View Full Version : The Atlantic: Gun Trouble
BrigandTwoFour
12-29-14, 15:34
Came across this today:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/
Seems like another hit job on the AR platform. It's got it all: first hand stories of rifles jamming in Vietnam, the complete failing of the 5.56 caliber, and ten cites the battle of Wanat is proof positive that the rifle is junk.
I thought some of the people here with far stronger technical knowledge would have fun disassembling the article.
I stopped LOOKING at the article after I saw the opening photo. All I needed to see.
MountainRaven
12-29-14, 16:18
I like the bump-fire stock on the "custom M4".
Interesting that he is channelling General James Wolfe Ripley while bashing him for a weapon that General Ripley would have absolutely hated. He would have pushed for the 1903 Springfield instead of the M1 Garand. The M1 Garand over the M14. The M14 over the FAL and the M16.... And at the same time he bashes the M4 for its reduced range and 14.5" barrel, he's claiming that US infantry should get the same weapons our elite choose... 10.5" barrel HK416s.
It's too bad Robert Scales got his men killed for not telling them to keep their M16s lubricated and now blames the rifle for his and the Army's failings.
Basically what he wants: Every infantryman to have a 10.5" HK416 with a sound suppressor and Tracking Point software. And he somehow believes that this would cost the government $1,000 a piece.
Slightly off-topic, but related:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/
I don't have the patience to try and read either at the moment but at some point I'm sure I'll be bored enough.
I respect Gen. Scales' opinion as he was at that firebase and I wasn't. That said, the term "jam" is a VERY broad one. I have no doubt that he had several of his men die with disassembled rifles. But exactly what were the failures that caused them to be broken down in the heat of a fight? He stated flat out that he didn't make his guys clean the weapons as they should have. These were artillerymen, not grunts. No slam on 13B's but that 105mm Howitzer was their main weapon; the M16 was secondary, and perhaps treated as such maintenance-wise. It wouldn't take a grunt long to realize that not keeping his weapon functionally clean was a HUGE mistake, and his NCO's no doubt would make his ass clean the rifle if he was too lackadaisical to do so on his own (they could die if he had a weapon fail in combat).
I wasn't at Wanat either, so I can't criticize. From everything I've read these guys were using their M4's as one would use a SAW (sustained FA fire), which it wasn't designed for. However, these troops had bad-guys "in the wire" and swarming all over them. I would've been sending beaucoup rounds downrange too, designed rate of fire be damned!
I was a 13B. We kept everything religiously cleaned and lubed. M16, m4, m9,mk 19,m249, m2. Failure of leadership.
Apparently, Gen. Scales has never seen an AK burst into flame after a few mag dumps. 140 RPM cited in the article is unlikely to reflect aimed fire and could not be sustained for long unless the user was wearing asbestos gloves.
Averageman
12-29-14, 18:30
I was a 13B. We kept everything religiously cleaned and lubed. M16, m4, m9,mk 19,m249, m2. Failure of leadership.
When was the last time you saw an Officer inspect anything?
When was the last time you saw an Officer inspect anything?
An officer shouldn't have to inspect that stuff, SLs can take care of that.
BrigandTwoFour
12-29-14, 19:15
Slightly off-topic, but related:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/
I don't have the patience to try and read either at the moment but at some point I'm sure I'll be bored enough.
That's the one that lead me to the article I posted (I got it from another blog I read). I found myself nodding along with parts of the article. But I didn't think his conclusions were very strong.
I was a 13B. We kept everything religiously cleaned and lubed. M16, m4, m9,mk 19,m249, m2. Failure of leadership.
Yeah but when? Scales was referring to Vietnam, although if you were on a firebase somewhere in the hinterlands (especially near the Ashau Valley) it probably would have behooved you to keep your personal weapons trouble-free. 13B's these days have been used as pseudo-infantry at times. No doubt that would be why your weapons were up to snuff.....they had to be.
BoringGuy45
12-29-14, 22:05
When it comes to guns, there's always the very loud opinion that if you can't get it right the first time, you can't be trusted to fix it. The M16 had growing pains, so that means that the design is fundamentally flawed and needs to be thrown in the pile with the Ross rifle and the Chauchat. The problem is, everybody has friend whose uncle's best friend's cousin's best friend's brother was with SEAL Team Six and he said that the AR series of rifles are a steaming pile of dog crap and that DEVGRU only trusts AKs and M14s. There's a LOT of information about guns out there, I've learned...and about 90% of it is BS.
Averageman
12-29-14, 23:24
An officer shouldn't have to inspect that stuff, SLs can take care of that.
In the best unit I was ever in it was not uncommon for the Battalion Commander to look very closely at all weapons and fire control systems. Every weapon we had was inspected and those inspections started at the Squad Leaders, but the LTC made it a point to look at everything.
When we were stood down after an alert on some occasions he would have a gear lay out, just to make sure every Leader was doing the right thing.
Now when you decide to blame a weapon for an inability to perform, wouldn't it have been prudent on your part to check the guys, who check the guys? I'm not saying that there are not times and places where Mr Murphy steps up to crap on you, but if you're doing your job you eliminate a lot of that.
I don't see a lot of lower level Leadership like I have seen in the past, but perhaps I'm just an Old retired Platoon Daddy with a bad attitude.
SeriousStudent
12-29-14, 23:30
In the best unit I was ever in it was not uncommon for the Battalion Commander to look very closely at all weapons and fire control systems. Every weapon we had was inspected and those inspections started at the Squad Leaders, but the LTC made it a point to look at everything.
When we were stood down after an alert on some occasions he would have a gear lay out, just to make sure every Leader was doing the right thing.
Now when you decide to blame a weapon for an inability to perform, wouldn't it have been prudent on your part to check the guys, who check the guys? I'm not saying that there are not times and places where Mr Murphy steps up to crap on you, but if you're doing your job you eliminate a lot of that.
I don't see a lot of lower level Leadership like I have seen in the past, but perhaps I'm just an Old retired Platoon Daddy with a bad attitude.
Indeed.
It also has the effect of very quickly weeding out poor squad leaders, and returning them to the role of rifleman.
When was the last time you saw an Officer inspect anything?
See it quite often
Averageman
12-30-14, 10:19
See it quite often
I'm glad you do, I'm just hoping it is happening at places other than the Pentagon RON.
I finished my 4 year sentence at HQMC and am in an Marine Regiment again \
Crow Hunter
12-30-14, 12:18
Now if we could just get these articles meshed with the civilian don't need "military grade weapons" articles we could have a win/win.
Obviously such a poorly designed steaming pile of crap weapon isn't really a danger in the hands of civilians. Heck, police officers should want criminals and psychos to be using these guns because they are so failure prone. It will just jam and the rounds never hurt anyone.
:cool:
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-30-14, 12:35
I trust 'Atlantic' articles about guns as much as I trust literary reviews in "Guns and Ammo".
I read a book a buddy gave me, it's at home so I don't have the title handy, but it was all about infantry rifle selection from pre-Revolutionary War thru the M16. Really interesting read about the power of the Arsenals and their engineers.
The money thing is an interesting angle. Is it not so much the money for the rifles as it is the effect on logistics and stores?
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-30-14, 12:47
ow if we could just get these articles meshed with the civilian don't need "military grade weapons" articles we could have a win/win.
Obviously such a poorly designed steaming pile of crap weapon isn't really a danger in the hands of civilians. Heck, police officers should want criminals and psychos to be using these guns because they are so failure prone. It will just jam and the rounds never hurt anyone.
At least he says that the military stole the rifle from the civilian market. So much for 'battlefield weapons' ending up on our streets.
MountainRaven
12-30-14, 12:49
I trust 'Atlantic' articles about guns as much as I trust literary reviews in "Guns and Ammo".
I read a book a buddy gave me, it's at home so I don't have the title handy, but it was all about infantry rifle selection from pre-Revolutionary War thru the M16. Really interesting read about the power of the Arsenals and their engineers.
The money thing is an interesting angle. Is it not so much the money for the rifles as it is the effect on logistics and stores?
American Rifle: A Biography is the book, I believe.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-30-14, 15:27
American Rifle: A Biography is the book, I believe.
Yep, that looks like it.
There is the conflict on what kind of arms and who designs and makes them, but IIRC the main philosophical argument is between the rifleman as someone that shoots at individual targets that he identifies and the concept of mass fire under less individual control. What kind of round, arm, aiming system and rate of fire all flow from that kind of viewpoint.
brickboy240
12-30-14, 16:44
My dad was in the Corps when the transition from the M-14 to the M-16 took place.
From what he told me, the huge problem with the M-16 jamming was because of the powder used in the ammo...not specifically the rifle or lack of cleaning. He said the ammo was made using a powder that left more fouling in the chamber than the powder that they switched to later on. Once they switched to ammo using the other powder and kept the M16s lubed and fairly clean...he said the M16 was pretty reliable.
Anyone else know about this...or was dad mistaken?
BrigandTwoFour
12-30-14, 18:59
My dad was in the Corps when the transition from the M-14 to the M-16 took place.
From what he told me, the huge problem with the M-16 jamming was because of the powder used in the ammo...not specifically the rifle or lack of cleaning. He said the ammo was made using a powder that left more fouling in the chamber than the powder that they switched to later on. Once they switched to ammo using the other powder and kept the M16s lubed and fairly clean...he said the M16 was pretty reliable.
Anyone else know about this...or was dad mistaken?
That's correct.
The Stoner design was based around a new type of cleaner burning powder. But when it came time to actually field it and buy ammo, the Army decided they had a metric ass ton of old ball powder from WWII and Korea that they could use instead. They never tested the combination.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-30-14, 19:33
That's correct.
The Stoner design was based around a new type of cleaner burning powder. But when it came time to actually field it and buy ammo, the Army decided they had a metric ass ton of old ball powder from WWII and Korea that they could use instead. They never tested the combination.
Interesting how risk averse the military can be, and then they do something like that.
SeriousStudent
12-30-14, 19:47
I finished my 4 year sentence at HQMC and am in an Marine Regiment again \
Hells yeah! :)
The Stoner design was based around a new type of cleaner burning powder. But when it came time to actually field it and buy ammo, the Army decided they had a metric ass ton of old ball powder from WWII and Korea that they could use instead. They never tested the combination.
No, that's not correct. The reality was the reverse. DuPont's "Improved Military Rifle" propellant line was decades old by that point, and had included the standard propellants for most US military cartridges (other than the .30 Carbine) during WW2 and Korea. The 'Improved' portion of the trade name merely distinguished it from DuPont's long discontinued "Military Rifle" propellant line.
Olin's "Ball Powder" propellants were essentially the new kids on the block. Ball Powder could be made by recycling nitrocellulose from existing surplus propellants, ranging from small arms types (like IMR) to artillery and rockets, although this was not required. The production technique developed by Olin for Ball propellants was faster and safer, and the spherical grains lent themselves to the high-speed manufacture of cartridges. The calcium carbonate content was meant to counter the nitric acid leached out as propellants naturally decayed. While it was arguably dirtier, the bore fouling from the calcium carbonate also served as an ablative coating to resist bore erosion. Ordnance studies during the 1950s were making extraordinary claims about the improved bore life, particularly when combined with chrome plating of the bore. The surplus propellant king, Bruce Hodgdon, even posted a reward in an American Rifleman advertisement for the first person who could wear out a barrel while using his war surplus Ball propellant.
An officer shouldn't have to inspect that stuff, SLs can take care of that.
I want to address this further:
OFFICER does not necessarily equal LEADER
The attention that you, as the leader, pay attention to mundane, but important, tasks such as weapons maintenance, pays dividends down the road on larger items, and in cases when you don't have time to check because of mission requirements.
I raised numerous PL's during the middle third of my career this is what I told and showed them: 1) clean your gear with the men; 2) whenever possible help out on unpleasant, boring tasks; 3) let them see you are working harder than they are; 4) inspect often, but don't be a white gloved prick; 5) each time you check you have an opportunity to - a) praise the soldier; b) praise the TL; c) praise the SL; d) make comments like 'Well PSG, looks like we have a pretty sharp group here.' (you also have a chance to mentor from the top down if things aren't up to snuff.
The thing is, you do 1, 2, 4 and 5, the guys you are leading will try to take care of you on 3. I can't tell you the number of times I've had troops tell me 'get the eff out of here, we got this, you need to get your work done' while I was helping with common gear or vehicles.
People, not just soldiers, respond well to folks who demonstrate, by actions and by words, that what they (the people involved) do is important to them (the leader).
That is the difference between management and leadership.
Back to rifles....
But if I'm constantly checking a PFC's rifle isn't that telling his NCOs that I don't trust them to do their jobs?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BrigandTwoFour
12-30-14, 21:09
No, that's not correct. The reality was the reverse. DuPont's "Improved Military Rifle" propellant line was decades old by that point, and had included the standard propellants for most US military cartridges (other than the .30 Carbine) during WW2 and Korea. The 'Improved' portion of the trade name merely distinguished it from DuPont's long discontinued "Military Rifle" propellant line.
Olin's "Ball Powder" propellants were essentially the new kids on the block. Ball Powder could be made by recycling nitrocellulose from existing surplus propellants, ranging from small arms types (like IMR) to artillery and rockets, although this was not required. The production technique developed by Olin for Ball propellants was faster and safer, and the spherical grains lent themselves to the high-speed manufacture of cartridges. The calcium carbonate content was meant to counter the nitric acid leached out as propellants naturally decayed. While it was arguably dirtier, the bore fouling from the calcium carbonate also served as an ablative coating to resist bore erosion. Ordnance studies during the 1950s were making extraordinary claims about the improved bore life, particularly when combined with chrome plating of the bore. The surplus propellant king, Bruce Hodgdon, even posted a reward in an American Rifleman advertisement for the first person who could wear out a barrel while using his war surplus Ball propellant.
Well, there ya go. I stand corrected.
Averageman
12-30-14, 22:10
But if I'm constantly checking a PFC's rifle isn't that telling his NCOs that I don't trust them to do their jobs?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No if you're the Jefe you are the guy who checks the Company Commanders. If they, the Company Commanders are checking their Platoon Leaders and Platoon Sergeants you don't have anything to worry about. The Platoon Leaders and Platoon Sergeants are Checking the Squad Leaders and the Squad Leaders are checking the troops. Couldn't ever screw up a system like that, could we?
So in all honestly there is no way that system could ever brake down, so why have a piss test?
Think about it....
BTW if you are worried about someones feelings or their perception of your Leadership Style there are always cars and insurance to be sold somewhere.
No, that's not correct. The reality was the reverse. DuPont's "Improved Military Rifle" propellant line was decades old by that point, and had included the standard propellants for most US military cartridges (other than the .30 Carbine) during WW2 and Korea. The 'Improved' portion of the trade name merely distinguished it from DuPont's long discontinued "Military Rifle" propellant line.
Olin's "Ball Powder" propellants were essentially the new kids on the block. Ball Powder could be made by recycling nitrocellulose from existing surplus propellants, ranging from small arms types (like IMR) to artillery and rockets, although this was not required. The production technique developed by Olin for Ball propellants was faster and safer, and the spherical grains lent themselves to the high-speed manufacture of cartridges. The calcium carbonate content was meant to counter the nitric acid leached out as propellants naturally decayed. While it was arguably dirtier, the bore fouling from the calcium carbonate also served as an ablative coating to resist bore erosion. Ordnance studies during the 1950s were making extraordinary claims about the improved bore life, particularly when combined with chrome plating of the bore. The surplus propellant king, Bruce Hodgdon, even posted a reward in an American Rifleman advertisement for the first person who could wear out a barrel while using his war surplus Ball propellant.
And the chamber too, which is more critical to the extraction issues the early M16's had. The military first had non-chromed bores and chambers, then chromed just the chamber as a result of the 1967 Congressional inquiries, and finally (around 1971 or 72 IIRC) chromed both the bore and chamber.
Averageman
12-31-14, 00:06
I work for a older Gentleman that told me when the new and improved models made it to Viet Nam they had a formation and the old uppers were exchanged.
The Service and Support people removed their uppers and exchanged them with a grunt that was going back out in the field. No fuss, no muss and no serial number drama.
BTW no amount of money except "free" is what he says he would pay for a new an improved model. I guess something like that stays with you.
But if I'm constantly checking a PFC's rifle isn't that telling his NCOs that I don't trust them to do their jobs?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who said anything about constantly? It is not that hard a concept to grasp. Ultimately 'hands off' leads to trouble.
And no, it doesn't tell me you don't trust me, it tells me you give a shit.
I'm running the platoon at the NTC and the Battalion Commander drops by - I'm complimented and proud to show him what my guys can do. He shows up at the departure airfield when we are going off to do some JAATM's - same deal, he give's a shit - doesn't bother me in the least. He comes down to the team rooms as we are shutting down to BS with the guys, the troops are complimented.
It's called leadership.
Kind of like when I was the junior guy in the training section, the Gunny was gone and I asked the Training Officer for some time off to go to base housing and check out some space heaters. 'Sure, why do you need space heaters?' 'The steam in our neighbor hood has been out for a couple days.' 'Okay, need anything else?' 'No Sir.' I get the space heaters, drop them off go back to work. That night I come home to a street full of trucks, they were fixing our heat. A couple days later the LT asked, 'is your heat on?' 'Yes sir, was that you?' A grin and a shake of the head. Leadership. I loved the Marines.
BTW if you are worried about someones feelings or their perception of your Leadership Style there are always cars and insurance to be sold somewhere.
So a leader shouldn't care about the perception of those he leads?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Crow Hunter
12-31-14, 07:21
My dad was in the Corps when the transition from the M-14 to the M-16 took place.
From what he told me, the huge problem with the M-16 jamming was because of the powder used in the ammo...not specifically the rifle or lack of cleaning. He said the ammo was made using a powder that left more fouling in the chamber than the powder that they switched to later on. Once they switched to ammo using the other powder and kept the M16s lubed and fairly clean...he said the M16 was pretty reliable.
Anyone else know about this...or was dad mistaken?
I have known and spoke to several Army vets from Vietnam era. They never had a problem with their M16s and loved them. Much lighter weight and easier to use/clean than the M14s they had in basic. There were other things that they had much more problems with IIRC. I am 90% sure that they were there in the late '60s early '70s. I know my Dad's best friend was.
My Dad was in the National Guard (Armor) before Vietnam. He trained on the M14 in basic but that was the last time he saw one until I bought a Springfield Armory M1a. They had M1 Garands every other time they did anything with a rifle.
But if I'm constantly checking a PFC's rifle isn't that telling his NCOs that I don't trust them to do their jobs?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Constantly? If you are constantly checking than the command has problems either you are a micro manager or the junior leaders are not doing their job requiring you to constantly check. There are two old say are appropriate, inspect what you expect and trust but verify. An occasional spot check or random sampling followed by praise for the junior leaders when you find everything in order or an ass chewing when you don't help keep everyone honest within a Company/Battery, Battalion, Regiment/BDE.
I may be have been in unique positions as both a commander/leader and a resident gun guy who both paid and occasional had commands send me for outside training. But when I went to the my armory or to the range with the Marines I generally had more knowledge of the subject and able to actual teach them something.
Averageman
12-31-14, 09:36
Constantly? If you are constantly checking than the command has problems either you are a micro manager or the junior leaders are not doing their job requiring you to constantly check. There are two old say are appropriate, inspect what you expect and trust but verify. An occasional spot check or random sampling followed by praise for the junior leaders when you find everything in order or an ass chewing when you don't help keep everyone honest within a Company/Battery, Battalion, Regiment/BDE.
I may be have been in unique positions as both a commander/leader and a resident gun guy who both paid and occasional had commands send me for outside training. But when I went to the my armory or to the range with the Marines I generally had more knowledge of the subject and able to actual teach them something.
That's some damned sage advice and comes from experience, thanks for posting what I was trying to put in to words RON.
When a new Trooper arrives he has no clue why he is doing 75% of what he is doing other than he is being told to do it. It's a training, cleaning, inspecting cycle that gets rinsed and repeated often. There may be little time for him to understand the "this is why we do this, clean this, lube this part of his job unless someone breaks it down for him and shows/tells him why.
Why should be answered and his work should be inspected. Although the task may be mundane and repetitive that Trooper will have a mighty "Aha Moment" when someone says, "Thanks and Good Job, did you know if we don't do this, this way bad stuff happens?" Then break it down for a teachable moment.
Not only does the Trooper gain pride in his work, he also can see his Leader is a professional and knows the job and cares deeply that it is done right.
Or
You can say " I deeply care for my Troops, that's why I give them X number of days off" and although you may think you're doing the right thing by training them, you're losing an essential part of their development. A by product of this is an OR rate that sucks in garrison and weapons that don't/won't work on the battlefield.
People, not just soldiers, respond well to folks who demonstrate, by actions and by words, that what they (the people involved) do is important to them (the leader).
That is the difference between management and leadership.
Back to rifles....
This - often misunderstood, rarely taught.
Can we stay on topic? If you want to discuss the virtues of leadership let's do it elsewhere.
Can we stay on topic? If you want to discuss the virtues of leadership let's do it elsewhere.
The article is crap and the shortfalls Gen Scales talks to are leadership and training failures
brickboy240
12-31-14, 13:32
Great!
Thanks for verifying that for me.
I once got in an argument with some moron about M-16s jamming and what caused the early problems. I mentioned the story Dad always said about the gun-powders used and this guy laughed!
I somehow knew Dad was correct on this and yes...he never has a foul word about the M-16. Said once they got the powder issue squared away and everyone cleaned and lubed as they were supposed to do...they did not have problems with the M16.
Oddly enough...over the years...Dad is the ONLY one I have ever heard the powder story from! Everyone else has stories about M16's early failures and they vary wildly.
"The Black Rifle" is an excellent resource for the development, use, problems, etc. with the M16. I have read and re-read that book numerous times over the past 20+ years I've had it.
Great!
Thanks for verifying that for me.
I once got in an argument with some moron about M-16s jamming and what caused the early problems. I mentioned the story Dad always said about the gun-powders used and this guy laughed!
I somehow knew Dad was correct on this and yes...he never has a foul word about the M-16. Said once they got the powder issue squared away and everyone cleaned and lubed as they were supposed to do......they did not have problems with the M16.
Oddly enough...over the years...Dad is the ONLY one I have ever heard the powder story from! Everyone else has stories about M16's early failures and they vary wildly.
.....and chromed the chamber.
You know, if I had to pick the single-most important device in keeping an AR/M16 running (aside from lube but just as important) it would be a chamber brush. The most common failure, and one that will deadline your ass in a firefight, is a stuck spent cartridge case. In the book "The Black Rifle" they have pics of early M16's from Vietnam in the chamber/barrel extension area. Between not being chromed, the calcium carbonate in the powder, no regular cleaning regimen, and the hot/humid conditions those pics are atrocious. It's easy to see why cartridges got stuck.
Averageman
01-02-15, 12:36
http://weaponsman.com/?p=20023#more-20023
Please take a minute and read this, it tells a pretty sad story about what happened at Wanat and why some weapons failed and why there are lies being told about M4's failing.
By condemning the M4 (but for some reason not any other weapons, which also failed) for failing under these conditions, the lobbyist is serving whoever his corporate masters are this week (H&K? FNH?) by criticizing a weapon because it cannot do the impossible. The hardest thing to manage in the design of automatic weapons is waste heat. Cyclic rate is something that can be used for a short period, at a cost to the durability of the weapon. The men at the COPs around Wanat were left hanging for very long periods, with no meaningful air or indirect fire support, and had been given so little training in automatic fire that they didn’t know they were hazarding their weapons.
A detailed analysis of these assertions shows that weapons did not fail and that problems with logistical support, while possibly hindering the creation of an impregnable defense, did not hinder the creation of an adequate defense.
I know this went down a worm hole about leadership, but part of why it did is available within this article.
Well worth the read.
ForTehNguyen
01-02-15, 13:02
remember that one article we had where an Army range officer documented a ton of malfunctions and found something like 80% of issues were magazine related?
Averageman
01-02-15, 16:06
Read the article, little to do with magazines, a lot to do with contracts for a new rifle.
Also a bit of an insult to the guys who fought there.
Averageman
01-03-15, 09:45
Gentlemen these two articles are a long but good read, please pass these on to someone else after reading.
http://weaponsman.com/?p=20047
In the enormous1 part one of the series, we reacted to a brain-dead article published in The Atlantic by a retired Major General, who has, since his retirement 20+ years ago, been a lobbyist for defense firms and TV talking head.
The Training Answer: First, every GI should see those Colt test videos and know what his gun can, and can’t, do.
The Morale Answer: Every GI should see the same done to AKs as well. There is a myth perpetuated by pig-ignorant people (like General Scales) that the AK series possesses magical properties and that the American weapons are crap.
The Wrong Answer: Replacing the M4 with something like the SCAR or the HK416, something that is, at best, barely better.
Did Weapons Cause Deaths at Wanat?
We’ve talked about how the weapons fail, when they fail, today. But in the previous post, we were looking at this in the context of a very important question: did weapons deficiencies cause deaths at Wanat? We reached our conclusions. In The Atlantic, Major General Scales, the undocumented lobbyist and long-retired talking head, reached the opposite conclusion,
But it’s worth noting what the other investigations decided.
The historical investigation, both the Cubbison and the final, come up, “no.”
The RAND report does not fault the weapons. It does suggest some theoretical future weapons developments, such as miniguns or thermobaric weapons, and points out the dead-space problem without making a specific suggestion of how to address it.
The Army 15-6 investigation, came up “no,” and said so explicitly.
The DOD Inspector General investigation, that was extremely critical of the leadership of the company, battalion and brigade, did not mention weapons as a factor.
Some weapons did fail at Wanat but that would happen when any rifle is pressed into the role of light machine guns; when you have a plt fighting off a reinforced company. Beyond the fire support they were provided they needed more belt feed weapons to equal the volume of fire they were receiving, so many shooters pushed their M4 beyond both the sustained and rapid rates of fire for them.
Averageman
01-03-15, 10:36
When I hear of M240's going down, I know there are issues, but looking at the article in detail actually very few M4's had issues.
M240's are very robust weapons, I would be curious as to their condition before and after the fight, some of that is covered in the article, but I would suspect the investigation in the 15-6 and the IG investigation was very detailed.
MG Scales stepped in it, and as he is pushing for a new weapons system to replace the M4, I don't know if his bias shouldnt be investigated.
Some weapons did fail at Wanat but that would happen when any rifle is pressed into the role of light machine guns; when you have a plt fighting off a reinforced company. Beyond the fire support they were provided they needed more belt feed weapons to equal the volume of fire they were receiving, so many shooters pushed their M4 beyond both the sustained and rapid rates of fire for them.
Precisely.
As I said earlier in this thread, if I had been at Wanat I probably would've been doing the same damn thing. It was a very tenuous situation. If there was any command failure it was putting those guys in that geographical spot, not any lack of weapon's maintenance oversight. Hell, they were an Airborne Infantry platoon; if they didn't know to keep their weapons serviceable then I don't know who would have. Any Army or Marine infantry unit which has been in combat *should* be expected to know that.
Heavy Metal
01-03-15, 19:04
Same clown that wrote the WashTimes piece we went gaga over last spring. Same clown and same shoes.
Heavy Metal
01-03-15, 19:05
Precisely.
As I said earlier in this thread, if I had been at Wanat I probably would've been doing the same damn thing. It was a very tenuous situation. If there was any command failure it was putting those guys in that geographical spot, not any lack of weapon's maintenance oversight. Hell, they were an Airborne Infantry platoon; if they didn't know to keep their weapons serviceable then I don't know who would have. Any Army or Marine infantry unit which has been in combat *should* be expected to know that.
I would like to think I would be getting a sight picture before I let a round loose.
Averageman
01-04-15, 03:56
Same clown that wrote the WashTimes piece we went gaga over last spring. Same clown and same shoes.
Anyone who has made it to Major General should have an ability to research the subject a little better and read the 15-6 and the IG report and maybe even talk to some of the guys on the ground before coming to the conclusion that the M4 was the cause of all of their problems.
This guy is either a complete Buffoon or he has an agenda, I would say that agenda might be selling a replacement for the M4. If that is the case he's a real scumbag.
I would like to think I would be getting a sight picture before I let a round loose.
I'm sure they did.....when possible. In some of the bum-rush situations which happened sporadically throughout the fight you'd have to keep in mind that this was a two-way range on steroids. Getting a proper sight picture when you've just raised your head up and see 3 or 4 bad guys rushing in as AK rounds zip past your head is easier said than done. The "happy switch" on and a horizontally sprayed burst might be all you could muster at that point in time before they're all over you.
I wasn't there so I won't criticize. Everything I've read and seen about it indicates it was one of those tooth-and-nail, touch-and-go fights for their lives. They were damn near overrun.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.