Worst Military mistake involving guns

[Low-Sci]

My first post...

Sure the 9mm has better penetration capability by virtue of faster velocity and also smaller diameter, but that, in this day and age, needs to be re-evaluated.

The 5.56mm round also has better penetration capability. Its also notorious for being weak against unarmored targets, specifically the M855 ball.

On a modern battlefield like Iraq or Afghanistan, instances where a US soldier's rifle is required to penetrate body armor is infrequent to say the least.

Also, the arguement that the 9mm and the 5.56mm are wounding rounds and take 3 men out of the fight instead of one is outdated. Nobody is gonna run out into the middle of a dusty street to drag Muckmood back, because Muckmood is wearing a suicide vest anyway and he gets a horde of virgins if he dies.

Modern deployment of force demands the capability of putting down unarmored targets with a minimum of gunfire; the rounds that don't hit the bad guy are still gonna hit something, and soldiers may very well be in a situation where their backdrop is a street with kids in it.

That's why I think that re-adopting the .45 1911 pistol in a new, upgraded format is such a good idea. Its rugged like nobody's business, very safe to operate, and packs a punch hard enough to put down a target without a special loading.

But adopting the M9 wasn't the biggest firearms mistake ever. My vote goes to Mikhail Kalishnikov, for being a communist. He designed a rifle that has become the definition of reliability, cheaper and more available than rocks in most countries, reasonably accurate, and he has to go and be a communist. Talk about p*ssing away a fortune.

 

[MechAg94]

I think too many are classifying bad choices that have worked out okay as military mistakes or blunders. The M16A1 and the M9 were not Military mistakes. They are both good weapons that work (though they did manage to screw up the issuing of the M16A1). There are lots of other choices in History that actually caused numerous casualties or affected the outcome of battles. I guess the AKvsAR and .45vs9mm threads are going to people's heads.

What about the US Navy's failure to properly test its torpedoes in WWII? How many US subs failed to make kills they should have made or were destroyed due to that failure?
I heard there were also problems with PT boats and their torpedoes realized in defense of the Philipines. We should have been more effective.

The Union Army had the opportunity to field repeating lever action rifles at the beginning of the Civil War. The Army declined as they thought it would lead to a waste of ammo. Sheesh, they might have won the first battle of Bull Run and taken over a big chunk of the Confederacy right at the beginning. I am not sure of the actual dates on that. I could be off a little.

 

[Hypnogator]

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.

Actually, the M882 ball round meets STANAG specs, which are equivalent to +P SAAMI specs. It fires a 112-gr RN FMJ bullet at ~1263 FPS. Part of the problem with the M9s was keeping this rather hot round from wearing them out at an accelerated rate or cracking the frames.

Much as I personally prefer the .45 ACP, the 9mm does make a lot of sense as a military round where penetration, and weight are major considerations. I'd rather be armed in combat with a 15-shot 9mm than an 8-shot .45, especially if I could carry only a couple of spare mags.

 

[Jeff White]

The Union Army had the opportunity to field repeating lever action rifles at the beginning of the Civil War. The Army declined as they thought it would lead to a waste of ammo. Sheesh, they might have won the first battle of Bull Run and taken over a big chunk of the Confederacy right at the beginning. I am not sure of the actual dates on that. I could be off a little.

Repeating rifles were rejected for the bulk of the Army (many units procured them locally) because the industrial base in the Union was not up to the task of producing metallic cartridges in sufficient quantity to support the Army in the field. The technology to produce reliable mettalic cartridges was in it's infancy then, not just anyone could do it.

Jeff

 

[Rambosky]

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.

"

Ya, it had it's uses. It was issued to me in Basic and AIT. Then they took it away and gave me the Mattel Toy but..............I'm glad I had Matty Mattel instead of the M14 humping in the bamboo jungles a long time ago in a land far, far away. No mistake there.

 

[jungle]

I'd have to say thay made more right choices than wrong since we still occupy the US and speak English. This record is a darn sight better than some other countries.

 

[JohnKSa]

the M14 was the mistake that fortunately only lasted 7 years

Agree. In fact, the tangled politics and wrangling that led to the adoption of the M14 were probably directly responsible for the way that these types of decisions were made outside the military and forced on them in later years.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Though PC at the time, the 86 FOPA act had unintended consequences when they closed the NFA registry and allowed no new guns. Most all development of full auto weapons ceased in the US. Now we have to depend on mostly foreign manufacture for automatic weapons. It amounts to a government created military blunder.

Lay that one on your favorite anti

 

[jungle]

Otherguy, Good point. Our Military has concentrated on the bigger bang and so has our industry. We export jet fighters, and AWACS to allies, but the small arms are made here in the US by foreign(though allied) countries. There just isn't that much to be made in the smallarms end of the business.

 

[jeff-10]

The vote on changing from the 1911 to the M9 is ridiculous. To my knowledge we have never lost a military engagement because of the 9mm.

I think Hitler's refusal to arm is troops with a semi-automatic rifle would count as one of the major blunders.

 

[carebear]

The Tokugawa Shogunate's ban on firearms? Left them open for European domination.

Though they did ok despite all that.....

 

[Kodiak AK]

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.

Not to pick nits or anything , but uhmmmmm Yes we where invaded by the Japs .

ETA Beat to the punch .

 

[MatthewVanitas]

I think a military mistak is using a .308 caliber wepon for a sniper rifle...if your gonna snipe might'a well use a 30-06

How is that a mistake?

7.62x51mm is NATO standard, 30-06 is not.

30-06 may have some slight advantages over the 7.62x51mm at certain bullet weights, but they're pretty much much of a muchness overall.

Also .308 will fit into a shorter rifle action that 30-06 will.


Out of curiousity: why do you think the U.S. should use 30-06 instead?

-MV

 

[Preacherman]

Biker, there are a number of historical references to the "massacre" of Japanese troops by saltwater crocodiles off Ramree Island in 1944. John Winton mentions it in his classic history "The Forgotten Fleet", and Peter Capstick also mentions it in a couple of his books on dangerous game (I have all these sources in my library). I've also read about it in other accounts of the Burma campaign. Opinions differ as to precisely how many Japanese were killed, but there's overall agreement that up to 1,000 Japanese entered the swamps between Ramree Island and the mainland, trying to escape a British landing force. Only 20 survivors were taken prisoner next morning. It's possible that some of the balance managed to escape, but no-one knows, so at least several hundred, possibly as many as a thousand, were killed in one night.

 

[DontBurnMyFlag]

In defense of the 1911 in the m9/1911 argument. I believe that while the .45 was harder to control and an aging gun, the beretta itself has devolopment and reliability issues. It has a wide ejection port and I never never jammed one. However, it is easily stripped and from what Ive heard is hard to clean. Now, keep in mind, I dont own a beretta or use one daily. My military friends just tell me this stuff. And from what I read, Im inclined to believe them.

9mm vs 45 is an argument that will go on forever. Its not neccessarily the caliber I was talking about . Also to clafify, there is no military engagement that was lost because of the m9. I suppose by mistake I just meant, what angered you the most.

 

[Dave Rishar]

The M9 is not hard to clean. On the contrary, it's a bit easier and considerably quicker to field strip. The only fly in the ointment occurs if the locking block wiggles free from the barrel; replacing it is a hassle the first couple of times. A pistol has to be fairly worn before this will happen accidently, however, and even then it's easily prevented if one is watching for it.

The developmental issues with the M9 were more or less solved during the '80's. It's a solid pistol now IMO.

 

[Cosmoline]

--The UK's failure to build a SAFN rifle based on the plans Saive and his engineers smuggled in from occupied Belgium in the early days of the war.

--The failure of the US to adopt a bolt action rifle until the Krag.

 

[Sunray]

"...not issuing Browning's BAR to our troops who went over to Europe during WWI..." There was no BAR when U.S. troopies first went to France in 1917. The Chauchat was all they could get.
The .308/7.62NATO, like the 5.56, was developed in the U.S. then jammed down NATO's throat. There were several better calibres being developed at both times.

 

[lbmii]

How about that 45ACP carbine/sub-machinegun that was issued to the USMC during WWII?

 

[c_yeager]

I think it is very doubtfull that a single one of the listed mistakes actually effected the outcome of any wars. Kinda lends some doubt to the actual significance of the small arm to large scale warfare.

 

[jungle]

Since WWI, most of the killing in battle has been done by artillery, air, mortars and beltfeds. The same situation existed in Vietnam, with most casualties from what we now call IEDs, also known as poor man's artillery.
Rifles account for less than 20% of the shooting and hitting in war now and pistols have a miniscule contribution.
In Iraq, IEDs account for most casualties on our side, because Hadji has learned if he sticks his head up it won't be there long.

 

[Tory]

Reality check

"I vote for whatever went on in Turrent [sic] 2 on USS Iowa on April 19, 1989 just prior to the explosion."

First, the word you are trying to use it turret. There is no such word as "turrent." There is "torrent," but it has absolutely nothing to do with this subject.

Second, the explosion on Iowa was caused by a mistake in the loading flats between the magazine and the turret's ammo hoist, most likely due to crew error and/or unstable ammo left over from WW II.

Either way, it is hardly a weapons choice issue.

Oh - the invasion of the Aleutians was repelled because:

1. We knew the Japanese plans; and

2. It was not a real threat, but only a feint to draw our forces away from Midway.

 

[oweno]

A British officer (whose name escapes me) who was fighting in our Revolutionary War invented a breech-loading rifle. The Brits got around to adopting a similar rifle ... about a hundred years later.

What *was* his name? Ferguson (sp?) ???

 

[Brother in Arms]

Oweno
You are thinking of Patrick Ferguson who developed the Ferguson rifle. Unfortunately he died at the Battle of Kings Mountian and was unable to fully promote his invention. Had he not died it may have been a sucess.


Wow I can't believe no body said this one yet but maybe its a big one for me because I am from Maine.

The U.S. Not adopting the Maxim Machine gun, the british adopted in 1889! Hiram maxim was from Maine but moved to britian to build his Machine gun.

Someone above mentioned the Lewis gun, The Vickers would have been another excellent choice.

As for major mistakes its hard to say. No one knows how history would go. Like someone else above said adopting the Krag instead of the Mauser rifle. That was quickly remied by adopting the 1903 springfield, which is functionaly very similiar to the Mauser. The Krag wasn't a bad rifle though, It just isn't considered the best rifle by todays standards. It was accurate, fairly reliable and the .30-40 wasn't a bad cartridge.The Krag has one of the smoothest actions on a bolt rifle. I think we should have adopted the 1917 enfield completely phasing out the 1903. We used them in ww1 and ww2 to some exstent but I think its a better arm.

Part of it is preference part is what needed to be done, during the time of adoption.

Brother in Arms

 

[Husker1911]

A significant blunder, by US authorities, was not adopting the FAL rifle in the field tests that were "cooked" to impel the choosing of the M14. While the M14 is a good, decent rifle, the advantages of the FAL are compelling. The fact the FAL served in over 90 armies around the globe is damning evidence of the US military's stubborn obstinance in the face of European designs.