Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight

By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press
40 mins ago [11OCT09]

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.

____________________________________________________________________

Taking this story with a grain of salt because of the "white hot" and "allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute" about the M4. But I think the soldiers have a point, the Stoner system is inherently dirty and flawed, and IMO should've been replaced 40 yrs ago or better.

Thoughts?


Malone

VietNam II

Well I'll bet the insurgents are armed with AK-47s, which operate when filled with dirt and are very reliable.

Maybe our troops should have them as well? All of these high-techno guns sound cool but are failing when they need them most, sounds like.

Is this army that says the M4 is a "quality weapon" the same army that told us Agent Orange was safe to handle? The same army that claimed there was no such thing as a Gulf War Syndrome? The same army that for years said PTSD was just dreamed up by lazy slackers?

Is there a pattern here?

What sort of soldier-fools would go attack AFGHANISTAN, no less, without genuine AK47's for personal protection?

"... and into the Valley of Death rode the 600 men." --The Charge of the Light Brigade, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson


BRING THEM HOME!

Think maybe parts used in manufacturing "quality weapons" could have ben outsourced?

Uhmmm, ones that volunteered for service and then were ordered there? I sure hope you don't feel these folks on the ground over there are the fools?

It's like VN all over again, micro management from afar and the same Mattel look alike toy guns that were problematic 40 yrs ago. Gee, what could go wrong w/ that scenario?

Add in the fact they are apparently short on help and are having to burn mag after mag on full auto.

Both are hard on the hardware and the help.

I would ask that you please show just a small bit of respect for the men and women that VOLUNTEER to lay their lives on the line everyday for you to have the FREEDOM to come on here and call them fools. <_<

That comment was completely uncalled for and way out of line. :downer:

In answer to your question on the AK, one reason is because it's standard MOA is about 3" to 4". The idea in war is to actually hit and kill your enemy, not frighten them. :D

That's what I was thinking too. Where was the fire discipline? :scratch:



Malone

I pulled this post off of a military board I'm on. The soldier that posted it gave me his permission to repost here. The only change I added was a defintion for the acronyms so non-military people would know what they mean. :)

Thanks for posting that, FM. :thumb:



Malone

Malone-
I'm sorry to say I hotly disagree with you about the military actually protecting my freedom. The USA has been at war with somebody every moment of my life, and my freedom from foreign enemies and Government encroachment has been in steady decline since day #1. The pattern is always the same:

First, the CIA destabilizes some foreign government until it can be taken over by U.S. chosen Right Wing thugs, like Pinochet of Chile or the Shaw of Iran. Like Thieu and Ky in Viet Nam, or Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The one thing that virtually ALL of our installed "strong man" puppet governments DO NOT HAVE is the support of their people, so they resort to brutal repression.

Next, the people of these countries rebel against our chosen dictators, so we just HAVE to send in our troops to help the puppets kill their "Communist Insurgents".

Next, our troops start to lose, so our then-current Administration ratchets up the brutality with air strikes and cluster bombs, which reinforce the resolve of local populations to resist.

Next, our generals call for, and get, massive increases in troop strength and funding, in a desperate attempt to conquer the hate they have created against us.

Lastly, we withdraw to another war just before total defeat, with an ever-increasing list of lifetime enemies.

Please show me how the world, or America, or my life, was made safer by military actions in Viet Nam? Cambodia? Thailand? Grenada? Panama? Iraq? Afghanistan? and dozens of little skirmishes elsewhere? The only thing being protected with all of our soldiers' blood is the profit of our munitions industry and the wealth of our installed dictators.

It is a soldier's responsibility to know exactly what he is fighting for. EXACTLY HOW is he protecting Mom and Dad and Sis at home by traveling half way around the world to kill someone else's Mom and Dad and Sis? American soldiers never ask that question. If they did, we would have as few wars as the other countries do, and the few (or none?) wars we did have would actually be in the National Interest: wars of true defense, rather than wars of aggression clothed as something else.

A soldier must be a scholar, willing to study and learn whether a President's enemy is his enemy, also. He is a juror who decides whether following some President's order will use his body and mind in an honorable way. Otherwise, he's just a thug. The great soldiers of history would have seen thru the attempted Iraq conquest as just a small man's personal vendetta, and would have refused to take part in such a dishonorable undertaking. They would have saved their country's money, honor and prestige.

Regarding Afghanistan, any soldier doing just a bit of study would quickly learn that no country has ever conquered Afghanistan. A true soldier would demand to know exactly what he would be fighting for, and exactly how his leaders will fight more brilliantly, and honorably, than all of the many, many who tried and failed in the past. Without proper answers he would honorably refuse to take part in what we now see to have become a civilian-butchering bloodbath. The Afghanis are a simple people, a proud people, a generous people, according to backpackers who have been there. They have done nothing (except refuse an oil pipeline) to warrant our ferocious attack upon their way of life.

If our Military follows that of the Soviet Union into Afghanistan, our country will follow the Soviet Union into the garbage can, also. Count on the worst defeat in American history. "Fools rush in to where wise men fear to tread." Please don't ask me to respect fools following a dishonorable path.

Absolutely infrickingcredible. Whether or not you agree with the mission, in one post you have managed to color every single man and woman in the United States Armed Forces as uneducated fools. I am not going to waste my time or energy by getting in a spam contest with someone who obviously is passionate about their views and cannot, or will not entertain any other views. All I can say is that I think it's a pity you hold those who volunteer in the armed forces in contempt.

The thing that you should consider is that it is the soldier, Marine, sailor, or airman who follows orders based upon decisions made by CIVILIAN leaders. Maybe your anger and contempt are misdirected? They, not the individual soldier, are the ones who make the decisions. And btw, I just conferred with my husband, the four time Iraq vet--he confirmed that he wasn't fighting for you, so rest at ease.

CB, It's simple, there are some people that are warriors and there are some people that are not. You, most likely, are the latter. Nothing wrong with either one. Except the ones' that are not warriors sure seem to complain a lot.

Very well said HF. I agree with you.

CB said "What has Obama accomplished? Very little at home, but to a world that had grown terrified of what the USA had become under a string of Republican hate-monger Presidents, Obama is hope"

This same man you stand behind getting the peace prize is the same man that is switching gears from the Iraq war to the Afghanistan war. once he makes that commitment, it will then become "Obama´s War". That is a qoute off an article I read the other day.

What I'm asking is that you show a bit of respect for:

1) People that even though they may disagree with what they're being asked to do, still put themselves in harm's way because they took an oath to do so. Honor.

2) People who feel that giving service to their Country and possibly dying, even for those that disdain them, is what made this Country free to begin with, and are more than willing to roll up their sleeves and do what is asked of them. Integrity.

3) People that spend months/years away from their loved ones and children, missing birthdays, holidays, deaths, weddings or just the simple act of kissing their child/spouse goodnight. Sacrifice.

I think HF and BB said it quite nicely:

For someone who appears intelligent, you seem to be missing the fact of WHO it is that gives the orders, the CIC.

Perhaps it's time for you to roll out your prayer-rug and ask your messiah in the White House to either let our soldiers win the war, or bring them home. :thumb:

Something I've noticed recently, for someone whom post after post after post is extolling the negativity of hate, you sure seem to be spewing quite a bit of it here lately, especially to those who don't deserve it. :whistle:




Malone

Sling, Aw and any other vets are most welcome in MY class!!


A lesson that should be taught in all schools . . . . and colleges.

Back in September of 2005, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a ;social studies school teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock, did something not to be forgotten. On the first day of school, with the permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she removed all of the desks out of her classroom.

When the first period kids entered the room they discovered that there were no desks.

'Ms. Cothren, where're our desks?'

She replied, 'You can't have a desk until you tell me how you earn the right t o sit at a desk.'

They thought, 'Well, maybe it's our grades.'

'No,' she said.

'Maybe it's our behavior.'

She told them, 'No, it's not even your behavior.'

And so, they came and went, the first period, second period, third period. Still no desks in the classroom.

By early afternoon television news crews had started gathering in Ms.Cothren's classroom to report about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of her room.

The final period of the day came and as the puzzled students found seats on the fl oor of the deskless classroom, Martha Cothren said, 'Throughout the day no one has been able to tell me just what he/she has done to earn the right to sit at the desks that are ordinarily found in this classroom. Now I am going to tell you.'

At this point, Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it.

Twenty-seven (27) U.S. Veterans, all in uniforms, walked into that classroom, each one carrying a school desk. The Vets began placing the school desks in rows, and then they would walk over and stand alongside the wall. By the time the last soldier had set the final desk in place those kids started to understand, perhaps for the first time in their lives, just how the right to sit at those desks had been earned.

Martha said, 'You didn't earn the right to sit at these desks. These heroes did it for you. They placed the desks here for you. Now, it's up to you to sit in them. It is your responsibility to learn, to be good students, to be good citizens. They paid the price so that you could have the freedo m to get an education. Don't ever forget it.'

By the way, this is a true story. One can check it out on Snopes if so inclined, but like Wikipedia, Snopes is not the final word on veracity.

now if O had given that as his speech to the schools I would have had no problem with it!!! :thumb:

Have never been there, read an article or two on the internet or a magazine and is suddenly a middle east scholar, hates the military and wants to base decisions of State on reports from 'backpackers' ... yeah ... you voted for Zero. <_<

Well, CW, yer a trip, bud! At least you're honest. You've shown somewhat who you are and what you believe in. We are as they say "in violent disagreement".

I had to go looking a bit for the following, which I promptly borrowed. This is how a bunch of us feel. We're the lucky ones. We came home physically whole. We would do it again in a heart beat.

This week, I'm turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman , who recently completed a yearlong tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon.

Here's Lt. Col. Bateman's account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the Army corridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Web site.

"It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here.

"This hallway, more than any other, is the `Army' hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends whom ay not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew. Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area. The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares.

"10:36 hours: The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway.

"A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating. By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class.

"Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden ... yet.

"Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier's chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel.

"Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.

"11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. `My hands hurt.' Christ. Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway - 20, 25, 30. Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.

"They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals. Some are wheeled along. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.

"There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-old husband's wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past.

"These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years." Did you know that? The media hasn't told the story.

I imagine Memorial Day must be particularly hard on you, CW.

This thread has been split, off topic posts have been moved here.

I agree, Scotto. The AK-47 will operate when full of MUD, after having been driven over repeatedly, they have excellent sights (not that it matters in full auto mode), and are amazingly capable of handling the heat from repeated fire. They fire a very common round (7.62x39mm), and there are enough of them on this planet to arm every man, woman and child - twice. That means if a part wears out, there are sure to be plenty of replacements. They're very light-weight (especially compared to some of the newer weapons with all the rails and scopes and tools on them), and shorter than your standard rifle, making them easy to conceal. They come with a standard plywood stock, but are available (or can be equipped with) a side-folding or fold-under stock. They're made in full rifle size and also in pistol. Since they were made in 1947, they have been used by at least one side of every major war world-wide. In many war zones, they've been sold not by the individual unit, but by the TON (or tonne, depending on where you're fighting :D )

All things considered, if given the choice between an AK and an M4, it would not be the toughest choice I ever made!

Like all major war, new weapons arrive on the battle field. None more advance then what we have put out over the last 10 years. Some almost all work super duper...with out issues.

One fails and we blow it up.... let the soldiers, developer, and researchers do their job.

Nothing is perfect, no thing will be. You can test things all you want, but till you put real things into play with real people using it in real situations you don't know.

Been like that since day one in combat will be like that till the end of combat or anything else in regards to R and D.

Just my 2 cents.

It seems to me that if the M4 is such an inferior firearm, why has it become one of the most popular selling rifles in the civilian market (semi-auto only of course) today. I know a few vets that have used these weapons in various skirmishes and would like to have one of the civilian models now that they are back stateside. It also has become a VERY popular police carbine. I saw one hanging in the divider cage of a Polk Co. Deputy's car, just the other day. I won't say that it is more reliable than the AK or it's variants, but it's basic design is over 50 years old. I think that should be adequate time to work out most of the bugs.

One other note. The original M-16 was later changed to a 3 round burst instead of full auto. If I'm not mistaken, the newest M4 has gone back to full auto fire.

Just an educated guess here, but I would think there's no comparison between the effects of semi-auto use and full auto like would be needed in a fire fight where the troops are at risk getting over run.

3 shot bursts to solve the problem sounds like a politicians solution to me. They have been having problems w/ the M-16 platform since Nam.

Heat, dirt, and rust are a guns worst enemies.

M16A2 has both the 3 round burst and the full auto, and the M16 like the M4 has to be taken care of. Heat, sand, and etc is not good for any weapon...except the AK, but hell the M16 is far better then the AK.

Bottom line is this, they will fix any issue and for urben warfare the M4 is gold IF it is maintained like it should.

I have used both...in open area M16, urben area M4 Just IMO.

It's because of the platform and the almost endless caliber changes available, it's not because of it's clean running. Any weapon that defecates where it dines is inherently flawed and bound to cause problems. Even Stoner was aware of this, that's why he went to an op rod in the AR18 three years after the AR15 design. :thumb: