The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Small Calibers Interesting read about how the M16 helped us lose in NamGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Interesting read about how the M16 helped us lose in Nam | Login/Join |
| new member |
http://www.esquire.com/print-t...istory-1110?page=all Beeman. I concluded my speech by telling them that I was done with politics for the present, and they might all go to hell, and I would go to Texas. -- Davy Crockett 11AUG1935 | ||
|
| One of Us |
"We" did not lose in Nam. We lost the war in the US. BUT it was a good read and accurate. Perry | |||
|
| One of Us |
The US never lost a major battle the entire war. If you look at the sheer numbers of dead it would show that the war was completely one sided in our favor. If anyone or thing is to blame for the perceived loss it would be those in Congress, and the Senate, Presidents, and their cabinets. They did not let the leaders lead and do what was necessary on the ground. Proof that micromanagement isn't effective. You can't run a war when you are 10,00 miles away and totally detached from the war. You need experienced leaders on the ground to make command decisions and not wait for approval from bureaucrats back in DC. As far as the M-16 is concerned it was fielded before all the bugs were worked out of it and sadly many Americans paid the price for it. | |||
|
| one of us |
This article is nothing new. I read scathing articles in the late sixties outlining the politics which went into the acceptance trials o the AR. There were rigid rules specifying tests which must be placed to qualify a weapon for consideration. Time after time, these tests were waved or modified for th AR, as they had never been for any other rifle. One test required that the gun be immersed in water, then removed and immediately fired. The 22 bore is small enough to form a meniscus, so the test was modified to allow partial opening of the bolt to allow breking the meniscus. Another test was to fire the rifle at 600 yds at a piece of canvas at 600 yds set at a 30 degree angle and count the hits to determine long range accuracy. The AR scored 0 since the bullets wouldn't penetrate a single layer of canvas. The test was modified to allow catching the bullets in the canvas and counting those to determine the number of "hits". The bottom line is that the US went off on a wild goose chase searching for an assault rifle and ended up with a piece of crap (at the time). To avoid the fallout, they proceeded down the spindoctor path, with stories of the lethality of the rifle and round. Almost everyone serving in vietnam came back with glowing reports of how the bullet tumbled and caused tremendous damage. The truth is that most people in the military are not gun people, and believe this sort of BS. The truth is that we should have followed the East European model and developed a medium bore moderate velocity round that would have been much more effective and allowed the carrying of more ammunition. Many people were working at this time to develop arms along this line, and you still see some of the results such as the .308x1.5". The new 6.8 would have been a much better solution. The basis of the story is true, in that the special interest groups in the mlitary and government at the time conspired to do a huge disservice to the soldier. | |||
|
| One of Us |
First off this subject should have never came up, especially in the gun section of the forum. It's trash for the political section. It's also a dishonor to all the soldiers, both alive and dead, to talk about "losing the war". Now with that said let me refresh your keyboard minds. First off there was everything wrong with the M16 when it was sent to Vietnam. You all should know them all by now. The chamber and bore wasn't chromed because McNamara wouldn't spring for the money to do it. He and the rest of them knew it should have been done. They switched powders and went to a ball powder when the cartridge and rifle was designed for tubular powder. Then if that wasn't bad enough Winchester put too much calcium in it to extend storage life and this caused it to foul more. They issued the rifle with out clean gear or instructions telling them it was a new wonder rifle that didn't need cleaning. There were even problems with the cartridge cases. The rifle wasn't exactly forced into the Army's hands, they asked for it after seeing the Air Force personnel with them. Like the M1 carbine it wasn't intended to be the front line battle rifle and the Air Force wasn't using it in that respect. The cartridge is lethal at close range. Hell it's a damn exposive varmint cartridge. Apparently many haven't seen early M16 wounds. Today they've made the barrels so short on the M4's they've lost their longer range effectiveness. Sure, a larger caliber is always better, but that's not going to be. Now as far as the 7.62x39 AK 47...well the Russians nor the Chinese use that caliber anymore. They both went to 22 caliber. That tell you anything? So if we would have used something like a 7.62x39 AK 47 we would have done better in Vietnam? Maybe you better go talk to the Russians when they tried to take Afghanistan using their 7.62x39 AK 47's and the Afghanistan's were using much more primitive weapons. Who won there? I bet you all know. As for who lost the war for our soldiers...the politicians and the protestors. The Vieg Cong even said they would win the war with the politics and protestors in the U.S. Now look how long that war went on. We lost little over 58,000 soldiers. How many of them were killed? Pretty damn lot huh? I can have more Nam Vets tell you how good their rifles worked they you can find that said they didn't. Sure, many of them didn't, but not nearly as many that did. Once they started correcting the bugs they ran. Look at this too, the M16 is our longest running military rifle. Why you think that is? You also can't put a larger cartridge in it and have any longevity because of the bolt. Open up the bolt face for such rounds as the 6.8 and bolt life goes down dramatically. I doubt the war would have turned out differently with the M14 or any other rifle. The M16 today runs fine and is a far cry from the early issued ones in Vietnam. Eugene Stoner wasn't a small caliber liker. He was a 30 caliber man. He did after all design the AR10 first before the M16. So you naysayers..who's your cheerleader....Jane Fonda????? | |||
|
one of us |
Quoted for posterity:
 -------------------------------------------- Well, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? | |||
|
one of us |
REALLY? If all that is true, why did the Soviets opt for the 5.45 x 39? And the suggestion that there was a conspiracy to do disservice to soldiers is hyperbole beyond the pale. I doubt the brass sat in a smoke filled room and "who's got a great idea to fuck over the grunts?". Defense procurement is ALWAYS political. It was in the first revolution, it was in the Civil War and was in both World Wars. Sometimes that greases the skids for a great improvement in capabilities and sometimes not. Sometimes it takes field experience to shake out the bugs. Like the P-51 Mustang, the B-29 engine fires, no chin turret on the first B-17s. The list goes on and on. Shitty torpedoes got a lot of sailors killed. Bad wiring routing in the F-16 got some pilots killed as did hiccups in the Osprey program. Gasoline radial engines in tanks? Who thought that one up? The M-16 story is pretty much par for the course for any new battle technology. "Experience" is the only class you take where the exam comes before the lesson. | |||
|
| one of us |
I agree with most of what SmokinJ said, although the Russians losing Afghanistan because of the rifle round they shot is a real far stretch. That had to do more with terrain, enemy knowledge of guerilla tactics and lack of everything else, including willpower due to Russian economy. But be that as it may, I would have given a months pay to have an M14 rather than the Ronco Jam-o-matic I had. Did it cost us the war, hell no, that happened in Washington. Larry "Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading" -- Thomas Jefferson | |||
|
| One of Us |
So basically what you are saying about our current fight in Afghanistan that we are going to fail too like Russia because we have the exact same problems as Russia did...plus now "they" have more knowledge or guerrilla tactics?????? | |||
|
| one of us |
I don't believe anyone has said there was a conspiracy against soldiers. There were simply a lot of people in power persuing their own agenda with no thought to the impact on the soldiers. As to the wisdom of the 22 caliber, it was a different world at war then. The war in question for which the round was picked was a jungle war in heavy foilage, largely. The choice of that round in those conditions was idiocy. (People on this board argue viciously every day as to whether a 22 is capable of killing a 150 # deer.) I read the original post, and was not surprised as to the direction the thread took, given the unfortunate tone of the article, which is typical Esquire hyperbole. It's too bad, since there is a lot of valid discussion and info in the article. I never commented on the politics or outcome of the war. I commented on the rifle decision, which I think was a travesty. However, since I seem to have been lumped into the pool of psuedo-communists, let me say that I have been a conservative republican all my life, even suffered through being a Nixon republican in college. I lost many, many friends in that war and still miss them today. However, no matter how bravely our soldiers fought in that war, you need only look at the films of the fall of Saigon and the subsequent communist government to determine who won. Not admitting that and dealing with it sets the stage for future losses. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The Viet Cong's Tet offensive was repelled everywhere by our troops. They took nothing. You mentioning watch the film. There is a tremendous amount of footage on that war and you'll notice very very very very very few M16's jamming in them. Do you suppose they purposely edited out the ones that jammed? If they were that bad there would have been lots of film on it. Just like the soldiers in that war say: The government lost the war, we didn't. That's the real truth. Did you ever hear, long after the war was over and especially when we now talk to the people that we fought, in them saying had we continued another few months they were going to throw the towel in??? They especially noted how effective the "carpet bombings" by the B 52's were. Remember after the carpet bombings that one time we all went to the peace table for talks? It was the carpet bombing protesting and the politics in the U.S. that loss us the war. One final thing. That war should not have been on TV daily and nightly. You don't see that kind of coverage anymore do you?? | |||
|
| One of Us |
The us military control media to show only that they want to be seen. No one will win the afgan war. | |||
|
| one of us |
SmokinJ, respectfully, You made another large leap in your response to my post. I NEVER commented on OUR engagement in Afghanistan at all. I commented on the Russian engagement and the fact that I believe the rifle or round they used had nothing to do with their loss. I also commented on the fact that I had multiple rifles that jammed repeatedly and often. To the point that when one of your brothers was hit, you thought about whether to take their 16 instead of your own, if it was newer, cleaner (because someone above correctly mentioned that they did not have proper cleaning kits readily available) or keep yours that might be better "broken in". That is why I do my best to send cleaning stuff I can to my nephews that are in Afghanistan today. It is a f*%ked up decision to have to make when your friend just died. I will leave it at that. Larry "Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading" -- Thomas Jefferson | |||
|
| One of Us |
True, but it's pretty hard to go through all that footage that is shown today and edit it perfectly that there's not a blip in the film. I doubt the edited out the jammed rifles, they're too stupid. | |||
|
| One of Us |
larry, Nothing on you, you're okay. Just putting things into perspective and making folks think. War sucks. I lost lots of friends in that one too. One committed suicide after he came home. Other's are really messed up mentally. We have that in all wars. I lost relatives in WWII. My father in law was a POW in WWII for 18 months. Too bad people can't get along in the war. Then again the Bible says as long as there is man on Earth there will be war after war or rumors of wars. Seems to be true. I hope our boys are brought back home before we lose more of them over there. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Not a single enemy soldier I shot with my M-16 or the M-203 ever complained about the lethality of the round, or the quality of the rifle it was fired from. They did, however, die rather quickly if hit center mass or in the head. The M-16, when kept clean, was about perfect for the milieu for which it was developed and utilized: Jungle Warfare and targets under 300yds. Having been in armed conflicts in small unit commands in five different countries, I have yet to see a single "One size fits all" rifle. The terrain and vegetation, and type of enemy forces with typical ranges encountered all have to go into the blender to produce that weapon. That perfect rifle would weigh less than 6lbs with a loaded 100 round drum and all of the electronic gadgets attached, have a point-blank range of 1200M, and have a recoil-less system. It would also be so well suppressed that if you were in a phone booth with another person they would not hear the weapon being fired. I do not understand why the US does not have such a rifle, they seem to populate all of the video games these days. It is good to know that at least one magazine has such ties to the anti-war protestors of the 1960's though. Those old stoners usually ended up in insane asylums after one too many OD's or in prison for dealing, or in congress.  | |||
|
one of us |
Paladin, you left one out....Walter Kronkite. Add that to the fact that Ho Chi Min watched our news on his TV and knew our next move before we could even make it, thanks to government micro-management. ************************ Our independence is dying. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Don't ask me what happened in Viet Nam, when I left there, we were winning. Yes, the M-16 started out in country with some problems but they were quickly corrected and it was a fine rifle. When I was there, we were using the M-14 and the M-16. Everyone I encountered wanted the M-16 because it was lighter, the ammunition was lighter and it was full auto (had a rock and roll switch or a group therapy switch). Yes, early on it was difficult to maintain and in the early video news clips, you see soldiers with two plastic bottles under the bands on thier helmets. One was LSA (Lubricant, Semi-liquid, Arms) and the othe Mosquito Repellent. Of the over nine years we were in Viet Nam, the M-16 problems were only about one year. We could beat the Viet Cong and the NVA but we couldn't beat our own political leaders. Don't ask me what happened, when I left Viet Nam, we were winning. | |||
|
| new member |
During Tet of 68 our M-14s were pulled and we were issued M-16s. Familiarization consisted of firing 20 rds on a 300" range. The next day we were operational. A standard Marine Squad was composed of a squad leader, grenadier ( M-79), and 3 three man fire teams. Each fire team had 2 riflemen and 1 automatic rifleman. Only the automatic rifleman had selector switches in the M-14 days. With the M-16 everyone had full auto. Our 16s had 3 prong flash suppressors ( great for busting the wire ties on c-rats cases) ( 3 prongs would catch on brush) , non-chromed chambers, and ball powder. With the new option, we used full auto, but then fire displine returned. We learned the hard way that on full auto, the gas tubes clogged quicker. You could hear the cyclic rate slow as they got dirty. Later the uppers were exchanged for M-16A1, with the new flash suppressors, and chrome chambers. We still carried one M-14 full auto w/ bipod for shooting grenades, etc. We did not have the ability to launch anything with the M-16. One problem with the 16 was ballistics. The 5.56 round was easily defected by brush, and lacked penetration. The NVA would concentrate fire on our M-60s, 7.62 machine guns and our AR with the M-14. The VC with captured M-16s , shot a Marine in the next foxhole. He was hit at the juncture of the zipper of his flak jacket. He called for a Corpsman, then shout that he was okay. The next morning he was showing everyone where the bullet had hit the zipper , taken a 90 degree turn and gone out the through the arm hole, leaving a red welt across his chest. Semper Fi, Kurt Kurt | |||
|
| one of us |
The Russians had finally found the combination to win in Afghanistan: Don't let the fighters winter in the villages and then head back to the hills in the spring. They didn't hesitate to destroy the villages when they decided to do it. By that time their economic goose was cooked and the resistance to the war in Russia was making itself known. Same enemy and vastly different world situations. Lots said about the M16 but the same bias and trials rigging was evident agaist the FAL in the M14 trials. It's part of the "Washington Way". Anything Worth Doing Is Worth Overdoing. | |||
|
| one of us |
I spent most of my time between may 1968 & July 1969 in the central highlands. the 1st 8 months our PF & Rf's used M1, M3 & Bars they were then issued M16 & M60's. Mostly they carried carbines which was a really poor weapon where we were but fit them better than M1's. I run the night radio net so most of my information is 2nd hand but the US troops in the field gave up their M1's for M14's only because they could get use M60 ammo. The main thing that issuing M16's did was lower the black market price of a M16. The hot ticket around the central highlands was a M79. I never saw a captured AK47, the VC around us mostly used captured equipment & the NVA used SKS's. Did we lose the war? Where I was were basically in a draw, Most of our PF's did not want to fight and most of us did not know why we were there. I did my job, did my time & got out. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Nothing in the article justifies the title as there is nothing there that documents how we lost the war let alone how the M16 helped. The article is just a rehash of the problems with the M16. When I was with the recon Section of 1/503rd Inf. Rgt./173rd Airborne Brigade (SEP) in '65-'66 I carried an XM16 for a while and an M60 along with a M1911A1. I also carried an M14 for the 1st few months, along with about half of the battalion, in country and I never found we were "outmaneuvered and outshot by opponents with AK-47's,". To the contrary, we found the M14 was every bit as effective in the dense jungle as the M60 becuase of the cartridge; 7.62 NATO. The size and weight of the M14 was no hinderence at all. Ya, we could carry twice as much ammo with the M16 but with the m14 we were only shooting 1/3 as much becuase the terminal effects of the 7.62 were much greater. Simply shooting a lot of ammo real fast does not win fire fights or battles....only hits on enemy soldiers win those fire fights and battles. By any defintion we did lose the war in Viet Nam. Our intervention in Viet Nam was to prevent it from becoming a communist country. Viet Nam is a communist country.......we lost. As to battels won or lost? The enemy withdreww from most major engagements. We claimed "victory" and now say "we never lost a major battle", the enemy lost. We withdrew from Viet Nam, the enemy "won" by our own definition and now we claim we didn't lose? Larry Gibson Larry Gibson | |||
|
| one of us |
Of course we lost the war. By your definitions or anybody elses. Were we beaten? No! We let our politicians and press loose for us. I had a friend in the late 80's who had been a "Student Activist' at the University of Wisconsin in the late 60's. He told me they coordinated their student protests with the NVA requests. They met the NVA guys in Canada regularly. He said "The reason the FBI never got to the top of the antiwar movement was because all the leaders were gay and if you weren't sleeping with them they didn't trust you". He continued :"I have personal knowledge that 5 of the 'Chicago 7' were gay". He was surprised when his security clearance was denied when he went in the Air Force in the late 70's. It was all a game to him. He said "Those candy assed profs didn't enven have the balls to fail me when I missed a whole quarter of classes." Th last thing I knew the Feds had given him the option of working on an Indian reservation or going to jail ot work off his student loans he never paid back. He was in Montana. Anything Worth Doing Is Worth Overdoing. | |||
|
| One of Us |
That's an honest appraisal Larry. The only 'winners' in a conflict are the industrialists who supply the hardware.. | |||
|
| One of Us |
An honest appraisal Larry. The only 'winners' in any conflict are the industrialists who supply the hardware... | |||
|
| One of Us |
Years ago I studied military history. One thing I learnt was this. That with the SOLE AND ONLY EXCEPTION of German tanks in Western Europe in 1944 there never was a tactical advantage that gave a side a strategic advantage. That is to say well fought campaigns with "second rate" tactical level weapons will always still beat an enemy with a badly fought campaign who, nevertheless, has "first rate" or "state of the art" tactical level weapons. Except in Normandy in 1944 when German tactical superiority with the Panther and Tiger vs the US M4 Sherman actually did almost threaten to become a strategic problem. The US would have "lost" or "won" in Vietnam not because of the M16. The outcome would have been the same with the M14 or even the better 7.62mm rifle the FN FAL....or an M16 with chromed chambers and the correct powder. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Good for you ISS!! Thank you for your service when I was in grade school playing with crayons and GI Joe's.
| |||
|
One of Us |
"What did you carry in the war, Daddy?" At various times in 1966-67: M14 7.62mm rifle w/selector M60 7.62mm machinegun M3A3 .45ACP sub-machinegun 12ga. pump action trenchgun M79 40mm grenade launcher M1911A1 .45ACP pistol - always Oh, and yes, we were winning when I left. 3rdMarDiv Semper Fi Mike ______________ DSC DRSS (again) SCI Life NRA Life Sables Life Mzuri IPHA "To be a Marine is enough." | |||
|
one of us |
It was nice that the link revealed to me your source was THE bastion of politico-military historical analysis, Esquire. Didn't even need to click to know it was trash. Hunting: Exercising dominion over creation at 2800 fps. | |||
|
One of Us |
Arms manufacturers are only one of the big winners in wars. The list of winners also includes: 1. Politicians who sniff which way the crowd is heading and run to get in front of the parade. They get re-elected, enriched by lobbyists and adored by one side or the other among those who only see things in black or white. 2. Career members of the military brass hats clique. They get billions of $ in new toys, and lots of opportunities for promotion, especially if they, themselves, never personally participate up front in a ground or sea assault. (They also contribute greatly to creating "new" wars to benefit themselves, by convincing federal political and civil service "leaders" that with their new toys, we can win easily and quickly, with little loss of life on "our" side, so there will be little "bad" political fallout other than all of "us" being perceived as "heroes".) 3. Acedemicians (professors) who know that popularity eventually can be a gurantee of tenure...a lifetime salary and pension for little or no constructive work. They also know that young adults at that age HAVE to prove to themselves that their elders are stupid and THEY (the young lions) are the future. So any current policy, war, conomics, you name it) is always addressed as "stupid" by academicians...because they didn't get their own privileged positions by being stupid...they know how to manipulate students and through them, parents. 4. News media "personalities". You know why. I don't have to list the reasons. You could add many other beneficiaries of war to this list, and I encourage you to do so to increase your own understanding of this world we live in today. Unfortunately the bulk of we peons actually doing or paying for the fighting and dying on each side usually benefit little if at all. WE peons are not the sons and daughters of corporate robber barons, high level politicians, or the almost invisible aristocracy. THEY don't go to war, or anywhere near its dangers, except by accident. Have a happy New Year, enjoy your guns, your family, and your own creativeness. They are good things you CAN count on. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Esquire is an excellent magazine, and the article in question is an excerpt from C.J. Chivers book "The Gun" which is also an excellent piece. I suggest you read it. The M16 had teething issues, particularly in 67-68 but it has emerged as the finest assault rifle in the world and remains so to this day. | |||
|
| one of us |
Excellent book! Very interesting, detailed and IMO unbiased. It extensively covers the developement of both the AK-47 and AR-15. Terry -------------------------------------------- Well, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? | |||
|
| One of Us |
It's hamheaded liberal buttwipe. | |||
|
| one of us |
I grow weary of the statement that "we lost the war" in Vietnam. Did we win? No. Did we lose? I am not speaking Vietnamese today, am I? Failing to accomplish the mission is not losing the war. By definition, you win by overthrowing the government. We did not do that in Vietnam. We did that in Afghanistan and Iraq. Occupation is not something our army ever trained for, at least not when I was in. As for weapons systems, I would beg to differ. The M1 is so clearly superior it isn't funny; there is only one case of any US soldiers dying in one - they hit a massive IED. Since Napoleon, artillery has always killed more soldiers than any other weapon. That is no longer the case for our enemies. Why? Because we can detect where incoming rounds are coming from and launch counter-battery fire before they even land. The F15 has never been shot down in air to air combat; I am not sure if one has every been shot down period. You could go on and on... | |||
|
| One of Us |
Let's not parse. Anyone that sez we didn't lose the war needs to review the photos of the last helicoptors evacuating people from Saigon with desperate people hanging from the undercarriage. I'll will agree that the war wasn't lost in the trenches (so to speak)but it was lost in the news rooms and by self-serving beauracrates. Nontheless, it was lost. When I was in a M1 was a rifle???? How would one get killed in one? And there are numerous reasons why few if any modern fighter jets have been shot down. Invincibility isn't one of them. Aim for the exit hole | |||
|
| One of Us |
You can look at it anyway you like, you can believe black is white if you choose. The bottom line is this, the US invaded Vietnam, the Vietnamese people successfully defended their country...start and end of story.. | |||
|
| one of us |
That's just not true. Not even the bold part. We didn't invade Vietnam. We were asked for assistance by the goverment of South Vietnam and we provided it. We invaded Loas and Cambodia for sure but we never invaded Vietnam. Did we lose? I think so. P.S. I read a really neat book recently, VIETNAM: The Australian war by Paul Ham. It was a very interesting well written book about Australians who served in Vietnam and the resistance at home. You may want to give it a look. -------------------------------------------- Well, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? | |||
|
| One of Us |
We quit and walked away. USMC RVN 70-71 Semper Fi | |||
|
| One of Us |
At the time there were two countries, NVN, SVN. The US invaided neither. South Vietnam did not succeed in defending itself from the invaiding North Vietnamese forces. That is the bottom line. | |||
|
| One of Us |
That sir, is nothing more than verbal diarrhea.... | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Small Calibers Interesting read about how the M16 helped us lose in Nam
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia