I haven't checked if this has been posted yet, but I have a 10 page report from the 82nd & 101st.

Title:Operation Iraqi Freedom
PEO Soldier Lessons Learned
LTC Jim Smith
15 May 2003
The lessons were gathered from 5 through 10 May 2003 from soldiers serving in the Baghdad sector during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Comments came from Brigade Commanders down to riflemen. The following units were interviewed:

• HHC/1-187 IN, 101st ABN (5 MAY)
• 2d BCT, 82d ABN (6-7 and 10 MAY)
o 3-325 PIR (7 MAY)
o 2-325 PIR (7 MAY)
o 3-7 CAV (8 MAY)
o FSB (8 MAY)
• 1st BCT, 3 ID (9 MAY)
o 3-69 AR (9 MAY)


Here are some sections:
Lethality
9mm: There was general dissatisfaction with this weapon. First and foremost, soldiers do not feel it possesses sufficient stopping power. They desire a modification to allow for more accurate firing during limited visibility – tritium on the sight posts was a specific recommendation. The 9mm magazine performed very poorly. Soldiers were stretching the spring in order to provide sufficient force to feed rounds into the chamber. Soldiers were not satisfied with the guidance from higher to not stretch the spring and only load 10 rounds in the 15 round magazine.


M4: 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 M4 with PEQ and PAC provided overmatch over our threat equipped with AK47s and RPGs.” The general consensus is that every rifleman wants the M4 vice the M16A2.

The most significant negative comment was reference the M4’s range. In the desert, there were times were soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500 + meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M4 provided effective fire at that range. The 82d Airborne soldiers wished they had deployed with M14’s at the squad level as the 101st did.

There is also a significant safety issue that bears further investigation. Apparently when the M4 selector is in the “Safe” position and the bolt is allowed to ride forward, the firing pin still makes contact with the bullet primer. A CSM in the 101st related a story of a soldier who had an accidental discharge while his weapon was in the safe position – the CSM personally witnessed this incident. Numerous soldiers showed us bullets in their magazines that had small dents in the primer. There may be a “Safety of Use” message out on this issue but it is not well known at the battalion-and-below level.

The flip-up sight on the M4 allowed the soldier to engage targets out to 600 meters. However, the plastic grommet that formed the small aperture was prone to falling out. Soldiers “super-glued” the aperture to the sight.

The whole thing: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=186638&w=searchPop[/url]

Isn't that one an USMC report?

No Lightfighter that other one was from Marines. This is army.

However what DeMarcus posted couldn't be all of it.

M203:  Again, very positive comments on this weapon.  Many soldiers felt this was the weapon of choice for combat.  Unfortunately, we are not able to realize the benefits of this capability in training.  Soldiers did feel, however, that the safety is too unreliable to carry a round in the chamber.  Some mentioned the need for a buckshot-type round.

M249 SAW:  Overall positive comments on this weapon.  It provided the requisite firepower at the squad level as intended.  The short barrel and forward pistol grip allowed for very effective use of the SAW in urban terrain.  Soldiers requested a better stowage position for the bipod legs.  The legs interfered with the attachment of the forward pistol grip.  If a pistol grip was attached and the legs were down, the legs made movement in the restrictive urban terrain difficult.  Additionally, the soft ammo pouches are great improvements over the plastic ammo canister.  However, the 100-round pouch performed much better than the 200-round pouch.  There is a design flaw that allows the ammo to get tangled in the 200-round pouch.

M240B:  Soldiers have great confidence in this weapon.  Again, the vast majority of comments were positive.  Most negative comments were relative to the AG’s load.  Soldiers recommended fabricating the tripod out of a lighter material.  The AG bag is not integrated into the remainder of the MOLLE and, therefore, is not easily carried.  Additionally, the nylon bag melts when it comes in contact with a hot barrel.  Other suggestions included adding collapsible bipod legs like the SAW, wiring down the heat shields and an ammunition carrying system to carry 300-400 linked rounds.

Shotgun:  This was a very useful addition to the MTOE.  The shotguns were used mainly as ballistic breachers.  Therefore, soldiers felt the length could be greatly shortened.  They removed the stock and local purchased pistol grips and would have preferred a “sawed-off” configuration.

XM107:  The Barrett 50 cal Sniper Rifle may have been the most useful piece of equipment for the urban fight – especially for our light fighters.  The XM107 was used to engage both vehicular and personnel targets out to 1400 meters.  Soldiers not only appreciated the range and accuracy but also the target effect.  Leaders and scouts viewed the effect of the 50 cal round as a combat multiplier due to the psychological impact on other combatants that viewed the destruction of the target.

“My spotter positively identified a target at 1400 meters carrying an RPG on a water tower.  I engaged the target.  The top half of the torso fell forward out of the tower and the lower portion remained in the tower.”
325th PIR Sniper

There were other personal anecdotes of one round destroying two targets and another of the target “disintegrating.”

The most pervasive negative comment was that snipers felt the Leopold Sight was inadequate for the weapon – that it was not ballistically matched.  It the sight was zeroed for 500, 1000 and 1500 meters, soldiers did not feel confident in their ability to engage targets at the “between” distances (e.g. 1300 m).  Snipers felt there were better sights available for this weapon such as the Swarovski.

Sniper team spotters felt the tripod for the Leopold Spotter Scope could be better designed.

COL Bray, Commander, 2d BCT, 82d Airborne Division supported an Operational Needs Statement for a Sniper Sight that would allow the sniper to identify targets as combatants or non-combatants out to 2000m.

M2:  The M2 50 cal still receives great praise.  It performed exceptionally well in this harsh environment.  Soldiers did mention that the vehicular mount had too much play for accurate fire and that the large ammo box made it difficult to effectively manipulate the weapon.

Close Combat Optic:  Soldiers appreciate this equipment also.  Many commented that the new design/battery was a vast improvement over the previous CCO.  Negative comments were on the honeycomb attachment which was difficult to clean and its ability to hold a zero.

A suggested design change was to fix the CCO about its axis within the half-moon spacer.  Currently the CCO can rotate within the mount.  This does not effect the accuracy of the sight but, if the CCO is not oriented properly when the soldier zeroes, his left-right and up-down adjustments will be on a cant.  A simple tongue and groove design modification would fix the CCO from rotating.

Bore sighting the weapon’s sensors and optics has been fully accepted.  We heard anecdotal evidence of soldiers hitting 40/40 day and 32/40 at night with optics in training. Soldiers are purchasing Bullet Boresights from AccuSite.  The borelight fits in the chamber of the weapon. This eliminates the steps required to boresight the borelight to the weapon.

ACOG:  Many soldiers expressed a preference for the ACOG over the CCO because of its magnification and no need for batteries.

MGO:  Soldiers were satisfied with the performance of the MGO on SAWs and M240Bs.

Much more to report, but here's the conclusion:

Conclusion
Overall, soldier equipment performed well and enabled the very impressive execution of a difficult operation these soldiers completed.  However, our soldiers are professionals and, as such, have very good opinions about how the equipment should be designed and how it can be improved.  I offer the following synopsis from my foxhole:

Top Performers:
• Lethality:  The soldiers that employed the XM107 and their leaders had nothing but praise for the accuracy, target effect and tactical advantage provided by this weapon.
• Survivability:  A tie between JSLIST and IBA.  Clearly both of these systems are on the right design path.
• Mobility:  It would be very difficult to get the units to return to the days before the M-Gator…and I wouldn’t want to be the one who tries to take it away.
• Situational Awareness:  Our suite of optics and sensors provide an overwhelming tactical advantage against the quality of threat encountered in Iraq.
• Sustainment:  The Camelback-type hydration system is clearly what the soldiers desire – just need to emphasize durability.

Top Areas for Improvement:
• Lethality:  The pistol system requires greater stopping power, improved magazines and a better holster.
• Survivability:  Combat identification still relies on methods and technologies used 10 years ago.  Our army is extremely lethal – we rely too greatly on the discipline and skill of our soldiers.
• Mobility:  Soldiers can get pretty passionate about boots and socks.  Recommend a down-select for boots similar to the one conducted for socks.
• Situational Awareness: Communications at squad and below.  The squad radio is currently not a PEO Soldier item but one we can help fix with the Land Warrior program.
• Sustainment:  Soldiers still spend too much of their own money to purchase the quality packs, pouches, belts, underwear, socks and gloves they believe they need for mission success and comfort.

I wasn't aware that the Army had any ACOGs. Where did they get them, soldier individual buys or?

CCO=Aimpoint?




MDO=?

Yes CCO= Close Combat Optic= Aimpoint M68

MGO=Machine Gun Optic= ELCAN M145, only issued for M249's and M240B's though it will fit on anything with a Picatinny rail.

Thanks for the reply. What mount are they using on the aimpoint that they are having problems with? (Railgrabber, #22M68). Is the honeycomb attachment they are talking about, really the mount. Thanks again.

This is the mount they are using:
[img]http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-22.9/image1586.jpg[/img]

I beleve the "honeycomb attachment" is a killflash. I think the line is supposed to read "Negative comments were on the honeycomb attachment[,] which was difficult to clean[,] and its ability to hold a zero".
The part about the difficulty in cleaning referred to the killflash, the part about problems holding zero referred to the Aimpoint mount.

Ah ha! Thank you.

If anyone has a place to post the complete report (Word doc w/photos; 1.5 Mb) on the web for downloading, I'll e-mail it to you.

It is interesting to note that a lot of civilians noticed this problem early on, even before the Middle-East Wars.

The 14.5" BBL looks pretty sexy, but the fact is you probably need a 20" BBL for the additional velocity at longer ranges. Maybe the military should switch to the civilian legal 16"BBL.

We also had the discussion about the firing pin contacting the primer when the bolt was released to chamber a round. I have experienced the problem myself. The govt's solution was to make the primer cup harder to help alliviate slam-fires. For me, I installed a titanium firing pin, and that problem doesn't occur anymore with me, even with the regular small rifle primer.

great read!

I don't think making the M4 16" is worth it. Making sure everyone has a BAC equipped ACOG and can see what they are hitting at those ranges, and issuing the 77gr round, would do more.

And instead of the M14, issuing a few M16A4's would better solve the problem of a DM rifle. The Marines used the combination of M16A4 and TA31F as a DM rifle in their part of Iraq and loved it.

The firing pin issue. Never heard of it before this, and was not mentioned by the Marines as happening with their M16's. Could this be one of the "problems" the Colt M4 has that led to its rejection by the USMC last year in favor of the M16A4? I think its more a manufacturing issue with Colt rather than a design problem. Again, nothing like this was reported for FN built M16's.

[b]WOW![/b]

Sorry, I got my links crossed. Here is the entire PEO report:

[url]http://lightfighter.net/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=7336015661&f=5436084761&m=6496083633[/url]

The fact that the firing pin dents primers has been known about since day 1 with the M16. The M16 has a floating firing pin that is not restrained by a spring. When the bolt goes home the firing pin can continue forward motion and strike the primer. If it has enough momentum behind it it can ignite the primer.

A design change for the M16 back in the 60's included one to make a lighter firing pin that had less momentum. That was a simpler change than adding a restraining spring or making the primers less sensitive. That's also why you should have your AR pointed in a safe direction when you release the bolt.

AWW, the guy who posted to your board left out the pictures Lightfighter.

I liked this [shock]

[>]:)]]

We need a battleax smilie.

Is this a full auto specific problem?

I have never had a dented primer letting the bolt close on my AR.

Anyone else?

same old song and dance....


you want the "best" stuff, ya gotta buy it yourself.  was that way when I was in, looks to be the same today.

"problem" is that there are so many different roles being accomplished, its hard to have one item fit all those roles.

Quote: I have never had a dented primer letting the bolt close on my AR.

Contrarily, I can't recall ever NOT having a dented primer after letting the bolt close.

Do a quick search and you'll find this quark discussed ad nauseum. Bottom line: Some dent, some don't. For those that do, there's nothing to worry about if you're using mil ammo (with the harder primers, as was mentioned) and practicing proper safety procedures.

cynic      

This is new. That .45 and 9mm are close to equal with JHP I am prepared to accept based on gel block evidence, but a apples to apples comparison of FMJ. No.

Yep, I agree. I believe the AR10 has something like that also, and Armalite has a patent on it.