Posted on 07/14/2003 1:31:45 AM PDT by xzins
U.S. forces rolled over the Iraqi military in just weeks.
The plans seemed flawless, and the courage of the soldiers and Marines unflappable.
But with the dust settling — and the adrenaline rush of battle now subsiding — military officials are finding some weapons performed as advertised. Others, however, let troops down when they needed them most.
Army and Marine officials recently released after-action reports compiling what was right and what was wrong about the small arms with which troops squared off against Iraqi forces. Soldiers and Marines rated the rifles and pistols they carried into battle, and not all got perfect scores.
Soldiers and Marines relied on variants of the M-16 rifle. The M-16, in service since the early days of the Vietnam War, was highly criticized then as unreliable, often jamming during firefights. Soldiers who participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan also complained the M-4 variant, a shorter version of the M-16, lacked what they needed in combat.
In Iraq, reviews were mixed.
Most soldiers carried the M-4 into battle in Iraq and “were very satisfied with this weapon,” according a report from the Army’s Special Operations Battle Lab. “It performed well in a demanding environment, especially given the rail system and accompanying sensors and optics.”
Marines carried the older and larger M-16A2 rifles, but a report from the Marine Corps Systems Command Liaison Team stated: “Many Marines commented on desire for the shorter weapon vice the longer M-16s.”
One Marine told the team that the shorter rifle would have been better in confined urban battle. Some also said the smaller rifle would have been easier to handle when climbing in and out of trucks and armored vehicles.
“Several Marines even opted to use the AK-47s that had been captured from Iraqi weapons caches,” the Marine report stated. “Others were trading rifles for pistols to go into buildings to allow for mobility in confined spaces.”
Marine Corps officials announced late last year that infantry forces would soon switch from the M-16A2 to the M-16A4, a heavier-barreled version of the long rifle with a rail system like the M-4. Stocks of the weapons, however, arrived in Kuwait too late to be fielded and sighted for battle. Most stayed in storage, but some weapons were delivered to Marines under a plan to initially field one per squad.
A number of M-16A4 rifles, fitted with a 4X scope, were given to Marine rifleman. The combination, Marines said, allowed them to “identify targets at a distance, under poor conditions, and maintained ability to quickly acquire the target in close-in environment[s].”
But not all soldiers and Marines were enamored with the performance of their rifles. Complaints centered on lack of range and reliability problems.
“The most significant negative comment was reference [to] the M-4’s range,” the Army report stated. “In the desert, there were times where soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range.”
Safety was another concern. The M-4’s bolt can ride forward when the selector switch is on safe, allowing the firing pin to strike a bullet’s primer.
“Numerous soldiers showed us bullets in their magazines that had small dents in the primer,” the Army report said.
Reliability complaints also found fault with the oil soldiers and Marines used to clean their weapons. In the dusty, sandstorm-plagued battlefields of Iraq, weapons became clogged with sand, trapped by the heavy oil, called CLP.
Several Washington Post articles recalling the night the 507th Maintenance Company was ambushed recounted moments when soldiers in the convoy, including Pfc. Jessica Lynch, battled their weapons to continue fighting Iraqi irregular forces.
“In the swirling dust, soldiers’ rifles jammed,” one article reported. “Pfc. Patrick Miller, 23, from suburban Wichita, began shoving rounds into his rifle one at a time, firing single shots at enemies swarming all around.”
“We had no working weapons,” Sgt. James Riley told The Washington Post. “We couldn’t even make a bayonet charge — we would have been mowed down.”
The Army’s after-action found more soldiers unhappy with CLP.
“The sand is as fine as talcum powder,” the report stated. “The CLP attracted the sand to the weapon.”
Unlike the soldiers’ reports after Afghanistan, Marines in Iraq said the 5.56 mm round fired from the M-16 “definitely answered the mail” and “as long as shots were in the head or chest, they went down.” The Marine reports said many were initially skeptical of the small rounds’ performance against the heavier 7.62 mm round fired from AK-47s. There were reports of enemy being shot and not going down, but most were referencing non-lethal shots on extremities.
Still, “there were reports of targets receiving shots in the vitals and not going down. These stories could not be described, but are of the rare superhuman occurrences that defy logic and caliber of round.”
The report said Marines asked for a heavier-grained round — up to 77 grains.
The M-16 series of rifles fires a 55-grain bullet, a projectile that weighs slightly more than three-and-a-half grams. Some servicemembers believe a heavier-grained bullet would carry more energy downrange, creating greater knockdown power.
Both soldiers and Marines also noted problems with the M-9 9 mm pistol.
“There was general dissatisfaction with this weapon,” the Army report said. “First and foremost, soldiers do not feel it possesses sufficient stopping power.”
Soldiers asked for a tritium glow-in-the-dark sight for night firing.
But soldiers and Marines alike railed against the poor performance of the M-9 ammunition magazines.
“The springs are extremely weak and the follower does not move forward when rounds are moved,” the Marine report stated. “If the magazine is in the weapon, malfunctions result.”
Soldiers complained that even after they were told to “stretch” the springs and load only 10 rounds instead of the maximum 15, the weapons still performed poorly. Lack of maintenance was determined not to be the cause.
“Multiple cleanings of the magazine each day does not alleviate the problem,” the Marine report stated. “The main problem is the weak/worn springs.”
Still, Marines wanted more pistols to back up their rifles, especially in urban environments, according to the report.
That Mk43 is an M60E3 with a shorty barrel and an open vortex flash hider (salad fork), a steel feed tray cover with a MILSTD 1913 rail, and what looks like a new can hanger. However, they report that they went back to the M60E3 gas port and birdcage flash hider, so now it's more M60E3 than Mk43.
That thing almost certainly began life as an Echo 3. That must have been a PIP 'upgrade'. After reviewing what you linked to, I stand firmly behind what I wrote originally. ;]
It is undoubtably still a huge piece of poop: The trigger group flex plate fastener is still easily knocked off eitherdropping the entire trigger housing group into the bush on night patrol or causing a 'runaway gun' in a firing position, heats barrels to cigarette cherry red after 100 rounds rapid fire, slamming the feed tray cover down when the bolt is already forward bends or breaks the delicate roll pins and springs which will seize up the cam path action permanently, the plastic buffer housing group is probably still crack-prone, and I'm sure that the Mk43 is still the sideways-ejecting link-jamming POS the M60 series always has been.
I am familiar with the M60. They are doody.
The M240 is a real GPMG designed around the famous Browning action that served us impeccably in WWI and WWII.
P.S. I carry a 1911 clone. even in the sloppy military style tolerances I can group about 3" at 50ft. More than accurate enough to stop an assailant at 10-15 feet. Any further away than that and it's not self defence anymore, it's murder. (that's what rifles are for.....)
Oy. That is a lot of urban legend and misunderstanding to fit into one sentence.
Without really addressing all the issues, the lethality of very high velocity bullets is from explosive fragmentation, which is generally triggered when the jacket is breached e.g. from yawing and tumbling in a target. All bullets will tumble when they hit a person, even the .50, but only certain ones have enough rotational potential energy to explosively fragment. For cartridges capable of explosive fragmentation (a function of caliber and velocity mostly), lighter bullets will be more lethal and heavier bullets will be less lethal. All a 77gr .223 will get you is better long range accuracy and performance at the expense of lethality at 200m or less. It should be pointed out that explosive fragmentation is a pretty large lethality multiplier, which is why .223 is remarkably lethal at less than 200m compared to most .30 cartridges (c.f. DC sniper). To get the same short-range terminal profile in a .30, you'd need something approximation a .300WM.
And there is effectively no such thing as "knockdown power" in a bullet. I think Sir Isaac Newton established that a few centuries ago.
You were a SEAL, I was a Marine 0331.
SEALs want to carry around light arms and support MGs in the jungle for three days, Marines want a rugged GPMG that sits solid as a rock using a sturdy tripod up on the high ground near the ammo cases with a range card.
These two roles cannot be solved with one GPMG, and the M60 was finally found unsuitable for USMC issue. Only took 30 years to figure it out. If the SEALs still like them, well, they're friggin' crazy. :-D
If it were up to me, the basic Marine GPMG would run 1200 rounds per minute. Water-cooled when deployed in a fixed position, and air-cooled when mobile. Add a sturdy 3x scope to it, and remove all tracer ammo. Now *that* is a machinegun.
Sadly, the Army ruined that one for us. The Marines wanted the Stoner badly.
There are 10mm versions the feds use (MP-5/10) that have special subsonic heavy bullets, fired through an external can suppressor.
The ballistic performance of a round isn't a good indicator of how well it works against an animal. Just because a round doesn't drop as much at a given range doesn't make it superior. If it did, grizzly hunters would be using the 223. The point that I was trying to make was that the 7.62 retains more energy because the bullet is heavier.
Great to meet a Marine 0331, whatever that is.
BUD/S class 105, 1979. Creds by freepmail if you would like, then you can tell me about recon school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.