Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight

Status
Not open for further replies.

dudley2112

Youth Group Leader
GunNutz
Rating - 100%
98   0   0
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer Richard Lardner, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 10 mins ago
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.

___

On the Net:

U.S./NATO forces in Afghanistan: http://www.nato.int/isaf/

Army weapons: http://tinyurl.com/yk95j8z

Weapon manufacturer: http://www.colt.com/mil/M4.asp

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan_weapons_failures
 
Beyond sad. Canadians had the same problem at the beginning of WW1. Maybe the Yanks should get AK47s. You don't even have to clean them.
 
Beyond sad. Canadians had the same problem at the beginning of WW1. Maybe the Yanks should get AK47s. You don't even have to clean them.

I was thinking the same thing. I'll bet the other guys AK's were working fine. The AR platform is cool, well ok. However it certainly isn't the best thing out there. My old argument of 'made to military specs' is junk comes up in discussions like this again and again. You need to remember the minute a person signs up for the military they are not a person but a number, and they are expendable. That's how the governments see it anyways. And you also need to remember the government doesn't want the best money can buy, their contracts are all awarded to the lowest bidder. There are many weapon platforms out there that are more durable then the AR. There are far better cartridges then the .223. What is needed is a rifle that is compact, reliable and fires a heavy bullet. I doubt most troops are firing at 300 or 400 yards, so the argument of flat shooting isn't a big priority. And since the opposing forces are using the 7.62 Russian with quite success says somthing about that. The military needs to come up with a better more durable weapon that will lead the forces into this century with authority. There are many designs tabled, though most I've seen are bull pup designs and I never liked those. Their compact but I think there are designers out there who can build a true rifle that will keep our troops alive.
 
bad choices by management

Procurement decisions are made by senior personnel, often those without operational experience. If you layer on top of that mess political interference, then you get situations as described above.

Too often, the upper echelons are busy dreaming up crap like the future soldier; an ultra high-tech, networked, gearhead wet dream, while troops actually fighting, today, can't get kit suitable for the operational environment.

Think about it; Troops are asked to patrol known routes on a routine basis. Do they have sufficiently well protected vehicles to do so? They are usually in situations where in order to balance the volume of fire from a numerically superior opposition, they must be able to deliver higher rates of fire from fewer weapons (oops, firearms). Can the AR platform really run reliably at the rates of fire described above? Even police use overwhelms that rifle! I have personally heard operators tell me that the rifle cannot run dry in their training scenarios or it will malfunction.

As a taxpayer, I feel as though I have some personal responsibility for these matters. Saving a couple of bucks a year from a 2% cut in GST while troops are grossly underfunded is grotesque and obscene. We must do better!
 
there are plenty of ak 47 s out there because they work when you start shoving 30 rounders through the gun and hold them on full auto they work in even the toughest of conditions.
 
You would think wide open places like Iraq and Afganastan a M14 would be better. 308 Nato has more stopping power.

I have seen pictures in Iraq of guys useing M14s
I never understood why they went with the 223.
 
The M-14 is too heavy and too long. It's a great platform, but lighter and more maneuverablity would be deirable, at least in my mind.

If I could design the perfect weapons platform I would build it around a recoil action like the Benelli R-1. With no gas pistons it would be clean running. It would be modular. You would have your basic barreled action, but being recoil operated it would be able to handle short or long quick change barrels. It would have a pistol grip, folding rear stock and fixed, protected iron sights. The top would feature a mount for optics that would fold away or allow shoot through capability. There would be a fully contained barrel shroud with mounts for lights or other gear. A bayonette mount and a lower, 20mm launcher that is removable. I think a recoil gun should be more durable and reliable then a gas gun, but still allow for a lighter rifle with less parts.
 
M4s do suck compared to or new C8A3s

I worked on both and the quality of an M4 is brutal
It's good to hear the facts Dsiwy!

To most of us here, a short barrelled AR is just another shorterer AR......
`We`assume there is good QA manufacturing standards, in all AR platforms.

It would be interesting to know what faults were readily apparent to you, with the USA M4.
 
My understanding is that the C7/8 series is structurally reinforced, with a heavier barrel, retains the semi/auto capability of the M16A1 instead of burst and has the different sight mounting options. I'd know for sure by now, but they've been sitting on my application for reg force infantry since June :mad:

The major issue seems to be the direct impingement action of the AR design. It allows for fewer moving parts and a lighter weapon, however allowing the expanding gas to act directly on the bolt carrier is always going to result in increased heat and chance of cook off, as well as fouling from carbon residue. Short stroke gas operation seems like a better system to me.

My understanding of the adoption of the .223 was principally to allow the average infantryman to carry more ammunition as studies demonstrated that whoever could obtain fire superiority almost always won the firefight. Add to that the ballistic properties of the .223, albeit with less stopping power. The 6.8mm SPC ( ? ) seems like a great option, and only requires swapping the upper and barrel on the AR platform.
 
What are the differences between the M4 and the C8,I have only
used the C8 twice,mostly got stuck with the C7 or C9.

-Hammer forged heavy 16" barrel C8A3
-Trigger mech is simplier in a C8
-Parts fit better and have less machining marks in a C8
-HH buffer C8A3
-Extractor bumper is better in the C8 "black bumper"

I have worked with both and I have noticed the M4 had more problems then the C8A3s

But saying that The problems with the M4 are not hard to fix and NO other gun can match the M4/C8 platform as of now.

SCAR is cool but my god is it huge! and its barrel swapping thing is silly "You have to zero your PEQ and sights if you do" AR platform you just need afew upper with a sight on each one "no rezeroing"

REMEMBER the arms industry wants you to think your gun sucks so you can buy there new and improve super gun lol
 
The major issue seems to be the direct impingement action of the AR design. It allows for fewer moving parts and a lighter weapon, however allowing the expanding gas to act directly on the bolt carrier is always going to result in increased heat and chance of cook off, as well as fouling from carbon residue. Short stroke gas operation seems like a better system to me.

.

Gas impingment as fine and I love it!!!! Most stoppages are from sand and bad lubing not carbon!
I ve seen my guys put 1000s of rounds through with no problems no cleaning

Gas inpingment has got abad wrap to try to sell the crappy piston modded ARs
 
Not a single person bashing the M4 here has noted that the rifles in question were fired until they became white hot. That the problems were caused by overheating.

AK's suffer from overheating as well. Who hasn't seen the video where the guy fires an AK until the handguards burst into flames? Does anyone want to argue that this is superior to an AR/M4?

If you have 200 enemy attack 20 guys, their weapons are going to overheat and fail no matter what rifle they are using.

I have done some durability testing and we found two things. First, the rifle becomes so hot it is impossible to manipulate without burning your hands. Second, a severely overheated barrel causes the bullet's to fall apart from jacket separation. So even if the rifle keeps operating, it becomes fairly useless cause the operator can't touch it and the bullets are coming out the muzzle in pieces.
 
The ak47 and the ar family are completely different rifles, one suits some scenarios better than the other. 500 meters or more away, give me an ar any day. Put me up close and personal, tell me it's the last gun I'll ever get: I'll take the ak. Comparing them is like comparing jeeps to ferarris, kinda silly.
 
There's also an issue with the M16/M4 variants requiring some knowledge and known how to keep operating 100%. It seems 90% of the people surveyed understand this and are capable of it. The 10% that didn't should probably be issued AK47s because they're too stupid to know how to maintain (or even be trusted with) a decent firearm like an M4.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom