I think I remember reading that during the first half or so of Vietnam, armorers were instructed to put magazine springs in backwards, and that was the reason why they couldn't reliably feed 20 rounds. The mistake was eventually fixed, but the belief that you have to down-load M-16/AR-15 mags remains to this day.
Worst Military mistake involving guns
- Thread starter DontBurnMyFlag
- Start date
- Status
'Card
Member
I'd say the biggest failure of all in terms of casualties, would be both sides in the American Civil War pig-headedly sticking to Revolutionary War-era tactics, when their weaponry had become much more lethal.
Your weapons should dictate your tactics - not the other way around.
Your weapons should dictate your tactics - not the other way around.
Old Dog
Member
Well, as one who was fortunate to be issued an M-14 on occasion during his military career, I can't agree that the M-14 was a mistake. Not to denigrate the now "venerable" M-16, but the M-14 certainly had -- and has -- its uses.
One of my pet peeves is the common perception that the switch to the M-9 was a colossal mistake. The transition definitely made sense at the time. Not only because we wanted standardization within NATO. Our inventory of 1911s was aging badly and no longer supported by Colt's production efforts. Furthermore, with the advent of increasing numbers of female servicemembers -- and the all-volunteer force consisting of huge numbers of males with no firearm experience -- the M-9 proved easier to qualify on for most ... I happened to be in a leadership position at a training command when we made the transition, and the differences between learning and shooting the 1911 versus the M-9 were immediately apparent. Even though I strongly favor the 1911 over the Beretta, I cannot support the idea that -- at the time -- going to the 9mm constituted one of the "worst military mistakes involving guns."
James T Thomas
Member
men at arms
Perhaps the worst current military mistake in the USA is the guns are being manned by a critically insufficient amount of soldiers, and the men behind the guns now are Reserve and Guard troops! The guns are only a symptom.
This is not a criticism of our sacrificial and brave Guard and Reserve troops!
Our country is in peril. We are under terrorist threat. The possible, and likely enemies of ours are developing large, modern equipped militaries, and we have sat back and accepted the slashing of our defensive forces by our own chief executives, like Jimmy Carter and William Clinton.
Did'nt Pearl Harbour, Korea and Vietnam teach us anything?
The Japanese spies living in the USA in the thirties and early fourties gave provacative reports to their homeland military that we were "weak." Our troops were training in our military centers with broomsticks in place of rifles.
This, amoung others, was responsible for their mindset that we could be sucessfully attacked. And we were.
The enemy high ranking officers rightly acessed that we were vunerable, and so we were. Only by the grace of God was not our West coast invaded, or Canada/ Alaska. Same for the East coast and the submarine in our rivers.
Now, we are relying on a skeleton military force to deter attack, or the spectre of Nuclear weapons. That's the choice. So it's Nuclear weapons, since the anemic manpower force cannot relyably sustain a major attack.
Having only one option of resorting to Nuclear weapons is suicidal. It is likely that the politicians would either wait too long to decide for such a choice or else they would capitulate entirely.
The small arms question is rendered moot; academic only.
Now is the time to make change in defense policy for our beloved country!
Our brave soldiers will make due with whatever firearms they are given, even to the unecessary sacrifice of life that would involve. But to place them in this indefensable position of strategy is an outrage.
We require a larger military of regular troops.
Perhaps the worst current military mistake in the USA is the guns are being manned by a critically insufficient amount of soldiers, and the men behind the guns now are Reserve and Guard troops! The guns are only a symptom.
This is not a criticism of our sacrificial and brave Guard and Reserve troops!
Our country is in peril. We are under terrorist threat. The possible, and likely enemies of ours are developing large, modern equipped militaries, and we have sat back and accepted the slashing of our defensive forces by our own chief executives, like Jimmy Carter and William Clinton.
Did'nt Pearl Harbour, Korea and Vietnam teach us anything?
The Japanese spies living in the USA in the thirties and early fourties gave provacative reports to their homeland military that we were "weak." Our troops were training in our military centers with broomsticks in place of rifles.
This, amoung others, was responsible for their mindset that we could be sucessfully attacked. And we were.
The enemy high ranking officers rightly acessed that we were vunerable, and so we were. Only by the grace of God was not our West coast invaded, or Canada/ Alaska. Same for the East coast and the submarine in our rivers.
Now, we are relying on a skeleton military force to deter attack, or the spectre of Nuclear weapons. That's the choice. So it's Nuclear weapons, since the anemic manpower force cannot relyably sustain a major attack.
Having only one option of resorting to Nuclear weapons is suicidal. It is likely that the politicians would either wait too long to decide for such a choice or else they would capitulate entirely.
The small arms question is rendered moot; academic only.
Now is the time to make change in defense policy for our beloved country!
Our brave soldiers will make due with whatever firearms they are given, even to the unecessary sacrifice of life that would involve. But to place them in this indefensable position of strategy is an outrage.
We require a larger military of regular troops.
U.S.SFC_RET
Member
jungle said:
+1 to exactly what you say. Inability to adapt.
KriegHund
Member
I have to vote for the cheau-cheau, of course. I think i spelled that wrong.
James T., MAD has worked for a very long time and large standing Armies have not. The concept of citizen soldier dates back to our revolution and is still valid today. The fielding of large numbers of warm bodies will do nothing but make those bodies cold in the arena of improved weapons technology.
If we go back to pikes and archers, numbers start to matter.
If we go back to pikes and archers, numbers start to matter.
Actually, MAD has only worked for 60 years or so and that concept was predicated uopn the assumption that your enemy was afraid to die. That isn't necessarily true today, is it?jungle said:
Additionally, more countries control nukes today which further complicates the situation. Who wants to open Pandora's Box, so to speak?
And to head y'all off at the pass, Hiroshima was a long time ago and we held all the aces. Not the same story anymore.
Biker
Pandora's box was opened a long time ago and it won't be shut. There may be a few extremists who will die for a cause, but that just isn't a winning scenario for a large Country seeking to hold more real estate or workers.
Actually we still hold a very large hand of aces, and not all of them are nuclear. Do a search on God's Rods.
Actually we still hold a very large hand of aces, and not all of them are nuclear. Do a search on God's Rods.
rustymaggot
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 838
not a gun mistake but definately a military blunder......
Most Deaths Caused By Crocodiles
The crocodile attack to claim the most human lives took place on February 19, 1945, when an Imperial Japanese Army unit guarding a stronghold on the Burmese island of Ramree was outflanked by a British naval force. The soldiers were forced to cross 16 km (10 miles) of mangrove swamps to rejoin a larger battalion of the Japanese infantry. The swamps were home to thousands of 4.6-m (15-ft) saltwater crocodiles. Come the next morning, only 20 of the 1,000 Japanese soldiers had survived.
source- http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=54116
they would have faired better just fighting the enemy. at least there is a possibility of surrender that way.
Most Deaths Caused By Crocodiles
The crocodile attack to claim the most human lives took place on February 19, 1945, when an Imperial Japanese Army unit guarding a stronghold on the Burmese island of Ramree was outflanked by a British naval force. The soldiers were forced to cross 16 km (10 miles) of mangrove swamps to rejoin a larger battalion of the Japanese infantry. The swamps were home to thousands of 4.6-m (15-ft) saltwater crocodiles. Come the next morning, only 20 of the 1,000 Japanese soldiers had survived.
source- http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=54116
they would have faired better just fighting the enemy. at least there is a possibility of surrender that way.
Bart Noir
Member
Let's look at the mission of the M. Line. It was supposed to stop or prevent an invasion over the terrain that was usable for an invasion. So it did, the Germans redefined "usable terrain" and went around it. So it sorta did its job. Not that this was of any help to France.
Firearms mistake? I will nominate our US military fumbling around with 4 different bolt guns in 3 decades. Yup, I'm including the 6mm Lee straight-pull rifle that the Navy and Marines used, while the Army was using the Krag design, to soon replace it with the Springfield, which couldn't be built fast enough, leading to the majority of our WW1 Doughboys using the M1917 Remington. Oh, they often trained on US built Lee-Enfields and Mosin-Garant (spelling is wrong, I know!) since the previous 2 rifles couldn't be built fast enough.
That didn't seriously weaken the US, but if we hadn't had the civilian factories turning out lots of rifles for other countries, we would have had a serious problem in 1917.
Bart Noir
Preacherman
Member
I think the "Puckle Gun", patented in 1718, must count for something in the history of firearms mistakes. Two versions were offered: one fired round balls, for use against Christians, and the other fired square bullets, for use against "Turks"! It had some promise, as it used a revolving cylinder to fire nine rounds a minute (as opposed to 2-3 rounds per minute from the muzzle-loading muskets of the day), but proved impossible to manufacture within acceptable tolerances using the early-Industrial-Revolution technology and machinery of the day, and never achieved success.
George S.
Member
PlayboyPenguin said:
I'm not to sure if the decison to replace the venerable 1911 with the M9 Beretta was so much of a military decision as a political one.
Many of the 1911's in the hands of the military were getting pretty long in the tooth and it probably would have cost a lot to replace every one.
The NATO forces were using 9mm as the standard sidearm. With only the US military having a different caliber, it could have been a problem in ammo resupply for the US had the "baloon went up" in Europe.
Politicans pretty much forced the change to 9mm along with the contract stipulation that required Beretta to build a US plant to make the M9 pistol for the military. IIRC, the UN was pretty much against large caliber sidearms because of the potential to cause more damage compared to the 9mm cartridge (not that the UN is right or that we should listen to their demands), so the change was going to happen regardless of the feelings of the military concerning the 9mm as an effective caliber.
9mm is a good self-defense caliber in the civilian world but in today's battlefield, many soldiers wear body armor and 9mm ball is nowhere near as effective as it was before the widespread use of body armor. A return to the .45ACP should give the edge back to our soldiers that carry the .45ACP round.
rustymaggot said:
Good God! That's almost too crazy to believe! How were you aware of this? Just a matter of curiousity on my part. I'd like to read some first hand accounts of this event. I'm kinda morbid that way as a result of reading the survivor's tales of the sinking of the Indianapolis in WW II and the shark attacks that claimed so many lives in the days following the sinking of the ship.
Biker
EddieCoyle
Member
migoi said:
The Battles of Lexington and Concord occurred on April 19, 1775
carebear
Member
Alaska WAS invaded, we stopped 'em....... cold.
The reason the Japanese didn't invade any further towards the US than Midway and Kiska is the same reason the Germans didn't, the Russians didn't and now the Chinese won't.
They lack(ed) the strategic lift to deliver and support a militarily significant force in the face of even minimal opposition. Nobody has that capability but us. Much like the Brit's before us, that is the centerpeice of our defensive strategy and will be until we find some new ways around the laws of physics.
As far as war goes, since 1812 the US has only fought other nations because she has chosen to and except for Mexico (maybe Panama if you want to count that) never on our own continent. That isn't likely to change any time soon.
Good oceans, have a cookie.
George S.
Member
jungle said:
But doesn't the military use a ball round in the 9mm pistol? Probably 115 or 124gr? There are a lot of good 9mm JHP rounds available for the civilian world that are loaded to much higher pressures (+P or +P+) or heavier bullet weights and types but the military does not use them.
IIRC, these type of hotter loads and bullet types are strictly prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Although the US is not a signator to the GC, the US military abides by the regulations governing the specifications for military ammo.
Anyone know what the specifics are for military 9mm ball ammo??
The only thing that keeps us from loading the 9mm ball hotter is the wear and tear on the currently issued sidearm. Russia, as far as I know;has adopted a 9 X 19mm pistol that is nicely "overbuilt" to accommodate hotter loadings.Interesting gun;someone once described it as the forced mating of a Ruger and a Glock,but it seems to be an all steel gun.Hey;I like guns that are stouter than they have to be
;I suspect this one could be built to accommodate 9X23,nevermind parabellum .
;I suspect this one could be built to accommodate 9X23,nevermind parabellum .Vex
Member
i vote for "Military changing to the M9." And for the record, i think the L85 is a sweet weapon.
James T Thomas
Member
missaprehensions
I think my post has been misunderstood. My fault. Please bear with me as I restate some of my points.
"MAD has worked for a long time." Yes it has. However, some of the other posts here are correctly stating adapt or perish. We cannot rely on the old tried and true strategies while we live in "the arena of 'improved weapon technologies.'
On the other hand, we must not become overconfident that all our improved weapon technology; small arms or strategic munition either, can guarantee our survival. We have the history records of the previous wars as examples.
The Luftwaffe was confident in their superior machines (technology) while the Brits. had technology of their own that nullified the technology that gave the Germans the smug reliance that they were superior because of what they had.
In our world today, just how rapidly is one technology outmoding the last "improved technology?"
"Pandora's box being opened a long time ago." How is that poignant to my post? "Few extreemists, willing to die for a cause." The few NAZI extreemists siezed power, and the German nation was not willing, but forced along to die for a cause! Now, what do you make of a "few" (I'll begrudge you a 'few' if you insist) -Muslim extreemists, willing to die, being able to create world havoc and force or incite the whole enormous Muslim world into Jihad?
Sir, my "Top Secret" classification has expired years ago, however, I did recieve classes on a few of our hand of aces, not all nuclear, and may I state that surely you are aware that our government has also long ago depleted and destroyed much of that supplamental weaponry -without replacing it with more "improved weapon tech.;" so that our options are fewer, in my opinion, than the public realizes.
That was the concept I had been trying to state. I am not advocating "fielding large numbers of warm bodies." The field I had in mind is our amber waves of grain and purple mountain's majesty.
Sure the younger members here will thrill at the latest technology, but sir, without the footsoldier on the ground, to defend our homeland, improved weapon technology may be a fatal deception for our nation.
Another post. Japanese lacking strategic lift capabilities. I'm skeptic.
They had enormous naval fleets. The largest battle ship afloat, and if it wasn't for, what I believe, was the "grace of God" we would have had a catastrophe at Midway. They certainly didn't invade at Midway, but they did manage to sneak another fleet; how many carriers? three? right up to Pearl Habour, and you know the rest. It's conjecture on my part; their plan was not for invasion, but if it was, they could have taken HI at that time.
Just so happens "grace of God" again, that the Admiral in charge broke with military strategy and decided to look good and turn around and head home with the victory they did have. Their naval forces at that point had to me what I would call a significant force to support their military.
What about today? Twentyfirst century. The "minimum opposition" was mentioned to stop invasion cold. Aren't you aware of our "less than minimum military forces?" Thanks to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, again?
I will not be so naieve to believe that just because we have not fought war on our homeland in recent times, that the enemies we face, cannot and will not bring bloodshed to our soil. Wht not? How are we different? MAD again?
If we have not a manforce of military to stave off such a strategy, then sir, we have no other choice than the Nuclear! The "improved weapons tech. that you suppose may prevent invasion may be voided by someone's secret microchip or something else. Don't forget how the Chinese for one, have spied on us or outright stollen and smuggled out our improved technology.
Sorry -Bill Clinton again.
"Isn't likely to happen soon." Are you "dead" sure?
Another post. The 9mm with better penetration. If it still cannot penetrate the existing armor, then neither 45 or 9mm is adequate, that is, against a military with adequate equipment -body armor. If I had to defend myself with a handgun against a soldier who had armor, I would prefer to shoot him in the limbs or even face with the 45.
I suppose that in future war, our soldiers may face unequipped enemies (the cost of providing armor for hundreds of millions of troops would be beyond even the Chinese.) And with wartime havoc, there might be shortages such as the German's suffered on the Eastern front. What would you rather defend your life with, against an unarmored enemy? Combat becomes personal, believe me.
The polticians sure did force the 9mm adoption and the UN certainly does insinuate itself into the running of our government. Let us not permit that to go on any more. If our military planners know that they need certain equipment, say M14s and 1911, etc., shouldn't we contact our "politicians" now, while we can; the Commander and Chief, senators, and our Representative and ensure that the best interest of our military is given -above political considerations?
The UN? They would not help with Iraq. In the event of another global war they certainly will be of no help to the USA!
Sorry my post has drifted into the Political forum, but mistakes in our military weaponry; firearms, is tied to the over riding political control that comes with the decisions that our military cannot make -given that we have civilian control of the military.
I think my post has been misunderstood. My fault. Please bear with me as I restate some of my points.
"MAD has worked for a long time." Yes it has. However, some of the other posts here are correctly stating adapt or perish. We cannot rely on the old tried and true strategies while we live in "the arena of 'improved weapon technologies.'
On the other hand, we must not become overconfident that all our improved weapon technology; small arms or strategic munition either, can guarantee our survival. We have the history records of the previous wars as examples.
The Luftwaffe was confident in their superior machines (technology) while the Brits. had technology of their own that nullified the technology that gave the Germans the smug reliance that they were superior because of what they had.
In our world today, just how rapidly is one technology outmoding the last "improved technology?"
"Pandora's box being opened a long time ago." How is that poignant to my post? "Few extreemists, willing to die for a cause." The few NAZI extreemists siezed power, and the German nation was not willing, but forced along to die for a cause! Now, what do you make of a "few" (I'll begrudge you a 'few' if you insist) -Muslim extreemists, willing to die, being able to create world havoc and force or incite the whole enormous Muslim world into Jihad?
Sir, my "Top Secret" classification has expired years ago, however, I did recieve classes on a few of our hand of aces, not all nuclear, and may I state that surely you are aware that our government has also long ago depleted and destroyed much of that supplamental weaponry -without replacing it with more "improved weapon tech.;" so that our options are fewer, in my opinion, than the public realizes.
That was the concept I had been trying to state. I am not advocating "fielding large numbers of warm bodies." The field I had in mind is our amber waves of grain and purple mountain's majesty.
Sure the younger members here will thrill at the latest technology, but sir, without the footsoldier on the ground, to defend our homeland, improved weapon technology may be a fatal deception for our nation.
Another post. Japanese lacking strategic lift capabilities. I'm skeptic.
They had enormous naval fleets. The largest battle ship afloat, and if it wasn't for, what I believe, was the "grace of God" we would have had a catastrophe at Midway. They certainly didn't invade at Midway, but they did manage to sneak another fleet; how many carriers? three? right up to Pearl Habour, and you know the rest. It's conjecture on my part; their plan was not for invasion, but if it was, they could have taken HI at that time.
Just so happens "grace of God" again, that the Admiral in charge broke with military strategy and decided to look good and turn around and head home with the victory they did have. Their naval forces at that point had to me what I would call a significant force to support their military.
What about today? Twentyfirst century. The "minimum opposition" was mentioned to stop invasion cold. Aren't you aware of our "less than minimum military forces?" Thanks to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, again?
I will not be so naieve to believe that just because we have not fought war on our homeland in recent times, that the enemies we face, cannot and will not bring bloodshed to our soil. Wht not? How are we different? MAD again?
If we have not a manforce of military to stave off such a strategy, then sir, we have no other choice than the Nuclear! The "improved weapons tech. that you suppose may prevent invasion may be voided by someone's secret microchip or something else. Don't forget how the Chinese for one, have spied on us or outright stollen and smuggled out our improved technology.
Sorry -Bill Clinton again.
"Isn't likely to happen soon." Are you "dead" sure?
Another post. The 9mm with better penetration. If it still cannot penetrate the existing armor, then neither 45 or 9mm is adequate, that is, against a military with adequate equipment -body armor. If I had to defend myself with a handgun against a soldier who had armor, I would prefer to shoot him in the limbs or even face with the 45.
I suppose that in future war, our soldiers may face unequipped enemies (the cost of providing armor for hundreds of millions of troops would be beyond even the Chinese.) And with wartime havoc, there might be shortages such as the German's suffered on the Eastern front. What would you rather defend your life with, against an unarmored enemy? Combat becomes personal, believe me.
The polticians sure did force the 9mm adoption and the UN certainly does insinuate itself into the running of our government. Let us not permit that to go on any more. If our military planners know that they need certain equipment, say M14s and 1911, etc., shouldn't we contact our "politicians" now, while we can; the Commander and Chief, senators, and our Representative and ensure that the best interest of our military is given -above political considerations?
The UN? They would not help with Iraq. In the event of another global war they certainly will be of no help to the USA!
Sorry my post has drifted into the Political forum, but mistakes in our military weaponry; firearms, is tied to the over riding political control that comes with the decisions that our military cannot make -given that we have civilian control of the military.
- Status
Similar threads
