It might be better to say that the round used was too much up to snuff. The apparently failure of the M855 to destabilize quickly enough in slight of build combatants meant that there were a lot of pass-through ice pick-like holes and not a lot of damage...The preceding M193 rounds likely would have performed much better.
Little remembered today, but mixed in with the glowing reports of how effective the "tumbling" 5.56mm bullets were (M193) in Vietnam, were reports of how the same ammo was nearly ineffective at ranges of 25m or
less (point blank). Ice pick holes, straight through, little damage (no tumble).
(which is why the FA feature of the M16 was a good thing
)
I think the "slight build" of the average Vietnamese compares reasonably well with the slight build of Somalis, in regards to bullet performance.
The bottom line is that if you pick the wrong ammo for the job, you get poor results.
Absolutely true, with everything!!!
As to the games, I admit, I haven't played them, or watched any in the last decade or so. One thing I did see that I have remembered, is getting my son the new hot game for Christmas (I no longer remember the name, it was a WWII one) spending $50 for it, and seeing him beat everything in it in about 35hrs. (Yes, the lad has a bit of hid dad's OCD, there is no quit in him when he's gaming
)
Any way what impressed me most was seeing him clear the Remagen Bridge with a "liberated" G43 sniper rifle (he liked it because it was the only one in the game that had a scope), and the number of times he had to shoot twice was very seldom. On the other hand, he
does know how to shoot....Had he been there in real life, and if real life was like the game, it wouldn't have been "A bridge too far"..
Games are fun, but they aren't realistic training, although they are better now than they were.