Army Records Relating to Ambush Vanish

[mjv]

Okay, I am not one to go for conspiracy theories, but this is just a little too bizarre and a little too convenient...

http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20030917-22426.shtml

The El Paso Times Reports:

The U.S. Army on Tuesday revealed that all records and documents about the weapons that jammed during the March 23 ambush that led to the death of nine Fort Bliss soldiers were destroyed in the Iraqi attack and that there is no way to trace the weapons' histories.

The Army, responding to an El Paso Times request under the Freedom of Information Act, said any official information about the weapons used by Fort Bliss' 507th Maintenance Company was lost on a supply truck taken into combat.

[mjv]

Not one comment?

The Army blamed the soldiers for their weapons jamming and then all evidence that might prove otherwise simply vanishes.

Maybe that is par for the course on this site, but I thought it was news.

[WildCat]

The M16 had a reputation for jamming when first introduced during the Vietnam war, there have been many revisions since then. Still, it must be kept clean to work properly.

The 507th Maintenance Division probably was not expected to see combat, maybe they had older versions of the M16. Or maybe since they didn't expect combat the soldiers didn't keep them as clean as they should have, and Iraq is a very dusty place.

All just a WAG, of course.

[Shinytop]

The M16 is an excellent weapon as long as kept clean and correct ammo is used in it. Typically support troops are not held to as high a standard as they do not expect to be shooting their weapons.

There are several very good 5.56 weapons out there that do not require near the maintenance as the M16. It is high time the Army lost the "not invented here" syndrome and gave its soldier a good weapon less prone to jamming when dirty.

[American]

Originally posted by Shinytop
The M16 is an excellent weapon as long as kept clean and correct ammo is used in it.

I think, in part, that's the philosophy they want to promote. It's like allowing shiny vinyl shoes to replace carefully polished leather. There's a reason they want you to suffer.

However, there is a point where theory becomes sheer stupidity. They really should use a better weapon.

[corplinx]

If the beretta sidearm jammed, I am not the least bit surprised. The military should be using a glock 45 or 10mm period. The glock is the only gun with a track record of reliability good enough for our armed forces. They can drop it in sand, mud, freeze, or run it over and it will still pick up and shoot.

[The Fool]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the M16 in any of its versions, early or late. When I was in the Australian Army our standard rifle was the large heavy but very powerful and accurate FN self loading 7.62mm. M16s were available, some people liked them some people didn't. They had a plastic cheap mass produced feel, they rattled if shaken and people tried to tell us they didn't require cleaning...... That was the problem, this tall tale that they did not require cleaning. If dirty they would fail to cycle and double feed just like any other rifle...kept clean they were very reliable, lightweight and had a good rate of fire...Nothing like a long burst on full auto to settle the nerves of a forward scout. For a short time I had an M203 over/under with the 40mm grenade launcher....a very very good weapon, as long as you could get your hands on the 40mm grenades, for some reason they were always hard to get.

My money would be on the theory that these 507th dudes had thier weapons rattling around on the floor of the truck cabs or behind the seats under a layer of Hershey bar wrappers and empty soda bottles..

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by WildCat
The M16 had a reputation for jamming when first introduced during the Vietnam war, there have been many revisions since then. Still, it must be kept clean to work properly.

The 507th Maintenance Division probably was not expected to see combat, maybe they had older versions of the M16. Or maybe since they didn't expect combat the soldiers didn't keep them as clean as they should have, and Iraq is a very dusty place.

All just a WAG, of course.

For some reason, the damn things would jamb more when you tried to use armor piercing ammo. The recoil was nice, but here's an interesting idea, let's make a high-tech (at the time) gun that must be kept clean and give them to soldiers in a wet, stinking jungle.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shinytop
There are several very good 5.56 weapons out there that do not require near the maintenance as the M16.

Such as?

An automatic rifle is a sophisticated piece of machinery, and like any piece of machinery, will not function very well if its full of dirt.

If you cant keep your rifle clean you arent a very good soldier are you?

[Some Friggin Guy]

If you cant keep your rifle clean you arent a very good soldier are you?

An people wonder why I favor the use of swords...

They're so much easier to maintain! Just sharpen them everyonce in a while.


And, if someone comes at you with a gun, and you draw a sword...

Chances are they will think you're a total loon and leave you alone.

[Jon_in_london]

Yes but swords can get rusty! Why not just have pointy-sticks!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


An people wonder why I favor the use of swords...

They're so much easier to maintain! Just sharpen them everyonce in a while.


And, if someone comes at you with a gun, and you draw a sword...

Chances are they will think you're a total loon and leave you alone.

Tell that to the swordsman in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom".

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Such as?

An automatic rifle is a sophisticated piece of machinery, and like any piece of machinery, will not function very well if its full of dirt.

If you cant keep your rifle clean you arent a very good soldier are you?
Everyone likes to think all thier soldiers are supergrunts.......These 507th troops probably sh*t themselves and ran around in circles when they were ambushed.... They were not line infantry, this would be no different in any other army.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by The Fool

Everyone likes to think all thier soldiers are supergrunts.......These 507th troops probably sh*t themselves and ran around in circles when they were ambushed.... They were not line infantry, this would be no different in any other army.

No doubt. Most of the post 1stMay British casualties have been MPs who for some reason have been unable to defend themselves (probably because they dont know how to operate their rifles properly).

[Some Friggin Guy]

Yes but swords can get rusty! Why not just have pointy-sticks!

I like this plan! This is a fantastic plan!

POINTY STICKS FOR EVERYONE!!!!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


I like this plan! This is a fantastic plan!

POINTY STICKS FOR EVERYONE!!!!

What if the enemy come at you with a bunch of grapes!

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


What if the enemy come at you with a bunch of grapes!

You'll pull the lever wich will release the hungry tiger. The hungry tiger eats the assilant, and leaves the grapes alone. You pick up the grapes and eat them.

Really now, this is basic self-defence. You should know this already.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by corplinx
The glock is the only gun with a track record of reliability good enough for our armed forces.

*cough* Sig-Sauer (http://www.sigarms.com) *cough*

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by The Fool
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the M16 in any of its versions, early or late. When I was in the Australian Army our standard rifle was the large heavy but very powerful and accurate FN self loading 7.62mm. M16s were available, some people liked them some people didn't. They had a plastic cheap mass produced feel, they rattled if shaken and people tried to tell us they didn't require cleaning...... That was the problem, this tall tale that they did not require cleaning. If dirty they would fail to cycle and double feed just like any other rifle...kept clean they were very reliable, lightweight and had a good rate of fire...Nothing like a long burst on full auto to settle the nerves of a forward scout. For a short time I had an M203 over/under with the 40mm grenade launcher....a very very good weapon, as long as you could get your hands on the 40mm grenades, for some reason they were always hard to get.


Man, I'm envious. I always wanted to play with one of those M203s. I never got to fire one.

I agree that the M16 is a fine weapon, but does have a cheap, mass-produced plastic feel to it. Hell, that's because it is a cheap, mass-produced plastic weapon. It still works well when maintained properly.

Proper maintenance is essential for the proper functioning of any military hardware or equipment.

If there is one thing drilled into the heads of American soldiers, it's maintenance. If these guys' weapons malfunctioned, it's because they didn't maintain them. Kind of ironic for a maintenance company, huh?

AS

[Tricky]

May I interrupt the shop talk of the gun enthusiasts for a moment to get back to what I think is the real topic of the thread?

Conspiracy? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that word because it implies it was planned in advance. More like a simple cover-up. This was the biggest news story of the war, and nobody bothered to keep a copy of the pertinent records? Come on now. It seems pretty obvious that the whole ambush fiasco was a tremendous black eye for the Army, and they wanted people to know as little about it as possible. If it means making scapegoats of dead people, well, c'est la gare.

It will be interesting to see Jessica Lynch's book when it comes out to find if she remembers any details that can paint a clearer picture of what happened. You can be sure that the Army is going to do everything it can, including conveniently "losing" records, to prevent us from finding out.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by mjv
Okay, I am not one to go for conspiracy theories, but .....[insert conspiracy theory].......

...ahem.... :rolleyes:

The people in that convoy were mechanics...support troops. I was also a non-combat arms soldier back in the 70's and 80's. Most combat support types are more concerned with performing their specific jobs than picking up a weapon. These maint people were not supposed to be at the pointy end of the war.

Now, we were always told that when push came to shove we were ALL essentially infantry grunts. As such we were expected to know how to be soldiers...that includes qualifying with, and maintaining the M16A1. As such, these soldiers should have been more prepared than they were...obviously they were not well led.

Having a poor leader for a CO is not as glamorous as a grand conspiracy theory...but I'm afraid Mr. Occam says it will have to do. :con2:

-z

[Agammamon]

One of the reasons I've seen for the jams (can't find the bleeding links anymore) is that the standard lubricant for the rifles is a wet oil, which allows dust and sand to build up faster than say a teflon based dry lube, forcing soldiers to spend more time maintaining their weapons in the dusty conditions of Iraq than would normally be expected.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Agammamon
One of the reasons I've seen for the jams (can't find the bleeding links anymore) is that the standard lubricant for the rifles is a wet oil, which allows dust and sand to build up faster than say a teflon based dry lube, forcing soldiers to spend more time maintaining their weapons in the dusty conditions of Iraq than would normally be expected.

Hmmm thats tres interesant. We are told not to oil our rifles in sandy conditions. Never heard of 'dry' lubes.

Look the M16 is a damn good weapon. The SAS use it in preference to any other rifle on the planet today. They wouldnt use it if it was sh*t. The only excuse for having such a good weapon having a stoppage is either very poor quality rounds or very poor quality soldiers.

Now the SA80 on the other hand........... Well I have heard that the newer version is fairly reliable....if you keep it clean.

[mjv]

Originally posted by rikzilla


...ahem.... :rolleyes:

...these soldiers should have been more prepared than they were...obviously they were not well led.

-z

Wow, pretty stong denunciations of the actions and motivations of the dead, you must be psychic.

Too bad we will never really know the truth about whether they were ill-prepared or their equipment was substandard, since the evidence has now vanished.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Tricky


It will be interesting to see Jessica Lynch's book when it comes out to find if she remembers any details that can paint a clearer picture of what happened. You can be sure that the Army is going to do everything it can, including conveniently "losing" records, to prevent us from finding out.

I'm pretty sure she will "remember" whatever the Army Public Affairs Office and her ghostwriter tell her to. You can be sure that very little, if anything, that portrays the army in an unfavorable light will be in it. You can also be sure that Lynch will "remember" just in time for the book writing lots of exciting and dramatic things that "happened." Hell, she was probably unconscious during most of the relevant events, so I doubt she ever had any memories to forget.

This is a book she and her publisher want to sell. Trading on the current wave of patriotism and support for the military will be a central theme, as will the "heroics" of Lynch and her rescuers.

The book should likely be filed in the fiction department.

AS

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


I like this plan! This is a fantastic plan!

POINTY STICKS FOR EVERYONE!!!!

"Your superior intellects are no match for our puny weapons!"
-Konos, on The Simpsons

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Such as?

An automatic rifle is a sophisticated piece of machinery, and like any piece of machinery, will not function very well if its full of dirt.

If you cant keep your rifle clean you aren't a very good soldier are you?

Such as the Steyr Aug or probably the best 5.56 weapon out there, the G36.

It is not a case of being a good soldier or not. Even the good soldier can have to crawl in dirt or mud and be attacked before being able to clean his damn weapon. The M16 is more susceptible to dirt than other weapons and that is a strike against it no matter how well it performs when clean. The american soldier deserves a weapon that can fire even if there are problems with cleanliness. Putting the blame on the soldier is the leadership's way of not admitting they are not fielding the best weapon they can. And putting the blame on the soldier is usually the mark of somebody who knows nothing about soldiering.

And yes, leadership was the root cause of this debacle. But because of missing roads and leading the convoy into known enemy territory. Have any of you read the account? The convoy was under fire for over an hour before finally getting busted. Please read the official report of the errors that lead to this before shooting off your mouth about the quality of support troops.

[Ed]

I have read that the AK47 is virtually impossible to muck up. Any info?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by mjv


Wow, pretty stong denunciations of the actions and motivations of the dead, you must be psychic.

Too bad we will never really know the truth about whether they were ill-prepared or their equipment was substandard, since the evidence has now vanished.

As Spock would say: "You are being illogical"

One does not need to interview the dead, or entertain the delusional rantings of the "psychic". A unit's commander is ALWAYS responsible for it's actions and or inactions. The high failure rate of this unit's weapons points directly to how they were maintained. If a commander makes weapons maintenance a priority (as a prudent one would in a wartime environment) this would not happen.

That fact is a severe indictment of that commander's judgement. Not to mention the fact that he became lost and led his unit into and through a hostile town who's narrow streets provided a perfect location for ambush. Then, once through that town he turned his convoy around and CAME BACK THROUGH AGAIN!! (He was famously un-lucky on his second pass through Nasiriyah)

These events are indicative of an inexcusable inattention to detail which culminated in the unnecessary risk of, and subsequent loss of many lives.

Not exactly a commendable performance....and we don't need a crystal ball to tell us this. In incompetent CO is more dangerous to his own men than a competent enemy is.

-z

[mjv]

Originally posted by rikzilla


As Spock would say: "You are being illogical"


-z

Sorry, I didn't realize it was logical to make a sweeping generalization of how much care a soldier you've never met or seen takes with their weapon based on your own personal experiences. Amazing display of logic.

Now all kidding aside, we do not know for a fact that any of them did or did not maintain their guns properly. They may have had the crustiest guns ever, but you or I have no direct knowledge to support such a claim.

Whatever the CO did or did not do in other aspects has absolutely nothing to do with whether individual soldiers took care of their personal weapons. if they wanted to ensure they were clean they probably did. Nobody tells me to clean my guns, but guess what? I keep them clean for my own benefit.

You are probably right that we can speculate that the guns jammed because of dirt or sand, but neither you or I know for a fact that the guns that "failed" were not defective in some way.

I'm not saying this is a bradley fighting vehicle style coverup, but the fact is that the soldiers were blamed for the failures and any evidence that could have shown otherwise has conveniently vanished. Coincidence? Maybe, but you have to admit it is unusually convenient.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by mjv


Now all kidding aside, we do not know for a fact that any of them did or did not maintain their guns properly. They may have had the crustiest guns ever, but you or I have no direct knowledge to support such a claim.


If any of them had crusty weapons, then it was their own fault. All soldiers must learn to clean their weapons. It is an integral part of basic training. It's an integral part of nearly all field training.

When one has a weapon issued to him, cleaning it is at least a daily activity, even in the field. One must clean his weapon often and keep it clean, even in combat. One might even say especially in combat. This is trained into all soldiers, whether they are assigned to a combat specialty or not.

Failure to do so is not only an individual failure on the part of the soldier, but also a command failure.

I don't buy the "crustiest weapons in the world" business. Even the crustiest M-16 in the world can be cleaned, else it will be retired from service. Good NCOs simply will not allow weapons with even marginal amounts of dirt or oil to be considered clean. I wish I had a dollar for every time I was sent back to clean my M-16 again and again until I got it perfect. I've spent hours doing it in one sitting.


Whatever the CO did or did not do in other aspects has absolutely nothing to do with whether individual soldiers took care of their personal weapons. if they wanted to ensure they were clean they probably did.


What the CO does or doesn't do has everything to do with unit readiness. It is manifestly the job of the commanding officer to ensure that each and every one of his unit's soldiers is combat ready and properly equipped. It is his principal job. It is the CO's raison d'etre in peacetime. Period.

If his unit is deployed in combat operations, he has the additional duty of commanding his troops on the battlefield, or while they are supporting the troops who are engaged in combat operations.

If the soldiers failed to maintain their weapons, then that CO is the man or woman to blame. No question about it. Any military veteran can understand that conclusion.

The individual soldiers do not get to decide whether they want to keep their weapons clean. If the CO orders that they will keep them clean, then the company First Sergeant will bust their butts to ensure that each soldier's weapon is clean. They can't talk back or complain about it. If they do, then they are disobeying a lawful order and will probably be given an Article 15 or brought up on charges.

If the First Sergeant doesn't do his duty, then it's the CO's fault.

Any way you slice it, it's the CO's fault if his unit has weapons that are not maintained properly.

Can you imagine a captain going to his battalion commander, most likely a lieutenant colonel, "But Sir, my men just didn't want to clean their weapons?" Can you say relieved of command? Can you say dereliction of duty?


Nobody tells me to clean my guns, but guess what? I keep them clean for my own benefit.


I'm willing to bet you aren't in the military and that your weapons are not U.S. Government property.

Soldiers don't get to make that decision. His CO or First Sergeant orders them to keep their weapons clean, they keep their weapons clean.

They are not a bunch of individual actors each acting on his own. The unit functions as a team. A soldier next to me with a malfunctioning weapon not only endangers his own life, but he endangers the lives of the rest of his unit as well. I might depend on him to lay down suppressing fire for me, for instance. What if I can't rely on him to do so?


You are probably right that we can speculate that the guns jammed because of dirt or sand, but neither you or I know for a fact that the guns that "failed" were not defective in some way.


If they were defective, as you speculate, then the CO and the First Sergeant should have discovered that long before the unit was placed in harm's way. Going into a combat theater of operations with one's whole company's having defective weapons would be dereliction of duty on the part of the CO, at the very least. BTW, I never once saw or heard of a "defective" M-16 that got fielded the whole time I trained with and served in the U.S. Army. It's simply far more likely that a bunch of malfunctioning M-16s in a unit were not maintained properly, if in fact they did malfuction.

AS

[ArmchairPhysicist]

The records kept for individual weapons are pretty basic; a number on a list with a name next to it. Perhaps as much as a file with previous users it it. Nothing so impressive that it will survive a small brush fire. Since all the records for a single unit are kept in a single cabinet, it doesn't take a conspiracy to destroy them all.

What, exactly, do people expect to find in these records, anyway? Dramatic monologues of the unit's previous armourer describing the various defects of the weapons in his charge? Perhaps even a gasp of "Oh, no! They're coming for me now! Hopefully, some kind soul will find these records even after my own corpse disappears, thus saving the lives of nine unknowing innocent janitors!"

Seriously. Does someone really believe that the troops were knowingly issued non-functioning weapons while the rest of the unit had fully functional weapons? The records are simple lists of maintainance dates, user names, and not too much else that would tell you why the weapon's user is dead.

The weapons are the same weapons that have been used in the unit for any number of years. The soldiers fire these same rifles annually for qualification; if there were any defects, the armourer would have known long ago about them. The rifles would never have been issued, and if they had somehow been issued, what are the chances that all nine were issued to the exactly nine troops in the convoy?

Since I haven't searched around for the facts in this case, consider all of this as simple thoughts on things to look for before jumping to conspiracy conclusions. ;)

Rifles that have been fired need to be cleaned. In a firefight lasting over an hour, the crew should have performed periodic maintainance in every break in fire. Failure to do this will likely result in serious injury or death as your weapon stops preventing people from attacking you. It is quite likely that a non-combat unit such as the one in question did not perform the suggested maintainance. In boot camp, they probably had a single lesson on team-cleanings, but few soldiers remember such a brief class. Unless their unit commander had been scheduling classes and excercizes on weapon maintainance during firefights, a little bit of carbon in their gas keys was probably the lastthing on their minds.

Just some thoughts.

[mjv]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


blah, blah, blah

AS

Okay, although I get the feeling that I may as well direct my comments to a brick wall...

What does that have to do with ANYTHING I wrote? You start and end with the ASSUMPTION that they did not clean their guns. There is no direct evidence that the guns jammed because they were not properly maintained. They may have or may not, but you cannot just arbitrarily make that assumption.

A soldier cannot clean his gun without a seargent standing over him ordering him to clean it? BS!

By your logic I guess once anyone leaves the service any guns they own just get dirty and rusty since there is no one to command them to clean them on a regular basis, right? That is just ridiculous and you know it.

People who want o do their best to ensure their guns function properly clean them regularly. PERIOD. You don't need to be in the military to know how to clean a gun.

[Shinytop]

A company is commanded by a commanding officer, usually designated as a captain. He is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen in his command.

One of his designated officers is a supply officer. Typically the supply officer has an additional responsibility for the weapons as they are usually stored in an arms room adjacent or part of the supply room.

Every time a weapons leaves the supply room its cleanliness is supposed to be checked before it is accepted back in the supply/arms room. If the weapons are not issued often the unit should have designated days when everybody sometime during the day checks out his weapons and cleans it. Even in Vietnam this was done in units not at forward bases.

This unit before its unfortunate convoy was not located in a combat zone so they should have had procedures to keep the weapons clean and ready. If they did not it is definitely the fault of the chain of command. Most units do not allow checking out of the weapon based on the whim of the soldier. They must have the cleaning materials ready and somebody there to check them in and out. You do not check out weapons for a return to the barracks in most situations unless the chain of command has arranged for supervision. Can you imagine the outcry when a nut job checks out his weapon and goes to downtown Bahrain and shoots his girl friend?

The poster who commented on weapons records was spot on. Detailed records of dirty weapons are not maintained. If a weapon were so badly deteriorated that it must be removed from service there could be an action taken to assign blame and cost. Other than that there would be no records.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by mjv


Okay, although I get the feeling that I may as well direct my comments to a brick wall...

What does that have to do with ANYTHING I wrote? You start and end with the ASSUMPTION that they did not clean their guns. There is no direct evidence that the guns jammed because they were not properly maintained. They may have or may not, but you cannot just arbitrarily make that assumption.

A soldier cannot clean his gun without a seargent standing over him ordering him to clean it? BS!

By your logic I guess once anyone leaves the service any guns they own just get dirty and rusty since there is no one to command them to clean them on a regular basis, right? That is just ridiculous and you know it.

People who want o do their best to ensure their guns function properly clean them regularly. PERIOD. You don't need to be in the military to know how to clean a gun.

My remarks directly addressed yours. They were in fact responsive. They are in fact premised on the soldiers not maintaining their weapons. That is the only reasonable conclusion a knowledgeable person can reach. It is the CO's duty to ensure his unit has properly functioning and maintained weapons. It is the unit's duty to check on the functionality of the weapons before and during its deployment. Ergo, if they weren't functioning, then the unit didn't check them recently. That's a dereliction of duty.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean the soldier must have a sergeant standing over him to clean his weapon. I meant that the soldier doesn't get to decide whether or not he will clean his weapon. He will clean it if ordered. It's not optional. Thus, your retort is irrelevant, as I wasn't asserting what you apparently thought I was.

Of course any responsible gun owner cleans and oils his weapon regularly, including after each firing. I certainly didn't imply that you have to be in the military to do that. I meant that no soldier would claim that if he wants to clean his weapon, he will clean his weapon. His wants play little into the equation. The soldier does it when he's told. I inferred, correctly or not, from your earlier remarks that the soldiers were free to make that decisions for themselves. They weren't.

You might want to read my comments closer before you dismiss me as being a brick wall. Also, the inferences you draw from my comments are not reasonably drawn from them.

Anyway, I think your apparent anger with me is misplaced. I wasn't rude to you.

AS

[ArmchairPhysicist]

A soldier cannot clean his gun without a seargent standing over him ordering him to clean it? BS!

Weapons are kept locked in the armoury. If you want to clean your weapon, you first have to explain to your Sergeant why you feel you need to get your weapon out of the armoury. If he feels like sitting there in the armoury watching you clean your weapon at your own liesure, he'll escort you down to the building and sign for your weapon.

In other words, a soldier cannot clean his gun without a Sergeant standing over him.

Normally, a day will be set aside when your segreant sits there and watches everyone clean their weapons, all at the same time.

Before commenting on the accuracy of someone else's depiction of military proceedure, one should at least become familiar with the proceedure one is commenting on.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist


Weapons are kept locked in the armoury. If you want to clean your weapon, you first have to explain to your Sergeant why you feel you need to get your weapon out of the armoury. If he feels like sitting there in the armoury watching you clean your weapon at your own liesure, he'll escort you down to the building and sign for your weapon.

In other words, a soldier cannot clean his gun without a Sergeant standing over him.

Normally, a day will be set aside when your segreant sits there and watches everyone clean their weapons, all at the same time.

Before commenting on the accuracy of someone else's depiction of military proceedure, one should at least become familiar with the proceedure one is commenting on.

Yes, of course this is SOP in any unit. In answering this guy, I was mixing garrison procedure with what I recall to be procedure in the field. Cleaning by the whole unit is usually supervised by the unit NCOs in field training exercises during designated times and at the conclusion of the exercise before anyone can go, but there are times one will maintain his weapon when tactical in a foxhole or when bivouaced, for instance. I suppose it may not be supervised so closely at those times if others are engaged in tactical duties.

AS

[mjv]

Shinytop
Amateur Scientist
ArmchairPsychiatrist


YOU CAN ALL GO...
















Congratulate yourselves for pointing out that some of my assumptions were incorrect. I have military people in the family so I probably should have talked to them first. I did not realize that the guns were kept under wraps that tightly. I also assumed that the paperwork might have listed data on whether the guns had been previously heavily used, older, etc. tjat might have been more useful.

Mea Culpa.

[Tmy]

The Jessica Lynch story has been rewritten more times than a soap opera.

Shes a national hero for what? getting into a car accident. Didnt she get a silver star or sumthin?

[Shinytop]

She and all the other soldiers captured in that incident received the Bronze Star. Note that the award did NOT include the V device for valor. THEY ALL RECEIVED THE SAME MEDAL. Jessica was not singled out for attention.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by mjv
Shinytop
Amateur Scientist
ArmchairPsychiatrist


YOU CAN ALL GO...
















Congratulate yourselves for pointing out that some of my assumptions were incorrect. I have military people in the family so I probably should have talked to them first. I did not realize that the guns were kept under wraps that tightly. I also assumed that the paperwork might have listed data on whether the guns had been previously heavily used, older, etc. tjat might have been more useful.

Mea Culpa.

Can I now go and congratulate myself as well? :confused:

What AS told you is exactly spot on. I could not, and alas did not, tell it better myself. My assumptions as to who is to blame for that maint company's loss are not blindly made. My assumption was based on my own first hand knowledge of how the Army operates.

To say we should not assume that CO's guilt is precisely the same as saying that Captain Smith should not be assumed to be guilty of sinking the Titanic. He certainly didn't mean to...but in the final analysis it was his command, the buck always stops there.

-z

[mjv]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Can I now go and congratulate myself as well? :confused:

-z

You certainly may. I was just popping in to try to edit my post for just that reason.

I'll blame it on my allergies/allergy medicine. I'm just not thinking as clearly as I should lately.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Shinytop
She and all the other soldiers captured in that incident received the Bronze Star. Note that the award did NOT include the V device for valor. THEY ALL RECEIVED THE SAME MEDAL. Jessica was not singled out for attention.

Can you remember the names of any of the other soldiers who were involved in that incident?

She hasn't been singled out for merit, but she certainly received a lot more attention than anybody else. (Through no fault of her own, of course.)