Article

2005-11-14 Iraq

One Marine's Comments on Weapons in Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2005-11-14 08:51|| || Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Thank you so much for that piece. I've been searching everywhere for enemy casualty numbers. I know we don't do body counts and that is not a measure of progress, but it would be nice to know for every American soul that is taken away, allen is getting a few more.

Posted by Rightwing 2005-11-14 09:16|| 2005-11-14 09:16|| Front Page Top

#2 Lotp,

Many, many thanks for posting this. We've got the best military the world has ever seen--and the most disloyal press corps. If I was a Marine over there I think I'd be hard put not to have buttstroked a reporter or two. What a bunch of lying criminal scumbags they are!

And they're right on the M-16, too. That POS has got to go. They'd be better off with upgraded Ruger Mini-30s.

Posted by mac 2005-11-14 09:22|| 2005-11-14 09:22|| Front Page Top

#3 Given the prevelance of house-to-house fighting, I wonder if a big-bore SMG like the Thompson would be useful.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-11-14 09:30|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-11-14 09:30|| Front Page Top

#4 MSM = treasonous pigs

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2005-11-14 09:33|| 2005-11-14 09:33|| Front Page Top

#5 Infantry weapon situation is a disgrace. F-22 and DDX/CVN21 and Army UAV programs should be halted until it is fixes. The XM-8 decision doesn't fill me with optimism.

Posted by Uneregum Ebbainter5046 2005-11-14 09:35|| 2005-11-14 09:35|| Front Page Top

#6 The issue isn't money or mgmt time - it's factory capacity UE5406. That at least is what I'm hearing from Army R&D and program office people.

Posted by lotp 2005-11-14 09:39|| 2005-11-14 09:39|| Front Page Top

#7 Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure

That's why you have an M2 50cal. Right tool for the situation. Think about it, Browing design that sucker nearly a hundred years ago and its still a great piece of work on the battlefield. Not a whole lot equipment around that can claim that.

Remember people, there's a ammo problem in that you can only haul so much with you at a time. You are either faced with having to fall back to resupply, thus giving up ground fought for or you need to take people out of your ranks to act as ammo bearers which means fewer trigger pullers. More rounds, smaller size is one approach. Given the number of rounds popped off, if you carried fewer, but heavier rounds, will you simply run out of ammo faster. There is no perfect solution.

Posted by Angatch Omump4656 2005-11-14 09:47|| 2005-11-14 09:47|| Front Page Top

#8 F-22 and DDX/CVN21 and Army UAV programs should be halted until it is fixes.

That makes no sense whatsoever. F-22 is Navy and Air Force; DDX and CVN are Navy. The UAV is a distinct program, and fills a different role -- intelligence gathering.

Despite what many people think, the US is perfectly capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-11-14 09:50|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-11-14 09:50|| Front Page Top

#9 Partier, My comment wasn't addressed to the money angle but to the focusing every one's attention on the big problem angle. These pentagon pirates need to be told that their get rich quick schemes aren't going forward till the grunt on the ground gets a good gun. Then there'd be factory capacity aplenty for r&d or production or whatever the hold up is. Once the infantry has a decent weapon the plundering of the pulic coffers will recommence.

Posted by Uneregum Ebbainter5046 2005-11-14 09:54|| 2005-11-14 09:54|| Front Page Top

#10 The situation with the M-16 and its variants has simply become ridiculous. Our guys on the ground have been complaining about that weapon for -- what?-- four decades now?

Posted by Pat Phillips 2005-11-14 10:02|| 2005-11-14 10:02|| Front Page Top

#11 pentagon pirates need to be told that their get rich quick schemes aren't going forward till the grunt on the ground gets a good gun. Then there'd be factory capacity aplenty for r&d or production or whatever the hold up is.

I hear ya, but I think you're off base a bit.

The pentagon types know full well the problems with the M-16. That's why they're pushing hard to get the future combat system weapons available.

If we thought we'd be running infantry operations for the next 3-4 years at current or stronger op tempo, I'd agree with you (although I think you underestimate what it takes to ramp up production. that's not like turning on a water spigor -- and given existing contract obligations on major programs, could cost huge $$).

But as it is, I think we're in a period where we do what we can but also keep pushing for the newer better stuff. Apart from out-year budget priorities, putting the F-22 and the Navy ships on hol wont fix infantry problems. And don't forget China on the horizon, where both the destroyer and perhaps the fighter may be critical to our military edge. Too much of our current technologies are in their hands for me to feel complacent that 10 yrs from now they won't be able to beat us -- unless we keep making progress in new stuff.

Posted by lotp 2005-11-14 10:08|| 2005-11-14 10:08|| Front Page Top

#12 And they're right on the M-16, too. That POS has got to go. They'd be better off with upgraded Ruger Mini-30s.

Not this again... mac, I'm going to have to disagree, if only because no one has "THE" solution. There are a number of similar weapons to the M16 in role such as the Robinson XCR, the HK416, the SCAR (yeah, yeah) and previously you even had the XM8. However, I asked an Army E-4 who actually rejected the HK416 for being a logistical nightmare, the XM8 was canceled, the SCAR is so-far USSOCOM only and the XCR got disqualified from the SCAR trial because the Robinson guy reportedly forgot to bring the blank firing adapter. :P

However, lotp I am grateful for posting these evaluations and am interested in knowing more about the "re-proliferation" about the .45 (whether the 1911 or other .45 ACP weapons), considering that a SEAL at Fleet Week told me that the Mk 23 Mod 0 (aka the "HK military model"?) was too big and heavy, and the reproliferation of the M14, whether it's only special ops and Marines or returning to the "lines." :)

Mild nitpick that the Marines have the M40A3 and not the M24, but they're both based off of the Remington 700 and the rumor if validated would be kickass. :D

Posted by Edward Yee 2005-11-14 10:22|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-11-14 10:22|| Front Page Top

#13 Google Earth does not provide realtime aerials of positions....

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-11-14 10:25|| 2005-11-14 10:25|| Front Page Top

#14 Outstanding post. I got more honest info and more answers to questions reading this then reading and watching 3 years of MSM bullshit.
He sends you anymore lotp, send them along.

Posted by tu3031 2005-11-14 10:29|| 2005-11-14 10:29|| Front Page Top

#15 The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.

I pray we never forget this, and that we never treat them as anything less.

Posted by docob 2005-11-14 10:30|| 2005-11-14 10:30|| Front Page Top

#16 Partier, Sheesh aren't we even allowed to overstate a little bit? The problem is the infantry weapon issue seems to be in a one step forward, two steps back mode. Something needs to be done NOW about the issue. I DO doubt that everything that could be done is being done.

Yeah, we know there is a problem and we are studying it. That was true in 1969 when we were loosing 100 men a week. They haven't accomplished anything since! Sure there's been a lot of work done and dollars spent but the weapon that sucked in the jungle sucks in the desert too! (Did we figure that out in 1991 or was that war too short?)

Frankly, this problem needs to be solved NOW and there should be some irrational action taken to make everybody realize how serious it is and how little patience there is for those not resolving it. A summary execution per week perhaps. The thing is kids being sent out to die for us should have the best and they don't. CIWS appears to be a clusterf^@% and I'd be as p.o. 'ed as a 1942 USN sub skipper if I were in the infantry. I sure don't like paying taxes to send kids into combat with weapons from Mattel.

See what happens when you wind me up?

Posted by Uneregum Ebbainter5046 2005-11-14 10:32|| 2005-11-14 10:32|| Front Page Top

#17 Fact: Most of the ready made IED's are supplied by Iran, who is also providing terrorists (Hezbollah types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics.

Weaponry ratings aside, Iran and Syria need to be dealt with.

The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see shit like "Are we losing in Iraq" on TV and the print media.

Food for thought for the media......if they give a rat's ass.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-11-14 10:33|| 2005-11-14 10:33|| Front Page Top

#18 And what tu said, thanks for the post, lotp. Very informative, if somewhat depressing.

Posted by Uneregum Ebbainter5046 2005-11-14 10:35|| 2005-11-14 10:35|| Front Page Top

#19 The M-16 and 430 rounds of ammunition weigh the same as the M-14 and 100 rounds. Which would you rather have on your back?

Posted by Bobby 2005-11-14 10:43|| 2005-11-14 10:43|| Front Page Top

#20 When they are engaged on an infantry level they get their asses kicked every time. Brave, but stupid. Brave, HA! autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.

interesting - thanks. Isn't it ironic/strange/odd that the MSM provides absolutely none of this type of information? None of the battles, none of the personalities, nothing but the death stats that I could get myself from official sources with no credentials whatsoever. Nothing, nada, zip, zero.

Posted by 2b 2005-11-14 10:49|| 2005-11-14 10:49|| Front Page Top

#21 Would rather carry an M-14 plus 5 magazines than that girls gun (M-16) The 7.62 round works well and you can have a selector switch for auto or semi auto....used the M-14 in Nam...very reliable and it has reach..ideal for Iraq....

Posted by crazyhorse 2005-11-14 11:44|| 2005-11-14 11:44|| Front Page Top

#22 re: re-proliferation of the .45s, I know the Army MPs never quite gave them up and are getting them as fast as they can - the 1911s, I think (but don't quote me on that).

A lot of people find the H-K .45 too bulky and heavy to shoot accurately especially if surprise attacked. SOCOM guys have traditionally had a lot of flexibility re: their weaponry, don't know how constrained any of them are by various considerations at present.

Posted by lotp 2005-11-14 11:44|| 2005-11-14 11:44|| Front Page Top

#23 The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted.

I'm going to have to ask for clarification; does this mean that the embeds are realized (and this realization is made known explicitly) to be moonbats, or that those who do sympathize with troops or even just report neutrally are despised and distrusted by their editors? Because I've heard of the latter. :(

2b, incidentally, I have previously heard of the drug use in what one might consider MSM (New York Daily News), but of course little else.

*rolls eyes at all the M16 bashing* Bobby's got it right -- I'd rather have the M16 and the 430 rounds than the M14 and the 100 rounds.

(Disclaimer: Yes, I am biased by being 5'4, 140lb, extremely weak in the upper body and extremely myopic in the eyes.)

Posted by Edward Yee 2005-11-14 11:47|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-11-14 11:47|| Front Page Top

#24 One thing to keep in mind is that the assumption that underlies the adoption of the 9mm caliber for handguns and the M16 ligher rounds is that a good part of the Army's mission will be stability and stabilization operations. In SASO minimizing civilian casualties takes on a higher priority than in full combat and you want (the thinking goes) a round that is not too heavy and energetic, i.e. that will not kill a lot of kids down the street / hiding in their homes.

The question of the expected mission for our troops for, say, the next 10-20 years is a complex one. Some of the FCS options include swappable barrels / calibers for that reason ....

Posted by lotp 2005-11-14 12:07|| 2005-11-14 12:07|| Front Page Top

#25 great article, one thing caught my eye and thats the 40- 45,000 death toll of the bad guys, fckin fantastic figure for a loss of just 2000 odd. Again after reading this it seems we are making alot of progress and it just highlights the amazing media bias that surrounds this war.

Posted by Shep UK 2005-11-14 12:13|| 2005-11-14 12:13|| Front Page Top

#26 Hey, can we get the media reporters to embed with the insurgency?

Thanks for the post lopt.

Posted by ex-lib 2005-11-14 12:14|| 2005-11-14 12:14|| Front Page Top

#27 Hey, can we get the media reporters to embed with the insurgency?

Thanks for the post lopt.

Posted by ex-lib 2005-11-14 12:14|| 2005-11-14 12:14|| Front Page Top

#28 that girls gun (M-16)

crazyhorse, *points to my disclaimer; didn't see your post*

lotp, thanks for the clarification. :) While I like the post, I'm starting to wonder about the scope of this 1st Sergeant's son's assessment due to these nitpicks of mine, although he does include qualifiers such as (paraphrase) "SOCOM operators supposedly love the HK military .45," since one told me the opposite. Then again, it's supposed to be an "Offensive Handgun Weapon System"... or is that paradoxical? :P

Also, thanks for the explanation re: SASO and the potential uses of 5.56mm and 9mm in those roles... because I saw in that a hint of the dilemma of the need to act as both warfighters and police.

Posted by Edward Yee 2005-11-14 12:17|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-11-14 12:17|| Front Page Top

#29 Never could figure the Beretta 9 mm. Must have been low bidder or a political deal. It is kind of puny--not much knock down power. I wrote to my Senator and said the same. I thought the 9 mm would get our guys killed. Same for the M-16.

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-11-14 12:30|| 2005-11-14 12:30|| Front Page Top

#30 re: the .45s, a female LTC MP loves the caliber, but hates the H-K. Her sidearm of choice is the 1911. I know a bunch of men who dislike it too, on the grounds mentioned. A fair number of competitive shooters seem to like the civilian version, but they're not using it under true combat circumstances.

Re: the lighter calibers, yeah that's about it. Even if we take out 'police' and substitute 'anti-insurgency in urban conditions' you see the tradeoffs that need to be made ....

Posted by lotp 2005-11-14 12:31|| 2005-11-14 12:31|| Front Page Top

#31 I just got back stateside from Diyala on the Iranian border, and like everyone else I have some observations and opininons on issued equipment.

M-16 (And by extension, any other individulaly carried weapon that is or will be issued by the US): A good idea spoiled by too many experts trying to do too many things. The issue about having more ammo is real, but in my opinion I would rather have some sort of 7.62 or 6.XX full power cartrige weapon with the range to reach out 600+ Meters and kill Hajji. As far as ## of rounds carried, My Very limited experience indicates that this is not the issue it appears tho be.

The one fire-fight I was able to open fire in I fired exactly 11 rounds, in semi-auto. I was too busy worrying about the noncombatants milling around the enemy to be willing to spray the target. All the other times I saw the enemy, he was too far away (500+ M, with iron sights (No fancy optics for us REMFs!!)(And what the hell was I thinking, playing 19D, fer crying out loud! I'm a 35E, dammit!)) for me to engage effectively.

The M-16 over the years has morphed from a man-killer to a precision target rifle. In my opinion, this will happen to any rifle that the US Army will purchase. While leathality and accuracy do not have to be mutualy exclusive, it appears that this is the case with the M-16/.223 cartrige.

It dosen't help that unlike our little adventure in SE asia, or in europe, in the desert you regularly have un-obstructed lines of sight for miles, going to the horizion in some cases.

Just my $.02

Posted by N guard 2005-11-14 12:42|| 2005-11-14 12:42|| Front Page Top

#32 Any opinions on the Glock 21? .45 cal and more capacity than the 1911.

Posted by Intrinsicpilot 2005-11-14 13:37|| 2005-11-14 13:37|| Front Page Top

#33 I'll leave that to others to comment on re: combat.

My civilian handgun of choice is a 9mm Sig for personal defense ... I prefer the Sig to the Beretta, the Glock doesn't fit my hand as well and the choice of caliber has everything to do with the issue of collateral injuries -- i.e. lawsuits and tragedy, potentially, from using a higher caliber for self-defense in most home/town situations.

Re: the choice of Beretta and the 9mm - yes, it was mostly a political decision both because of a particular member of Congress and also because of NATO.

Posted by lotp 2005-11-14 14:06|| 2005-11-14 14:06|| Front Page Top

#34 The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there.

Bull. I've used M16 in a similar environment. It's just a matter of conditioning man to close the shutter whenever they're not firing. With a little attention during basic, the action can become completely automatic.

Posted by gromgoru 2005-11-14 14:36|| 2005-11-14 14:36|| Front Page Top

#35 Finally, A Body Count!

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-11-14 14:44|| 2005-11-14 14:44|| Front Page Top

#36 I got this in my email yesterday.

I have packed 100 rounds of 7.62X51 and it's a load for only 5 mags. Going to this old NATO round is not the answer. That just isn't much ammo. A bigger intermediate calibre would be a better choice and conversion of existing weapon stocks would be possible. 7.52X39 comes to mind.

Per the 45 ACP. We should have never gone to the NATO standard 9mm. A good well maintained 1911A1 is accurate and has the required knock down. I will not carry a 9mm. I have fired thousands of 45 ACP rounds and 9mm rounds. The 45ACP is plain better. Carrying around a 1911A1 and 4 mags all day is not alot of fun it's heavy no matter how you do it.

Posted by Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom 2005-11-14 14:56|| 2005-11-14 14:56|| Front Page Top

#37 Welcome back N Guard. Thanks for your service.

/back to lurking on this thread

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-11-14 15:07|| 2005-11-14 15:07|| Front Page Top

#38 The "founder of Seal Team six" ( I think his name was Marcinco) said in one of his books that his team tested the Berretta 9mm and found them to be lacking as against the .45 1911. In fact, the Berretta's had to be sent back to the factory to replace the frame as so many rounds were fired through them, the frames of the weapons developed stress fractures. I doubt that the 1911 would have had that problem.

It seems to me that in close combat (where pistols are most frequently used), I would want the "knock down stay down" power of the .45 (one of which I own personally). The shock of this round hitting you in the foot is enough to kill you. It was a great mistake to switch to the 9mm to start off with. If I had a son/daughter in Iraq, the first "gift" sent to him/her would be the .45, 1911.

Posted by Mustang 22 2005-11-14 15:07|| 2005-11-14 15:07|| Front Page Top

#39 Agreed! Big Jim, now I'm looking for a way to corroborate it and better yet find out which group makes up the 40k. IN either case it's about Goddamn time. My boyes at the firehouse have been looking for a quantifier since 9/11. Any info on Taliban and AQ fatalities in Afghanistan?

Posted by Rightwing 2005-11-14 15:11|| 2005-11-14 15:11|| Front Page Top

#40 I've a Glock 21. It is a very good firearm in my opinion. Glocks (not necessarily the 21) are the choice of many civilian police departments--both because of cost, reliability, and durability.

I have a Sig 9 mm that I like to shoot. It is one of the best out-of-the-box pistols. It fits my hand well and is very accurate. I use it whenever I have to qualify for anything because I can score well. However, I took part in a bowling pin shoot a few years ago and found that I hit all six bowling pins but the 9 mm did not have enough power to knock them off of the steel table. Consequently, I did not do well. Not enough knock-down power.

I carry the Glock 21 or a Kimber 45 for protection however. Sometimes a H & K 40 cal.

I agree with one of the writers who likes the 12 guage shotgun for clearing buildings. It is a very effective, devastating weapon. "00" buck works well.

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-11-14 15:12|| 2005-11-14 15:12|| Front Page Top

#41 I am always frankly amazed by all of the debate between the .45ACP and the 9MM. My brother-in-law was in charge of deciding what semi to equip the local cops with circa 20 years ago. They went with the .45ACP for seveal reasons. 1) Over-penetration of the 9MM versus the .45ACP. They did not want rounds going through the target and heading down range if at all possible. 2) The issue of mag capacity was not a major concern due to the fact that nation wide statistics showed the average number of rounds fired by an officer when they did have to employ their weapons was on the order of three rounds total per officer. 3) Cost as they reload all of the deptartments practice ammo in house in an automatic reloader. IIRC the average muzzle energy of a 9MM and .45ACP in terms of foot/pounds is pretty close. Spper's site lists the ft/lbs of their 9MM as 1300 with a 100 grain round. The .45ACP is 1125 at 155 grains. If all of the energy is delivered into the tatget the 9MM should actually preform better. The problem with the 9MM is the over-penetration. As to the letalaity of the .223, are the tropps in Irag using the frangible rounds? And now for the big question, just who wants to volunteer to be a test case for a live fire comparision of the various rounds?

http://www.miragetechnologies.net/SPEER%20Lawman%20RHT%20Ammunition.htm

Posted by Cheaderhead 2005-11-14 15:29|| 2005-11-14 15:29|| Front Page Top

#42 hmmph. 40-45k? No knock on the kid, but this number is low.

I only worked over there, for KBR, so I may not have seen the whole picture. But I do know who had to operate the medical incinerators. Two of which run by a buddy of mine.

I would have said 40-45k in just 2004, alone. Not counting 2003 or 2005. Remember the April uprising in 2004? Old tater and his Iranian buddies and their Tet offensive? Busy busy time that month.

Posted by Jimbo19 2005-11-14 16:43|| 2005-11-14 16:43|| Front Page Top

#43 The issue about having more ammo is real, but in my opinion I would rather have some sort of 7.62 or 6.XX full power cartrige weapon with the range to reach out 600+ Meters and kill Hajji.

This implies that soldiers have, not one in thousand times but usually, an enemy who engages at 600 m intead of waiting until you are closer, that average soldiers can reliably hit at that distance and that in your average firefight they can get the time and quietness needed to hit at that distance. A hidden sniper has them, a soldier in a position being sprayed by enemy fire hasn't.

Ana army does not select its weapons for their performance in the hands of a world-champion shooter in ideal conditions but in the hands of an average soldier in battlefield conditions.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2005-11-14 17:01|| 2005-11-14 17:01|| Front Page Top

#44 One way to look at that 40-45K number of enemy deaths is to compare it to the US casualties of 2,000. That's a ratio of 20:1, 30:1 if you consider that only something like 1,500 of the 2,000 deaths were combat related, the other 500 being mostly car accidents. I would have expected a higher ratio, 40 or 50:1. Extrapolate from the 1,500 deaths.

Posted by Slaviting Omoth8823 2005-11-14 17:03|| 2005-11-14 17:03|| Front Page Top

#45 I had to laugh about the Body Armor being hot...DUH! I remember peeling it off one day in Korea and I mean litterly peeling it off because of the sweat? It's like sitting in a fry daddy when in the heat and humidity kicks in.

Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge 2005-11-14 17:11|| 2005-11-14 17:11|| Front Page Top

#46 Though the enemy KIA is impressive, what is even more so is what he said a little later, about our side inflicting a 20-1 casualty ratio.

This would be very good news at the start of a conflict. That is, a target-rich environment with conventional tactics. But what he implies is that they have managed to maintain this ratio even now! That is amazing.

This means that we must be putting ungodly pressure on their unconventional campaign. Through various means we have been able to concentrate their forces and wipe them out, time and again. That isn't a slow bleed, it's a hemorrhage.

The very concept of unconventional warfare is that it is both diffuse and cellular. The most we should be able to nab at one time is perhaps an even dozen. But that dozen should be isolated from all of the others. Somehow, we have forced them, cajoled them, tricked them, into fighting the type of battle we want to fight, and where.

To me, this means that we have very superior psyops, getting the enemy to do what we want them to do. Remember that the enemy is not limited to Iraq, and we have to get the psyops message out to them on their home turf.

We get them to consistently make error after error: attacking us where we are strongest; reinforcing defeat; undermining their own supporters; fighting at a time and place of our choosing; ceding us advantages when they aren't forced to; leadership and OPSEC blunders; and worst of all, not learning from their mistakes.

Our best tactic so far, in my opinion, is the honey trap. Fallujah was the best example, and we spent perhaps nine months to pull that one off. They concentrated their forces, their equipment and munitions, even their reinforcements into that death trap. Even in the city itself, we set up trap after trap, to lure them into kill zones of our choosing.

And we have used this tactic over and over. In the broader sense, Iraq itself (and Afghanistan) is a honey trap for terrorists from around the world. They come to us to be killed.

And it is not just the typical imbecile we are killing, they are special. Because the great majority would complain, but they would never *do* anything. They are just big talkers. Of that, only a fraction would ever commit an act of violence. But almost all of them would never leave their 'hood to do it. So only a tiny number are able to travel to a foreign land to fight us.

And these are the ones we kill. The most dangerous of the lot, from a dozen different countries. The ones who might have someday traveled to our civilized lands to attack us here.

And therein lies our greatest victory--ridding the world of such a pestilence as them.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-11-14 17:19|| 2005-11-14 17:19|| Front Page Top

#47 I got the same message from a retired USA LC sigint type yesterday. Excellent round-up of what the average retiree wants to know, but seldom gets from the *spit*MSM*spit*. Even the Stars and Stripes doesn't contain this kind of summary - although it would be nice...

As for weapons, ammo, etc.: I think if you had something with real STOPPING POWER you would use LESS ammo, not the same amount or more. Our troops don't go blazing away like the arabs do - it's short, controlled, AIMED bursts, or single shots. I was happier lugging an M2 carbine in Vietnam than the grunts with their M-16. Of course, being AF, and certainly not in what one would consider a "combat" job, I only had to use it a couple of times - both in the same week.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2005-11-14 17:38|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2005-11-14 17:38|| Front Page Top

#48 My $.02 from my infantry days.

The M-16 is a great weapon, you just have too keep it clean, keep the dust cover closed, etc. My only complaint is the lack of penetration power the 5.56 round has. The M-60 in every platoon was kept around to balance that deficiancy. The SAW (m-249) was the biggest piece of shit in the world. We had to keep little baggies of springs since the springs in the top of the feed cover would pop out after some 100 rounds. A company in Belgium made our SAWs, little wonder they were crap. The SAW was accurate as hell though. I could hit a group (3 men size) target at 1200 meters with the iron sight on the M-60 range, you just had to point the barrel at the sky, but the rounds flew straight and true.
The 9mm was another piece of crap. Ours in the 101st were inacurate and prone to jamming, even the new ones. Officers bought 45s to take to war and took the 9s to training.

Our requests to improve the M-16, smaller, optical sight, more forgiving in the cleaning department, full auto (no 3 round burst crap).
So far, they implimented 3 out of 4. It is still very vulnerable to jams if it gets dirty.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-11-14 18:12|| 2005-11-14 18:12|| Front Page Top

#49 Great post lotp and posters. Important information for a civilian who knows and apppreciates the need for Victory in Iraq where they have made "terrorists" fight on the ground. If the Enemy (insurgents) go from country to country then this is a World War. History and labels come later.

Posted by Bardo 2005-11-14 18:43|| 2005-11-14 18:43|| Front Page Top

#50 #19: The M-16 and 430 rounds of ammunition weigh the same as the M-14 and 100 rounds. Which would you rather have on your back?

The one that works every single time without fail.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2005-11-14 19:01|| 2005-11-14 19:01|| Front Page Top

#51 #19 The M-16 and 430 rounds of ammunition weigh the same as the M-14 and 100 rounds. Which would you rather have on your back?

Easy. I'll take the M-14 and 100 rounds.

If you were going deer hunting (say a 150 lb whitetail) would you want a .223 or a .308? Same question applies to jihadi hunting.

Pistol? Somthing along these lines would do just fine.

P.S. My nom de Rantburg has nothing to do with the europellet firing german pistol.

Posted by Parabellum 2005-11-14 19:21|| 2005-11-14 19:21|| Front Page Top

#52 Para, combat isnt deer hunting, especiallyt he sort of counter ambus and such thats going on over there. WIth only 100 rounds of 7.62 you'll be one dead trooper in any firefight of the sort that I have been in.

As for pistol, its a shame politcs kept the GLock in .40 S&W out of the loop. Best damn pistol I have ever used and best round too. Has the knowckdown of a 45, wiht the capacity of a 9 - no ovepentration either, and the glocks are jsut indestructable in all kinds of climates. But that doest stop some from carrying them (me? nah Id never break the rules about personal weapons, now would I? heh).

Posted by Oldspook 2005-11-14 21:38|| 2005-11-14 21:38|| Front Page Top

#53 Gentleman - Bobby has no practical experience with either weapon, but did prepare a one-page story on the foibles of the M-16 , once upon a time.... McNamera, Ordance Department - that sort of stuff...

Posted by Bobby 2005-11-14 21:44|| 2005-11-14 21:44|| Front Page Top

#54 The FN-FAL beat out the AR-15 in testing at the SWC at Bragg in the 60's...too many years ago to remember. The troops (test committee) loved the FN. Things got changed in Washington. At close range not much can beat the knockdown power of a .45 cal pistol. Back at Bragg again, JSOC has always hung pretty close to the .45 for handgun shooting. Sub shooting is another story. Things got changed in Washington.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-11-14 21:55|| 2005-11-14 21:55|| Front Page Top

#55 (me? nah Id never break the rules about personal weapons, now would I? heh).

Nope. A lot of the soldiers I know wouldn't either. heh ....

Posted by lotp 2005-11-14 21:58|| 2005-11-14 21:58|| Front Page Top

#56 Anyway, glad y'all like the email. I'll pass more of this sort of thing along when I get them (and when they are of the sort I can in fact pass along .....)

Posted by lotp 2005-11-14 22:00|| 2005-11-14 22:00|| Front Page Top

#57 Some passing thoughts on a great thread:

The 9mm and M240 SAW _were_ political procurements. We were getting complaints from our NATO allies that we never were buying any of their stuff. True, but why couldn't USAF or USN sucked it down?

The same company (FN) makes the SAW (hated by troops) and M240B (loved by troops).

I was disappointed not to read anything on the M203, MK 19 and various anti-tank weapons.

For an infantry rifle, I would just be happy to see a piston operated gas recoil mechanism instead of the M16's system that shoots sooty exhaust gas back into the bolt. The piston makes the weapon heavier but increases the reliability tremendously. The M-1 Garand and M-14 both use a piston. Also having a bolt that was relativly smooth instead of being as complicated an Escher print on acid might make the weapon a little easier to clean and cut down on jamming.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-11-14 23:03|| 2005-11-14 23:03|| Front Page Top

23:38 Frank G
23:36 Frank G
23:31 Frank G
23:29 badanov
23:10 Barbara Skolaut
23:05 Alaska Paul
23:03 11A5S
23:01 trailing wife
22:58 Frank G
22:44 Alaska Paul
22:41 AzCat
22:38 phil_b
22:35 The Happy Fliegerabwehrkanonen
22:31 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
22:20 Besoeker
22:17 Besoeker
22:16 Barbara Skolaut
22:11 Besoeker
22:07 Besoeker
22:04 john
22:00 lotp
21:58 lotp
21:57 SJB
21:56 Frank G