of these claims appear optimistic, at least in terms of practical accuracy. The accuracy in both rifles will worsen as more rounds are fired through them and the barrel rifling wears down and pitting occurs. In the 5.56mm the rate is known to be approximately 1 Minute of an angle (MOA) decrease in accuracy for every 2000-3000 rounds fired. Weapons fired slowly, with time between shots to allow the barrel to dissipate heat, degrade at the upper end of that range. Weapons fired rapidly or on full-automatic tend to wear much more quickly. Unfortunately, the deterioration is not linear because once the barrel erosion starts, it generally gets bad very quickly. For the sake of argument, we’ll assume that the rate is 1 MOA loss of accuracy for every 3000 rounds fired. Well, how much accuracy are we talking about? Since most assault rifles are capable of more than 1.5 MOA (to keep the math simple, let’s say 1 MOA is 1” at 100 yards), meaning it can put a group of bullets into a 1.5” circle from 100 yards away. On a 300 yard target, this means it can hit a 4.5” circle every single time.
After firing the first 3000 rounds, the rifle can only group into 2.5 MOA, or 7.5” at 300 yards. This is still not so bad because it can still hit a man in the chest from 300 yards away. After about 6000 rounds, the barrel is only capable of 3.5 MOA, meaning the 300 yard group expands to 10.5”. This is still acceptable accuracy because it can still hit a 300 yard target. After 12000 rounds the group expands to 5.5 MOA and barrel is no longer capable of consistently putting a group into a man-sized target at 300 meters. The group has grown to 16.5”. Remember, this level of accuracy is achieved with the rifle in a test jig and clamped down solidly to a bench.
What does this mean to the soldier? Soldiers don’t shoot from a solid bench or carry a test jig so they need to know the practical accuracy of the weapon. Since offhand shooting adds a minimum of 2-3 MOA to the rifle’s accuracy, the more accurate a barrel, the better a soldier will shoot. In the case of the barrel above, after 3000 rounds the average soldier will only be able to shoot somewhere between 4.5 – 5.5 MOA, meaning he can only hold a group of 13.5” – 16.5” at 300 meters. Not too bad, but as the bore continues to wear the shot group size grows significantly. By the time the barrel reaches 15,000 rounds, the practical accuracy of the barrel grows to 8.5 – 9.5 MOA, translating to a group size of 25.5 - 28.5” at 300 meters. Clearly, from a practical accuracy standpoint, this barrel is long worn out and should not be used to engage targets further than 150-200 yards away.
The bottom line is that it is not important what the barrel manufacturer says about barrel life. What really matters is what the soldier is capable of hitting, and that only comes with practice. Lots of it. Measure accuracy with real-life hits, not barrel life.

Caliber Interchangeability: One of the XM8 manufacturer’s claimed advantages is the ability to change calibers by switching out the barrel and bolt. While it is true that this is a capability, I am not so certain it is an advantage. If I am an infantryman involved in a firefight and run out of 5.56mm, but have a big pile of caliber X lying around, it would definitely be an advantage to be able to convert my rifle to caliber X. Naturally, it would also be nice if I happened to have the caliber X barrel and bolt in my rucksack. Of course, if I had room in my pack for a few pounds of extra rifle parts, why wouldn’t I just fill it with 5.56mm ammunition to begin with? Clearly, this is a ridiculous “advantage”.
The other argument is that the unit armorer could configure weapons for specific missions. I really don’t understand this argument either. This is an assault weapon, not a pistol or sniper rifle. By its very nature it is a compromise weapon and will never be as concealable as a pistol, nor as accurate as a sniper rifle, regardless of which caliber is gets converted to. This capability will only confuse the armorer with extra parts, and the soldiers with different ammunition and magazines. From a practical perspective, if you need a pistol or a long-range weapon, get one instead of forcing the XM8 into that role.

Weapon Cost: According to the Army Master Data File the government pays just under $1640 for an M4 with M68 sight and AN/PEQ-4/PEQ-2. (A similarly equipped M16 is about $100 less.) The XM8 base rifle is projected to cost about $600 for the basic rifle and about $1200 more when equipped with the optical sight and laser module, bringing the total cost of the XM8 to $1800. Cost-wise, there is only about $100 difference between the two rifles, with the M4 slightly edging out the XM8. The main difference seems to be between the two different sighting/laser systems. It might be worthwhile to explore new sighting options for the M4, which would both lighten and improve performance.

Logistics: The M16/M4 has an established logistics system, ranging from depots that rebuild the rifle to the unit armorer making minor repairs. Every level of maintenance has untold millions of dollars worth of repair parts, weapon-specific armorer’s tools, and technical repair manuals. The military has over a four million M16 magazines alone! We’ve invested millions in the training of our armorers and have a weapon with a proven track record. If it is reasonable to avoid converting to a new rifle, along with the associated nightmare of building a new maintenance support system, buying new parts, publishing manuals, revamping the soldier training plans, or disposing of the hundreds of thousands of serviceable M16/M4s in the inventory, we should do so.

Sighting systems: Admittedly, the XM8’s $1200 integrated optical sight and laser rangefinder/designator is an advanced design and appears to be superior to the older technologies used on the M4. The sight module integrates a laser range finder, laser designator and 4x optical sight into a single unit. I have not seen the sight but, based on the price, cannot imagine that, for only $1200, the laser range finder automatically adjusts the reticle to compensate for bullet drop. This technology is not yet available in the civilian marketplace and is not likely to exist on the XM8. Instead, it is more likely the shooter will see the range to a target and have to manually hold over or apply the proper number of come-ups to compensate for bullet drop. There is no doubt this is a useful feature, but few of today’s soldiers know how much the M855 drops at, say 275 yards (18”) or 425 yards (52”). Naturally, the range is of limited use under differing conditions, say in temperature extremes, wind, or shooting up or down steep hills, both of which have dramatic effects on trajectory. Knowing the range, wind conditions, and shooting angle are nice, but knowing how to apply that knowledge is another matter. Most of our soldiers can’t do that because we only let them shoot once a year when they qualify on their weapon. From a practical standpoint, no high speed gizmo will compensate for this lack of training. To shoot well, our soldiers must shoot often and under many conditions. In the end it might be better to let our soldiers shoot their weapons more than to buy a complete new weapon system.

Conclusion: I do not believe the XM8 provides enough benefit to the soldier to justify a abandoning the M16/M4. The M16 family of weapons is durable, effective, and cost effective. We’ve had over 35 years to fix all the bugs and make improvements, so the current issue weapon takes a beating and keeps shooting. The M16 is battle proven and should not be discarded simply because a new, shiny XM8 appears on the horizon. We can’t afford to learn it’s quirks in combat because the price will be measured in soldier’s lives.

Just picture yourself buttstroking some one with this thing, and where is the bayonet stud??I for one would not want to have to rely on this in a close combat situation.You better pray you don't run out of ammo and have to use this as a club 'cause it ain't gonna work IMHO.
Woody

quote:

---

Originally posted by beaslekd:
When was the last foreign main battle rifle purchased by the US? 'nuf said on the M8's chances!

---

Hmmm...the 9mm Berretta 92FS sidearm comes to mind. Even though LISENCED in the US, it was designed overseas.

The article entitled "Wave of the Future, XM-8 battle rifle" is full of half-truths and H&K propaganda, along with some outright lies.

If the Govt wants a modular weapon system that allows you to change barrel lengths and calibers quickly (pull out 2 pins to chg the upper, drop in a new bolt and mag if reqd); a system that is extremely reliable; that you can mount grenade launchers, shotguns, sighting systems to; that has 3 firing modes; that is light, yet rugged; that has 10, 20, 30 and 100 rd mags; and most importantly has been battle tested for over 40 years in every climate, environment, and situation; they already got it in the M16/M4. Why would the Gov't spend millions (or billions) of dollars on a weapon system that would give you basically the same thing, and why have they given millions to a foreign company to develop this, and why have they wasted millions on the predecessor OICW program. Congress should look into this.

Here's just a couple of the more obvious blatent half-truths and lies about the XM-8 in the article:
"Quick change barrel" - yeah, as long as you got a vice, and a solid bench for your vice, and the special barrel wrench, you could probably change it in a couple of minutes.
"Operates with barrel full of water" - Ask H&K to demo this and don't let them drain the barrel first. Bet they won't try it.

My question is, why is Springfield not up in arms (pun intended!) over the idea that a U.S. Rifle could come from a foreign entity. They should be willing to risk EVERYTHING on R/D to win the new contract. IMO, Springfield Rifles are SECOND TO NONE, and believe me, I have fired a broad mix of Rifles. You show me a Kalashnikov variant that was ever made on a par with Springfield quality. The last time a foreign made rifle issued to U.S. Soldiers was better than a Springfield was in the early 1860's. By the way, they also make a fine M1911A1 variant that is accurate, reliable, and (in .45 caliber) has unbeatable stopping power. Springfield would never leave U.S. Soldiers with their collective Richard swingin' in the wind. They have shown a willingness to farm out manufacture to other U.S. companies when they can't meet the required production. I say we all (as U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines) write a letter to Springfield asking them not to let us down on this one. Remember, H&K is a German Company. Germany is not a supporter of U.S. Foreign Policy. There was an earlier comment about them possibly trying to crawfish the deal if they don't agree with our Government. Springfield weapons are built by Americans, for Americans!

BTW, I am NOT an advocate of adopting a new U.S. Rifle. I strongly feel that we should continue to improve the M16/M4. I am a Team Leader (translation: SAW gunner who can't get it out a Humvee window without causing serious calamity) so I get to observe the M16/M4 from a distance now and I think it is the 8th wonder of the world. I was just trying to point out that if we ARE going to go down the New Rifle path, it should be made by people who have been PROVEN DEFENDERS of the lives of U.S. Soldiers. The idea that our trust should be placed in the hands of those who seek to harm us (H&K is a German Company, I do believe. Nuff' said.) makes me sick.

NO, NO, a thousand times NO!
Here's how to do it right:
1. .30 caliber (7.62x45?)
2. NO German or any Euro-trash mfr's.
(Talk to Ruger, Olympic, DMS, etc.)
3. Paying more than $500.00 for a service
rifle is as insane as the $100.00+ PT
uniform & the $450.00 sleeping bag.
4. If you need a shotguns, procure shotguns!
If you need submachineguns and carbines,
procure those.
5. What is wrong with the 203?
6. Not with my tax dollars!
7. Techno-geeks go away!
There's a war on, and though it is high time
the M16 family went away, just stick to the
basics. look to Mr Garand or Mr Browning.
What would they do?

"...The idea that our trust should be placed in the hands of those who seek to harm us (H&K is a German Company, I do believe. Nuff' said.) makes me sick. "

Good point!

doc

I can just see the DOD spending 10,000 a copy on this gun. They are so stupid.

I can remember being posted for NATO exercises in the winter in Germany with no cold weather gear because they were so cheap they did not want to buy any extra gear!!

There are absolute morons in the DOD just like the ones who thought the M-16 would be an all-purpose gun. It is obscene they have kept the M-16 around until the year 2004. I am glad they have started pulling it from Iraw and Afganistan.

I heard that H&K was or has opened a factory near Fort Benning in Georgia. Quite a coincidence or maybe a farsighted business plan. I think the XM8 is already a done deal and the 5.56 is the short fall, if your shooting at someone the humane thing to do is to not have a 5.56 round tumble around and leave them half dead and incapacitated for life, larger round is the right thing to do.

You're forgeting one thing. In the field, if you wound the enemy, it takes 1 or 2 to take care of the wounded enemy, thus reducing who can shoot back at you. If he's dead, they just leave them behind.

Go to war college and learn.

doc

Our son is with Charlie Co, 16th EN BN, BIAP.
Combat Engineer/Heavy Gunner.

He has proven the M4 in .22, the M240B in .30
and the M2 in .50 can kill the enemy.

"I" personally would rather he have an M14
or "other" .30 rifle option if not acting Heavy
Gunner.

(He scored the highest in his Boot Camp Co.:
40/40 rifle and 20/20 grenades in Marksmanship.

IMHO his accuracy, fire discipline and
shoot/don't shoot competence "volunteered" him
into MGs, but his Co/Platoon/Squad/Fire Team lost
One Heck Of A Rifleman.)

He has a WIN, M100 in .223 of his own.
Out her in Arizona we consider it a coyote rifle.

Yuh do what 'cha gotta do.

Unless you are fighting Islamic FANATICS who abandon their wounded. Go to War College all you want, just pay attention to what's going on outside the school house. The War on Terror is not being fought against a rank-and-file army. The enemy soldier in this war only needs to attack in small groups to inflict max casualties and is willing, and even anxious, to die to accomplish his mission. The idea of frustrating an army with light casualties is not valid for fighting this enemy. We need to shift our fire and fight a war which allows us to target and eliminate the enemy to show that our will is stronger than his. The philosophy of wound the enemy and slow him down is for a totally different battlefield.