Author Topic: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight  (Read 4297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rich_t

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7942
  • Reputation: +386/-429
  • TANSTAAFL
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2009, 09:04:31 PM »
Then why are mistakes being made do you think?

I'd suspect lack of discipline and lack of attention to detail play a part.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." --Norman Thomas, 1944

Offline docstew

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4741
  • Reputation: +281/-187
  • My Wife is awesome!
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2009, 09:55:05 PM »
I'd say there's also a good amount of complacency. Along with that, some NCO's that I've seen around here don't give a **** because they would rather be friends with their troops, which is great, until they won't follow orders.  All sorts of standards are breaking down...

Offline Mustang

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 290
  • Reputation: +0/-2
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2009, 01:49:34 AM »
we had two in my twelve man unit. one was a Rem 870 and the other was a locally procured twelve guage double barrel cut down to almost a pistol...one of my medics carried it...and yes- he called it teh boomstick.

Groovy.

Offline DumbAss Tanker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28493
  • Reputation: +1707/-151
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2009, 11:29:36 AM »
It's more than weapons cleaning, any modern infantry machinegun will fail if fired relentlessly, belt after belt.  In the hands of a single gunner, they are designed for burst firing, generally 6-8 rounds at a time with a few longer ones as necessary, and if clean at the start and lubed appropriately for the environment, they will normally go a couple of thousand rounds before excess carbon build-up in the moving parts within the receiver or gas tube becomes a huge problem.  They aren't designed to deliver sustained and uninterrupted fire belt after belt for 2000 rounds.  Just because you are in a static position with thousands of rounds of ammo laid by does not mean the gun will continue to work until all the ammo is used up.  It requires fire discipline, not mad-minute shooting for half an hour.  The guns can sustain that kind of heavy fire only if handled as a true crew-served weapon, making the necessary barrel changes and ideally having two guns covering the same lanes or even in the same bunker to cover each other's down time.
The SAW's major jamming issues occur when trying to use rifle mags in it, the capability was part of the spec but it doesn't work all that well, it's sort of a last resort (Still, better to try it than be overrun, or try to beat someone to death with an empty SAW); they are pretty reliable feeders using belts or assault packs (Which are packaged belts).
The three-round burst is a good feature if used correctly; 'Correctly' normally means at targets closing on you (Or you on the target) at under 100 meters, because beyond that you are either (1) aiming and hitting with the first shot and generally wasting the other two, or (2) just wasting three rounds because you didn't even aim the first one.       
Go and tell the Spartans, O traveler passing by
That here, obedient to their law, we lie.

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting at least twice.

Offline rich_t

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7942
  • Reputation: +386/-429
  • TANSTAAFL
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2009, 07:06:54 PM »
It's more than weapons cleaning, any modern infantry machinegun will fail if fired relentlessly, belt after belt.  In the hands of a single gunner, they are designed for burst firing, generally 6-8 rounds at a time with a few longer ones as necessary, and if clean at the start and lubed appropriately for the environment, they will normally go a couple of thousand rounds before excess carbon build-up in the moving parts within the receiver or gas tube becomes a huge problem.  They aren't designed to deliver sustained and uninterrupted fire belt after belt for 2000 rounds.  Just because you are in a static position with thousands of rounds of ammo laid by does not mean the gun will continue to work until all the ammo is used up.  It requires fire discipline, not mad-minute shooting for half an hour.  The guns can sustain that kind of heavy fire only if handled as a true crew-served weapon, making the necessary barrel changes and ideally having two guns covering the same lanes or even in the same bunker to cover each other's down time.
The SAW's major jamming issues occur when trying to use rifle mags in it, the capability was part of the spec but it doesn't work all that well, it's sort of a last resort (Still, better to try it than be overrun, or try to beat someone to death with an empty SAW); they are pretty reliable feeders using belts or assault packs (Which are packaged belts).
The three-round burst is a good feature if used correctly; 'Correctly' normally means at targets closing on you (Or you on the target) at under 100 meters, because beyond that you are either (1) aiming and hitting with the first shot and generally wasting the other two, or (2) just wasting three rounds because you didn't even aim the first one.       

Very well said.  I agree with every word of it.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." --Norman Thomas, 1944

Offline crockspot

  • In Memoriam
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1985
  • Reputation: +80/-7
  • Bite me, libs.
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2009, 09:42:14 AM »
Is anyone using 20" barrels in combat on the M-16 class weapons anymore, or is everyone using the shorter barrels? I understand the 5.56 has a lot better performance out of the longer barrel. Is it that much more cumbersome to make the tradeoff worth it?

Offline TheSarge

  • Platoon Sergeant
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9557
  • Reputation: +411/-252
Re: Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2009, 10:48:37 AM »
Is anyone using 20" barrels in combat on the M-16 class weapons anymore, or is everyone using the shorter barrels? I understand the 5.56 has a lot better performance out of the longer barrel. Is it that much more cumbersome to make the tradeoff worth it?

I carried the full size one in Iraq.  At the time all the M4's were going to the infantry and not the support folks.

When I go to the range next week I'll qualify on an A2.

There are certain situation where the shorter one is better...especially in CQB scenarios.  I know it's a lot easier to carry on foot patrol than what we affectionately call "the musket"
Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years.  The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

If it walks like a donkey and brays like a donkey and smells like a donkey - it's Cold Warrior.  - PoliCon



Palin has run a state, a town and a commercial fishing operation. Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth. - Mark Steyn