Author Topic: Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan (Read 2485 times)

williamlayton · « **Reply #30 on:** October 12, 2009, 05:48:48 AM »

Quote from: williamlayton 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 noticed 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

Default · « **Reply #31 on:** October 12, 2009, 07:35:14 AM »

I have never been a big fan of the M16 ... A father-in-law i had years ago spent three tours in Nam ( his wife was a S. Vietnamese LT.) and when i bought my first armalite AR i had to show it off since he is a gun guy like myself .. His response to me bringing it out was " Thats nice... Dont carry it into combat" And my response to his statement was to bring out the AK.

I absoulutely agree that the M16/M4 should have been replaced by now , Just to many other good alternitives out there ... And way to many better choices in ammo , Hell i have considered converting my AR to a 6x45 mm ( 6mm bullet in a necked up 223/5.56 case ) on more occassions then i can recall and am still flirting with it ... But even in that instance you still are under the restraints of the weapon platform that is what it is , And it is thsoe close tolerances that can stop a weapon in combat that give the AR/M4 its accuracy...

And yeah you can carry more 556 then 7.62x51 for the same amount of wt. ... But if it is taking 2-3 or 4 rounds to knock out of end a target then really that argument loses steam fast.

My younger brother works with a man that is from some south american country that i dont recall at this moment , Doesnt matter i guess .. Anyway this gentleman while serving in the army was supplied M-16s and H&K G3s by our gov. just before the country in fell into civl war ... My brother while talking to him about this asked him what he thought of the M16 and his response was nothing but negative, Then told my brother " The G3 on the other hand killed men good with one shot"... Guess not much to say about it then that ..

Nothing I'm guessing many of us dont already know ...

Part of me would like to see the 6.8 spc given its day in the sun but not in the M16/M4 platform ... That really wouldnt be anything more then a temporary fix to a problem that has continued to plague the present weapon platform that is being carry by not just our troops but more importantly to me is being carried by my family and friends ...

Default

teamnelson · « **Reply #32 on:** October 12, 2009, 11:45:50 AM »

Someone mentioned sidearms ... USMC I'd deissuing sidearms in OIF, and replacing them with M4s for folks who didn't already have 'em, like heavy weapons, medical, officers. It's tough maintaing so many fragile systems, they're consolidating.

SM Bob · « **Reply #33 on:** October 12, 2009, 03:31:07 PM »

Call me old school, but I'd prefer an M14 to that crappy M16.
True you can carry more 5.56mm than 7.62X51mm, but if
you know what you are doing that 7.62mm round will get
the job done with a lot less ammo. It seems to me it would
be a better round for the mountians of Afghanastan than
the 5.56mm and that M14 will keep on trucking long after
that M16 would quit. JMHO.

Robert

teamnelson · « **Reply #34 on:** October 12, 2009, 07:54:44 PM »

Not to derail the thread, but I hang out on survival boards and forums too, and I get flamed for suggesting that the AR is not the gun I'd grab on my way out the door in a SHTF scenario. Of course like many here I've actually beaten one up pretty good, and been to combat a couple times ...

Spanky · « **Reply #35 on:** October 13, 2009, 12:18:35 AM »

There's a good reason alot of the world uses AK's

They actually work when you need them to.

Spanky

Mikey · « **Reply #36 on:** October 13, 2009, 12:45:06 AM »

(1): You never, ever situate your redoubt or outpost below a accessible high point.

(2): The Armalite system will fail regardless of environment. A 9 lug bolt is simply much too cluttered to continue to work in adverse situations.

(3): The Kalashnikov or Siminov systems will continue to work in any environment and after severe and adversarial use.

(4): The M1/M14 systems and the Mini-14 systems will continue to work under adverse conditions but a more effective battle round is needed; A Mini-14 system in a accurate 7.62x39 chambering would be very effective. A longer barrelled Kalashnikov (RPK bbl length) would be better yet.

(4) A better package than what we field now would be a scopable American Kalashnikov in 260. jmtcw.

alsaqr · « **Reply #37 on:** October 13, 2009, 02:52:09 AM »

Monday morning quarterbacking is wonderful. However, I would like to point out a couple of things. One of those guys in that fire fight fired his SAW at its cyclic rate for one minute. No surprise that the gun quit working. No fully auto weapon can be fired at its cyclic rate for very long without malfunctioning.

One mans M4 got so hot that he could no longer handle it and he threw it down. Sounds like fire discipline was lacking.

The maximum effective rates of fire for the M4 rifle:

Quote:
Semiautomatic - 45 rounds per minute
Burst - 90 rounds per minute
Sustained - 12-15 rounds per minute

http://www.armystudyguide.com/flashc...cat=20&qnum=74

BBF · « **Reply #38 on:** October 13, 2009, 06:45:10 AM »

Quote from: alsaqr on October 13, 2009, 02:52:09 AM

One mans M4 got so hot that he could no longer handle it and he threw it down. Sounds like fire discipline was lacking.

I can see that happening when you are outnumbered and the enemy is firing on you from a b o v e !!

rockbilly · « **Reply #39 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:07:33 AM »

History does repeat it’s self, we experienced the same kind of problems with the M16 in Viet Nam. . It was a common practice for the American troops to pick up an AK when they could. I had one and a model 12 riot gun. I recall an incident when the base was under siege and a Major assigned to the wall I was on told me I could not use the riot gun in an attack, said it was against the Geneva Convention, I told him he could have the gun come sun up, but until then it would be used against anything that moved on the other side of the wall. He let me keep it.

My point, lots of us did not have the confidence in the M16 and looked for a replacement when our butts were on the line.

kynardsj · « **Reply #40 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:32:39 AM »

In the books I read about Vietnam it was mentioned that after a firefight soldiers were found dead with their new M16's in pieces evidently they were trying to get them working again. Stoner designed it and McNamara pushed it through before a lot of the kinks were worked out of it. Looks like some of the kinks are still there. Our troops deserve way better than that.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #41 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:52:33 AM »

No automatic weapon can fire at its cyl. rate for a min and not break ? BS . John Browning with his first belt fed machine gun fired over 15000 rounds without stopping except to put in a new belt of ammo ( cotton belt at that ) . When ask what he was thinking while fireing it for the Army board he said he was thinking of how much abuse the extractor was taking as it was chery red along with other parts . It has been noted many times that same model shot over a million rounds in almost cont. fire in WW-1 with out maintance often with the condenser dry .
The forward asst is on the m16 to aid in chambering a dirty etc round , be fair on most guns the bolt handle serves the same purpose . That said it is a weak part that can jam a weapon when used with force on a hot gun .

Rex in OTZ · « **Reply #42 on:** October 13, 2009, 11:01:57 AM »

the tactics have to change, since the US military is such a large and unwieldly beaurocisy, its hard for them to talor the weapon and tactics to the environment, the hostiles have figured out the US military's weapons limitations and will give our guys a bum rush causeing them to spray & pray till ther weapons quit working cause they do, then they can come in and pick annd choose, Ive read several books by returning vets from our Global agression on terror, they repeadidly state the repeated hits required to take out a hostile in combat, some the hostiles takeing 5 or more hits before theyt cease to be effective combatants
our main battle carbine is at best a crappy coyote rifle (they dont use them for hunting much here in Alaska) and we want to go deer hunting not enough range and payload to accomplish whats required, the delivery platform is another problem, the cleanliness in the battlefield is such a oxymoron its rediculus that a combat troop has to stop and clean in the midsdt of battle (Little Bighorn ring a bell?) our troops are smart and capable if we give them the flexability and tools to save themselves in the field they are expensive to train and field so far the hunter has become the hunted we need to change our field tactics, we do have a extensive population to draw troops from but why should we keep throwing frech men in the fray when we havent learned to size up the situation and deploy accordingly?, from my maintenance background it sounds like a expensive piece of equipment that requires allot of maintenance has limited productivity and is fickle when in operation (military management and equipment) simple is best and flexable is best, our Military brass is a ingrained system of who has the most time is top brass the cream dosent rise to the surface in this case (no battlefield commissions).
Hope we can pull our head outta our butt and do it right.
I remember reading in the TriState trader (stock growers paper of wyoming/nebraska/south dakota) the attempted removal of coyotes by hosting a drive so they had several 100 people turn out and they managed to bag a couple stupid young coyotes the majority slipped through, same applies to what we are dealing with, we try to use battle tactics from the past and were beat at every turn because we fail to see our opponets are thinkers as well, we are arrogant and will continue to make stupid decisions from a operations manual that should be shredded.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #43 on:** October 13, 2009, 11:33:40 AM »

Quote

In World War II most soldiers never fired their rifles.

Wasnt there, but i find that satement a little hard to believe!

on another note:

Politics have always made dieing easy and fighting harder for the American GI's

Let the soldier choose and you'll find the good weapon!

teamnelson · « **Reply #44 on:** October 13, 2009, 02:47:14 PM »

Quote from: Oldshooter on October 13, 2009, 11:33:40 AM

Quote
In World War II most soldiers never fired their rifles.

Wasnt there, but i find that satement a little hard to believe!

That statement has been dusted off in recent years with all the research around PTSD. Another one is that 4-5x as many folks were sent home with combat fatigue or shell shock from WWII as were wounded. I can believe the statement if you replace the "most" with "many". Firing on a live human being (controlled sighted fire) is unnatural for most. The same research also showed that "many" more also didn't not aim their fire IF they pulled the trigger.

I believe current research will show that hit ratios in current engagements are no higher than WWI, WWII, Korea or Vietnam ... for the same reasons. I know men who were embarassed in their first kinetic engagement because they never pulled the trigger, or wet themselves, just last year. Its not like what anyone imagines until you've been there. And then its not easy because you've been there. The weapon needs to be sturdy, reliable, very easy to fire accurately, with a minimum of moving parts (rails are the opposite of helpful here); there needs to be only one platform, with maybe a sniper variant.

1marty · « **Reply #45 on:** October 13, 2009, 04:44:51 PM »

I never liked the M16 back in 69. Although it never jammed on me I hated cleaning that sucker. I think I cleaned it more than I shot it. I was happy when they told me I would carry the M79. I understood by the end of the war most of the "kinks" were worked out.
I'm not all convinced that the "new" M4's are all that bad or just more made up hype by the press. I suspect one of these press guys read something about how these guns jammed during Nam and decided to "run" with A story. It's interesting the vast majority of soldiers like the weapon. Funny, the main combat weapon of the Israeli army is the M16 in various versions.

JASmith · « **Reply #46 on:** October 13, 2009, 05:11:42 PM »

The discussions suggest that a gun going bang with lead going down range is a whole lot better than an accurate weapon not going bang!

The M-16 with the 5.56 came along at a time when our number crunchers convinced themselves that a wounded soldier was of greater value in the combat simulation than a dead one. It usually takes at least two soldiers to recover a wounded comrade, so they saw a chance for a three-fer! Hence the 5.56 did not, at the time, need to demonstrate stopping power.

Precision shooting is a tradition that was temporarily lost in Vietnam.

I hope we don't lose sight of the need to stop an enemy, not merely wound him. For that, we need accurate, reliable weapons with more capable cartridges than the 5.56. The 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 Remington SPC have very loyal followings and make a fair bit of sense even though fewer rounds can be carried. The 25 WSSM necked up to 6.5 would be even better at the cost of even less rounds per pound.

The optimization ain't easy -- giving the politicos (civilian and in uniform) undue room to exert influence based on aesthetics and emotion.

JASmith · « **Reply #47 on:** October 14, 2009, 04:22:25 AM »

alsaqr gave a very well informed comment about the underlying causes of problems. Bad things usually happen when discipline breaks -- this observation has been true for thousands of years. More soldiers have been killed when they panicked and forgot their training. There may be a leadership challenge also. But in the end, Mr Gump had it right - "Sometimes crap happens."

Another poster forgot to mention that the Browning Machine gun that fired 10,000+ rounds without stopping was water cooled. Carrying a bunch of non-potable water into a battle area sounds like suck city!

Our main problem with reliability is changed expectations. We expect and demand that our rifle shoots every time we pull the trigger, that it always hits the target, and that the target always goes down.

How often does this entire sequence happen when we try to shoot a deer in the chest (or stupidly in the center of mass) even with an adequately sized deer rifle?

Having said the above, I also am in line with every contributor so far -- our soldiers and marines deserve a lot better. Our weapons should be performing much closer to the ideal than we're seeing today.

We need to strike a better balance between acquisition & maintenance costs, logistics, and field performance.

gstewart44 · « **Reply #48 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:19:21 AM »

I have not had any combat experience with the M16/M4/AR platforms but a bunch of you here certainly have. The merits of 308 chambered weapons have been discussed, but it seems to me that the 6.8 SPC would make sense in a more reliable platform. The cartridge was developed with heavy input by Special Ops and the Armorers in the Military.

Anyone had any experience with this cartridge? What about this round in the new/improved/more accurate version of the Mini14? Just a thought.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #49 on:** October 14, 2009, 07:55:24 AM »

JASmith i did mention they went with the condenser dry , you do realize the condenser held the water ? Also the first ones IE in the test were not water cooled nor were all of then during production .
My point was a full auto that works is not a new thing , however a complicated one would be .

alsaqr · « **Reply #50 on:** October 14, 2009, 08:40:41 AM »

Quote

John Browning with his first belt fed machine gun fired over 15000 rounds without stopping except to put in a new belt of ammo

Yep, that was a model 1917 water cooled machine gun. It weighed 103 pounds with water, tripod and one belt of ammo. It burned up very quickly when no water was available for it.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #51 on:** October 14, 2009, 08:44:04 AM »

Really it was a test gun without water jacket . But that said only the bbl is cooled not the moving parts . Try again .

BBF · « **Reply #52 on:** October 14, 2009, 10:19:43 AM »

something in the 6.5 to 7mm would be an adequate diameter of a combat bullet IMO

billy_56081 · « **Reply #53 on:** October 14, 2009, 10:45:44 AM »

I am thinking it was the water cooled version. One night on the 50 cal range we destroyed a barrel with one sustained 200 round burst followed by two, 100 round sustained bursts. The M2 is just and enlarged version of that machine gun.

teamnelson · « **Reply #54 on:** October 14, 2009, 12:04:57 PM »

Quote from: gstewart44 on October 14, 2009, 06:19:21 AM

I have not had any combat experience with the M16/M4/AR platforms but a bunch of you here certainly have. The merits of 308 chambered weapons have been discussed, but it seems to me that the 6.8 SPC would make sense in a more reliable platform. The cartridge was developed with heavy input by Special Ops and the Armorers in the Military.

Anyone had any experience with this cartridge? What about this round in the new/improved/more accurate version of the Mini14? Just a thought.

Its a chicken and egg scenario ... do you build a weapon around the cartridge, or do you build a cartridge for the platform? Its also a cost issue whenever you're talking mass production of a new caliber, and 6.8 SPC is nifty, but the factories are tooled for mass production of 5.56 and 7.62 variants (39, 51). I personally think its not a caliber question, its a platform question, since the problem isn't the round.

JASmith · « **Reply #55 on:** October 14, 2009, 02:01:09 PM »

For the folks looking for comparisons between the 6.8 SPC, the 6.5 Grendel, and others: Look at http://www.65grendel.com/ and the articles sections of http://shootersnotes.com/ -- these discussions, taken together, should help develop a feel for military and hunting potential for some of the newer rounds.

alsaqr · « **Reply #56 on:** October 14, 2009, 02:15:12 PM »

Quote

Really it was a test gun without water jacket.

I have watched the silent movie of the Army test shoot many times. Somewhere on one of my computers is a video made from that silent movie. In Army tests Browning fired one of his guns in two 20,000 round bursts with no malfunctions. Then Browning set up his second gun and fired it 48 minutes-21,000 rounds.

Had a friend who was the commander of a machinegun company in WWI. Jack died in 1985. Jack's unit went to war with the Chauchat automatic rfle and Benet Mercie machinegun. They later got rid of the Benet Mercie and were issued Vickers machineguns. The Chauchat also went away in favor of the Lewis gun.

Just before the war ended they were issued Model 1917 Browning machineguns. The Browning was not without problems. The guns were rushed in production before all the bugs were worked out. In the time period between the end of WWI and the beginning of WWII the bugs were worked out of that gun and the model 1919 Browning.

http://www.onwar.com/weapons/infantry/firearms/M1917_Browning.html

billy_56081 · « **Reply #57 on:** October 14, 2009, 04:12:54 PM »

Quote from: TM7 on October 14, 2009, 03:53:18 AM

I wouldn't be surprised they're on the verge of something like this soon with a high cycle rate...wherein old tech gunpowder-projectile-case is not needed...no ammo to carry, no trajectories.....just carry battery packs..

fyi.....http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/03/handheld-laser-gun-available-for-purchase/

..TM7

TM are you trying to pass that silly crap off as real? 6000 watts out of AA batteries? OMFG that is one of the silliest things you have tried to post as fact I have ever seen.

TM we are talking about real weapons here not some "SUPER LASER" that runs on AA batteries. So how many Amps are these guys getting out of those AA's?

Please tell us all you really didn't think this link you posted was for real.

Redtail1949 · « **Reply #58 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:03:25 PM »

Just think back in time when the .222 remington was the hottest and most accurate of the centerfire varmit calibers.. prairie dogs up tp coyotes. No one would even consider it a realistice deer rifle. Sure many a deer even elk have fallen to that caliber as well as the .223. I killed over 50 deer in east texas and and a whole lot of piney wood rooters with a .22 long rifle.

So along comes the .223 and the military equivalent 5.56 and the big sale starts , no shooter or experienced hunter took seriously the fact that the military was going to even consider such a small caliber round in combat. Yet , they started selling it as the best thing in 100 years in comvbat rounds...remember (mentioned in an earlier post) it tumbles and caused sever wounds requireing two men at least to evacuate the wounded man. Eureka we were gonna wound so many that the enemy would tie up all their attacking forces in litter bearers. So accurate if a soldier took a solid rest he could make a solid head shot almost at will out to 300 yards. BULL YOU KNOW WHAT... Couple of problems with their logic the enemy we faced since that time will not stop to aid their wounded so that theory did not hold up. Few men in combat have time for effective deliberate aim for such as a head shot. Snipers but not those in a fire fight at 35 to 125 yards. Then the reality of a varmit caliber as a combat weapon in the real world of combat packs, ammo vest with clips on so on stopped the puny ineffective rounds consistantly at 250-300 yards. Today the ranges are even farther account the open desert and mkountainous terrain. I know they still do a lotta urban stuff and i say evn there the .30 and .45 shine compared to the 5.56. So they started going for heavier weight bullets and new twist rates to accomadate that, trying to get it up to the level of penetration that is needed. They still have not made it an effective killer.

The 6.5 swede has a sterling reputation as a very effective killer of men and game several of the european calibers in that 6.5 to 8mm area proved to be up to the job. They were accurate and did penetrate through packs webbing and clips and all killing the enemy right on the spot. We had an extremly effective .30 caliber..the tried and true .06 for bolts and then the semi auto garand. then the very effective 45. in the thompson and the Colt 1911 side arm. they proved they had the right stuff time and time again in WWI thru Korea. Then on to the .30 7.62 hey it was a dang good one just a shorthen .06 if you will. Now the military was giving serious thought to going back to those calibers and suddenly they stopped the testing..no reason given..I know they did not want to admit the stupidity of getting away from them. All that was needed was to update perhaps in to more modern designs. Even though the .45 Colt Semi Auto 1911 is a dam good weapon as is ..yet they could go to the hi capacity mags and maybe the plastics for maintence reasons. the thompson could have been lightened up but the caliber is was was so effective compared to the 9MM. Remember we wanted to have all of the Nato Countries with all interchangeable weapons and ammo that could be picked up on the battlefield and used if need. Well that did not pan out every nation has a conglomeration of weapons and calibers. However the was one of the touted selling points on the change.
Why they just can not listen to the men fighting most want a .30 or like earlier the 6.8 spc that has shown tremendous promise as a smaller caliber (weight) and damnd powerfull compare the the m4-m16. the pistol 9mm is just not as effective as the .45 and after 100 years combat has just about settled that argument except to those unwilling to face the facts . 9mm accurate yes sir high capacity mags yes sir but does not have the ability to consistanly stop of kill in combat. Compared the the effectiveness of the .45 there is no doubt that were we should be and we should have never left.

just my two cents

teamnelson · « **Reply #59 on:** October 14, 2009, 07:13:48 PM »

To be fair, the ak is not perfect, nor is the 7.62x39. Lots of inop aks in caches in Iraq. And I know of a couple Marines who took a 7.62x39 at pbr centermass on the saapi. Woke them up for sure but no drama. Bad ammo mebbe?