We’re reporting a pretty hard-hitting story today on the conclusions of an Army official report on the Wanat battle showing that the small arms used in the battle showed significant levels of failure, malfunctioning and jamming “at high cyclic rates of fire.” The weapons include the M4 and SAW.
Defense Tech doesn’t have the final version of the report compiled by the Army Combat Studies Institute at Leavenworth. But we did find a draft version and went through it to find all references to M4s, small arms and the reported malfunctions.
Basically, the most damning conclusions are compiled in the recommendations section of the report. There are a few instanced specified in the report of an M4 fouling, and one where the M4 fouled and the Soldier picked up a SAW and that was jammed up as well.
In one instance, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips had multiple M4 failures:
Staff Sergeant Phillips poured out fire, as recalled by another Engineer Specialist loading for him, [SSG Phillips] went through three rifles using them until they jammed.
SSG Phillips recalled: My M4 quit firing and would no longer charge when I tried to correct the malfunction. I grabbed the Engineers SAW and tried to fire. It would not fire, so I lifted the feed tray tried clearing it out and tried to fire again. It would not.
As you know, Defense Tech as been at the forefront of the debate over whether a better solution to the current M4 configuration is out there. It’s pretty clear that the gas impingement system is maintenance intensive. And I recall all too well when I confronted PEO Soldier officials with a hypothetical instance very similar to this during a brief I had at the Pentagon on the dust tests conducted on multiple carbine types at Aberdeen. I posited the battle of Fallujah, where Marines and Soldiers were fighting for days on end with barely enough time to eat or sleep. Keeping your weapon clean is arguable as important as eating, some crusty old gunnies and sergeants first class would argue, but if the carbine you’re carrying is so maintenance intensive and you’ve got better options out there that can stand up to more abuse, how can you tell that trooper if his gun jams in that situation it’s all his fault?
Well, it looks like the Wanat battle, at least in part, may have brought up that issue…but has it?
According to the report, the Soldiers had kept their weapons religiously maintained. It looks like the single point of failure might have been the high cyclic rates they were operating under and the M4 just wasn’t able to catch up.
Some GWOT and U.S. Army veterans queried by the author have suggested that this could have been caused by improper weapon cleaning. However, numerous Chosen Few NCOs interviewed for this study have been vehemently adamant in stating that weapons were meticulously and regularly cleaned, and rigorously and routinely inspected by the chain of command. Other GWOT veterans consulted have noted that the high rates of fire sustained during the two hour intense engagement phase at Wanat could possibly have contributed to these failures. However, numerous weapons failed relatively early in the engagement (particularly a number of M-4 rifles and at one SAW at the mortar pit), and in any event the maintenance of cyclic rates of fire was critical to restore fire superiority, and to prevent positions (particularly at OP Topside) from being overrun by determined, numerous, and hard pressed insurgent assaults.
The report goes on to suggest that the PEO Soldier work to find a solution to this problem.
We could go on for hours on this, and I thinks it’s appropriate to do that in a forum like this. I’m digging through my old notes, but I’m pretty sure that “high cyclic rates” were addressed in the dust test, and the M4 came out near the bottom of the pack on that amongst its competitors. The Army keep saying that surveys have shown that 94 percent of Soldiers say they’re satisfied with the M4. But as I replied when confronted with this straw man argument, isn’t it hard to say whether you’re truly satisfied with a weapon unless you have some experience with other options — umm, like the special operations forces do? And what do they prefer? The HK 416 and the SCAR, which are both less maintenance-intensive, gas piston operating systems.
What does this say about the Corps’ program for the Infantry Automatic Rifle? Why replace a good portion of your automatic weapons with one that only has a 30 round magazine? And, I could be wrong on this, but aren’t M4s assigned to straight leg infantry units configured to fire in three-round bursts and semi auto? Only special operators have ones with a full auto switch? If this instance shows anything that a counterinsurgency strategy demonstrates, it’s that small units will likely be confronted with superior numbers of bad guys and will need to pour out the lead when the you-know-what hits the fan. And what about weapons tactics training? There’s a scary line in the report that quotes one of the Soldiers saying he was unprepared for such an Alamo style fight. You’d have thought since Blackhawk Down we’d be teaching how to hold off wave attacks with superior fire.
There are so many more actionable lessons to the drawn from the report, and I encourage DT readers to scour through it again. But kudos to the AP reporter who brought this out and one has to wonder whether the Army will work toward a more rugged solution as it explores options to the M4 this year.
– Christian
I know that the magazines are an issue. I sent my son Outdoor Life, Sports Afield and three magazines from Magpul in a box when he was in Iraq. Why can’t the military give our kids the best? I had to send it in a care package for gods sake.
I know that the magazines are an issue. I sent my son Outdoor Life, Sports Afield and three magazines from Magpul in a box when he was in Iraq. Why can’t the military give our kids the best? I had to send it in a care package for gods sake.
Bear in mind the military is bound by government regulations in that they can’t just buy things retail without a careful approval process (ironically to avoid corrupt nepotism which simply steps around the rules).
Once again the black rifle fails when needed most. Stoner sucks. Long live Browning & Kalashinkov,Saive & Mauser.
After the first lesson has been learned, and until some new (or old…) satisfactory gun is chosen that solves all the former guns’ problems together (G3 ! G3 ! G3 ! AK 47 ! AK 47 ! AK 47 ! MG 3 ! MG 3 ! MG 3 ! MG 3 !) : Would it really be so hard for Super-Power Nr. 1 to disregard some of it’s own former bureaucratic dispositions and quickly hand out 3 or 4 (if not MANY MORE !) heavy machine-guns to EACH SINGLE man in a pit in some far-out ( = highly threatened) outpost, plus STACKS of ammunition boxes strictly for defensive firefights, and multiple tripods, spikes or other mounts for EACH SINGLE machine-gun too, solidly fastened in heavy concrete, complete with ballistic shields? After all, you’re in the middle of a war, and you’re “not making progress”, to be mild, so strengthening the defense maybe makes sense!
During World War Two, the Japanese were “a bit” more elaborate than you while preparing their defensive positions on the islands, it appears (ask grandpa… or grandma) …
I also suggest storing the bounty of ammunition in clips, drums or belts, but NEVER in magazines, because the compressed springs at the bottom of the magazines fatigue during lenghty storages and then fail to push the bullet stack into the receiver
1) The M4 is a carbine, for use by support troops. Infantrymen should have superior M-16 rifles, but the M4 became preferred in recent years because it looks cool, it is lighter, and shorter.
2) Perhaps the ammo is to blame (too much residue) We buy this stuff from foreign nations too.
3) What about an M134 7.62mm gatling gun? That is electric so rarely jam and have six barrels to prevent overheating, the spinning helps too.
4) They got rid of the full auto on M-16s because it wastes ammo and heats up the barrel. Much testing showed that after three rounds, a hand held rifle is way off target after three quick recoils. It is more effective with a pause to aim again and pull the trigger.
I doubt very much that the “failures” of the rifles were due to the faulty design of the M-16 system.
I doubt that the weapons turned white hot during the gunfight.
In order for steel to turn white hot, the temp must be in excess of 2,500 deg. F.
I do think that the ugly little truth is that the weapons were not maintained properly, or fired regularly in order to see that they functioned dependably.
This fiasco was not due to inferior weapons.
The fiasco was due to poor commanders.
1) Just who in the hell places a camp in a location that can be fired down upon from several directions?
2) Just who in the hell has a camp, that is several years old, that does not have a serious defensive system?
3) Has the US Army forgotten what shovels and sandbags are made for?
4)Just who in the hell was in charge of inspecting, and managing the personnel on this sorry base?
The answer to these questions all point to one thing, and one thing only.
Piss poor leadership, from top to bottom, provided by a bunch of REMF dorks.
It was NOT the fault of the weapons!
However it is a nice escape route to blame the weapons, and it covers a lot of ass at the same time.
The whole story is utter bullshit, and anyone who has ever been this sort of situation knows it!
Who in this group of people commenting about this issue been in afghanistan? You can’t comment like this if you haven’t experience it in the first place…
Well, I’m an ignoramous. All this time I thought the M4 was an updated M16 rifle. Turns out it’s a carbine. Aren’t carbines meant for troops not expected to use them much? Tankers, drivers, etc.? Is this a worldwide trend?
It is common for combat newbies to pretend their foreign visit gave them unquestionable knowledge that no one else can criticize.
So:
Those comments about the “carbine” being assigned to certain types of troops is a legacy of ‘90s era thinking. We thought we were going to go into more close quarters, with urban fights being our future (Mogadishu and then Iraq pointed towards this). And then we got Afghanistan. A compact weapon is nice in that it does save weight, but other than that, what is offered by taking the M4 instead of the M16?
I don’t know if it’s a worldwide trend. I’m sure some foreign military (or those more familiar with foreign militaries) on DefTech might shed more insight.
Zandor is actually kind of right, now that I think about it.
http://justbarkingmad.com/?p=7056
Another thought on this story. Ive read alot of stuff like that and they all say pretty much the same thing.
BTW dont the special forces teams use the m60?
First off, I have never even held an M14, secondly I have suffered stoppages on a clean and well maintained SA80 (L85).
I note that discussion of this issue on this and many other sites often turns to arguements about caliber; 5.56 does not have enough stopping power,7.62 is better, or lets have 6.8 etc…
Recent papers on the UK Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) web site, cite the many studies from WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc that suggest caliber has little to do with anything, that infantry rarely engage over 100m / 100 yards, in the stress of combat they rarely hit anything. The section / platoon weapons, such as 40mm grenade launchers and 7.62mm MG’s plus light mortars get most of the kills, but even more so directed ‘fires’ — HE from heavier mortars, artillery or aircraft are the real deal. One of the papers suggests that instead of attempting to teach soldiers to aim for hits, they should be taught the techniques required for effective suppressive fires, allowing the MG / Grenade launcher teams to fire and manouvre effectively.
Shock horror, but it even suggests that lightweight “Personal Defence Weapons’ (PDW) like HK HK7 and FN P90 should be issued — I am sure most people posting here would be horrified by this statement based on their discussion of rifle calibers. However the argument is you could still carry a FN P90, 350 rounds of ammo for less weight than an SA80 with 150 rounds — plus you could then carry extra 40mm for the grenadier, or a 100 round 7.62 belt for the machine gunner, and even a P90 can provide “suppressive” fire out to about 200m.
So, do we need to think a little more “out of the box” rather than piston versus direct gas impingement?
How about Aitchson AA12 with the FRAG-12 HE round (range out to 200m) or at least the Milkor 6 round grenade launchers and 7.62mm version of the FN Minimi (already used by the U.S.M.C. I believe?) The “inexpensive” L72 66mm LAW is mentioned above, but does it have a HE-fragmenting anti-personal warhead ?
Jed,
Remember that the british SA80 has a quite long barrel (being a bullpup surely helps), and the 5.56mm is round that really benefits from that, and also loses a lot of its punch in a short barrel like the one in a M4
To the poster “Zandor” :
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
You wrote: “1) Just who in the hell places a camp in a location that can be fired down upon from several directions?“
Where would YOU establish a camp (the Arabic word for “camp”, “base” is “Al-Qaeda”) if all the mountaintops around you were of the same height? See for yourself:
Combat Outpost
Has anyone read the new book “Sniper One” by British Sgt. Dan Mills? Excellent read, by the way. He covers some of the “base” issues in it.
Because they were winning “hearts and minds” they couldn’t make their base too “scary” looking. This involved proper defenses and visible armament. Also, until the poo hit the oscillating air moving device, they were ordered to walk around with goofy smiles on their faces to look less intimidating.
A Fox News report today mentions the corruption level of the Afghan government. Dan mentions in his book that they would buy the Iraqi police new weapons and by the end of the day they went “missing” and they would see the terrorists walking around with new glocks. On the base that my brother-in-law was on in Afghanistan, the local leader who spent much time on his base and many of the afghan base workers were found out to be the Al-Qaeda.
We are not just facing backwoods Afghan tribals as some main stream media would try to have you believe. In Chris Mackey’s book “The Interrogators”, he lists the countries of the foreign fighters that were captured in Afghanistan. We are not just fighting afghans in Afghanistan, but we are fighting a war against troops from EVERY millitant Islamic nation. Chris’s list of foreign fighters included Russian Chechens and Dan Mills stated in his book that the British had captured some home grown British muslims in Iraq. This is war and our guys need the best, most dependable weapons available.
News alert!The U.S Army does not use M60s anymore. Anyone who knows anything about the military should know that!
Good Morning Folks,
Over on another post by Christian on this same topic the military is once again blaming the Soldiers and NCO’s for the problem. Over their I addressed the supervision issues and maintenance concerns, which is pure bullsh** .
Over here I will address the fire discipline question. First off it is quite obvious that any of the people in support of our current Pentagon policy of supporting the AR system have even been in a fire fight, much less the type identified in Afghanistan where this problem occurred. I have been. I have been in a FPF (final protective fire, where the sh** is on top of you and the odds of survival are not real great, for those of you who don’t know and those in the Pentagon who have never been in combat) position and had an M-16 jam. It is not a good situation to be in, trust me on this.
I guess on could compare it to being in a car that has just went over a clift and that few seconds you are airborne and still alive before impact.
For these soldiers fore discipline is not an issue, it is noted that the M-4 and M-16 put into the hands of US troops are the only assault weapons the don’t have full auto (Rock and Roll) of any military in the world. Why because the weapon won’t function and the three round burst was said to solve that problem. Now some bullsh**er will say that the burst was put in to conserved ammo, that’s cr**. This has and still is costing lives, this is murder of Americans Soldiers and Marines by their chain of command.
Where is the media on this story, where are all the tea baggers who support our troops, where is mom and dad. Does anybody give a sh** about the lives of American men and women serving in these war zones?
Good Afternoon Drew,
Actually Drew you are not 100% correct. The 82nd. ABN’s Aviation Brigade still uses some “D Model” M-60’s, and the SEALS and Marines Special Operations are buying a current variant the “E Model”, from Auto Ordinance out of Reno. it’s a stripped down 16lb. assault, shorter barrel, new stock etc. version of the original 23.5 lb. SACO M-60.
Auto Ordinance, yes the old maker of the Thompson submachine gun, bough the M-60 manufacturing rights for SACO/BAE who made the original M-60.
For trivia: The M-72 LAW has been put back into production by Raytheon in their Phoenix plant, and the Marines have placed their second order for 10K.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
After World War Two, practically all Western countries adopted a defensive, and therefore peaceful, posture, which was reflected in their strategies, tactics and weapons choices
Sorry my english. Anyone can explain why all outpost look same bottom point between hills, tactical reasons… please?
SSgt (now SFC) Phillips is not happy that his words were taken out of context. One weapon had shrapnel damage and one had an enemy round in it when they stopped firing. There will always be weapons that malfunction, unfortunately. Let’s get good, honest reporting for a change. Every article I have ever read in the newspaper where I had direct knowledge of the incident has had errors in it. Let’s also get a good foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won’t have as many debacles such as happened in Wanat in July 08. BTW, his unit is going back to a war zone once again. How much can we ask of our brave young warriors? How many combat deployments is enough in anyone’s military career?