Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight

I defer to this post that actually discusses your issue.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Specifically, SLAYER69's response. Seems most applicable.


'Cuz I ain't really sure who you are talking to.








[edit on 11-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]

i dont care what anybody says, the ak might be heavier and not as accurate but it will fire no matter what you throw at it.

YouTube Link

As a previous posted..

Hopefully the military will look into replacing those M4s with the HK416, which would probably prevent this problem.

They could probably just replace the upper receiver and save plenty of money


I can never make vids work for some reason.

www.youtube.com...

its easy.
step 1. copy url. in this case its
www.youtube.com...

step 2. click on the youtube video icon and paste only
"ObXZMepn3SI"

step 3. hit reply and it should look like this.

YouTube Link

The M16'/M4 was not and will never be a squad automatic weapon.

Yet in firefight this is what the US military does.
9, 30 round magazines in 30 minutes some units go through 9 magazines in 15 minutes even with the 3 round burst limitation.

There are units that carry 30 magazines per man for a 2 day patrol plus 100+ rounds in strippers. and these are foot units.

The guys in hummers carry a lot more.

The Taliban knows how to get US units to expend ammo with the minimum of there people being hit.

They will hit a US unit from 400 to 500 meters (the maximum range of the M203 is About 400meters)and set there RPGs at 500 or At the maximum range of 920 meters, RPGs self explodes (4.5 seconds from firing) and that's how the weapon is sometime used as a form of "artillery", spraying shrapnel over military troops.

The US units respond with maximum fire power till they start having weapons problems or running short of ammo and then the Taliban ether moves in or increases there fire unless the US units calls in fire support or airpower.

The AK is no better or worse then the M16/M4 its just that its seldom used to fire at the rates that the US military units fire at.

Replace the M16/M4 no just increase the number of SAW in the squads.

In Vietnam the Navy seal teams were "heavy" on belt fed weapons the Stoner M63a and M60 with 4+ per squad.
This allowed them to over power the enemy and if out numbered to break contact by appearing to be a larger unit.

One big problem the military has now is they have banned the use of most cleaning solvents that were good for cleaning weapons.
One of the best i found in Vietnam for cleaning the M16 was a mix of alcohol and acetone this would dissolve any smokeless powder residue (by the way this is the only thing that really cleans the gas tube on the M16/M4)

I was on river boats in Vietnam and we burned up M16s with ease because we had way to much ammo on board and would burn it full auto.
we would tie a rope to the stock of some of the M16s so that we could cool them by dropping them over the side and pulling them back on board. shaking the water off and loading a new magazine.
But we also burned up a many M2HB by melting the barrel down.
There is nothing as scary as trying to load a new belt in a 50 browning as the glowing red barrel sagged from the heat knowing that the next round you fire may go through the side of the melted barrel.

The one thing most of us on the river boats had was a back up weapon.
I had a M14 plus a M1 carbine ballel sawed off just in front of the stock and the stock sawed and filed to to a pistol grip

reply to post by middleclasssoldier

---

Yeah I tried that.

It didn't work in preview. I used to be able to do it, I never changed anything.

But the videos never work. Sometimes they work in preview and then they don't work when I post them.

Yeah, I get a similar effect with the Text Yellow thing. Sometimes it only works in preview.

Will an AR do THIS?....

YouTube Link

[edit on 11-10-2009 by EyesWideShut]

[edit on 11-10-2009 by EyesWideShut]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the M16, which was heavily scrutinized during the Vietnam War, is now being scrutinized heavily in Afghanistan for largely the same reasons?

For a war such as the one we're fighting in Afghanistan, our equipment needs to be more durable and rugged. The inconsistent straining of our equipment is contributing to our problems there.

yeah mine never work in the preview but always show up in the real post. who knows?

How disappointing to hear our guys are having such troubles with equipment. If it wasn't inferior machinery, armor or weapons, it would just be generals tying their hands behind their backs.
Does anyone know if they could use an AK if they wanted to? Why wouldn't they?

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

M-14

YouTube Link

The only real draw back was the weight of the weapon and ammo. Other than that. There was nothing wrong with it.


[edit on 12-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

Double Ditto on the HK 416. Clean and Cold. M4 familiarity with a much better operating system.

This video just about says it regarding the limitations of the current M4 platform. I would never do what this guy does with the M4. Note his ballistic helmet with face shield when testing the M4.

YouTube Link

[edit on 12-10-2009 by jibeho]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by jibeho]

Some great responses here -

I agree about issues with command and rules of engagement. Those are surely issues.

Also, as one of the vid's posted shows. Some troops do swtich to captured AK's from their M4/M16's.

One thing I don't understand - this issue about the M16 (and its variations) has been popping up since 'Nam. So why is the military so slow to address it?

reply to post by Frogs

---

Gotta love those lucrative contracts and subsequent kickbacks. It is a disturbing game that these players get involved in. Sadly, our soldiers will always pay the price.

It's the same old story. Wrong gunpowder. The pentagon does not follow the manufacturers specs.

I had one in Vietnam and i liked it it was great for firing from our river boats at VC or NVC firing at us from the jungle but there are a few other problems other then weight and ammo.
It was just about useless at any range when in Full Auto.
and in a firefight using it full auto you would know it the next day because you would be black and blue from the kick.

What we used them for was penetrating the jungle and firing at bunkers from way out in the river the M16 would not penetrate the logs that the enemy used to build there bunkers.
The M2HB would penetrate the logs but was not as accurate you would have to spray the bunker.
If the VC saw you swing a 50 around they would lay down in the bottom of the bunker till the firing of the 50 stopped and then pop up and start firing again.
What they did not watch was people with rifles and they would not duck for them.

Another thing the M14 was very good for was firing rifle grenades.
They would take a bunker apart where the 40 mm M79 grenades were useless. and we could drop them on top of the bunkers where the LAWs could only be fired at the front face of the bunker.
Also they were good for firing AT rifle grenades at the side of VC junks to sink them.
The 40 mm grenades would only scar the side of a wooden junk but a AT grenade would blow a 2 to 3 foot hole.
With the LAWS launchers or RPGs (yes we would use captured RPGs) we always had a problem with the back blast across our deck.
there was no problems with back blast when firing a rifle grenade.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by ANNED]

[edit on 13-10-2009 by ANNED]

The control of the M-14 has come a long way.

Google Smith Enterprises, and click on their muzzle brakes, the one designed for the Coast Guard/Navy.

You can see it fired on full auto.

With this, the M-14 on full auto shoots sweeter than the M-16 variant.

Smith is the same group that came up with the nighttime/no muzzle flash vortex.

Bottom line: Hits and knockdowns count.

Making noise doesn't.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by dooper]

Being A United States Marine, I would have to say weapon malfunctions 90% have nothing to do with the government supplying us with defective weapons. Most of the time its lack of care for the weapon and its parts that allow it to fire.

A gas piston firearm would have avoid this altogether. The AK is just another poor Russian knock of superior German manufacutring of the STG44. Leave to the remaining reminants of Mauser to give us the HK416. The true creatores of the gas piston system. Even a carbon upper would have made the funionality of the weapon hold out for a little longer. The carbon15 uppers are more or less heat resistent. It doesnt heat up and bind like aluminum. You dont even need a dust cover, I live in an area that looks just like Afghanistan complete with low desert valley to insanley high mountains where nothing but rocks grow on the tops. Dust does not jam a carbon15 upper. Small dirt particles dont bind on the suface of the inside like traditional metal causing jams. Even without lube the bolt slides like it had greese on it. The only problem I would see with shooting 9 30rdmags that fast is a overheating of the gas tube which would probably sag or cause the rifle to short stroke and the action would either freeze or not cycle right. Any gas piston rifle whou have solve this problem... but leave to the bean counters to say what the troops lives are worth... to hell with thier familes... DAMMIT WE MAKE DICISIONS NOT YOU WE KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR TROOPS!... oh and colts are notorious for jamming like that.