Did Weapons Fail U.S. Troops During Afghanistan Assault?
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Did Weapons Fail U.S. Troops During Afghanistan Assault?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,098

    Exclamation Did Weapons Fail U.S. Troops During Afghanistan Assault?

    Did Weapons Fail U.S. Troops During Afghanistan Assault? - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com
    WASHINGTON 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.

    A week ago, eight U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town near Wanat. There's no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh, but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by the demands of war.

    Army Col. Wayne Shanks, a military spokesman in Afghanistan, said a review of the battle at Kamdesh is under way. "It is too early to make any assumptions regarding what did or didn't work correctly," he said.

    Complaints about the weapons the troops carry, especially the M4, aren't new. Army officials say that when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur.

    The M4 is a shorter, lighter version of the M16, which made its debut during the Vietnam war. Roughly 500,000 M4s are in service, making it the rifle troops on the front lines trust with their lives.

    Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a leading critic of the M4, said Thursday the Army needs to move quickly to acquire a combat rifle suited for the extreme conditions U.S. troops are fighting in.

    U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle.

    "The M4 has served us well but it's not as good as it needs to be," Coburn said.

    Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys soldier gear. Still, the rifle is continually being improved to make it even more reliable and lethal.

    Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said.

    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.
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  2.   
  3. #2
    There are a number of weapons out there that are probably an improvement on the M4. The SCAR, Sig,and HK for instance. So why do our troops not get the best weapons available?
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  4. #3
    becuase of lobist from colt, and others who dont want to lose thier livly hoods, that convince congress not to act. in the trials the xm 8 was more reliable then the hk 416, and the scar combat rifles. But it was a completly new weapon and it did not use standard m16 mags. the scar did a little better then the hk. but it' has less parts that are in common with the hk 416. The hk is the cheapist way that the military could find that uses the most parts from the AR platform.

    I wonder were all the hk 416 are all we need to do is buy hk 416 uppers and place them on out m4 loweres and we have a more reliable weapon.
    Ithought because it uses the same mag, and lower reciever as the m4 we would see a lot more of them.
    I guess congress is just abunch of blow hards who say they want our troops to have the best weapons money can buy, but dont really mean it.

  5. #4
    Maybe if i shout real loud congress will hear me ang get out troops some more reliable weapons. hk 416, hk 416

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by doming83 View Post
    becuase of lobist from colt, and others who dont want to lose thier livly hoods, that convince congress not to act. in the trials the xm 8 was more reliable then the hk 416, and the scar combat rifles. But it was a completly new weapon and it did not use standard m16 mags. the scar did a little better then the hk. but it' has less parts that are in common with the hk 416. The hk is the cheapist way that the military could find that uses the most parts from the AR platform.

    I wonder were all the hk 416 are all we need to do is buy hk 416 uppers and place them on out m4 loweres and we have a more reliable weapon.
    Ithought because it uses the same mag, and lower reciever as the m4 we would see a lot more of them.
    I guess congress is just abunch of blow hards who say they want our troops to have the best weapons money can buy, but dont really mean it.
    I was thinking HK 416 also.. I saw a show on it a couple months back and it looked very reliable. they buried it under sand and it fired flawlessly. then threw it in water, took it out and it fired flawlessly. then they buried it in some nasty mud and took it out and it again fired flawlessly. I'd like to see an M4 do that.YouTube - HK 416
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  7. #6
    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.
    Just think these are the same government idiots that want to run your health care.
    Roy
    Dacono CO
    CCW, Ruger LCR, Winchester 94, S&W 686-3

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Oregon's hot box
    Posts
    94
    Some more supplimental reading.

    Article too long to post in full...

    The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy
    "Life is a great teacher. Unfortunately, it kills all of its students..."

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Head of the Lakes, MN
    Posts
    82
    Don't forget that some army officials are probably holding back the better rifle. They've done that in the past.

  10. #9
    I have a different take on this particular article. First I think it's just news, nothing more.

    There are alway's going to be soldiers that do not maintain their weapon systems. These are generally the conventional youngsters with poor leadership. You won't find these kind of reports with SOF soldiers and sailers and airmen and Marines. The conventional side of the Army is very poor in the area's of weapons markenship and weapons maintenance.

    Many soldiers when first introduced to Iraq and Afghanistan chose to run their M4/M16's totally dry of any lubricant for fear that CLP and other lubricious type greases attracted sand and dust. Yes, it's true in most cases, but I'd rather have wet sandy gun than a bone dry sandy blaster. Makes sense to me, and it does to anybody that has had to run an M4 or other weapon system in that envirenment.

    I'm not saying that a gun can't jam, but this article stinks of just somethingt else to blame on the government and or the Army. As to the SAW jamming ? It's hard to get one to jame or quit on ya even when run bone dry so there is more to this story than meets the eye. 600 rounds and then plunk ?? Anybody that has ever carried that pig knows more than to just think it's a POS weapon system.

    Poor mags, poor maintenance, poor performance. It's that simple. Any soldier worth his or salt will procure the proper mags, additonal bolts, firing pins, extractor kits etc for carry into a hot theater. Most are now using PMAG's for instance and have purchased themselves.

    As for the H&K 416/417, yes it's a great weapon system, but I see the LWRC M6 series as a slightly better platform with a slightly better piston system. H&K tends to over engineer their stuff and LWRC came to the table with a short stroke gas piston that self regulating. No neet to use a gas valve for suppressed shooting or for various loads of ammo. It's one heck of a reliable weapon.

    LWRC has the same cold hammer forged barrel, although with Nicor treatment which provides a much longer service life than chrome lines barrels. Their ARM-R rail system is the best with a reposition of zero also when removed and reasembled. Same platform, slightly better gas system then H&K. IMHO

    Ever wonder why the Kalishnakov never had problems running ??? It's a piston gun also.

    As a side note. I personally know LtCol (retired) Tony Raper who is featured in the H&K video posted above. He was a long time 7th SFG (A) guy and spent some time with SOCOM and through out the JFKSWCS. Good man.


    YouTube - LWRC Gas piston rifles



    YouTube - LWRC PSD Future Weapons

    Part II LWRC PSD/Short stroke gas piston in water and mud and dirt.

    YouTube - LWRC PSD Part 2 Future Weapons
    "When a government robs Peter to pay Paul it will alway's have the support of Paul" George Bernard Shaw

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast