I'm a Steam Roller: And My Linkroll Rolls On

Keeping with the theme of creating a thoughtful and insightful Weblog that can be used for its repository of resources and information in addition to blog posts, I have chosen to review and add ten more useful websites to my linkroll (located to the right). As always, when considering a website's validity and overall effectiveness, I apply the Webby Awards criteria to my assessment. Having said that, I must now concede that none of the sites added this week can harbor any hopes of actually winning the Webby Awards. That, however, does not mean that these sites are entirely without value. Indeed, they host a wealth of content that, for the right person, is invaluable. Though they all fail in visual design, interactivity and navigation, most (by virtue of the information they catalogue) provide insight into the needs of soldiers and the training methods the Army is adopting in order to meet those needs. Sites such as The Army Study Guide, Army Counseling Online, and the gem of my linkroll; The Center for Army Lessons Learned, provide users with a plethora of resources that can be used for learning anything from calling cadence to reacting to roadside bombs. The official military websites included were, perhaps, the worst sites for visual design and navigation but (provided that they functioned and did not have security locks) had the most authoritative information. The United States Army Accessions Command includes links to all entry level training programs. Contained within this site were documents relating to just about every detail of upcoming schools. (These included guidebooks, field manuals, training calendars, regulations, and packing lists). For soldiers and researchers interested in the Army's overseas activities beyond the War on Terror, the United States Army, Europe & 7th Army's website housed a repertoire of news articles and command releases depicting American training, European training, and international combined training operations. For those who want to see more scholastic compendiums of training research, the Combined Arms Research Library and the U.S. Army Center of Military History were extremely helpful sites. They both presented reasonably searchable directories and (mostly) working links to military documents and files. One of the more interesting attributes I discovered within the Research Library was a table listing of the physical location (by address and sometimes shelf number) of old military documents that have not been archived electronically. Finally, my additions this week include a few sites that are a little on the frivolous side but still informative. The National Defense Magazine and the Soldiers Magazine websites are the e-based siblings to paper publications and Ranger Joe's is a civilian company that provides military and law enforcement personal with a catalogue of equipment that is not ordinarily available or issued to personnel. In spite of the design quality these sites are a treasure chest, but don't take my word for it- scroll down and make a few clicks!

M4 vs. HK416: Small Arms Decisions for the Army

This blog’s primary focus is to discuss training methods and tempos. I am going to veer every-so-slightly from that course this post because I want to talk about a very alarming equipment debate. According to The Army Times, the Army has withdrawn its decision to let special units, particularly the Asymmetric Warfare Group, continue to use the HK416 in place of the M4. So while CNN continues to report American casualties in Iraq with all the sincerity and eloquence of a sportscaster during a football game, another newsworthy battle rages on for the soldiers on the front lines. Special Units’ soldiers, weapons experts, and weapons manufacturers have all argued in favor of the HK416 because of its superior performance in laboratory and field tests and also for its low maintenance needs and longevity. If it is indeed a superior weapon to the M16 family, why then, are our soldiers still being equipped with M4s and M16s?

The M16 was first introduced into the ranks at the dawn of the Vietnam War. It, and its descendants (the M16A2 and the M4), are gas-operated. Of the M4 The Army Times explains, “The M4’s collapsible stock and shortened barrel make it ideal for soldiers operating in vehicles and in urban combat. It is accurate and easy to shoot. But like the M16, the gas system blows carbon into the receiver, so the M4 requires frequent cleaning to prevent jamming.” Like the Vietnam-era soldier pictured above and to the left, soldiers in the field today find themselves following in their forefather’s footsteps–scraping carbon away and praying their weapons do not jam when it really counts. In addition to maintenance issues, Defense News reports, “The M4 suffered more stoppages than the combined number of jams by the three other competitors - Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA's Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the H&K 416,” during tests conducted in November of 2007. Apparently, the HK416 has only one major downside according to field testers- the weight. It outweighs the M4 by about 1.5lbs. That small set back should not limit consideration of the weapon for common use by the Army if they carefully consider its many superior attributes. For a full and illustrated explanation of the differences in operation between the M4 and the HK416 click here.

Soldiers are not only entitled to great training, they deserve the best available equipment to perform their jobs. Ideally, our troops can get in, accomplish the mission, and get out in one piece. It is to that end that the HK416’s shunned performance is baffling. When the weapon was banned for the Asymmetric Warfare Group, soldiers protested immediately. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has personally taken up a crusade for the use of the HK416, told reporters, “They [senior sergeants in the unit] were outraged. It’s a reduction in capability. It’s a waste of money that was already spent, and it makes the job more difficult since [the M4] is much more maintenance-intensive.”At this point in the argument, I must take the time to confess that I have no hard evidence with which to back the following conjecture (which is probably more accurately described as an accusation). Though I cannot make a solid argument for this, it is my sense that the articles mentioned above, flirt with the idea that the real reason the Army continues to turn a blind eye to test results and soldiers’ opinions about the M4 and the HK416 (pictured at right) may be because there exist some arrangements of interest between them (the Army) and the M16 family’s manufacturer Colt Defense. The logistical argument could even delve as deep as ammunitions contracts and war-stocks which both have dedicated financial resources ear-marked years in advance. This would mean that any change in weaponry would require a complete restructuring of other logistical arrangements.

During a $12 billion a month war campaign, it seems ridiculous to cut corners such as these. Money should not be the driving influence behind the decision to use the M4 carbine. Better-equipped soldiers complete missions with higher success rates and higher success rates mean lower over-all costs. That argument stands strong without even taking commitment to the safety of our soldiers and plain old-fashioned morality into account. This conflict between the logistical means of waging war and the societal obligations of providing our soldiers with the best opportunity of survival reveals a deeply concerning trend occurring within the bureaucratic faculties at work behind the scenes of military decision making.

Getting a Good Site Picture: Military Websites of Interest

In my virtual journeys this week, I traversed the Internet looking at various websites I hoped to use in order to beef-up my existing linkroll. Using Webby and IMSA criteria, I examined several dozen websites and have chosen ten of high design and/or information quality relating to military training and added them to my list (which is located below and to the right). The sites, discussed below, can be visited by clicking on their title in the linkroll.

Generally, I found that most sites dedicated to military training fell into roughly four main categories:

The first is mostly comprised of sites that have poor design quality and very questionable authority. Though some of these sites provided (what can be called) intriguing information, I choose not to list them because of their excessive lack of authority.

The second category is made up of sites that boast valuable information and link collections but, as is an historical issue with military websites, have poor design quality. Sites such as ‘The RMA Debate,’ which is a repository of argumentative essays and reports by people of varying authority, belong in this category. ‘Defense Update,’ a site with international RSS feeds, also falls under this unfortunate description.

Perhaps the most authoritative collection of military training websites is a compilation of sites targeted specifically toward professionals and academics. These sites boast higher quality design and the utmost in authority. The ‘U.S. Army War College’ is the main hub to sites such as ‘The U.S. Army War College Quarterly Journal,’ and the ‘Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.’ The later provides visitors access to downloads of academic studies in every imaginable facet of military operations and training.

The fourth and final category is composed of sites that are professional in design (most likely these sites are designed and operated by professional third party web-design companies) and are aimed primarily at general employees. These sites’ main priority is news circulation though many also double as employee interaction forums. ‘Military.com’ not only provides news items, it provides links to services military members may find valuable and this site has a collection of discussion forums and blogs. ‘Stars and Stripes,’ ‘Military Times,’ ‘The Army Times,’ and ‘Defense News’ are all web-based versions of print news. Though all of these sites can boast superior design quality, each receives their news feeds from different sources. ‘Stars and Stripes’ is generally a collection of articles written by both their own staff writers and professional reporters from media outlets worldwide and is distributed to deployed American troops. The later three sites are produced exclusively as employee newsletters and often contain information such as promotion details, pay charts, and benefit updates.