The Administration Needs To Get Our Soldiers Better Weapons

Discussion in 'Military' started by Annie, Oct 11, 2009.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    Here is the part you left out of the article Annie



    WASHINGTON (Oct. 11) - 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.

    AOL.com - Welcome to AOL
     
  3. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,001
    Thanks Received:
    6,876
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,865
    This can't be serious.

    Those on the left were constantly challenging Bush and the Republicans on this.

    Remember when soldiers were being threatened with court martial because they were welding metal plates onto their vehicles? Because of roadside bombs?

    Remember when families were buying body armor for hundreds of dollars and sending it to their loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Those things were "embarrassing to the administration".

    Remember when soldiers were complaining about old and rusty "National Guard" equipment and weapons?

    Look even beyond that at the cut benefits. At the multiple tours. At the moldy hospitals.

    Democrats wrote their Senators, Congressmen and Obama and begged that it become a campaign issue but Obama said he didn't want to do a disservice to the troops because Republicans would twist any support for our troops into using the troops or "political gain" and even when Obama visited injured troops in secret, Republicans tried to do just that. Remember when they said Obama used the troops for a "photo op"? Even though the pictures were taken by, get this, "the military"?

    So how come Obama hasn't spent the time on the troops and the wars? How come?

    How about the threat of a world wide depression Republicans left us with for starters? And a broken Middle Class?

    This ticked me off since the invasion. That was when it hit me what the Republican party has become.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2009
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I didn't 'miss it', I just wanted to get the key graphs. That's what the link was for.
     
  5. Toome
    Offline

    Toome Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    906
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +259
    Anyone who has served in the US military for more than a day knows that American weapons are maintenance-intensive. About the only weapon that was not (in recent times) was the M1911 .45 caliber pistol which would fire straight and true no matter what condition. The beauty of the M1911 is that you didn't have to necessarily kill the enemy with your shot; a hit to the shoulder would simply blast a hole in the shoulder or even take the arm off---enough to de-motivate the enemy troop from fighting and cause him to seriously consider surrender---and immediate medical attention---as a viable alternative.

    I don't see the political connection. I think this has more to do with the way government contracts are negotiated than with who has the majority on Congress or is sitting in the Oval Office.

    I never understood the rationale behind being NATO-compliant. In all the years I served, not once did I ever receive ammunition from a NATO ally.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. mal
    Offline

    mal Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    42,625
    Thanks Received:
    4,963
    Trophy Points:
    1,813
    Location:
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde™
    Ratings:
    +5,027
    And this isn't a Partisan thing...

    :)

    peace...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,550
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,426
    same weapons as when bush created this problem...

    where were all the threads from kathianne then?

    *shrug*
     
  8. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    I have to agree with Jillian here. Haven't we had this problem for six years?
     
  9. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,547
    Thanks Received:
    15,603
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,857
    does not matter when the problem started..what matters is we have soldiers in the field with less than the best...if anyone needs and deserves the best it is them.. why were the military contractors making this equipment allowed to get away with it...follow the money and you will find the answers...and it has not changed under the new administration....covering up rape is a valueable anti terrorist thing but providing troops with the best...is not...:eusa_whistle:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. PatekPhilippe
    Offline

    PatekPhilippe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    8,171
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sasebo Japan
    Ratings:
    +1,200
    Here's what it boils down to...
    The M4 rifle is notorious for jamming after peroids continuous sustained fire. The problem is in the upper receiver. Many of the tolerences are a bit tighter than most other rifles in order to make it a bit more accurate. Another factor that was considered when this design was adopted is cost and acceptable rounds fired between failure. If it met the contract spec then there is nothing anyone can do until the weapon's useful service life is completed. There are uppers available from other manufacturers(H&K, Les Baer)that correct this problem but the DoD has yet to act on this because they aren't cheap.
    As far as the SAW jamming...I haven't had that experience with the weapon after putting about 3000 rounds through it...it still fired albeit it was definately hot....I didn't experience any cook offs or have any loading problems other than burning my fingers.

    As an aside...the military is currently looking for a replacement for the M4. There are several models still in testing...mostly from Europe. I only have European assault rifles in my collection as they are the best made.
     

Share This Page