• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

our boys in IRAQ

OKIE2

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Sep 20, 2009
28
0
84
TERLTON OK
Looks like we got sold a bill of goods with the .223 caliber fire arms. The marines have got it right using the old fashioned heavy duty weapons of WW 11 and VIET NAM.

This email from a Marine who's in Iraq . No politics here; just a Marine with a bird's eye view opinion:

US Weapons:
1) The M-16 rifle:
Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They lack the ability to mount the various optical gun sights and weapons lights on the picatinny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinder block structure common over there and even torso hits can't be reliably counted on to put the enemy down.
Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents show a high level of opiate use.

2) The M 243 SAW (squad assault weapon):
.223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly (that's fun in the middle of a firefight).

3) The M 9 Beretta 9 mm:
Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert environment; but they all hate the 9 mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9 mm: Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight.

4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun:
Works well, used frequently for clearing houses to good effect.

5) The M 240 Machine Gun:
7.62 NATO (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun, developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!) Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts 'em down.

Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7..62 round chews up the structure over there.

6) The M 2 50 cal heavy machine gun:
Thumbs way, way up. "Ma Deuce" is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper - puts their dicks in the dirt very time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.

7) The .45 pistol:
Thumbs up. Still the best pistol around out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK military model
and supposedly love it. The old government model .45's are being re-issued en masse.

8) The M-14:
Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.

9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle:
Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers (we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy. It is definitely here to stay.

10) The M 24 sniper rifle:
Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700's. Great performance. Snipers have been used heavily to great effect. Rumor has it a marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record for confirmed kills with OVER 100.

11) The new body armor:
Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs.and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as shit to wear, almost unbearable in the summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees). Also, the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the bullshit about the "old" body armor making our guys vulnerable to the IED's was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in most cases.

12) Night Vision and Infrared Equipment:
Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more enemy being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the videos.

13) Lights:
Thumbs up. Most of the weapon mounted and personal lights are Surefire's, and the troops love 'em. Invaluable for night urban operations. Jordan carried a $34 Surefire G 2 on a neck lanyard and loved it. I cant help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old!! With all our technology, it's the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!! The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.

Bad guy weapons:
1) Mostly AK47's. The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M 16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt fed light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like shit. Undisciplined "spray and pray" type fire. However, they are seeing more and more precision weapons, especially sniper rifles. ( Iran, again)

2) The RPG:
Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys. Simple, reliable and as common as dog shit. The enemy responded to our up-armored Humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank range. Still killing a lot of our guys.

3) The IED:
The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in Jordan 's area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155 mm artillery shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone and the explosions are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M 1 tank. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately, they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of the ready made IED's are supplied by Iran, who is also providing terrorists (Hezbollah types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. That's why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shape charges, in Styrofoam containers spray painted to look like the cinder blocks that litter all Iraqi roads. We find about 40% before they detonate, and the bomb disposal guys are unsung heroes of this war.

4) Mortars and rockets:
Very prevalent. The soviet era 122 mm rockets (with an 18 km range) are becoming more prevalent. One of Jordan 's NCO's lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage "inside the wire". Jordan 's base was hit almost daily his entire time there by mortar and rocket fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue (It did). More of a psychological weapon than anything else. The enemy mortar teams would jump out of vehicles, fire a few rounds, and then haul ass in a matter of seconds.

Fun fact:
Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in Jihad school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let's just say they know better now.

Bad guy technology:
Simple yet effective. Most communication is by cell and satellite phones and also by email on laptops. They use handheld GPS units for navigation and "Google Earth" for overhead views of our positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent. Their explosives and bomb technology is TOP OF THE LINE. Night vision is rare. They are very careless with their equipment and the captured GPS units and laptops are treasure troves of Intel when captured.
Who are the bad guys? Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi Al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province (Fallujah and Ramadi). These are mostly "foreigners", non-Iraqi Sunni Arab Jihadists from all over the Muslim world (and Europe ). Most enter Iraq through Syria (with, of course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian govt.), and then travel down the "rat line" which is the trail of towns along the Euphrates River that we've been hitting hard for the last few months.

Some are virtually untrained young Jihadists that often end up as suicide bombers or in various "sacrifice squads". Most, however, are hard core terrorists from all the usual suspects (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.). These are the guys running around murdering civilians an masse and cutting heads off.
The Chechens (many of whom are Caucasian) are supposedly the most ruthless and the best fighters. They have been fighting the Russians for years. In the Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired (and led) Iraqi Shiites. The Iranian Shiia have been very adept at infiltrating the Iraqi local govt.'s, the police forces and the Army. They have had a massive spy and agitator network there since the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80's. Most of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured, or gave up long ago.
Bad Guy Tactics: When they are engaged on an infantry level they get their asses kicked every time! Brave, but stupid. Suicidal Banzai-type charges were very common earlier in the war and still occur. They will literally sacrifice 8-10 man teams in suicide squads by sending them screaming and firing AK's and RPG's directly at our bases just to probe the defenses. They get mowed down like grass every time (see the M 2 and M 240 above). Jordan 's base was hit like this often.
When engaged, they have a tendency to flee to the same building, probably for what they think will be a glorious last stand. Instead, we call in air and that's the end of that more often than not. These hole-ups are referred to as Alpha Whiskey Romeo's (Allah's Waiting Room). We have the laser guided ground-air thing down to a science. The fast mover's, mostly Marine F-18's, are taking an ever increasing toll on the enemy. When caught out in the open, the helicopter gun ships and AC-130 Spectre Gunships cut them to ribbons with cannon and rocket fire, especially at night. Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all.

Fun facts:
The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45-50 thousand. That is why we're seeing less and less infantry attacks and more IED, suicide bomber shit. The new strategy is just simple: attrition.

The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties and therefore schools, hospitals and especially Mosques are locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons, and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for inflicting civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi govt. Kidnapping of family members, especially children, is common to influence people they are trying to influence but can't reach, such as local govt. officials, clerics, tribal leaders, etc..
The first thing our guys are told is "don't get captured". They know that if captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the internet. Zarqawi openly offers bounties for anyone who brings him a live American serviceman. This motivates the criminal element who otherwise don't give a shit about the war. A lot of the beheading victims were actually kidnapped by common criminals and sold to Zarqawi.

As such, for our guys, every fight is to the death. Surrender is not an option. The Iraqi's are a mixed bag.. Some fight well; others aren't worth a damn. Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are getting better.

It is widely viewed that Zarqawi's use of suicide bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake. Many Iraqi's were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the police forces went right up, along with their motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intel because the Iraqi's are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians. The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.

Morale:
According to Jordan , morale among our guys is very high.They not only believe that they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see shit like "Are we losing in Iraq " on TV and the print media.
For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food, and leadership. Bottom line though, and they all say this, is that there are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just can't stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally (with, of course, permanent US bases there).
Anyway, that's it, hope you found it interesting.
Semper fi!
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

That email actually has been around for several years and it is from Iraq fighting in 2005-6. It mentions Zarqawi who was killed in June 2006. The was operating in Anbar Province, Iraq. Some of the issues that he mentions are still very much the same as far as weapons are concerned.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

I've always doubted the authenticity of this e-mail- if it's from a Marine, why is he talking about M24's and not M40's? M107's are not accurate, and I don't know who the hell weighted their body armor, but its no where close to 6lbs- wasn't back then, isn't today. M240 wasn't designed to replace the M60- rather the MAG58, which is of an older design was adopted w/ a new buttstock to replace the M60 and designated the M240. M16/M4 series and M249 are every bit as reliable/dependable as you are good at cleaning it so long as mags in good shape are used. Lethality of the ammo is another story though...

Maybe I'm knit picking too much, but something has always sounded a little "off" with this "AAR"
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

Reguardless if it was from a Marine or not I did EOD security in Fallujah in 06 and I can tell you his statements are true as far as problems experienced. I will NEVER buy an AR because of my M16A4 leaving me with my pants down on multiple occasions, and I got in trouble for picking up AKs and using them which I would do over and over again because I like being alive.

Good Luck,
Merritt
SGT USMC vet.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

This is about the 3rd of 4th time I've seen this floating around in the past 4 years. Its been picked apart over and over by guys who have been there.

I like this part:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: OKIE2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle:
Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. <span style="text-decoration: underline">Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers</span> (we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy. It is definitely here to stay.
</div></div>

I'd like to know what a Vehicle suicide bomber looks like. Is he the one with the Crazy "I'll kill Americans" look in his eye? Does he have spray paint on the side of his car that says "keep back bomb inside". Are there wires hanging out all over the place that you can actually see from a safe enough distance? Does he drive like a maniac (like all Iraqis!)?........ I remember actually being tasked with a mission to "shoot vehicle suicide bombers". When I "tactfully" asked what one looked like, I got a bunch of blank stares............ Exactly, you can't tell until you are way closer than you want to be....
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mwroseberry</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I will NEVER buy an AR because of my M16A4 leaving me with my pants down on multiple occasions, and I got in trouble for picking up AKs and using them which I would do over and over again because I like being alive.
</div></div>

I was always intrigued by the bullets that we have purchased. The 55 GR and 62 GR Bullets for the M-16/M4's are not the best at killing as we all know but good at wounding. In the past wounding was a much better idea because it took more assets to deal with a wounded person then a dead one. Now, in an Urban environment the rounds don't work for CQB. Well, we kind of knew that already. So, the troops start to look for ways around that by going back to 7.62mm.

Why don't we use some of the bullets that are used to kill animals - I.e. Barnes TTSX, bonded bullets, VMAX that are meant to put the person/animal down and keep them there. The Army has always moved slowly with the changing of the environment and that is why all wars are trained for based on the last one. There are far better bullets out there than the FMJ.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JSTARSZ</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
mwroseberry said:
Why don't we use some of the bullets that are used to kill animals - I.e. Barnes TTSX, bonded bullets, VMAX that are meant to put the person/animal down and keep them there. The Army has always moved slowly with the changing of the environment and that is why all wars are trained for based on the last one. There are far better bullets out there than the FMJ.
</div></div>
i was under the impression the use of expanding ammuntion was not allowed, as per the hague convention.

always seemed silly to me
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

You would be ill advised to send detailed info about enemy tactics and Intel on unsecured email. In addition, some of the statements are inaccurate. I doubt its authenticity.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

Politics and scumbag reporters kill more troops than anything else.I am so tired of having to bury brothers that had to follow some rule that only our side follows.Round up the friggin reporters. Shut down all com but ours and turn loose the U.S.M.C. for 1 month without the B.S. politics and shut these bastards down.NUFF SAID.
Scot
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

BINGO! Political. You can shoot them but to use an effective expanding or fragmenting bullet would cause too much damage and suffering to the individual being shot. And it does not only apply to countries siging the document. It applies tothe enemies of the signing country. So techinacally terrorists are covered. But not really.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

The US is not a party to the hague... and we do use open tip ammunition, which although not designed to expand or fragment, certainly does in ballistics gel tests. The issue at hand is range and penetration on thin skinned vehicles, which is why the went with the SS109 bullet to begin with.

I'm packing up from my third deployment, and any weapons failures I've had or seen I can directly attribute to either a magazine issue or improper cleaning. The army did a test a few years ago to determine reliability of the M4 platform vs currently available platforms (in a windy, sandy, dusty environment). While it did have the most stoppages, it was a fairly insignificant number (something like 250 out of 10,000rds fired and all but 4 were cleared with immediate action). The HK416 and XM8 were really not that far away for stoppages, the 416 with somewhere around 190 as I recall and the XM8 with mid 100's- keep in mind, this is out of 10,000rds with no cleaning between firing.

I'm just saying, I could picture it being some REMF writing this, based upon the various inaccuracies -- certainly he is not a scout sniper. He doesn't even mention the Mk11 Mod 0 (SR25), which I know for a fact was seeing plenty of service with the Corps around the time frame this was written. Were he a scout sniper, he'd have mentioned it. Sure some stuff is right, but when you blabber 28 paragraphs worth of crap, SOMETHING is going to be correct. I take issue with the volume of things that are wholly incorrect (6lb body armor!!!! I WISH!!! Last time I checked, they aren't issuing Second Chance LVII Concealable; if they did, who would want it?)
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

i was under the impression that we couldnt use expanding bullets because it is against the geneva convention. but anyway, if you start shooting 55gr jhp's out of a 1 in 7 or 1 in 8 tw barrel they just shred to pieces anyway
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

No, expanding and fragmenting bullets are against the Hague conventions, to which we are not a party. In other words, we only follow the conventions based upon our good faith- we can deviate from it any time we so desire.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Round up the friggin reporters.</div></div>

I imagine, by virtue of you being a member of this site, that you wholeheartedly believe we should uphold our 2nd Amendment rights under all circumstances.

Why is it that you're so keen on snipping our 1st amendment rights in the bud? Our constitution and BoR is not an a la carte menu. You can't pick and choose based on any one situation or another. If it's okay to get rid of the press when it suits our fancy, it's okay to get rid of guns too.

Just sayin'.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

I think it's obvious that email was not written by a Marine and I have doubts as to whether or not he was even in the military.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Round up the friggin reporters.</div></div>

Why is it that you're so keen on snipping our 1st amendment rights in the bud? Our constitution and BoR is not an a la carte menu. You can't pick and choose based on any one situation or another. If it's okay to get rid of the press when it suits our fancy, it's okay to get rid of guns too.

Just sayin'. </div></div>


Of course I'm for the Bill of Rights applying equally. However the Bill of Rights doesn't quite apply in this situation in which reporters are embedded with military units in foreign countries.

Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't allowed to bring personally owned weapons into combat with them. Nor do they have their full freedom of speech. By staying with a military unit reporters are voluntarily submitting themselves to the regulations that the military places on them. I feel that if they want to use the military's help in keeping them safe, providing transportation, meals, and such, that the military should have the ability to censor their reports.

I agree that if a reporter wants to report on things without help from the Department of Defense that there should be no restrictions or censors placed upon what they write.

Too often reporters don't understand opsec and consequentially put the unit they're embedded with into danger. The most famous of this is Geraldo Rivera detailing the attack that was about to happen on live television. Men die because of that type of thing, good guys aren't the only ones that watch TV. Could you see Ernie Pyle reporting anything that would place American soldiers lives in danger?
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

Very interesting post, several of my friends who have returned have stated that they were not issued body armor and that their familys/friends had to purchase armor and send it over....why the conflicting information?
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: clayward</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very interesting post, several of my friends who have returned have stated that they were not issued body armor and that their familys/friends had to purchase armor and send it over....why the conflicting information?</div></div>

Maybe back when OEF and OIF kicked off.....but that shit isn't happening today. Active/Reserve/Guard are all getting IOTV's when they are going into country.(Atleast that's the way it was in 2008 in Afghanistan) And even if you don't get an IOTV, you still have an IBA with the same plates as the IOTV.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Macduff</div><div class="ubbcode-body">that the military should have the ability to censor their reports.</div></div>

Absolutely not. At least not if what they report does not jeopardize their security. The press is all we have against the one thing that is much worse than bad journalism: propaganda. I refuse to allow the government, military and their mouthpieces be the only word I hear about a war(s) which is costing all of us valuable tax dollars, and is costing thousands of GIs their lives.

Conflicting reports are a good thing as it allows us the chance to decide individually and collectively as a people what we might or might not support. If it were only the government allowed to get a word in, we'd all be sold on the idea that "major combat operations are over" and that everything is going peachy-keen.

I agree that journalists have no business messing with opsec and anything that might jeopardize the security of our soldiers, and should be punished to the full extent of the law if they do. But to censor them in any other way is, to be blunt, un-American. It is part of the foundation of our society that we have access to reports from journalists who are free from government intervention. It is the one thing listed above the 2nd amendment, and, as the second amendment, should never be altered in any way.

Because as I said, if we can find a way to legitimize censorship of any kind by the government under any circumstances, others can find a way to take away our guns when in situations they see fit. It is during times like these that we need all of our protections most, and that absolutely includes free speech and freedom of the press.

If the military doesn't want reporters to officially tag along, then so be it. But so long as they take reporters on willingly, they must follow the Constitution.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Macduff</div><div class="ubbcode-body">that the military should have the ability to censor their reports.</div></div>

Absolutely not. At least not if what they report does not jeopardize their security. The press is all we have against the one thing that is much worse than bad journalism: propaganda.
</div></div>

I don't disagree. A free press is necessary for the continuation of democracy. When I said censor I was referring to the censoring of critical information such as tactics, techniques, and procedures, along with information about operations etc...I'm not for the wholesale censorship of news reports. Censorship does not a good democracy make.

Taking off on a tangent but I fear that the politicizing of our media along with the advent of 24 hour "news" television is leading our nation down a rough road because it makes it almost impossible to discern the real truth from filler and propaganda from either side.

Thank god for the internet and the ability of bloggers and independent media to break and publicize legitimate news stories.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Macduff</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Macduff</div><div class="ubbcode-body">that the military should have the ability to censor their reports.</div></div>

Absolutely not. At least not if what they report does not jeopardize their security. The press is all we have against the one thing that is much worse than bad journalism: propaganda.
</div></div>

I don't disagree. A free press is necessary for the continuation of democracy. When I said censor I was referring to the censoring of critical information such as tactics, techniques, and procedures, along with information about operations etc...I'm not for the wholesale censorship of news reports. Censorship does not a good democracy make.

Taking off on a tangent but I fear that the politicizing of our media along with the advent of 24 hour "news" television is leading our nation down a rough road because it makes it almost impossible to discern the real truth from filler and propaganda from either side.

Thank god for the internet and the ability of bloggers and independent media to break and publicize legitimate news stories. </div></div>

We would be in basic agreement. There is certainly a line that absolutely should not be crossed lest they be submitted to the harshest of penalties, but what is beyond that line, IMO, is few and far between. As you said, tactics, movements etc as that isn't news, but intelligence. Everything else should be in play, even (especially?) if it makes the military look bad. We need transparency. If not we are in a dictatorship, not a republic.

I will also agree that most mainstream news is propaganda of one sort or another, but I'm not sure that bloggers etc have it any better. Most are as incapable of empathizing as the politicians and movements they support, and stand by the "my way or the wrong way" attitude in which there is no sense of compromise. When we become unwilling to negotiate, everyone loses.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

Whether it is "the real deal" or not, one lesson from history that both the general population and the media seem to have forgotten in the rush towards freeedom of information is:

Carelesstalk.jpg
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

I used some quotes from this for my research paper... years ago... haha. I did enjoy reading it again though. Got me an A, and informed a fairly incompetent class on our position in Iraq at the time.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

I've been to Iraq twice, and I would have given a month's pay for 6lb body armor.
smile.gif
Everyone else has already picked this apart pretty well so I won't have to chime in on that. My opinion is that the biggest threat to our forces today is our own government and the ROE's that they saddle our troops with. As for the open tip projectiles, the JAG corps stated that we use those to increase accuracy at longer ranges and to aid in barricaded targets and not to intentionally cause greater damage or suffering to the enemy combatants...just happens to be a nice side effect.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

I was under the impression that there is new ammo in the works to address all the weaknesses of the current issue 5.56 ammo. LINK
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

Good find, I already knew about the Mk 318/319 ammo, but couldn't recall the designation of it and didn't have a link, so without supporting evidence, I didn't mention anything. Downside is, it doesn't appear that it will be general issue- at least as of right now.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mwroseberry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reguardless if it was from a Marine or not I did EOD security in Fallujah in 06 and I can tell you his statements are true as far as problems experienced. I will NEVER buy an AR because of my M16A4 leaving me with my pants down on multiple occasions, and I got in trouble for picking up AKs and using them which I would do over and over again because I like being alive.

Good Luck,
Merritt
SGT USMC vet. </div></div>

I don't see why you would get in trouble for picking up an enemy weapon be it whatever once yours has let you down. Just doesn't make sense. I cant imagine a good NCO or officer criticizing you for that, unless you where trowing your weapons away and being criticized for that.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good find, I already knew about the Mk 318/319 ammo, but couldn't recall the designation of it and didn't have a link, so without supporting evidence, I didn't mention anything. Downside is, it doesn't appear that it will be general issue- at least as of right now. </div></div>


I remember reading in that document or another one that was posted at the same time that this was gonna replace the current ammo for general issue and that there would be no need for retraining because it's a near perfect direct replacement with similar ballistics.
 
Re: our boys in IRAQ

The Barrett M82A1 is a lot of things, but spectacularly accurate is not one of them.