Yeah, that’s the question I had. In my guard unit we had two SAWs per squad, three squads per platoon and then the crew served weapons squad with two M-60s.
This was in every rifle platoon, with the HQ platoon which had the 60mm mortars, the had M60s attached as well. We also a hybrid scout/AT platoon with SAWs organic to them as well.
This guy is arguing that his brigade only had 21 automatic weapons? What the hell was he in, the 4th Spoon Platoon? There should have been at least one .50 or M60 or M240 on each vehicle in his units.
I don’t get his rational about him needing the weapons because his Guard unit did not have enough automatic weapons....
Yeah, even a frigging transportation outfit has rifles for the troops.
Sounds like a totally messed up unit, a typo by the reporter or the guy’s lyin’ through his teeth.
Off assignment, his personal armament is up to him.
That his guard unit didn’t have enough standard weapons just emphasizes the need for each one to be respected the right to own suitable arms: if the government won’t suitably equip its own soldiers, then they are responsible for equipping themselves. Should his unit suddenly be called up for real combat, what are the 2979 unequipped ones supposed to do? throw rocks? or go buy their own M16s before need arises?
Can any of you military veterans clear something up for me from the story?
In the letters section, Mr. Hamblin clearly states that he was in a State Guard Unit, not a National Guard Unit, which is part of the Army.
What are the differences?
Surely a State Guard Unit would not be armed as a deployable Nat. Guard Unit would. Would they? Does this fact change the story enough to sway his circumstances?