Category: War

Categories
All About Guns The Green Machine This great Nation & Its People War

What’s the Difference Between the M16A1 and M16A2? By Robert A. Sadowski

You’ve heard the expression: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Well, the M16A1 wasn’t exactly broke, but after its performance during the Vietnam War the United States Marines Corp requested the M16A1 be “fixed.” Perhaps it would more correct to say modified.

A U.S. Marine, from 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Bravo Company, armed with an M16A2 rifle, on a squad rush at Schofield Army Barracks, Hawaii. Image: NARA
A U.S. Marine, from 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Bravo Company, armed with an M16A2 rifle, on a squad rush at Schofield Army Barracks, Hawaii. Image: NARA

By 1979 when the request was received from the Corp, the modern battlefield was changing. Compared to the M14, the M16A1 was lightweight, had little recoil, and was easy to maneuver, but those who foresee the changing nature of warfare identified a need to change. The range in the anticipated new era of wars would be longer — 300 to 400 meters. In Vietnam, the average engagement distance was a short 25 meters.

The M16A1 saw extensive combat use during the Vietnam War. Soldiers found the rifle lightweight and easy to maneuver compared to the heavier M14 it replaced. Image: NARA
The M16A1 saw extensive combat use during the Vietnam War. Soldiers found the rifle lightweight and easy to maneuver compared to the heavier M14 it replaced. Image: NARA

A new bullet was being fielded, too. You might have heard of the M855? The bullet’s weight was increased for better long-range accuracy, and a steel tip was incorporated to punch through body armor. Those were two reasons the analysts had to revamp the A1.

The boots on the ground, the Marines in particular, had reasons, too. A lot of reasons. It would seem the M16 needed to be a rifle with downrange performance more like the classic M14.

The M14 served as the standard infantry rifle before being replaced by the M16A1 in Vietnam. Image: NARA
The M14 served as the standard infantry rifle before being replaced by the M16A1 in Vietnam. Image: NARA

M16A2 Barrel Improvements

Let’s take barrel first. The A2 barrel is 20” long and has a 1:7-inch twist rate to better stabilize the heavier, longer bullets. The A1 also had a 20” barrel but with a 1:12-inch twist, which was fine for optimizing lighter, 52-gr. bullets like M1193 ball ammo, but has a harder time stabilizing heavier bullets.

The barrel contour of the A2 is also beefed up forward of the handguard. Under the handguard, the barrel diameter is thin and exactly the same as the A1 to allow attaching the M203 grenade launcher.

A Marine armed with an M16A1 rifle stands guard in a bunker at Beirut International Airport. Image: NARA
A Marine armed with an M16A1 rifle stands guard in a bunker at Beirut International Airport. Image: NARA

The three-prong “duck bill” flash hider on the A1 had a habit of getting vegetation stuck in it as well as kicking up dirt or whatever was on the ground when shooting prone. A new A1 “bird cage” flash hider was enclosed so no debris could get caught in it, and slots were cut all around the circumference.

For the A2, the slots on the bottom of the flash hider were omitted so no dust is blasted when shooting prone. In addition, it acted like a muzzle brake to stifle muzzle rise during recoil. One thing that didn’t change was the rifle-length gas system, which makes both the A1 and A2 a soft shooter compared to a carbine- or even a mid-length gas system.

The M16A2 featured click-adjustable sights ranging from 300 to 800 meters. These improvements made the A2 variant more effective for precision shooting and long-range engagements. Image: NARA
The M16A2 featured click-adjustable sights ranging from 300 to 800 meters. These improvements made the A2 variant more effective for precision shooting and long-range engagements. Image: NARA

A2 Has Better Sights

Being based upon the M1 Garand, the M14 was always renowned for its excellent iron sights. Conversely, one of the most distinct features of the M16A1 and the A2 is the built-in carry handle on the upper receiver that incorporates the rear sight. The A1 had a flip up aperture sight with two sizes of aperture, flipping the aperture also selected a range. Not the best set up for long range shooting.

The Marine Corp’s adaptation had the A2 incorporate a fully adjustable rear sight with click adjustments for both windage and elevation from 300 to 800 meters. The A2’s aperture also has two settings; the small aperture is for daylight and precision shooting, and the large aperture is meant for low-light scenarios.

The M16A2’s adjustable rear sight was a major improvement over the M16A1’s simple flip aperture.
The M16A2’s adjustable rear sight was a major improvement over the M16A1’s simple flip aperture.

The front sight on the A2 also changed to a flat faced post adjustable for elevation with four positions. The A1 had five settings and a round post, which created an aberration in certain light conditions causing groups to be off center.

Additional M16A2 Upgrades

The length of pull on A1 stocks was frankly too short, and also developed a reputation for a lack of durability. The A2 stock was made of stronger Zytel-type material that’s a glass filled thermoset polymer. The LOP was lengthened .62”, and the buttplate uses a toothy texture that didn’t slip out of your shoulder pocket like the A1 was apt to do. The hinged trap door to hold cleaning rods was retained.

A Marine fires an M16A1 from the fantail of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63). The A1 stock was noticeably shorter with a smooth buttplate that tended to slip from the shoulder pocket. Image: NARA
A Marine fires an M16A1 from the fantail of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63). The A1 stock was noticeably shorter with a smooth buttplate that tended to slip from the shoulder pocket. Image: NARA

A big departure was the handguard, which is round, symmetrical and interchangeable on the A2. It was also made of a stronger polymer. The triangular A1 handguard used a left and right handguard. An interesting note is that soldiers more frequently dropped their A1s on the right side, which meant more right handguards, than left, needed to be in stock. The A2 pistol grip incorporated a finger hook which was designed to keep a user’s hand in place but in reality never really fit anyone’s hand that well.

The A2 changed to a three-round burst in lieu of full auto. The selector switch and the internals went from SAFE-SEMI-AUTO on the A1 to SAFE-SEMI-BURST on the A2. The auto setting on the A1 was found to waste a lot of ammo and was difficult to aim, especially under the stress and excitement of an engagement.

The M16A2 buttstock featured an extended length of pull and textured buttplate that prevented slippage during firing. It was also made from stronger Zytel polymer to address durability complaints.
The M16A2 buttstock featured an extended length of pull and textured buttplate that prevented slippage during firing. It was also made from stronger Zytel polymer to address durability complaints.

A brass deflector, basically a metal protrusion, was built into the upper receiver specifically for left-handed shooters, which is about 12 percent of the U.S. population. With the A1, hot brass is flung in front of a left-handed shooter’s face. This handy addition ensured the rifle was easy to use for both right- and left-handers.

Legacy of the M16A2

Unquestionably, the A2 variant was a huge step forward in making the M16 rifle more modern and effective. The M16 represented a sea change moment in firearms design, combining modern materials and manufacturing with a new “light and fast” approach to bullet design. In fact, the A2’s adaptations led to the development of the M4 Carbine so common these days.

The M16A2 served as the standard Marine Corps rifle. Its improved sights made it easier to teach proper marksmanship fundamentals than the M16A1. Image: DVIDS
The M16A2 served as the standard Marine Corps rifle. Its improved sights made it easier to teach proper marksmanship fundamentals than the M16A1. Image: DVIDS

However, there’s something to be said for the charms of the wood and steel M14. Was its heavier construction, traditional materials and .30-cal. chambering less than ideal for the jungles of Vietnam? Arguably, yes. Was its robust construction, excellent sights and powerful chambering an appealing and capable combination of characteristics in a service rifle? Unquestionably.

The M14 served as the primary infantry rifle in the early years of Vietnam before the M16A1 replaced it. The rifle’s weight and strong recoil made it less than ideal for jungle warfare. Image: NARA
The M14 served as the primary infantry rifle in the early years of Vietnam before the M16A1 replaced it. The rifle’s weight and strong recoil made it less than ideal for jungle warfare. Image: NARA

There’s an argument to be made that the USMC was trying to turn the M16A1 — through its A2 modifications to the rifles’ construction, operation, long range performance, and durability — into something more like the old M14.

Whatever the motivations, the M16A2 stands as benchmark in modern rifle design and is now as iconic as it is classic.

Categories
War

The 28-Point Ukraine Peace Plan… and Why It’s a Disaster

Categories
that’s too bad” War

Russia Is Running Out of Money Faster Than You Think

Categories
All About Guns This great Nation & Its People War

Rumble in the Jungle: American Tanks in Vietnam By Capt. Dale Dye, USMC (Ret)

We welcome Capt. Dale Dye, U.S.M.C. (ret) to TheArmoryLife.com. His article today talks about the use of tanks in the Vietnam War by the United States Marine Corps. Tanks and other armored vehicles were used more in Vietnam than many people realize, and Capt. Dye relates first-hand observations of them in combat.

M67 “Zippo” flame tanks of the U.S.M.C. 1st Tank Battalion engage the enemy during Operation Doser near Binh Son in the Quang Ngai Province. Image: NARA

Back in the summer of ’67, I was having a brutal macho slugfest with my bunkmate in Staging Battalion at Camp Pendleton. I maintained that my buddy, who was a tanker, was a no-load weenie who would never see real combat. As I was headed for an infantry assignment, my buddy thought I was a bull-goose looney who didn’t pack the gear to specialize in something less potentially lethal. We were both headed for Vietnam, so those things were important to us. We might both get blown away, but status while doing so was a greater concern.

My arguments were based on the kind of pre-deployment training we were getting which emphasized guerilla warfare, avoiding booby traps, and winkling out Viet Cong guerillas in dense jungles. What good would big tanks and other armored vehicles be in that kind of fight?

A U.S. Marine scans the street for enemy snipers during the Battle of Hue City on February 3, 1968. Backing him up is an M48 Patton tank. Image: U.S.M.C.

Six months later during Tet ’68 in the Battle of Hue City, I ran across my buddy scrunched into the turret of a Zippo, an M67 flame tank. At this point, I drastically revised my arguments about tankers and close combat. While those of us more directly exposed to rounds, rockets and ricochets on the mean streets of Hue were taking serious casualties, my buddy and his fellow tankers were also getting banged around seriously by NVA rocket gunners who played whack-a-mole with the tanks.

It occurred to me, watching his Zippo hose down enemy strongpoints with napalm, that fighting in an RPG-rich environment while perched on a 300-gallon tank of napalm might qualify as dangerous duty.

Marines in an M67 Zippo flame tank could dislodge stubborn enemy positions, as shown in this demonstration for U.S. Navy personnel in 1970. Image: U.S. Navy

And that was the beginning of my interest in armor as used by U.S. Army and Marine outfits during the war in Vietnam.

As I was mostly around Marine Corps tankers and armor crewmen, what I have to say here will have a distinctly Leatherneck bias. More will come later in another article about my experiences with U.S. Army tankers and other tracked vehicles used in Vietnam.

Leathernecks and Steel

Because the Marine Corps fights as a self-contained combat outfit with all organic supporting arms and logistics under the same command umbrella, I had the opportunity to observe tanks and tankers in combat quite a bit from 1967 to 1970.

Leathernecks of 1st Platoon, G Company, 2d Battalion, 7th Marines move up to assault enemy positions during Operation Allen Brook near Da Nang, Vietnam. Image: Cpl. R. J. Del Vecchio/U.S.M.C.

Marine tanks were all variants of the Patton design designated M48A3. They carried a 90mm main armament firing a variety of ammo from High-Explosive Anti-Tank (Heat) to High-Explosive (HE) and the grunt’s favorite Anti-Personnel – Tracer (APERS-T), commonly known as a Beehive Round.

U.S. Marines riding atop an M48 tank cover their ears as the 90mm gun fires during a road sweep southwest of Phu Bai on April 3, 1968. Image: NARA

Tanks assigned to infantry-support roles in the two tank battalions of the First and Third Marine Divisions, operating in I Corps (the farthest northern AO adjacent to the DMZ) also sported a .30-cal. co-axially mounted machinegun that was sighted and triggered by the gunner using main-gun fire control sights, and a .50-cal. heavy machinegun either in a cupola atop the turret or hard-mounted pintle on the turret roof.

U.S. Marines use an M48 tank as cover as they advance during street fighting in Hue in February 1968. Image: Staff Sgt. Jack L. Harlan/U.S.M.C.

They were 50-tons of bush-bashing beast, but the verdant jungles that severely restricted speed, constant mine threats and low visibility in many areas kept them a bit restricted. They had shock-effect and firepower, but mobility was a drawback in heavily jungled areas. However, as regular formations of the North Vietnamese Army appeared on various battlefields in Vietnam, tanks came to be much more of a valuable asset.

Tanks, armored personnel carriers and related heavy vehicles proved their worth in fights where improved roads allowed them to exploit their mobility and bring heavy firepower to bear on enemy formations battling to control interior lines of communications throughout the country.

Shown is an M42 Duster in a prepared defensive position at Khe Sahn on 8 April 1967. These armored vehicles were armed with twin 40mm guns. Image: U.S.M.C.

An early and powerful example of this came when my unit was based at Con Thien overlooking the Ben Hai River and the DMZ. We ran regular patrols on adjacent roads to keep supply lines open, and one of our biggest assets was the soldiers from 1st Battalion, 44th Artillery, running M42A1 “Dusters” for us in the road sweeps.

These relatively light tracked vehicles based on the M41 tank chassis, sported a pair of 40mm Bofors automatic weapons that raised hell all over the DMZ and surrounding countryside. It got to the point where Marine units wouldn’t consider running a road sweep without a couple of Dusters rolling along in support.

A U.S. M42 Duster supports the 1st Australian Task Force in May 1968. Australian troops battled NVA and VC troops for nearly a month during the Battle of Coral. Image: Australian War Museum/CC BY-NC 3.0 AU

And then came Tet ’68 and the bloody battle in Hue City.

In the Thick of It

In conversation with survivors after the fight in Hue, I learned that Marines were initially reluctant to send tanks into the city. It was basically counter to doctrine that said armor was too often forced into fire-traps on city streets, vulnerable to overhead attacks where their armor was thinnest, and limited turret traverse in narrow confines.

A U.S. Marine Corps flame tank burns out a VC position while on Operation Elliot on July 7, 1967. Image: NARA

None of those concerns held up when the defecation hit the oscillation in Hue. And Marine tanks were often the deciding factor in street fights that demanded sufficient firepower to blast a stubborn enemy from buildings and concrete strongpoints.

A couple of 90mm AP rounds followed by a stream of burning fuel from a Zippo usually turned the tables against NVA defenders.

One of the most haunting images I retain from the Hue City fight is a pulpy NVA corpse standing upright and pinned to a tree by a swarm of flechettes. It might have been a tank round, or one from an Ontos 106mm recoilless rifle — they were all firing Beehive rounds — but the effect was gruesome. The NVA trooper hung like a scarecrow that had been dive-bombed to death by swarms of lethal wasps.

This M50 Ontos and its two Marine crew move forward during Operation Franklin. The Ontos accompanied 1st and 2d Battalion, 7th Marines in the Quang Ngai Province in June of 1966. Image: U.S.M.C.

Hue was also my first opportunity to see the Marine Corps’ M50 Ontos in action. Most Marines were familiar at a distance with the weird-looking vehicles from seeing them parked in static perimeter defense positions around major firebases.

And most had heard the stories about how the Army tried the Ontos out in the late 1950s and promptly decided it was too thin-skinned and otherwise unsuitable for a variety of reasons, notably the need for some poor crew-dog to dismount under fire in order to reload the six 106mm recoilless rifles affixed to the hull.

But the Ontos — “Thing” in Greek — went bang with a six-barreled vengeance, and that was an attractive feature for Marines who had enough suicidal PFCs to sustain the vehicle’s three-man crews. The Marine Corps adopted the Army castoff Ontos and sent it to Vietnam hoping to use it as a mobile fire-support element for infantry.

Marines patrol in the Quang Tin Province of Vietnam during Operation Iowa in April of 1966. Image: U.S.M.C.

Despite initial casualties, mostly from AT mines and RPGs which devastated the light vehicles, Marines stuck by the Ontos, using its brace of 106mm recoilless rifles to good effect when terrain allowed it to follow close behind advancing grunts. But the Ontos was mainly relegated to perimeter defense or convoy escorts duties until things went weird in Hue City and the Ontos came into its own.

During a break in the fighting in Hue City on February 23, 1968, this Marine catches a few minutes of sleep on top of his M50 Ontos. Image: Lance Cpl. D. M. Messenger/U.S.M.C.

The small, lightweight and fully tracked Ontos was a regular and welcome sight among infantry Marines bulling and blasting their way through enemy defenses in Hue.

The crews were nimble and canny in roaring up to a hardpoint and cranking away with rec-rifles fired in pairs or broadsides. No warning was given about the horrendous backblast — and none was needed. When an Ontos was about to open fire — or even looked like it might — we knew to be elsewhere under cover until the smoke and debris cleared.

Conclusion

For the most part, the NVA didn’t employ much armor during the fight in Vietnam. The occasional sighting of armored vehicles on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and the attack by a platoon of PT-76s on the SF camp at Lang Vei in Feb. ’68, were exceptions.

In fact, until the massive NVA offensives toward the end of the American involvement (Easter Offensive in ’72 and the final push to end it all in 1975), enemy armor was not much of a worry for allied troops on the ground in Vietnam. But our armor undoubtedly worried them.

Categories
All About Guns War

Why Soviet Tankers Loved the American Sherman and How It Outshined the T-34

https://youtu.be/Y0qt5dG1jpM

Categories
Allies Soldiering War

Seringapatam 1799: Storming The Tiger’s Fortress

Categories
All About Guns Soldiering This great Nation & Its People War

When M18 Hellcats Hunted Panzer IVs: Legendary Tank Battle at Arracourt

Categories
Leadership of the highest kind This great Nation & Its People War

General Of The Armies — Who Was General John J. Pershing?

Categories
All About Guns Soldiering The Green Machine This great Nation & Its People War

The Evolution of Military Revolver Training Wheelguns were in service for longer than you may think. by Claude Werner

Revolvers have been part of the US military arsenal for a long time. In fact, despite the 1911 semi-automatic having “won two World Wars!,” the revolver continued in US military service longer than that 1911 to 1985 time period. Both the Army and the Air Force kept revolvers in their inventory well past the end of the Vietnam War.

As late as the 1988 edition of Field Manual 23-35, the US Army revolver inventory was listed as “six basic caliber .38 service revolvers in use by the Army.” One 2-inch barreled .38- caliber revolver and five 4-inch barreled .38-caliber revolvers were still in use.

The snub was used by Army CID and counterintelligence personnel, while the 4-inch barreled revolvers were used by aviators and Military Police. The US Air Force didn’t retire the last of its Smith & Wesson Model 15 revolvers until 2018. By that time, the Model 15s were only used with blanks to train working dogs.

One of the earliest 20th century examples of US military revolver training is presented in the US Navy manual “The Landing-force and Small-arm Instructions, United States Navy, 1912.” The techniques shown in the manual, e.g., cocking the pistol, demonstrate how much evolution has taken place in military revolver training. Even then, safety was an issue that had to be emphasized. “In shooting from shipboard, men should be cautioned against standing where poorly aimed or accidental shots may be deflected from boat davits.”

Just as at the beginning of The Great War, the beginning of World War II saw the military woefully short of 1911 pistols. During the pre-war buildup, the Model 1917 .45 ACP revolver was pressed into service to provide training sidearms for the millions of troops who fought the war.

The author’s father was familiarized with a 1917 revolver in basic training shortly before Pearl Harbor was attacked. One handed bullseye target shooting was still the initial form of pistol shooting taught.

Train For Combat, Not The Range

As the War progressed, it became clear that training only for bullseye target shooting was not adequate to train men for combat. Combat firing courses pertinent to both semi-automatics and revolvers were developed. After the war, an interesting development in training that was pertinent to revolvers occurred. The reason for this development is historically unclear.

Change No. 2 to Field Manual 23-35, was issued in 1948. It contained an interesting addition to handgun training that was intended for both semi-autos and revolvers. The addition was the Advanced Firing Course. The course was designed “for use by specially qualified individuals whose military duties demand above average performance with handguns. … Any pistol or revolver may be used, providing it is of sufficient caliber to be effective. Generally speaking, this confines calibers to .38 or larger. Exceptions are the .30 Luger, Mauser, and Russian, and the 32-20 cartridge.”

The course was divided into six tables totaling 50 rounds. The targets ranged from 50 yards to 7 yards. Other than the 50-yard table, it was shot on paper silhouette targets of varying sizes and heights. All the tables under 50 yards require drawing from the holster with some tight time limits. Single-action revolvers were specifically allowed as demonstrated by the reloading requirements in Table XI. Including this category of revolver is curious, although many were furnished to Great Britain during the War.

The author’s father firing an M1917 shortly before Pearl Harbor

Recognition of what constituted meaningful handgun practice was included in the course description with a caveat. “Movement not included. The course does not include shooting at ‘running man’ targets, shooting while the firer is running, or a combination of the two. Nor does it include shooting from a moving vehicle, shooting while seated behind a desk, or night shooting.

It is felt that while all these are valuable and should be included in familiarization practice, they involve too many complications to be included in a fixed course of fire.” This emphasis seems to have had its roots as much in clandestine OSS type operations as in the law enforcement role.

Out With The Old, In With The New

The 1960 edition of FM 23-35 was completely restructured, and the Advanced Firing Course was eliminated. The Colt Detective Special was the only revolver mentioned and received a separate section from the 1911 pistol. The Advanced Firing Course for all handguns was replaced for revolvers by the Practical Qualification Course.

The course fundamentals were stated as “Qualification in practical revolver shooting includes firing from several positions at varying ranges; shooting with the right and left hands; point (crouch) firing; double action; and hip shooting.” In this sense, it had become a parallel to the FBI’s PPC, since revolvers were now relegated to the law enforcement function in the Army.

A further evolution of revolver training occurred in the 1988 edition of FM 23-35, which was titled “Combat Training with Pistols And Revolvers.” In place of the Colt Detective Special, the Smith & Wesson Model 10 had become the CID sidearm while aviators were equipped with 4-inch revolvers. Reactive silhouette targets had replaced paper targets of both bullseye and silhouette versions.

The Combat Pistol Qualification Course in the 1988 edition could be used for both pistols and revolvers. Changes to range layout required soldiers to engage single and multiple targets at various distances.

In addition, soldiers were given 40 rounds to fire the 30 targets. This enabled soldiers to fire makeup shots on targets they missed. The manual specifically stated, “A firer who can successfully reengage the target with a second round during the exposure time is just as effective as a firer who hits the target with the first round. The firer is not penalized for using or not using the extra rounds he is allocated.” Making allowance for follow-up shots was a noticeable change in doctrine from years past.

The USAF continued to use revolvers in the law enforcement function for a time but eventually the M9 Beretta replaced it for all but dog training. Finally, even this usage was discarded. Revolvers are no longer part of the US military inventory, but still had a very long period of service that deserves recognition.

Categories
All About Guns This great Nation & Its People War

THE B25 MITCHELL MEDIUM BOMBER, AN OUTSTANDING AIRCRAFT OF WORLD WAR TWO

https://youtu.be/9TG7pHBUNRM