"Army units still go to war with M2 .50 caliber machine guns, which were originally issued in 1921."

The reason the Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, and virtually all other NATO militaries use the Browning M2 50-cal is because it is literally one of the best, most efficient, and most effective modern weapons ever created. It's like the Colt M1911, or a toilet, or a comb - some designs just work, regardless of when they were first created. Minor changes have been made to the M2 throughout the years - this, in combination with new types of steel and other material innovations, allows the M2 to maintain it's position as perhaps the best heavy machine gun in the world (at least, for the roles in which it was designed for).

I agree about the M2 .50 caliber.  It works.  But the M-16 family of weapons, which relies on a direct impingement operating system has been the subject of serious debate.  It is said to be far less reliable than the AK-47's used by our enemies.

Why?  Why does the richest nation on earth continue to carry an infantry weapon that does not inspire confidence in the field?  Why do we continue to spend trillions on carbon fiber doodads for our air supremacy fighters (which have nobody to fight) and yet fail to put the best, most effective, and reliable weapons in the hands of folks who ACTUALLY go into harms way?

It's unforgivable.

Great post! I sincerely hope our leadership is taking into consideration the fact that reacting to our enemy's tactics rather than attempting to anticipate them is the greatest hindrance to departments making measurable gains and preventing lives lost!

http://modernmarinecorps.com

Excellent article.   Clearly, our Air Force and Navy are allocated a bit chunk of the procurement funds to prepare for threats that seem far less ominous than they were two or three decades ago.  If we put troops on the ground - and current military war doctrine and planning suggests that we will do so with increasing frequency - they deserve the best combat gear and protective gear possible.  We need to act now to provide them with state-of-the-art combat equipment.

The reason that our ground forces aren't as 'dominant' as the AF and Navy is because of the old, tired 'superior firepower' BS we've heard since Vietnam.  The difference is they call it the 'Revolution in Military Affairs' now (new packaging, new electronics, same failed philosophy).  We simply don't give small ground combat units the mobility and firepower to be dominate. 

M8 AGS was canceled 15 years ago.  The Army and Marines don't deploy a pair of self-propelled 120mm to each company.  The AR-15 family of weapons not only haven't been replaces with more reliable weapons (such as the HK 416), they are still mass produced (100,000 M4s bought in FY2010).  The Army has never deployed the EFOGM, but instead obsesses with the ultra-expensive NLOS-LS, which likely never see service because of it's huge costs.  The Army is reluctent to give it's squads more firepower by buying them weapons like the M32 6-shot Grenade Launcher.  But they do waste money on weapons like the XM307 25mm Auto Grenade Launcher (that can also be turned into a .50cal).  The Army and Marines REFUSE to understand that these weapons are totally impractical except when mounted on a vehicle.  It doesn't matter how light you make the weapon, the AMMO is the weightly PROBLEM.

Almost all of the things the could increase the fighting power of small units, the M8, the HK416, the M32 and numerous other things all have one thing in common.  They either started or completely developed by the industry.  And if anything the top-heavy, from-the-top-down orientated DoD absolutely hates is wasn't-invented-here inovations.  They rather have nothing then something that was someone else's idea.  And that's why the US isn't as 'dominate' on land as it is at sea and in the air.