Another military coverup???

Another military coverup, or proof that the US army is sending troops into combat ill equipped with really crappy weapons that only tends to get them killed????

I have voiced my disdain of the M-16 series of weapons for some time now, and THIS is hard and fasts proof of exactly why I say this....

The U.S. Army on Tuesday revealed that all records and documents about the weapons that jammed during the March 23 ambush that led to the death of nine Fort Bliss soldiers were destroyed in the Iraqi attack and that there is no way to trace the weapons' histories.

The Army, responding to an El Paso Times request under the Freedom of Information Act, said any official information about the weapons used by Fort Bliss' 507th Maintenance Company was lost on a supply truck taken into combat.

An official report on the ambush near Nasiriyah said that several weapons, including M-16s, M249 Squad Automatic Weapons and a .50-caliber machine gun, jammed or failed to operate properly during the firefight.

www.borderlandnews.com...

The M1/M1A/M-14 group may well be over 50 years old... but they WORKED... if it ain't broke, dont fix it...

Yes DR, I have read that topic/posts on your disdain for the M-16.
But....
Is this a case of a cover-up or proof that the US is sending troops in ill-equipped? Perhaps...to a degree but does it really speak about possible better proper training and adhering to guidelines set by the manufacturer of the weapon?

What I am trying to say is that maybe, just maybe, the problem lies in the maintaining of the weapon.
Reason:

Before ANY patrol/movement with possible contact to the enemy you should
1) clean your weapon
2) do a function check on the same weapon.

Anything less is criminally negligent by any trooper, marine or NCO running them.

Perhaps the weapons were/are not defective--only the soldiers' maintenance of those weapons?

Jamming is just a term meaning the rifle would not work properly. Usually has to do with a feed problem. If the weapon is dirty at all, any problems is has will be magnified.

The M-16, the SAW and the M-60 all must be cleaned and maintained after each use. Some of these weapons are from the Vietnam era and have multiple sources of ware that will cause the weapons to fail if allowed to get dirty.

If you are in a non-direct combat unit, you are not focused on your weapon and don't have the experience of it jamming after an day of hard use. Those weapons are reliable, but like any other mechanical object, they need to be maintained.

"Ash 'n Trash" units are notorious for neglecting their personal weapons. And this aplies to all their equipment. Their idea of the acronym PMCS is not "Preventative Maintenance Checks and Services. They think it stands for"

Park [the]
Mother [and]
Call [the]
Shop.


I will and would bet that they were issued weapons that were rejects from an infantry unit. This is why the loss of the records is important to saving careers.

*shrugs*

Its blistering clear that the CO of that unit should be relieved of command!

It has also been well documented that there were problems with the M-16s during DESERT SHIELD, but it was because they weren't using the correct lube. Once they started using the proper gun oil, the weapons worked fine, even when dirty. A common practice was to put a condom on the tip and a strip of duct tape over the ejection port and they were good to go for any sandstorm.

The "records" at unit level would consist of a DD314 which only records the date of TM specified services and/or lubes performed and scheduled. With weapons and other small items (masks, heaters, stoves, etc) many items can be recorded on the same DD314, i.e. 200 M16's would be one entry for an annual inspection.

Conclusion:
I think this Army wife is asking legit questions...If I thought the Army was lying to me, you bet I would persue it.....


regards
seekerof

Hmmm, I posted to this topic and its not showing as a post replied....hmmm

Well, there have been prob's today...thats probably why.

regards
seekerof

Originally posted by dragonrider
Another military coverup, or proof that the US army is sending troops into combat ill equipped with really crappy weapons that only tends to get them killed????

I have voiced my disdain of the M-16 series of weapons for some time now, and THIS is hard and fasts proof of exactly why I say this....

The U.S. Army on Tuesday revealed that all records and documents about the weapons that jammed during the March 23 ambush that led to the death of nine Fort Bliss soldiers were destroyed in the Iraqi attack and that there is no way to trace the weapons' histories.

The Army, responding to an El Paso Times request under the Freedom of Information Act, said any official information about the weapons used by Fort Bliss' 507th Maintenance Company was lost on a supply truck taken into combat.

An official report on the ambush near Nasiriyah said that several weapons, including M-16s, M249 Squad Automatic Weapons and a .50-caliber machine gun, jammed or failed to operate properly during the firefight.

www.borderlandnews.com...

The M1/M1A/M-14 group may well be over 50 years old... but they WORKED... if it ain't broke, dont fix it...

GOTTA LOVE THEM M-14'S!!! Don't forget the Stoner weapons system either! STONERS ARE AWESOME!

illequiped....lol...lol
1.)b2 bombers
2.)abrahams tanks
3.)blackhawk helicopters
ummm, what else do we got that they don't?

What a coincidence that when any documents that could prove to be of legal trouble for government institutions, they go missing or are destroyed.

Apache helicopters
satellites for intel
**NIGHT VISION GOGGLES**
If we are anything, we are over equiped....

Originally posted by TheManWithThePlan
illequiped....lol...lol
1.)b2 bombers

Were not used in Iraq...

2.)abrahams tanks

They work wonderful as long as the computer is working... if the computer goes down, you cant even fire the 120mm Reinmetel cannon... hope your old Browning M2 .50 is working then!

3.)blackhawk helicopters

Well, better than no helicopter I guess. Still, the British Lynx flies rings around it...

ummm, what else do we got that they don't?

Keep in mind, the vast majority of conflicts we are currently having are now being fought man to man, in the streets with RIFLES.... and the US soldier is quickly learning just how inferior the M-16 is to the AK-47...

When was the last time you heard of the Iraquis rolling a couple of T-72s against an Abrams??? (Oh yeah, at least with the T-72, if its computer goes down, it can still fire its main gun...)

Have you ever heard of a tank crew dying in the Gulf2? Sure, some got hit, but nobody died because of the superior armor.

stealth bombers were used. Remember Baghdad in flames??

[Edited on 18-9-2003 by TheManWithThePlan]

Seeker...

I would agree, the situation with the disappearing paperwork is highly suspicious that incriminating paperwork tends to disappear when it could do damage.

Your assessment with the weapons being substandard rejects could well be true.... too bad that the paperwork that would document such disappeared, don you think???

However, my point is, that the US army has known the M-16 system to be less than optimal since VietNam. To continually send thier men into combat with less than effective weapons is tantamount to genocide, but thats just my 2 cents....

It is interesting to note that those who sit in committees to select weapons are NOT those who have ever used them in combat....

Originally posted by TheManWithThePlan
Have you ever heard of a tank crew dying in the Gulf2? Sure, some got hit, but nobody died because of the superior armor.

stealth bombers were used. Remember Baghdad in flames??

[Edited on 18-9-2003 by TheManWithThePlan]

Those were the F-117 NightHawk, NOT the B2.

The B2 has, to public knowledge, NEVER been operationally deployed to a combat action to date.

Thats my point... there have been no tank on tank engagements since the end of the war... however, multiple gorilla conflicts have popped up, where the enemy knowns how to choose thier ambush... they hit small unarmored patrols with machine guns and RPGs, and we are taking daily losses due to it.

Lynx

Black hawk

one looks a lot better then the other. As for the combat effectiveness, the blackhawk is a lot more scary.

"However, my point is, that the US army has known the M-16 system to be less than optimal since VietNam. To continually send thier men into combat with less than effective weapons is tantamount to genocide, but thats just my 2 cents...."

DR, your abilities to assess a situation are well documented, as are a few others here at ATS (MA, Advisor, Alien, etc., etc.). In this case, as applied to the topic, I would tend to lean towards your premise. I only presented what I did, because I, as well as you also know, that proper maintenance of the M-16 has also been a never-ending problem. I would agree that it is indeed time for a wep.'s review and time for a replacement to a more reliable and durable wep.

"It is interesting to note that those who sit in committees to select weapons are NOT those who have ever used them in combat...."

Yes! I whole-heartedly agree.


regards
seekerof

Manwiththeplan,

I guess you are unfamiliar with the operational record of the Blackhawk in the jungles of Columbia in the 80s? A number were shipped to Columbia, as well as a number of US service men, in the interests of making airborn assaults on Coca farms....

They had a dismal trackrecord, and turned into maintenance nightmares. When they did work, they were found to be so loud that simply the sound alone was sufficient to alert the coca farmers to take all thier equipment and fade into the jungle, so that the soldiers usually only found abandoned compounds.

This is also where the Blackhawk earned the nickname "CrashHawk"

edit:source

"Cruise missile and air strike attacks on Baghdad destroy command-and-control facilities. US officials later say that a B2 stealth bomber dropped two 4,000lb "bunker buster" bombs on a major communications tower."

Maybe not much, but it has been used. Why do you think that they wouldn't use a 2 billion dollar plane? The thing has been around for a long time. If they weren't used, our tax dollars at work....not


[Edited on 18-9-2003 by TheManWithThePlan]

Please post a link to where you found that.

First of all, the B2 is a strategic weapon, and FAR too expensive to risk in a minor conflict, where the F117 would suffice (and keep in mind, Iraq had next to no air defence... we really didnt need stealth capability).

Besides a 2 bomb load is what the F117 is designed for, would be a complete waste of time for the B2.

Besides, what does the B2 have to do with a completely useless small arms program such as the M-16?

Much! You said the U.S. soldiers were ill-equiped. I laugh at that

You are welcome to laugh... and pray to god your M-16 will work when you have large groups of bad guys advancing on your (and you notice that their AKs DONT jam)...

Meanwhile, I will keep my composure, knowing my 50+ year old M1A will function just fine from first shot to last...

As an veteran who has shot both the M-16 and M-14, I feel qualified in pointing out a few facts:

The M-16(A2) is a fine weapon, when it is properly taken care of. Unfortunately, this not only applies to the current user, but the previous owner(s) as well. It is not uncommon to inherit a POS M-16 that some scumbag was issued and he never took care of it. Sometime no matter how much care you give it, an M-16 can be totally screwed up by a previous owner. And say what you will, the M-16 needs TLC. Alot of it. Whenever you get a chance, you should clean it and lube it completely. And don't use oil, that only invites the sand to get in there and stick. Use dry film lubricant(graphite) instead of oil (like PLS or LSA) in the desert, and you gun will never jam. This was my experience in Saudi and Kuwait. The result is a highly-accurate, lightweight weapon that will do OK in dry environments.

The M-14 is also a fine weapon (I qualified marksman with it), but it weighs a bloody ton, and also carries less ammo. It also cant hit shiite on full-auto. But if you have the physical build of a football player and dont mind humping a 15 pound gun and another 5 pounds of ammo, go for it. The thing is this: with most of our soldiers "riding" into combat these days via trucks, LAV's, M113's and M2's, the M-14 might not be such a bad choice. However, if it were back in Nam and I had to hump in and hump out all month long, I'd be slinging a Colt M4.........