ARTICLE

August 2003

Soldiers Convey Experiences With Battlefield Equipment

by Roxana Tiron

Soldiers returning from the battlefields of Afghanistan are pleading with military weapon developers and contractors to slash the weight of ammunition, which hampers their overall mobility.

A case in point is the need for lighter ammunition for attack helicopters.

“I beg all of you, reduce the weight of ammunition,” said Col. Frank Wiercinski to a crowd of armaments experts attending a conference in Parsippany, N.J. Wiercinski, now chief of the Special Forces Division at the Joint Staff, was the commander of Task Force Rakkasan in the battle of Shah-I-Kot Valley, during Operation Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan.

Systems have to be lightweight, especially counter-mortars, he said. “You have to be constantly mobile. ... Every system has to be ready for the fight, regardless of what you think you are going to use or not use.”

Operators of the Apache attack helicopter, for example, tend to favor the use of fléchette rounds in many missions, he contended. “Because of the altitude, the Apache has to keep moving and has to run from fire,” he said. “In that system, the rockets and the guns work predominantly the best.”

Apache units loaded extra fuel bladders into the aircraft. “That cut down on the amount of gun ammo that we could store in the belly of the Apache. So, rockets became suddenly important—fléchettes ... That is what we need in a system in an environment like that.”

For dismounted soldiers, meanwhile, the top equipment priorities are functionality and ease of use.

“My soldiers today can’t handle those types of weapons as in the Land Warrior or Objective Force Warrior. They have problems loading their weapons, [as is],” said Staff Sgt. Lonnie Schultz, who led a squad in Operation Anaconda.

“Make my stuff lighter,” he said. “Make some of my stuff—that does not work—work.” Soldiers fighting in Anaconda were unhappy with their PAQ4C laser-aiming devices, because they were not compatible with some of the Air Force’s laser-guided bombs.

For close combat, the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon System did not do its intended job, he said. The soldiers often call this weapon the “Green Tip.” The M249 AR is a gas-operated, air-cooled, belt-and magazine-fed, automatic weapon.

“When I shoot somebody who is not behind a wall, that is not wearing body armor, I expect them to go down. I do not expect the penetrators to go right through,” Schultz said. “It happened on numerous occasions. I can tell you from my own experience, if you shoot it from 150-200 meters, it works great. Anything within 50 meters, that fast round did not work.”

He said the Army took away the M-16s from the infantry, because “they felt they were wasting rounds. [But] they kind of defeated that purpose by giving us a round causing us to shoot twice as much to kill a guy.”

Units in Operation Anaconda were given AT4 (Anti-Tank 4) rounds to blow up caves after they finished searching them. The AT4 was a disappointment, Schultz said. “I fired two into a bunker, and they did not do anything,” he said. “I looked at my leader and said you can take that thing ... and keep it.”

A preferred alternative was the SMAW-D bunker buster, the Army’s version of the shoulder-launched assault weapon that the Marine Corps has employed for many years. “SMAW-D is an awesome weapon,” he said. “I recommend this weapon to anybody that is going into combat in Afghanistan, over the AT4. I understand that the AT4 has its purpose, but there is no armor in Afghanistan.”

The SMAW-D not only destroyed a bunker, but also made the cave network collapse, Schultz said. “My only regret is that we could not carry enough of them.”

Another item on the wish list are weapon optical sights that don’t have an on/off switch or batteries, Schultz said. “If I can cut back on taking batteries, that means room for something else, or makes my rucksack lighter.”

For night operations, soldiers prefer the monocular night-vision goggle, the PVS-14, over the PVS-7 binocular device, he said.

The squad and team intercom is fragile, he said. “You get it wet, it is no good,” he said. Units would prefer a more sturdy radio, such as the MBITR multiband handheld system. The downside of the MBITR, however, is the weight of the batteries, he said.

SATCOM radios are complex, bulky and immobile. They need more channels and bandwidth, he said. “I wish I had the one I can carry with me to talk to the aircraft above, so that I can direct them” to the targets.

The Army’s Global Positioning System receivers are downright antiquated, said Schultz. “My civilian one worked better. I do not understand why the Army does not go to something better, smaller, more lightweight and something more accurate,” he said. “I do not understand why they are still using the GPS they were using 15 years ago.”

In the way of transportation, Schultz said, soldiers fighting in a mountainous environment need a vehicle somewhat bigger than the M-Gator—which the soldiers rode until literally the tires fell off—and as durable as the Humvee—which needed 90 minutes to be loaded into a Chinook.

Back To Top