Glenn Dean's Blog, page 10

Army Backpedals on Magazine Message

The Army is apparently doing some back-pedaling on the recent safety of use message involving commercial magazines.  In a statement released and referenced at Military.com:

Army officials maintain that TACOM’s message was intended to make soldiers aware that not all commercial magazines have gone through the same testing as the improved magazine, but concede that there are exceptions.

“The main message we want to get out is – although the Army does support and is confident in the improved, tan-follower magazine – we don’t want soldiers to fear punishment for using PMAGs,” Bourke said.

Hmmm ... if that was what was intended, the message should have gotten a more detailed review and goen out as a MAM, not a SOUM.

Oops.  Embarrassing, guys.

The Target Behavioral Response Lab

Army.mil has a short article up about an Army Lab most people have probably never heard of: the Target Behavioral Response Lab at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.

TBRL, an element of the Armaments Research, Development, and Engineering Command, does research into how human beings respond to various stimuli individually and in groups, to better identify effective means of target engagement, particularly with non-lethal and less-than-lethal weapons.

The lab has quite a variety of "toys" that it can use to replicate everything from checkpoint operations to crowd control scenarios.  Some of the effective uses of its results included verifying how "dazzling" lasers can be used effectively at checkpoints, to determining that available "noise" weapons were not particularly effective as deterrents.

It's a fun place, if you define fun the way most of us soldier-types do.  My wife even volunteered to be an experimental subject there a few times, and amused herself with paint ball guns and crowd experiments designed to simulate the response of a rioting, rock-throwing crowd.

70th Anniversary of the Turning Point in the Pacific

Today marks the 70th anniversary of the turning point in the War in the Pacific during World War II: the Battle of Midway.  

Associated Press reporter Audrey McAvoy has a pretty good article up on the battle, via Stars & Stripes.  An excerpt:

The U.S. lost one carrier, 145 planes and 307 men. Japan lost four aircraft carriers, a heavy cruiser, 291 planes and 4,800 men, according to the U.S. Navy and to an account by former Japanese naval officers in "Midway: The Battle That Doomed Japan, the Japanese Navy's Story."

The defeat was so overwhelming that the Japanese navy kept the details a closely guarded secret and most Japanese never heard of the battle until after the war.

 

Kites for military surveillance?

Here's a novel idea: the Helikite.  The concept is to use a small helium balloon to lift a kite into the air which carries a surveillance, radio retransmission, or sensor package, allowing the wind to keep the package aloft without requiring the large amounts of helium the larger aerostat "blimps" need to keep a sensor package aloft.

Apparently the British have been experimenting with these "Helikites" with some success; I have to admit that aside from the bit of weather dependency, it appears to be a cheap and simple solution for problems like radio retrans compared to some of the US approaches based on UAVs and mega-blimps. 

Memorial Day Tap Too

Today is the United States Memorial Day holiday, a day to remember men and women who died while serving in the US Armed Forces. 

The bugle call "Taps" will be sounded at cemeteries and memorials all across the US today, and celebrates its 150th year of use with the US Army this July.  Here's a brief history of that famous bugle call whose origins were in the Civil War.  

From the Department of Defense Military Funeral Honors website:

          Of all the military bugle calls, none is so easily recognized or more apt to render emotion than Taps. Up to the Civil War, the traditional call at day's end was a tune, borrowed from the French, called Lights Out. In July of 1862, in the aftermath of the bloody Seven Days battles, hard on the loss of 600 men and wounded himself, Union General Daniel Adams Butterfield called the brigade bugler to his tent. He thought "Lights Out" was too formal and he wished to honor his men. Oliver Wilcox Norton, the bugler, tells the story, "...showing me some notes on a staff written in pencil on the back of an envelope, (he) asked me to sound them on my bugle. I did this several times, playing the music as written. He changed it somewhat, lengthening some notes and shortening others, but retaining the melody as he first gave it to me. After getting it to his satisfaction, he directed me to sound that call for Taps thereafter in place of the regulation call. The music was beautiful on that still summer night and was heard far beyond the limits of our Brigade. The next day I was visited by several buglers from neighboring Brigades, asking for copies of the music which I gladly furnished. The call was gradually taken up through the Army of the Potomac." 
          This more emotive and powerful Taps was soon adopted throughout the military. In 1874 It was officially recognized by the U.S. Army. It became standard at military funeral ceremonies in 1891. There is something singularly beautiful and appropriate in the music of this wonderful call. Its strains are melancholy, yet full of rest and peace. Its echoes linger in the heart long after its tones have ceased to vibrate in the air.         
                      - from an article by Master Sergeant Jari A Villanueva, USAF. 

Master Sergeant Villanueva's full article, "24 Notes that Tap Deep Emotions", can be read at the West Point Taps page.  He has much additional information at www.tapsbugler.com.

For a bit more history, and to hear the famous call, watch this excerpt from a History Channel presentation, which includes the famous notes played at President John F. Kennedy's funeral:

The moment of silence for remembrance will be held at 1500 hours local today, followed by the playing of Taps.

Army issues Safety of Use Message for polymer rifle magazines

Military.com has a Matt Cox article up titled "In Reversal, Army Bans High Performance Rifle Mags."  In short, the Army's Tank-Automotive Life Cycle Management Command (TACOM) has issued a Safety of Use Message specifically directing the force not to use un-approved rifle magazines, including the popular Magpul PMAG.  There are a few errors in the article related to ignorance of the subject which I'll correct, as this article allows me to highlight some common misperceptions about equipment development and the military supply system.

First, though, a disclaimer: I don't have any specific knowledge of the rationale behind the release of this particular Safety of Use Message.  I can and will make some informed speculation based on prior history of working in the rifle business, but my information is dated and may or may not match whatever current reasoning is.  We'll all have to wait for TACOM or PEO-Soldier to respond to Military.com's queries to see if more details are forthcoming.  Until then, some corrections ...

To begin, the article's title is eye-catching but misleading.  Since the Army never approved the use of the specific magazines in question (the Magpul PMAGs), it could never have reversed itself by banning the magazines.  The authorized, qualified accessories the Army has for each of its weapons are listed in the weapon's user manual (known colloquially as the "Dash 10", for the "-10 suffix at the end of the item number).  The TACOM statement in the article actually references this.  Just because a product exists does not mean that it is safe and certified for use with a weapon (and, conversely, just because a product is not listed does not mean that it is unsafe or unsuitable, just that it has not been tested and qualified).  Since the PMAG is not listed in the -10, it is not approved for use -- despite being commercialy available.

What, then, about the fact that the magazine was assigned a National Stock Number (NSN), which allows it to be ordered through military supply channels?  In point of fact, it is a common misconception that NSNs equate to approved, qualified products.  Multiple agencies use and assigne NSNs, not just the Army -- in fact the majority assigned to commercial products used in the defense sector are assigned by the Defense Logistics Agency.  Getting an NSN assigned to an item is a relatively simple process, and it lends the appearance that an item is qualified, but it means nothing more than that the item can be purchased.  

All of the services use the NSN system to buy parts and equipment, as do many other government agencies.  In many cases a product can be approved by one Federal agency for use, while not being approved by another agency for similar use.  This is quite common in the government small arms business, as every service plus SOCOM has its own separate small arms development and procurement arm, as does the Coast Guard, the CIA, and several Department of Justice organizations like the FBI.  Given different requirements, different uses, and different procuring agencies it is very easy for it to appear that an item is intended for all uses when in reality it may only be intended for a specific niche application. (For example, I know of one lubricating product that obtained an NSN as a "general purpose oil" -- like a 3-in-1 product for lubricating squeaky hinges -- whose manufacturer then marketed it to troops as a weapon lubricant, using the fact that the product had an NSN to encourage troops to order it, even though the product was never qualified for weapon use.  Units just saw the NSN and assumed the product was qualified.)

In many ways, the situation is like aftermarket parts support in the auto industry.  The vehicle OEM selects and qualifies certain components that they use on the vehicle, which will typically be referenced int he vehicle maintenance manual with a specific part number.  This does not stop the aftermarket from producing a large variety of products to perform the same or similar tasks, with different tradeoffs, and listing them for sale with their own part numbers.  The OEM does not go out and qualify every aftermarket shock absorber on their vehicle, and those aftermarket parts could be better or worse than the OEM component.  The difference, of course, is one of risk -- one would hope that aftermarket weapon parts in war time perform at least as well as the "OEM" component.

When in doubt, troops are supposed to be trained to use their technical manuals as reference -- but they are suceptible to marketing, just like civilian customers.  Army units have their own credit cards, and often buy products directly from companies or through Government Service Adminstration catalogs -- I suspect that most of the PMAGs in service were not "issued", per se, but were direct-purchased by individual units.  There's a preception that there's some big bureaucracy that controls everything a unit gets supplied; that may have been true in World War II but that is not the case any more.  It's also possible that rapid acquisition authorities like the Rapid Equipping Force bought a small number for units on an experimental basis, but REF products are just that -- rapid equipping -- and until transitioned are not supported as "qualified" items.

The article references use of the product by the 75th Ranger Regiment, among others -- and I personally witnessed multiple soldiers from different units using PMAGs during my last deployment to Afghanistan.  That does not mean that the items were issued or formally supported -- and in fact, rifle magazines are only issued with the initial issue of a weapon; subsequent replacements are up to the unit to use the supply system, and they can just as easily choose to buy a different type of magazine from a different source rather than use approved channels.  They aren't supposed to, particularly for weapon parts, but it does happen as there is frankly minimal oversight of small unit purchases. In the Rangers' case, they are able to draw on SOCOM equipment that regular Army units are not autorized.  It is possible (though doubtful) that the PMAG is qualified for SOCOM use as part of the SOPMOD program; because of the multiple small arms development agencies and the byzantine ways that safety certifications work it's quite common for Army SOF units to be allowed to use a piece of equipment that regular Army units can't.

Does this mean the Magpul product is bad?  Not necessarily -- until we known the details behind the SOUM, it may only mean that the PMAG has not been appropriately qualified for use, so the Army doesn't know for a fact that the product is good or bad, and is erring on the side of caution by releasing the SOUM.

In fact, I know the Army assessed very similar products to PMAG on at least one occasion, back in the 2003-2004 timeframe.  When I first joined the Infantry Center's Small Arms Division in 2004, part of my initial inbrief at the ARDEC at Picatinny included the work they were doing on an improved rifle magazines -- the magazine design the Cox article claims was developed after the 2007 "dust test", but which in fact had been around for at least three years at that point.  ARDEC was also doing an assessment of multiple polymer magazine designs (in part because the XM8 program used a polymer mag; in part because they were just looking at better options).  The assessment then was that there were not any suitable polymer magazines available; all of the ones that had been tested tended to break in drop testing, particularly in cold temperature drop testing.  Now, I don't know for certain that PMAG has this flaw, but if it does it could be cause for concern during Afghan winters.  

Magazine maintenance was a common problem in units I later visited -- most would keep using worn and damaged magazines far past the point where they should have been replaced, some times through ignorance, sometimes through lack of maintenance discipline. 

(On the "official" improved magazine -- this is accurately referenced in the Cox article as the "improved follower", which is tan in color, replacing an older green design.  The fact that the follower design contributed to weapon misfeeds had been known since at least 2003, and had surfaced during some extended lubricant testing that was going on at the time -- testing that also resulted in a separate SOUM directing units to replace their weapon extractor springs with the so-called "golden" extractor spring from the M4A1.  The old follower -- the follower for the uninitiated is the platform in the magazine that the bullet rides on that is pushed upward by a spring within the magazine -- had unequal length legs riding in the magazine guide grooves, and the shorter front leg could cause uneven feeding and even jam in place.  The new design, tinted tan to be able to tell it apart, had equal length legs that did not suffer from this failure mode.  We provided a number of prototypes to the Infantry Training Brigade at Ft Benning in the fall of 2004 for some informal feedback, reasoning that those weapons got a lot of use, and the feedback was positive.  Why the magazines took five years to subsequently get to the field -- I was involved in getting tens of thousands of improved magazines pushed out from where they were languishing at Bagram during my tour there, simply because units did not know the improved product was on hand to requisition -- is anyone's guess.  Personally, I'd speculate that other distractions *cough*XM8*cough* in the 2004-2006 timeframe kept PEO Soldier from aggressively pursuing M4-related improvements, but I do not know that for a fact.  Like any weapon-related component, safety qualification always takes more time and money than you would think.)

So what is the impact of the SOUM?  A Safety of Use Message is one of the ways the Life Cycle Management Commands use to communicate materiel or maintenance issues to the field -- the other very common method being a Maintenance Advisory Message, or MAM.  A SOUM carries significant weight because it requires commanders to both take action (which could be mean anything from conducting an inspection to replacing a part) and then subsequently reply back through the chain of command that the required action has taken place.  Other communication methods are more routine and channel their confirmation through maintenance channels rather than command channels.  Why exactly the choice of a SOUM requires further explanation from the issuing agency -- it would typically be the program manager's call, so via PEO Soldier or the PM for Soldier Weapons -- but the use of the SOUM indicates the desire to get unit commander's involved rather than leave the issue for the supply and maintenance system.  It is a significant decision to issue a SOUM -- it's not a decision TACOM would make lightly.

Hopefully this article provides a bit more background on the processes surrounding this particular problem.  I wish I could answer the key question -- does this action remove an important capability from the hands of soldiers? -- but that is data only the government can provide.  Knowing the weight that is put behind making the decision to issue a SOUM, I suspect, but cannot confirm, that there's some significant data supporting the decision.

Soldiers prefer LSAT Machine Gun to M249 in user eval

From a press release at Army.mil ... the Army has concluded a user assessment of the Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) lightweight machine gun at Fort Benning, and concluded that soldiers preferred it to the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.  Nineteen soldiers participated in the two week experiment which inlcuded firing 25,000 rounds of ammunition, and the overwhelming majority of the soldiers participating preferred the new weapon, favoring its light weight, controllability, and ease of use. Quote:

[image error]

 

Fifteen of the 19 Soldiers who participated stated that, if given a choice, they would rather take the LMG to war over the M249.

The study also revealed a significant reduction in the time it took the Soldiers to zero the LMG compared to the M249 SAW. Zeroing the weapon means customizing it for a more accurate shot since each weapon is unique and no two are exactly the same.

The Soldiers had to qualify on a known distance range with both the SAW and the LMG. One Soldier repeatedly failed to meet qualification standards while firing the SAW, but passed on the first try with the LMG.

Compared to the M249 SAW, the light machine gun is 21.5 pounds (41 percent) lighter for the gunner, and there is a 12 percent reduction in ammunition volume. This decrease in weight was evident when all the Soldiers maneuvered the woodland obstacle course faster while carrying the LMG versus the SAW.

The results are, frankly, unsurprising.  Two two week assessment consisted of a typical series of assessment tests, which include range and field firing as well as movement exercises designed to assess the ability of the soldier to maneuver with the weapon (for example, execution of assault and obstacle courses).  The weight difference alone would have resulted in LSAT getting a good grade, and other performance benefits aside.

The value here is that it should clear the weapon for a Forward Operational Assessment in Afghanistan.  Living with the weapon for a couple of months in typical combat conditions with regular long-term exposure to environmental factors -- being sent back to the arms room at the end of the day -- will be the real test of the suitability of the concept.  As I've predicted before, I think that will go fine; the real obstacle to overcome is in cost and producibility, not operational value.

Memorial Day eBook Deal!

In honor of Memorial Day, I'm making the Smashwords eBook editions of my books available free.  Smashwords has formats that support most eReaders available today (though for some, you may need to download additional software -- like an ePub reader for the Barnes & Noble Nook).

For Soldier / Geek: An Army Science Advisor's Journal of the War in Afghanistan, follow the link and enter coupon code LF95M at checkout to receive a 100% discount.

For Weapons of the Zombie Apocalypse, follow the link and enter coupon code WW85J at checkout to receive a 100% discount.

Coupon codes will be good for today through 29 May, so don't delay.  Happy reading, and be sure to give a thought for those who have sacrificed in the defense of your nation.

Military Academy Cadets Win Rapid Equipping Force Grand Challenge

From Army.mil ... four cadets from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point have been recognized for a project they contributed to the Army's Rapid Equipping Force, winning that organizations first-ever "Grand Challenge" competition.

Cadets Jacob Baxter, Luke Grant, Isaac Melnick and Jake Young designed a system to heat water for showers by scavenging waste heat from existing generators.  Given the large number of generators the military deploys with, this is a great concept for improving the use of oeprational energy by trying to get the most out of every drop of fuel and putting all of that generated waste heat to use.

More details at the link above.

Great work, guys!

 

Military Academy Cadets Win Rapid Equipping Force Grand Challeenge

From Army.mil ... four cadets from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point have been recognized for a project they contributed to the Army's Rapid Equipping Force, winning that organizations first-ever "Grand Challenge" competition.

Cadets Jacob Baxter, Luke Grant, Isaac Melnick and Jake Young designed a system to heat water for showers by scavenging waste heat from existing generators.  Given the large number of generators the military deploys with, this is a great concept for improving the use of oeprational energy by trying to get the most out of every drop of fuel and putting all of that generated waste heat to use.

More details at the link above.

Great work, guys!