SIG SAUER - Never Settle

Archive for the ‘History’ Category

SOF Carbines: Comparing The Son Tay GAU-5A/A And The M4A1 CQBR (Part I)

Thursday, November 19th, 2015

by
Dr. Earl W. Burress, Jr. (Ph.D.)
(Major, USAF, Retired)

Historical Context of the Son Tay Raid

History was made on the night of November 21, 1970, as a task force of 15 American aircraft and helicopters (supported by an additional 101 warplanes in various roles) inserted a 56 person US Army assault team into the Son Tay Prisoner of War (POW) Camp located 23 miles west of the North Vietnamese capitol of Hanoi. The objective of the mission, officially referred to as Operation IVORY COAST, was to repatriate 65 American prisoners being held under brutal conditions by the Democratic Republic of North Vietnam. The raid was executed successfully, although the assault team failed to repatriate any allied POWs because the American prisoners had been relocated approximately four months earlier due to flooding within the camp. The entire ground operation, from insertion to extraction, was conducted in less than 29 minutes. During mission execution, the team neutralized approximately 40 enemy combatants without the loss of a single American serviceman’s life.1 Author’s Note: According to raid participant and author Colonel John Gargus (USAF, Retired), the enemy combatant kill count is a frequent point of discussion. It was initially reported to be in the hundreds, but subsequent reviews and analysis, primarily by raid participants, resulted in the revised number of approximately 40 enemy combatants killed.

The Son Tay Raiders used innovative combat tactics, acquisition procedures, and emerging technology to overcome the challenges faced on this historic mission. The GAU-5 variant of the CAR-15, for example, carried by some of the assault team members incorporated a number of features that are echoed in modern Special Operations Forces (SOF) M4A1 Close Quarters Battle Rifles (CQBRs). A live-fire comparison of a Son Tay GAU-5A/A replica and a CQBR replica was used to characterize the similarities and differences shared between the Son Tay carbines and modern SOF rifles. The historical website, Retro Black Rifle, indicates that two types of GAU-5 Carbines were used on the Son Tay raid. Both the GAU-5/A (also known as the Colt Model 610 XM177) and GAU-5A/A (also known as the Colt Model 649) carbines are visible in pre-mission photos.2

The Son Tay GAU-5 Carbines

The GAU-5 Carbines (a USAF designation) were most likely assembled using Colt partial fence lowers, slick side uppers (uppers with no forward assists or spent case deflectors), and ten inch barrels with a 1/12 twist and a barrel diameter of .625 inches under the front sight base. The “furniture” included an aluminum stock (a predecessor in style to the Colt Fibrite N1 stock) mounted on a two position buffer tube, a pair of six-hole handguards, and an M-16A1 style grip. The barrel was mounted to the upper using a flat slip ring and capped with a 4.5 inch moderator. The assault teams are reported to have used a number of types of slings, including improvised slings consisting of parachute cord and surgical tubing.

Son Tay Gun Photo 1

The Son Tay GAU-5A/A replica was constructed using a ’90s era Colt 6520 lower, fitted with a two position buffer tube, aluminum stock, and a 16 MOA Singlepoint OEG scope (Photo Courtesy of Author).

The GAU-5A/A Carbines were similar to the GAU-5As, although this rifle utilized a full fence lower, which is very similar to the lower design used in many contemporary civilian and military AR-15s. These weapons used a tapered delta ring to mount an 11.5 inch barrel capped with a 4.5 inch moderator and grenade ring. Additionally, it is believed that the front sights of the GAU-5A/A Carbines were not equipped with bayonet lugs.3 At some point during the mission rehearsal period (between September and November 1970) the rifles were fitted with Singlepoint brand Occluded Eye Gunsight (OEG) “red dot” scopes attached using a carry handle mount. The Son Tay Raid was the first documented example of a US SOF team using a “red dot” type optic in combat.4

The Singlepoint Sight and Mount

To many historians and enthusiasts, the defining feature of a Son Tay rifle is the Singlepoint OEG scope. According to The Son Tay Raid: American POWs in Vietnam Were Not Forgotten, the night shooting performance of assault team members was limited by the conventional field sights mounted atop the carry handle of the GAU-5 Carbines. Team members discovered an advertisement for the Singlepoint OEG scope by the Normark Corporation and commercially acquired a unit for evaluation. Testing showed that the scope was constructed to military specifications and was able to increase the night engagement capability of the assault teams. The team purchased the first scope in mid-September 1970 and ordered another 49 units prior to the end of October 1970. Each scope was priced at $49.95 per unit.5 Author’s Note: $49.95 in 1970s dollars adjusts to approximately $305.00 in 2015 dollars.

Son Tay Photo 2

The Singlepoint mount allows the shooter to easily transition from the scope to iron sights. The position of the Singlepoint scope, however, may force most shooters to use a non-standard cheek weld for both scope and iron sight employment. According to the Commander JCS Joint Contingency Task Group Report on the Son Tay Prisoner of War Rescue Operation, Part 2, the Singlepoint mount was reinforced with electrical tape. There are no records to document the exact position and amount of electrical tape used to secure the scope (Photo Courtesy of Author).

The Singlepoint consisted of a blacked out tube which contained a protruding plastic fiber optic, a clear lens cap, a “black back plate” behind the fiber optic with a “pinhole” which was used to create the glowing aiming dot, adjustment screws, and a clear or white opaque plastic dome. Ambient light would illuminate the fiber optic through the dome and the calibrated “pinhole” would let light through to create the aiming dot. The aiming dot was believed to have been approximately 16 Minutes of Angle (MOA) in diameter, as viewed through the calibrated “pinhole” in the “black back plate”. The shooter used binocular vision to superimpose the aiming dot (as viewed through the shooters dominant eye) over the target (as viewed by the shooters non-dominant eye).6

Son Tay Photo 3

This excerpt from the booklet Principles of How to Use the Singlepoint, produced by the the Normark Corporation, illustrates how an Occluded Eye Gunsight uses binocular vision to overlay the aiming dot of the shooter’s dominant eye with the view of the target in the non-dominant eye (Graphic produced by the Normark Corporation).

A lack of ambient light resulted in the loss of the fiber optic aiming dot, which rendered the sight ineffective in darkness. This has triggered speculation that the Son Tay assaulters may have used a unit that contained a vertical mark highlighted with radium paint or a tritium vial which was used as an alternate aiming point under low or zero light conditions. The illuminated mark was referred to as the “green inverted post” in Normark promotional material. In Spec Ops: Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare: Theory and Practice Admiral William McRaven (USN, Retired) addressed this issue in the following passage, “This sight allowed the Special Forces personnel to identify their target under low light conditions. (For the actual raid, flares were dropped from a C-130 to provide the needed light.)… It was this innovative technology that directly contributed to the lack of American casualties. Of the fifty-six men in the raid force, only one man sustained a gunshot wound as opposed to over forty enemy killed.7 Author’s Note: During testing, the author attached a modern tactical light to the weapon to determine if the lighting reflected from a 3 yard target would be sufficient to illuminate the red dot. This effort was not successful. The author did learn that if the tactical light was in the vicinity of the dome it was possible to generate an aiming point.

Son Tay Photo 4

Normark Corporation Singlepoint scope promotional material advertised a night illumination feature powered by “Beta-light”. It is speculated that the glow of the “green inverted post” could have come from a vial of radioactive liquid (possibly tritium) or from a painted vertical line (using radium paint on the aft of the “black back plate”) above the “pinhole” fiber optic aperture. Theories regarding the “green inverted post” have not been confirmed. Additionally, it has been impossible to determine if the Son Tay Singlepoints were equipped with the night targeting “green inverted post” feature. It is believed that units containing radioactive elements may have been produced exclusively for military sales, but the limited timeline for equipment acquisition may have resulted in the Son Tay assault teams being forced to use existing commercially available units (Graphic Produced by the Normark Corporation).

It should be noted that pre-mission color photos appear to show clear domed Singlepoint scopes with a red fiber optic element. This scope was selected because it was sturdy, light (approximately 7 ounces), small (6.75 inches), and allowed rapid target acquisition and engagement. The Operation IVORY COAST After Action Report (AAR) indicated that soldiers were able to develop the skills necessary to transition from using iron sights to the Singlepoint sight in between 30 minutes to two hours. The AAR also indicated that only one soldier out of approximately twenty was unable to adapt to the use of the scope.8 The scope mounts, which consisted of a pair of one inch steel strap rings on a plastic (possibly Delrin) bar, proved to be problematic. The mounts failed to sufficiently secure the scopes and were subsequently reinforced with black electrical tape. The results of the GAU-5 Carbine/Singlepoint pairing were summarized in the following passage from the AAR, “…At a distance of 25 meters, the poorest marksman could place all rounds in a 12 inch circle at night. At a distance of 50 meters, the same shooter could place every round in an E type silhouette both day and night. The only advantages found in day shooting were speed in engaging the target and shifting fire. The single point could not compare with open sights for accuracy. At night the situation reversed. Shooters could engage targets and shift fire just as rapidly as in day fire with the same amount of accuracy… With the proper training, the Single Point Sight is an invaluable aid to the infantry rifleman. There are no liabilities to the sight other than additional weight. The key to the sight is the fact that the open sights are still clear, giving the shooter an option of sights depending on time and illumination”.9 Despite this success, it appears that SOF did not widely adopt a “red dot” type optic in combat until the Aimpoint optic was used in the 1980s.

The weapons used in the live-fire comparison were both semi-automatic Colt carbine replicas assembled using representative components in an effort to simulate weapons handling and performance characteristics in an accurate and cost effective manner.

To be concluded in Part II…

Special Thanks

Special thanks to Mr. Matt Babb (former USA Artillery), Mr. John Brace, Mrs. Kelsey Burress, Major Jim Collins (USAF, Retired), Mr. Robert Corcoran (former USAF C-130 Pilot), Gunnery Sergeant Erick Findley (USMC, Retired), Mr. Eric Fordon (former US Navy Diver), Mrs. Judy Fordon, Colonel John Gargus (USAF, Retired), Captain Augustine Kim (ARNG), Sergeant Travis Pierce (former USMC Infantry & current Team Leader for the Liberty County Texas SWAT Team), Lieutenant Colonel Joe Rawlings (USA), Mr. Caleb Rawlings, Mr. Richard Reuter, Captain John Thomas (USAF, Retired), TSgt Andrew Tijerina (USAF, Retired), and Colonel Scott Walker (USAF, Retired) for their assistance as evaluation participants or as members of the peer review team.

About the Author

Dr. Earl W. Burress, Jr. (Major, USAF, Retired) holds a Doctorate in Business Administration (with specializations in Homeland Security and Aviation Operations) from Northcentral University. While on active duty, Dr. Burress served as a Minuteman III Missile Combat Crew Member and a C-130 Pilot. Dr. Burress completed six combat deployments and logged over 1,000 hours of combat flying while conducting tactical airlift and special operations support missions throughout Afghanistan and Iraq. Additionally, Dr. Burress developed an Irregular Warfare Training Program for the 34th Combat Training Squadron while supporting the Joint Readiness Training Center as the Senior Air Force Observer/Controller for Airlift Operations. Dr. Burress completed his Air Force career in military Test & Evaluation. Dr. Burress is the owner of Tactical Applications Group, LLC and holds two US patents on components for direct action and sniper rifles.

Footnotes

1. Spec Ops: Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare: Theory and Practice (William H. McRaven), Ballantine Books, 1995
2 & 3. Retro Black Rifle, http://pullig.dyndns.org/retroblackrifle/index2.html
4. The Son Tay Raid: American POWs in Vietnam Were Not Forgotten (John Gargus), Texas A&M University Press, 2006
5. The Raid (Benjamin F. Schemmer), Harper & Row, 1976
6. Principles of How to Use Singlepoint (Normark Corporation)
7. Spec Ops: Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare: Theory and Practice (William H. McRaven), Ballantine Books, 1995
8 & 9. Commander JCS Joint Contingency Task Group Report on the Son Tay Prisoner of War Rescue Operation, Part 2 (Unclassified, Sanitized),
www.benning.army.mil
10. Introduction to Aviation Physiology (Federal Aviation Administration),
www.faa.gov
11. Commander JCS Joint Contingency Task Group Report on the Son Tay Prisoner of War Rescue Operation, Part 2 (Unclassified, Sanitized),
www.benning.army.mil
12. The Raid (Benjamin F. Schemmer), Harper & Row, 1976
13. Commander JCS Joint Contingency Task Group Report on the Son Tay Prisoner of War Rescue Operation, Part 2 (Unclassified, Sanitized),
www.benning.army.mil
14. Spec Ops: Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare: Theory and Practice (William H. McRaven), Ballantine Books, 1995

© Copyright 2015 by Dr. Earl W. Burress, Jr. & reprinted with permission by Soldier Systems.

Who Wore A Banana Suit?

Sunday, November 15th, 2015

  

Happy Birthday Devil Dogs

Tuesday, November 10th, 2015

Thank you for 240 years of unwavering commitment to your nation. The world is truly a better place thanks to the United States Marine Corps.

For Those Who Remember When The US Army Had An ECM Capability

Sunday, November 1st, 2015

  
Now, only available in HO Scale, the AN/TLQ-17.

Thanks Fly On The Wall!

A Blast From The Past – International Combat Arms

Sunday, November 1st, 2015

I remember purchasing issue of Vol 1, Issue 4 of Guns & Ammo Action Series during my 9th Grade year from a local HyVee grocer. It was the premier issue of International Combat Arms (The Journal of Firepower) and included articles on knives, pistols, shotguns, sub machine guns and assault rifles as well as missiles, the Border Patrol and the 82nd Abn Div.  Basically everything a kid could want in those pre-Internet days.

 

Recently, a friend in Canada sent me a pristine copy.  I opened it and a wave of memories washed over me.  But, what really struck me were the advertisements.

H&K definitely got in on the act with several full-page, color ads. Oh, to have a few of those offerings now.

Thanks Lav!

Discontinued Merit Badges : Master-at-Arms

Tuesday, October 27th, 2015

This photo is said to be of Boy Scouts participating in the short-lived Master-at-Arms badge. It was one of the original 14 merit badges which debuted in the 1910 version of the Boy Scout Handbook and unfortunately, this one lasted just a year. The badge was missing from the 1911 version of the manual when it was released.

To earn the basge, a Scout had to master three of the following combat skills:
-single stick
-boxing
-ju jitsu
-wrestling
-quarterstaff
-fencing

Can you imagine such a merit badge today?

As If We Needed More Proof

Tuesday, October 27th, 2015

  
Photo reportedly taken during the Viet Nam War.

Terry Baldwin – Oath Speech

Monday, October 26th, 2015

In 2012 an old friend of mine, then a 2-Star, asked me if I could do a quick turn on a speech about the Oath of Office for an upcoming ROTC Graduation. This is what I came up with. I acknowledge that I liberally cribbed – without permission – most of the historical background from a well-researched article that Lt Col Kenneth Keskel, USAF did for the Air & Space Power Journal – Winter 2002. Since I did not profit from this speech in any way I can only hope that he would not be offended by this plagiarism. However, any grammatical mistakes or other errors are my responsibility. TLB

START: Thank you so much for inviting me to join you today. For those of you about to be commissioned, this moment in your life marks a significant accomplishment…and the beginning of a great adventure. For the last four years you have worked hard to earn the opportunity to lead. And as you take the Oath of Office in front of your classmates and families, I want you to reflect on the implications of the vow you are making. It is of significant importance to your future. I have been asked to speak briefly about what the Oath means to me and what it should mean to you.

You might not know that the specific wording of all government oaths – including those related to the military – is dictated by Congress but most haven’t been changed much since the 1880s. Moreover, the oath sworn by a commissioned officer is the same oath sworn by each newly elected member of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United State. But the “oath of office” that an officer takes is purposely and significantly different than the oath enlisted soldiers take. Some of you may have been previously enlisted but might not realize that there is a difference. If you haven’t looked at the two side by side you probably should.

As a legal matter, the offering and acceptance of a commission fall under a set of rules that are different from the rules governing enlistment contracts. This is one of the key reasons why officers are held to a different set of standards from enlisted soldiers – not necessarily “higher” standards, but different. Still, the oath represents more than a simple legal document or ceremonial formality; rather, it provides overarching guidance and a standard of moral and professional conduct. The Army’s core Values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage are explicitly and implicitly contained within the simple language of the Oath. The Oath represents a credo of immutable Principles that an officer LIVES every day in everything they do. I’m going to break it down now in a little more detail.

I, ________, Do Solemnly Swear (or Affirm). The oath begins with an option to swear or affirm. Recognizing that some individuals might object to “swearing” to a Supreme Being or that someone might not believe in a Supreme Being, Congress wisely provided the option to affirm. In fact, Article 2 of the Constitution itself provides the same option for the President to swear or affirm when taking his oath of office. In any case, the oath signifies a public statement of personal commitment. Officers must take personal responsibility for their own actions, the orders they issue and – to a great extent – any actions their subordinates take or fail to take.

That I Will Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States… To understand the opening pledge, one should have some knowledge of the content of the Constitution. If you haven’t already, I recommend that you take the time to read and study the document you will be swearing to support and defend. The oath deliberately requires officers to pledge loyalty to the Constitution – not the president, not the country, not the flag, and not a particular military service. Yet, at the same time, the Constitution embodies the office of president, the country, the flag, the military, and much more. It is the bedrock of our way of life, our system of government and the rule of laws by which citizens agree to be governed.

Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic. This phrase was added in 1862 as a direct result of the Civil War – specifically in response to the issue of U.S. Army officers joining the Confederacy. That is, there were military officers who had previously sworn allegiance to the United States who were now in open rebellion against it. Today, post-Civil War laws referred to as “Posse Comitatus” sharply limit the Military’s ability to act in a domestic capacity or against US Citizens – and rightly so. However, the oath does demand that we remain ever vigilant to any threat that may develop from other nation-states, trans-nationals or non-state actors and prepare ourselves and our units to respond appropriately or provide support when directed to act.

That I Will Bear True Faith and Allegiance to the Same. This phrase epitomizes the idea of Selfless Service. Being ready, willing and able to put the welfare of the nation – and by clear extension – the Army and your subordinates before your own. In serving as an Army Officer, you are prepared to do your duty loyally without thought of personal recognition or gain. Bearing your “true faith” not just within the military structure but in support of the larger system of democratic government embodied in the Constitution. That is also why serving officers must always strive to be apolitical…and far removed in thought and deed from partisan politics…or even the appearance of partisanship.

That I Take This Obligation Freely, without Any Mental Reservation or Purpose of Evasion. This is the first phrase that clearly differentiates the soldier’s Oath of Enlistment and an Officer’s Oath of Office. Soldiers state: “that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice”; officers do not. Why is that? Officers are certainly required to obey orders from the chain of command and are subject to the UCMJ. However, this phrase acknowledges that unlike enlisted soldiers, even junior officers are required to routinely formulate and give orders – often on their own recognizance. Therefore, Officers are expected – and must be prepared – to judge their decisions against their own principles and convictions. More senior officers, bound by the exact same oath, often are required and entrusted to act strategically within broad guidance and without direct oversight.

It is a true blessing that the United States has never required its officers to obey orders “without question” or blindly but in fact demands an Officer act in accordance with his or her conscience. But with that latitude of action comes both responsibility and accountability for one’s decisions. In other words, it requires your integrity. An Oath means nothing to someone without integrity. Integrity is a learned trait and involves doing what’s right, legally and morally…always. Integrity is a quality you develop by adhering to moral principles. Maintaining your personal integrity is implicit in the oath and must guide officers when they face conflicts of interest and hard choices.

And That I Will Well and Faithfully Discharge the Duties of the Office on Which I Am about to Enter. This clause is also unique to the Officer’s oath and epitomizes the Army’s core values of “duty” and “honor”. Officers are expected to be diligent and proactive; performing our duties to the best of our abilities, mastering our specialties while we are junior officers and then gaining depth and breadth in the science and art of war as we advance in rank. The vitality, progress and safety of the nation depends upon our doing so. In part, Army Values describe “Duty” as “fulfilling your obligations”. But doing your duty means more than simply carrying out your assigned tasks. Duty for an Officer means preparing yourself and your organization to be able to accomplish your mission as part of a larger team. And you must understand how your tactical success or failure fits into the larger operational and strategic context. As an Officer you maintain and enhance your professional reputation and “fulfill your obligation” with honor by living your Oath and the Army Values.

So Help Me God. The United States Constitution, (Article VI, section 3) provides “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. As with the option to “swear or affirm” at the beginning of the Oath, concerns over personal religious convictions and the separation of church and state sometimes clouds this final phrase. Nevertheless, as Officers, our actions always have important moral implications, even for those who don’t believe in the religious concept of a Supreme Being. And even atheists have a clear moral obligation from a societal perspective. Of note, the Constitution does not include the phrase so help me God in the President’s Oath. George Washington added those words when he took the first oath. So help me God became part of the officer oath in 1862, but the enlisted oath did not add these words until 1962.

The Congressional Record of 1962 described the intent this way: The words, “So help me God,” are not a part of the obligation assumed upon taking the oath. They constitute rather an assertion of sincerity to undertake the duties of military service in good faith and with the aid of the highest power recognized by the enlistee. It is directed solely to his or her personal conception of the almighty, whatever that may be or whatever it may not be. There is no effort to impose on the enlistee any established religious conception, or even to require his acknowledgement of any religious conception.” But please understand this; whether you swear or affirm…or ask for the assistance of a Supreme Being or not, by taking the oath you will have dedicated your life to the concept of selfless service and always choosing the “hard right over the easy wrong”.

Conclusion: If you watch current events you know that, unfortunately, not everyone – no matter how senior or how experienced – lives up to the ideals in the Oath all the time. I’m not going to make any excuses for that. It is unacceptable. But while we must all strive to live by the ideals of the oath every day…sometimes we (or senior leaders) fail to fully achieve that ideal. It might happen to you at some point in your career. It is a reminder that we are human…and fallible…none of us are perfect. But that doesn’t tarnish or lessen the importance of always striving toward the ideal. Taking the Oath dedicates each of us to a career (at least for the length of your service obligation) of SERVICE to the country and especially to our SOLDIERS. But also explicitly and ultimately to the National ideal as described in the Constitution. The Military defends the people and the physical boundaries of the country…to ensure the survival of that ideal above all else.

Living the Oath successfully requires unwavering commitment and Personal Courage. Personal courage means always standing up for and acting upon the things that you know are honorable. Your personal commitment to this ideal will be tested daily as you perform your duties as an officer. Hopefully I have provided you some things to think about during these last few minutes – or at least reminded you of things you have already been taught. Not just about the words in the Oath but the larger concept of obligation, duty and service. But if you are anything like I was when I was first commissioned, I suspect it will be some years before you truly UNDERSTAND what an incredible burden…and awesome privilege it is to serve as an Officer in the United States Army. May you lead honorably and well. Congratulations and Good Luck! END

LTC Terry Baldwin, US Army (RET) served on active duty from 1975-2011 in various Infantry and Special Forces assignments.