"lessons learned" report from Operation Iraqi Freedom

Status
Not open for further replies.
4

444

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
8,317
Location
Nevada
This kind of stuff has made the internet rounds ever since the conflict began, but I personally can't get enough.


http://www.sftt.org/article06102003a.html

Wow, this even discusses the soldiers take on things like socks and undershirts. I am surprised at the amount of gear they were using that was privately purchased.
 
May be. I have seen parts of it posted on several boards. Never saw the link to the whole thing. I found it most interesting. I am going to look into buying those undershirts.
 
From the report:

"M-4 carbine: Soldiers were very satisfied with this weapon. It performed well in a demanding environment especially given the rail system and accompanying sensors and optics. As one Brigade Commander said, "The M-4 with PEQ and PAC provided overmatch over our threat equipped with AK-47s and RPGs." The general consensus is that every rifleman wants the M-4 vice the M-16A2."

Madogre, author of "Why I hate the M-16/AR-15" obviously needs to tell these COMBAT SOLDIERS that they don't know what they're talking about, that their weapon is unreliable and "????s where it eats".

My .02.

Albin
 
"especially given the rail system and accompanying sensors and optics"

And fat tail pipe ends make Civics go faster.
What he is talking about is the ability to engage at night and at longer ranges because of the optics the gun mounts.
I submit that such devices could be mounted with little effort to just about any other weapon system out there... and many with much better results. Of course a rifle with a night vision scope is going to have an advantage over one without when it comes to warfighting.
:rolleyes:
- The Mad Ogre, former COMBAT SOLDIER Himself.
 
Of course these things could be attached to any other weapons system out there, but, it certainly wouldn't be with little effort. Using the present rail system, these devices can be attached and detached in seconds. They can be transfered from one weapon to another in seconds. AND, since this is the weapons system we are using, it is important that they can be attached to THIS wespons system.
He is also saying that the present system is considered a significant step up from the guys in the sand that are actually using it.
The results speak for themselves.
 
As I said, you can attach rails to anything. I could attach a rail to my computer case with a couple sheet metal screws.
 
By the way, I also disagree partially with your statement "What he is talking about is the ability to engage at night and at longer ranges because of the optics the gun mounts."
I think the most significant thing that optical sights gave the modern soldier is a faster sight picture, and the dot/target on one focal plane. I think this results in faster aimed shots, and also more accurate fire at any range and at times of darkness or light.
 
i think it was in american rifleman...

some colonel or the like was saying the red dot optics were making it possible for the average soldier to "ding targets out at 800 yards"

m
 
I think the most significant thing that optical sights gave the modern soldier is a faster sight picture, and the dot/target on one focal plane. I think this results in faster aimed shots, and also more accurate fire at any range and at times of darkness or light.
Click to expand...
And this can only be accomplished on an M-4? Well, if you compair it to the standard A2, then your right. But Albin called me out on my article about my opinion of the AR-15/M-16 family of rifles... in which I made little mention of accessory rails.

Madogre, author of "Why I hate the M-16/AR-15" obviously needs to tell these COMBAT SOLDIERS that they don't know what they're talking about, that their weapon is unreliable and "????s where it eats".
Click to expand...
Yup... it does and so does the M-4. Funny how Albin bangs on me for my opinion yet have gives no arguement to the contrary.
It's also funny how in spite of all the M-4's heroics that the US is going to be within just a couple years, phase out all of these things in favor of the HK developed, operating rod action, XM-8. It's self a variant of the G36 rifle that uses the same action as the AR-18... with an operating rod. Just an observation.
Now, what I want to know is how come a different weapon system, outfitted with a rail system and all the goodies couldn't be as fast and handy as the M-4 is? I'm just wondering as Albin threw my opinion article at me like an indictment indicating that I know nothing of these matters despite years of trudging through Central America with a slicked up CAR-15 in my hands almost the entire freaking time.
I would humbly submit that there are many other rifles out there that would be better than the M-4 if kitted in similar fashion. Israel, a long time example of AR-15 Apologists is starting to phase out the M-16 series in favor of the TAVOR system. It has rails too. And it has it's own optical gunsight. But I am sure they are just idiots too and are foolish to stop using the M-4s and M-16s.
 
I am not hung up on the weapon itself, but I think the whole modular aspect is terrific. The ability to add or subtract accessories via the rail system is almost madatory in a 1st world military.
I am also a big fan of having optics on the weapon. I obviously have no personal knowlege of it's combat effectiveness, but from my personal civilian experience, I think it is perfect for that type of shooting.
 
George,
How much are you willing to bet that we'll actually see the XM8? The XM8 gives us no more capabilty then we presently have. It will go the way of the ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle) project of the early '90s.

The M16 series will defend the nation until something that gives us a significantly greater capabilty comes along. Name one thing that the XM8 does that the M16/M4 doesn't.

Operating rod gas system doesn't count.....Has no effect on the end result that is killing the enemy.

You'll see a new variant of the M16 in 6.8x43mm before you ever see the XM8 fielded.

Jeff
 
"I think the whole modular aspect is terrific."

Agree 100%.

The ACR? LOL. Let's not even go there. That was a joke. This XM-8 is a part of the Force 21 development. Think of it like the V-22 program for the Army. We are going to get it if we want it or not, along with the XM-29 and the Stryker fighting vehicle.
 
This XM-8 is a part of the Force 21 development. Think of it like the V-22 program for the Army. We are going to get it if we want it or not, along with the XM-29 and the Stryker fighting vehicle.
Click to expand...

Force XXI ended a couple years ago. The new buzzword is Objective Force. The XM29 OICW is dead in it's present form. The XM8 is an attempt by some contractors to get part of it into the system.

You may well be right about the program being the Army's V-22. Perhaps in 15-20 years technology may advance to the point that the XM8 and XM29 are viable systems. But 2005 and 2008...forget it.

So all the members of the He-man M16 Haters Club can stop their happy dance and settle down. Someday we'll most likely field a weapon somewhat like the XM29 and XM8, but I doubt if my son (PFC White) sees one in his career.

Jeff
 
I think something like a 260 Remington will be the next change. Anti-handgun=Pro-rape.
 
George/Madogre,

Actually, my main point was the first sentence, I threw in the rest of the paragraph for context. Obviously, soldiers wouldn't have been pleased with the rifle if it didn't work.

BTW: I didn't know you and the Madogre were one and the same. Does this mean I'm going to be banned?? First time for me, although I haven't been trying.

Think what you want about the M-4/M-16/AR-15, Spec Ops, Delta, Green Berets, IDF, etc, etc. can't all be wrong and most, if not all, do have a choice.

Note that the report does criticize the SS-109/M-855 round, indicating to me that are not AR-15/M-16 aplogist and note that it was only on long range targets, something the AR-15 family wasn't designed for in the first place.

My .02.

Albin
 
Think what you want about the M-4/M-16/AR-15, Spec Ops, Delta, Green Berets, IDF, etc, etc. can't all be wrong and most, if not all, do have a choice
Click to expand...


And that is why IDF Spec-Ops still use Galil-Tacticals and AK-47s.

And that is why IDF decided to scrap the whole M-16 idea.

And that is why there's 90,000,000 AK's out there and 10,000,000 M-16s.
 
Interesting reading:
"However, today the AK47 is much more then just a weapon in S'13, it's almost a unit's myth. This is why the unit doesn't switch to a more modern weapon even when superior substitutes like the M4A1 are available. "

"most combat soldiers are already equipped with brand new M4A1 which is a combat proven system."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top