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

[ClickClickBoom]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Very, very, very little of actual infantry firing is directed at specific targets. In vietnam it was something like 300,000rds of small arms ammo fired for every inflicted casualty. Some 85% of all casualties in war are caused by fragments (from mortar/arty/air strikes and grenades).

Not related, but in Viet Nam the sniper was the most round effective weapons system, less than 2 rounds per casualty.
Not quite "One shot, one kill" but close enough compared to the 300,000 round number.
eric

[m21sniper]

1.6rds per enemy soldier killed.

[ClickClickBoom]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

After reviewing the incident I found it encouraging that ours guys seemed to all be firing back. In many past wars the US has had large problems with only a small fraction of the men in each unit actually fighting.

Have you read "On Combat" by Lt.Col. Dave Grossman?
Read that then read "On Killing"
http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316330116
http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920514
eric
Every shooter should read these!

[m21sniper]

Nope, have not read either. Thanks for the reccomendations.

[ClickClickBoom]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

1.6rds per enemy soldier killed.

Cool, didn't know what number came after the decimal point, and didn't wanna make something up! Just knew it was less than 2.0.
eric

[m21sniper]

The number is quoted in "Marine Sniper."

Snipers and SDM's fill a different role than "regular" riflemen or automatic riflemen. They exist to add an aimed fire precision engagement capability to standard US army infantry units. I don't know if the platoon in question in this thread had any SDM's or not.

[MFAFF]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

No offense, but full auto fire sucks dick (the M16A1 was full auto, the 3rd burst of the M-16A2+ is considered an upgrade in the Army's eyes), and an AK will overheat even faster than an AR due to the larger propellant load in each cartridge.

Full auto mode is the real problem....

Originally Posted by m21sniper

The problem is not exhaust gas blowing into the bolt area, the problem is the actual firing of round after round after round in the chamber in a compressed time frame. This causes the chamber walls to heat to the point of cook-off. As far as i know that has nothing to do with the M-16's direct gas operation system.

The heat issue is unrelated to the operating mechanism to a degree(ha-ha)..Certainly using direct application of combustion gas back onto the mechanism does not assit in cooling the chamber area...

Originally Posted by m21sniper

The XM-8 was a totally unneccesary "upgrade", that's why it was shelved. In the end it just didn't offer enough(if anything) over the M-4 to warrant such a drastic change and such a large expenditure of $.

That's an interesting view....the H&K 416 was not selected due to that reason... I gained the impression that the XM-8 was not ordered in quantity because of how it came about after the cancellation of the XM29 and its 'single source' procurement route which lead to Colt, among others rightly contesting the procurement.
However it may well be that it did not represent a sufficient step forward to merit quantity procurement despite is demonstrated increased mechanical reliability over the M4. But that is not to say the M4 is not a good weapon, or that the vast majority of troops are happy with it... but its a stretch to say it is therefore the best out there..

[m21sniper]

We could adopt the greatest latest rifle tommorow, and before it was even fielded in numbers someone would be saying that something else was better.

It's just the nature of the beast i guess.

I have no problem with the XM-8, the HK 416 or the M4. I would take any of them, but if given the choice i would select the M4 over either because i am most intimately familiar with it, and it is is the most combat proven. With the M4 i'd know exactly what i was going to get. The HK 416 has reportedly had problems in Norwegian service, and the XM-8 is really totally unproven. IMO it would be pretty naive to assume it would go into widespread service and not need some significant modifications.

I carried an M-16A1, i thought it was pretty much junk, but the M-16A2 i was issued later was an exquisite weapon. Highly reliable and extremely accurate. The M4 is by all accounts even better.

[austin552]

[cashflyer]

I have fired a lot of rounds from an AKM, an M-16A1, and an A2.
I don't dislike any of these weapons, but I like them for different reasons.

I have not fired either the AK-74 or the M4.


I agree with you that the long range accuracy of the M-16 cannot be matched by the AK. The 7.62x39 is only good to 400 meters (and that may be a generous number). However the 7.62x39, especially with steel core ammo, has better penetration, anti-armor, and anti-equipment characteristics IMO.

This allows the AK to work well in urban environments where it may be desired to shoot through walls, cars, etc.

Long range accuracy is great to have, but the over 3 million battlefield reports from WWI and WWII were analyzed and the conclusion was that most combat takes place at short range. In a highly mobile war, combat teams ran into each other largely by surprise; and the team with the higher firepower tended to win. The number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.


Remember these?




Has the M-4 really advanced much beyond the M-16? Or do you still need a stockpile of CLP to keep them going? If you're not going back to the hotel after each daily patrol, wouldn't you rather have a weapon that is crud-tolerant?

[red-beard]

Camel toe!

[ClickClickBoom]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

The number is quoted in "Marine Sniper."

Snipers and SDM's fill a different role than "regular" riflemen or automatic riflemen. They exist to add an aimed fire precision engagement capability to standard US army infantry units. I don't know if the platoon in question in this thread had any SDM's or not.

I have a copy of "The legend of White Feather", seems Henderson and the publisher "forgot" to give Carlos some cash. The book was published to get Carlos some money and was non profit, to get the maximum cash to Gunny..
Hola
eric

[m21sniper]

I read marine sniper and the follow up whose title escapes me at the moment. I did not read the one you're referring to though. I'll have to keep an eye out for it. He was a truly remarkable individual.

Originally Posted by cashflyer

I have fired a lot of rounds from an AKM, an M-16A1, and an A2.
I don't dislike any of these weapons, but I like them for different reasons.

I have not fired either the AK-74 or the M4.

I've fired M-16A1's and A2s in the service both with and without M203s. I am not really a fan of the M203, it ruins the handling characteristics of the M-16 and greatly amplifies the suck factor of humping the thing.

I own a sweetened up Bushmaster XM-15E2S which is essentially a CAR-15, ie a civilain M-4, and i have shot lots of rounds out of many other CAR-15 variants including the Sig 556 and some sweet Colt HBAR models. I have never actually fired an M-4, but i have read a lot of troops comments on them, and the rifle is almost universally loved.

The M-4 has several modifications as opposed to the civilian CAR-15A2 that it evolved from, most notable of which is a different buffer and an improved feed ramp. There are other small detail changes but i couldn't name them off the top of my head. Mine is insanely accurate and reminded me after the first 3rd group i fired from it why i truly loved my M-16A2. Accuracy. The CAR-15 has been around for decades, they are highly refined weapons that work damn well in my opinion. Opinions vary of course, but that's mine.

I fired full auto AKM's in the military, and have fired all kinds of civilian AK's from all kinds of eastern block countries since. They are what they are. By the way, some troops will tell you over on AR-15.com that they've seen AK's jammed in Iraq and A-stan. The weapon has it's merits, but it's just not what i'm looking for in a rifle.

Originally Posted by cashflyer

I agree with you that the long range accuracy of the M-16 cannot be matched by the AK. The 7.62x39 is only good to 400 meters (and that may be a generous number). However the 7.62x39, especially with steel core ammo, has better penetration, anti-armor, and anti-equipment characteristics IMO.

This allows the AK to work well in urban environments where it may be desired to shoot through walls, cars, etc.

The newer steel core "green tip" M855 round is a much better penetrator at long range than the earlier M193 55gr round was. Inside 50 meters the old M193 actually out penetrates the new round because of it's higher velocity. Either variant will blow right through Class IIIA Armor with ease. It's not exactly a 'bad' penetrating round.

The 7.62x39 round is generally better at tactical penetration but the steel core 139gr military ball round causes a far less severe wound than either M193 or M855, both of which are prone to fragmentation under most conditions.

From the AR-15.com ammo selection section:

Best Choices for Self Defense Ammo

"7.62x39

In discussing 7.62x39 mm FMJ, the question is always which one, as their characteristics are highly variable.

In fact, there is a bit of a controversy brewing in some of the AAR’s coming in from OCONUS on the effectiveness of 7.62 x 39 mm ammunition. Initially, this appears somewhat strange, as there may be more forensic data available regarding wounds caused by the Russian 7.62 x 39 mm FMJ than for any other rifle cartridge. The original 7.62 x 39 mm Russian M43 Type PS 120.5 gr FMJ boat-tail bullet has a copper-plated steel jacket covering a large steel core and a typical muzzle velocity of 2340 f/s. In tissue, it typically travels approximately 9.8 to 10.6" point forward before beginning significant yaw. Most uncomplicated wounds of the torso and extremities have small punctate entrance and exit wounds and exhibit minimal internal tissue disruption since the bullet does not deform or fragment and usually exits before yaw occurs. Total penetration is around 29.1”. WDMET (Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team) collected extensive forensic data on over 700 7.62 x 39 mm gunshot wounds during the Viet Nam war. The predominant feature of this cartridge is the MINIMAL amount of damage it produces in soft tissue wounds, on par with FMJ handgun wounds such as those produced by 9 mm M882 ball. We also have extensive law enforcement data, as this cartridge has been used extensively in illicit activity. For example, in the 17 January 1988 Stockton school shooting, 30 of 35 kids who were shot lived. Of the five that died, all were shot in critical structure--head, heart, spine, aorta and none had damage to any organ not directly hit by a bullet."

------

Civilian high performance expanding ammunition can greatly improve terminal performance, but it comes at the cost of a significant loss of penetration. Conversely, M855 5.56mm wounds much better while still offering performance sufficient to penetrate the US PASGT Kevlar helmet out to 500 meters. An M193 can only penetrate the same helmet to 200 meters, but the light 55gr round almost always fragments and causes a lot of damage.

It's all trade-offs.

And while you may not be able to get through some barriers with a single round of 5.56mm, if you start putting fire on the position most tactical barriers will not remain intact for very long. A 5.56mm SAW can shoot a concrete wall to pieces in very short order. Then again if you are using the right tool for the job your squad's AT-4 gunner will take care of the wall with one shot. Infantry combat is a team 'sport' afterall.

Originally Posted by cashflyer

Long range accuracy is great to have, but the over 3 million battlefield reports from WWI and WWII were analyzed and the conclusion was that most combat takes place at short range. In a highly mobile war, combat teams ran into each other largely by surprise; and the team with the higher firepower tended to win. The number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.

The M-16/M-4 has a higher sustained ROF than the AK-47 and carries a larger ammo load so should be superior in terms of volume of fire.

I do not know what the exact sustained ROF of the AK-74 is but i'd be surprised if it's not comparable to the M-4.

Originally Posted by cashflyer

Has the M-4 really advanced much beyond the M-16? Or do you still need a stockpile of CLP to keep them going? If you're not going back to the hotel after each daily patrol, wouldn't you rather have a weapon that is crud-tolerant?

I used CLP extremely sparingly in my M-16's. I use graphite powder in my XM-15.

The problem with CLP or any wet oil is that it is a magnet for filth and debris. The only weapons we used a lot of break free on were our M-60s and especially our SAW's. As much to cool them as to lubricate them.

I wonder how many of the soldiers in this battle were smart enough to dump their canteens on their rifle barrels and/or squirt CLP directly into their chambers. That'll cool the old girl down real quick.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

BS.

After 40 minutes of getting their a55es chewed to pieces, air support arrived and saved their tailsides. Gee, good thing the Taliban don't have fleets of Apaches on call.....

I find this to be a strange opinion. a single platoon of US troops held out against 200+ highly motivated enemy fighters even despite large numbers of their weapons overheating. Are the US forces supposed to apologize for getting air support? Our forces and our equipment are all designed and fielded in appropriate numbers and ratios to operate as part of a well oiled machine.

Certainly if US forces were not designed to operate with air and artillery support they'd be equipped far differently than they are. They are equipped as they are to operate as part of a team effort to deliver victory on the battlefield, no matter the enemies numerical superiority.

That's exactly what they did.

Brave bastages, all of them. It's good to see the American fighting spirit is alive and well. I would venture to guess that a firefight like that is absolutely terrifying to participate in.

[HardDrive]

I did not mean to disparage the fighting men. They are beyond brave. Heros everyone of them.

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Agreed on all points of accuracy and flesh penetration.

I have not used the M855 round, so I was unaware of it's tactical penetration ability. I will concede that point to the 5.56 without debate.

I guess my work here is done. lol

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by jyl

I suppose you can't handle a firefight as if you were deer hunting.

But suppose you handled a deer hunt as if you were in a firefight?

Spot possible deer, let 'er loose - suppressive fire, crew-served fire, indirect fire, air support - would it work? What would be the ratio of rounds fired to deer taken?

There is a difference - the deer is not trying to kill you!

[m21sniper]

Quick change AR barrels anyone?

[emcon5]

No, this is the answer:



When in doubt, ask John Browning.

[red-beard]

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there