PDA

View Full Version : In 2008 Afghanistan firefight, US weapons failed



PFC Lowe
October 13th, 2009, 03:07 AM
By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer Richard Lardner, Associated Press Writer – Sun Oct 11, 7:01 pm ET
WASHINGTON – It was chaos during the early morning assault last year on a remote U.S. outpost in Afghanistan and Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine had 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 on Oct. 3, 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 potent 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.

Cubbison acknowledges the high rates of fire during the two-hour battle may have led to the failures. But he says numerous problems occurred relatively early in the engagement.

He also said the enemy forces were "experienced, numerically powerful, highly skilled, adequately equipped (and) tactically accomplished."

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.

___

On the Net:

U.S./NATO forces in Afghanistan: http://www.nato.int/isaf/

Army weapons: http://tinyurl.com/yk95j8z

Weapon manufacturer: http://www.colt.com/mil/M4.asp

State Department background on Afghanistan: http://tinyurl.com/5q42z

PFC Lowe
October 13th, 2009, 03:13 AM
So after posting the story, it leads me to my question. Sorry for a second post, but I wanted it distinguished from the story.

For those of you who have been deployed (especially those of you who used your weapon for more than just a range), did you see this problem occuring? Did you hear from others who saw this happen firsthand? I have seen a lot of people complaing about the effectiveness of the 5.56 round, but not much about the reliability of the M4's.

I can see the reasoning for reduced reliability in the M4 vs the M16, but is it really that much of a problem? Most of the people I heard who complained about them was because they require such frequent cleaning in the dusty or muddy environments.

Phantom
October 13th, 2009, 04:40 AM
Make sure you have good magazines. Ones with good springs and you have to keep them clean. The weapon itself has to be kept clean. It is a very easy to operate weapon, but can be high maintenance. If you take care of it, it will work. Take that extra few minutes and PMCS it, it will help out in the long run. The AK47, is a great weapon. The durability and function is hard to beat, and its proven itself over and over. The bigger round vs. the smaller. The AR platform is good, but has to be something that cant be passed over. I experience a lot of double feeds when maintenance and replacement parts are not used. I have been working with the P90 lately. I dont think I like it. SWAT and some specail operation units use it. The trigger guard doesnt fit me. I have larger hands and with gloves, its a tight fit. The new round and that top feed, I am not sold on, maybe it will grow on me.

SteveLord
October 13th, 2009, 11:10 AM
How many decades can we use the "well you need to clean it every 30 minutes for it to be good" excuse? The naysayers use this line until they turn blue in the face. It works great for qualifying, but what about firefights that last 4-12 hours?

The fact is...with regards to reliability, we have an inferior weapon. We're the most advanced military in the world and we still use a nearly 50 yr old rifle system.

We need either a new rifle, or upgrade the current one.

Chaplain4me
October 13th, 2009, 11:16 AM
Pretty sure there is a video on youtube of the creator of the M16, where he says that the AK is a superior weapon. That basically the AK is a machine gun, and the M16 a rifle.

In my home state of VA, you can't even hunt deer with a .223, it has to be .30 or greater.

My father was in Vietnam 63-65, and he swore by his M1 garand.

However, there is also a video, of a guy shooting 1000+ rounds through a M16, and in the middle of it he throws it into a mud puddle, then continues to fire.

SteveLord
October 13th, 2009, 12:04 PM
However, there is also a video, of a guy shooting 1000+ rounds through a M16, and in the middle of it he throws it into a mud puddle, then continues to fire.

A stock M16? or the HK 416?

Chaplain4me
October 13th, 2009, 01:57 PM
? I just looked for it and couldn't find it. Pretty sure it was some type of m16.

I would be interested in hearing about the differences in the function of the m4 in Iraq vs. Afghanistan.

It seems that in Afghanistan, the distances are far greater. Which lends itself toward the M4 over the AK 47. I guess the problem is when they close the distance.

Plus, aren't you trained to shoot at like 300m, and some of the fire fights are from over 500m away?

With a M1a, you would be able to touch someone from 700m reliably.

SGT Bart
October 13th, 2009, 03:52 PM
yeah i'd like to see that video too

AZRGR
October 13th, 2009, 08:02 PM
I know I am in the minority but I have always preferred the M16 over the AK, regardless of how many times I hear about an AK found under a corpse/ran over by a T-72/et al and still functioning.

That being said I agree we are long overdue for either an upgrade or replacement. The M-14 was also a great weapon with significant emotional attachment but it needed to be replaced and now the good old M16 does as well (on an aside my vote would be for the Barrett 98B once the kinks are worked out)


I have been working with the P90 lately. I dont think I like it. SWAT and some specail operation units use it. The trigger guard doesnt fit me. I have larger hands and with gloves, its a tight fit. The new round and that top feed, I am not sold on, maybe it will grow on me.

I want to like Bullpup designs but never really have. I thought the P90 looked Interesting as a replacement for MP5's (say for clearing aircraft). How does it fire and handle in confined space? Does it have less penetrating power?