Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 168 Posts

macmonkey

· Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
Off the AP [ http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091011/D9B8SUPO0.html ]

-----------------------------------

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

---

On the Net:

U.S./NATO forces in Afghanistan: http://www.nato.int/isaf/

Army weapons: http://tinyurl.com/yk95j8z

Weapon manufacturer: http://www.colt.com/mil/M4.asp
 
this says it ALL imo

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.
 
360+ rounds from one soldier?

How many men did we have on the ground there? At least 40, closer to 50.

50 x 200 to 300 rounds = 10,000 to 15,000 rounds.

Man, what kind of "battle tactics" were being employed? Pitty.

While I am not a fan of the M16/M4 it will do the job if the guys can put the rounds on target. Sadly, our soldiers are not taught how to shoot accurately, just how to lay down rounds.

One must wonder of the bad guys are starting to learn this and use it against us?
 
This article very much reinforces this post by a member here:

it seems that you have your heart set on an AR, but if you get one, try to stay away from the direct gas impingement systems (DGI systems), or replace it with a piston driven gas system as fast as you can.

I was in the army for 5 years, about half of my time was in iraq, and I lost faith in both the .223 (5.56 REM) caliber and DGI systems. I use only gas piston systems on all of my semi-auto rifles now. The dgi throws hot ass expanding gas and other carbon particulates directly into the bolt, which can cause alot of extractor / ejector problems and requires alot of constant maintenance. If you use corrosive ammo / primers (used in some surplus ammo) it can steadily eat away at your flash hole and gas tube. My favorite assualt rifle / caliber out there is the Robinson Arms XCR in 6.8 SPC with the heavy target barrel. The only fall back of the gas piston system is the moment (torque) it puts on the barrel. When the expanding gas hits the piston is has an equal and opposite force on the gas block so that is why i recommend the heavy target barrels.

There are alot of options out there some more expensive than others, but the new Ruger sr 556 seems pretty cool if your into .223, HK 416 is obviously the more expensive option along side the FN SCAR.... but do what fits your budget (XCR is about $2300 depending on caliber and it has a huge monolithic rail system on it, which kicks ass). DGIs arent the end of the world, but there are definitely better systems out there since its inception in the 1960's.... of course gas pistons have been around since the M1 Garand ("the greatest battle implement ever created" - Patton) or the 30 Carbine.

If you think im full of crap, i also have a mechanical engineering degree from Villanova and i have a bit of experience in finite element analysis (the analysis of stresses, both thermal and physical on objects).
specifically the terminal ballistics of the round has poor performace, especially in the 16" barrels we use. i spent some time in abu ghraib with 1sr MAR DIV guys who were concurrently stationed a few kilometers west in fallujah that said it didn't knock guys down during both Fallujah one and two (BTW marines still use the original 20" barrels on their rifles). The only time I saw a guy shot by .223 up close was when an insurgent tried to sneak up to one of our HMMWVs in the middle of the night on an mounted OP with a sword. Our gunner told him to stop and he pressed on with sword in hand, the gunner then shot him in the lower gut at about 7 to 10 yards away, the guy went down, but once we evaced him to the nearest field hospital he died about 18 hours later. Although it dropped him, he was also concious and aware for the entire time it took us to get him to the hospital. For the 10 or 15 minutes that he was bleeding on the ground after we searched him (finding a bunch of knives on him) he only bled about a pint during that time. So once we got him to the hospital we were wasting tax payer money trying to save the guys life.... if we hit him with a .308 or 6.8 SPC im sure we could have saved the american tax payer some money and our physicians some time.

Also the pure amount of maintenance we had to do was outrageous, both at the -10 (operator) and -20 (armorer) level. it seemed like we had an armorer come out to our little FOB every month to gauge the headspace on each of our rifles (a service which is normally done twice a year in garrison), and we only shot an average of 58 rounds about once a month! Cleaning could also be alot easier with a piston system (i.e. our M14s... you just unscrew the nut and pop out the bolt and your pretty much done; whereas you have to use a pipe cleaner to get down into an ARs gas tube, and you cant even get down to the gas block unless you have like a 10 inch pipe cleaner or if you remove the hand guards, barrel nut and tap out the gas tube retaining pin. In other words... HUGE, inefficient piece of crap.
 
Total lack of fire control.

Total lack of CAS. er. close air support.

If these are the types of tactics our troops are using then they might as well have AKs to spray and pray.

Where were their snipers or overwatch teams?

Where was their flanking force?

Any idea of what kind of unit it was? I'll go out on a limb here and say it probably wasn't a line infantry unit. Or, any type of combat unit with fire discipline.

How the hell did 200 armed Afgans sneek up on them?

Sounds almost like a plot to get a bunch of people killed so they can sell another overpriced weapon system to the military.

My brother told me that's how his Ranger BN got new weapons. They'd get the hot Minigun ammo and litterally shake the M60's apart. They'd field repair them then do it all over again. In the end even the bbls were melted and drooped.
 
This article very much reinforces this post by a member here:
He sure does make a point in these quotes doesn't he?

Any of his suggestions would deffinately solve the problems of firing so many rounds in such a short time frame, since they wouldn't have enough rounds to overheat the rifles.

Lets face it carrying a 10 lb rifle with all the dodads he was talking about would halve the ammo carried. Upping the ammo weight like he was saying would also lower the number of rounds carried.

Why they are head spacing nearly unfired weapons constantly is beyond me. Why they were pulling off the gas tubes to clean them is beyond me. The gas tube is easily cleaned without even a pipe cleaner and is also rarely ever cleaned, it's just not neccassary.

As for the ballistics of any bullit; shot placement is key. A lower abdomen shot is just plain a** bad shooting, esp. at 10 yards.

As for the suggestion of the .30 bullet being better; it depends. But for what the point he was trying to make it would seem that anyone shot with a .30 is just dead. Tell that to all the guys hit by 7.62x39s, 7.62x51 and 7.62x63s and survived. Lets also not talk about the 8mms used in WWII.

Sure the 6.5 and 6.8s might have better ballistics but lets get real here. If they were in the range of AK 47s then the M4 or any other current rifle was fully capable of engaging the enemy and killing them with head shots or heart shot.

Too bad this guys buddy got killed because he kept poking his head out of the same hole. It's called fire and manuever. Even if you move only 5 feet.

Maybe the survivor diceided he didn't want to poke his head up anymore and his gun "broke".

There's lots of if and and buts and Monday morning quaterbacking but some of these things don't make a lot of sence.

Just my .02.
 
Total lack of fire control.

Total lack of CAS. er. close air support.

If these are the types of tactics our troops are using then they might as well have AKs to spray and pray.

Where were their snipers or overwatch teams?

Where was their flanking force?

Any idea of what kind of unit it was? I'll go out on a limb here and say it probably wasn't a line infantry unit. Or, any type of combat unit with fire discipline.

How the hell did 200 armed Afgans sneek up on them?

Sounds almost like a plot to get a bunch of people killed so they can sell another overpriced weapon system to the military.

My brother told me that's how his Ranger BN got new weapons. They'd get the hot Minigun ammo and litterally shake the M60's apart. They'd field repair them then do it all over again. In the end even the bbls were melted and drooped.
Easy to say from behind a computer.. My brother is in Afganistan right now and has fired his weapon. He will be the first to tell you it's hard not to use your ammo..
 
360+ rounds from one soldier?

How many men did we have on the ground there? At least 40, closer to 50.

50 x 200 to 300 rounds = 10,000 to 15,000 rounds.

Man, what kind of "battle tactics" were being employed? Pitty.

While I am not a fan of the M16/M4 it will do the job if the guys can put the rounds on target. Sadly, our soldiers are not taught how to shoot accurately, just how to lay down rounds.

One must wonder of the bad guys are starting to learn this and use it against us?
Same point I was going to make :thumb: In Vietnam ,50,000rds. were spent per 1 VC combatant killed.

I understand suppression fire, but good lord ! M4/M16's have a major accuracy advantage over a bunch of dirty AK's used by the Afgans.
 
This reliability debate on the Stoner design will go on forever but I don't see how the diehard AR fans can deny this issue. Not trying to spin anyone up or hating the AR... I own a couple myself. I think they're a good clean environment platform assuming you have the proper mags, ammo, and maintenance. Outside of those conditions, you need to be careful.

Ask Patrick Miller how he feels about it... pretty much every weapon in their convoy had jammed and even the one that he used he had to hand load each round.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/06/60minutes/main582354.shtml
 
If you fire 12 mags from your rifle....I think it would get a little hot...


Our troops need to be taught about shot placement, as well as the fact that all to many of them "spray 'n pray" far to much.

The problem is with the training our troops get, not the weapons.

I have had soon-to be-deployed-troops on the firing line that couldn't shoot very good at all. We should never even think of deploying these guys if they can't even shoot.
 
same problem keeps croping up from time to time with always the same result...nothing will be done....the united states armened forces are completely commited to the m-16/556 platform......as for the 249 saw that jammed, i assume he was fireing from a fixed position therfore it should have been fitted with a water jacket......too old school i suppose....i mean this is the 21st century! what the hell did 20th century soldiers know anyway:xeye:........

anyone bother to see how alexander did it?
 
So from the information I have read in the last few days, and by the way I dont believe everything I read Im just going on the info thats out there.

Firstly the placement of these FOBs

They appear to be in valleys or at least at the base of surrounding hills/mountains so straight away they have lost the advantage of "High ground" the enemy can fire and manouvere around with out being seen.
They also have time on their sides to target all the positions in the base, so they then can assign fighters to target the key elements, being power, supplies, mortars.
So staight away in a battle the US has lost their comms/info gathering, theability to return fire with mortars due to being pinned down, the destruction of any buildings due to being zeroed in on.
Resupply-
So in these close mountain scenarios the helos have to be more cautious when landing and thus become easier targets.
Same when evac of wounded personnel.
Reinforcements-
I guess the only way is to fly them in so you risk losing high numbers in the process.

so to me you stick 50-60 guys out in a danger zone and used as bait to bring the taliban in close and then hope you get their quick enough with air power to take them out.
But when the attacking force is 200-300 fighters on all sides this advantage is lost.
Now I have no military background at all im just saying what I see and making my own conclusions, if I m totally wrong then please tell me(Im sure you will, lol)

The other thing in this thread that im confused at is the pick a target scenario, now this makes perfect sense if you can raise your head long enough to locate, aim and fire on a target without getting your hea shot off, but what do you do when you are in a valley with 300 fighters firing heavy weapons, RPGs, aks DOWN onto your positions how do you find a target and fire?? wouldnt you end up firing blindly hoping to keep the enemys heads down or distracting them long enough till air support or someone comes to help?
Now if this was a base of 50 special forces would the outcome have been any different?
I cant see how it would.
Either pump in the required troops and re position the bases or pull them back to a defenceable area.
for you guys with military or gun experince dont jump down my throat im just thinking out loud and welcome your thoughts to explain to me where I see it wrong.
 
360+ rounds from one soldier?

How many men did we have on the ground there? At least 40, closer to 50.

50 x 200 to 300 rounds = 10,000 to 15,000 rounds.

Man, what kind of "battle tactics" were being employed? Pitty.

While I am not a fan of the M16/M4 it will do the job if the guys can put the rounds on target. Sadly, our soldiers are not taught how to shoot accurately, just how to lay down rounds.

One must wonder of the bad guys are starting to learn this and use it against us?


Ever been in the military? ever had to depend on an M16 or M249 for your life?? if not then you shouldnt talk about stuff you know nothing about!!
 
If you fire 12 mags from your rifle....I think it would get a little hot...


Our troops need to be taught about shot placement, as well as the fact that all to many of them "spray 'n pray" far to much.

The problem is with the training our troops get, not the weapons.

I have had soon-to be-deployed-troops on the firing line that couldn't shoot very good at all. We should never even think of deploying these guys if they can't even shoot.
Question?
Do they change the standards for Marksman?

Every year I hear about how crappy our average soldiers shooting ability has become. And in alot of these articals it mentions the soldier in question was a marksman.

To my knowledge everyone learns to shoot in boot, but clerks, mash units, etc, mostly never really shoot much after boot. as opposed to say Ranger's

As people wanting to get defensive about even looking at a question.
I'll present you with this. The M-16A2, When using a fully-automatic weapon, poorly trained troops often hold down the trigger and "spray" when under fire. The U.S. Army concluded that three-shot groups provide an optimum combination of ammunition conservation, accuracy and firepower.

So good ole uncle sam, pretty much decided it was better to limit all to 3 round bursts, because of a few, than allow all to have full auto, and teach proper fire control.

Full Auto, has its uses, but rather teaching proper fire control so that our troops still had FA as a tool at their disposal good ole Uncle Sam, simply took that tool away.

Its just history repeating its self, Coming soon the M-16A5/M4A3 with a selector switch of Safe-Semi-Burst, It's all happened before, and it will all happen again.
 
No I have never been in the military (but my thanks to those who have) but I know a F**ked up situation when I hear of one. And this is more than the shortcomings of the M-16/M-4 platforms.

Where was the Artillery that has made American Forces so feared and dreaded in other wars? Where were C-130 Specter Gunships or A10 Thunderbolts that would have turned this into a bloodbath for the Afghans and a fireworks display for the Americans? Where the hell in any war do you seek out and take the LOW ground? Where were the fighter-bombers loaded with Napalm like in Mel Gibson's 'We were Soldiers'?

Oh that's right, we got rid of our cheap Napalm that we used like crazy in Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere for some high priced sh!t that we can't use because of it being "inhumane". Whilst we are trying to fight a kinder, gentler more politically correct war the enemy is pulling no punches.

Americans at the bottom of a mountain where the enemy can set up out of sight till they are ready. NO on call firepower other than Apache Helo's (which were designed as Anti-Armor not Anti-Personal killers) who when they got there were completely surprised at the size of the attacking forces. This folks is our military being set up and ordered to LOSE!!!!!:mad:

The Afghan war is lost NOT because of our fighting troops but because of creeps in Washington who will NOT give our boys the tools and the clearance to do what is needed to be done. Even if they had such tools and clearance it might be debatable but that is another thread.

Yes there were weapon failures, NO AC-130's, A-10's, B-52's, F16's or 18's. There was NO 105mm or 155 mm artillery to lay down a wall of steel. Just some American troopers fighting it out rifle and machine gun vs. rifle and machine gun at/near the bottom of a mountain. This whole situation is complete FUBAR and there is no end in sight with the current Admin.

Just my 2 cents.
 
I carried a M249 in combat in Iraq, it makes a damn good club. Other than that, I have nothing good to say about them. They are garbage, pure and simple. Had it not been for my .50 cal. I have no doubt whatsoever that I would have gone home in a body bag. We need to go back to .30 cal. weapons. They are tried and true.
 
No I have never been in the military (but my thanks to those who have) but I know a F**ked up situation when I hear of one. And this is more than the shortcomings of the M-16/M-4 platforms.

Where was the Artillery that has made American Forces so feared and dreaded in other wars? Where were C-130 Specter Gunships or A10 Thunderbolts that would have turned this into a bloodbath for the Afghans and a fireworks display for the Americans? Where the hell in any war do you seek out and take the LOW ground? Where were the fighter-bombers loaded with Napalm like in Mel Gibson's 'We were Soldiers'?

Oh that's right, we got rid of our cheap Napalm that we used like crazy in Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere for some high priced sh!t that we can't use because of it being "inhumane". Whilst we are trying to fight a kinder, gentler more politically correct war the enemy is pulling no punches.

Americans at the bottom of a mountain where the enemy can set up out of sight till they are ready. NO on call firepower other than Apache Helo's (which were designed as Anti-Armor not Anti-Personal killers) who when they got there were completely surprised at the size of the attacking forces. This folks is our military being set up and ordered to LOSE!!!!!:mad:

The Afghan war is lost NOT because of our fighting troops but because of creeps in Washington who will NOT give our boys the tools and the clearance to do what is needed to be done. Even if they had such tools and clearance it might be debatable but that is another thread.

Yes there were weapon failures, NO AC-130's, A-10's, B-52's, F16's or 18's. There was NO 105mm or 155 mm artillery to lay down a wall of steel. Just some American troopers fighting it out rifle and machine gun vs. rifle and machine gun at/near the bottom of a mountain. This whole situation is complete FUBAR and there is no end in sight with the current Admin.

Just my 2 cents.
Our guys are fighting with one arm tied behind their back, to be P.C.
That's scarily not uncommon. Buddy of mine said they were often under orders not to fire back, unless one of their guys was already hit.
 
Our guys are fighting with one arm tied behind their back, to be P.C.
That's scarily not uncommon. Buddy of mine said they were often under orders not to fire back, unless one of their guys was already hit.
what are you talkin bout man? my cousins company under his comand in the 7th cav didnt have to do that??? he talked about how they shot first and asked questions later, and he didnt lose one man in his company in 3 tours of fighting.

i have heard things like that from some people, but all my family members say their hands are not tied as bad as people like to think, they can basically do what they see as needed (within reason)... his example was, "when you see some guy walking with his hand in his robe like he is holding an AK, if he suddenly starts to make a motion like he is pulling an AK out from under his robe, you can shoot no questions asked... as long as you can PROVE you felt your life was in danger."... the point is that they are starting to use some common sense. and if mr. AK in robe was playing a joke pulling that move and didnt have an AK, he probably deserved it.
 
1 - 20 of 168 Posts