WP: M-16s Jammed at Lynch Capture

[kskiska]

Unreleased Army Report Cites Malfunctions, Desert Conditions

When Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch's lost maintenance company was ambushed in Nasiriyah, Iraq, on March 23, many of the unit's soldiers were unable to defend themselves because their weapons malfunctioned, according to an Army report.

"These malfunctions," the report says, "may have resulted from inadequate individual maintenance in a desert environment" where sand, heat and improper maintenance combined to render the weapons inoperable.

The report on the incident, scheduled to be released this week, adds new details to the circumstances reported last month by The Washington Post, which described how the 18-vehicle convoy got lost in the southern Iraqi city after its company commander, Capt. Troy King, did not receive word that the larger column it was following had changed routes. The convoy then made several navigational errors, which required the slow, lumbering vehicles to make two U-turns in the middle of hostile territory.

One half of the 507th Maintenance Company, 33 soldiers in all, had fallen as much as 12 hours behind the miles-long column of vehicles moving north. Eleven of the company's soldiers were killed in combat or died from injuries; six were captured by Iraqi forces and later freed, including Lynch. The remaining 16 sped to safety.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35551-2003Jul9.html?nav=hptop_ts

[RobertSeattle]

1. These guys were mechanics

I doubt maintaining their weapons was topmost on their minds.

And they had been essentially told this would be a cake walk - the Iraqis, especially those in the south, would be welcoming them with open arms...

I'm sure the Company Commander's Army career is over.

[bvar22]

2. Do AK-47's jam in a desert environment?

AK-47's and variations appear to be a weapon of choice for most of the Afghani and Iraqi fighters I've seen on TV. Most don't appear to be very well maintained.

Just curious.

[rppper]

3. m16's have had a history of jamming up.....

...ever since they were introduced in vietnam. they are still a great field weapon, but maintainence is vital to the m16 functioning properly....much more-so than an ak47, which is practicly indestructible......

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

9. Mine did too when I was in the Army

But that was the post Vietnam mid 70's. The post that held the buffer spring assembly in place had a habit of breaking after too much automatic fire.

However I've heard that since then all had been fixed.

[5thGenDemocrat]

22. Exactly so

I spent Jan-Mar '74 in Army basic training (just barely post-Vietnam) and my M-16 (which, unlike me, spent time in-country) was a piece of crap. Even our drill sergeants told us the rifle was largely useless -- truth is, the weapon is half-made by Mattel, the same folks who make kiddie toys for Murkin consumption.
John
"You can tell it's Mattel -- it smells." That was the joke back in the day. Not particularly funny, though.

[htuttle]

5. AK-47's were designed to be abused

You can pour a handful of sand right through the firing mechanism, and it will pass out the bottom.

[saigon68]

6. They are Highly Reliable

This is a result of a number of design compromises.

A chromed chamber and barrel to resist corrosion.

Tolerance on many surfaces looser than an M-16, so that sand ---etc will not bind the action

an ease of assembly and disassembly geared toward someone with a peasant ability and skill for simple maintenance.

[renegade000]

10. and they lay down a large volume of fire...

too bad about the whole accuracy bit...;-)

[Saintgermane]

36. actually....

...binding from sand in the upper receiver was quite common during the first gulf war. We tried a range of lubricants, seeking one that would not form a sludge with sand and oil, and eventually settled on oiling the weapon, then wiping it as dry as possible prior to reassembly.

To forestall rust, this required more frequent maintenance.

Morover, it was common practice to tightly wrap rags and other pieces of cloth around all entry points for sand, leaving critical parts of the weapon (the slide range for the charging handle, e.g) unencumberd.

The M240B (cousin to, and replacement for, the M60), appears to function well, as does the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.

However, may soldiers in line units are now carrying the M-4 carbine, not sure of the performance of that in a sandy environment, but have heard few complaints.

Overall, the M16A2 is an excellent weapon, closely machiined, and very accurate, that will take a lot of abuse. Unfortunately, sandy/dusty environments are it's weak point.

Support units (no offense to my log brothers) are notorious for poor maintenance on individual weapons.

just my 2c

saint

[happyslug]

11. AKs has a better reputation to work in bad environments.

When Semi-automatic and Automatic Rifles replaced Bolt Action Rifles in the military (in the US in the 1930s, in the rest of the world in the 1950s) one of the changes that had to be made was dropping the level of Reliability. NO AUTOMATIC OR SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapon is as reliable as a Bolt Action Rifle. For this reason several Armies kept their rear troops equipped with nothing but bolt actions till the 1980s (Some till the 1990s). Given a lack of maintenance and abuse the Bolt action rifles would still work when Automatic designs would jam.

As to the M-16 and Ak actions, both have advanges and disadvantges. The AK is more relible but at the cost of being the heaviest Rifle in any caliber both rifles are chambered for.

Now the M-16 was designed to be the lightest effective weapon it can be. On the other hand the AK series was designed to be able to take as much abuse as possible and still operate even if this meant an increase in weight. Thus the M-16 is the LIGHTEST Rifle in use today while the AK is the heaviest.

Israel gives you a good feel for both of these weapons. After the Six- Day war the Israelis decided to adopt a 5.56mm weapon. They tested all of them then existing and decided NONE were a reliable as the AK-47 (Which they had captured during the war and used for comparison purposes). The Israelis than adopted the Galil Rifle which is nothing but an AK-47 designed to be machined made (as opposed to being tamped out like the AKM series) And chambered for the 5.56mm Round.

Recent reports indicated that the Israeli infantry has switched to the M-16 do to its lower weight. The M-16 is a lot easier to carry around than the AK. On the other hand the Armor Forces of Israel still uses the Galil. The Galil was also exported to various Latin American Countries where it is the preferred weapon when operating in the Jungle.

While the Difference? The Israeli Armor Units through up a lot of dust when operating and thus they like the greater reliability of the Galil over the M-16. The Israeli Infantry keeps their M-16 as clean as possible and thus the M-16s less tolerance of abuse can be managed.

As stated by other posters, if you are issued a M-16 you have to keep it clean of sand and dirt and when a whole units equipment jams (the report indicate not only did the m-16 jam so did the m-249 Squad Automatic Weapom, i.e. the Modern BAR, AND the M-2 >50 Caliber Machine Gun. All of this indicate less a problem with the M-16 than with THe NCOs and Officers not amking sure ALL the weapons were maintained.

[DS1]

18. Their M2 jammed? Holy shit! That's unpossible

they were obviously never expecting to have to shoot at anyone, the M2 is a BEAST! It's why we're still using a gun designed 101 years ago!

[happyslug]

23. That was my observation

How can you jam a M2? It is a recoil operated system (unlike the gas system of the M-16, M-14. M-1, M-249 and M60). It is almost impossible to jam but it can be done if the dust is enough.

When I was reading of the Desert war of WWII I found that the British troopers would NOT oil their Vickers Machine Guns (another recoil operated Machine Gun) until action was immediate. At that point they would give the weapon a quick oil job before firing. This way the sand did not collect on the oil and jam the Vickers Machine Gun.

Remember the Troops were driving through desert and throwing up a lot of dust. If the Weapons were oiled the dust would collect on the oil and jam them (even the M2).

Also while the M2 basic design predates 1914, the M2 itself was only designed in the late 1930s as a water cooled .50 Caliber Machine Gun. During WWII the Heavy Barrel version, used today, replaced the water cooled. So the design is NOT 100 years old, but close.

Remember the M2 is based on a Browning design of the M1917 and M1919 Machine Guns. Browning did design earlier machine guns but none were as successful or as good as these three. Thus the Design is from 1917 and this is 2003 that makes it 84 years old not 103.

[atreides1]

16. Actually

AK-47's were made to withstand diverse environments, it's a very tough weapon.

The M-16 on the other hand has had its share of problems. The type of powder used in the ammunition caused a heavy build up in the upper receiver and would cause it to jam. But the type of ammo used after
Vietnam has improved, as well as the cleaning methods.

Their is no excuse for not taking care of your weapon, what this points to is the lack of the units NCOs doing their jobs. The NCO is
responsible for making sure that the soldiers under their command maintain their weapons. If their weapons were in this kind of shape, then we can be glad that the Iraqis didn't use chemical weapons, because I'll bet that their NBC gear wasn't in proper condition either.

The commander of this unit, along with the surviving NCO's should be brought up on charges of dereliction of duty, and court martialed.

[laconicsax]

32. The reliability of the AK-47

is amazing. The mechanism is about as simple as possible for a gas powered semi/full auto rifle and consequently works in all conditions.

Side note: The overwhelming majority (if not all) of AK-47s seen are actually the AK-M. The only real difference being the production methods (less expensive).

[ward919]

34. Oh, those military contractors.....hmmmm.wonder what companies

are going to get "increased" contract dollars to "correct" the problem?

[cally]

4. Yeah, the equipment fails in a desert environment

It's the soldiers' fault? Sheesh.

[saigon68]

7. Its the fault of the Officers and NCOs

I can't imagine a top Sgt allowing his troops to walk around with filthy unmaintained small arms. The first thing you do is always clean and maintain your piece. The second thing you do is take care of your feet and boots.

Lack of proper traing here.

These people apparently were REMFs !!!--- I'll let another vet tell you what that means.

Been There Done That.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

13. Maybe the fact they were a maintenance and supply unit

that did not have to carry a weapon as part of their normal operations as opposed to a regular combat unit was the reason for their weapons not kept in fighting order.

[atreides1]

20. That's Not True

During Desert Storm I was assigned to a supply unit, we were required to carry our weapons everywhere we went, as well as our NBC gear. We were also issued grenades and the platoon was issued three anti-tank
weapons.

What this shows is the incompetence of the chain of command, who were
derelict in their duty to make sure that all of the equipment in this unit was operational.

The officer in charge should be court martialed, if he survived, as well as the NCO's who survived this debacle. But then again they just might be living in their own hell right now.

[realFedUp]

8. Is she still being held hostage by the Pentagon?

She disappeared off the front pages as fast as Eric Rudolph and the
bombed smuggled sheep convoy.

[DemoTex]

12. LZ BIRD, Christmas 1966

Binh Dinh Province, Vietnam. First Cav (Airmobile). Three battalions NVA regulars (800+) against 150 Cav troops. NVA run through BIRD shouting "HEY GI! TONIGHT YOU DIE". According to military historian Gen. S.L.A. (SLAM) Marshall, all of the new M-16s at BIRD that night jammed.

Read The Battle for BIRD, by S.L.A. Marshall

[happyslug]

14. History of the M-16 in Vietnam

In 1957 the US Army adopted a New Rifle, the M-14 which was nothing but the M-1 of WWII fame updated with a 20 round detachable magazine AND chambered for 7.62 NATO Ammo.

In 1959 The US Air Force adopted the M-16 for use by its security personal to replace WWII era M-1 Carbines. Subsequently some of these were also shipped to Vietnam for use by South Vietnamese Soldiers. Based on theses shipments some favorable reports on the M-16 were sent to Washington in the early 1960s.

By 1964 the Russians were not only supplying the Viet Cong with Old WWII Bolt Action Rifles but the newer 10 shot SKS series of Semi-Automatic Rifles. Starting in 1959 the USSR started the process of replacing the SKS with the AK-47 for its own troops. Thus by the early 1960s the USSR had lots of SKSs to give away (The AK-47 had been first adopted in 1947 but do to an inability of the USSR to mass produce it, it was never fully adopted till it was re-designed for mass production in 1959. This modified version is called the AKM-47. There is also a report that Stalin did not like the idea of Russian troops having detachable magazines and as such he preferred the SKSs over the AK. After his death in 1953 development of the AK was re-started leading to production of the AKM-47 in 1959).

Also the USSR also wanted some combat reports on the AK, so the USSR also supplied some AKs to the Vietcong (Through most of the AK seem to stay with the North Vietnamese Regulars NOT the Viet Cong per se).

Do to the above a problem arouse as the US Army went into Vietnam in 1964. The SKSs and the AKs had higher effective fire rates than the M-14 (Do to the SKS and AK being chambered for a much weaker round than the M-14). The higher effective fire rate meant that when two groups of soldiers of about the same size meant the Viet Cong would win given their SKS superior firepower over the M-14s. This had been a known problem as early as WWII but the US liked the greater range of the M-14 and accepted the lost of Fire Power for the M-14s greater range. The problem was in Vietnam the M-14 greater range was rarely used, while the SKSs greater firepower won the fire fights the troops ended up in (and to make things worse we knew the AKs were coming and given the AK's detachable magazine our troops were going to lose even MORE fire fights).

Thus in 1964 the US Army turned to the M-16 as the only rifle in production in the US that could compete with the SKSs and AKs as to firepower. At the same time there was a Government move to go to contracting services instead of the government doing the service themselves. Thus the US Government also closed down the Springfield Armory which had been making the M-14 and thus M-14 production came to an end.

Now the M-16 had entered the US Army NOT through the conventional acquisition method, but by a decision of the Secretary of Defense to adopt the M-16. The M-16 had been used by the US Air Force for 5 years at that time and the Air Force had a high opinion of the weapon. The Air Force rarely had their security troops patrol swamps for days on end (And other infantry activity, the Air Force use of the M-16 was to maintain base security nothing more) thus the use of the M-16 by the Air Force was NOT an adequate test of the M-16 as an infantry weapon.

The M-16 was thus adopted without any testing in combat situations. The first time the US had to use the M-16 in hostile environment was in Vietnam and the failure to fully test the design came back to kill US troops.

The AK, the M-1 and M-14 weapons had one thing in common, a hard Chrome Chamber. The chamber of a Rifle is where the Round goes in and the bolt closes behind the Round. In the Chamber the firing pin hit the Primer setting off the round. The brass casing of the powder is pressed against the Chamber to seal the chamber while the bullet goes down the barrel. After the Bullet had exited the barrel the brass casing is pulled from the chamber as a new round is inserted.

Given what happens in the chamber it is important that it is kept clean AND in most weapons it is hard chrome for Chrome does NOT react with brass thus a brass casing is less likely to stay in the chamber after it is fired. A hard chrome chamber is also easier to keep clean thus less likely to retain dirt that could jam a weapon.

In the case of the M-16 because it had not gone through normal testing it was assumed that since it operated for the Air Force without having a hard chrome chamber it could also work for the Army without a hard chrome chamber. The jungles of Vietnam showed this to be false. It was this lack of hard chroming that gave the M-16 its bad reputation in Vietnam.

Now, if the situation was normal this problem would not have been much of a problem. The M-16 would have been pulled back home and the weapons hard chromed and than re-issued. The problem was we were in the Middle of a War and thus what weapon would replace the M-16 while it was hard chromed?

The M-14? It was only produced from 1957-1964 and never fully replaced the M-1 in Regular US services (During the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 you can see film of American GIS preparing to invade Cuba still equipped with the M-1 rifle. During Kent state in 1970 the national Guard Troops still had the M-1 Rifle Not the M-14 or M-16).

Now most M-14s had gone to Europe, so to replace the M-16 in Vietnam meant taking the M-14s from our troops in Germany (and remember the USSR still had its massive army in Central Europe at that time). Furthermore the USSR was in full swing replacing its troops SKS with AKs. If we took the M-14 off our troops in Europe we had to issue them M-1s which by 1964 was clearly inferior to what the Russians had in Europe.

The other alternative was to replace the M-16 with the M-1, but the reason we had adopted the M-16 was the M-14 and M-1 were inferior in firepower to the SKS and AKs being used in Vietnam.

This all was know by 1966 (some people say by 1965). The army was thus caught on a dilemma, How to address the short comings of the M-16s without withdrawing it from the front lines? Like most people in such impossible to solve situation the Army just muddled through. New M-16s were made with Hard Chrome Chambers (I believe starting in 1967) and as the new M-16 were given to the troops the old M-16s were withdrawn and hard chromed (This seems still to be going on in the early 1970s). We had troops killed do to jammed M-16s, but the alternative would have been to give them M-1s (which had inferior Fire power over the increasing number of SKSs and AKs entering Vietnam at the same time). Vietnam was an infantryman's war and the side with the superior firepower was going to win. We still "won" the battles but more on superior Air Power (both jets and helicopters), Superior Artillery Support etc. As to Vietnam the M-16s did not cost us any battles, just men's lives.

That last sentence is both true and troublesome. Many of the Junior Officers who saw the M-16 fail in Vietnam are General now. These officers also saw that lying to the troops (and the press and the American People) as to why the M-16 failed increased your chances of promotion, while showing the real reason did not get you anything except dismissal out of the Military. Senior personal did not care about people's lives just winning the battle and looking good in the press. Both still characteristic of the military today and especially this administration.

[DemoTex]

17. Happyslug

What a history. I did the M-14 in basic and AIT. I did the M-16 when I got to the 'Nam as a ASA super-spook pilot (SP-2Es over the Trail at night).

\

Two-turnin', two burnin'!

[5thGenDemocrat]

24. I agree -- excellent history

And, as the non-vets can see from the field reports, a condemnation of that silly toy which was put into our hands. Given a choice of the M-16 or the AK-47, guess which one most of us would prefer?
John
Admittedly Signal Corps, thus it didn't matter much to me personally after the first ten weeks of my military career. I never carried a rifle again (except for qualifying) after I left Basic Training.

[5thGenDemocrat]

28. I'll have to look that up

SLAM, according to David Hackworth (in "About Face"), was a total pimp for the war cause during Vietnam. That's the first I've heard about Marshall being critical of anything American during the conflict.
John
I'm a Michiganian -- Marshall was a big deal in the Detroit News during the war.

[NYC]

15. Was the M16 the one referred to as "Jammin' Betty"?

?

[DemoTex]

19. NYC

I never heard that. By the time I was issued an M-16 in the 'Nam it was a fairly good weapon. Not perfect, like the M-14, but fairly good.

[NYC]

21. What kind of rifles did the Marines have in Beirut?

?

[happyslug]

25. M16a2s

This is the M-16A1 of Vietnam updated with an adjustable rear site.

One coment on Beriut, the front guards (the people at the gate that the Truck Bomb ran through as it ran into the building before blowing up) were reported to only have 12 gauge shotguns (and one report indicated No ammunition). If the marine had no ammo, what weapon they had was unimportant.

[NYC]

26. Thanks.

Yes, a lack of ammo does render any gun useless.

I have a vague memory of reading about M16s being called "Jammin' Betty" in a Sunday Times article related to the Beirut incident. That's why I asked about the Marines.

[happyslug]

27. M-16 and M-18

Troops have a habit of calling their weapons female names, so jamming Betty was probally used in reference to the M-16 in the mid-1960s. The reputation of the M-16 was so bad that in 1968 Eugene Stoner, the designer of the M-16 (civilian name AR-15) came up with his AR-18 design to replace the M-16.

The AR-18 took the gas operating system of the AK, the bolt of the M-16 and eliminated the Buffer spring in the rear stock. At a slight increase in weight the AR-18 eliminated most of the problems with the M-16 (i.e. the Gas operating system of the M-16) and produce a weapon that was cheaper to make (and could have a folding stock unlike the M-16 which do to its buffer system can NOT have a folding stock).

The US Army looked into adopting the AR-18 but decided that it had already committed to the M-16 to stay with the M-16. (A major factor was Armalite which designed both the AR-15 and AR-18 had sold off the rights to the AR-15 to Colt, which was manufacturing the AR-15 as the M-16 for the US Army. The Army did not want its main supplier of weapons mad at them when the need for weapons were high (the Vietnam war was at its height) for switching to another design. A design by a Company with no manufacturing capability at that time. Armalite today is producing weapons but in 1968 it was basically a design bureau with limited manufacturing capability.)

[NYC]

29. This whole thread leads me to believe that instead of spending

zillions of dollars for NMD, people should invent and manufacture a better rifle.

[5thGenDemocrat]

30. Well, if you don't mind the weight (a very important consideration)

An M-1 still works as well as anything you're going to use. It doesn't have a high rate of fire, but is absolutely deadly one-on-one.
John
It's still a prized deer hunting rifle here in Michigan. I remember my circa 1970 M-16 as a toy -- give me a .30 caliber bolt-action any time. But, again, I'm talking as a Signal Corps twerp.

[happyslug]

31. Why??

The AK is an excellent design and very Accurate (You will hear stories that it is inaccurate but that reflects the lack of quality control the Russian put into making their ammo. The AK-47 can handle ammunition whose quality (or lack of quality) would jam a M-16. If you use Western Made ammo in a AK, you get the same accuracy as in a M-16 or M-14. Russian and Chinese Ammunition is simply not as accurate (Except for specially made sniper ammo, which matches up while with Western Ammo.)

As to Machine Guns the US Army tested various allies machine Guns(MGs) purchased new against a captured Russian PK (The Russian General Purpose Machine Gun). The PK kept up with ALL of the other Machine Guns (excepting the M-60 of Vietnam War Fame, which fell behind the whole lot).

So instead of adopting the PK, we adopted the Belgium MAG Machine gun to replace the M-60. Why, FN (which makes the MAG) had a good lobby in the Pentagon, the PK like the AK had no one to lobby for it.

The Russian Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) also has a similar good reputation and again while in use by our enemies, we have nothing to compare with it (Worse the LAW of Vietnam war fame ended up being replaced by the Swedish AT-4 by an Act of Congress. No one in the Pentagon wanted to take responsibility for finding the replacement for the LAW, so the Army had to have Congress do it).

Good weapons are out there, the issue is the WILL to adopt them when everyone in the Pentagon has personal reasons NOT to adopt them. A maker of AKs in 5.56mm and PKs in 7.62mm Nato ammo has no need to ex-pentagon brass, while makers of M-16s and MAGs do have a place for ex-pentagon brass.

[Best_man23]

33. I will bet dollars to doughnuts

That Pigman and the other repug talking heads will try to pin this on Clinton by saying he took away military funding. If you hear any repugs saying this, DUers, you need to confront them on this. If their M2s also jammed, that points directly to lack of maintenance. I have said repeatedly that money would be better spent developing a more reliable rifle to replace the M-16.

As a general rule, the Soviets design all their field weapons to be simplistic. Another good example of a Soviet weapon that was simple in design, but devastating in its firepower was the PPsh 1914 submachine gun, which could fire at 900 rounds per minute. During World War II, this was one of the weapons that made the difference in the Battle of Stalingrad and the Red Army's subsequent victories over Nazi Germany.

A story about the AK-47. During the testing of the AK-47 for the Soviet government, they tied a rope to the test model, then threw the weapon into a river, allowing it to sink to the bottom. It was then dragged across the river bed back the shore. Then, without even tilting it to pour the water out, they picked up the AK-47 and proceeded to test fire the clip that was in the weapon.

Needless to say, this coupled with its simplicity explains why the AK-47 is the weapon of choice throughout many parts of the world.

[saigon68]

35. Totally Agree !!!

This problem is maintenance and leadership

See Number Seven (7) Above

To blame Clinton is chickenshit. Actually HORSESHIT

Before these REMFs were deployed they should have been trained by some old drill sergeants on what it means to keep your stuff in working order.

Once in country, the NCOs should have inspected everyone's small arms to ensure that what was taught was being put into practice.

I guess the leadership was enthralled with the idea of the Flowers that were supposedly going to be thrown, rather than the B-40s and grenades that subsequently were.