As for questioning the leadership, as I did in my post, yes, I do, we all do, have a right and a duty, as citizens, to question how our most precious military assets (our young troops) are being led and cared for while in harms way.
The questions I posed were in ref. to how the defensive perimeter had/or had not been prepared and about the quality of leadership of said unit.
There is no bigger threat to the morale and safety of a unit than  unprepared / unqualified leaders or careerist leaders whose only concern is getting their tickets punched for advancement. This to me was a training and leadership problem pure and simple, until we find out otherwise.

Probably a lot less, considering that decimation was a punishment then, one complainer's life probably was worth jack.

Yes, to a degree I am. But more importantly I am blaming the leadership. The M series weapon is not, nor has it ever been designed for the suppressive fire role. Based on his own comments, and reading the AAR's on the SIPR Net they were doing more shooting than aiming. Plain and simple. The weapon was never designed to sustain that kind of rate of fire. No two ways about it. Our guys were in fire fights as big as if not bigger than this and none of my guys got so mad they threw their weapon down or had it lock up due to excessive heat. The fact that they only got 600rds thru the 240 before it went down further illustrates that there is a major training issue when it comes to weapons operations and maintenance in that unit. Same with Jessica Lundsfords unit is Iraq. The weapons went down because they were not maintained properly. She got caught, repeatedly raped and her fellow soldiers got killed. Training, training, training. My shooters go thru a LOT more ammo than these guys annually and they are Guard. And their weapons run fine. Why is that?

Now lets address the biggest thing that jumps out at me from the article. They were constantly inspecting the weapons to make sure they were clean huh? The only way to keep them clean is to keep them dry. Even with the ejection port closed and the mag in, the talcum powder dust gets inside and the grains look like sand paper inside the receiver when the NCO inspects it. So if they were able to maintain the weapons to meet those standards and then got into a firefight like this, they were screwing themselves. When the gun started to malf he should have taken a big bottle of lube and dumped it in the gun to keep it running. Thats what we do to the machineguns. When you put that many rounds thru the gun you are on the verge of the barrel splitting or a more dramatic failure. And I have run an AK like that down range just to see how long it would take to destroy it and in a matter of a few mags on full auto the hand guards were so hot you could not hold them. Not long after they began to burn. It shot out the barrel and accuracy was completely gone. So don't tell me the AK will do any better in every environment. I imagine if I had run it dry it would have seized up too.

I submit that most conventional forces just do not need select fire. the Rhodesian's did it when they began to get low on ammo and their consumption went down while shot to hit ratio went way up. The fact is that most conventional units commanders dont want to spend the money on ammo or time on training to properly train their troops on the effective use of full auto. So it isn't the grunts fault. It is a massive leadership failure.

As for another caliber, rubbish. Go back to the 1 in 12 and a 55gr and you get wonderful results. The Feds did all kinds of really extensive and expensive tests and they confirmed what we knew 30 years ago. You wont see another caliber anytime soon so either jump to 77gr or go back down to 55gr. Anything else is just peeing in the wind coming down the pipe dream.

George-
 
- M4 failure at Wanat.  There's a post on the subject over at the Firearmsblog.  Couple of things came out of there.  One, the max sustained fire rate of the M16/M4 family is 12-15 rounds a minute.  The troop whose weapon jammed said he fired 12 mags (360 rounds) in about the first half hour, which would put him at 12 rounds/minute.  Speculation is that his sense of time may have been a bit off (stress does that) and he was firing faster than max sustained rate.  I don't think sustained rate for any other assault rifle is much higher.  One thing they did actually zero in on is not the rifle, but the ammo.  5.56 has an almost straight-walled case, requiring the case to shrink back after firing for reliable extraction.  As the rifle heats up, it gets more difficult for the case to cool/shrink.  Again, if the weapon is that hot, you're probably not going to get appreciably better performance from any 5.56 rifle. (5.45 and M1943 7.62, hoever, have more case taper, for easier extraction.)
 
The bit about the barrels being white hot has to be an exaggeration.  Steel of that type that's white hot is about 20 degrees from being liquid.  And an AK barrel, - which is much thinner - would probably have heated up even faster than an M4 barrel.
 
I'm not saying the M4 is perfect - it's not.  I've got issues with two major design features, beyond the DI system.  I just think that in that case the media isgetting hysterical about something they don't understand.
 

ATW!
Dave

Originally published 04:45 a.m., October 15, 2009, updated 09:02 a.m., October 15, 2009
U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects


Shaun Waterman THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."

"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.

RELATED STORIES:
• Michigan town lobbies for Gitmo transfers
• Top Treasury posts stay empty in financial crisis
• VA Dept. hospitals botched treatments

Mr. Wheeler, who conducted the study, compared the Obama administration's requests for funds with the $636 billion spending bill that the Senate passed. He discovered that senators added $2.6 billion in pet projects while spending $4 billion less than the administration requested for fiscal 2010, which began Oct. 1.

Mr. Wheeler said that senators took most of the cash for the projects from the "operations and maintenance" or O&M accounts.

"These are the accounts that pay for troop training, repairs, spares and supplies for vehicles, weapons, ships and planes, food and fuel," Mr. Wheeler said.

Raiding those accounts to fund big-ticket projects the military does not want, but that benefit senators' home states or campaign contributors, amounts to "rancid gluttony," he said.

The administration's budget requested $156 billion for the regular O&M account and $81 billion for O&M for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill passed by the Senate cut $2.4 billion from the regular account and $655 million from the war O&M fund.

Senate appropriators insisted that the O&M accounts, despite the cuts, do not shortchange the troops.

"The operation and maintenance title is fully funded," Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii Democrat, said during the debate on the bill. "There is no shortage. ... The committee is deeply concerned that the critical operational needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are met with the finest equipment available."

Money for the Kennedy Institute was inserted by Mr. Inouye and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat. Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, and Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, sought the funding for the World War II museum.

Whitney Smith, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry, said the earmark was "a worthy investment."

"Sen. Kennedy served on the Armed Services Committee for 27 years, where he fought to deliver top-of-the-line body armor and armored Humvees to protect our troops and save lives. Educating Americans about these battles is a core mission for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, which showcases one senator's ability to make a difference," Mr. Smith wrote in an e-mail. "This funding will help the Edward M. Kennedy Institute become one the nation's pre-eminent civic educational institutions, and Sen. Kerry is proud to have worked with Chairman Inouye to make it possible."

Mrs. Landrieu said she was "proud to fight" for money for the World War II museum, which is not just a "monument to the brave men and women who served during World War II," but also "a constant reminder to future generations about the tremendous sacrifice of millions of Americans." She added that the earmarked funds "will help to increase tourism to New Orleans."

Beyond those two earmarks, the largest in the Senate bill are:

- $20 million for Humvee maintenance at an Army National Guard installation in Maine, sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, Maine Republicans. The senators said cuts in the maintenance program proposed by the administration would result in the "layoff of 175 employees in a region already suffering" from the recession.

- $20 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System in Hawaii, requested by Mr. Inouye.

- $25 million inserted by Mr. Inouye for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network. Mr. Inouye's Web site says the health care program "supports applied research, development and deployment of technology to improve access and the quality of care to service members, military families and impacted communities."

Laura Peterson, of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan spending watchdog, told The Washington Times, "Earmarks like these take money away from other defense programs that the Defense Department actually wants. While military health care is certainly a worthwhile venture, it's hard to see how a program located in Hawaii that openly favors Hawaii-based industries guarantees [the Department of Defense] the best value for such an exorbitant price tag."

Mr. Inouye had a total of 35 earmarks worth more than $206 million in the final bill, and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, sponsored 48 worth $216 million.

Mr. Cochran defended earmarking as part of Congress' responsibility to direct government spending.

"I am not ready to cede the power of the purse to any administration," he told The Times in an e-mail. "It is vested by the Constitution in the Congress." He added that appropriators had "reviewed the budget request very carefully, conducted public hearings and reported the appropriation bills that the committee thinks will serve the public interest."

In addition to the $2.6 billion in earmarks, the bill includes $2.5 billion for 10 Boeing C-17 cargo planes that the military says it does not need, and $1.7 billion for an extra DDG-51 destroyer not requested in the Pentagon's budget proposal.

Mr. Coburn mounted a rear-guard action on the Senate floor to try to restore some of the money to its original purpose. One proposed amendment restored $100 million to the accounts by correcting the economic projections used in the bill to estimate future costs. That passed, but other amendments to prevent the use of O&M money to fund earmarks were soundly defeated.

Mr. Wheeler said senators had raided O&M accounts to pay for narrowly targeted projects in every budget since 2002, with dire results for troops on the front lines.

"Air Force and Navy combat pilots training to deploy are getting about half of the flying hours they got at the end of the Vietnam War," he wrote in his analysis. "Army tank crews get less in tank training today than they did during the low-readiness Clinton years."

Mr. Wheeler told The Times that the figures were drawn from the Pentagon's budget justification.

Mr. Coburn said in May that the Navy had been forced to curtail at-sea training and flying because of a shortfall in 2009 O&M funds.

The White House Office of Management and Budget has called on lawmakers to reverse the cuts.

"These reductions would hurt force readiness and increase stress on military people and equipment," the agency said.

The House approved its version of the bill in July. Ms. Peterson said that lawmakers still could restore the funding in the conference that reconciles the two versions of the bill.

The conference "presents a final opportunity for Congress to take their hands out of the cookie jar and put some dough where it's really needed - protecting our fighting men and women," she said

And why are these people in charge of this committee again?

Everyday, I lose more and more faith in the United States Government.

"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle. It is your killer instinct which must be harnessed if you expect to survive in combat. Your rifle is only a tool. It is a hard heart that kills. If your killer instincts are not clean and strong you will hesitate at the moment of truth. You will not kill. You will become dead Marines and then you will be in a world of sh** because Marines are not allowed to die without permission. Do you maggots understand?"
                                                         - GySgt Hartman, "Full Metal Jacket"

In addition to the $2.6 billion in earmarks, the bill includes $2.5 billion for 10 Boeing C-17 cargo planes that the military says it does not need, and $1.7 billion for an extra DDG-51 destroyer not requested in the Pentagon's budget proposal.

The C-5s are gone? I see plenty whenever i drive through Dover, DE.