AHC/WI: The US adopted the FN FAL

[Landshark]

I am interested in how the number of countries FN was able to sell it product to means it was the better design? The rights to the M14 were owned by the US Government. Did the US even allow any of the private manufactures of the M14 to attempt foreign sales? Let face it none of the US firearms companies have even been very successfull making foreign sales on their own after 1920 or so.

Do you have anything to back that last statement up? Because Armalite managed to sell AR10's, a design presumably not backed by the Pentagon, to Portugal and Sudan, which admittedly weren't big deals but they were more than the M14 managed by itself, and Britain bought 10,000 AR15's before the USArmy adopted the M16.

As to your first point, I, and I think most people, would say if a product is being bought in the millions then it must have something going for it. Armies on six continents weren't buying the thing because of unrequited love for Belgium.

The T48 was a inch pattern design not a metric one.

That doesn't mean it couldn't be a selective fire version. IIRC the Dutch licenced version was semi-auto only and that was metric.

Did your friends tell you how the South Koreans in Vietman armed with the M16 didn't have any of the problems the US Army had with it?

From what I have read the USMC locked out the full auto function on most of the M14 rifles ii issued by removing a part. The FAL wasn't really a good fit for the Marine Corps. One of the moving forces behind rifle design in the Marines is the rifle teams. The sights on the FAL are no where near as good for match shooting as those on the M14.

So your point is what? The USMC rifle teams didn't really give a damn what the Australian believed. Come shoot division matches this year with me and talk to those guys.

Are you seriously telling me the USMC's primary concern in selecting a service weapon is how well it does in shooting contests?

 

[Rickshaw]

And you are basing that on what? The fact you're favorite didn't win? Again I have to ask where was the FAL cheated during the testing?

I have no favourites. I've read extensively on military technology for over 40 years. The M14 had the potential to be an excellent weapon and eventually became one. So did the FN-FAL and also became one - however much sooner IMO. The FN-FAL, despite not being provided with subsidies or given away as military aid, sold extensively around the world. The M14, despite being provided as aid or sold with subsidies was not. As we say downunder, "the proof is in the pudding".

 

[Rickshaw]

So your point is what? The USMC rifle teams didn't really give a damn what the Australian believed. Come shoot division matches this year with me and talk to those guys.

You going to pay my airfare?

You also may well have hit the nail on the head. The US Marines rarely pay much attention to other military forces, even within the US.

 

[Gunnarnz]

As we say downunder, "the proof is in the pudding".

Indeed. And the proof of this particular pudding comes when you run it up the flagpole and see if it hunts... Sorry, I'll take my fractured metaphor away now.

Back on-topic, though, I don't think we can just ignore the widespread uptake of the FAL. It was certainly very popular, and if this wasn't because it was regarded as better than the alternatives then we have to credit FN's sales department with a great deal of skill. Given the sheer number of FALs that got exported, I don't think it's reputation would be as good as it is if the rifle was greatly inferior in any case.
It's interesting to note however that many of the countries that used the M14 put it into some sort of marksman role. Whatever it's faults, lack of accuracy doesn't seem to have been among them.

To respond to the OP, the answer seems to be "there's very little difference". The US has, as Gridley points out, been willing to use foreign weapons when it suited them to do so. So I imagine they manufacture it under licence, slap their own designation on their version of it, and use it until they replace it with something very similar to the M16 or M4. No matter how good the FAL may be I can't see them holding onto it if it doesn't do what they think a rifle should, which seems to have been why the M16 got picked up and the M14 relegated to a secondary role.

 

[Sior]

You going to pay my airfare?

You also may well have hit the nail on the head. The US Marines rarely pay much attention to other military forces, even within the US.

To their detriment on occasions!

 

[Rickshaw]

To respond to the OP, the answer seems to be "there's very little difference". The US has, as Gridley points out, been willing to use foreign weapons when it suited them to do so. So I imagine they manufacture it under licence, slap their own designation on their version of it, and use it until they replace it with something very similar to the M16 or M4. No matter how good the FAL may be I can't see them holding onto it if it doesn't do what they think a rifle should, which seems to have been why the M16 got picked up and the M14 relegated to a secondary role.

Where Gridley's point fails is that it does not note that the "two way street" as it was referred to in the 1980s, didn't develop until well, the 1980s. Before then, the US was determined in its pork-barrelling acquisition programmes. When Reagan came in, the criticisms levelled, particularly by Thatcher that the US was operating a closed shop as far as weapons were concerned, stung and the door was opened to real competition. I can't think of any similar situation occurring in US military history before that date, except in 1917-18 when the US Army because of its lack of preparedness was forced to adopt primarily French weapons to enable it to finally fight on the Western Front.

 

[Gridley]

Where Gridley's point fails is that it does not note that the "two way street" as it was referred to in the 1980s, didn't develop until well, the 1980s. Before then, the US was determined in its pork-barrelling acquisition programmes. When Reagan came in, the criticisms levelled, particularly by Thatcher that the US was operating a closed shop as far as weapons were concerned, stung and the door was opened to real competition. I can't think of any similar situation occurring in US military history before that date, except in 1917-18 when the US Army because of its lack of preparedness was forced to adopt primarily French weapons to enable it to finally fight on the Western Front.

You did notice the Swedish Bofors, which the US Army and Navy both used extensively in WWII? The US also used the British 6 pdr as its main infantry anti-tank gun for the latter part of the war. A fair amount of aircraft engine tech was also traded. Post war, the M60 was an attempt to make use of the German MG42 design in a US caliber. A pretty poor attempt, but an attempt.

I could also note the extensive use of the Enfield in the American Civil War.

My knowledge of US military equipment in the early Cold War is extremely sketchy, so I don't know of any examples from that period offhand, but I'm willing to bet with some digging you could find some.

 

[Gunnarnz]

Where Gridley's point fails is that it does not note that the "two way street" as it was referred to in the 1980s, didn't develop until well, the 1980s. Before then, the US was determined in its pork-barrelling acquisition programmes.

That's not quite true. Gridley has given some examples but the US Army picked up the French SS.11 ATGM in 1961, the Browning Hi-Power pistol (another FN product) not long after WW2, and no doubt there are other systems as well. They certainly do tend toward US designs though.

 

[jaybird]

Reliability and ease of use. The M14 also has both those qualities - now. As I've already mentioned, when it was first introduced it was derided as a piece of rubbish by most foreign soldiers who got to use it. I've been told by Australian soldiers who encountered it in Vietnam that they were often able to smash the stocks simply by dropping them on the ground, with rotten wood being evident in many of them.

That's not an issue with the weapon, that's an issue with the factories. What's next, that we shouldn't eat spinach because people get salmonella from it when it's not processed properly?

Same with the M16, it's not a bad design, just fucked up by cost-cutting and badly thought-out procedure.

 

[Gridley]

the Browning Hi-Power pistol (another FN product)

Yeah, there's a non-US design that lost to a superior US design.

I very much agree that there's a not-invented-here bias in procurement decisions, but the US military has used a LOT of non-US designed weapons throughout its history.

 

[MacCaulay]

I also have a soft spot for the FN-FAL but that's mostly for aesthetic reasons. So, what makes that rifle such a good weapon in objective terms?

The round is larger than that in the M-16: a 7.62x51mm NATO round. That's a massive amount of stopping power. The M-60 machine gun and the M-14 both fired that round, which seems to lend a bit of weight to the argument that if the US was using the FAL then there would be commonality of rounds across the entire spectrum of forces.
I know some people have tried firing NATO rounds from guns chambered for the .308, and it manages to work.

It's a reliable rifle, as well. You name a climate, and I can probably dig up a war that it's fought in extensively. True, it requires maintenance. In that sense it's almost the polar opposite of the AK-47. But this is the US Army we're talking about, not the Viet Cong: maintenance isn't a problem.

How would the US military be better off with the FN FAL? They would have switched to the M16 in Vietnam either way.

The worst part about the M16's performance in Vietnam is that it really didn't have to be like that. The British were using ARs in Indonesia with great success, but the model was different of course.

 

[Rickshaw]

You did notice the Swedish Bofors, which the US Army and Navy both used extensively in WWII?

The Bofors is the exception, rather than the rule. For every foreign weapon which was adopted there were ten which were not, until the development of the genuine "two way street" under the Sainted Ronnie, when real competition occurred.

The major weapons in every category between the end of the WWI and the middle (approximately) of the 1980s invariably was American in the US Army and the US Marines. We are still to see the USAF open its ranks to foreign aircraft in any substantial numbers and please don't tell us that it does!

The US also used the British 6 pdr as its main infantry anti-tank gun for the latter part of the war.

Only because, as with the Bofors 40mm L/60, they simply didn't have a weapon with that capability and in that class. The US Army resisted adopting the 17 Pdr, which was a much better weapon than either the 3in or the 76.2mm guns which it did adopt (it was actually better than the 90mm).

A fair amount of aircraft engine tech was also traded. Post war, the M60 was an attempt to make use of the German MG42 design in a US caliber. A pretty poor attempt, but an attempt.

A very poor attempt, which was found to be considerably wanting.

I could also note the extensive use of the Enfield in the American Civil War.

And Whitworth and Mauser and so on and so on but that is a little before the period I'm discussing which is the mid-20th century.

My knowledge of US military equipment in the early Cold War is extremely sketchy, so I don't know of any examples from that period offhand, but I'm willing to bet with some digging you could find some.

And I'm willing to bet if you did the digging, you'd notice the general trend between the end of WWI and the mid-1980s was one of nationalism and pork-barrelling determining equipment procurement decisions rather than a spirit of genuine competition.

 

[Gridley]

The Bofors is the exception, rather than the rule.

Certainly the vast majority of US weapons systems have been US designs. And so? The US often produces weapons which are superior. Should the US Army have used the Lee-Enfield instead of the Garand in WWII? The Bofors was used because it was an excellent weapon; the US didn't NEED to use it (the IJN had no equivalent, for example, and the army could have used the 37mm gun it used on the M15 in place of the 40mm ground-mount).

We've listed a bunch of exceptions on this thread, from a number of eras. How many do we have to list before you'll agree there's no 'rule'? I, and others, have already conceded there's a bias, which has varied in strength over the years.

Another Cold-war example:

The M60 tank used the Royal Ordnance L7 as its main gun. That's the first-line MBT for the Army for twenty years.

 

[jaybird]

We are still to see the USAF open its ranks to foreign aircraft in any substantial numbers and please don't tell us that it does!

Might that happen to be due to the US aviation industry being one of the best in the world? The F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18 are still very much the standards by which modern combat aircraft are measured. Sure, the Su-27 is considered an even match for the F-15, but that's making my exact point - the Flanker's baseline for measurement is still the Eagle, and you'll find that to be the case for the Fulcrum and Falcon/Hornet as well.

 

[Landshark]

The worst part about the M16's performance in Vietnam is that it really didn't have to be like that. The British were using ARs in Indonesia with great success, but the model was different of course.

No it was the same model, the original AR15 with three prong flash hider and without bolt assist. I don't know if Britain changed the power mix but I'd bet serious money that British troops cleaned their rifles.

 

[NothingNow]

Might that happen to be due to the US aviation industry being one of the best in the world? The F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18 are still very much the standards by which modern combat aircraft are measured. Sure, the Su-27 is considered an even match for the F-15, but that's making my exact point - the Flanker's baseline for measurement is still the Eagle, and you'll find that to be the case for the Fulcrum and Falcon/Hornet as well.

Yeah, it's one of the largest, and it has the most funding. So it's going to make some greats.

But, about your 4th generation comparison, going back we've got the Crusader, F-102, F-104 and F-106 vs the Lightning, Draken, Mirage III/5/50 and MiG-21. Then there's the comparison of the Buccaneer, Entard and A-6, of the A-5, F-111, Mirage IV, Tornado IDS and Su-24, not to mention the sheer potential that was the TSR-2. Of course, there's always the case of comparing the F-4 to the Mirage F1, MiG-23/27, and SAAB Viggen.

The only real reason we use the F-16 and F-15 as a generic base level is their ubiquity, and our normally NATO-centric attitude about aircraft.

 

[Rickshaw]

Certainly the vast majority of US weapons systems have been US designs. And so? The US often produces weapons which are superior. Should the US Army have used the Lee-Enfield instead of the Garand in WWII? The Bofors was used because it was an excellent weapon; the US didn't NEED to use it (the IJN had no equivalent, for example, and the army could have used the 37mm gun it used on the M15 in place of the 40mm ground-mount).

We've listed a bunch of exceptions on this thread, from a number of eras. How many do we have to list before you'll agree there's no 'rule'? I, and others, have already conceded there's a bias, which has varied in strength over the years.

Another Cold-war example:

The M60 tank used the Royal Ordnance L7 as its main gun. That's the first-line MBT for the Army for twenty years.

Yet we have the perfect counter-example - the 7.62x51mm small arms round. Forced on NATO because the US would not accept the winning European alternative.

As I said, the general trend between WWI and the 1980s was based upon nationalism and pork-barrelling US industries. You do understand what a "general trend" is, don't you?

The US does produce excellent weapons sometimes. Problem is, during that period it resisted efforts to adopt European weapons which were often superior to what was homegrown. Just look at what happened over the M9!

And oh, please do tell me the last time the USAAF adopted a foreign design for frontline service? Oh, thats right, the B-57 Canberra, in 1951. The T-45 was the first one for the USN in how long?

When was the last time the USN adopted a foreign ship design? I can't think of one, in this century.

 

[jaybird]

And oh, please do tell me the last time the USAAF adopted a foreign design for frontline service? Oh, thats right, the B-57 Canberra, in 1951. The T-45 was the first one for the USN in how long?

When was the last time the USN adopted a foreign ship design? I can't think of one, in this century.

Because America makes perfectly good aircraft, and I'd like you to show me the major power which does use foreign ship designs other then China, because it wasn't a major power until twenty or so years ago.

 

[Ward]

Also one of the reasons the M-16 got bad marks from the troops in Nam was who made the first stocks . It made people think of toys rather then a real rifle .

Now I liked the M-3 grease Gun for jungle work were range was less then 100 feet for combat .
But I also liked the M-1 Carbine in Nam also I always wondered why they did not remake the Carbine in the same cal. as the M-16 .

 

[Gunnarnz]

Because America makes perfectly good aircraft, and I'd like you to show me the major power which does use foreign ship designs other then China, because it wasn't a major power until twenty or so years ago.

Russia is purchasing some Mistral-class LPHs from the French, the Japanese get a lot of their basic designs from the US, German and French designed SSKs are surfacing in several different fleets (Indonesia and Malaysia for a start), the UK is using the same hull as France for their new CV's, India purchases ships from the UK and Russia, while Australia for a long time used ships from the UK and US (and I believe to an extent still does).
Perhaps we should start with some idea of what counts as a major power, after that we can look at their fleets and see where they come from. I think we'd find that many countries are either adapting designs from elsewhere or simply purchasing the ships outright. Developing and maintaining the industry required to design, build, and look after front-line warships is not an exercise for those who can't throw a lot of money at it.