Author Topic: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan  (Read 2486 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline victorcharlie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3573
Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« on: October 11, 2009, 03:56:38 AM »
Is it time to design or acquire a different platform?  The M-16 has been surrounded by controversy from the time it was first issued.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan_weapons_failures

WASHINGTON – In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.

When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.

Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?

Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.

A week ago, eight U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town near Wanat. There's no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh, but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by the demands of war.

Army Col. Wayne Shanks, a military spokesman in Afghanistan, said a review of the battle at Kamdesh is under way. "It is too early to make any assumptions regarding what did or didn't work correctly," he said.

Complaints about the weapons the troops carry, especially the M4, aren't new. Army officials say that when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur.

The M4 is a shorter, lighter version of the M16, which made its debut during the Vietnam war. Roughly 500,000 M4s are in service, making it the rifle troops on the front lines trust with their lives.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a leading critic of the M4, said Thursday the Army needs to move quickly to acquire a combat rifle suited for the extreme conditions U.S. troops are fighting in.

U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle.

"The M4 has served us well but it's not as good as it needs to be," Coburn said.

Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys soldier gear. Still, the rifle is continually being improved to make it even more reliable and lethal.

Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said.

The study by Douglas Cubbison of the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., hasn't been publicly released. Copies of the study have been leaked to news organizations and are circulating on the Internet.

Cubbison's study is based on an earlier Army investigation and interviews with soldiers who survived the attack at Wanat. He describes a well-coordinated attack by a highly skilled enemy that unleashed a withering barrage with AK-47 automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute.

The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.

Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a position the soldiers called the "Crow's Nest." The pair would pop up together from cover, fire half a dozen rounds and then drop back down.

On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round. McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine.

"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."

The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute.

Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.

Bogar was killed during the firefight, but no one saw how he died, according to the report.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater

Offline powderman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32823
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2009, 04:34:38 AM »
Not always possible for proper maintenence and cleaning in the field. POWDERMAN.  :o :o
Mr. Charles Glenn “Charlie” Nelson, age 73, of Payneville, KY passed away Thursday, October 14, 2021 at his residence. RIP Charlie, we'll will all miss you. GB

Only half the people leave an abortion clinic alive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
What part of ILLEGAL is so hard to understand???
I learned everything about islam I need to know on 9-11-01.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDqmy1cSqgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u9kieqGppE&feature=related
http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactthegovernor.cfm

Offline Questor

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7075
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2009, 05:10:45 AM »
Some of that desert dust is just incredible. It gets into everything and I can understand why it's a major challenge to anyone with any kind of machinery in those dusty environments.

What do the Taliban use for guns? Is it known whether they are reliable? I would expect the good ol AK47 to be a good choice because of its looser tolerances.
Safety first

Offline BBF

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10042
  • Gender: Male
  • I feel much better now knowing it will get worse.
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2009, 05:26:42 AM »
Sticking my neck out again :D
Perhaps aimed semi auto fire would be preferable then a spray and melt the barrel method?

 Did any of the AK's stop working during sustained auto fire?
Probably not !

I don't know if there was a crew served MG involved, even some WWII MG's had quick change barrels, so what happened. No MG?? No mortars?

Last but not least.
One or both of those outposts had overlooking terrain nearby. WHAT !!??  Who thought of that strategy?? :o :(
Going back to ancient times you take and keep the high ground if there is any. DUH !!
WWI saw thousands of soldiers killed on both sidesduring individual battles to achieve some kind of elevation, just a measly 20 feet or less would be advantageous.   
What is the point of Life if you can't have fun.

Offline Arier Blut

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2009, 05:28:27 AM »
It's a shame as much as they spend for the m16 platform, there are quite a few other rifles that have proven their worth on the battlefield. The hk g series, fn fal, fn f2000, fn scar, fn l-85, galil, tavor tr-21, ak variants, steyr aug,,,,,,,,,, all could be scaled to what ever caliber they wish and tweaked for what they want. I do own an ar, but I am not at war. Mine just pops little 22lr for practice and swaps to center fire for hunting. I don't have to hunt men with a varmint cartridge, as our soldiers do.

There are also a whole lot of complaints coming out of the middle east regarding the stopping power of the 9mm from our soldiers.

Offline kynardsj

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (54)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
  • Gender: Male
  • Sweet Home Alabama
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2009, 05:49:59 AM »
Just hard to beat an AK47. Fill them with dust, mud or both and they just keep shooting. I do a lot of reading about the Vietnam War. Two American soldiers found an AK that was in such bad shape the bolt was rusted shut. One of them stood on it and kicked the bolt until it opened and then proceded to run two clips of ammo thru it without a misfire. Our soldiers have some fine weapons, and some not so fine, but nothing that will do that. Tolerances are just too close.
When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced. Live your life so that when you die the world cries and you rejoice.

Offline Sourdough

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8150
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2009, 08:53:58 AM »
I've used the M-16 in combat and think it is not the weapon I want if I have to go back into combat.  Cleaning takes too much time and has to be to maticilous.  Too many things to go wrong and too easy to have sand/dust get blown into the action during a fire fight.  A few grains of sand will totally stop an M-16 or an M-4.  Their current machine gun is just a longer barreled M-4.

There is a reason the AK-47 and it's clones are the most popular weapon in the world.  It works with little or no maintenance.  During the first Gulf War, the US supplied the Kurds with weapons.  Hundreds of Chinese SKSs, (An AK-47 Clone) taken from South Eastern Turkey into Northern Iraq.  Why did we not give them some of our surplus M-16s?  Because they would not have accepted them, they consider them junk.

I will say it is extremely accurate, but not reliable.
Where is old Joe when we really need him?  Alaska Independence    Calling Illegal Immigrants "Undocumented Aliens" is like calling Drug Dealers "Unlicensed Pharmacists"
What Is A Veteran?
A 'Veteran' -- whether active duty, discharged, retired, or reserve -- is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America,' for an amount of 'up to, and including his life.' That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country today who no longer understand that fact.

Offline torpedoman

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2574
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2009, 09:03:10 AM »
going into combat with a weapon built by the lowest bidder has never been a real good idea.
the nation that forgets it defenders will itself be forgotten

Offline rak55

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2009, 09:26:10 AM »
weapons have always had environmental issues.

Online Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26941
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2009, 09:43:29 AM »
While I was not in the military so have no such first hand experience with it many such charges were leveled at the M16 in Vietnam and as I recall it all boiled down to proper maintenance in that super wet environment and those that cleaned it daily and kept it oiled well had few problems.

Now tho in a dry sandy environment that strategy seems destined to make things worse as oil attracts and holds sand which as has been said sure stops them in their tracks. I'm sure no fan of the platform even tho I do own some I seldom use them. It's also always seemed a little under powered to me.

That is the strong suit of the platform we are fighting against it has loose tolerances and is grossly over built and not much will stop it from working and those are traits that seem to me to be most desireable in a battle field rifle.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline blind ear

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4156
  • Gender: Male
    • eddiegjr
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2009, 09:58:54 AM »
The multi lug lock up and tight bolt channel seems to cause most of the problem. Commercial mfg's left the multi lug and went back to a two lug lock up semi auto a while back. If mil specs allowed HP ammo the 9mm problem would be reduced. Stories of Viet Nam said soilders created thier own soft tip and hollow point ammo. I don't know. ? eddiegjr
Oath Keepers: start local
-
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” – Ron Paul, End the Fed
-
An economic crash like the one of the 1920s is the only thing that will get the US off of the road to Socialism that we are on and give our children a chance at a future with freedom and possibility of economic success.
-
everyone hears but very few see. (I can't see either, I'm not on the corporate board making rules that sound exactly the opposite of what they mean, plus loopholes) ear
"I have seen the enemy and I think it's us." POGO
St Judes Childrens Research Hospital

Offline teamnelson

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2009, 02:50:36 PM »
There may be some point to some of the mods civilian variants use, two lugs, piston ... but there are still way too many points of failure on the M-4/16 platform. Old guys (multiple combat tours) at my battalion fight for shotguns, which are adequate for many kinetic environments. For longer ranges, we have some good heavy weapons.
held fast

Offline slim rem 7

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2028
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2009, 03:06:36 PM »
if it was me ,,id suspect real smart talented sabatoge by some who they don t know is working for the enemy..just like picking a pocket depends on skill... sabotageing a gun real quik,, just when they know thier people are coming in ,,might not be that hard.. everybodies got to sleep..just a thought .. wouldn t be the first time its happened ..slim
 ps why not put better made aks than the enemy has in our cooks an non front line mens hands. ..if it didn t do nothin else it would cut the cost of arming the soldiers by quite a bit ,,id suspect..then you got the best o both systems..

Offline blind ear

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4156
  • Gender: Male
    • eddiegjr
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2009, 03:13:47 PM »
care packages of modle 12 winchesters and M14's
Oath Keepers: start local
-
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” – Ron Paul, End the Fed
-
An economic crash like the one of the 1920s is the only thing that will get the US off of the road to Socialism that we are on and give our children a chance at a future with freedom and possibility of economic success.
-
everyone hears but very few see. (I can't see either, I'm not on the corporate board making rules that sound exactly the opposite of what they mean, plus loopholes) ear
"I have seen the enemy and I think it's us." POGO
St Judes Childrens Research Hospital

Offline Foggy

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
  • Gender: Male
  • If you die first we're going to split up your gear
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2009, 03:20:45 PM »
I drove a grader over my m16 in 1970.. Got a Ithaca pump and never looked back
Walk softly carry a big stick and never walk away  T.R.

Offline teamnelson

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2009, 03:45:03 PM »
care packages of modle 12 winchesters and M14's

lemme know if you need an address to ship too  ;D
held fast

Offline mechanic

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2009, 03:50:53 PM »
I notice they still have the bullet seater on the right of the rifle.  The fact that it needs one speaks volumes.  My old Chinese SKS will shoot all day dirty or not.  Every once in a long while I have to clean the gas passages.

With all our advanced technology, we can do better than the M16.
Molon Labe, (King Leonidas of the Spartan Army)

Offline gypsyman

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4850
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #17 on: October 11, 2009, 04:00:01 PM »
I know that later versions of the 16 had 3 shot burst trigger's in them. Does the M4? This would help the weapon from overheating. At least give the soldier a second or two to get back on target, instead of just emptying the magazine. gypsyman
We keep trying peace, it usually doesn't work!!Remember(12/7/41)(9/11/01) gypsyman

Offline Redtail1949

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #18 on: October 11, 2009, 04:59:19 PM »
Yes sir m16 in nam had one heck of a problem dictating meticulus care in cleaning. Later it was improved. However,compare it to the ak or sks and it loses everytime. they work with little or no cleaning and they do not jam.

the .223 is just too light a caliber to kill reliably. great on the load capacity you can carry compared to the m14  or any .30 cal. Yet most complaints i read about on military type websites is that they have to shoot someone 2-3 even 4 times to keep him down or dead. a lot of marines are cray to get their hands on the m14 so as to have more reliable killing power. with the webbing and even armor that the enemy now uses a m16 at 300 yards just does not kill reliably even stop. and then the age old argument of 9mm verses 45 most soldiers that are there doing the work will pick up a 45 if possible everytime. we should reevalue our weapons and even consider going to the commie ak. honestly the only reason we did not do that was the stigma of the ak being a russian weapon and by god ours had to be AMERICAN MADE. then of course with a very legitiment argument of just how much more ammo we could carry into the field witha .223 vrs .30 cal the top bras decided .223 and went 9mm mostly to match up with Nato Forces.

Offline mauser98us

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
  • Gender: Male
  • 10 mm junkie and Whelan wacko
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #19 on: October 11, 2009, 05:40:09 PM »
There is a reason the M-! and M-14 were so effective. Hell the last model M_14 with the fibreglass stock is lighter than the current M-16 platform,and shoots the much more effective 7.62mm.

Offline GatCat

  • Trade Count: (25)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #20 on: October 11, 2009, 09:01:13 PM »
Aside from the M-16 / M-4, is the M249 ( SAW ) Squad Automatic Weapon. From what I understand,the Marines have very recently approved a switch to a new SAW ( also 5.56 ), I think it is another F.N. design, MK 48 or some such. It is supposed to be a vast improvement. My own son ( Army ) views the M249 as a piece of junk.
The 240B ( 7.62 ) is very well thought of, it is an F.N, used throughout the world, known by other countries as MG58 ( year of introduction ), Brits call it "Gimpy" I believe. A fine weapon.
A "perfect" SAW would be a very good place to start re-arming our troops with.
Mark

Offline teamnelson

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2009, 10:36:10 PM »
USMC approved purchase of a version of the MG58, but in limited quantity ... not enough to replace all the M249 jamomatics. The 240s is a good piece of gear, and I'm an old M60 gunner who liked the switch.

Individual weapon (M-4/16, 9mm, etc.) selection is a sore subject on the front lines. Kimber and Springfield are raking in a ton of hazardous duty pay from folks coming back from the two fronts. A .45 cal sidearm and a .30 cal battle rifle seem to be the dream set up - I came home from my first tour over there and traded off my Armalite M-15. I've heard from a friend who was actually working the problem on the USMC side, that we're all waiting on the Army to pick calibers for cost reasons. I get it, but I don't like it. The Army mission has devolved away from its traditional role, and the actual ratio of trigger pullers to tail has gone down. Same is true for the USMC, just not as much, but to pick an all purpose weapon when the simple majority of your troop strength will never see combat is a tough call. For the folks up front, you might as well bring back the m-14; by the time you zip tie your light, laser, rco and piney fresh to an AR, the weight difference is negligible. And weight of ammo is a moot point, when your PPE is 4x the weight of gear humped in Vietnam, and there are very few long range foot patrols without mounted support.
held fast

Offline stubshaft

  • Trade Count: (8)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 489
  • ROA's Rule
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2009, 11:52:25 PM »
There is a reason the M-! and M-14 were so effective. Hell the last model M_14 with the fibreglass stock is lighter than the current M-16 platform,and shoots the much more effective 7.62mm.

+1 on that!

Let's see AK-47 = 7.62 X 39
If I agreed with you then we would both be wrong.

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2009, 02:48:41 AM »
A lot----A LOT---of folks humped AK's in nam and said to hell with the m-16. A LOT.
Army does not want to admit incorrect decisions---.
Now the M14 had much the same problems--except for bullet--that the m-16 had. Too close of tolerance to be reliable----same for the M-1.
Reliability of fire is in direct porportion to tolerances. Accuracy is in direct purportion to tolerances.
Do you want bang-bang-bang or          ?
AK design has proven to be a winner since 1947.
Now ammunition is a different arguement, but the .223 is not my choice.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2009, 02:50:56 AM »
What did I do, I said, scratching my head as I deleted. ::) :P :-X :-*
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline Questor

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7075
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2009, 02:52:51 AM »
A man in the arms business once told me an interesting piece of information about usage of rifles in World War II and in Viet Nam: In World War II most soldiers never fired their rifles. They didn't know how to use them. In Viet Nam, they did fire their rifles but very seldom hit what they intended to shoot. Fascinating.

It seems to me that reliability should be the most important criterion. I never could understand why some of the US military accuracy trials were conducted that way.

All this makes one really wonder whether the role of side arms has any significance at all in the military. If they can't hit stuff with a rifle or carbine, they probably won't hit anything with a sidearm either.
Safety first

Offline kynardsj

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (54)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
  • Gender: Male
  • Sweet Home Alabama
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2009, 03:31:55 AM »
Truth is hard and cold sometimes and IMHO the best military rifle was built by the Russians in 1947 and is still going strong. Russian, Chinese or whoever I'd take an AK47 over a M16 or M4 any day if my life depended on it.
When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced. Live your life so that when you die the world cries and you rejoice.

Offline slim rem 7

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2028
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2009, 04:10:45 AM »
 if i tried an ak47 an could get one shot one kill at 300 yrds an further,,it would be my pick ...what ever i use i don t like the spray type shooting,, except with a shotgun..also i want a rnd that does the job.. the u. s. should in my opinion go to better performing rnds .. rules of war bedanged.. the only reason they [the enemy] don t do it is ,,they know we could put rnds in our boys guns that would pulverize an enemy ..they couldn t match us in that department ,,, im thinking..slim
 so we go by the rules ,,an they go by the rules that benefit them.. >:(

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #28 on: October 12, 2009, 04:23:06 AM »
I go back to the story of USMC traing in WWII. Instructors said only fire at a target that you can see and aim at.
This young marine was shipped to the islands. His gunney not that he was not shooting. Questioned him and when told he could not see a target.
The Gunney said son, just shoot, we need lead downrange.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline slim rem 7

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2028
Re: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan
« Reply #29 on: October 12, 2009, 04:28:03 AM »
 ;D point taken