The Administration Needs To Get Our Soldiers Better Weapons

[Annie]

Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight

Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Oct 11 08:28 AM US/Eastern
By RICHARD LARDNER
Associated Press Writer
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?

...

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.

 

[Sunni Man]

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

 

[rdean]

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.

 

[Annie]

Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight

Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Oct 11 08:28 AM US/Eastern
By RICHARD LARDNER
Associated Press Writer
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?

...

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.

I didn't 'miss it', I just wanted to get the key graphs. That's what the link was for.

 

[Toome]

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.

 

[mal]

Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight

Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Oct 11 08:28 AM US/Eastern
By RICHARD LARDNER
Associated Press Writer
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?

...

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.

And this isn't a Partisan thing...



peace...

 

[jillian]

same weapons as when bush created this problem...

where were all the threads from kathianne then?

*shrug*

 

[elvis]

I have to agree with Jillian here. Haven't we had this problem for six years?

 

[strollingbones]

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...

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

 

[Annie]

same weapons as when bush created this problem...

where were all the threads from kathianne then?

*shrug*

Wow, like you weren't around when we were speaking about body armor and such. Yawn. How many posts were there about getting them what they needed? Over the top and disingenuous, Jillian.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I find all of this rather perplexing. I served in the US Army from 71-93 and never once can I remember my M16 jamming or misfiring. Granted I was not a grunt and was never in the thick of anything. (there are a few days we won't talk about) But I always believed we were the best trained best equiped Military in History. I'd like to think this is still true.

 

[mightypeon]

Best equppied? Well, definitly not concerning the army.
Germany by itself already has significantly better Self propelled Artillery (PzH2000 vs M109) and APCs (Puma vs Bradley, Marder1A3 wasnt bad either), with the Leopard2A6 enjoying a slight edge over the M1A2 Abrams. The important lead in self propelled artillery is also shared by Russia (well, yes, Russias cold war artillery already owned the M109 hard, not to mention the stuff the newly created), China (there PLZ45 is effective, and gets the job done fast, its also much lighter than the German PZH2000)and the main EU powers.
Also, our standart assualt rifles get much less hot, have a bit less kickback and come standartly equiped with elaborate targetting devices (I had a bit of training with an M14, and fairly extensive training with the G36), they are a bit worse when it comes in to bash over peoples head though (Although I never tried this, but the G36 easily classifies as shiny stuff, and shiny stuff never works well if you try to bludgeon someone with it).

 

[DiveCon]

I have to agree with Jillian here. Haven't we had this problem for six years?

yes, everyone i know that has had to deal with the M4 hates it with a passion

 

[DiveCon]

I find all of this rather perplexing. I served in the US Army from 71-93 and never once can I remember my M16 jamming or misfiring. Granted I was not a grunt and was never in the thick of anything. (there are a few days we won't talk about) But I always believed we were the best trained best equiped Military in History. I'd like to think this is still true.

the M16 had problems in the early years too
but the M4 hasnt got past them yet

 

[Modbert]

I have to agree with Jillian here. Haven't we had this problem for six years?

Actually, we've had this problem since 2001. Our soldiers went into Afghanistan without the necessary numbers or equipment to complete the job. It's a damn shame really when families have to buy their loved ones serving body armor because there is not good enough armor supplied in the first place. I've made several threads about this before.

We spent over $500 billion a year currently on the Military budget. The least we can do is get these troops the equipment they need.

Now to speak in general:

This is not a partisan issue Annie, this is an American issue. And Jillian is right, at least in my time here I never saw you make a thread about this stuff when Bush was President.

As for the M4, everyone has already stated the truth about the weapon. It's unreliable and it's a sad testament when our troops are having to use such unreliable weapons. It's especially worse in the Middle East. Imagine all that sand flying around and trying to keep your weapon clean?

 

[DiveCon]

I have to agree with Jillian here. Haven't we had this problem for six years?

Actually, we've had this problem since 2001. Our soldiers went into Afghanistan without the necessary numbers or equipment to complete the job. It's a damn shame really when families have to buy their loved ones serving body armor because there is not good enough armor supplied in the first place. I've made several threads about this before.

We spent over $500 billion a year currently on the Military budget. The least we can do is get these troops the equipment they need.

Now to speak in general:

This is not a partisan issue Annie, this is an American issue. And Jillian is right, at least in my time here I never saw you make a thread about this stuff when Bush was President.

As for the M4, everyone has already stated the truth about the weapon. It's unreliable and it's a sad testament when our troops are having to use such unreliable weapons. It's especially worse in the Middle East. Imagine all that sand flying around and trying to keep your weapon clean?

Afghanistan is not desert, its high mountains
you dont have the same issues you would in southern Iraq

 

[Modbert]

Afghanistan is not desert, its high mountains
you dont have the same issues you would in southern Iraq

That's true in many but not all cases. The fact still remains though, using the M4 in the Desert is not gaining any favors to say the least. I always find it amazing about the amount of waste in the Military. Dare question it though and you get branded as being UnAmerican. $500 billion and we can't get less than 250,000 people in a war zone the necessary supplies and equipment to do the job? Something's wrong with this picture and I don't think it's just me.

 

[DiveCon]

Afghanistan is not desert, its high mountains
you dont have the same issues you would in southern Iraq

That's true in many but not all cases. The fact still remains though, using the M4 in the Desert is not gaining any favors to say the least. I always find it amazing about the amount of waste in the Military. Dare question it though and you get branded as being UnAmerican. $500 billion and we can't get less than 250,000 people in a war zone the necessary supplies and equipment to do the job? Something's wrong with this picture and I don't think it's just me.

you missed the point
you claimed desert was bad for the M4, i agree, but AStan isn't desert
that doesn't change the fact that the M4 is not a good weapon