Webster

The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." --American Statesman Daniel Webster (1782-1852)


Friday, March 30, 2018

The AR15/M16, the Rifle that almost wasn't

   This was supposed to post Saturday, I got lost in the scheduled post I have in the system because I may be out of battery for a couple of days.   Oh Well :)
I shamelessly clipped this article from "GunsDigest", it cropped up in my facebook feed, and I spent time reading it and it was full of information that I didn't know.  I knew about the snafu with the ammo and the M16 in Vietnam with the ordinance department fondness for ball powder over the "stick" powder that the AR-15/M16 was designed to run on.  I keep wondering how many GI's paid for the hubris of the Ordinance dept and their attempts to shaft the M16 and the troops because they didn't like the idea that some "outsider" could do it better than they could.  This article added a lot of stuff that I didn't know, from the all the attempts to sabotage the rifle during trials because they didn't like it.  All I can speak for is my experience with the M16A1 and the M16A2 that I was issued while I was in the service.  I never had a problem with the rifle, even though we were taught "SPORTS" for a stoppage or a misfeed. If I recall it was:

    "Smack the magazine
      Pull the charging handle back
      Observe the chamber
      Release the charging handle
      Tap the Forward assist
       Squeeze the trigger
  
  My older AR is the original AR pattern down to the 3 prong flash supressor and no forward assist and I never had a problem with the rifle functioning except with "Tula" ammo,  blogged about that exten
 I was very comfortable shooting the AR/M16 pattern rifle and I did take it to war and it served me well, didn't lay down on me.  I knew people in the service in my unit that complained about the rifle during the range blaming it for their inability to shoot.  I would nod in the affirm, ask for their rifle, and shoot a 3 round group at 25 meters that you could put a dime on and hand the rifle back to them and smile.   I was called "Davy Crockett" by one of my Drill sergeants during basic because of my groupings.  It helped knowing how to shoot before going in the service.    I own 2 AR pattern rifles, one I have had since 1991 and the other one I built last year.  I always liked the modular design of the rifle, you can customize it for whatever you want to do.   I have nothing against the AK pattern rifle and know how to use it, but I prefer the AR series.  



The M16-series rifles have served the U.S. military, law enforcement and sportsman with distinction for nearly 40 years. They have become the world’s standard for comparison. Here is the latest, the M16A2 assault rifle.
The M16-series rifles have served the U.S. military, law enforcement and sportsman with distinction for nearly 40 years. They have become the world’s standard for comparison. Here is the latest, the M16A2 assault rifle.
IN MARCH OF 1965, the first U.S. troops landed in Vietnam. They were carrying the M14 rifle, chambered for the 7.62×51mm NATO (M80 Ball) cartridge, which had a detachable 20-round magazine and was capable of semi- and full-automatic fire. The military soon learned the M14 on full auto was extremely difficult to control; most burst fire was ineffective.
As a result, many M14 rifles were issued with the selector levers removed, making the rifle effectively, an M1 Garand with a 20-round magazine. The M14 was accurate but heavy, weighing nearly nine pounds, empty. As U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War escalated, our troops encountered North Vietnamese as well as the Vietcong carrying the Soviet-designed AK47 (Avtomat Kalashnikova model 47), chambered for the 7.62×39mm Soviet cartridge, and had a 30-round magazine. The AK’s light recoil permitted controllable, accurate full-auto bursts and American troops began to feel outgunned. The United States needed it’s own assault rifle — and needed it fast.
During the early 1950s, ArmaLite, a division of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation of Hollywood, California, was working on a new assault rifle. The chief engineer was Eugene M. Stoner (1922–1997), described by many as the most gifted firearms designer since John Browning. His first attempt to create a new assault rifle was designated the AR10 (ArmaLite Rifle model 10).

Order Gun Digest Book of Classic Combat RiflesThis article is an excerpt from  the Gun Digest Book of Classic Combat Rifles. Click the cover to order this book and read more gun histories.
The AR-10 was the first weapon to incorporate Gene Stoner’s patented (U.S. Patent No. 2,951,424) gas system. This system uses a port in the barrel to bleed gas from the fired cartridge into a tube that runs under the hand-guard, from the front sight assembly to the upper receiver and into the carrier key on the bolt carrier.
The pressure gives a hammer-like blow to the bolt carrier, pushing it rearward while simultaneously unlocking the eight-lug bolt from the barrel extension. The bolt and bolt carrier, continuing to move rearward, extract and eject the spent cartridge case and the buffer and recoil/buffer spring return the bolt assembly forward, stripping a cartridge off the magazine, chambering it and locking the bolt into the barrel extension. Using expertise gained in the aircraft industry, Stoner designed the upper and lower receivers of the AR-10 to be made of lightweight aircraft aluminum.

The first AR-10 prototype, chambered for the 7.62×5 1mm NATO cartridge carried in a 20-round magazine, was completed in 1955. The rifle proved extremely accurate for a gas-operated weapon. In December 1955, the first AR10 was presented to the Infantry Board and School at Fort Benning, Georgia, by Gene Stoner and George Sullivan, an ArmaLite executive. Stoner demonstrated his new weapon concept to General William Wyman at Fort Benning on May 6th, just five days after the announcement of the adoption of the M14.
Subsequently, the Board recommended further investigation into the AR-10. In 1957 General Wyman, impressed by the merits and performance of the AR-10, went to the ArmaLite Company and asked Gene Stoner to join a weapons program, offering ArmaLite financial support for future development of ArmaLite rifles in exchange for proprietary rights to the final product. Subsequently, ArmaLite introduced a totally new concept for the modern battlefield, a 22-caliber battle rifle. As a result, the 30-caliber AR-10 was to have a short history with the U.S. military.
The AR-10, scaled down to fire the popular 222 Remington cartridge, had little recoil in semi-auto mode and was amazingly controllable on full-auto. There was heavy resistance to the radical new design from the Ordnance Corps, especially from Dr. Frederick Carten. Doctor Carten was adamantly opposed to weapons developed by commercial companies outside the Ordnance Corps and Springfield Armory, as well as guns made of aluminum and plastic.
General Wyman ordered 10 of these new rifles, along m with 100,000 rounds of ammunition, for Infantry M Board trials. ArmaLite’s W focus was thus changed to the 22-caliber rifle and the AR-15 M (ArmaLite Rifle model 15) was born. In 1958, General Wyman ordered the Army to conduct the first tests on the new AR-15.

The original AR15; the weapon configuration that Colt bought from ArmaLite. Notice the three-prong suppressor, the fibrite stock/ pistol/grip/firearm grips, the absent forward assist and the smooth bolt carrier without forward-assist grooves. This was the model used in the Department of Defense testing which launched the weapon’s reputation for durability, reliability and accuracy.
Among the changes from the AR-10 to the AR-15 were revised sights to accommodate the flatter-shooting 22-caliber cartridge; elevation to be adjusted via a threaded front post sight rather than within the rear sight, where a less expensive L-shaped peep sight was substituted. The resulting rifle was 37½ inches long and weighed an incredible 6 pounds empty; 6.12 pounds with a loaded 25-round magazine.
The AR-15 made use of high-impact fibrite stocks, pistol grips and handguards. A selector lever on the left side of the rifle could be manipulated with the shooter’s right thumb without removing the hand from the pistol grip. The magazine release, on the right side of the receiver, could be operated with the trigger finger; when pressed, the magazine would drop free.
A fresh magazine, requiring no camming — or ‘rocking’ — could be inserted straight into the magazine well. This attribute contributed significantly to speedy reloading in combat situations compared to its closest rival, the AK47/AKM. These are two of the main reasons why the AR-15/M16-series rifles are considered the finest human-engineered assault rifles in the world.
A bolt catch mechanism is located on the left side of the rifle. When the last round was fired, the magazine follower would elevate the bolt catch and lock the bolt to the rear. After inserting a full magazine, the rifleman would push in on the upper portion of the bolt catch to release the bolt and load the rifle. The receivers, produced from 7075 T6 aircraft aluminum, which helps keep the rifle lightweight and dissipates heat better than conventional metals, are hard-anodized with a non-reflective matte gray weather-resistant finish.
Stoner went to Aberdeen Proving Ground for ammunition assistance. He enlisted the expertise of Robert Hutton, known as the father of the 5.56×45mm round. The pressures involved were more than the 222 Remington case could handle, so the 222 Special was developed.
Sierra Bullet Co. made the 55-grain full metal jacket boat-tail bullet and the first “222 Special” ammunition was loaded by Remington Arms. This cartridge, with a muzzle velocity of 3250 fps and a maximum effective range of 460 meters, became the 5.56×45mm Ball M193/223 Remington.
Tests by the Infantry Board and School at Fort Benning went very well for the AR-15. Stoner personally delivered the weapons and conducted training and familiarization classes for all involved in the testing. In March of 1958, the Board found some “bugs” in the AR-15 system. Some of the resultant changes incorporated in the first rifles were reduction of the trigger pull to seven pounds; replacement of the one-piece handguard with a two-piece triangular handguard; magazine capacity reduced from 25 to 20 rounds and the switching of the selector lever settings.
The Board found the AR-15 to be nearly three times more reliable than the M14 in the development stages. Despite the positive conclusion of the test, Dr. Carten’s report stated the AR-15 had not demonstrated sufficient technical merit and should not be developed by the Army. Accordingly, the Ordnance Corps lost interest in the AR-15.
When Bill Davis, at the time Chief of the Small Arms Branch at Aberdeen Proving Ground, first encountered the AR-15, he was quite impressed and found it had no shortcomings that would not be worked out in the normal course of development. Davis thought Carten’s decision to drop the AR-15 rifle was a bad one and that the weapon held great promise.

The Army/Marine version adopted towards the middle of the Vietnam War to serve the U.S. Marines (until 1983) and the Army (until 1986). Note the forward assist, magazine release fence “Boss” and the “bird cage” flash suppressor. Note the 25-meter zeroing target.
The Army/Marine version adopted towards the middle of the Vietnam War to serve the U.S. Marines (until 1983) and the Army (until 1986). Note the forward assist, magazine release fence “Boss” and the “bird cage” flash suppressor. Note the 25-meter zeroing target.
On February 19, 1959, Colt’s Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company of Hartford, Connecticut purchased the rights to the AR-15 and AR-10 from Fairchild Stratos (ArmaLite) for a lump sum of $75,000 plus a royalty of four and a half percent on all further production of the AR-15 and AR-10. Colt also paid Cooper & Macdonald (a sales group who did a lot of work in Southeast Asia) $250,000 and a one percent royalty on all production of AR-15 and AR-10 rifles.
In July of 1960, Air Force General Curtis LeMay attended a Fourth of July celebration where a Colt salesman placed three watermelons on a firing range at distances of 50, 100 and 150 yards — then gave General LeMay an AR-15 and loaded magazines. Following this hands-on range evaluation, General LeMay ordered 80,000 rifles on the spot. However, Congress put the General’s order on hold.
Concurrently, Colt had requested a re-trial from the Ordnance Corps to demonstrate improvements to the rifle. Initially the request was denied, the Ordnance Corps saying the military had no use for such a weapon. However, a request arrived at the Pentagon from Lackland Air Force Base requesting the AR-15 be qualified as a candidate to replace M2 carbines. This turn of events caused Congress to investigate why the Ordnance Corps had boycotted the AR-15. Subsequently, the Ordnance Corps set up the test without delay.
The test was concluded in November 1960. Three rifles were subjected to a light machine-gun test and two to accuracy tests. There were a total of 24,443 rounds fired. One rifle in the accuracy test delivered an amazing 10-round group at 100 yards that measured only 1.5 inches; any group under six inches at 100 yards being acceptable for an assault rifle. The rifle also performed admirably in the unlubricated, dust, extreme cold and rain tests. The final results indicated the AR-15 was superior to all competitors, including the M14. The rifle was then approved for Air Force trial.


It took General LeMay three tries before his request was approved. In the summer of 1961, the Deputy Defense Secretary approved 8,500 AR-15 rifles for the Air Force, pending congressional approval … which Congress withheld. General LeMay then brought the issue to President Kennedy, without success. Finally, in May of 1962, the purchase was approved. With things warming up in Southeast Asia, the AR-15 was about to meet the Army.
Many of the U.S. advisors in Vietnam were equipped with the new AR-15 rifle. Rifles began to surface throughout Vietnam, totally outside the normal small arms procurement process. The first troops using the AR-15 under combat conditions were very enthusiastic, preferring it to all other weapons. The South Vietnamese were impressed with the rifle, as well. In December 1961, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara authorized a purchase of 1,000 AR-15s.
There was further testing (Project AGILE) to explore the compatibility of the AR-15 rifle to the smaller Vietnamese. The results indicated the AR-15 was more suitable for the South Vietnamese military than the M2 carbine. In actual combat, the new 5.56×45mm cartridge was found to be more lethal than its 30-caliber counterparts. while Project AGILE testing was being conducted, the Army completed the Hitch Report, which was a comparison of the AR-15, AK47, M14 and Ml Garand. The report concluded that the AR-15 was superior to the weapons to which it was compared.
Testing of the AR-15 weapon system had met with contempt from the Ordnance Corps. In one test in the Arctic, weapons were malfunctioning at alarming rates. As soon as Gene Stoner heard, he was on the next plane to Fort Greeley, Alaska. He found parts misaligned, front sights removed (front sights held in with taper pins have no reason to ever be removed) and replaced with pieces of welding rod.
With missing and damaged parts, there was no way the weapons would function properly and, with welding rod replacing the front sight, accuracy suffered. The arctic test was, in fact, rigged to make the AR-15 look inadequate. Gene Stoner repaired all the weapons; the test resumed and the weapons performed admirably.
Fortunately, Defense Secretary McNamara was fond of the AR-15, knew the Ordnance Corps was dragging its feet on the weapon and on January 23, 1963, halted all procurements of the M14. Finally, in 1964, Defense Secretary McNamara ordered the Ordnance Corps to work with all branches of the armed forces to get the AR-15 ready for issue to all military personnel…one rifle for all branches. The Army purchased 100,000 rifles for issue to the Air Assault, Airborne, Ranger and Special Forces units.

The firing sequence of Gene Stoner’s design. After the hammer strikes the primer and fires the round, the bullet travels down the barrel and reaches the gas port where gas is bled into the gas tube and back into the bolt carrier assembly. The diverted gas delivers a hammer-like blow and moves the carrier to the rear, unlocking the bolt, extracting and ejecting the fired cartridge. The buffer spring returns the bolt carrier forward, chambering a fresh round and locking the bolt into the barrel extension — the rifle is now ready to fire again. Printed with permission of Colt Firearms.
The firing sequence of Gene Stoner’s design. After the hammer strikes the primer and fires the round, the bullet travels down the barrel and reaches the gas port where gas is bled into the gas tube and back into the bolt carrier assembly. The diverted gas delivers a hammer-like blow and moves the carrier to the rear, unlocking the bolt, extracting and ejecting the fired cartridge. The buffer spring returns the bolt carrier forward, chambering a fresh round and locking the bolt into the barrel extension — the rifle is now ready to fire again. Printed with permission of Colt Firearms.
After the AR15 — now, the M16 rifle — went into circulation, more was learned about how to improve the rifle. The rifling twist was changed from 1:14 inches to 1:12 inches. The Army wanted a manual bolt closure device added so, if the bolt failed to lock, it could be manually closed — and the forward assist assembly was born. The firing pin was lightened to prevent slam-fires (caused by the inertia of the firing pin when the bolt closed on a round). The buffer was changed from the original hollow version to one with weights in it to prevent the bolt from bouncing back when it slammed into the barrel extension.
On November 4, 1963, Colt was awarded a contract worth $13.5 million dollars for the procurement of 104,000 rifles … the legendary “One Time Buy.” Of those rifles, 19,000 were M16s for the Air Force and 85,000 were the XM16E1 (with the bolt closure device/forward assist assembly) for the Army and Marines. The XM16E1 was adopted as the M16A1 rifle. Steps were taken to procure ammunition.
Procurement of the ammunition is one of the main factors in the rifle’s performance early in the Vietnam War. The initial ammunition used by DOD was made to Armalite/Colt specifications that called for IMR 4475 propellant.
The weapon’s reputation for durability and reliability was based on this ammo/extruded propellant combination. However, the military wanted to standardize propellants and the propellant used in the established 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge was Ball powder manufactured by Olin Corporation. So, when ammunition was ordered, Olin’s Ball powder was used for the new 5.56×45mm M193 Ball cartridge. Both powders created the desired 50,750 psi.
Ball (spherical) powder reaches its peak pressure significantly faster than extruded IMR powder. Ball powder generates larger amounts of carbon residue that clogs the gas tube and barrel port, causing the firearm to malfunction. The most serious malfunctions, during the early use of Ball powder, involved extraction problems and a significant increase in the cyclic rate of fire. Despite having this information, the Department Of Defense still approved use of Ball powder.
Gene Stoner was approached by Frank Vee of the OSD Comptrollers office after the package was approved and asked what he (Gene Stoner) thought of the use of Ball powder. Stoner asked, “Why are you asking me now?” Vee said, “I would have felt better if you would have approved the package.” Stoner replied, “Well, now we both don’t feel so good.”
The “one-time buy” was now a thing of the past. The original $13.5 million contract turned into a $17,994,694.23 contract. There were an additional 33,500 rifles that went to the Air Force, 240 to the Navy and 82 to the Coast Guard. Over $517,000 worth of spare parts was ordered.
The first field performance reports, from the 5th Special Forces in Vietnam, were excellent. The rifle had been well received and was very popular, although instruction manuals were in “short supply.” During the investigation by the Ichord Subcommittee of the M16 Rifle Program, Honorable Richard Ichord said — regarding the rifle’s reputation with the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong — “I understand that they refer to this rifle as ‘black rifle,’…I have heard their motto is ‘Beware of the units with the black rifles’… they have been possessed with deadly fear.”

Tlution of the M16 to the M16A1 is very evident when the rifles are compared side by side. The M16 (top) and the M16A1 (bottom). Note the addition of the forward bolt assist, magazine fence guard “BOSS” and the “birdcage” flash suppressor on the M16A1.
Tlution of the M16 to the M16A1 is very evident when the rifles are compared side by side. The M16 (top) and the M16A1 (bottom). Note the addition of the forward bolt assist, magazine fence guard “BOSS” and the “birdcage” flash suppressor on the M16A1.

In September 1965, General Westmoreland ordered an additional 100,000 rifles and requested all U.S. ground forces in Vietnam be equipped with the new M16A1 rifles. Colt now signed an additional contract to deliver 25,000 rifles a month by December 1966. In 1968, GM Hydramatic Division and Harrington & Richardson were awarded second-source contracts from the Department of Defense.
Letters from the field began reporting the rifles were malfunctioning at an alarming rate, with U.S. troops found dead next to jammed M16 rifles. Spent cartridge cases were becoming lodged in the chamber and the only way to remove them was to knock them out with a cleaning rod. Requests were made for Colt to send a representative to the field to solve this problem. This turn of events was highly publicized by the media.

A representative from Colt, Mr. Kanemitsu Ito, went to Vietnam and claimed to be shocked, having never seen equipment in such poor shape. He claimed to have looked down the barrel of one rifle and not seen ‘daylight’ due to severe rusting and pitting. Many of the troops he spoke to said they were never trained to maintain their rifle, that the rifle was “self-cleaning” and that they had not handled an M16/M16A1 rifle until they arrived “in-country.” Subsequently, Mr. Ito gave classes on maintenance all over South Vietnam.

The combat 5.56×45mm. The M193 Ball Cartridge (left), 55-grain full metal jacket boattall bullet. The M855/SS109 Ball Cartridge (right), 62-grain full metal Jacket boattall with a hardened steel penetrator core. Identified by the green tip.
The combat 5.56×45mm. The M193 Ball Cartridge (left), 55-grain full metal jacket boattall bullet. The M855/SS109 Ball Cartridge (right), 62-grain full metal Jacket boattall with a hardened steel penetrator core. Identified by the green tip.
Seeking an independent, unbiased report of the true field performance situation, the Ichord Congressional Subcommittee selected a retired officer, Colonel Crossman, as their representative and sent him to Vietnam. In the course of his investigation, he interviewed 250 soldiers and Marines throughout South Vietnam,  fully 50 percent of whom reported malfunctions with their M16/M16A1 rifles.
Of these malfunctions, 90 percent were failures to extract. Colonel Crossman found 22-caliber cleaning kits in short supply and concluded many of the problems were due to lack of maintenance and cleaning. He also felt there was room for improvement in the rifle. He concluded, “It was not possible to correlate ammunition make or type with malfunctions.” His findings report, dated June 16, 1967, included the statement that the rifle needed a complete overhaul in design and manufacture.
According to Gene Stoner, there were hardly any 22-caliber cleaning kits in Vietnam — and no instruction manuals. The “cleanup” began: The military developed bore and chamber cleaning brushes and began to distribute 22-caliber cleaning kits, firearm maintenance cards and instruction manuals, for the M16/M16A1 rifles.
From May 15th through August 22nd, 1967, the much-publicized Ichord Congressional Subcommittee (Honorable Richard Ichord, Chairman) investigated the history, development, testing, procurement and foreign sales of the M16 rifle. During the investigation, the subcommittee visited U.S. military training installations of all branches where the committee members interviewed hundreds of Vietnam returnees on their experiences with the M16/ M16A1 rifle.
They also visited South Vietnam to interview troops in combat zones. Several people were called to testify before the subcommittee. Two topics, not identified until after the subcommittee returned from Vietnam, were the propellant and high cyclic rate issues. The subcommittee would focus most of their attention on these two aspects.

The M16A1 field-stripped. The ease and simplicity of disassembly made cleaning easy. All AR-15/M16-series weapons disassemble in the same manner.
The M16A1 field-stripped. The ease and simplicity of disassembly made cleaning easy. All AR-15/M16-series weapons disassemble in the same manner.
Reports from Vietnam of failures to extract in the field caused the subcommittee great concern. They investigated, finding the major contributor to malfunctions was ammunition assembled using Ball powder. The change from IMR extruded powder to Ball powder in 1964 for the 5.56mm ammunition was neither justified nor supported by test data, they found. The subcommittee also found the Ball propellant sole-source position enjoyed by Olin Mathieson for many years — and their close relationship with the Army — may have influenced Army Materiel Command.
They felt the AR-15/M16 rifle, as initially developed, was an excellent and reliable weapon. Further, certain modifications made to the rifle at the insistence of the Army — also unsupported by test data — were unnecessary. For example, both the Air Force and the Marine Corps found no evidence to support the expense and possible problems of the manual bolt closure (forward assist) device.
Gene Stoner was called to testify at the congressional hearings to explain the extraction problem; he explained the failure to extract was due to the use of Ball powder.
Gene Stoner [To Mr. Bray]: “Well, the cartridge tends to stick under high residual pressure in the barrel, and of course with this too-soon action you also have a higher bolt velocity. In other words, your bolt is trying to open at higher speeds, so you have an aggravated condition where the cartridge is tending to stick in there a little longer or a little harder, and you are also giving it a harder jerk by driving the bolt faster.”

The battle cartridges of the 20th Century ( left to right ): 7.62×63mm (30-06 Springfield); 8mm Mauser; 7.62×54mm Russian; 7.92×33mm Kurtz; 30 US Carbine; 7.62×51 mm NATO (308 Winchester); 7.62×39mm Soviet; 5.56×45mm NATO (223 Remington) and the 5.45×39mm Soviet.
The battle cartridges of the 20th Century ( left to right ): 7.62×63mm (30-06 Springfield); 8mm Mauser; 7.62×54mm Russian; 7.92×33mm Kurtz; 30 US Carbine; 7.62×51 mm NATO (308 Winchester); 7.62×39mm Soviet; 5.56×45mm NATO (223 Remington) and the 5.45×39mm Soviet.
Mr. Bray [To Gene Stoner]: “Then a faster rate of fire could cause that situation (failure to extract)?”
Gene Stoner [To Mr. Bray]: “This is probably one of the worst conditions you can get, by increasing the cyclic rate.”
Basically, Ball propellant causes the bolt to open prematurely, before the spent cartridge case has had sufficient time to contract. The result is the extractor shears off the rim of the spent cartridge case — which sticks in the chamber. Ball and IMR powders create the same peak pressure but the Ball powder reaches its peak much faster than IMR powder, causing a significant increase in the cyclic rate of fire.
Ball powder leaves significantly more fouling in the chamber and bolt assembly. Gene Stoner also pointed out the rifle had gone through more than 22 changes from his original design and neither Colt nor the Department of Defense consulted him on how some changes would impact his design.
The forward assist was one of the changes on which he was not consulted and Mr. Ichord asked Gene Stoner his opinion of the device.
Gene Stoner [To Mr. Ichord]: “I wasn’t in on that, except I was told the Army insisted on it. There were reasons for it.
One reason was that they felt that due to the fact that the M1, and the M14 rifle, and the carbine had always had something for a soldier to push on; that maybe this would be a comforting feeling to him, or something. I could never quite get it through my mind that it was necessary. I did not really advise it. I thought it was a mistake, myself. But I made my thought known to the people.”

Which is the better assault rifle? The M16A1 (top) or the AKM/AK47 (bottom)? Both are the most prolific military rifles of the last half of the 20th century; the most tested and most produced all over the world. Author feels hands-down winner is the M16 series.
Which is the better assault rifle? The M16A1 (top) or the AKM/AK47 (bottom)? Both are the most prolific military rifles of the last half of the 20th century; the most tested and most produced all over the world. Author feels hands-down winner is the M16 series.
He explained the last thing you want to do is force a round into a dirty chamber, which quickly leads to function failures. The chamber fouling tends to embed in the soft brass cartridge case and lock it in, causing a fired cartridge case to be — literally — locked into the chamber at the moment of extraction.
Gene Stoner was able to prove the rifle and ammunition combination he furnished to Armalite/Colt was a totally reliable weapon system and the change the military made, without his consent, caused the malfunctions. He told the committee he expressed these concerns to the OSD Comptrollers office and was ignored. The subcommittee accepted this as the reason for the condition.
M16 rifle project manager, Col. Yout, was of particular interest to the subcommittee. Throughout the hearing he was accused of making irresponsible decisions as to the direction of the program.
Mr. Ichord [to Col. Yout]: “We have evidence and are advised by our experts … that Ball propellant, which you apparently speak so highly of, does have an adverse affect upon the operation of the M16 rifle. It speeded up the cyclic rate. It is dirtier burning … . When we are also advised that the Army was cautioned against making this change from IMR to Ball propellant … Naturally, we would be quite concerned. Apparently you aren’t so concerned. I don’t understand your explanation. I just haven’t been able to understand you — but perhaps you haven’t offered the information in words I can understand. Would you care to say something?” He never replied to the question.
The Army made a statement on July 27, 1967: “From the vantage point of retrospect, it has sometimes been suggested that the particular behavior of Ball propellant should have been predicted … Had the Army anticipated these developments, it is most unlikely that the course chosen in January, 1964, would have been the same. A decision to reduce the velocity requirement, and continue loading IMR4475 propellant would probably have been made instead, and development of alternate propellants could have been pursued more deliberately.”
This is the closest to an admission of negligence by the Army for the decision to use Ball powder. Gene Stoner warned them long before it got to this point; who would know more about the rifle’s performance and design intent than the man who designed it? In the end, the rifle was not the problem; instead, this was an ammunition-driven problem that altered the design intent of the rifle.
In August 1967, the hearings ended, and in October 1967, the subcommittee concluded, “Grave mismanagement, errors of judgment and lack of responsibility had characterized the Army’s handling of the entire M16 program.” They stated the officials in the Department of the Army were aware of the adverse affect of Ball propellant on the cyclic rate of the M16 rifle as early as March 1964, yet continued to accept delivery of additional thousands of rifles that were not subjected to acceptance or endurance tests using Ball propellant.
All Colt endurance testing was done using IMR 4475. The subcommittee also concluded, “The failure on the part of officials with authority in the Army to cause action to be taken to correct the deficiencies of the 5.56mm ammunition borders on criminal negligence.”
The cyclic rate of the rifle was increased 10 to 15 percent (approximately 200 rounds per minute), resulting in higher stress on certain components caused by the higher velocity of the bolt carrier assembly. As a result, there were parts driven beyond their working parameters – as well as the bolt opening prematurely.
Many parts were changed to more stringent specifications to help deal with the higher pressure curve and harder impact. To solve the chamber corrosion and failure-to-extract issues, all future production rifle barrels would be chrome-lined. Even though chrome-lining barrels is a military specification, Ordinance failed to require this basic requirement on the AR-15/M16 rifle system.

The CAR15 (Colt Automatic Rifle 15) gained major popularity with the development of the new M4 and M4A1 carbine. Note the telescoping stock and the shorter barrel. Most CAR15 rifles were issued with a 14.5-inch barrel.
The CAR15 (Colt Automatic Rifle 15) gained major popularity with the development of the new M4 and M4A1 carbine. Note the telescoping stock and the shorter barrel. Most CAR15 rifles were issued with a 14.5-inch barrel.
Chrome-lining the barrels gave three major improvements to the standard barrel. First, the chrome-lined barrel was corrosion resistant. Second, chrome is slippery in nature and assists in extraction and ejection. When chromed, the walls of the chamber are harder; sand and mud don’t “iron” into them. Thirdly, chrome is 2 to 3 times harder than standard barrel steel so the barrel lasts significantly longer.
The new, improved M16/M16A1 barrel assemblies would have stamped on the barrel, in front of the front sight assembly: “C” (Chrome Chamber Only), “C MP B” (Chrome Chamber, Barrel & Magnetic Resonance Tested) or “C MP Chrome Bore”(Chrome Chamber, Barrel & Magnetic Resonance Tested). Many experts, including Bill Davis, felt the failure to chrome the chamber was responsible for many of the early malfunctions in Vietnam.
The flash hider was changed from the early three-prong to the new “bird cage” style. The three-prong suppressor was superior to the new design, but was snagprone in the field. With these modifications in place, the M16/M16A1 rifle was “perfected” and performing to the Department of Defense acceptance standards.

The AR15/M16 Carbines

Soon there was a demand for a smaller, more compact, version of the rifle. Early in 1966, the Army expressed interest for a carbine for its special operation units, placing an order totaling some 2,050 carbines. Lieutenant Col. Yout later ordered an additional 765 Colt “Commandos” — and a new name was coined for the carbine project. The first carbines were known as CAR15 (Colt Automatic Rifle). These first designs incorporated a 10-inch barrel and a sliding butt stock. Later the barrel was changed to 11.4 inches to permit the weapon to launch grenades. The Army signed a contract for 2,815 “Commando model” submachine guns on June 28, 1966.
As expected, the CAR15 — now the XM177E2 — successfully passed all testing phases at Aberdeen Proving Ground. However, a new problem appeared: the deafening noise and large fireball from the muzzle, thanks to the CAR15’s higher cyclic rate of 700 to 1,000 rounds per minute. As a remedy, many of these rifles were equipped with 14.5-inch barrels, a practice that carried over to the M4 project of the early 1980s.
Product Improvement (PIP)
On October 28, 1980, there was a new 5.56×45mm cartridge on the block. NATO (Northern Atlantic Treaty Organization) had adopted the Belgian-made SS109. This new bullet had two major differences from the GI 5.56×45mm M193 Ball cartridge. First, the bullet weighed 62 grains instead of 55 grains. Second, this new bullet had a hardened steel penetrator core, giving this new 5.56×45mm round better penetration at all distances than the 7.62×51mm NATO (M80 Ball) round.This new SS109 round penetrated three 3.5mm mild steel plates at 640 meters and a U.S. issue helmet at 1,300 meters.
The new 5.56×45mmNATO round revolutionized military small arms ammunition all over the world. In 1974, the Soviet Union switched from the 7.62×39mm (AK47/AKM) to the 5.45×39mm Soviet round of the new AK74 rifle. This new round was a .221-inch diameter 52-grain full metal jacket boat-tail armor-piercing bullet with a velocity of 3000fps.
The new SS109 round was more lethal than the original M193 Ball round due to the faster “spin” and fragmentation upon impact with soft tissue.

The SR25, perhaps the most accurate autoloader on the face of the earth. Gene Stoner revives his original AR10 design, with some added features of the M16A2, to build this semi-automatic 7.62×51 mm sniper rifle.
The SR25, perhaps the most accurate autoloader on the face of the earth. Gene Stoner revives his original AR10 design, with some added features of the M16A2, to build this semi-automatic 7.62×51 mm sniper rifle.
Military surgeons all over the world have asked the United Nations to ban small caliber high-velocity rounds in combat — including the 5.56×45mm and the 5.45×39mm cartridges — which they believe cause unnecessary pain and suffering.
Switzerland re-designed the M855/SS109 round with a thicker jacket to stop fragmentation upon impact.
This new cartridge, however, was significantly more accurate at longer ranges than the M193 Ball cartridge, boosting the maximum effective range to 800 meters. To accommodate this new cartridge, a new barrel twist — from 1:12 inches to 1:7 inches — was required to stabilize the heavier 62-grain bullet.
There was a catch: the SS109 ammunition could not be fired accurately in an M16/M16A1 rifle due to its slower rifling twist. The bullet would not stabilize and would “keyhole” in flight. This new cartridge was about to be adopted as the M855 Ball cartridge of the U.S. military and the new PIP project would redesign the M16A1 rifle around this cartridge.
The United States Marine Corps began negotiations with Colt in January of 1980, asking for three modified rifles that would make use of the new FN SS109/XM855 cartridge and would incorporate four Marine-designated changes:

1. The sights must be adjustable to 800 meters.
2. The bullet must be accurate to 800 meters and possess the capability to penetrate all known steel helmets and body armor at 800 meters.
3. The strength of the plastic stock, pistol grip and handguards ­ — as well as the strength of the exposed portion of the barrel — must be improved.
4. The rifle must have the full-auto capability replaced with a 3-shot burst mode.

The Joint Services Small  Arms Program (JSSAP) PIP

The first rifles arrived from Colt in November of 1981. The USMC Firepower Division at Quantico, Virginia, would lead the PIP project. On November 11th, 20 Marines and 10 soldiers from the 197th Infantry Brigade at Fort Benning, Georgia, would take 30 M16A1 rifles and 30 M16A1E1 (PIP rifles) and test them for a month.
The test report was issued on December 11th and the conclusions were as follows:
• The sights were easily adjusted in the field by hand rather than with a bullet tip.
• Increased the effectiveness at long range, more so than the M16A1.
• More durable plastic furniture on the M16A1E1, for hand-to-hand combat.
• Sights were better for low-light conditions thanks to a larger-diameter (5mm) close-range aperture in the rear sight.
• Increased ammunition conservation and more effective fire with the 3-round burst than with full-auto fire.
• Utilized the XM855 NATO (SS109) ammunition, which improves the accuracy and penetration at all ranges. The product-improvement (PIP) “M16A1E1” was classified as the M16A2 in September of 1982 and was adopted by the United States Marine Corps in November of 1983. The Marines ordered 76,000 M16A2 rifles from Colt. The Army did not adopt the M16A2 until 1986.

The M16A2 is mechanically identical to the M16 and the M16A1. The only difference is the 3-round burst selector setting in lieu of full-auto. All the changes were improvements to accuracy, more durable stock and grips as well as some structural reinforcements.
The M16A2 is mechanically identical to the M16 and the M16A1. The only difference is the 3-round burst selector setting in lieu of full-auto. All the changes were improvements to accuracy, more durable stock and grips as well as some structural reinforcements.

The M16A2 Rifle

There were twelve major changes from the M16A1 to the M16A2 and, although the rifles seem similar at first glance, they are two totally different weapons. Many improvements were necessary to accommodate the new M855 Ball and M856 tracer rounds. The twelve major variances between the Al and A2 are as follows:
1. The flash suppresser of the M16A1 is now a muzzle brake/ compensator on the M16A2. Instead of having vents all around the flash suppresser, the bottom has been left solid, which reduces muzzle climb and prevents dust from flying when firing from the prone position.
2. The barrel, from the front sight assembly to the flash suppressor/compensator, is heavier. The M16A1 rifles barrels were known to bend when paratroopers landed and the barrels hit the ground. When the Al barrels would heat up, sling tension could bend them. The new M16A2 barrels had a rifling twist of 1:7 inches to accommodate the SS109/M855 cartridge.
3.The front sight post on the M16A2 is square, contrasted to the round post of the M16A1.
4. The M16A2 handguard was redesigned to have an interchangeable, upper and lower, round ribbed handguard.
5. The slip-ring “delta ring” was redesigned and is now canted for easier removal of the hand-guards.
6. A spent shell deflector was added to the upper receiver behind the ejection port of the M16A2 to accommodate left-hand shooters and, as well, the pivot pin area of the upper receiver has been strengthened. The area around the buffer tube extension (takedown pin area) was strengthened to prevent cracking during hand-to-hand combat or from impact on the butt of the weapon while cushioning one’s fall.
7. The rear sight was redesigned. The 1.75mm and 5mm apertures made adjustable for windage as well as elevation. The maximum elevation setting is 800 meters. There is still an “L-shaped” sight aperture, and there is a 5mm aperture battle sight effective to 200 meters.
8. The forward assist assembly was changed from the “tear drop” style of the M16A1 to the new round “button” style forward assist assembly of the M16A2.
9. The pistol grip is now made of a stronger plastic (™Zytel), and incorporates a “swell” below the middle finger position.
10. The three-shot Burst selector lever setting of the M16A2 replaced the Auto setting of the M16A1.
11. The⅝-inch longer M16A2 stock is made from foam-filled nylon, said to be ten to twelve times stronger than the fibrite stocks of the M16 /M16A1.
12. The buttplate has been made stronger (™Zytel), and the entire buttplate is checkered. The trapdoor can be opened by hand rather requiring the tip of a cartridge.

Critics Attack the M16A2

There were critics who still found problems with the M16A2. One of the greatest criticisms was the substitution of the Burst mode for the Automatic mode selector option. The critics reasoned the M16 rifle was adopted because U.S. troops felt outgunned by the North Vietnamese Army/Viet Cong who were equipped with full-auto AK47s.
While, theoretically, the 3-round burst was more effective than full-auto fire, there was no substitute for a well-trained automatic rifleman. More recently, infantry units have noticed it takes more time to clear rooms and buildings in the MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) environment with the 3-round burst versus the full-auto mode and feel the full-auto option is desirable in those circumstances.
Not only was the conceptual validity of the three-round Burst under scrutiny, but the mechanical design as well. The burst mechanism does not recycle. If only two rounds were fired — because the trigger was not held long enough or the weapon ran out of ammunition — the next time the trigger was pulled only one round would fire.
Further, some critics found the sighting system too complex. The Canadian military addressed many of the issues brought up by American military critics. When Canada replaced their aging FN FAL 7.62mmNATO rifles, they modeled the new rifle after the M16A2. Their Diemaco-manufactured C7 was, virtually, an M16A2 that retained the rear sight and the full-auto setting of the M16A1.
Some critics did not like the fact that the new M855 cartridge could not be fired in the current issue M16 /M16A1 rifles without raising concerns that the fast l:7-inch rifling twist would more quickly burn out barrels during extended rapid fire.

The forward assist bolt closure mechanism. The M16A1 (shown) had the “tear drop” style while the new M16A2 has a round button style.
The forward assist bolt closure mechanism. The M16A1 (shown) had the “tear drop” style while the new M16A2 has a round button style.

The “Shorty” Program Revisited: The M4 Carbine.

In 1994, the Army adopted the second carbine of the 20th century and the first general issue carbine since 1941, the M4, perhaps the finest carbine ever developed. They were, at first, to be used by special operation units, but then were selected for use in many other units. Deliveries began in August of 1994, from Colt’s Manufacturing, for 24,000 M4 carbines contracted at $11 million; another contract followed in 1995 for 16,217 M4A1 carbines.
The M4 is basically an M16A2 with a telescoping butt stock and a 14.5-inch barrel. The barrel has the heavy profile of the M16A2 barrel with a modified groove to accommodate the M203 grenade launcher. With its 14.5-inch barrel, the M4 fires the M855 Ball round at 2900 fps.
The M4 incorporates the M16A2 fully adjustable rear sight. Colt’s Manufacturing claims there is little, if any, difference in accuracy at ranges up to 500-600 meters. M4 carbines can be found with either full-auto or burst settings. The M4 duplicates the reliability and accuracy of the full-size rifle and weighs only 5.65 pounds.
The M4 has two variants, the standard M4 and the M4A1. The M4A1 is identical to the M4 with the exception of its removable carrying handle, which is attached to a Picatinny Weaver rail system. This arrangement enables easy attachment of optical sighting systems or, by reattaching the carrying handle, use of the iron sights.

Rebirth of the AR-10, Further Developments by Gene Stoner

The legacy of the ArmaLite rifles is far from over. The great weapons designer, Eugene Stoner, never stopped working on his AR-10 design. He, along with C. Reed Knight of Knight’s Manufacturing, perfected the AR-10 and added many design features of the M16A2, to build the SR25 (Stoner Rifle Model 25). The model number comes from adding the 10 from the AR-10 and the 15 from the AR-15.
Basically the SR25 looks like an M16 on steroids, beefed up to accommodate the 30-caliber round. The SR25 Match rifle is a 7.62×51mm NATO sniper rifle. Knight’s Manufacturing is one of the only manufacturers that guarantee their rifle will shoot one minute of angle at 100 yards using factory 168-grain Match 7.62×51mm NATO/308 Winchester ammunition. This rifles incorporates the 5R rifling sniper barrel manufactured by Remington Arms for the M24 sniper rifle.
Knight’s Manufacturing is the only company to which Remington has ever sold these precision barrel blanks. The 5R rifling is designed to optimize the use of 168-grain Match 7.62×51mm NATO/308 Winchester ammunition. Many firearms experts claim the SR25 is the most accurate semi-automatic rifle in the world.
In May of 2000, the U.S. Navy SEALS adopted the SR25 — now classified as the Mk 11 Mod 0 — as a full weapons system: rifle, Leupold scope, back-up pop-up iron sights and a sound suppressor. This is a modified SR25 Match rifle, which has a 20-inch barrel instead of 24-inch barrel. Following this sale, the U.S. Army Rangers also purchased SR25 rifles.

Production Sources of Civilian/ Military Versions of the AR-15/M16

The AR-15 rifle has been copied all over the world, in military and sporting configurations. The Canadian military adopted the C7 as its main battle rifle. The C7, literally a modified M16A2 rifle, is manufactured by Diemaco of Ontario, Canada, an unknown company to most of the world but a large player in this weapons system.

The latest in the M16 family, the M16A2. The standard by which all assault rifles are judged. Note major changes: fully adjustable rear sight, round handguards, longer stock, finger swell on pistol grip and cartridge case deflector. Note the 25-meter zeroing target.
The latest in the M16 family, the M16A2. The standard by which all assault rifles are judged. Note major changes: fully adjustable rear sight, round handguards, longer stock, finger swell on pistol grip and cartridge case deflector. Note the 25-meter zeroing target.

Diemaco has supplied their C7 and C8 weapons systems to Denmark, Norway, New Zealand and the Netherlands. They also equip the legendary British SAS and SBS with their SFW (Special Forces Weapon), designated the British L119A1 Assault Rifle. There have also been other military copies of the M16-series rifle made by Elisco Tool Company of the Philippines and Chartered Industries of Singapore.
Currently manufacturing the M16A2 and M4 carbines for the U.S. military are Colt’s Manufacturing Inc, Hartford, Connecticut, and FN Manufacturing of Columbia, South Carolina. Quality Parts/Bushmaster Firearms of Windham, Maine, have manufactured approximately 400 complete M4 carbines for the United States Department of Defense as well as an additional (approximately) 400 complete M4 upper receivers assemblies.
The semi-automatic Colt AR-15/ Sporter-series rifles have become very popular in the world of competitive shooters. Colt’s Manufacturing Company, Inc., manufactures more civilian versions of the rifle than any other manufacturer, even though there are many other semi-auto clones produced. One of the finest is the XM15E2S, made by Quality Parts-Bushmaster Firearms. Some other manufacturers are Olympic Arms of Olympia, Washington, and ArmaLite, Inc., a division of Eagle Arms of Coal Valley, Illinois.
The AR-15/M16 rifle has come a long way, surviving political opposition and its troubles in Vietnam to become one of the finest military rifles ever produced, with more than 9 million M16-series rifles in service throughout the world, equipping the troops of more than 20 nations. The U.S. military has always been a military of marksmen, and the M16A2 complements this philosophy, setting a standard of accuracy very few assault rifles can match while enjoying the reputation of being the finest human-engineered assault rifle in the world.
The M16-series rifle continues to be the rifle of choice of SWAT teams and police departments all over the country, and it will be the main battle rifle of the United States well into the new millennium.


Roman Seige engines



Tactically, the purpose of a siege is almost always the same – to take control of a strongly defended position. The reasons for launching one are far more varied. The ancient world’s masters of siegecraft, the Romans, laid siege for a wide range of strategic goals.
Capturing Key Settlements
Sieges of towns often took place because of the strategic importance of those settlements. They could be key ports, capitals of enemy nations, or be in some other way vital to the society, economy, and politics of a region.
No siege better demonstrates this than the long Siege of Carthage undertaken by Scipio in 149-146 BC. Carthage was Rome’s greatest opponent in the Mediterranean. That sea provided the primary means of trade, transport, and communications. Any political or commercial empire would be held together by it.


As Carthage recovered from previous setbacks, it was once again becoming the greatest port in the Mediterranean.  A capital from which merchants and colonists would venture out – all over a world the Romans wanted to dominate. So the Romans set out to destroy the economically and politically vital Carthaginian capital. Years of effort, piles of gold, impressive feats of engineering, and the strict discipline of Scipio all went into a siege that eventually ruined Rome’s greatest rival.


roman_siege_machines
Roman siegecraft and works
Destroying the Enemy’s Capacity to Wage War
Some sieges were not so much about the fortified place itself.  They were more about preventing an enemy from making war. By whittling away troops and supplies, cutting them off from joining the enemy, or forcing armies to surrender, the Romans could prevent their enemies campaigning against them.


Ruins of Carthage. Photo taken in 1950.
Ruins of Carthage. Photo taken in 1950.
An example of this can be seen in one of the most famous sieges in Roman history, Caesar’s siege of Alesia (52 BC). The Gallic chief Vercingetorix gathered the main part of his army at a hill fort on a plateau, protected by rivers and steep slopes. Caesar had his men construct an elaborate ring of siege works around the site, including both inward and outward facing walls, ditches, and traps. The Gauls inside the fort were unable to attack the Romans. Once a relief force was defeated, Vercingetorix was forced to surrender and the Gauls’ capacity to fight was all but destroyed.


CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=626376
A reconstructed section of the Alesia investment fortifications. By Mariule – CC BY-SA 3.0
Breaking up Concentrations of Troops
One part of destroying an enemy’s capacity for war was breaking up concentrations of troops. By driving a force out of a fortified position, the Romans could prevent it from safely staying together. Men, unprotected by walls, were more likely to defect. Without a stable base of operations, it was harder for new forces to find and join an existing army.
This can be seen in the siege of Mount Medullus (26 BC) and the siege of Uxellodunum (50-51 BC). The latter followed Vercingetorix’s defeat at Alesia. Uxellodunum had become the remaining centre of Gallic resistance under the leaders Drappes and Lucterius. Caesar’s siege, which used tunnels and siege ramps, broke the final concentration of Gallic troops, preventing discontents from rallying against him.



Vercingetorix throws down his arms at the feet of Julius Caesar. Painting by Lionel Royer.
Vercingetorix throws down his arms at the feet of Julius Caesar. Painting by Lionel Royer.
Breaking Enemy Morale
Some sieges were about making a point. One of these was the siege of Avaricum (52 BC), part of Caesar’s Gallic campaign.
As he progressed through Gaul, Caesar had his troops raid the towns they passed. Like pillaging throughout history, this achieved two things. Firstly, it provided supplies for his army. Secondly, it struck fear into the opposing population. By showing that resistance meant suffering, Caesar hoped to shake the morale of his enemies.
Avaricum was the most symbolically important example of this. A prosperous town that played a vital role in the regional economy, it resisted when Caesar and his men arrived. It was not militarily significant – Vercingetorix tried to persuade the inhabitants to leave rather than hold it. Caesar laid siege to the town and let his troops run riot after it fell, making a point to the rest of Gaul – resistance to Rome could be deadly for all involved.


Model of the siege of Avaricum. Photo Credit.
Model of the siege of Avaricum. Rolf Müller – CC BY-SA 3.0
Protecting Lines of Supply
One of the towns attacked by Caesar and his troops on the way to Avaricum was Vellaunodonum. Like the other settlements attacked in this way – places such as Cenabum and Noviodunum – Vellaunodonum provided an opportunity to gather supplies and to put the fear of Rome into the Gauls. But there was also an element of necessity to this siege.
As Caesar recorded in his account of the Gallic Wars, the Senones town of Vellaunodonum was a potential threat to the Roman supply lines. It could not be left unconquered as he advanced. So he surrounded the town, forcing its inhabitants to surrender after just three days. With his lines of communication and supply secured, Caesar moved on.


A map of Gaul showing all the tribes and cities mentioned in the Gallic Wars. Image Credit.
A map of Gaul showing all the tribes and cities mentioned in the Gallic Wars. By Feitscherg – CC BY-SA 3.0
Drawing out the Enemy
Sieges could be useful in drawing out enemy troops and forcing an opponent to fight. A force suffering from an extended siege might charge forth to destruction when it had previously remained safely behind its walls. Other troops in the surrounding region might march forth to try to relieve the siege, exposing themselves to attack by the Roman army.
This was a tactic that Caesar used several times during the civil war, including at Thapsus (46 BC), Ategua (45 BC), and Dyrrachium (48 BC).
It was also used successfully by Sulla in his defeat of the Marians in 82 BC. On this occasion, it was the siege of Praeneste by Sulla’s lieutenant Ofella that made the difference. Ofella’s aim was not to take the town by force, so he built his siege lines far back from the walls. As the inhabitants were slowly starved, several relief forces were sent by other Marians in the area. These were defeated by Sulla’s field army, allowing him to destroy his opponents without the bloody cost of assaulting fortifications.


590px-sulla_glyptothek_munich_309-1
Apparent bust of Sulla in the Munich Glyptothek.
 Yes it is a movie, but the beginning of "Gladiator" shows the Roman army and the seige engines being used and their effect.

Thursday, March 29, 2018

"And they shall lead us...."

 I had started this morning on this post, but I quickly ran out of gas, it was a long day at work and I had this idea for a post and wanted to work on it but by the time I got home, my creativity was zip, zero, zilch, nada, goose egg...well you get the picture.  I have a few times pushed through and posted something anyway but reading it later, I was embarrassed because it wasn't very good.


    Well anyway y'all by the way have seen the latest push to disarm the citizens by the democrats and the gun control statist and other leftist groups.  I have stated many times that the end goal is to break the middle class, to have a very rich group and a bunch of poor people depending on the government for survival and sustenance.  This guaranteeing the big government control, I know what is best for you crowd permanent control.   I have blogged in the past several times about the Kulaks.   Why do I use a reference to "Kulaks" to describe the middle class?, to understand your enemy, you have to know your enemy including the references they use.  They use "Kulaks" to describe the landowning peasants of the Russian Middle class.

Here is an exerpt from one of my posts on the "Kulak" heading. back in 2015, before Trump even popped up on the radar and Hillary was already positioning herself for her inaugural run for the presidency.

     In Rules for Radicals, several themes persist throughout Alinsky’s lessons to future community organizers. The most notable is his use of symbol construction to strengthen the unity within an organization. Often, he would draw on loyalty to a particular church or religious affiliation to create a firmly structured organization with which to operate. The reason being that symbols by which communities could identify themselves created strongly structured organizations that were easier to mobilize in implementing direct action. Once the community was united behind a common symbol, Alinsky would find a common enemy for the community to be united against.
The use of common enemy against a community was done to promote another theme of Rules for Radicals, nonviolent conflict as a uniting element in communities. Alinsky would find an external antagonist to turn into a common enemy for the community within which he was operating. Often, this enemy would be a local politician or agency that had some involvement with activity that was causing detriment to the community. His goal was to unite a group through conflict with an external antagonist. Once the enemy was established, the community would come together in opposition of it.
     This management of conflict heightened awareness within the community as to the similarities its members shared as well as what differentiated them from those outside of their organization. The use of conflict also allowed for the goal of the group to be clearly defined. With an established external antagonist, the community’s goal would be to defeat that enemy, whether it be a politician, policy, or opposing agency.

     I have mentioned in the past that the modern SJW's are Marxist and they are doing what history taught them.  I will  make a historical point..remember the external antagonist that is required for the SJW's?

According to the political theory of Marxism–Leninism of the early 20th century, the kulaks were class enemies of the poorer peasants. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin described them as "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten on famine.” Marxism–Leninism had intended a revolution to liberate poor peasants and farm laborers alongside the proletariat (urban and industrial workers). In addition, the planned economy of Soviet Bolshevism required the collectivisation of farms and land to allow industrialisation or conversion to large-scale agricultural production. In practice, government officials violently seized kulak farms and murdered resisters; others were deported to labor camps.

    According to the political theory of Marxism–Obamaism of the early 21th century, the white people were class enemies of the poorer peasants. Barack Obama described them as "bloodsuckers, vampires, bitter clingers, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten on white privilege.” Marxism–Obamaism intended a revolution to liberate poor urban people and farm laborers alongside the cube dweller. In addition, the planned economy of Globalism Bolshevism required the collectivization of assets to allow  the future green economy or conversion to large-scale clean energy production. In practice, government officials violently seized white middle class assets and murdered resisters; others were deported to FEMA camps..


     It isn't much of a stretch, I see history replaying before me, I see the same thing that Lenin and later Stalin did to break the power of the kulaks whom were land owning peasants.  In the modern sense, they need to break what they call the political power of the middle class to guarantee their power.  If they can use social pressure to make a law to seize the assets of people that are considered "class enemies".  Remember the 401K's that millions of people have....most of them are middle class and white.  That is an example.  That is billions of dollars sitting in there where the government can't touch it....But the government can change the rules, then seize it....You doubt me?  look at Greece, Cyprus and other places.  The government seized assets for the "Common good".  See a parallel?  the outrage you see against whites is just an excuse for plunder on a wide scale.  The government in the name of social justice and equality can and will seize assets....They will use the social outrage, the same thing Lenin and Stalin used against the Kulaks to further the transforming of Russia into the Soviet Union.  The enemy of the political elites are the middle class, the SJW's are useful idiots being used to create a have and an have not society.  The middle class is a check on the power of the political elite.  The elitist would have a complete society that depended on them for sustenance..once you control their sustenance, you control them....then you can do whatever you wanted.  That is the Endgame.

  What I am getting at is that once totalatarian government is in place, they first start subverting the kids, they kids are easiest to manipulate...I will use a video clip from Samurai Jack the 5th season, to make a point.
  The subtitles are in another language...Hey I take what I can get.
 
    The statist subvert the kids first because they are the most malleable to support the goals of the state.  For years after the Bolsheviks took over Russia and it became the Soviet Union, there was an organization that was formed to indoctrinate the young, they are called the Young Pioneers  and besides learning the tenets of Marxism, they also were used to spy on the parents and the kids would rat out their parents if they did something that violated the decrees from the local communist party commissar.  In Russian life, especially back then, they had a little shrine in each houses with religious artifacts relating to the orthodox church  The kids were indoctrinated to believe that there was no god but Marx and Lenin and later Stalin, and the kids would squeal to the commissar what their parents are doing involving religion, writing, who the friends were and many others.  As part of communist life was the act of "denouncing" someone who has strayed from the path of true marxism and using the power of the state depending on the transgression the "denounced" would be humiliated, beaten, shipped to a gulag to work off their sin or even killed.

     Hitler also did the same thing, he created the HJ or the "Hitler Youth",
The members of the Hitler Youth were viewed as ensuring the future of Nazi Germany and were indoctrinated in Nazi ideology, including racism. The Hitler Youth appropriated many of its activities of the Boy Scout movement (which was banned in 1935), including camping and hiking. However, over time it changed in content and intention. For example, many activities closely resembled military training, with weapons training, assault course circuits and basic tactics. The aim was to instill the motivation that would enable its members to fight faithfully for Nazi Germany as soldiers. There was great emphasis on physical fitness and hardness and military training than on academic study. Sacrifice for the cause was inculcated into their training. Former Hitler Youth, Franz Jagemann claimed for instance that the notion "Germany must live" even if they (members of the HJ) had to die was "hammered" into them.

The Hitler Youth were used to break up Church youth groups, and in anti-Church indoctrination, used to spy on religious classes and Bible studies, and interfere with church attendance. Education and training programs for the Hitler Youth were designed to undermine the values of the traditional elitist structures of German society along with their privileges; their training also aimed at an obliteration of social and intellectual distinctions between the classes, so as to be replaced and dominated by the political goals of Hitler's totalitarian dictatorship. Besides promoting a doctrine of classlessness, additional training was provided that linked state-identified enemies such as Jews with Germany's previous defeat in the First World War, and societal decline.As historian Richard Evans observes, "The songs they sang were Nazi songs. The books they read were Nazi books.   They are true believers.   What I am doing with my long post is making parallels from the past is to describe what I see now going on, we have had several generations of kids indoctrinated with the belief that the state is mother, the state is father and the state knows what is best.  We have had several generations of kids that are willing to surrender their birthright of freedom on the alter of "big Brotherism".  The latest movement to gut the 2nd amendment is part of the plan, because if the people or in this case the "kulaks" are unarmed, then their property can be seized for redistribution to the masses in "reparations" for past misdeeds.  This in effect will create 2 classes of people, the super rich who lold the power, and the unwashed masses that depend on the state for protection, and sustenance.   This is the endgame of what is being played out.
Here is a link where a Hitler speech was dubbed over on the darling of the left Hogg,
    Youtube put up a block, that you have to get past and it isn't "sharable" so I cut and pasted a link,
 Hogg/Hitler Youtube link

    The far left is using the kids to push their agenda, the kids are being used by Soro's and his crowd.  Anybody that believes that this is a kid run movement is living in lala land and delusional.  The people providing the logistics are professional leftist and organizers.
     This is what will happen to us once we give up our means of self defense against evil from both people or governments.

    

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Chinese Sub surfaces by American Aircraft Carrier.


I remembered reading something about this and I finally figured that I would do some research on it.  

On 11th November 2006, the Commander of the US Navy’s Pacific Fleet at the time, Gary Roughead, made a historic visit to China in a hope of improving the relations between the two countries. His visit was intended to organize a joint military exercise that emphasized the search and rescue role of the Navy and was to take place on 19th of November that year.
However, the visit was overshadowed by the incident that occurred during an American naval exercise near the island of Okinawa. On 26th of October, a Chinese Song-Class submarine surfaced within five miles of the USS Kitty Hawk airplane carrier in the Pacific Ocean. Several weeks before the US delegation met with their Chinese counterparts, ships from the Pacific fleet were stationed in international waters between Taiwan and South Japan.

The carrier was surrounded by a dozen of ships in a protective formation, but nevertheless, the Chinese sub managed to slip through unnoticed. It came as a surprise that the Americans were unable to detect the lone submarine earlier, for their extensive defense screen included a submarine and anti-submarine helicopters, all responsible for protecting the battle group from an underwater attack.
There were a number of theories why the Chinese Navy staged such a provocation. It remained unclear for how long the sub was shadowing the carrier, but this sort of error showed how much the American Navy let its guard down after the Soviet submarines stopped being a threat.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Navy conducted a plan to de-emphasize their anti-submarine warfare capabilities, since they were convinced that the preeminent submarine threat had been neutralized and that it would take decades for such a threat to re-emerge.
The Chinese military officials dismissed the Washington report that the submarine was following the aircraft carrier, but it seems unlikely that the whole incident was accidental. The sub-detection capabilities of the US Navy showed that they didn’t consider the level of advancement of the Chinese submarine fleet. China has alway been reclusive about its arsenal, so this came as no surprise. Nevertheless, the US underestimated the level of sophistication achieved by the Chinese subs.
The incident reminded the two governments of the reason why their relations were so cold in previous years ― in 2001, an American spy plane collided in mid-air with a Chinese jet fighter. The incident occurred 70 miles away from Hainan Island province off the coast of China. The jet pilot died during the collision, and the spy plane crew of 24 men was forced to land at Hainan. There, they were detained by the Chinese until the two countries agreed on terms for their release. Since 2001, relations were strained, until the visit in 2006.
Admiral Gary Roughead. By U.S. Navy photo, Public Domain.
Admiral Gary Roughead.
Let’s take a look at the hardware that sparked the 2006 incident. The Song-Class submarine is diesel-electric powered. It is the first submarine class developed entirely by China and also the first Chinese submarine to use the modern teardrop hull shape. It uses a German state-of-the-art 396 SE84 diesel engine.

USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)
USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)
Its armament includes Russian-made wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles. Although China still lags behind with the technology, especially because of the fact that they still haven’t fully developed nuclear-powered submarines, the Song-class submarines, together with the Yuan-class submarines equipped with air-independent propulsion (AIP), could represent a real threat.
Song-class Submarine by: SteKrueBe - Own work - CC BY-SA 3.0
Song-class Submarine. SteKrueBe – CC BY-SA 3.0
On the other side, USS Kitty Hawk was first put into service in 1961, and it was officially decommissioned in 2009, two years after the incident took place. Nevertheless, the ship represented the pride of the American Navy ― a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board. The sub certainly made an impression, and the American commanding officers were obviously embarrassed by their lack of caution.
One NATO official called this event “as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik,” making a reference to the Sputnik orbiting satellite, which was launched in 1957, marking the beginning of the space age.
During his official visit to China, Admiral Gary Roughead stated, after discussing the incident with the Chinese, that the submarine “was operating in a manner that did not hazard any vessel or cause any problems for any vessel.” Roughead added that he believes ” … that the openness and transparency and the ability to communicate when our forces are operating in proximity with one another is very important. That’s why we are doing this series of exercises.”
Admiral William Fallon, the former commander of the US Forces in the Pacific, on the other hand, pointed out that the battle group wasn’t engaged in anti-submarine activity. If it had “and if this Chinese sub came in the middle of this, then it could have escalated into something that could have been very unforeseen.”
Chinese sailors at the Qingdao, North Sea Fleet headquarters parading with in 2000 for a visiting U.S. Navy delegation. By Jiang at en.wikipedia - Public Domain.
Chinese sailors at the Qingdao, North Sea Fleet headquarters parading within 2000 for a visiting U.S. Navy delegation. 
Despite the tensions, the naval exercise went on as planned and it was deemed successful by both parties.
The South Chinese Sea area remains a subject of dispute to this day. The question of naval superiority in the Pacific is often mentioned, as China had been building up its fleet in the past years.  Since 2011, they have started their own aircraft carrier development program, and the first vessel was commissioned in 2012. In 2015, several sources confirmed that China was building a second indigenously designed aircraft carrier.
Also, an incident very similar to the one that happened in 2006 was reported on 24th of October, 2015, when a Chinese submarine tailed the nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Ronald Reagan off the coast of Japan. On this occasion, Pacific Fleet and Pacific Command refused to comment the event but didn’t deny that it happened.

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Lockheed proposed heavy bomber during WWII

I didn't know anything about this until i was surfing around and ran across this story, I had Blogged about the Lockheed Constellation before and I considered it a very pretty graceful airplane.

As the war came closer in 1939, the legendary  General Henry ‘Hap’ Arnold had the thoughtfulness to contemplate a list of specifications for the designing of a heavy bomber capable of flying a heavy bomb load of 8 tons over a long distance of 5,000 miles. A committee was formed (with Charles Lindberg as a member) to study the options that emerged with the awesome technological progress that had been made in the mid and late 1930’s in aero-engines and airframe construction methods. New all-aluminum planes arrived that allowed for an unparalleled upscaling of speed and payloads by the stretching of aircraft to ever-bigger dimensions.
As the war broke out in Europe in May 1939, Arnold requested all major American aircraft builders to submit their designs for a long distance heavy bomber. Next to Boeing and Douglas (both most successful in the manufacturing of their then-modern transports), also Lockheed stepped in as a contender. The Burbank-based company had the Lockheed L-049 in a conceptual phase ready and used that plan as the template for their Heavy Bomber L-249 project.
Photo above shows an artist’s impression of the Lockheed L-249 aka the XB -30 long distance heavy Bomber project, based on the Constellation.
The outcome never really materialized in the shape of a prototype plane or even a full-scale mockup. Only a smaller-scale model was made and what we can show here is based on that ‘paper plane’ with a number of Artist’s Impressions to get some idea of how basically a beautiful design based on the Constellation was studied for a conversion into an armed aircraft with a bomb-bay for 8 tons of bombs and a half a dozen of gun turrets to keep the enemy fighters at bay.
The photo above depicts the first built Lockheed Constellation, in Military colors known as the C-69. While designing had started in 1939 with Kelly Johnson in the design team, this aircraft made her maiden flight by early 1943. 
It was due to her peculiar lines and shape an outstanding aircraft, high on her legs, a very elegant design with a feature as no other plane had: look at the hull shape in the photo, in there is probably not one equal cross-section. No bulkhead has the same shape and dimension as the previous one, due to that longitudinal ‘female-like’ curved lines on top and bottom. With the competition aircraft as the DC-4 and later the DC-6/7, their fuselages are more like straight tubular structures with a parallel lining and more constant cross-sections. Whatever the reason, for many ( including myself, having flown in the plane as an 11 years-old kid in the 1950’s to/from Indonesia). the Constellation was and is the ‘Queen of the Skies’, even with all her “caprices”. Not the most dependable aircraft but surely one of the most attractive aircraft designs ever made.
The plan Lockheed had for converting the Constellation was not so bad, the wing design was basically an extended Lockheed P-38 Lighting wing and proven to be a very efficient wing profile. With the sleek lines of that dolphin-shaped fuselage, the first Constellation (in Military designation the C-69) was arguably the fastest cargo transport that existed by 1943. Imagine, that aircraft had a cruise speed of well over 500 km/ h (340 mph), which made her faster than the earlier model Zero fighters. On top, the aircraft had novel features as a pressurized fuselage that allowed for comfortable flights with a much higher ceiling to fly (24,000 feet), hydraulically boosted controls and de-icing systems.
Photo above shows another artist’s impression of the Lockheed XB-30 heavy bomber that never was. 
In camouflage colors, armed with 6 gun turrets and at a high speed flying well over 24.000 feet altitude, she was faster in the books than many enemy fighters when she was designed, but by the time she could have appeared in the skies over continental Europe in 1944/ 1945, she would have been no match anymore for the German fighters as the jet-powered Me-262. Even the rear turret’s 20 mm canon would be of little avail against such fast flying fighters that were well armed with equal weapons.
But in spite of all the easy-to-adapt features of the L-049 concept, the XB-30 Bomber was a spin-off that never took off, the plan soon stalled. Why was that? A couple of reasons: Boeing, the competitor from Seattle had better cards in their hands. Their Mega Bomber project named the XB-29 was much further in development and that counts BIG time when a war has broken out! Boeing’s Superfortress (a very appropriate name, taking advantage of its most successful predecessor, the B-17 Flying Fortress) used the same brand new big radial engines as were foreseen for the Lockheed XB-30, the Wright Duplex Cyclones

Photo above (photo Frank C. Muller) shows details of the brute, the Wright Duplex Cyclone radial engine (hence R-3350) with a displacement of 3350 cu in (55 liters from 18 cylinders with superchargers, cranking out in their first year of operation in 1941 some 2,200 hp, later up to over 3,000 hp). 
This machine was a very complicated piece of High Tech for that time and most unreliable at the beginning of its long career. It took Wright many years in developing the heat-resistant materials required to withstand the staggering heat-buildup in the cylinder heads, where high-octane fuel and supercharging/ turbocharging of the cylinders took their toll. Cooling was a major problem, aggravated often by the tight fitting of engine cowlings that were primarily designed for reducing drag.
The military aircraft that used this engine during the 1940’s (B-29 and Convair’s B-36 Peacemaker) all had their fair share of the heat buildup of this engine that often was the reason for engine explosions or sudden engine fires that could seriously hamper the operations of the Bomber Fleet aircraft.

 The thermal and mechanical stress on this engine asked for ever-better alloys to be developed with ever-better lubricants, feeding the zillion moving/ rotating parts of such machine with oil for cooling and lubing. It must have been a horror music box for the mechanics. Every day, they listened to the Sound of Music from that engine until a little rattle or some smoke was detected that came out as a dissonant. OMG, piston ring broken or exhaust valve burnt? The machine had a reputation for eating its own valves and the wrench jocks could only wonder what the muck was going on inside those 18 red-hot furnaces aka the combustion chambers. As the first puff of white smoke came from the exhaust stacks, they knew there was another day of wrenching coming their way

But with all adjustments made, this complex radial engine never came even close to the shadow of the reliability of the Jet-engine that came into the market in civil Airliners by the late 1950’s.