"Info sought on US forces in Iraq, 2003+ " Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board Back to the Modern Battle Reports Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
|
rivers3162 | 30 Apr 2014 3:48 p.m. PST |
Hi all, I'm looking to start painting up some US forces for Iraq 2003 onwards and was just looking for a little bit more info as I'm not that familiar with US forces. 1. When did the M16A4 replace the M16A2? 2. I've got a few of the Force on Force books and whilst the Marines generally use the M16, certain units or squad members are listed as using the M4. Can anyone tell me why this is the case and when the M4 would be issued instead of the M16. 3. When did the TUSK kit start to be fitted to the Abrams? 4. When it comes to the AAV/Amtrac, was the EAAK armour always fitted? I ask because I've seen pictures of them both with and without it. Did this vary between units? Also, would the EAAK be fitted to support vehicles such as the AAV recovery vehicle or only to vehicles which would be expected to go into combat? Any information, advice or suggestions for further reading material would be greatly appreciated! |
Lion in the Stars | 30 Apr 2014 4:14 p.m. PST |
M16A4 is USMC issue, not sure about timeline. US Army went to all M4s, getting in and out of vehicles all the time. Not being a Jarhead myself, I'm not sure about the issuing preferences for M4s, but I'd suspect it's troops like the LAV25's dismount scouts, maybe mortar/artillery crews. |
epturner | 30 Apr 2014 4:36 p.m. PST |
M16A4 is also US Army issue. My unit carried it in Iraq in 2007-08. Admittedly we were a brigade HQ company, but that's what we had. Eric |
leobarron2000 | 30 Apr 2014 4:55 p.m. PST |
Having been an infantry officer in the 101st Abn Div during the invasion, I can tell you our infantry guys in the infantry companies all carried M4s as the standard weapon. We also wore the interceptor body armor. The tankers attached to us still wore the flak jackets. Brigade and Division Staff guys carried M16s. I had an M68 scope on my M4 which was pretty standard. We still had the Kevlar helmets. In addition, we were wearing our JList chem suits for most of the invasion. |
Just Jack | 30 Apr 2014 5:00 p.m. PST |
Rivers, I was there in '04 with Bravo 1st Bn/5th Marines. 1. When did the M16A4 replace the M16A2? I wasn't there in 03, I was there in 04, but I was told that for OIF I all the grunts had M-16A4s, except for the M-203s, which were still on M-16A2s. All the support elements had M-16A2s. This was certainly the case in OIF II. I spent a few months with Kilo 3rd Bn/1st Marines, who arrived in the summer of 04 (overlapping OIF II to OIF III), and when they arrived their M-203s were on M-16A4s. 2. I've got a few of the Force on Force books and whilst the Marines generally use the M16, certain units or squad members are listed as using the M4. Can anyone tell me why this is the case and when the M4 would be issued instead of the M16. When I floated (MEU) in 2002, Recon Bn had all the M-4s they could stand, but the grunt battalions didn't. When I was with 1/5, they didn't have any M-4s, but when 3/1 replaced them a the company commanders and some of the company Gunnies were carrying M-4s. 3. When did the TUSK kit start to be fitted to the Abrams? 1st Tank Battalion (at least those that I saw assigned to RCT1) didn't have them in 04. 4. When it comes to the AAV/Amtrac, was the EAAK armour always fitted? I ask because I've seen pictures of them both with and without it. Did this vary between units? Also, would the EAAK be fitted to support vehicles such as the AAV recovery vehicle or only to vehicles which would be expected to go into combat? The ones we had (I don't recall if they were from 1st or 4th AAV Bn) attached to us in RCT1 had them (at least the ones I saw). I can tell you it didn't help at all against RPGs
V/R, Jack |
Irish Marine | 30 Apr 2014 6:14 p.m. PST |
I was in Iraq in 2005 and we still had M16-A4s, SAWs, and M203 with M16-A4s. |
Just Jack | 30 Apr 2014 7:17 p.m. PST |
Irish, who were you with? V/R, Jack |
zardoz1957 | 30 Apr 2014 7:38 p.m. PST |
I paid a lot of attention to the photos at the time. The AAVs definitively had the side armor from the beginning. |
rivers3162 | 01 May 2014 3:20 p.m. PST |
Thanks for all the information guys, it's fantastic to get it straight from those who served so thank you all very much. Seems that the consensus is generally M4 for army and some marine officers, NCOs and specialists and M16A4 for other marines. And thanks for all the information on the AAVs – definitely looking forward to modelling them as they look so ungainly! Just another follow on to leobarron2000's post – when did the mich helmet start being used generally? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believed that special forces got these quite a bit earlier than regular troops? |
SteelVictory | 02 May 2014 9:06 p.m. PST |
Double check M4's for the mech infantry units, especially 3rd ID in 2003, every squad member may not of been issued a carbine during the initial invasion phase. I think the TUSK wasn't until around the Surge timeframe (2006+).
MICH helmets not in 2003, maybe starting late 2004 and most by 2005? 1st AD did not have them in 2003-2004. Pretty sure 1st CAV did not deploy with them in 2004 but could of been issued later. Don't know about 1st ID in 2004. Stryker units at that time probably had them though.
|
|