GMTA! $;-)
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.
GMTA! $;-)
GAU5A/AA & XM-177(Pre-M4 carbine)
M14/M1A
1911A1
Browning Highpower
M82A1 Barrett
M79
M60
HK21
MP5 Series
M148/M203
M12 or M870 Shotgun
Swedish K & M76 S&W
I was lucky enough to be in a job that allowed "me" to make sure my weapons and ammo were up to the task to be performed......prior to deployment or hostilities. I understand small team logistics are better suited to such selection and use but MOUT wasn't something that popped up yesterday. Rangers have used the short barreled pistol grip equipped shotgun for decades to breach reinforced doors . The lessons learned during DS/DS 1 regarding lubrication of firearms in desert conditions seems to have been ignored.
As to the M9 Beretta I was never issued that weapon, albeit I trained with it a bunch, it worked fine for me. We kept our 1911A1's and were allowed to carry a personal P-35 Browning Highpower if the mission needs allowed.
Were I to be tasked today to issue a list of standard weapons for MOUT needs I am of the opinion that a M4 carbine with a M203, A M249 SAW, and a Designated Marksman with either a SR25 or M1A (prefer the SR25 as the rifelman wouldn't "appear" to be anything special to a enemy sniper), a pistol grip sawed off 12 gauge pump like a Serbu 12 gauge albeit I'd like to have a 6 round magazine tube that would dictate a longer barrel.....(est 3 hinges hit twice as a minimum need) .......and the 1911A1 in 45ACP.
All these things being brought up have been known for years.....the small indentation on the primers, the CLP use in desert conditions like Kuwait, Saudi and Ft Irwin !! But hey if the DOD's current leadership will listen now then keep shouting and bitching loud and long ! Hopefully someday they'll listen.............
Just my opinions ............Stay Safe !
One problem is that different weapons are better in different environments. For example, the article noted that some troops wanted a shorter barrel than the M-16A2/A4 for urban fighting, but bitched about the shorter effective range of the shorter barrels. And a weapon that is machined too finely for the desert may be perfect in other environments.
I'm not keen on letting each troop choose his own weapon. If guys want to have a secondary weapon of their own choosing, I suppose that's okay. But the logistics of keeping different weapons supplied with ammo could be a nightmare. Ingenuity can only carry you so far. If you run out of personal ammo for your favorite hunting rifle, you're screwed.
What we really needs is a better mix of available weapons, so secondary weapons can be added based upon the particular environment. Perhaps you augment on a squad or fireteam level. Pass out one shotgun per squad in an urban environment. More 40mm where appropriate, etc.
One problem is that different weapons are better in different environments. For example, the article noted that some troops wanted a shorter barrel than the M-16A2/A4 for urban fighting, but bitched about the shorter effective range of the shorter barrels. And a weapon that is machined too finely for the desert may be perfect in other environments.
I'm not keen on letting each troop choose his own weapon. If guys want to have a secondary weapon of their own choosing, I suppose that's okay. But the logistics of keeping different weapons supplied with ammo could be a nightmare. Ingenuity can only carry you so far. If you run out of personal ammo for your favorite hunting rifle, you're screwed.
What we really needs is a better mix of available weapons, so secondary weapons can be added based upon the particular environment. Perhaps you augment on a squad or fireteam level. Pass out one shotgun per squad in an urban environment. More 40mm where appropriate, etc.
And can we PLEASE get news people to learn the difference between bullet and cartridge?
And between a magazine and a clip.
They were carrying AK's rather than M-16's.
My first experience on a military rifle range back in '75 was with the M16. I qualified as Expert but I still remember my initial impression - great close range rifle but I'd want the M14 they made us carry during PT if I ever deployed to the desert. Twenty eight years hasn't changed my mind.
Unfortunately, logistics dictates a primary infantry weapon and, until someone can divine the next three theaters of operations, it has to be a compromise. Excellent observation about mechanized warfare coupled with the 7.62 weapon, BTW.
Very true. In my case, I had expended tens of thousands of rounds before I even heard of "slam-fires". No one in my unit had ever heard about it or given it any thought much less worry, either. A need for proper maintenence, yes -- slam-fires, no.
Rather than trying to make the M-16/M-4 a "one size fits all solution", I've been saying for a while that perhaps the better solution is to have troops train with two guns: an MP-5 (whether in 9mm, or modified for a 5.56 round) for urban warfare and situations where it's unlikely you will be engaging targets beyond 50 yards, and a 7.62 NATO calibre weapon for long range work
The RPG is a wicked little weapon and deserves some counter-measure attention AND something similar deserves to be in the hands of our own troops.
I'm imagining that in a bodyguard situation, reliability in a heavy dust/sand environment would be the overriding concern.
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.