Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight

[Big Dog]

Somewhat alarming, what model are they using and what's your take?

Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

[edstephan]

They already have a suitable rifle, It's called the M-14. Why the F**k are they not issuing them except to Designated Marksman.



An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan

[Kb! Bob]

They already have a suitable rifle, It's called the M-14. Why the F**k are they not issuing them except to Designated Marksman.



An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan

The sad fact is that its probably a combo of how much cheaper they can get 5.56mm and how many of todays troops, due to the newer friendlier military, cant take 7.62NATO recoil and are still able to "hack it".

[jaron3]

There have been countless complaints about the m16/m4 platform since its' commission started. It is the opinions of many members of the armed forces that I know personally that these weapons are too unreliable for service. Not to mention the fact that the 5.56mm is too light of a round for humans. Someone I know that was in the Marines and is now in the Army, just came back from Iraq a few weeks ago, stated that when he was being trained in this weapon, that the reason the 5.56mm was used is because they wound and not kill. That means that you not only take the wounded out of the battle but also one or two other soldiers that need to carry/drag the wounded to a safe location. I feel that this way of thinking is flawed to say the least.

The U.S. soldiers need a reliable weapon in a bigger caliber to get their job done. There have been many soldiers killed and wounded due to their weapons malfunctioning. I think that the reason soldiers are not complaining very much now is due to the fact that this weapon system is all that they know. They think that this is the way all guns are. Which is sad.

[bogey1]

the question is, what weapon would you use if tshtf? my answer is, my ak47. never failed me. as for my ar's? paper weights.

[40twist]

the question is, what weapon would you use if tshtf? my answer is, my ak47. never failed me. as for my ar's? paper weights.

Same here... I have both ....although not quite as accurate , my AK is what I would grab first.

[1861]

They already have a suitable rifle, It's called the M-14. Why the F**k are they not issuing them except to Designated Marksman.



An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan

Very true , in my opinion as good a battle rifle as ever made .

[Swamp Yankee]

Where to begin. First of the 249 is what is known as the SAW it fires a5.56 round just like the M4. It has been my experience that this weapon fails 80% of the time. Main reasons are Lack of proper Maint. Poor design and during rapid fire you have to change the barrel every 200 rounds. Not a long process but as your main source of suppression fire It does not happen. I have never had one fail on me . I am anal about Maint. also I soak the piss out of it with CLP and lube the bolt with TW25 on top of that. I have fired 3000 rounds over two days with live and blank fire with out a malfunction. Design problems include retaining spring falling out or breaking. The operating system gets jammed with brass shavings from the brass a flaw with the feed system. The design of the firing pin and bolt assembly causes the firing pin opening to wear prematurely leading to a bent firing pin causing light hits and misfires. The heavy short barrel retains too much heat under sustained fire causing cook offs or a runaway gun. The 240b suffers from the same symptoms.
Now the M-4 first off most do not clean there weapons on there down time yet expect them to work. Most M-4's in service are worn out and need replacing. I would say that most problems in the field come from worn or dirty magazines. Soldiers just dont maintain them or know how . As far as finding a replacement there is many good options out there yet most are too expensive you see Colt sells the M-4 To the US for around $600 who can honestly compete with that.
Sincerely Mike Mc currently serving in Iraq as the Company Armorer

[CapnOfMyFate]

What I find curious about this article is that it apparently fails to take into account such variables as user familiarity and skill with the system, whether or not the weapons were maintained properly by the company armourer, whether or not the weapons were properly lubricated, etc. It seems that everyone is just pining for the M4 to fail in order to tout their personal favourite caliber and launching platform, be it the M14, HK416, or whatever tickles their fancy.

When someone takes an assault rifle and tries to use it like a battle rifle, dissatisfaction is the inevitable result. Each has their own strong and weak points, and one should not be considered "superior" overall to the other as they are tools built for specific and disparate tasks.

That being said, I have no use for the M14 platform and do not feel "undergunned" in the least with my Colt LE6920. However, I've also taken the time to familiarize myself with what the 5.56mm round can and cannot do, in addition to what is required to keep the platform running including but not limited to the maintenance and lubrication of said weapon.

The M4 is not the ultimate "problem solver." Neither is the M14.

[Tomcat088]

There have been countless complaints about the m16/m4 platform since its' commission started. It is the opinions of many members of the armed forces that I know personally that these weapons are too unreliable for service. Not to mention the fact that the 5.56mm is too light of a round for humans. Someone I know that was in the Marines and is now in the Army, just came back from Iraq a few weeks ago, stated that when he was being trained in this weapon, that the reason the 5.56mm was used is because they wound and not kill. That means that you not only take the wounded out of the battle but also one or two other soldiers that need to carry/drag the wounded to a safe location. I feel that this way of thinking is flawed to say the least.

The U.S. soldiers need a reliable weapon in a bigger caliber to get their job done. There have been many soldiers killed and wounded due to their weapons malfunctioning. I think that the reason soldiers are not complaining very much now is due to the fact that this weapon system is all that they know. They think that this is the way all guns are. Which is sad.

I've heard lots of friends in the military also say that they don't believe the M4 is the most reliable system for the conditions that we're currently fighting in. If you think that a .223 can't reliably kill a person then you are sadly mistaken or don't have very much experience with putting down animals (the 4 legged or 2 legged kind). The .223 is more than an acceptable caliber to kill humans. The problem is the limitation on the ammunition that they use. Even if our soldiers were carrying 7.62mm rounds, most of the time the extra 2.06mm wouldn't mean the difference between a kill or not. Both rounds simply pass thrugh and keep on going, only causing a 5.56mm hole or 7.62mm hole. The 5.56 doesn't tumble and break at the cannelure the way they show in the manuas, as often as people think. Most of the time a FMJ just shoots directly through it's target. Now at longer ranges with slightly differently designed bullets than what we currently use, that might be the case; but not with the way things are designed now at the distances they're typically engaging in.

I've heard of what you're talking about in terms of wounding soldiers. Maybe that's how someone had to justify it back in the day when they were trying to sell the adoption of that caliber. Either way, I doubt that any of the guys in the sandbox are thinking anything about that. They just do everything they can with what they're given, and sadly it's not even close to the best for the job they're trying to get done. I do think that you're right that lots of guys don't complain because they don't know about other platforms or what is possible. Even if they did complain though, most of them probably feel that nothing will get changed; they understand better than most all the BS politics about that. They know that we'd rather buy more expensive bombs than spend an extra $200 or $300 more per weapon system for our guys. Sad day because more insurgents get killed with rifles than they do with bombs.

Now if our guys were allowed to shoot, and given hollowpoints, ballistic tips or efmj's; we'd see guys dying a lot more from single round hits CM. A hollow point from a 5.56 puts a 7.62 FMJ to shame. IF they were allowed to use this type of ammunition we would see more casualties, maybe on both sides, I won't speculate about that. All I know is that expanding bullets get the job done, and it has nothing to do with "the caliber is too small to kill". .45 ACP FMJ's don't do as well of a job at killing as 9mm hollow points, and this is coming from someone that carries a .45 ACP. I don't have a problem with the 5.56 because it's light recoil, easy to carry lots of ammunition and have lots of ammunition in the rifle. I just hate the fact that we can't use expanding munitions, because it would get the job done.

Either way, that's just my opinion on the matter. They do need a system that performs reliably in the conditions they're in, and I do wish they had better ammunition.