|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 07/14/2003 1:31:45 AM PDT by xzins
U.S. forces rolled over the Iraqi military in just weeks.
The plans seemed flawless, and the courage of the soldiers and Marines unflappable.
But with the dust settling — and the adrenaline rush of battle now subsiding — military officials are finding some weapons performed as advertised. Others, however, let troops down when they needed them most.
Army and Marine officials recently released after-action reports compiling what was right and what was wrong about the small arms with which troops squared off against Iraqi forces. Soldiers and Marines rated the rifles and pistols they carried into battle, and not all got perfect scores.
Soldiers and Marines relied on variants of the M-16 rifle. The M-16, in service since the early days of the Vietnam War, was highly criticized then as unreliable, often jamming during firefights. Soldiers who participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan also complained the M-4 variant, a shorter version of the M-16, lacked what they needed in combat.
In Iraq, reviews were mixed.
Most soldiers carried the M-4 into battle in Iraq and “were very satisfied with this weapon,” according a report from the Army’s Special Operations Battle Lab. “It performed well in a demanding environment, especially given the rail system and accompanying sensors and optics.”
Marines carried the older and larger M-16A2 rifles, but a report from the Marine Corps Systems Command Liaison Team stated: “Many Marines commented on desire for the shorter weapon vice the longer M-16s.”
One Marine told the team that the shorter rifle would have been better in confined urban battle. Some also said the smaller rifle would have been easier to handle when climbing in and out of trucks and armored vehicles.
“Several Marines even opted to use the AK-47s that had been captured from Iraqi weapons caches,” the Marine report stated. “Others were trading rifles for pistols to go into buildings to allow for mobility in confined spaces.”
Marine Corps officials announced late last year that infantry forces would soon switch from the M-16A2 to the M-16A4, a heavier-barreled version of the long rifle with a rail system like the M-4. Stocks of the weapons, however, arrived in Kuwait too late to be fielded and sighted for battle. Most stayed in storage, but some weapons were delivered to Marines under a plan to initially field one per squad.
A number of M-16A4 rifles, fitted with a 4X scope, were given to Marine rifleman. The combination, Marines said, allowed them to “identify targets at a distance, under poor conditions, and maintained ability to quickly acquire the target in close-in environment[s].”
But not all soldiers and Marines were enamored with the performance of their rifles. Complaints centered on lack of range and reliability problems.
“The most significant negative comment was reference [to] the M-4’s range,” the Army report stated. “In the desert, there were times where soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range.”
Safety was another concern. The M-4’s bolt can ride forward when the selector switch is on safe, allowing the firing pin to strike a bullet’s primer.
“Numerous soldiers showed us bullets in their magazines that had small dents in the primer,” the Army report said.
Reliability complaints also found fault with the oil soldiers and Marines used to clean their weapons. In the dusty, sandstorm-plagued battlefields of Iraq, weapons became clogged with sand, trapped by the heavy oil, called CLP.
Several Washington Post articles recalling the night the 507th Maintenance Company was ambushed recounted moments when soldiers in the convoy, including Pfc. Jessica Lynch, battled their weapons to continue fighting Iraqi irregular forces.
“In the swirling dust, soldiers’ rifles jammed,” one article reported. “Pfc. Patrick Miller, 23, from suburban Wichita, began shoving rounds into his rifle one at a time, firing single shots at enemies swarming all around.”
“We had no working weapons,” Sgt. James Riley told The Washington Post. “We couldn’t even make a bayonet charge — we would have been mowed down.”
The Army’s after-action found more soldiers unhappy with CLP.
“The sand is as fine as talcum powder,” the report stated. “The CLP attracted the sand to the weapon.”
Unlike the soldiers’ reports after Afghanistan, Marines in Iraq said the 5.56 mm round fired from the M-16 “definitely answered the mail” and “as long as shots were in the head or chest, they went down.” The Marine reports said many were initially skeptical of the small rounds’ performance against the heavier 7.62 mm round fired from AK-47s. There were reports of enemy being shot and not going down, but most were referencing non-lethal shots on extremities.
Still, “there were reports of targets receiving shots in the vitals and not going down. These stories could not be described, but are of the rare superhuman occurrences that defy logic and caliber of round.”
The report said Marines asked for a heavier-grained round — up to 77 grains.
The M-16 series of rifles fires a 55-grain bullet, a projectile that weighs slightly more than three-and-a-half grams. Some servicemembers believe a heavier-grained bullet would carry more energy downrange, creating greater knockdown power.
Both soldiers and Marines also noted problems with the M-9 9 mm pistol.
“There was general dissatisfaction with this weapon,” the Army report said. “First and foremost, soldiers do not feel it possesses sufficient stopping power.”
Soldiers asked for a tritium glow-in-the-dark sight for night firing.
But soldiers and Marines alike railed against the poor performance of the M-9 ammunition magazines.
“The springs are extremely weak and the follower does not move forward when rounds are moved,” the Marine report stated. “If the magazine is in the weapon, malfunctions result.”
Soldiers complained that even after they were told to “stretch” the springs and load only 10 rounds instead of the maximum 15, the weapons still performed poorly. Lack of maintenance was determined not to be the cause.
“Multiple cleanings of the magazine each day does not alleviate the problem,” the Marine report stated. “The main problem is the weak/worn springs.”
Still, Marines wanted more pistols to back up their rifles, especially in urban environments, according to the report.
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
These were just some of the comments soldiers and Marines had for teams of researchers who fanned out across the battlefields in Iraq to find out which weapons were what the troops needed and which ones weren’t up to snuff.
The war in Iraq tested not just the soldiers and Marines on the ground, but their gear as well. Two after-action reports from a Marine Corps Systems Command Team and an Army Special Operations Battle Lab collected comments recently to rate everything from uniforms to weapons.
Here’s what troops had to say about their weapons:
M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon
Soldiers found this light machine gun to be exactly what they needed. They fielded a version with a short barrel and forward pistol grip that soldiers loved.
“It provided the requisite firepower at the squad level, as intended,” the Army report stated. “The short barrel and forward pistol grip allowed for very effective use of the SAW in urban terrain.”
Soldiers also lauded the soft ammunition pouches as an improvement over the previous hard plastic pouch. Still, they said, there is room for improvement.
They said a better design for stowing the bipod legs is needed when using the pistol grip. Open bipod legs made urban movement difficult, the report said. The soldiers also rated the smaller 100-round pouch better than the 200-round pouch, in which linked ammunition became tangled.
Marines said the SAW they fielded was “worn out and apparently beyond repair,” the report said. “Many Marines are duct taping and zip tying the weapons together.”
Marine reconnaissance units requested a “parasaw” — a shortened version of the M-249 SAW designed for close-quarters combat and used by special operations units. Infantry units wanted a version with a collapsible butt stock.
M-240 machine gun
Marines who gave the first real-world test to the M-240G, the heavier successor to the old M-60 machine gun, weren’t disappointed.
“Marines who did not know what to expect were extremely impressed with effects on target,” the report said.
Soldiers, too, were impressed with their version, the M-240B. “Soldiers have great confidence in this weapon,” the Army report stated. “The vast majority of comments were positive.”
Still, soldiers said, some improvements could be made. Among their suggestions: a lighter tripod, and collapsible bipods like the M-249 SAW.
M-203 grenade launcher
Soldiers thought the M-203 grenade launcher attached to the M-16 was the “weapon of choice for combat.”
They praised the 40 mm grenade’s performance, but said it could have been more effective had troops been given more training with it.
The soldiers found that keeping a round in the chamber, ready to fire, was unsafe; they opted to keep the weapon empty until needed.
When soldiers did need the grenade launcher, they wanted a better round, especially for urban combat. “Some mentioned the need for a buckshot-type round,” the Army’s report said.
Marines, however, asked for something more like what enemy Iraqi forces carried: a rocket-propelled grenade, which had a range beyond what the M-203 could offer. The Marine report stated that the desire stemmed from the rocket-propelled grenades having been the most effective weapon used against them.
Shotguns
Both soldiers and Marines preferred shotguns for breaching doors. The Marine report said many doors in Iraq were heavy steel and reinforced with cross bars, making battering rams ineffective.
“Most agreed that, at a minimum, small units need to have a shotgun to breach the doors,” the Marine report said.
Soldiers felt the breaching shotgun could be shortened, according to the Army report. Some soldiers replaced the stocks with purchased pistol grips, and many said they would have preferred “sawed-off” versions.
Marines, in their report, said the six shotguns issued per battalion were not enough. They wanted one per squad and opted to use slugs over 00 buckshot, which they reported didn’t work well.
Some of the best gear soldiers and Marines used in Iraq was paid for out of their own pockets.
That’s according to recent after-action reports published by the Army’s Special Operations Battle Lab and a Marine Corps Systems Command Team. Researchers from both services interviewed soldiers and Marines in locations across Iraq to learn what worked well and what needs more work.
Simple things such as uniforms and boots issued by Uncle Sam weren’t up to snuff, the troops reported. Turns out some of the best gear they had, they bought themselves.
Rifle slings
The over-the-shoulder look for rifles wasn’t good enough for U.S. troops. The two-point configuration, in which the sling connects at the butt stock and just forward of the hand guards, didn’t allow for easy access to a weapon when it was needed most.
The three-point sling, howver, connects the rifle to the soldier by connecting to the butt stock, the receiver and close to the sights. The configuration allows the rifle to hang free when not in use and the slings don’t entangle when the weapon is raised to fire.
Some Marine and Army units purchased “three-point” slings with unit funds. In other units, soldiers and Marines often ponied up the money to get their own.
“Soldiers are purchasing their own slings because the issued variant does not provide the flexibility or comfort they require,” the Army report stated. It added that soldiers felt the three-point slings “allowed the weapon to be slung on their back or hung on their chest so they could respond to contact faster.”
The Marine report said Marines requested a three-point sling “be issued with each M-16A2.”
Holsters
Dissatisfaction with the current M-9 9 mm holster was so strong that the Army report said plainly, “The issued 9 mm holster is not used.”
The leather shoulder holsters didn’t hold up well in the sandblasted Iraqi environment. An alternative holster clipped on a load-bearing vest didn’t fare much better.
“If the 9 mm is your personal weapon, you don’t want to have to always wear your LBV in order to have your weapon with you,” the report said.
The alternative most troops preferred came in the form of “drop holsters,” bought with personal funds from commercial outlets. Marines paid up to $65 for holsters that looped to the belt and strapped around the leg from companies such as Special Operations Equipment.
Marines also bought “phone-cord” style lanyards — cords designed to keep the pistol connected to the body.
Global positioning systems
Soldiers and Marines alike preferred commercial global positioning systems to the military’s precision lightweight GPS receiver.
“As widely known, many soldiers purchase their own GPS systems rather than use the PLGR,” the Army report said. The Marine report showed that entire units bought smaller commercial GPS units for their Marines. “The commercial market produced small, lighter and more easily used GPS,” it said.
Uniforms
Soldiers wanted their desert-camouflaged uniforms with pockets on the sleeves, much like the new Marine Corps’ digital Marine Pattern uniform.
“Soldiers realize they will wear the IBA (Interceptor Body Armor) in almost all environments from now on,” the report stated. “The pockets on the front of the DCU are all but useless.”
To solve the pocket problem, many soldiers took matters into their own hands.
“Many soldiers have already had a tailor sew pockets on their sleeves,” the Army report stated.
Soldiers even suggested a similar move for trouser pockets — moving them to the front of the leg — because gas masks block pockets on the thighs.
Boots
Soldiers complained the desert combat boots’ soles were too soft and held in too much moisture. They said the soles were “easily damaged by the terrain.”
Some soldiers had their boots resoled with commercial Vibram, with mixed success. But they also found the boots lacked ventilation, preferring a boot with holes, such as the jungle boot, to allow moisture to escape. Soldiers also said the desert boots were too tight.
“Many soldiers did not use the bottom set of lace holes to reduce pressure on the top of their feet,” the Army report stated.
Although the Marine Corps didn’t field comments about the boots issued to Marines, the Army report noted “the Marine Corps Desert Boot has a very good reputation.”
Safety was another concern. The M-4’s bolt can ride forward when the selector switch is on safe, allowing the firing pin to strike a bullet’s primer.“Numerous soldiers showed us bullets in their magazines that had small dents in the primer,” the Army report said.
Reliability complaints also found fault with the oil soldiers and Marines used to clean their weapons. In the dusty, sandstorm-plagued battlefields of Iraq, weapons became clogged with sand, trapped by the heavy oil, called CLP.
Both soldiers and Marines also noted problems with the M-9 9 mm pistol.
The over-the-shoulder look for rifles wasn’t good enough for U.S. troops. The two-point configuration, in which the sling connects at the butt stock and just forward of the hand guards, didn’t allow for easy access to a weapon when it was needed most.
I prefer the M-1 Garand (.30-O6) or the M-1A - also known as M-14 (.308/7.62mm) with a match grade barrel. Ammunition is heavy to carry in the field, but I think they did the job better. General Patton called the Garand the greatest weapon of war ever invented for a reason.
Also, due to complaints, Ranger medics were at one time being issued HK MP5s instead of that horrible M-16 carbine. I loved that little beauty, it was so easy to carry on a sling with the heavy medic pack, gave me great close quarters firepower and I could have it right there slung over my shoulder at the ready when treating a patient.
I think this is a belief that comes largely from the fact that, toward the end, many of the .45s in the military's inventory were so old that they had simply gotten worn out. Anyone who wants to see what the .45 ACP is capable of need only attend an NRA bullseye competition or IPSC match.
As for recoil, it's really not a very hard kicker. Where it got that reputation is beyond me. Any problems with it are likely due to improper grip and stance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.