One Sixth Warriors Forum banner

What are grunts wearing in Afghanistan?

37K views 186 replies 24 participants last post by  Toyscout 
#1 ·
What are grunts wearing in Afghanistan?

Disclaimer
NOT A NEW PRODUCT THREAD! Just the facts here please! If you want to discuss the pros and cons of a specific figure over another, how your brand is better than another brand or how you found a picture on google which is definitive proof that Rangers wear slippers please take it to the new product threads and argue among the fanboys. Ground rule, be polite. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Opinions supported by facts have more weight than, ”Well, I “think” it should be this way because it’s cool.”

Hi Guys;

Been inundated with questions about what grunts are wearing in Afghanistan both here and on chat. Decided I would share for those interested in doing research. I make it a point not to comment in new product threads because of the negativity that often follows when I share what I've learned. So to avoid being banned or suspended for defending myself I’m starting this thread for guys to get and share info. If you want to stir the pot please take it to the new product threads. If you come here to start crap and drama it’s obvious to the mods who’s starting what.

Everyone is welcome to share so the community has a source of info for accuracy for those interested in that. Encourage you to include your sources if you can so the reader can weigh the credibility of the info you are sharing.

Now to answer the most common questions.

What are grunts wearing in Afghanistan? (Grunts typically applies to CONVENTIONAL Infantry though I personally expand it to include those troops that make their living outside the wire in direct support of Infabtry units like combat engineers, medics, dog handlers etc.)

Multicam in an ACU cut is what is issued along with a couple of combat shirts. The current issue is four uniforms and two shirts or at least it was according to SGM (Ret) House of the Army’s Rapid Fielding Initiative office as of Sep ’11. Soldiers augment issue with personally purchased gear. It’s few and far between where conventional troops will drop $300 on a crye battle uniform.

MC helmet cover (just like the UCP version but in MC).

Plate carrier vs. IOTV?

Combat troops (those that typically leave the wire) are issued both as of sep’11 discussion I had with PEO Soldier reps. The plate carrier is much more popular according to my clients. Not everyone is infantry though or for one reason or another (shortages, chain of command, vehicle vs. foot patrol) you'll see the IOTV in use on occasion. Often it will be stripped to essentials (no throat or collar pads) and maybe just the groin pad which is a PAIN if you have to climb.

ACU vs. MC kit in Afghanistan? When for what? Confusing!

YES! Starting around Aug ’10 the Army started issuing OCP (Army acronym for MC) to conventional troops deploying to Afghanistan. If you were already there you were likely not to get a set. Venivicivici shared he didn’t get or see MC in OEF until he was relieved by the 101st. I had deploying troops to include the 48th BDE (Ga Nat’l Guard) in my shop that had been issued MC in Aug’10. Why the partial issue/confusion? Many just don’t realize how big the Army is at times. The decision to issue MC isn’t made in a vacuum. Decisions hadn’t been made on pouches, vests, manufacturers etc. When decisions were made quantities didn’t exist and so units were prioritized, some given partial issues, some got nothing etc. Bureaucracy at its best but in defense you have to centralize decisions for organizations as big as the Army. Like we saw when the Army switched to coffee stain kit and later UCP. Looks like It wasn’t until mid ’11 that there were enough MC and late ’11 until troops got issued both plate carriers and IOTVs. Before then the issue of plate carriers was haphazard and included four different types of plate carriers.

Ammo pouch observation.

Seems to be about a 50/50 mix between two mag ammo pouches and shingle/racks. Soldiers are issued both now. They weren’t always so you see a mix. Advantage to shingles is it’s easier to get in/out of vehicles/aircraft in shingles. Less profile. It also helps getting into the narrower doorways of Afghanistan. On the downside they suck up a lot of space on your vest. It’s a personal preference thing. Recent vets might have some more insight. I was told that the Rangers prefer the shingles for the reasons I describe so the thinking is sound and the conventional guys often mimic or learn the same lessons that the operators do.

If this thread/post has been a help please say so. It’s not worth my typing this up if folks don’t care. It also demonstrates that there is an interest in this kind of info as folks participate in the hobby. I encourage any OSW member to PM me but if the mods allow this thread to exist separate from the new product threads this may be a way to share info without the drama of whose brand is better or” I just want to be different or cool” which is FINE. There’s no need to feel threatened if your search for “artistic expression” isn’t exactly the same as most ground truth.

Additional input about weapons, sights (vvv shared some good info in chat last night about sights) is welcome especially if it's bsed on experience or discussions with those that have done it.

Regards,

Will
 
See less See more
#66 ·
I know there's a lot of different squad automatic weapons and LMG's: Mk43, Mk46, Mk48, M249, M240 (several variants), and M27 IAR (recent USMC development). I also know that the Mk weapons are mostly SEAL/Navy issue, but Rangers and the regular Army have used Mk46 and Mk48's in the past. Who exactly uses which weapon?
 
#68 · (Edited)
Partial answer to a huge and complicated question. Units transition over time so what is true today isn't true for yesterday.

Example: When the M249 SAW came out everybody used it. Then the Mk46 was introduced around 2001. Rangers went to it around '06 but last year went back to the SAW because the Army had incorporated most of the improvements and it was cheaper. Confusing to someone that doesn't know the ins and outs.

Might be better to focus this question because it's a real monster depending on the weapon, variant, service and time frame.

Being I started this talking about the conventional grunt in Afghanistan I can give you some insight. I'm sure vvv can also because of his experience with the M240. You won't see Mk43's, 46's or M27's in Army units except for the exception described above.

Grunts use the SAW. No Mk46's though depending on the time frame and the unit one will see different stocks, barrel lengths and the appearance of rails

M240 - this IS the infantry's medium machine gun with one exception. Around 2010 some Mk48's were issued to light infantry units in Afghanistan as a stopgap measure until the M240L was developed and released. This was a limited issue to units who were primarily doing foot mounted patrols (trying to cut some weight from the 30lb M240). They were replaced last year from my understanding with 4000 M240L's the Army purchased (12000 is the target). Again these are mostly seen in ground mounted units. The Mk48 is an excellent weapon but wears out much quicker than the M240 because of a lot of its titanium construction. The M240L has a titanium reciever and shorter barrel.
 
#69 · (Edited)
"Around 2010 some Mk48's were issued to light infantry units in Afghanistan as a stopgap measure until the M240L was developed and released. This was a limited issue to units who were primarily doing foot mounted patrols (trying to cut some weight from the 30lb M240)"

Well Will, it appeares I missed out on much more than just getting Multicam and a platecarrier. :( LOL Just to add something to feel special, the reason the army was looking for a lighter version is because with the stripped down M240B (no ammo, no optic, no laser) it was weighing in at approximately 27.6LBS. Add the starter belt, optic, and yes, even the sling has weight (ounces add up to pounds) and you have a weapon in your hands at well over 30LBS. Then add approximately 7LBS for every 100rnd belt. I personally carried a minumum of 500 rounds of linked 7.62 putting my weapon system alone at well over 60LBS. I'm still on the quest to find the prankster who put the "Light" in "Light Infantry".


This thread has shed some serious light on questions that I've had also. Lets keep it up!
 
#70 ·
VVV - Not to go too far afield I was never happy with the decision to switch from the M60. Granted we needed new weapons, the Army took the easy way out in adopting the MG mounted on armored vehicles which is a GREAT weapon (had them on my Bradleys). New M60s were quite relaible, a bit lighter and had a slower rate of fire which made a 1000 rounds last a bit longer.
 
#71 ·
Thanks for info guys, that does clarify things. :D
I've got a question from our Chinese friends at BBICN. Jackson asks, "[sic] How about the M4's sling and sling adaptor?I see most soldier's M4 use the U.S.G.I. side sling adaptor and 3point sling ,like the CQD Adaptor and their slings are not very Common[.]"
 
#72 ·
I think the more current vets are going to provide a better answer. Slings are a mixed bag. They're one of the cheapest accessories so buying one's own isn't uncommon. They are also a very personal preference type thing. Units also get various and different issued slings. There isn't one standard.

3pt slings have been out of favor for awhile though. I get comparatively few requests for them over the last 2-3 years.
 
#73 ·
I'm going to have to comment on this and say that as far as the Marine Corps goes, I haven't seen very many people in favor of the 3 point. I myself favor the 1 point because of mobility. The 3 point restricts movement in a few different ways, and it also allows for the weapon to accidentally be switched from safe to fire, just by the rubbing of the weapon against the body armor.
 
#75 ·
We found that the three point, as stated above, will also interfere with the bolt catch and will also get hung up on gear. The single point has its uses, but I prefered running a two point with a quick adjuster system that would allow my to fasten the rifle to my body or off to my side if I had to climb or go hands on with something or someone. I came out of pocket for that though. Many of the guys who were issues the 3-points modified and cut them to use it as a two point.
 
#76 ·
Thank you major.rod, Matthew2388, silent_05, and VeniViciVinci! :thanks

Another BBICN question: ledmiragea writes: "Talking about the M240L, I have read some information about M240L. It said it works well when dismounted, but it can't be mounted on gun turret on vehicles or other hard points; as the softer titanium construction cannot hold up the gun when firing (as it is rattling itself), it that true?
And I have read another article that some M240L served together with modified M240B (fixed with collapsible buttstock same as M240L and new retractable bipot [sic] in the front) in field now. Short barreled M240L apears [sic] in trainning [sic] facilities but is that starting to use in field now?"


I'd heard that bit about the M240L and vehicles before in this article on Kit-Up. I can't find anything on it after that date (though I did see that major.rod is a Kit-Up commenter in addition to being a Kit-Up reader :thumb). I did find this other gem in the comments section though: "We did field a limited number of MK48s in theater. The MK48 has the same problem as is being reported on the M240L; the MK48 is so light that it will self destruct when mounted to a solid mount. The solution is a recoil absorbing mount for either gun (as is designed for the MK48). However, the reason that everyone looked at that SF Soldier like he was crazy is because during tesing [sic] the M240L, no such problems of cracking and wear caused by mounting the weapon were evident. That said, the MK48 is lighter than the M240L but, is also less durable. M240Bs/M240Ls can run 100,000 rds before you have to start replacing major parts: not so with the MK48. I like the MK48 for what it is intended to be: an assault machine gun."

I'd assume that the version of the M240B he's describing is an interim weapon until the fielding of the M240L is completed - that or it's an alternative GPMG that's being issued to units that do not need the weight-saving advantages of the M240L as severely as others.
 
#77 ·
Yes, the M240B & M240L serve together. Just like when the M4 was originally fielded (along with the M16A2) one weapon is focused for light infantry use the other for mech. You’ll see mixed issue as units are issued new weapons and there isn’t enough to go around, commanders wrangle an exception to keep extra MGs or light units are temporarily assigned vehicles (think MRAPS and HMMWVs). It will eventually even out.

The Mk48 is MUCH more “delicate” than an M240B. A Mk48’s bolt needs replacing at 15k rounds. An M240 bolt is good for almost 100k (over six times the life).

FYI, the Army issued 550 Mk48s compared to the First batch of 4000 M240Ls.
 
#79 ·
I'm confused on why you would mount the 240L on a vehicle unless that is the only style 240 that you have available. The 240L was designed for a VERY specific use: Dismounted troops in Afghanistan. I'm also not too sure about the L having the same round count lifespan as the B since I remember the original articles, when it was being tested, stated that the life span of the L would be considerably less than the B. Can Someone confirm this?
 
#80 · (Edited)
VVV - You're completely right on mounting the M240L but you're forgetting who's asking the question. Most folks aren't familiar with how the military works. One picture is often enough to support an assumption that that's the way it works in the field. (the picture of the guy returning fire in his boxers comes to mind.)



"See I have a picture. Combat boxers."

You're remembering right on the M240L life. Read the same thing. I have to research the specifics but the titanium reciever of the M240L doesn't last as long as the M240B. I believe the barrel also has a shorter life.

silent - you can switch barrels on the Mk46/48
 
#82 ·
VVV - You're completely right on mounting the M240L but you're forgetting who's asking the question. Most folks aren't familiar with how the military works. One picture is often enough to support an assumption that that's the way it works in the field. (the picture of the guy returning fire in his boxers comes to mind.)

You're remembering right on the M240L life. Read the same thing. I have to research the specifics but the titanium reciever of the M240L doesn't last as long as the M240B. I believe the barrel also has a shorter life.

silent - you can switch barrels on the Mk46/48
Yeah, after I re-read how I posted that, I think I did come off as a little harsh. I meant to ask why actual soldiers would do that. LOL

My issue with giving regular army units weapons that have a limited lifespan is that no one keeps records on how many rounds have been fired through the individual weapons. Also, most soldiers aren't trained in detecting parts that need replacing unless it is obvious (ie: actually broken). Even if they do detect a worn out part, how long would it take to get that piece replaced? I'm hoping someone who has carried the 240L can tell me otherwise to put my mind at ease on this. :goodluck
 
#83 · (Edited)
You didn't seem harsh at all. Heck, you're trying to help!

Scott that is an accurate description of a problem. My experience was that commanders established maintenance programs and a rotation where 10% of weapons went to the direct support BN for inspection along with the unit armorer inspecting 10% monthly. That would provide each weapon at least two looks by a trained inspector each year. On top of that each platoon's chain of command should be inspecting weapons regularly as well as the individual user. Finally it was very common in units I served in to have a direct support BN contact truck out on unit qualification ranges to address weapon malfunctions. That's twice a year for Infantry units. I've seen many serious deficencies discovered at all these levels and whenever one was found everyone ramped up the inspection. Considering we've rarely heard of catastrophic weapons failures the system seems to be working.

Have you seen any of this type of attention? Other vets?
 
#84 ·
"Have you seen any of this type of attention?"

:jawdrop

Maybe I simply had a serious chain of command issue, but we were on our own while in Afghanistan to fix out own weapons. If it could not be readily fixed, we had to issue the soldier another rifle (from the limited extras that were brought). The M240B that I was issued was TPE (Theatre Provided Equipment) and needed some serious TLC. We ended up having to use power tools to remove the currosion and rust on the gas tube vents and regulator. We got that puppy running good though! I'm sure there was probably some weapon armorers at our larger sister FOB that could have helped, but it was hard enough for us to get our food resupply from them, let alone specifics.
 
#85 ·
Yes, in combat the maintenance program is one of the first casualties but my question was about your garrison experience. That's the time serious weapon issues can be addressed.

Not a big fan of TPE because no one "owns" the equipment until it's issued and those who are securing TPE before issuing aren't resourced to maintain it (see this with vehicles al the time).

That said, when the equipment IS issued users typically go over it with a fine toothed comb (like your unit did). It's reasonable to expect you would have found burned out barrels, worn bolts/recievers. As you know you just can't replace a bolt on the M240. let alone switch them between M240s That's DS level maintenance which is why units tend to replace the whole weapon.

Some of this stuff is obvious to us. Stating it more so for those that don't know.
 
#90 ·
Yeah, I think the Rangers have been done to death.

USMC should be quite doable like this thread.

The special ops is almost in the too hard box. Too many services, uniforms, regions, weapons and general equipment. The only way I'd consider approaching the subject is if a specific figure came out and people wanted to discuss that subject matter specifically.

Glad this has gotten such a great response and been so civil.
 
#91 · (Edited)
What is this rifle (upper)? Is this something new the Army is testing?



U.S. Army National Guard Sgt. 1st Class Michael Nelson, platoon sergeant, and 1st Lt. Brandon Bowden, platoon leader of the security force element of Provincial Reconstruction Team Farah, pull security during a road assessment mission in Farah province, Afghanistan, May 9. SECFOR is made up of National Guard infantrymen out of Alaska who are responsible for ensuring the safety of everyone assigned to FOB Farah. PRT Farah is a unit of soldiers, sailors and airmen working with various government and non-government agencies tasked with facilitating governance and stability in the region by working hand in hand with local officials and the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The goal of the PRT is to promote the Afghan government and their ability to resolve local issues and provide security to the people. The government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and PRT are dedicated to finding long term, sustainable solutions to the instability in the region and shift the population's dependence from foreign aid to the local and national government. Staff Sgt. Jonathan Lovelady

Found on militaryphotos.net and I'm just amazed it would ever be allowed that someone could use they're privately purchased upper.
 
#92 ·
I have a feeling that's a picture of a privately owned upper and the owner is a geardo (Peltors aren't common issue, coyote pouches, surefire helmet light). Not as unlikely in a Guard unit. Seems like a shorter barrel also which are extremely rare in conventional units. More info about where you found the pic would help.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top