The History and Politics of American Small Arms Failures: An Overview of Misfire: The Story Of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military
Misfire: The Story Of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military Book Pdf
If you are interested in learning about the history and politics of American small arms development, you might want to read Misfire: The Story Of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military, a book by William H. Hallahan. In this article, I will give you an overview of what this book is about, why it is important, and what are its main arguments. I will also summarize some of the key episodes in the history of America's small arms failures, as well as analyze some of the causes and consequences of these failures. Finally, I will offer some recommendations for future small arms policy based on the lessons learned from this book.
Misfire: The Story Of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military Book Pdf
Introduction
What is Misfire?
Misfire is a book written by William H. Hallahan, a journalist and historian who has written several books on military history. It was published in 1994 by Scribner's, and it has 580 pages. The book is an in-depth expose of nearly two centuries of failure by the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps in the arming of American infantry. Hallahan shows that the M16 rifle, which jammed frequently during the Vietnam War, was the last in a long sequence of faulty small arms provided to American soldiers since Revolutionary times.
Why is Misfire important?
Misfire is important because it reveals a hidden aspect of American military history that has often been overlooked or ignored by mainstream historians and media. It challenges the conventional wisdom that America has always been superior in terms of weapons technology and innovation, and that its small arms have always been reliable and effective. It also exposes the political and bureaucratic factors that have influenced small arms development, often at the expense of military performance and morale. It also raises awareness about the human cost of small arms failures, as thousands of American soldiers have died or been wounded because of defective or inadequate weapons.
What are the main arguments of Misfire?
The main arguments of Misfire are: - The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps has been fixated for generations on accurate, deliberate firepower and the conservative use of ammunition, despite the fact that the prime innovations in arms technology have led to ever more rapid-firing and accurate weapons. - The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps has been resistant to change and innovation, often rejecting or delaying the adoption of new weapons that have proven superior in other countries or by other branches of the U.S. military. - The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps has been influenced by politics and bureaucracy, often favoring certain manufacturers or contractors over others, or complying with the demands of Congress or the President, regardless of the military needs or preferences. - The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps has failed to provide adequate testing, training, and maintenance for the small arms it has issued to the infantry, resulting in frequent malfunctions, accidents, and casualties. - The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps has failed to learn from its mistakes and to improve its small arms policy, despite the repeated evidence of its failures and the feedback from the soldiers and commanders who have used its weapons.
The History of America's Small Arms Failures
The Revolutionary War and the Springfield Arsenal
The history of America's small arms failures can be traced back to the Revolutionary War, when the newly established Springfield Arsenal in Massachusetts was tasked with producing muskets for the Continental Army. However, the arsenal was plagued by poor management, lack of skilled workers, and shortage of materials. As a result, it produced only a fraction of the muskets needed by the army, and many of them were defective or inferior in quality. The American soldiers had to rely on captured British muskets or imported French muskets, which were often incompatible with American ammunition or spare parts.
The War of 1812 and the Harpers Ferry Armory
After the Revolutionary War, another arsenal was established at Harpers Ferry in Virginia, which was supposed to complement the Springfield Arsenal in supplying small arms to the U.S. Army. However, both arsenals faced similar problems of inefficiency, corruption, and waste. During the War of 1812, they failed to meet the demand for muskets, as they were still using outdated methods and machinery. The American soldiers had to contend with old or worn-out muskets that often misfired or exploded in their hands. The British soldiers, on the other hand, had superior flintlock muskets that were more accurate and reliable.
The Civil War and the Rejection of Breech-Loading Rifles
By the time of the Civil War, a major innovation in small arms technology had emerged: the breech-loading rifle, which allowed the user to load the cartridge from the rear of the barrel instead of from the muzzle. This made reloading faster and easier, especially while lying down or on horseback. Several models of breech-loading rifles were developed in Europe and America, such as the Sharps rifle, the Spencer rifle, and the Henry rifle. However, the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps rejected these rifles for several reasons: they were more expensive than muzzle-loading rifles; they required different ammunition than muzzle-loading rifles; they consumed more ammunition than muzzle-loading rifles; and they were considered too complex and fragile for military use. Instead, the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps insisted on issuing muzzle-loading rifles to most of its infantry, such as the Springfield Model 1861 rifle-musket. These rifles were slow and cumbersome to load and fire, especially under fire or in bad weather. They also had a shorter range and accuracy than breech-loading rifles. The Confederate soldiers also used mostly muzzle-loading rifles, but they also captured or purchased some breech-loading rifles from foreign sources or private dealers. These rifles gave them an advantage in some battles, such as Chancellorsville and Chickamauga.
The Spanish-American War and the Krag-Jorgensen Rifle
After the Civil War, the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps finally decided to adopt a breech-loading rifle for its infantry: the Krag-Jorgensen rifle, a Norwegian design that used a magazine-fed bolt-action mechanism. However, this rifle had several flaws: it was slow and difficult to load; it had a weak cartridge that lacked stopping power; it had a poor sight that hindered accuracy; and it was prone to jamming or breaking under stress. The American soldiers who fought in the Spanish-American War soon discovered that their rifles were inferior to those of their enemies: the Spanish Mauser rifle and the Filipino Remington rifle. These rifles used a clip-fed bolt-action mechanism that allowed faster and easier loading; they had a powerful cartridge that could penetrate body armor or helmets; they had a fine sight that enhanced accuracy; and they were sturdy and reliable under any conditions. The American soldiers suffered many casualties due to their ineffective rifles, especially in battles such as San Juan Hill and El Caney.
World War I and the Delayed Adoption of Automatic Weapons
World War I was the first major war that saw the widespread use of automatic weapons, such as machine guns, submachine guns, and automatic rifles. These weapons offered a tremendous advantage in terms of firepower and mobility, especially in trench warfare and urban combat. However, the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps was slow and reluctant to adopt these weapons for its infantry, preferring to stick with the bolt-action Springfield M1903 rifle as its standard issue. The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps argued that automatic weapons were too expensive, too complicated, too wasteful of ammunition, and too inaccurate for military use. It also claimed that the Springfield M1903 rifle was superior to any other rifle in the world, and that it could match or exceed the performance of automatic weapons with proper training and discipline.
The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps did not develop or procure any machine guns of its own design before or during World War I. Instead, it relied on foreign or private sources for its machine guns, such as the British Vickers M1915, the French Hotchkiss M1914, the French Chauchat M1915, and the American Colt-Browning M1895/14. These machine guns varied in quality and reliability, but none of them were ideal for the conditions of World War I. They were heavy, cumbersome, prone to overheating or jamming, and required frequent cleaning and maintenance. They also used different types of ammunition than the Springfield M1903 rifle, which complicated the logistics and supply of the U.S. Army.
The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps also ignored or rejected several innovative designs of submachine guns and automatic rifles that were developed by American inventors or manufacturers during World War I. These included the Thompson M1919 submachine gun, which was a compact and powerful weapon that fired .45 ACP pistol cartridges; the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) M1918, which was a light and versatile weapon that fired .30-06 rifle cartridges; and the Pedersen Device M1918, which was a conversion kit that turned the Springfield M1903 rifle into a semi-automatic rifle that fired .30 caliber pistol cartridges. These weapons could have given the American infantry a significant edge in close-quarters combat, but they were either produced too late, too few, or not at all for World War I.
World War II and the M1 Garand Rifle
World War II was another major war that witnessed the advancement and proliferation of automatic weapons, such as machine guns, submachine guns, automatic rifles, and assault rifles. These weapons dominated the battlefields of Europe, Asia, and Africa, as they offered superior firepower and mobility to their users. However, the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps was still conservative and traditional in its small arms policy, preferring to issue semi-automatic rifles to most of its infantry instead of fully automatic weapons. The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps argued that semi-automatic rifles were more accurate, more economical, more reliable, and more suitable for military use than fully automatic weapons. It also claimed that semi-automatic rifles could provide sufficient firepower with proper training and discipline.
The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps did develop and procure one semi-automatic rifle of its own design before World War II: the M1 Garand rifle. This rifle was widely regarded as one of the best rifles of World War II, as it was accurate, powerful, durable, and easy to use. It fired .30-06 rifle cartridges from an eight-round en bloc clip that ejected automatically when empty. It gave the American infantry a significant advantage over their enemies who mostly used bolt-action rifles.
However, the M1 Garand rifle also had some flaws: it was heavy and bulky, weighing 9.5 pounds and measuring 43.6 inches in length; it had a limited magazine capacity of eight rounds, which could not be topped off or reloaded partially; it had a loud and distinctive ping sound when the clip was ejected, which could alert the enemy of the shooter's position or status; it had a complicated gas system that required special tools and lubricants to maintain; and it had a sensitive operating rod that could bend or break if handled roughly or used as a pry bar.
The Korean War and the M14 Rifle
After World War II, the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps began to develop a new rifle that would replace the M1 Garand and other small arms in service. The result was the M14 rifle, which was officially adopted in 1957 and issued in 1959. The M14 rifle was essentially an improved version of the M1 Garand, with some modifications: it used a detachable 20-round box magazine that could be loaded with stripper clips or individual rounds; it fired a new 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge that was smaller and lighter than the .30-06; it had a selector switch that allowed for semi-automatic or fully automatic fire; it had an improved gas system that was easier to clean and maintain; and it had a flash suppressor that reduced muzzle flash and climb.
The M14 rifle was intended to be a universal weapon that could fulfill multiple roles, such as a battle rifle, a sniper rifle, a squad automatic weapon, and a grenade launcher. However, the M14 rifle also had several drawbacks: it was still heavy and bulky, weighing 9.2 pounds and measuring 44.3 inches in length; it had a high recoil and muzzle climb, especially in full-automatic mode; it had a low cyclic rate of fire of 700-750 rounds per minute, which reduced its effectiveness as a squad automatic weapon; it had an unreliable magazine catch that could cause the magazine to fall out or jam; and it had a wooden stock that could warp or crack under extreme conditions.
The Vietnam War and the M16 Rifle
The Vietnam War was another major war that saw the emergence and dominance of automatic weapons, such as machine guns, submachine guns, automatic rifles, and assault rifles. These weapons were ideal for the conditions of Vietnam, where close-range jungle warfare and guerrilla tactics prevailed. However, the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps was still attached to its semi-automatic rifles, such as the M14, which were unsuitable for Vietnam. The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps argued that semi-automatic rifles were more accurate, more powerful, more reliable, and more suitable for military use than fully automatic weapons. It also claimed that fully automatic weapons were wasteful of ammunition, prone to overheating or jamming, and ineffective against body armor or cover.
The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps did not develop or procure any fully automatic rifles of its own design before or during the Vietnam War. Instead, it relied on foreign or private sources for its fully automatic rifles, such as the Belgian FN FAL, the German Heckler & Koch G3, and the American Armalite AR-15. These rifles varied in quality and reliability, but none of them were ideal for the conditions of Vietnam. They were heavy, cumbersome, complex, sensitive to dirt and moisture, and used different types of ammunition than the M14 rifle.
The most notorious example of a fully automatic rifle used by the U.S. Army in Vietnam was the M16 rifle, which was based on the Armalite AR-15 design. The M16 rifle was officially adopted in 1964 and issued in 1965. The M16 rifle was supposed to be a lightweight and versatile weapon that fired a new 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge that was smaller and lighter than the 7.62x51mm NATO. It had a selector switch that allowed for semi-automatic or fully automatic fire; it had a high cyclic rate of fire of 800-900 rounds per minute; it had an ergonomic design that was easy to handle and operate; and it had a plastic stock that was resistant to warping or cracking.
However, the M16 rifle also had several flaws: it was prone to jamming or malfunctioning due to fouling, corrosion, or improper ammunition; it had a fragile barrel that could bend or break if used as a pry bar or bayonet; it had a high muzzle flash and noise that could reveal the shooter's position or damage the shooter's hearing; it had a low stopping power and penetration that could fail to incapacitate or kill the enemy; and it had a reputation for being unreliable and ineffective that lowered the morale and confidence of the soldiers who used it.
The Gulf War and the M4 Carbine
After the Vietnam War, the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps began to improve and modernize its small arms, especially its fully automatic rifles. The result was the M4 carbine, which was officially adopted in 1994 and issued in 1997. The M4 carbine was based on the M16A2 rifle, but with some modifications: it had a shorter barrel and overall length, which reduced its weight and improved its maneuverability; it had a collapsible stock, which allowed for better adjustment and storage; it had a flat-top upper receiver, which allowed for better mounting of optics and accessories; it had a four-position selector switch, which allowed for semi-automatic, three-round burst, or fully automatic fire; and it had an improved gas system, which reduced fouling and overheating.
The M4 carbine was intended to be a modular weapon that could be customized for different roles and missions, such as a close-quarters combat weapon, a designated marksman rifle, a squad automatic weapon, or a grenade launcher. However, the M4 carbine also had some drawbacks: it still used the same 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge as the M16 rifle, which had low stopping power and penetration; it still had a high muzzle flash and noise that could reveal the shooter's position or damage the shooter's hearing; it still had a fragile barrel that could bend or break if used as a pry bar or bayonet; and it still had a reputation for being unreliable and ineffective that lowered the morale and confidence of the soldiers who used it.
The Causes and Consequences of America's Small Arms Failures
The Role of Politics and Bureaucracy in Small Arms Development
One of the main causes of America's small arms failures was the role of politics and bureaucracy in small arms development. The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps was not an independent or objective organization that pursued the best interests of the military or the nation. Rather, it was influenced by various political and bureaucratic factors that affected its decisions and actions. Some of these factors were: - The influence of Congress and the President, who often intervened in small arms development to favor certain manufacturers or contractors over others, or to comply with their own agendas or preferences. - The influence of lobbyists and interest groups, who often pressured or bribed the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps to adopt or reject certain weapons or technologies, regardless of their merits or drawbacks. - The influence of personal relationships and rivalries, who often affected the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps's attitude and behavior towards certain inventors or innovators, either supporting or opposing them based on friendship or animosity. - The influence of tradition and conservatism, who often made the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps resistant to change and innovation, preferring to stick with what was familiar or proven over what was new or experimental. One of the main consequences of America's small arms failures was the impact on military effectiveness and morale. The U.S. Army Ordnance Corps's poor decisions and actions regarding small arms development often resulted in the provision of faulty or inadequate weapons to the American infantry, who had to face their enemies with inferior or unsuitable firepower. This reduced their chances of survival and success on the battlefield, and increased their risk of casualties and defeat. It also lowered their confidence and trust in their weapons and their leaders, and undermined their motivation and morale.
Some examples of how America's small arms failures affected military effectiveness and morale are: - During the Revolutionary War, many American soldiers had to fight with defective or mismatched muskets that often misfired or exploded in their hands, while their British counterparts had superior flintlock muskets that were more accurate and reliable. - During the Civil War, many American soldiers had to fight with slow and cumbersome muzzle-loading rifles that required multiple steps to load and fire, while some of their Confederate or foreign enemies had faster and easier breech-loading rifles that could fire multiple shots without reloading. - During the Spanish-American War, many America