- Location
- Lower Mainland
How many people did you kill?
Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
- Thread starter dudley2112
- Start date
- Status
There is so much wrong with this story that one doesn't know where to start. To avoid subjecting myself to the learned criticisms of armchair quarterbacks on why we should have stayed with the M14/C1, why gas impingement systems are inferior, etc, I am going to spare myself reading through page after page.
However, I don't recall at Medac any of our guys snivelling and crying afterwards on how their rifles did not work as they should have. I haven't talked with any of our guys who have returned from recent tours who have been windging and whining about how their rifles were N/S all the time. In short, those of us who have used/are using these rifles where we play for keeps don't seem to have a problem with them. It's the ones who aren't in a CF uniform and who aren't carrying one for a living overseas who seem to have all the complaints.
I, for one, will take my C7A2 over my old C1 any day; and during my service I have carried both. If I could own only one on civvy street, it would be the C1. But it wouldn't be my choice for work.
Where to begin with the story itself? What does the number of dead have to do with it? Where's the real questions?
Where was their FPF with supporting arms when all this was going on? No preregistered artillery? Why not Tac air? AFVs? Given that this apparently wasn't the first time this base had been hit, where was all that?
Weapons fired until the barrels were "white hot"? Really? White hot? I'd like to see that white hot thing. Evidence of a little journalistic license being applied, perhaps? And if here, perhaps elsewhere in the story as well?
And while we're on the subject of fighting a firefight according to this story, mostly on rock and roll, there is a part of the weapon's characteristics from the weapons pam that most of us in the CF are somewhat familiar with:
"With its self-loading and fully automatic capability and 30 round magazine, a high standard of fire control is necessary to prevent wastage of ammunition." The myth of the cool marksman calmly picked off enemy with single well aimed shots is crap in the fog of battle, but on the other hand you can't win a firefight just hosing through mags on full auto.
Picking some kernels of information from most of the crap in this story, there's a few hints in this story that suggest the weapons are pretty much irrelevant - although how they were used may not be.
There doesn't seem to be disagreement that they were a platoon, attacked by the equivalent of nearly two companies. Well, there's your 3-1 odds that our doctrine teaches us to use as the superiority of force to win the firefight - that's nearly 7-1. 7-1 odds... what did they expect, no casualties at all with those odds against you trying to win the firefight?
The enemy is described as "highly skilled"; frankly, I don't think they were either that highly skilled or that well armed with superior weapons. If either or both were true, they WOULD have won the firefight and rolled right through this platoon before anybody could have done anything about it. I do know that a platoon size group of Hajji's in a fixed position would not last long against two companies minus of Canadians - or Americans - in an assault such as this with our similar weapons. It would have been over very, very quickly.
This story is more about stirring shyte and controversy than anything else.
However, I don't recall at Medac any of our guys snivelling and crying afterwards on how their rifles did not work as they should have. I haven't talked with any of our guys who have returned from recent tours who have been windging and whining about how their rifles were N/S all the time. In short, those of us who have used/are using these rifles where we play for keeps don't seem to have a problem with them. It's the ones who aren't in a CF uniform and who aren't carrying one for a living overseas who seem to have all the complaints.
I, for one, will take my C7A2 over my old C1 any day; and during my service I have carried both. If I could own only one on civvy street, it would be the C1. But it wouldn't be my choice for work.
Where to begin with the story itself? What does the number of dead have to do with it? Where's the real questions?
Where was their FPF with supporting arms when all this was going on? No preregistered artillery? Why not Tac air? AFVs? Given that this apparently wasn't the first time this base had been hit, where was all that?
Weapons fired until the barrels were "white hot"? Really? White hot? I'd like to see that white hot thing. Evidence of a little journalistic license being applied, perhaps? And if here, perhaps elsewhere in the story as well?
And while we're on the subject of fighting a firefight according to this story, mostly on rock and roll, there is a part of the weapon's characteristics from the weapons pam that most of us in the CF are somewhat familiar with:
"With its self-loading and fully automatic capability and 30 round magazine, a high standard of fire control is necessary to prevent wastage of ammunition." The myth of the cool marksman calmly picked off enemy with single well aimed shots is crap in the fog of battle, but on the other hand you can't win a firefight just hosing through mags on full auto.
Picking some kernels of information from most of the crap in this story, there's a few hints in this story that suggest the weapons are pretty much irrelevant - although how they were used may not be.
There doesn't seem to be disagreement that they were a platoon, attacked by the equivalent of nearly two companies. Well, there's your 3-1 odds that our doctrine teaches us to use as the superiority of force to win the firefight - that's nearly 7-1. 7-1 odds... what did they expect, no casualties at all with those odds against you trying to win the firefight?
The enemy is described as "highly skilled"; frankly, I don't think they were either that highly skilled or that well armed with superior weapons. If either or both were true, they WOULD have won the firefight and rolled right through this platoon before anybody could have done anything about it. I do know that a platoon size group of Hajji's in a fixed position would not last long against two companies minus of Canadians - or Americans - in an assault such as this with our similar weapons. It would have been over very, very quickly.
This story is more about stirring shyte and controversy than anything else.
From what ive read here and there the problem with the SAWs is alotta of them are old and worn out. Theres lots of units out there who have either old or well worn gear, as this war has been going on for awhile.
Rather than talking about a few weapons that failed wouldnt it be better to talk about how a small FOB held off a huge Taliban attack that if it was successful wouldve killed everybody?
Rather than talking about a few weapons that failed wouldnt it be better to talk about how a small FOB held off a huge Taliban attack that if it was successful wouldve killed everybody?
I don't disagree with your points for the most part. I did post the broader story on page 8 of this thread which answers most of the questions you've raised.
Wanat was the product of a number of failures the least of which was the M4.
This story smells like burning IQ points.
Most of the commentary in this thread smelled like a burning vaccuum, though...no doubt the vaccuum left behind after the IQ evaporated.
When we finish this can we talk about hydrostatic shock and energy dump theories for a while? Also I hear neural overload is a hot topic among e-geniuses.
I love the M14, but jesus christ...some of the "ideas" in this thread actually caused me physical pain.
Most of the commentary in this thread smelled like a burning vaccuum, though...no doubt the vaccuum left behind after the IQ evaporated.
When we finish this can we talk about hydrostatic shock and energy dump theories for a while? Also I hear neural overload is a hot topic among e-geniuses.
I love the M14, but jesus christ...some of the "ideas" in this thread actually caused me physical pain.
Hahahaha... This post and Rick's are about the best in the thread.
Apparently most people don't understand that, in order to win a fire fight, you must supress the enemy with a superior volume of fire. In a situation like that, with 200 against a platoon, it's a miracle more guys didn't die and it's obvious that the Americans didn't have the support they needed.
I'm surprised that an outpost like that wouldn't have arty, fast air, or helos on call 24/7... however the story doesn't mention that.
- Location
- Scarborough, ON
No, let's all spout off on metallurgical engineering while we compare stamped vs. forged receivers.
- Location
- Lower Mainland
It sucks that low end troops are expendable like that. Like it would be awesome if autonomous warfare was legal. can't you just have like helicopters or UAV's that fly around killing taliban. like what that guy said about using software instead of hardware. just take the honor out of fighting because fighting isnt glamourous and its not right.
AI is a touchy subject in the defense community. you can get a transformer "situation" in which the HK mi-8's turn on everybody for an unforseen technical glitch. i think they already had problems with predators going wacky.
even autonomous refueling stations where people would be called in only in the event of repair. you can't secure a safe caspian pipeling route in afghanistan without diligent security forces that dont sleep and dont get tired or run out of ammo.
like use new czech mi-8's with chain guns and hi def led screens that makes it look like there are real pilots so that the taliban cant call the un. those only cost like 500000 to make. then you can make like 500 mi-8's. they can drop foabs and all kinds of horrific s**t. foabs can be made into smaller packages and can act like small tactical nuclear weapons. like just blow up the mountains. to protect innocent villagers, just disarm them and put them into really nice refugee camps complete with basic housing amentities like we have here. they can watch tv or just do whatever they want.
they would get mad though if you blew up their mountains. there are more people in pakistan and afghanistan then there was in vietnam. i dont think bombing would work. its sucks that they mingle with the locals you have to be really surgical. my mi-8 idea sounds like what the russians did in the 80's. only with guys on board.
i designed my own autonomous fighting vehicle a couple of years ago with the help of an electrical engineer. it was great. it was just a little f**ker that you could outfit with armour and kill animals with it. it was more of a toy, than a AFV, i mean i didnt want to get into trouble like that retard who built that scud-c in his garage in auckland. what a dumbass.
AI is a touchy subject in the defense community. you can get a transformer "situation" in which the HK mi-8's turn on everybody for an unforseen technical glitch. i think they already had problems with predators going wacky.
even autonomous refueling stations where people would be called in only in the event of repair. you can't secure a safe caspian pipeling route in afghanistan without diligent security forces that dont sleep and dont get tired or run out of ammo.
like use new czech mi-8's with chain guns and hi def led screens that makes it look like there are real pilots so that the taliban cant call the un. those only cost like 500000 to make. then you can make like 500 mi-8's. they can drop foabs and all kinds of horrific s**t. foabs can be made into smaller packages and can act like small tactical nuclear weapons. like just blow up the mountains. to protect innocent villagers, just disarm them and put them into really nice refugee camps complete with basic housing amentities like we have here. they can watch tv or just do whatever they want.
they would get mad though if you blew up their mountains. there are more people in pakistan and afghanistan then there was in vietnam. i dont think bombing would work. its sucks that they mingle with the locals you have to be really surgical. my mi-8 idea sounds like what the russians did in the 80's. only with guys on board.
i designed my own autonomous fighting vehicle a couple of years ago with the help of an electrical engineer. it was great. it was just a little f**ker that you could outfit with armour and kill animals with it. it was more of a toy, than a AFV, i mean i didnt want to get into trouble like that retard who built that scud-c in his garage in auckland. what a dumbass.
- Location
- Lower Mainland
OMG. I just read that 10-15 million Afghans are going to starve this winter. 7.5 Million could die!!!
that like a holocaust!!!!
#### the U.S weapons, we have to figure out how to feed these ####ers or they are going to be pissed!!!
I wondered why I never saw ethiopian skinny afghans on tv, it censored!!!!!
that like a holocaust!!!!
#### the U.S weapons, we have to figure out how to feed these ####ers or they are going to be pissed!!!
I wondered why I never saw ethiopian skinny afghans on tv, it censored!!!!!
I don't wear a uniform so I really can't claim any real knowledge of the situation, but stories like that will likely keep Americans from questioning the costs associated with the US military's attempts to find a new rifle for the various branches. Those who even *know* about the programmes, that is.
Apparently, some units requested the M14s because they have longer range than the M16s they were using.. I've never even bothered to look that up, so someone else here could likely tell us if that's true or not.
The issue of the AK's looser tolerances reminds me of the old story about the Ross rifle. It was inherently more accurate than the Lee-Enfield, but it's tolerances were so tight that dirt et al would choke it up. The result? Canadian soldiers dropped their Ross rifles everytime they came across a fallen Brit with a L-E, and Canada finally switched completely over, aside from for snipers.
I'm not trying to make a point, here. I'm thinking that the difference in accuracy between an AR and an AK would be a lot more pronounced than between a Ross and a L-E. One just reminded me of the other.
Apparently, some units requested the M14s because they have longer range than the M16s they were using.. I've never even bothered to look that up, so someone else here could likely tell us if that's true or not.
The issue of the AK's looser tolerances reminds me of the old story about the Ross rifle. It was inherently more accurate than the Lee-Enfield, but it's tolerances were so tight that dirt et al would choke it up. The result? Canadian soldiers dropped their Ross rifles everytime they came across a fallen Brit with a L-E, and Canada finally switched completely over, aside from for snipers.
I'm not trying to make a point, here. I'm thinking that the difference in accuracy between an AR and an AK would be a lot more pronounced than between a Ross and a L-E. One just reminded me of the other.
Something I posted on Lightfighter.
quote:
Originally posted by Dirt: "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."
Let me translate.quote:
Originally posted by Dirt: "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."
"I am a s**tty shot and do not know the difference between aimed fire and wasted ammuntion."
Yes Afghans can attack like ceaselss swarms of cockroaches (maybe we should bring back Flamethrowers for FOB defense, or Quad .50's?)
However I really can't see anyone firing 336-360 rds within 30min for good effect in the OEF AOR.
Quiet honestly a good 75% of non-SOF forces I have seen in OEF and OIF as both mil and a contractor, had weapons that where in a serious need of both PM and suffering a serious lack of weapons skills.
The other point, is damn as smart as we think we are, sometimes in this day and age you can get overun by a vastly numerically superior force.
Taliban are not dumb, they will try to flank you and supress you so you don't know where they are moving to. Its not like playing wack-a-mole with Madhi Army types in '04 Iraq. Your not goint to get a great amount of enemy exposure.
I will say for 99% of the time that I have seen it, is that "suppressive" fire, isn't. Accurate fire suppresses and causes casualties, inaccurate fire wastes ammo.
There is nothing wrong with the M4 (well I'd have everyone go M4A1 as the 3rd burst system makes my head bleed with its stupidity, and I'd remove the auto-sears from 3/4 of the guns. Combat Marksmanship is terrible these days - judging distance and placing accurate fire off the KD range is lacking.
What is needed is more realistic training for soldiers.
Lube - for f**ks sakes people, its 2009, we have been fighting for 8 years in Afghan, and guns are still not getting properly lubed
Mags -- PMAG's have a f**king NSN now - use it.
Ammo - M855 may not be the best, its way better than it was in the past, and its way better than 7.62x39 for shooting people with. That said a new 5.56mm ammo like the BH/Barnes 70gr OTM would IMHO be better for both accuracy and terminal effects since we are not fighting an enemy in soft armor and plates.
I carried a M16FOW for over 20 years - I've never been let down by one, and if I all of a sudden needed to lay my ass on the line today, that system would be my first pick.
__________________
Last edited:
Sounds like politicking to me....
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091012_1_n.shtml
US Army carbine programme in limbo until further notice
Click here to learn more...
By Andrew White
12 October 2009
The US Army is still awaiting the final go-ahead from the government before it can launch its much-anticipated carbine programme to replace some one million M16 and M4 assault rifles in service.
Speaking to Jane's at the AUSA exhibition in Washington DC, a spokesman for the Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier said funds had been set aside for the programme, but added that the government had yet to pass a Congress Budget Resolution (CBR) to confirm it. The CBR had originally been expected to be passed on 1 October.
However, PEO Soldier officials told Jane's that they had not received any 'negative' feedback that would indicate plans to remove the carbine programme funds from the Fiscal Year 2010 budget and they now expect the CBR to be approved by December at the very latest.
134 of 409 words
Copyright © IHS (Global) Limited, 2009
End of non-subscriber extract
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091012_1_n.shtml
US Army carbine programme in limbo until further notice
Click here to learn more...
By Andrew White
12 October 2009
The US Army is still awaiting the final go-ahead from the government before it can launch its much-anticipated carbine programme to replace some one million M16 and M4 assault rifles in service.
Speaking to Jane's at the AUSA exhibition in Washington DC, a spokesman for the Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier said funds had been set aside for the programme, but added that the government had yet to pass a Congress Budget Resolution (CBR) to confirm it. The CBR had originally been expected to be passed on 1 October.
However, PEO Soldier officials told Jane's that they had not received any 'negative' feedback that would indicate plans to remove the carbine programme funds from the Fiscal Year 2010 budget and they now expect the CBR to be approved by December at the very latest.
134 of 409 words
Copyright © IHS (Global) Limited, 2009
End of non-subscriber extract
This thread is full of fail
.
You took my line.
There have been about 6 or 8 intelligent posts here - mostly from those who have been to the sandbox. The rest is about as useful (and well though out) as the political grandstanding by the senator in the OP's quote.
yup that and the mini they have are way way past their usefull life in many cases. Saw guns repaired with tiewrap's and other improvised method.
dont do that #### and then blame the equipment
Hmph. I wonder what the issue is?
- Status
