PDA

View Full Version : Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight



Bill D
10-11-2009, 06:49
Oct 11, 8:34 AM (ET)

By RICHARD LARDNER

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.

drshame
10-11-2009, 08:22
This may not be an unbiased, straight story.
AP, maybe even this reporter, has been "played" before by opponents of the M-16 System who have used News Reports to drum up support for their platforms.
There may need to be a Congressional Investigation into these claims if there's enough FACTS to support it.
The AR-15 Board has several good threads on this and the bottom line Masses suspect it could be a combination of poor maintenance, poor lubrication, and decreasing forces with possible limited support...if, in fact, the details are accurate.

UUURah
10-11-2009, 08:37
Just start making M-14's again.

cplnorton
10-11-2009, 08:56
Just start making M-14's again.


+1 The whole reason we did away from the m14 was the weight. Now the M4 with all that crap on it weights just as much as the M14 and is not even in the same class.

I would much rather carry a m14 into combat than the "mattel mouse killer."

Bat Guano
10-11-2009, 02:37
Had a post drafted with links on this but the site logged me out before I could get it up. Not going to write it again, but:

The MSM, as usual, would rather do some speculative bashing--partiuclarly firearms related--than go in depth. There are various reports available on line to include the official reports (FWIW). There was a LOT more involved in this repeat of "Zulu" than whether a given weapons system worked or did not work. The Taliban did a textbook attack, and but for timely artillery and air support, no one would have survived.

Sometimes I think someone wants to sell the government their new whizbang rifle and get rich. And that some parties at the national level would like to see our military neutered. But that would never happen here.

Jim K.
10-11-2009, 03:27
I doubt M14s would have performed any better under those circumstances. No light auto rifle, even the excellent AK-47, is designed to keep up that kind of full auto fire. That being said, the deficiencies of the M16/M4 system have been known for decades, although the failures of the Vietnam period have largely been corrected. The defects of the weapon are matched by the inadequacy of its ammunition when power or long range are called for.

In fairness, its good points are that the weapons are controllable in full auto fire (a primary initial goal of the Army), adequate against enemy personnel at reasonable ranges, and logistics friendly because of light weight of weapons and ammunition.

Still, the Army and the civilian AR-15/M16/M4 claque continue to insist there is nothing wrong with the rifles. Not only does that "see no evil" attitude conflict with real world reports, it does a disservice to American troops. The M16 was adopted after an extensive PR and political campaign, which included outright lies, misinformation and bribery by its manufacturer. It has continued in service because the military has so much money and prestige invested in it that to admit its defects would be to admit that the earlier decision was faulty. As we know, getting any branch of the federal government to admit error is truly "mission impossible", so the M16/M4 will likely be around a while.

Jim

Griff Murphey
10-11-2009, 08:56
I have fired M-16s with the USMC in the mid 70's in Intramural competition, fired rock and roll in ROTC before, and in, the Navy, and owned and shot AR-15s in the years since. But I was never firing in combat, and 12 mags is a lot of ammo. I have no idea how long one of these things will hold out on full auto. I've even heard of M-1s burning up due to high rounds through them during Chinese Human Wave attacks in Korea; damaged so bad they had to be buried. I've had extractors come out of both weapons (once each) - M-1 and M-14 - while charging the weapon.

rider
10-11-2009, 09:12
I think they wrote this story to deflect attention from O's failure to send more troops to Afghanistan. It sounds as though that outpost was under-manned and under-gunned. In conditions like that, weapons will malfunction.

musculus
10-12-2009, 03:14
plus a lot of other less than ideal circumstances (to say the least!).

thank God they had as much fire-support as they did, although it's hard to pre-register artillery fires when you are in the middle of a village (duhh).

http://www.thespecialforce.com/images/Leonard_T/images/Claymore%20Mine%20and%20Willie%20Pete%20Grenade.jp g

Bill D
10-12-2009, 09:30
That was my first thought. I would have double ringed with Claymores. 105's with beehive rounds would have been nice also.

Jim K.
10-12-2009, 12:21
Hi, Bat Guano,

You wrote:

"Sometimes I think someone wants to sell the government their new whizbang rifle and get rich."

Well that is exactly what Stoner and Colt did. The Army wanted a better full auto rifle than the M14, but distrusted the AR-15. So Colt put on the political pressure through Congress but the Army didn't fold until JFK ordered them to "reconsider" the rejection.

Jim

Griff Murphey
10-12-2009, 05:42
I've heard JFK kept an AR-15 on his boat. Could have influenced him...

CharlieEcho
10-13-2009, 07:12
It may be on the political page, but some one posted a detailed report, written by an officer that listened to radio reports during the action. They were in a bad position to begin with. Claymores would have helped in some spots I suppose. The Afghans had one side of the camp and that was overrun first, so not sure how the mines would have been deployed since the enemy came in from that side. The US mortars were pinned down with fire from the high ground. From what I've read, these guys were under so much pressure they were firing without any pause to service their weapons.


That was my first thought. I would have double ringed with Claymores. 105's with beehive rounds would have been nice also.

Bill D
10-13-2009, 06:39
I read the report. Chilling! I suppose they were down in the low country because that's where the village was.

I don't really blame the weapons. Those folks were in a real fix and were putting out all the fire they could muster. This fight lasted for a very long time. Darned near anything would have failed. Bad thing was, the enemy overran a lot of the compound including the helo pad. They couldn't get reinforcements in where they needed them. Also, 45 minutes to get air cover is a VERY long time.

M2HB
10-14-2009, 08:36
The problem that our troops are enduring is not rocket science. The gas tube system will not take continuous fire. The amount of heat that it induces into the chamber is intense. I have burned up plenty of gas tubes in my day. All it takes is a gas piston system to make the AR platform the best in the world.
When Eugene Stoner designed the system he was trying to save weight. Once you increase the barrel diameter (1985, M16A2) then you should have also put on a gas piston since he minor weight savings was no longer an issue. The BAR has been around since 1918 and designers have known that the gas piston is reliable and it keeps the heat out of the chamber.