To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Beth Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Small Arms in Afghanistan
Date: Thu,  4 Apr 2002 17:48:28 +0000

UNCONFIRMED LEAD -- this March 26, 2002 letter on small arms 
reportedly came from a soldier assigned to an infantry unit in 
Afghanistan, following the letter is commentary that was attached 
to the email we received:

  "The current-issue 62gr 5.56mm (223) round, especially when fired from
  the short-barreled, M-4 carbine, is proving itself (once again) to be
  woefully inadequate as man stopper.  Engagements at all ranges are 
  requiring multiple, solid hits to permanently bring down enemy 
  soldiers.

  Penetration is also sadly deficient.  Even light barriers are not 
  perforated by this rifle/cartridge combination.  Troopers all over are 
  switching to the seventy-seven grain Sierra Matchking (loaded by Black 
  Hills) whenever it can be found.  Its performance on enemy soldiers is 
  not much better, but it does penetrate barriers.  We're fighting 
  fanatics here, and they don't find wimpy ammunition particularly 
  impressive!

  Adding to our challenges, our issue M-9 pistol (Beretta M92F) is proving 
  itself unreliable. They are constantly breaking.  To make matters worse, 
  the 9mm hardball round we use is a joke.  It is categorically 
  ineffective as a fight stopper, even at close range.  Some troopers, 
  after numerous, desperate requests, are now being reissued 1911s! 
  However, the only ones available for issue are worn out.  Magazines are 
  hard to find, and 45ACP ammunition is scarce.

  We are frustrated here that none of the forgoing seems to be of the
  slightest concern to people in Washington. It is a damn good thing that
  we have air superiority and are not yet heavily engaged on the ground.
  Inferior weapons and ammunition are making us all nervous."

Lesson: Here we go again!  We're going into war with small arms and
ammunition we know to be impotent and (in the case of the M-9 pistol)
lacking in durability.  What makes the iniquity even worse is that these 
inadequacies have all been common knowledge since the Gulf War ten years 
ago.

During WW1, American troopers were issued a French light, automatic
rifle, as part of an economic sweetheart deal with the French.  The gun, 
called the CSRG (Chauchat), was notoriously unreliable, and that fact 
was well known by Americans and French alike.  But, it was issued 
anyway, and we will never know how many Americans were needlessly killed 
as a result.

That this kind of casual nonchalance is apparently still standard 
procedure at the Pentagon, is disillusioning.  We really haven't come 
very far in eighty-five years.  Our young men, in the minds of 
politicians and military brass alike, are still cannon fodder!

-----

Reply via email to