Excellent comparison. I would also add some other famous examples relative to the US Army. Little Big Horn - Custer's men using single-shot breechloading Springfields were seriously outgunned by the Sioux warriors firing repeating Spensers and Winchesters. Spanish-American War - Spanish Mausers were much superior to the American Krag-Jorsensons. Vietnam - M-16 "Mattel Toys" showed sever shortcomings compared to Viet Cong AK-47s in jungle warfare. So history repeats itself again. Doubt it'll be the last time. But I think Lobot makes the compelling point that tactics and discipline can more than make up for disadvantage in individual weaponry.

While it is true that technilogical advances such as those cited above can give a tactical advantage to one side or another, as you go up to the operational and strategic levels, they have less and less influence on the outcome. The Soviets did not fail in Afghnistan because their guns could not shoot up the mountains, they failed because they tried to emplace a government that was not wanted by the people of Afghnistan, a type that is a proven failure (communism). The Soviets could not even sustain themselves in Afghanistan, despite the fact it was a neighboring country (read "The Great Gamble").
The Frano-Prussion Wars were not decided by the rifles, rather they were much more operationally compotant than their adversary...due to the Prussian General Staff system and their ability to manage deployment via their rail system. The operational capacity and not carying less weight or having better artillary enabled the Germans to be decisive in battle...

@Eric...I will actually check that out...provided you check out "The erman Generals Talk" by B.H. Liddell Hart." (Same author who wrote "Strategy) In this he talks to many of the WWII German Generals after the war, and devotes a few chapters to the inter-war period, and how the German Army became so prepared for WWII. One insight, when you have no equipment, and troops, the senior staffs have a lot of time to war-game and develop new doctrine and strategy (Blitzkreig). A really interesting book, and a very quick read.

While we brag our body armor can stop a 7.62mm, we run around with 5.56. Even the Chechens wear body armor. This is widely overlooked.

Each squad needs two rifles that fire the .338LM (8.6mm), the .50 cal is just too big. One scoped sharpshooter rifle, and then a bullpup for close in. These are good for shooting though doors and walls too. Keep the 5.56mm for the rest, but should the need arise, adding more .338s would be easy.

Tom,

The problem in Afghanistan is not really a re-hash of AK vs M-16. The problem is more of rifles vs mortars. The insurgents are using heavy weapons like mortars and PKM medium machine guns to harrass American patrols and outposts, from a mountain away. Then, when the Americans give chase, the enemy just pack up and run away. By the time we crossed the valley and climbed up the other hill, they're long gone.

So the M-4 is not effective at the 800m-1km range that the enemy is shooting from. Then again, their AKs cannot effectively range that far, either. What we really need is our own "knee-mortars", an explosive projectile that can shoot out that far. One possibility is to put wings on the 40mm grenade, essentially making it into a gliding bomb to double its range. A .308 rifle at the squad level may help, but it's not conclusively solving the problem.

In the mean time, we have the tools to fight back. The M-4 cannot effectively engage 800m away, but that does not mean it cannot shoot that far. Bullets can easily fly 2km or more, just not accurately.

If we look back at WW1, you will see that Armies routinely drill rifle marksmanship out to 1km or more. A whole company or battalion would line up, set the sights out to 1km, and fire en masse at an area target. That was the infantry's way of providing organic fire support to the assaulting units, inside the minimum artillery range. Machine guns used to arc their fire at targets out to 5km away as well. In fact, AKs today still have sight adjustment out to 1km, allowing their soldiers to mass arcing fire.

We can do the same thing today. A whole squad, doing a magazine dump together, can put out 300 bullets at that target 1 km away, a rain of lead. That is equivalent to a WW1 battalion arcing fire. That fire is plenty enough to either fix the enemy, or force him off the hilltop. In the mean time, you can send your assault element to close with the enemy.

If your joes still have that elevation adjustment wheel on their M-4s, they can easily adjust the sights to shoot 1km. If not, simply elevate the barrel at 1 degree to shoot 1km. Simple ballistic calculators and practice at the range will give you the data for targets closer in.

Some people will argue that the 5.56 has no lethal energy at 1km. I say, try it yourself, standing out there without a helmet, while 5.56mm is raining down around you at 960 m/s. That is plenty of energy to penetrate your skull and lodge inside your brain. Remember, Taliban do not wear helmets.

If you really do not trust the 5.56, you can always lug the tripod with your M240B. With a tripod, the M240 can effectively engage targets out to 2km. Machine gunnery is more than just holding down the trigger and blasting away.
http://americanmohist.blogspot.com

I agree but I don't think the topic has exhausted the entire scope of the topic. I would be interested in the accuracy figures and kill counts. Perhaps range is not on the USA's side but I have to believe the latter two instances would reveal a brighter picture?

It really has nothing to do with the ammo as much as it does have to do with shot placement. The 5.56 is fine, it is where it hits that matters and some of the ammo does quite a bit of damage to tissue when it does hit, the Ball and 62gr Frange both do a lot of damage and although this was not their intent when designed, they do so just the same. In the end, it is about shot placement, not size of bullet and there is no such thing as "dropping power". If I hit a guy in the head with a 5.56 he is just as dead as if I hit him with a 7.62, 9mm, etc..
A common thing forgotten is that people do not die right away when hit by a round, there have been many documented cases of this just from police shooting incidents and I can tell you that people often need more than one shot to put them down. I remember a classic case of a cop shooting 9 rounds into a mans chest and the guy still killed the cop with a knife, mind you, the autopsy showed that the criminal was on PCP but it also showed that he was hit fatally in the heart early on but kept going till his blood pumped out. Humans are a lot tougher than movies or tv give them credit for, read some of the Medal of Honor Citations, Navy Cross Citations and see how severely wounded someone can be and still complete a mission. Lastly, most of the engagements we are in are not taking place at 600-1000mts., the M4 is more than capable of doing what is needed and we still have M-14's and variants in the armory as well as the SCAR Hvy.

Read
"Small Caliber Lathality: 5.56mm performance in Close Quarters Battle by Maj. Glen Dean and Maj. David Lafontaine"
This will give you a study of the what, why and when for the M4 5.56 and why it is fine, the only thing the AK had over it is being taken care of in newer models of rifles like the HK 416/417 and SCAR Light and Heavy.