Did Weapons Fail U.S. Troops During Afghanistan Assault?

[gallbrick]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563883,00.html



WASHINGTON —  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.

[TommyGunn]

"The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for ...."

Hmmmmm ...
The AR platform seems to want to be kept clean -- more so than the AK.
Maybe they were using weapons nearing the end of their useful life ... ...   

I don't mean to appear to diminish these soldiers' complaint, but there are always soldiers who complain about their weapons.  I recall reading a letter to the editor of a gun magazine which had undoubtedly run a review of the M-1 Garand in its previous issue; the letter was from a WW2 vet who claimed the Garand he was issued was too heavy, jammed too often, and he was always having to 'shake out all the stamped junk.'  He then claimed he was transfered and issued an M-1 Carbine ... which he loved.   Should I repeat all the WW2 and Korean War era soldiers' complaints on the Carbine?

Guns do fail.  And car batteries go dead.  And tires go flat.
Sure in combat a failure can be especially bad -- people can die!  Which argues for better gun maintainance in quiet times.
But I don't know what happened in this particular instance ... ...


The AR battle history is four decades old.  It had a lot of teething problems that were rectified in the 1960s.
It should be a fairly reliable weapon when well maintained.

The biggest general complaint I have heard is the desire for a more hard hitting round than the 5.56mm. Nato.
 

[Old Trooper]

Effectiveness:

An April 2002 presentation by the US Army Natick Soldier Center presented by LTC Charlie Dean and SFC Sam Newland reported on lessons learned from M4 use in Afghanistan (such as use during Operation Anaconda):

    * 90% of soldiers reported confidence in the weapon.
    * 20% were dissatisfied with its ease of maintenance.
    * 34% of soldiers reported that their M4's handguards rattle and become excessively hot when firing.
    * 15% reported that they had trouble zeroing the M68 reflex sight.
    * 35% added barber brushes and 24% added dental picks to their cleaning kits.
    * Soldiers reported the following malfunctions:
          o 20% reported double-feeding.
          o 15% reported feeding jams.
          o 13% reported that feeding problems were usually due to magazines.

Soldiers requested the following changes:

    * 55% requested the firearm be made lighter
    * 20% requested a slightly larger magazine

 2007 dust test

In the fall of 2007, the Army tested the M4 against three other carbines in "sandstorm conditions" at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: the Heckler & Koch XM8 rifle, Fabrique Nationale de Herstal SOF Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the Heckler & Koch HK416. Ten of each type of rifle were used to fire 6,000 rounds each, for a total of 60,000 rounds per rifle type.The M4 suffered far more stoppages than its competitors: 882 stoppages, 19 requiring an armorer to fix. The XM8 had the fewest stoppages, 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones, followed by the FN SCAR with 226 stoppages and the HK416 with 233.The Army was quick to point out that even with 863 minor stoppages—termed "class one" stoppages which require 10 seconds or less to clear and "class two" stoppages which require more than ten seconds to clear—the M4 functioned well, with over 98 percent of the 60,000 total rounds firing without a problem. The Army said it planned to improve the M4 with a new cold-hammer-forged barrel to give longer life and more reliable magazines to reduce the stoppages. Magazine failures caused 239 of the M4's 882 failures. Army officials said the new magazines could be combat-ready by spring if testing went well.
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************
The AK 47 or 74 requires far less cleaning. Just my take on it. I have carried and used the "as issued" M4 and the "as issued" M9 pistol. Both should have been
replaced with better by now.

[GeorgeHill]

The desert conditions are the worst for any weapon.  But running a gun so hot that you can't charge it... wow.  That shows the intensity of the battle.  Any weapon could fail in such conditions, but the M-4 is the most prone to it.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158468,00.html
Yes, we need a new rifle.  And we need a new Cartridge for that new rifle.   Masada's in 6.8 would be epic.

[RevDisk]

The AK 47 or 74 requires far less cleaning. Just my take on it. I have carried and used the "as issued" M4 and the "as issued" M9 pistol. Both should have been replaced with better by now.

M4 ain't bad.  I prefer the old M16A2, but I'm an odd person.  The M9 I never liked.

I know 90% of the troops liked M16/M4 well enough.  But I would have included the question "Have you fired any service rifles other than the M16/M4?"  If literally the only rifle you've fired in your life is the M16/M4, of course you're gonna think it's fine.  One has no comparison for reference.  

Personally, my favorite rifle is the Rk 95.  I literally nearly started crying when I had to hand it back.  I offered to trade my commanding officer (or any officer, actually) to the Finnish for one.  Beautiful, beautiful rifle.  When we first met up with the Finns and started doing the pre-firing "class" on how to operate the various weapons, we naturally covered SPORTS in detail.  When it was their time to teach us the weapon, we noticed they failed to teach us their version of SPORTS.  So we asked them about it.  They frown, huddled up, and started rapid fire Finnish.   One of the privates gets an inspired look and gibbers something to their CO, who lights up as well.  He explains they thought they were having a language problem, but Private so and so figured out what we were asking about.  We clever Americans are obviously aware that during arctic warfare conditions, warm up tents are used to keep soldiers from getting hypothermia, going from hot to cold so rapidly can cause significant ice builds in the rifle, and must be cleared.  Private So and So will now demonstrate proper Finnish method of deicing rifle.  Private so and so puts the butt of his rifle on the ground, tilts it some specific angle, and then JUMPKICKS THE FRIGGIN CHARGING HANDLE.  I mean, both feet off ground, full body weight jump kick.  Which was the first time I screamed like a little girl in front of a foreign military.

I paired up with Private so and so, and used my sneaky American skills of interrogation.  He meantions he's from the University of Helsinki and a computer geek there, and I ramble on about linux to cleverly gain his trust.  When he's suckered in, I lean over and ask him quietly if he's BS'ing me on how rarely the Rk 95 jams.  He frowns, glances around and quietly acknowledges that his Rk 95 did jam once.  A year ago, one of his mags got run over by a truck.  When he fired at the range, his rifle did jam once and the magazine was tossed.  Before and since, never a problem.  

The M16/M4 is fine and probably "good enough".  But we can and should be able to do better.

[Harm]

Rev just looked up the RK 95.  Looks like a galil had it's way with a krink.  I like it! 

I think at this point, soldiers are losing their lives, and it sounds from talking to a few friends (I know, it's anecdotal) losing confidence in the M16/M4 platform.  I think the military should have open competitions regarding the next rifle for the US.  And lets test the hell out of it!  As far as integration goes, it shouldn't be to hard to start shipping them in at the division level and disbursing them to front line troops first and work your way backwards.

I think for future looking sakes, the military should include a section for suppressor fire testing, wet, frozen, dusty, muddy, run over, dropped, burned etc.  Basically every test you can imagine a soldier having to survive in.  We have the engineers, lets put them to work! 

[FluffyHitman]

Rev just looked up the RK 95.  Looks like a galil had it's way with a krink.  I like it! 

The Galil was actually based off of the RK62, which was updated to the RK95. That's why they look so similar.

To add to what Tommy mentioned, I remember someone on THR a couple years back posting a report on complaints from soldiers about their weapons. I think it was Tony something or other, guy runs a website on guns, tactical something-or-other. They complained that their guns were too heavy, too unreliable, and lacked stopping power. They were absolutely demanding something better to replace their M14s.

[tokugawa]

An AK by any other name is still an AK.  Had a Valmet 71 with folding metal tube stock once. A very ,very good shooting gun.

[FluffyHitman]

An AK by any other name is still an AK.

How far do you take that? In that case, it could be argued that the M14 is a garand, or that a G36/L85/XM8/SAR-21/SAR-80/SR-88/Type 89/SAR-87/M17S is really an AR-18, or going back farther, an SVT-40?

How about this? http://world.guns.ru/assault/as26-e.htm Is that an AK?

They are all fire-lances to me.

[GeorgeHill]

How about this? http://world.guns.ru/assault/as26-e.htm Is that an AK?

http://world.guns.ru/assault/vektor-cr21-3.jpg
Yup.  That is an AK.  Straight up Kalish in a fancy stock.

[FluffyHitman]

Shhh, I was going to see if his definition of it being the same gun revolved around it looking similar, rather than like something out of Halo.

[tokugawa]

The main differences in the Finnish rifles seem to be in the sights, safety,and a few other minor changes, - the operating system is AK all the way. To say it is not an AK would be like saying an M4 is not a Stoner design, or a new custom 1911 is not a JMB design, because it is not mil spec. .  The Galil, the Finnish guns, I think the South Africans had an AK pattern rifle, they all use the same basic design.
  What is facinating to me is how much more accuracy can be wrung from an AK, like the Valmet-  The standard refrain whenever the subject of accurizing an AK is raised is, why bother?. It is an AK.  I don't know, ask the Finns....

[GeorgeHill]

Mercury Sable, Ford Taurus... Ford Contour, Ford Mondeo... Camaro, Firebird... Silverado, GMC whatever... yada yada yada... same things were different badges.  That Valmet, it's an AK that looks a little different.  SIG 550 series... its an AK that looks different.

[FMJ]

I have always told my self that the Finns make a good [many] rifle.

[Powderman]

So, what is the exact problem?

Look at, and read, the article again.  You'll notice some fantastic round counts:  600 rounds from a 7.62 machine gun before it malfunctioned.  That's 6 bandoleers, folks.  That comes from utilizing NOT rapid, sustained, or cyclic fire, but spray and pray.  That comes from jamming the muzzle in the general direction of the enemy and shooting into the air.

""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."

12 magazines?  How many times did the soldier move--as in shoot, move, communicate? 

That's 360 rounds or more, folks.  Guess what?

Almost ANY weapon will start burping and farting if you put that many rounds through it in a short period of time.

Back to the machine gunners.  I would be curious to see how many of them had range cards ready; how many of them had the weapons mounted on T&E; how many of them USED the T&E, firing 5-7 round bursts while giving 3-5 clicks of windage with each burst--or elevation, when searching?

Did they have mortars emplaced?  How about Mk19's, and/or heavy machine guns? 

If they had any time to build an emplacement or defensive perimeter, where were the NCO's, making darned sure that those soldiers were building proper fighting positions, with secondary and even tertiary positions; clearing out their sectors of fire, mapping out kill zones and covering dead space with indirect fire weapons?

Did they prepare for the night ambush, with tanglefoot, battlefield illumination or antipersonnel/barrier denial ops?

I know the truism: "The best laid plans and order of battle go to crap after the first shot is fired."  But there are a couple of things that jump out in the story.  Shooting until your barrels are WHITE HOT?  That's not a weapons failure, that's a training failure!  Are they mounting wave attacks, where you HAVE to shoot full cyclic to keep thousands of troops from over-running your position?  Or did someone throw a few rounds in your direction, and you responded with three full magazines, mostly in the air, and DEFINITELY not aimed?

There is something wrong over there, folks--AND GUESS WHAT?  IT AIN'T THE WEAPONS.

[FluffyHitman]

Mercury Sable, Ford Taurus... Ford Contour, Ford Mondeo... Camaro, Firebird... Silverado, GMC whatever... yada yada yada... same things were different badges.  That Valmet, it's an AK that looks a little different.  SIG 550 series... its an AK that looks different.

The cars you listed are the exact same, however (barring the badge and the headlights on the camaro/firebird), I think that the more apt comparison would be the bodies. It's a B-body, it's an F-body, that doesn't make the cars in the platform the same, it just means they are based off of the same general design. Saying that such and such is just an AK by another name is saying that the only thing different between a cheap century Romy build or some piece of rust kicking around Africa and a Krebs, Beryl, or Valmet is the name. Little changes eventually bring an object to the point of being completely different (think the Ship of Theseus paradox if they started turning it into an Iowa-class battleship), recognizing the steps between the two makes it much less confusing when all of a sudden you find yourself lugging ammo for the 16" guns onto what you would have sworn was an old Greek boat.

TL;DR, I find it annoying when people ignore the little differences.

[D5CAV]

I posted this on another site as well.

Just because a weapon gets hot is not an excuse for it to stop working.

My weapon needs to go "bang" every time.  That's why my weapon is an M14 and not an M16/M4.

The US Army doesn't need a new weapon.  It needs to go back to an old weapon.

Reliability - The following description serves to demonstrate the ruggedness and reliability of the M14 rifle.  The M14 rifle was tested for sustained fire at Fort Benning, GA.  In particular, one M14 rifle was fired continuously at a rate of sixty rounds per minute for 3080 rounds.  The test ended when the chambered rounds started pre-igniting because of the hot barrel.  The barrel never failed to stabilize the exiting bullets.  The front end of the stock and the hand guard eventually burst into flames but the rifle continued to fire.

[Skeptic49]

I posted this on another site as well.  Just because a weapon gets hot is not an excuse for it to stop working.  My weapon needs to go "bang" every time.  That's why my weapon is an M14 and not an M16/M4.

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but the M14 did not handle heavy fire well at all.  When it got hot the difference in metal expansion between the floating piston and the housing caused hang ups, long before the barrel glows.

Geoff
Who notes there was a company that adapted the M14 to the M60 gas system, for sustained full auto fire.

[Powderman]

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but the M14 did not handle heavy fire well at all.  When it got hot the difference in metal expansion between the floating piston and the housing caused hang ups, long before the barrel glows.

Geoff
Who notes there was a company that adapted the M14 to the M60 gas system, for sustained full auto fire.

But I will note this--even though I am a fan of the M16/M4, let me point out that the M14 does NOT spray hot gas back into the receiver upon firing.

Fire 200 rounds out of the M16?  Major cleanup.
Fire 200 rounds out of the M14?  Pull and wipe out the gas piston, wipe out the inside of the gas cylinder, patch out the barrel with solvent patch, brush and clean patch, and wipe off the bolt face.  Done.

[g.willikers]

More unhappiness:

http://defense-training.com/quips/27Sept09.html

[Ishpeck]

I wish people wouldn't disparage the M16 (a real, honest-to-GhazPORK rifle) by always lumping it in with the M4 (a crappy carbine that robs .223/5.56 of its needed velocity).  

M4 is the retarded little brother of the AR family.  Apologists for the AR-15 design (who make valid points) should do the action/design a favor and stop apologizing for the M4's idiocy.

[RD]

Not really a question, weapons did fail Troops in Afghanistan. The reasons why they failed are interesting, and spray and pray method of employment would probably account for the failures based on the material presented.
I would be the first to admit the AR-15 series is not the "Best" weapon that the military could employ, and have always thought 5.56x45mm was really not suited to most combat scenarios in areas of range and lethality. I have yet to really understand why the military can't give up the idea of a Universal Combat Rifle, one rifle for them all. Understanding if troops are deployed in a desert, with a weapon which was really not suited to desert warfare it is very likely that the weapon will fail. In an artic enviroment a weapon suited for desert combat might well fail, although the AK format seems to be the most reliable in both desert and actric climates, as well as useful in tropical jungles. The examples would the Finnish Valmet, IMI Galil, South Africa's R-4, etc.
Maybe if we could get an AK to fire 6.8mm or 6.5 Grendel we might have something.
Just a thought.

[RevDisk]

An AK by any other name is still an AK. 

Even when it's as or more accurate than a stock M16A2 ?   

[strangelittleman]

So, what is the exact problem?

Look at, and read, the article again.  You'll notice some fantastic round counts:  600 rounds from a 7.62 machine gun before it malfunctioned.  That's 6 bandoleers, folks.  That comes from utilizing NOT rapid, sustained, or cyclic fire, but spray and pray.  That comes from jamming the muzzle in the general direction of the enemy and shooting into the air.

""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."

12 magazines?  How many times did the soldier move--as in shoot, move, communicate? 

That's 360 rounds or more, folks.  Guess what?

Almost ANY weapon will start burping and farting if you put that many rounds through it in a short period of time.

Back to the machine gunners.  I would be curious to see how many of them had range cards ready; how many of them had the weapons mounted on T&E; how many of them USED the T&E, firing 5-7 round bursts while giving 3-5 clicks of windage with each burst--or elevation, when searching?

Did they have mortars emplaced?  How about Mk19's, and/or heavy machine guns? 

If they had any time to build an emplacement or defensive perimeter, where were the NCO's, making darned sure that those soldiers were building proper fighting positions, with secondary and even tertiary positions; clearing out their sectors of fire, mapping out kill zones and covering dead space with indirect fire weapons?

Did they prepare for the night ambush, with tanglefoot, battlefield illumination or antipersonnel/barrier denial ops?

I know the truism: "The best laid plans and order of battle go to crap after the first shot is fired."  But there are a couple of things that jump out in the story.  Shooting until your barrels are WHITE HOT?  That's not a weapons failure, that's a training failure!  Are they mounting wave attacks, where you HAVE to shoot full cyclic to keep thousands of troops from over-running your position?  Or did someone throw a few rounds in your direction, and you responded with three full magazines, mostly in the air, and DEFINITELY not aimed?

There is something wrong over there, folks--AND GUESS WHAT?  IT AIN'T THE WEAPONS.

You're dead on. I too was wondering, did they have the M240s on a tripod and t&e and did they have FPL & PDF assignments for them, did the indirect fire weapons have registered tgts that worked in conjunction with the natural and man-made obstacles, covering the likely avenues of approach and likely areas the enemy would use for it's own base of fire/fire support and maneuver element?
Also, did the leadership ensure all fighting positions had interlocking fields of fire from all the primary, secondary and supporting positions? Did the leadership maintain control of the troops and ensure fire disipline and issue fire commands?
I generally don't second guess the actions on the frontlines but this to me looks more like a leadership failure than any weapons failure.
I say this from experience, once being an Infantry squad ldr and making both good and bad decisions myself.
Whatever the case I hope some good lessons were learned from the after-action debriefs and not just a lot of passing the buck on on to the weapons.

[mephisto]

There is something wrong over there, folks--AND GUESS WHAT?  IT AIN'T THE WEAPONS.

what is it?