Asking Vietnam veterans a combat rifle question

Status
Not open for further replies.

rdmercer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
96
Location
northern Idaho
I am 66 years old and my number wasn't called for Vietnam. I wish I would have gone but can't change it. In many ways I am sorry I stayed at home, but I honor your service to our country greatly. My question centers around the M16. How much of the shooting actually involved aimed fire at a target or was it basically full auto suppressive fire to keep the enemies head down to keep them from shooting at you? Would you have been better suited to have had the enemies AK47 for this purpose or was the 5.56 Nato out of the M16 good enough to get this job done? I have always wondered about this. Thanks again!
 
Allthough there was a lot of full auto action with m16 in ambush and firebase protection action, I assure you aimed fire was done . In my case I do not know the result of my at night best of my ability aimed fire or long range daylight shots with a rifle.
Since you mentioned it, I served 2 tours in RVN and received my share of citations but look at the results today! They became a Communist country like they would as if we never went and trade with the US now like we never were at war. Like Country Joe and the Fish lyrics said; "war is good business, invest your son" ! I left friends there and have my minor wound purple heart. I am not nor never been a leftest, quite the opposite, but what is real is real, no sense thinking anything different, it was no WW2 ! A good case could be made for the last 2 conflicts also as fubars. This does not diminish the glory of the noble soldiers who have fought "for the US" in any way. The politicians and their corporate cronies who restrained our soldiers from a decisive win for wealth and hegemony are the evil doers IMHO.
 
Your question is beyond a blanket answer. I was Army Infantry in II Corps, the central highlands. In that area most of what was contested was rice patty and more flattened terrain. In first Corps, and over toward Cambodia, the overgrowth was especially thick, and visibility sometimes less than 3-4 meters, so to return fire in that area was totally unrelated to responding across a rice patty dyke where we often had visible opposing forces. I was never in the Mekong Delta, but from being in country I know infantry operations were limited. The US Navy undertook a large part of the clearing operations from RAG boats (River Assault Group). I mentioned all this to try and point out that the terrain dictated the response. [One must remember that no ground soldier wants to waste his ammunition - because there is NO assurance of resupply on a timely basis - for instance, command elements might not even know where you are, much less how to get to you.]

Thinking about resupply leads me to answer a question you didn't ask. Unfortunately we have to be realistic and understand that one of the most prevalent sources of resupply is what we call "battlefield pickup." This is tough, but its realistic; when someone has no further need for his ammunition, or weapon - it has to be picked up and redistributed to those who can still fight. [Hopefully you are beginning to see that fast triggers that spray bullets are counterproductive to success.] To take this a step further, if we are thrust into a fertilizer/fan situation, what caliber of ammunition do you want your weapon to use? The one most readily available laying around. With that in mind then the .223/5.56 is the clear winner - everyone's got it. Military, police, preppers, you, me, and on and on. So why would you build or buy a weapon outside those parameters? That answers your second question. The AK has advantages, but the 5.56 relies on tumble, and disintegration on impact to get the job done. It does not always get the job done on first hit, but I promise you it will slow the target enough to get a second shot.

I am nearly 71 years old, and what I just shared with you, I learned when I was 22 years old. Hopefully that gives some perspective on combat operations - and the fact that the terrain characteristics dictate the type of outgoing fire. Someday maybe I'll share with you the story of how a 22 year old kid learned it's not smart to load his magazines with all tracers. Tracers are visible from both sides, ya know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Second hand, from a USMC ElTee whose tour included Tet.

On patrol, only the point man selected full-auto, and maybe the man next in the line. All others were on semi.

In the event of a meet-up with enemy, the first two did the spray-and-pray while ducking for cover. The rest of the patrol, absent a target, took cover. After that, it was aimed fire when a target was available.

Depending on the situation, the radio could be the primary weapon, calling for air or artillery.

They ran into trouble at a distance during a patrol near the coast. NVA on a hilltop with easy targeting down into the valley. So, the radio. To make a long story short, a couple of salvos from the New Jersey changed the elevation of the hilltop.
 
I have learned more about that war and the AR from those posting than I have in 50 years of reading, wondering, and studying about it. Thanks! Anymore would be greatly appreciated.
 
It is my understanding that the Army Air Cav had the best kill ratio. In Viet-Nam the time period, in country location, and your unit of service shape the experience.

The M14 usage should not be diminished. The first major operation of note Starlite in 1965 for the Marine Corps the infantry battalions 3/3, 2/4 & 3/7 all equipped with the M14 rifle. Later on the Hill Fights (1967 Hill 881 referred to as the first battle of Khe-Sanh) brought out the problematic issues of the M16.

From what I witnessed personally spray and pray is over stated but there was a need for suppressive fire.

Not to be over looked is the contribution Artillery and Close Air Support without it the consequences would have been devastating.
 
I was there in 1971 and was a REMF (pencil pusher) and only got shot at once or twice - that was plenty, believe me....

NO you didn't miss a thing... Just think, you also missed sneaking back into the country and never mentioning where you'd been - after learning the hard way. I was an Army brat, raised on one base or another around the world. my Dad did two tours there. To this day I wouldn't even consider belonging to any vererans groups, period. YES, it's nice to see the way our current vets are being treated by ordinary folks....
 
I was a company commander in Viet Nam. I trained my men to shoot -- using a "box."

Lie down as if you were in combat and look at the sky -- there is no enemy up there. Look at the ground right in front of you -- no enemy there either.

Now imagine two parallel lines, one on the ground and one in the sky. Move them together until all the places the enemy can't be are outside the lines. This is the "box" and its sides are your right and left limits.

You'll find the "box" is very shallow. If you shoot into the box carefully and methodically, you'll be getting hits, even if you can't see the enemy.

I added other refinements and drilled my company.

I also levied a $50 dollar fine for shooting full automatic -- full auto fire from shoulder weapons is useless in combat.
 
Dr Chuck, I to was a grunt in the Central Highlands. I was with D Co,3/8th Inf,4th Inf Div 68-69. What was your unit?

rdmercer, what kept you from going. I am 66 also. Why do you wish you had gone now.

Vern, my CO was Milton Daugherty. He had the same rule of no full auto.It just waste ammo. We were Free Fire but he taught us great disciplne.Alsway thankful to him. My wife got to meet him at our last battalion reunion.
 
Medic with the 3/187, 101st here, 68, 69. Point guy was the only full auto. I used aimed fire. When treating I relied on the others to cover me.
 
Allthough there was a lot of full auto action with m16 in ambush and firebase protection action, I assure you aimed fire was done . In my case I do not know the result of my at night best of my ability aimed fire or long range daylight shots with a rifle.
Since you mentioned it, I served 2 tours in RVN and received my share of citations but look at the results today! They became a Communist country like they would as if we never went and trade with the US now like we never were at war. Like Country Joe and the Fish lyrics said; "war is good business, invest your son" ! I left friends there and have my minor wound purple heart. I am not nor never been a leftest, quite the opposite, but what is real is real, no sense thinking anything different, it was no WW2 ! A good case could be made for the last 2 conflicts also as fubars. This does not diminish the glory of the noble soldiers who have fought "for the US" in any way. The politicians and their corporate cronies who restrained our soldiers from a decisive win for wealth and hegemony are the evil doers IMHO.
I tend to be a bit isolationist and dovish on the subject of war. In my opinion, the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, WWII Pacific War, Gulf War and limited special forces action in Afghanistan were/are important. I respect soldiers, but human life is a gift from God. Wars are easy to start, almost impossible to end..
 
Vern, my CO was Milton Daugherty. He had the same rule of no full auto.It just waste ammo. We were Free Fire but he taught us great disciplne.Alsway thankful to him. My wife got to meet him at our last battalion reunion.
As I recall, Milton Daughtery was in my Infantry Officers Advanced Course in '69 and '70 -- but I might be wrong.

I was an Adviser to 4/48 ARVN Infantry in '66-'67 and commanded A-1/61 IN in '69
 
I was in Phu Bai for 69/70. For my time there I never saw a malfuction in the M16 and preferred it to anything else available. Remember, this was jungle not sand, ranges weren't overly long. The M16 was very light and easy to carry around too. If you carried the M16 and M14 for any length of time I'm pretty sure I know which one you'd choose. Any fire that I saw was also aimed.

Also, never saw anyone fire on auto, but I was not in infantry.
 
Vern, he lead us through hill 947 March 5,69. We were out numbered 23 to 1 and if not for daugherty,none of us would have made it. As it was we took 70% KIA and WIA. I do know he was reassigned after that. He got the DSC for 947 and should have got the Comgressional. We see each other at reunions and he keeps up with each man left.If this is the one,I can put you in touch with him.
 
Vern, that is Daughtery in the blue shirt. I amd to his picture left in the green shirt.my plt sgt to the far right of picture and one incredible soldier on picture left.
 
rdmercer,back to your original post,I was in triple canopy jungle. I could throw my rifle up and quickly look over the rear carry handle and over the front sight and hit anything quickly at 25 to 30 yards.
 
I believe that's the man. We had 200 men in the class, only one not a combat veteran. We had two Medals of Honor, three or four DSCs and something like 300 Purple Hearts -- the record for one man was 5.
 
[Hey guys, the OP had a specific question. Let's keep this very tightly focused on that question so we can keep it open. Thanks]
 
SOP 5/7th Ist Cav in 1970 was for the engaged elements to empty a magazine in the direction of the threat and go to cover. We worked mostly what would be the southern highlands between Tay Ninh and Cambodia except for May and June where we strayed over there a bit.

Sighting an NVA through the triple canopy was likely a brief and fleeting thing and the urge to hose down the area he was last seen was strong.

When we were in ambush, it was usually initiated by an aimed shot followed as soon as possible by as many claymores as had been laid out. This was then followed by automatic fire at anything left moving.

Fire superiority/suppressive fire was practiced but usually attempted by semi-auto fire from us and auto fire from the M-60s.

The M-60 gunners would sometimes attract concentrated return fire so a couple of the squad leaders carried select fire M-14s to simulate another M-60, take some pressure off the guns and spread the joy around.

When we would rotate back to a firebase for a few days every month or so, we were encouraged to use up our bush ammunition on automatic during the 2 or 3 programed nighttime "mad minutes". This allowed us to verify gun and magazine function as well as providing us with fresh ammo to take with us when we went back to the field.

As far as the 5.56mm/7.62x39 comparison; the M-16 killed people pretty dead as did the AK. We carried a lot more cartridges per man than those guys so there's that. Which is good.
 
I know we were told to keep this on topic, but thanks to all you who served in Vietnam. It has been interesting hearing about the techniques you guys used.
 
My father is a Vietnam vet. Over the years he has talked about it some. He operated in a small unit that ran ambushes, primarily. In ambush situations you don't fire unless you have a target so that was aimed fire. However, he made a comment that the full auto was nice when breaking contact. He was in country in '68 & '69. He has always said that the M-16 was a good weapon and that he always made sure to keep it heavily lubed.
 
I'm not a vet so don't know if I should post...but my Grandpa is a Vietnam vet. He has told me some stuff mostly about the firearms and tactics. He carried either a m14 or m3 (grease gun), with m14 he said aimed fire semi only and with the m3 quick burst of aimed fire. He never had a m16, he said he would not have mind having one. He was (is) a Marine so BIG on marksmanship though.

Hope this stays open like hearing about all of this and thank you all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top