Did M4 Carbine Fail U.S. Troops During Afghanistan Assault? - Aircraft of World War II

ToughOmbre · 10-11-2009, 11:50 AM

First that I've heard of a problem with these weapons. Eerily reminicent of the issues with the M-16 back in the early days of the Viet Nam War, but the M4 has been in service since 1997.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

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.

TO

Vassili Zaitzev · 10-11-2009, 12:49 PM

Interesting, does kind of sound like the M-16 when it first debut, but the M4 has been in service for awhile.
Adler has fired an M4 before, I wonder what his opinion is?

lesofprimus · 10-11-2009, 01:08 PM

And so have I, and I am a firm believer that the M-4 needs to be replaced...

Gimme an AK any day of the week...

Lucky13 · 10-11-2009, 01:47 PM

Is this the weapon in question?

javlin · 10-11-2009, 02:21 PM

Dan I think while heavy I probably go the M14(.308 ) or maybe the VZ 58 same round as the AK but very well balanced.Kevin

Just wanted to add there is just something about a 55-65 grain bullet that does not bode well with me.The AK rd is what 130-150G, .308 150-175G they finish the job.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-11-2009, 02:46 PM

I never had a problem with the M4. I agree with Dan that it is not the best weapon, but I did not have any problems with it. It always fired just fine for me. Based off of my experience, as long as you took care of it, cleaned it properly it worked just fine.

lesofprimus · 10-11-2009, 03:53 PM

Therein lies the problem Chris.. No matter how anal retentive u are with ur gear, especially in desert/mountainous enviornments, theres always the chance of a jam....

Never had an AK jam on me, and AIve fired it after crawlin through mud and swamps and sand dunes....

I totally agree with u Kevin regarding the weight of the M-4 rounds, just no goddamn stopping power....

B-17engineer · 10-11-2009, 04:19 PM

I forget where I saw this, but it was a TV show comparing guns and they put the guns AK and M4 in mud and water, the AK was fine the M4 jammed after I few shots

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-11-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Therein lies the problem Chris.. No matter how anal retentive u are with ur gear, especially in desert/mountainous enviornments, theres always the chance of a jam....

Never had an AK jam on me, and AIve fired it after crawlin through mud and swamps and sand dunes....

I totally agree with u Kevin regarding the weight of the M-4 rounds, just no goddamn stopping power....

I certainly agree with you. I also think partial blame can lay into the methods used for cleaning. When I was in Iraq my M-60D would jam quite a bit even though I cleaned it after every mission. It would just fill up with sand and it would stick to the CLP. I ended up switching to WD 40 and cleaning it only every 2 or 3 missions and it worked like a champ. Did not have a jam for 6 months or more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-17engineer

I forget where I saw this, but it was a TV show comparing guns and they put the guns AK and M4 in mud and water, the AK was fine the M4 jammed after I few shots

The AK is probably the best. You can literally drag it though the mud and it will still work. As Dan said, I myself have never had one jam on me.

ToughOmbre · 10-11-2009, 04:48 PM

The M4 is a shorter and lighter version of the M16A2, 80% of it's parts in common with the M16A2. Hard to comprehend that there should be a problem with this weapon in 2009.

TO

B-17engineer · 10-11-2009, 04:48 PM

Certainly a good attribute!

lesofprimus · 10-11-2009, 05:03 PM

Hey TO, it is basically the same weapon as in Nam, but the fact remains, it doesnt have the stopping or brush cutting power of the larger calibre rounds....

I can recall atleast 3 occasions where the M-4 jammed on me, and I kept my sh!t wired tight.... Ive also known several SEALs that were in Nam and had similar experiences with the M-16 and the Stoner 63 System...

Think of all the wasted man hours spent field cleaning and stripping down those M-4's just so they dont jam on u when u need it most...

ToughOmbre · 10-11-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Hey TO, it is basically the same weapon as in Nam, but the fact remains, it doesnt have the stopping or brush cutting power of the larger calibre rounds....

Very true, no argument there Dan. Always thought that the muzzle velocity of the M-16 sort of made up for the difference in calibre.

The jamming problem still really bothers me.

TO

lesofprimus · 10-11-2009, 05:25 PM

Hehe, bothers u???

Try havin 9 frickin Africans spraying 7.62 rounds all over the place rushing ur posistion and the damn rifle jams after 8 rounds....

Glider · 10-11-2009, 07:04 PM

If the Special Forces are changing for something else, then that something else it what I would want to seriously look at.

Troops must have absolute confidence in their weapons and the rifle above all.

10-11-2009, 11:50 AM	#1
ToughOmbre Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Jersey Shore Posts: 3,230	Did M4 Carbine Fail U.S. Troops During Afghanistan Assault? First that I've heard of a problem with these weapons. Eerily reminicent of the issues with the M-16 back in the early days of the Viet Nam War, but the M4 has been in service since 1997. Sunday, October 11, 2009 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. TO __________________ *“Let's get Enterprise* and Hornet turned into the wind."**

10-11-2009, 12:49 PM	#2
Vassili Zaitzev Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Stafford Springs, Connecticut Posts: 2,221	Interesting, does kind of sound like the M-16 when it first debut, but the M4 has been in service for awhile. Adler has fired an M4 before, I wonder what his opinion is? __________________ "Never was so much owed by so many to so few"- Winston Churchill.

10-11-2009, 01:08 PM	#3
lesofprimus Minister of Whoopass Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi Posts: 17,490	And so have I, and I am a firm believer that the M-4 needs to be replaced... Gimme an AK any day of the week... __________________ My IL2 Video Tribute to My Grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzN5RuNNJk

10-11-2009, 02:21 PM	#5
javlin Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: MS Posts: 800	Dan I think while heavy I probably go the M14(.308 ) or maybe the VZ 58 same round as the AK but very well balanced.Kevin Just wanted to add there is just something about a 55-65 grain bullet that does not bode well with me.The AK rd is what 130-150G, .308 150-175G they finish the job. __________________ There is no "overkill". There is only "open fire" and "I need to reload". A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go. "We don't want war. Nor will we tolerate slavery." "A free man would rather die on his feet than live on his knees." Last edited by javlin; 10-11-2009 at 02:25 PM.

10-11-2009, 02:46 PM	#6
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 33,150	I never had a problem with the M4. I agree with Dan that it is not the best weapon, but I did not have any problems with it. It always fired just fine for me. Based off of my experience, as long as you took care of it, cleaned it properly it worked just fine. __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]

10-11-2009, 03:53 PM	#7
lesofprimus Minister of Whoopass Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi Posts: 17,490	Therein lies the problem Chris.. No matter how anal retentive u are with ur gear, especially in desert/mountainous enviornments, theres always the chance of a jam.... Never had an AK jam on me, and AIve fired it after crawlin through mud and swamps and sand dunes.... I totally agree with u Kevin regarding the weight of the M-4 rounds, just no goddamn stopping power.... __________________ My IL2 Video Tribute to My Grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzN5RuNNJk

10-11-2009, 04:19 PM	#8
B-17engineer Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,668	I forget where I saw this, but it was a TV show comparing guns and they put the guns AK and M4 in mud and water, the AK was fine the M4 jammed after I few shots __________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe36UMRkRbk

10-11-2009, 04:48 PM	#10
ToughOmbre Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Jersey Shore Posts: 3,230	The M4 is a shorter and lighter version of the M16A2, 80% of it's parts in common with the M16A2. Hard to comprehend that there should be a problem with this weapon in 2009. TO __________________ *“Let's get Enterprise* and Hornet turned into the wind."**

10-11-2009, 04:48 PM	#11
B-17engineer Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,668	Certainly a good attribute! __________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe36UMRkRbk

10-11-2009, 05:03 PM	#12
lesofprimus Minister of Whoopass Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi Posts: 17,490	Hey TO, it is basically the same weapon as in Nam, but the fact remains, it doesnt have the stopping or brush cutting power of the larger calibre rounds.... I can recall atleast 3 occasions where the M-4 jammed on me, and I kept my sh!t wired tight.... Ive also known several SEALs that were in Nam and had similar experiences with the M-16 and the Stoner 63 System... Think of all the wasted man hours spent field cleaning and stripping down those M-4's just so they dont jam on u when u need it most... __________________ My IL2 Video Tribute to My Grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzN5RuNNJk

10-11-2009, 05:25 PM	#14
lesofprimus Minister of Whoopass Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi Posts: 17,490	Hehe, bothers u??? Try havin 9 frickin Africans spraying 7.62 rounds all over the place rushing ur posistion and the damn rifle jams after 8 rounds.... __________________ My IL2 Video Tribute to My Grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzN5RuNNJk

10-11-2009, 07:04 PM	#15
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,649	If the Special Forces are changing for something else, then that something else it what I would want to seriously look at. Troops must have absolute confidence in their weapons and the rifle above all.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode