What Happened with the M16 in Vietnam?

What always fascinates me about the M16 story, is that it seems to me the same guys that deride the Army in general and Ordnance in particular for its mistake in rushing it into combat are the same ilk that deride the Army and Ordnance for not rushing the Heavy Tank T26 (or T23) into combat.

 

One of the early problems was when it was used in full auto...most of the rounds went skyward (a user mistake)...so they introduced the 3 round burst. The other big problem that still exists, is the use of 5.56...Not a military round IMO....ooh that should put some noses out of joint.

 

Exceptionally watchable.
There's a certain kind of person that can expand on their subject at any length, confidently & authoritatively, apparently without notes, while not 'droning' & keeping the info flow so high.
David Fletcher commentating at Bovington, Taff Gillingham on WW1 minutiae.
This bloke definitely has 'it'. I'm only half-interested in the specific subject, but watched all through without boredom, learning stuff.

Not surprised he has a Collector Grade book under his belt. Those things always seem to read with similar tone to the expertise described above.

 

The problem with the cartridge is that it's too small to do all the things that was asked of it. In Vietnam, the rifle/bullet was designed as a flesh-tearer, especially at close range. In 'nam that worked fairly well (once the bugs were worked out). Then, the Army wanted it to penetrate steel helmets, so a round was designed for that. It penetrated helmets but didn't produce the trauma of the earlier 56 grain bullet.
In the civilian world it's called the .223 Remington. I have a bolt-action rifle in same and it's designed for vermin and small game-prairie dogs, coyotes, etc. I've hunted coyotes and turkeys with it, which are about its limits as far as I'm concerned. The Army has been trying to come up with a replacement cartridge for some time but nothing yet. I hear that yet another try is being made in a .277 caliber round.
One of the attributes of the original cartridge was bullet velocity: 3200fps. With just about everyone using 16" barrels, that velocity is reduced, therefore effective range and terminal effects drop off.

 

In other words...5.56 is not a man killer. Things should start at 7.62 and go up from there IMO...

 

Too many stories of people getting back up after being shot leads me to say this...7.62 has also been seen to have a greater penetration ability walls/ trees etc...
Something the bloke on the vid touched on was that decisions were made for many reasons in choosing 5.56...none of those are about battle and the soldier on the ground. (Other than it was a lighter weapon)

 

In a way I always sorta agreed that wounding badly the enemy means at least three enemies are out of battle, as they help the wounded soldier. Killing takes out only one.

 

I'll add my 2 cents if no one objects..
AR-15 has great accuracy and the 5.56 is super fast...
However AK-47 is less accurate, 7.62 is slower but does more "chunk damage"...
Now the Israel fixed the problem with the accuracy of the ak... See the galil ace.. mainly by moving the rear sight back... Which the Russians also did with later versions (not sure who first)

NATO does have the 7.62 NATO which IMO is the best out of 7.62 RU(39), 7.62 NATO and 5.56 NATO.

Few things I'd like to know tho...
How does the 5.45 ru compare?
What is the lightest round?
More ammo = more sh*t to through at the wall...

Definitely pros and cons for all...
But for reliability etc. I'd have to go with the ak-47, sure it might not be as accurate, but it hits like a truck... And ammo is basically everywhere...

Then again I'd just prefer a 50 beowulf... But I don't think that will work everywhere...

 

I partially agree with that premise. In addition to the three OPFORS (Opposing Forces - what the bad guys were referred to when I was in the Army in the late 70s), an additional drain was created by filling up hospital beds, using up medical supplies, spreading thin medical types (doctors, nurses) and such. We were taught that in the Army too. I guess that this factors into big picture, but my individual trade was an M-60 light machine gunner so wounding OPFORS just didn't register in my 18 year old mind. I always remembered my dad telling me about the human wave tactics the Chinamen were using against them in Korea. He was machine gunner too, but he was gunning with a .50 caliber. Removing OPFORS permanently from the equation is always a good thing too. The KIA never comes back.

 

My all time favourite weapon is the M-60...i even toyed with the idea of an M-60 tattoo...but realised that was wanky. I once said that they were responsible for more deaths than any other weapon (including the AK) I don’t stand by that these days, but the toll that weapon dished out...
I had a girlfriend in the Army for a while...I was sleeping in her room in the barracks at Duntroon and she gets up like 6am on a Saturday morning...I’m like WTF? She says to me ‘I gotta go do some training’ ...I ask what for!? She says ‘M-60’ training...well I think you can guess the effect that had on me...



Also, I’ve heard stories of enemy being hit by 16s and M4s and getting back up and rejoining the firing line...that doesn’t fit the injured, getting carried off scenario.

 

Yeah I am still fond of the M-60 LMG. Except for carrying it, the ammo, spare barrel bag and tripod in the field, along with all the other gear I had to pack around.

NOTHING CAN SURVIVE WITHIN 3,725! That's the maximum range of the weapon. Of course the maximum effective range was a mere 1,100 meters. I trained extensively from 100 to 900 meters. That thing is deadly in the hands of well trained and motivated 18 year old paratrooper. Hated to see that it was dropped from the US Army's TO&E in line units, but I've read that some are still in use mounted in helicopters, AFVs, etc.

To get back on topic, I always felt that the .556 ammo of the M-16 was a bit underpowered too and 7.62 like the M-14 fired was the way to go. They didn't ask me about it, just issued me stuff to play with.

 

Gunshot injuries are typically categorized as low- or high-energy based on the weapon's missile velocity and mass. Typically, low energy injuries are treated with simple wound care, with or without antibiotics, regardless of the presence of a fracture. In contrast, high energy injuries are treated more aggressively.

A new study, "Handgun Injuries in 2012: What the Orthopaedic Surgeon Needs to Know," presented today at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), found that modern low-energy handgun ammunition is designed to inflict significant soft tissue damage, which can cause infection and compartment syndrome (a painful condition that occurs when pressure within the muscles builds to dangerous levels).

A review of ballistics data from forensic scientists and law enforcement officers in a major U.S. city police department, as well as gunshot-induced fractures from a single level 1 trauma center, found that low-energy handgun injuries have become more prevalent, and with hollow point ammunition (designed to expand when entering the body), can cause severe underlying tissue injury that may be overlooked by clinicians.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-02-modern-low-energy-ammunition-deep-tissue.html

As the bullet enters the body it crushes and shreds tissue in its path – this creates a permanent cavity – the “bullet hole”. In addition, the energy of the impact is dissipated in a shock wave that radially flings surrounding tissue away from the path of the projectile, creating a cavity larger than the diameter of the bullet, this is the temporary stress cavity. The temporary stress cavity exists for around 5 to 10 milliseconds with a series of gradually smaller pulsations & contractions before the formation of a permanent wound track.

The ultimate extent of the wound is determined by the kinetic energy on impact, extent of the temporary cavity and the amount of bullet fragmentation.




WOUND BALLISTICS - Motion and Effects of Projectiles in the Human Body -

 

excellent thread

 

Hmm M14 and M60 both fire the 7.62 NATO which in my opinion is the best from the 7.62x39, 5.56 and the 6.62 NATO... Simply has more accuracy and power than the respective rounds...

 

It also has more range! All bullets start slowing down once they leave the barrel. All things being equal, including ballistic coefficient, a heavier bullet will carry farther and keep its energy longer. That doesn't matter in an urban engagement where distances can be calculated in feet, but get out of town and things change quickly. When you have to engage an enemy at 200, 300 or even 400 meters then a heavier round is needed. The 5.56 and AK rounds really don't cut it.

I think I've said this before but I'll say it again, arming troops with one weapon and expecting that weapon to be entirely adequate in all situations is like asking a golfer to play with only one club. Riflepeople need to be proficient with more than one type of individual weapon and their service needs to be able to issue them the weapon that's best for that combat environment.

 

Yes I hear you. But logistically bringing different guns and ammo all the while and perhaps not knowing what is needed more badly can be a big problem. I guess that is why they had the "normal" weapon or gun for most, machine gun, gun grenade, hand grenades, artillery support and in case aeroplane bombing the wanted area.

I have high respect for phosphorus including grenades and bombs. It burns its way even after the explosion has happened, you can stop it with putting for example the limb in water, but once you take the limb out to air, the phosphorus starts burning the flesh and bones again...

 

Sorry, I disagree! The USA can figure out what it needs tactically and supply all sorts of things without too much trouble. Having MGs in 7.62 NATO helps but If the troops are out in places like the "sand box" where long ranges are the norm, riflepeople with the AR carbine won't have the effectiveness if that had, say, an M14. Soldiers clearing a house are overgunned using an M14-different situations requiring different solutions.

P.S. That's white phosphorus you're talking about, not yellow. (quibble)

 

Well, the soldiers could not handle it so they dropped chemicals to kill the trees. Agent orange was it?

Still, it did not bring victory. Would gun changing have done that?

I doubt, as we Finns were familiar with forests and neither Germans or Soviets were. That is why the Soviet troops were easy picking in Winter War, and the 6th Waffen SS-division Nord even got lost in the forest during its stay in Finland. The locals could use the nature in fighting the US troops while the US soldiers trusted their gun power. Never underestimate the enemy.

What happened to China....

Sino-Vietnamese conflicts (1979–1991)

Tensions between Vietnam and China increased dramatically after the end of the Vietnam War in 1975. Attempting to expand its influence, Vietnam established a military presence in Laos; strengthened its ties with China’s rival, the Soviet Union; and toppled the Cambodian regime of Pol Pot in 1979. Just over a month later, Chinese forces invaded, but were repulsed in nine days of bloody and bitter fighting. Tensions between China and Vietnam remained high throughout the next decade, and much of Vietnam’s scarce resources were allocated to protecting its border with China and its interests in Cambodia.

China invades Vietnam