Okay, time for a deep dive into the tactical. The point of departure is this paper by Army Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer (.pdf), written last year at the Command and General Staff College, that says fighting in Afghanistan has exposed the fact that American infantry are poorly equipped and trained for long range firefights.
In Afghanistan, the infantryman’s “weapons, doctrine, and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate,” Ehrhart says. Unlike on the streets of Iraq, where firefights were few and were typically fought under 300 meters, insurgents in Afghanistan skillfully use the wide open rural and mountainous terrain to stretch the battlefield. The following excerpt sums it up pretty well:
“Comments from returning non-commissioned officers and officers reveal that about fifty percent of engagements occur past 300 meters. The enemy tactics are to engage United States forces from high ground with medium and heavy weapons, often including mortars, knowing that we are restricted by our equipment limitations and the inability of our overburdened soldiers to maneuver at elevations exceeding 6000 feet. Current equipment, training, and doctrine are optimized for engagements under 300 meters and on level terrain.”
There’s a lot to unpack in this paper, the author gets into the relative merits and disadvantages of the 5.56mm round, reliability of the M4, the rifleman’s standard ACOG site, basic training, adding more marksmen to the squad and even the shortcomings of the standard issue magazines (Magpul gets a real big shout out for their PMAG M4 mag replacement). He concludes that only with significant changes to training, doctrine and weapons will infantry be able to engage targets out to 500 meters.
“In the table of organization for a light infantry company only the six –M240B 7.62-mm machineguns, two– 60-mm mortars and nine designated marksman armed with either 7.62-mm M14 rifles or accurized 5.56-mm M16A4’s rifles are able to effectively engage the enemy. These weapons systems represent 19 percent of the company’s firepower. This means that 81 percent of the company has little effect on the fight. This is unacceptable.”
I’m going to get into a number of these points throughout the week, but first off, I want to get into Ehrhart’s description of meeting engagements in Afghanistan and the standard U.S. tactical response. “The enemy travels light and employs supporting weapons from standoff, to include mortars and medium machineguns. Faced with these conditions, the modern [U.S.] infantry attempts to fix the enemy with direct fire and use supporting assets to kill the enemy,” he writes.
Supporting assets is either artillery, if in range, or more commonly air strikes. My question, can U.S. troops be provided enough organic lethality that they can overmatch the enemy with both direct and indirect fires without having to wait for air strikes? Prompt air support might not always be available and the infantry must have the weapons to overmatch the Taliban.
The Soviets in Afghanistan ran into the same tactical challenge. Read accounts of Soviet infantry firefights in Afghanistan in the 1980s and you’ll see they invariably hauled their AGS-17 30mm grenade launcher with them on most every dismounted operation, particularly in the mountains. It was cherished for its high rate of fire and nearly 1,700 meter range.
I know this gets into another important point the paper raises, which is an overly encumbered infantryman trying to run down Taliban light fighters. Yet, at around 50 pounds with tripod and ammo, the whole package was relatively light and mobile; it could be broken down into manageable parts. Soviet infantry valued the AGS-17 so much they built a special harness that attached to the assistant gunner’s back so that if they ran into a firefight he would drop down on his stomach and the gunner would mount the grenade thrower to his back and begin firing. The AGS-17 became the weapon around which the squad or fire team was organized, much like the light machine gun in U.S. and western armies.
U.S. infantry do not have a comparable weapon. The Mk. 19 40mm launcher weighs 73 pounds (the AGS-17 gun weighs 37 pounds), and that’s just the gun, add another 20 pounds for the tripod and then ammunition and you see why it’s typically mounted on vehicles. The weapon also has a bad reputation for rattling itself apart during sustained use.
The Soviets learned pretty quickly in Afghanistan that high rates of fire were vital. Lessons from Afghanistan led them to mount auto-cannon on their BMP infantry fighting vehicles, BTR wheeled vehicles and they rushed lots of ZSU 23–4 quad anti-aircraft guns to theater. The Soviets had lots of towed, rapid fire anti-aircraft guns organic to their infantry units and these were liberally placed about combat outposts in Afghanistan.
Another U.S. shortcoming in the small arms fight is the lack of a GPS guided mortar round. Only now is the Army developing a GPS round for its 60mm and 81mm mortars, and they have yet to reach the battlefield. With a 60mm mortar and GPS guided rounds, American infantry would be ale to accurately target Taliban fighters on the next ridgeline, and even behind it.
The American military, and particularly the Army, has been “platform focused,” doctrine and weapons development has focused on crews fighting a mounted weapons system, be it a tank, Bradley or what have you (the Army plans to spend $7 billion over the next few years to develop a new armored fighting vehicle to add to its massive fleet of armored fighting vehicles). The future of irregular conflict will predominantly be small-unit infantry fights, a fact the acquisition community has not grasped. It’s about time they did and begin fielding lightweight, highly accurate and lethal weapons that are easily carried by the infantry.
{ 106 comments… read them below or add one }
Or we could just continue the current practice of section/squad-level Javelin :-)
This seems to fly in the face of recent articles at the RUSI site in the UK, where various studies based on reducing the weight suggest dropping the assault rifle for a PDW type gun, such as FN P90. It is then suggested additional weight could be carried in the form of: more 7.62 belt for MG's, more 40mm grenades (and 6 round revolver grenade launchers for the squad) and 66mm rockets with HE-frag warheads. It is also suggested that additional comms / targeting devices for supporting fires are another element of over-burdening the infantryman. Bottom line they are suggesting that squad, crew served weapons and HE are what really kills out past 300m – NOT better marksmanship and training.
Squad javelin is nice, but it's also huge and expensive. Seriously, each round is 26 lbs without the CLU is a big, bulk, 14 lb box. M3 costs a ton less and turns the numbers around. Only one grunt has to hump a 19-pound weapon, while the 7-pound ammo can be distributed around the squad. And the newer ammo can be set to air-burst.
For the genesis of this lethality issue, see:
http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Last_Big_Lie_Of_V…
In all fairness the the 5.56 and M16 were born out of a desire to marry the best traits of rifles and submachineguns into an assault rifle that would help compensate for developing combat environments. With automatic fire, suppression is the primary concern, as with submachineguns, this capability entirely hinges on the number of rounds that can be carried. More 5.56 can be carried than 7.62, this is just fact. At the time the loss of range wasn't as much of a concern because the majority of combat was occuring in closer ranges than previously. Every soldier could carry even larger rifles than a 7.62 and that would improve lethality, but just as the 7.62 is it would be a trade off to other advantages, such as mobility. While I believe there are calibres more worthwhile than the 5.56, I think the iterim choice of assigning additional marksmen with longer range capabilities is the right one.
Seems to me this is a training and confidence problem that is a direct result of our overdependence on indirect fires, exacerbated by a CYA attitude to casualty prevention.
1. Where are all the scout/snipers and designated marksmen? Every guy I see in the paper claims to have been one in the SEALs.
2. The M16A4 is accurate out to 600m. Marines qualify annually at 500m. I have shot the M4 accurately at 500m, and I'm not a sniper by any means.
3. As Frank mentioned, what about our MGs and mortars? Have our heavy weapons platoons been used so much for patrolling and ECP/VCP duty that they've forgotten how to make a range card, cover dead space, or fire in enfilade?
4. Why does every unit on a 6 hour patrol carry a full ruck? Vest, ammo, water, and a couple of candy bars ought to do it. Maybe our infantry needs to fight like the old horse cavalry, on contact strip down and leave the horses (extra gear) with a rear party so the main element can fire and maneuver. Our grunts exercise like mad, they should be more than a match physically for the average Taliban, even in body armor.
"Maybe our infantry needs to fight like the old horse cavalry, on contact strip down and leave the horses (extra gear) with a rear party so the main element can fire and maneuver."
That's what we need! Dragoons!
One word; Mogadishu .
Your #4 HITS THE BULLSEYE I have complained about this stupidity for years.
The M-4 round is basically worthless at any range but the further out you go the more worthless it becomes. Its like shooting someone with an icepick. Hit a vital area and you kill them. However you can stab someone with an icepick a few hundred times without killing them.
I wonder if the Marine units are doing any better. They still field the longer barreled m16-a4 and their marksmanship training / requirement still includes the 500 yard line.
Marksmanship says it all. If they are trained where to place their shots, and trained to place those accurate shot onto targets out to 500 meters, they are likely doing so. The Army is still operating under the Cold War mindset that all engagements will be under 300 meters and they don't need to shoot that far. If the Army wants to learn what to do at longer ranges they need to hire some Marines to teach them how to shoot!
You can look at the New York Times or AP and check photos from the Marja operation, 99% of the Marine force i saw wasn't even using an M4, which is all you would see in photos from Iraq, they all have the super long-barreled M16's of some sort, the only M4's i could see looked to be with commanders. It seems like they know what they are doing; they went in looking for a ranged fight in that case.
Because every soldier wants to be the big PX commando and have a Colt M4 with an AGOG on it so they can be the baddest FOBbit around.
It's fascinating how the US Defense budget is $700B a year yet someone almost every facet of our military is poorly trained and equipped. I'd love to hear how they rationalize that.
It appears to be a good reason to ask for or justify more money. For years the motto of the Marine Corps was "make due with what ya got" because of budget limitations. This all changed in the 80's under Ronald Reagan. I lost count of all the uniform changes over the years. I am retired now and no longer a good judge, but it appears that todays force is better equipped that at any other time in our history. As far as the ability to "reach out and touch someone" goes-we had the M14 [long range] which was exchanged for the AR-15/M16A1 [short range-limited visibility jungle] which was exchanged for the M16A2 [back to long range], which appears to have been exchanged for the M4[short range-urban] (I have never fired the M4)-This debate has been going on for over 40 years now!
The US Army trains its soldiers to fire out to a range of 300 meters. The US Marine Corps. trains out to 500 meters. They both train on a weapon in which the basic premise was built into the design that the firefights typical take place at less than 300 meters range. This being the case during World War 2 and Korea and even more so during Vietnam and Iraq. I think we need to train US Army soldiers to the Marine standard of 500 meters. That will alleviate one of the issues, that being our soldiers not being trained to fire the weapon at that range.
We also certainly need better optics, if not for every rifle, then certainly for the designated marksman in the unit. We should also be issuing those folks a different rifle to begin with. Bring back the M-14. Its battle proven, effective, and packs a big round that can go a long way. We should also bring in the 6-barreled grenade launchers for our soldiers. When you can drop 40mm grenades out on an enemy as fast as you can fire a revolver, then you can more effectively put their heads down.
We must have armories full of M-14s…ISSUE THEM NOW!!! Maybe not every riflemen needs one, but disperse them to the soldiers in the field and you will see which weapons is the one of choice. The M-14 is still a great weapon. Heck, even the M1 is still a very lethal, long range, reliable weapon.
I would think that the new XM25 grenade launchers would be very useful also. Any word on their operational status?
They field tested them last summer. Beyond that I haven't heard anything.
Good Morning Folks,
As one who has been their and done that I agree with the Major 100%.
Start with training. The US Army only trains marksmanship out to 300 meters and in most cases train fore is only two weeks in BCT. Simulators are fine but there is no substitution for range time and live fire. The problem of course to much non soldier items have been added to BCT and when you get to AIT a lot of time is spent reenforcing what should have been taught in BCT.
The reason why there is little live fire training is lack of ammunition. The pentagon would rather spend hundreds of billion of FCS. F-22′s, F-35′s etc. which will do nothing to win in Afghanistan, then to buy enough bullets to fight a war. I won’t hear the Bull Sh** about troops wasting ammo and lack of fire
discipline from people who never had the time in their lives to serve. Simply, our troop don’t have enough ammo to be trained properly and don’t have enough ammo to fight the three wars they are being asked to fight. But hey you should see the Dining Halls at the large bases in Afghanistan for the Air Force and the other REMF’s.
This has been a problem since the first Gulf War when war, stocks of ammo were not replaced. The Heritage Foundations (Right Wing Think Tanks) out there don’t make money promoting for more ammo, they make money on consulting contracts with the DoD that encourages them to buy high ticket weapons systems that will never be used.
The next item is old and that is the lack of direct fire support for the Infantry Platoon. In Mech. Inf. the largest bore weapon is the 25mm Bushmaster I is fine but it comes with the over weight Bradley platform.
What is desperately need is a dedicated SP platform direct fire weapon, two or three man crew main tube an auto feed/chain feed in the 50mm to 75mm range and a coax Dillon M-134, and a commanders turret weapons station for the TC. The back deck and turret sides should have storage baskets large enough for racks to carry extra ammo, water and rations for a squad. All this should weigh under 15 tons, and air droppable. This would not be a heavy armored vehicle, protection for small arms fire only not RPG’s and not a tank killer, leave that to Tac. Air.
Instead of this sensible and need weapon the DOA last week put an RFP for a 70 ton monster Tank. The Generals who most have never lead a platoon or even a Company in combat are as usual with out a clue and are listening to the winger think tanks.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
A light tank? I think that would be worth while and the airborne would certainly appreciate it. They had developed the M8 to replace M551. Those prototypes were pulled into active service a little while ago. I haven't heard how they've done. They have many of the features you describe.
But can it fit in an Osprey? :)
Byron I've been reading your stuff for awhile now, and it becomes less credible with each read. Go back and check. There is no RFP for a "70-ton tank." That's a gross distortion of the facts. Again…
"The US Army only trains marksmanship out to 300 meters and in most cases train fore is only two weeks in BCT. Simulators are fine but there is no substitution for range time and live fire." What was your MOS? Obviously you were not a Combat Arms guy. Been where and done what? Have u ever "stress fired" an A4/M-4 wearing full kit? At night with night vision? Red dots? I fired a thousand times more in my units than BCT or AIT. Since that's all that you reference i guess that's all the farther you made it. The Army Infantry(Light,Airborne, Air Assault ) is a highly skilled,motivated, trained, and equipped force so stop pretending you know what your talking about. The marines shoot 500 with softcaps on. Great if your on a rooftop in a lawn chair and your ball cap on backwards. Not all grunts have ACOGS. try shooting 500 at night or uphill or through the brush. I'll bet if you ask the Marines they aren't fairing out any better at 500 in AStan even with A4s.
I was just wondering if anyone has any figures on what the stopping power of a 5.56 round is at 500 meters for the M-16a4/M-4?
I've shot at the 500 yard line before with an M-16a2 and while I have no problem hitting the target, most of my shots were not head shots.
At 500 metres a 5.56mm M855 round will have a velocity of 1,880 ft/s (down from 3,100 from a 20" barrel) .
In terms of energy at 500m it will only have 480 ft-lbs left out of the original 1320ft-lbs with which it leaves the barrel. If you hit someone in the right place it can still kill, but temporary cavitation is out of the question at this range, meaning that your lethality is based solely on the permanent wound cavity, which means you have to either hit them directly in the head, the heart or one of their major blood vessels.
So the army has finally realized that using a carbine in a battle rifle role is stupid? Its about frickin time.
"So the army has finally realized that using a carbine in a battle rifle role is stupid?"
NO, the ARMY has NOT realized that — one field grade officer has joined the thousands of soldiers who have known this was stupid ever since the Army replaced the M14 battle rifle with the cute toy M16 — but the Army still can't figure it out because Generals and Mister Assistant Secretaries don't go get shot at.
WTF? Would you rather kick down a door and go in w/ a carbine or a musket?
This paper's quotation of ballistic lethality, goes directly against a recent military study that said no matter the caliber (5.56 – 6.8 – 7.62) shots had to be placed in a lethal area to bring a man down with one shot. In other words, they had to hit a vital area in the chest like the heart or lungs, or the brain-case. Otherwise there was no functional difference between the lethality of the 5.56 and heavier calibers. Going heavier resulted in no lethality increase.
I think a longer barrel for the army in Afghanistan, minimum of 16 or 18 inches, would increase the lethality, accuracy, and the effective range of the ground troops. If they stick with the current weapons and not something new, they might as well go with the A4.
That is very interesting about the AGS-17, and you learn something new all the time. You know what would be interesting is to bring that method back, through the ANA. Take a select group of them, and put together some AGS gun teams modeled after the soviet method.
Another idea is to purchase some street sweeper style grenade launching systems that can be handled by one person. Something like the M-32 six shot grenade launcher. Or the Neopup Paw-20 system. Both of these grenade launchers can fire rounds that can get out and touch someone, and deliver a quick salvo in the immediate stages of the fight. Especially if you put some optics coupled with range finders on the things.
What is nice about a grenade launcher is that it also helps to identify the attackers. The dust and smoke kicked up by the round, will get everyone orientated in the right area, so they can concentrate their fires. Grenadiers can also lob smoke marking rounds, so air support can quickly identify the threat and concentrate fires on them.
Another thing I wanted to bring up, is I like having more designated marksman in a squad. That is a good thing. But I also like sound tactics. I came across a method of fire, that is very interesting to say the least. It is called the Drake Shoot, and the Rhodesians put it together (although I am sure they got it from someone else too). It was an efficient way of putting a round down range, into the most logical places that the enemy could be shooting from, for an immediate action in a fight. No spray and pray, just covering your fields of fire with accurate well placed rounds. It was a way to use the least amount of ammunition, for the maximum amount of effect. The method takes some training, but if we are going to carry bigger ammo into the fight, that means we will be carrying less of it. That means using that bigger round more intelligently in the fight. Here is the drake shoot.
http://selousscouts.tripod.com/drake_shoot.htm
The Selous Scouts also used FALs, G-3's, and AK 47's–all of which fire bigger and heavier ammo.
Which brings up another point. The enemy in Afghanistan, has a distinct advantage when it comes to combat loads and mobility. We chase them down, wearing an ungodly amount of kit. Or we chase them down in vehicles that are way too heavy and cumbersome to keep up with a Taliban on a motorcycle or small 4×4 pickup. Imagine this. During WW 2, most of our infantry were running around with the bare minimum of kit. A helmet, an M-1, a knife and a little ammo, and that was it. They certainly were mobile enough to chase down and kill the Germans, because the Germans were just as light weight and lethal. If you look at today's soldiers, they are carrying more weight and using a rifle that shoots a varmint round. Does anyone not see the contrast or irony here?
You have some good points, but on a historical note, WW2 Allied Forces were heavily weighed down, some to the extent of drowning on D-Day because they couldn't get 60+ pounds of gear off them in time. Read The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation. We are carrying less weight now than during WW2 or Vietnam. Our Body Armor is what slows us down, not that I minded the armor. It's bulky, hot, uncomfortable, but it will stop a lot of things coming at you.
OK the study was on CQB distances, but the results are still interesting:
http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.p…
Guess I'm getting ahead of the website here, but the Ehrhart paper concludes that 5.56 mm ammo is inadequate. Both 6.8 mm Remington SPC & 6.5 mm Grendel are more lethal than 5.56 mm at all ranges. 6.8 mm Remington SPC is better than 6.5 mm Grendel at shorter ranges & vice versa. 6.5 mm Grendel is more lethal than 7.62 X 51 mm NATO at longer ranges even though it has less muzzle energy. (paraphrasing Ehrhart here)
I think Moose has got the right idea – the M3 (Carl Gustav recoilless rifle to the rest of the world) was made for this fight.
I think its important that the Army just refocus its efforts on improving the basic infantry units over adding support by radio capabilities that can be tied up by political and logistical red tape. Give them rifles, scopes, and grenade launchers. Train more marksmen. It all boils down to the fact that the quality of the basic solider and his unit have the greatest impact to the quality of the overall force.
There's something I don't get here,
As far as I know, the Taliban utilizes AKs, Enfields, RPG7s and Mortars. None of this is outclassing the standard load of a NATO section, save for the mortar. If US sections are unable to drop a target out to 500m, there is indeed a problem. But it's not by adding more weight that this will be solved. What about just making sure the scopes are up to par (arn't they? The Canadian version is just fine well over 500m). Other than that, more range time I suppose, but this 500m is nothing that either a decent marksman or even a LMG gunner can't handle. I think the problems are actually over-reliance on indirect fire and weight. The Taliban don't have much of that, and are less trained. So why is this happening?
(I don't have a tour under my belt, so enlighten me if I'm talking nonsense)
I think their range advantage is partially coming from them taking the high ground, but I've heard an increase in the number of AK74's being used. Those have a noticable effective range advantage over M4s. Thei tactics do seem to revolve around forcing stand off of our troops so that their mortars can do their thing. So accuracy at those ranges aren't as much of a concern for them.
My understanding is that the M4 is only accurate to about 400m. That is why you have to have accurized M4's or 7.62 M14's to reach out that far. Then you have your 7.62 machine guns and 60mm mortars. Your rifleman, grenadier, and SAW gunner are not equipped to get the job done at 500m+ regardless of who's pulling the trigger.
Anyone who thinks the AK doesn't outreach the M16/M4 must be thinking of the AK74 where the Soviets followed NATO into varmit caliber stupidity. The Afghanis (and about everyone else we fight) have the good sense to use the AK47 and similiar weapons in 7.62×39.
The US 7.62×51 easily outranges the 7.62×39 (if the firer is up to the job) but the only 5.56 weapon that even begins to be useful at longer range is the M249 used in spray-and-pray mode.
The U.S. weapon inventory is perfectly capable of reaching ranges of 500+ meters. M16/m4, 240B, M14 DMR, all perfectly capable weapons with at least a 500 or 600 meter effective range.
What we need is more training, specifically pre-deployment training, on long-range shooting and marksmanship. Technically, we should have the upper hand, because the AK47's round only reaches out at about 400 meters. So, with the exceptions of AT and mortars, we outclass them in terms of small-arms.
For explosives, we have the Javelin and AT4. They have the RPG-7. I don't need to explain which side has the better end.
IMO, we need more training. If troops cannot effectively engage targets at 500 meters, and have equipment that can, they weren't trained properly.
Sounds like the armor versus mobility issue keeps rearing it's ugly head in the Stan, but I can't see how the Taliban have any better weapons then we are using. The issue of long range accuracy can be addressed with some old fashioned weapons like the M14 or M1 with 308 or 30/06 rounds. The high
rate of fire at long ranges would require a different system, one lighter than the M-60 machine gun. I suspect the loadout and armor are causing the most problems for mobility that allows the Taliban fighters to move unimpeded.
There isn't much that can be done there until new and lighter armor is available.
Sounds like some new technologies will need to be developed for this type terrain and fighting style.
Kit is important, no doubt, and there is room for improvement But the key is to improve the situation with what you have. That means first and foremost, training. The Marines qualify to 500m, the Army must follow suit. Simulators are nice, but getting all the time in the world on a souped up X-box will never replace putting real lead downrange into real targets in the real world. Waiting for some new whiz-bang piece of equipment which is 3-5 years from operational use isn't going to help my Lava Dog buddies downrange right now. Getting them more range time and sufficient ammo to build proficiency just might.
It's all about angles, and shooting up at a guy who's sitting behind a bunch of rocks lobbing everything he has into your area makes for a tough shot. Flat-trajectory boom-boom is what we need more of in the mountains, and it has to be small enough and light enough to carry along on patrols. Yea, I bet a gustav in each platoon would be handy, but TOW works, too. More 60's helps out with everything else, but that's on the troops. You've got to see the place to appreciate it, especially the East.
Okay, so your sitting on a ledge looking down a Army/Marine patrol coming up towards you. Tactics dictate that you engage them at around 400m to 500m because they can't engage more than 300m. You fire and a few seconds later while aiming for your second shot, BAM! you get a 5.56 in your chest, or your leg, arm or maybe in the gut. Are you going to laugh and say, "Don't worry, they're only 5.56mm!" I don't think so, once the enemy has your range and can engage you at 500m, games over. You're not going to stick your head out there again. This is why we call it "suppressive fire". Engage them long enough to close with them.
M16 with good markmanship can do the job.
500m shooting and close quarter drills are not mutually exclusive.
I don't know what the Army does with it's Soldiers, but in the Marine Corps we have a SAW gunner, gunner's assistant, rifleman,and a team leader who also acts as a grenadier and is equipped with an M203 grenade launcher which is attatched to his/her rifle. The Marines already have grenade launchers that are very portable and fulfill a variety of roles as far as marking, smoke, and such. We also have rifles as opposed to carbines, which gives us a good amount of range (and are trained to use them at 500m.). I personally love the ACOG, you not only have a good optic but also a ranging tool. I think that really the only area we could improve that much on is the weight and "cumbersomeness" of the load the Marines are carrying. I hate to beat a dead horse but here I go. I think much can still be done in the area of lighter armour for the individual Soldier/Marine. But at the same time a couple of pounds is not enough. drastic measures would have to be taken to reduce any substantial amount of weight of the Soldier/Marine's gear. 'Nough said.
Did anyone besides me gag at the thought of putting GPS guidance on 60mm Mortar Rounds? WTF?
The M3 (Carl Gustaf) is fine, and the Marine's SMAW would be fine, too…
but the idea was to get the other 81 percent of the Squad involved in the firefight, wasn't it?
It's not just the Heavy Weapons, it's the Squad level stuff that they need to improve (whether by acquisition, or by training)…
Try hauling one of those big dudes up and down a mountain all day. No thanks.
Good Evening Folks,
To respond to questions. On the RFP for a GCV (Ground Combat Vehicle) IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) short hand a “Tank”. You can find the RFP dated Feb. 25, 2010 on TACOM’s web site or over on the DT sister site dod buzz along with an artist conception of what it “might” look like.
My use of this item was meant only to show where the people who make these decisions the Defense Industry, the Right Wing Think Tank Lobby and the Barca Lounger Generals who make the decisions of how to spend the money. These people don’t have the best interest of the Infantry in mind, soldiers are expendable but corporate profits and post military careers for Generals and Admirals with these tanks and in the defense industry that pay into the $ billions are not
To the issue of hitting power of various bullets. If you go to the Remington web site, they have an easy to use calculator that you can compare various bullets and loads against each other.
The tactical difference in ground combat is not the weapons or the ammunition but training of the individual Soldier/Marine and the leadership skills of the NCO’s and Officers that are directly in charge. The Taliban are not the Iraqi Army of Saddam. They are battle hardened and have very good leadership in the field. Our Army and Marines will as time goes by get those individual skills but it will take time and unfortunately just as those skills are maturing the Soldier/Marine is rotated back to CONUS. The process starts all over again. What most non military people don’t know is that combat skills are perishable and must be relearned each time a warrior goes back.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Wow..you guys talk about ballistics, lethality, stopping power, marines have a longer barrel (no pun intended), air droppable, X(insert number) and more acronyms and big words I can shake a stick at.
And comments probably from (just being sarcastic here) majors to privates, couch potatoes, scientists, circumcised, uncircumcised and everything in between. The real story here is the men and the mission (what a shocker). Everything else follows.
It's the soldiers and especially leaders smart enough to know that when either you or your equipment is hindering you from effectively engaging the enemy and your mission requires you to…to either get other assets..if none is available…you move the F%$# up. It won't matter if you have the latest plasma gun or your bullets are 100 cal (see what I did there?) encased in titanium.
Summary…if your dumbest private who only had 1 day in training and somehow lost his weapon but brought a slingshot, tells you he cant effectively engage the enemy which is your mission, you tell him to move the F%$# up. Ok maybe that was a little over the top, what makes this country great is difference of opinions which I earned by not worrying about the angle of velocity congruent to the ballistic lethality of my weapon directly proportional to how long I got taken away from training because of mandatory KP. It is the common sense of my squad leader to call in air, artillery assets when necessary and if available, if not, to kick me in the ass and tell me to move the F%$# up.
ONE Last thing, move the f%$# up means get up on the line… maneuver… close the distance so you can be more effective. Save the other stuff for the AAR.
Moving up aint always easy when your being engaged from across a canyon
As opposed to what? And who said being a grunt is easy.? That's when the common sense comes in…you make a tactical decision. If it's impossible to maneuver that's when you make a controlled withdrawal.
Hello,
I have a question. I have never been in the military so please excuse my ignorance. Why don't troops have the ability to buy/acquisition their own equipment for their specific situation?
For example say a squad of marines, who's last tour was in Iraq, are deployed to Afghanistan and find that their weapon's systems/ squad structure needs to adapt to the new terrain and enemy fighting tactics. Instead of being limited by military issued supplies they are given a budget and could buy weapons and gear from the manufacturer of their choice.
The benefits I see of making decisions this way would be that decisions would be made by the people actually under fire using the equipment. (The closer the person is to the situation they are making a decision for the better that decision is.) and you may see better quality equipment and cheaper equipment due to more competition in the market. Manufacturers wouldn't go through the stunted system of huge government contracts. The market would be open.
I'm sure their are a lot of holes in this proposition but I read this site allot and the question keeps coming to me. So I would really appreciate any responses. thanks!
Patrick…dude…look up LOGISTICS
Part 1. Great, now everyone is using different weapons, ammo and parts are not interchangeable and when you are looking for a rock to throw you get capped. The more the weapons are the same, the more you can scavenge from the guy who got hit. And when supplies do come in, guess what? Nothing fit’s your weapon. There is a need for special weapons, but there is also a need for a common weapon that everyone is familiar with. The 556 is OK for its purpose, but there is a need for everyone to carry a heaver round. 7.62, heavy, carry less rounds per man and in clip = less sustained firepower. 6.8 better, less weight, carry more per man and in clip = more sustained firepower at roughly same range. 6.5 better, still will knock a man down, less weight, carry more per man and in clip = more sustained firepower and better range than the 6.8. Answer?
Part 2 Carry a weapon that can change uppers and change ammo and you have an AR-15, mine in 6.5 Gerendel, Match King, lapua Scenar, Shoots flatter than the other 2, may not be as heavy, but it will kill you once, I find that is enough. Shoots almost as far as the 7.62 but is still supersonic at 1200 yards and still accurate, less drift do to wind. You need to have something that is as light as possible so you can carry more on you and in your weapon yet is lethal close up and far out. Check out this site, http://www.65grendel.com/.
Part 3 They even make a .458 SOCOM 405g that while not so effective in way out range will take out anything at medium, range and if you are still not satisfied with its killing ability then pick up a 50 Beowulf 300g Speer Gold Dot Jacketed Hollow point. Point is, that with the M4 frame you can fire just about anything by changing out the upper, ammo, and may just a little modification. It’s a hell of a weapon, and we all have them both DOD and Civilians alike. They are also all over the place and they are cheap, and can be made to be able to be fired without oil to jam up the works, FailZero treatment. That’s not exactly true, you should put some in the barrel once in awhile. We have the best, we just aren’t giving them to the troops. Call your senator and congressmen.
We need something like AGS-30: that thing weighs 35lb WITH tripod and can pump out 400r/m.
Well, we can wait forever for the Army to address the equipment issues, but there's not a damn thing stopping company and battalion commanders from training their troops to shoot at 500m. They can (and should) do that with no changes in doctrine or equipment.
UK selects 7.62 mm Sharpshooter weapon for Afghan ops
Check out the following at Jane’s (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091229_1_n.shtml):
“UK forces are to receive a semi-automatic 7.62 mm x 51 mm ‘sharpshooter’ weapon to combat Taliban forces engaging beyond the maximum effective range of the 5.56 mm.
The urgent operational requirement follows calls from troops on the ground for a weapon that can be comfortably patrolled with, can be rapidly initiated and provide an increased range for contacts out to 800 m.”
Delivery will be early 2010.
The Brits just get on with it – new Multi Terrain Pattern camo, 7.62 mm weapon. Why are we so slow to move on things?
Nogin, the Army has bought quite a few new AR platform 7.62mm x51 rifles for the designated marksmen, as well as bringing a lot of M-14s out of retirement.
And they recently announced a decision to send all troops to Afghanistan with Multi-cam instead of regular ACUs.
What concerns me, is that if yoou copy what the Sovviets did, will it actually prevent you loosing the war?. I mean it didn't help the commies, why do you think that it will help you?
Interesting that people are screaming for more M-14's…
However, as near and dear the Last Steel Warrior is to my heart, I think that it's time for a better mousetrap. How about SCAR Lights in 6.8 SPC or 6.5G? Both give you a definite edge over 5.56 at range and weigh significantly less than 7.62×51. For that matter, 6.5 MPC would be a much better cartridge and wouldn't require anything other than a new barrel.
Beyond that, train, train, train, but more ACOGs, then train some more. Start stripping off some of the kit… yeah, armor is great but if you're too heavy, slow and bulky to actually do any fighting, it's no good to anyone.
I think we should switch out 5.56 to the 6.8 upgrades that I am certain to use on my custom AR I am to purchase in the near future. Add in a longer barrel, 18-20" and the M16A2 will allow longer range and better accuracy. Though, that's just me wanting to go through sniper school and have more range time. Unfortunately I haven't fired an M16 since basic, however, and I guess my opinnion is just me being a gun-nut.
"the rifleman’s standard ACOG site" should be "the rifleman’s standard ACOG sight"
Anyways, I haven't read this document, but I might do so tonight. In the meantime, surely we aren't seeing that many people being hit by the fire are we? I can only imagine that with 20+ yr old ak's that have never been oiled, it's not going to be accurate fire.
As previously mentioned, it's probably more advantageous to be able to kill the enemy in return fire rather than harrass them with inaccurate return fire. Hence it's probably best to have people lug around 1 more accurate or deadly weapon than take 20 that have a mere chance of hitting (even a 7.62 round will be fairly inaccurate at that range unless you are a marksman). I.e. a grenade launcher like the soviets, or a designated marksman would be better.
The AK-47 originally was created first as a machine gun then as a rifle. The M16 was created as a rifle then as a machine gun (miserably). The latter had many variants over the years yet still has the same ammo while the former just retained its simplicity yet still has the range advantage over 300 meters.
Oh boy, showing my age here but did they lose all the M-1s? It would reach out and kiss someone at 800 yds and NO optical involved. True it wouldn't spray rounds like crazy, but you didn't need a WC to chase around caring supplies.
All BS aside, I feel for those kids over there, the crap they have to carry, the political crap hanging over their heads,(don't shoot that one, he threw down his gun after killing my buddy), having these people in back of them that might start shooting. The list is long!
scoped, laser-guided LAW
The people making the decisions usually are far removed from the fight. They use their experience to make what they feel are sound decisions. Many times they are not intentionally making poor choices out of neglect. Sometimes they do. When PT obsessive Rangers can’t run down insurgents due to the terrain and body armor, doctrine needs to be revamped. Today's infantryman and Rangers are loaded down like a pack mule. The enemy is truly light, and familiarity with the terrain lends to further enhance his mobility. If you are carrying m-14s you can deploy to cover and shoot it out and survive. If you are limited to the 5.56 in either the M-4 or M-16 they you need to maneuver to close the range. Maneuver is difficult if not impossible when carrying every issued piece of “light weight” gear. If the enemy did his homework, he knows what you are capable of and will adjust his choice of engagement sites accordingly. It’s always been about the Indian, not the arrow. Just because the new Infantryman is issued body armor, does not mean it must be worn all the time. If we are going to continue to supply our Infantry with 5.56, then we must train how to defeat a skilled enemy in his terrain.
Give more guys M14s and or get XM25 to the field now.
"There is absolutely nothing wrong with a strong reliance on fire support"
IF you actually have fire support — timely, accurate fire support that isn't denied because the people authorized to release it are incompetent or scared they may be close to the ROE.
Even when everything goes exactly right, US fire support is generally too slow to be "timely" because it always takes running the request up and down the chain of command, THEN time to assign and fire the mission.
This is something we learned 50 years ago in another 360 degree asymetric battlefield — then chose to forget because we were never going to do that again. The enemy can ambush a US unit, then flee before we get our fire support on target. US infantry in Afghanistan lack the overwhelming immediate small arms fire needed to fix the enemy until supporting fires can settle the issue.
Infantry units in Vietnam ran into this all the time, meanwhile armored cav (who did have that overwhelming small arms fire AND much faster arty support) operated freely in areas where much larger infantry units could not.
With all the new equipment now used by our army/marine units, we must not forget the most valuable piece of equipment we have deployed is the grunt on the ground. when all our great equipment fails and our GPS goes haywire our people will make all the difference. when i read about the army's plains to cut back on their training, Its a bad idea….our troops must be taught to be self reliant on the battle field and not dependent on technology to save theirs lives.
Semper Fi.
I disagree with the comments that our soldiers are poorly equiped. I think back to when I was in the Army 73-76 and I see the equipment my son is issued today and I’m envious. The comments made about fighting in Afganistan should be taken by Army senior leadership. The 5.56 round is not suited for the long ranges that much of the fighting is occurring. Take the high attitudes and the fact that our soldiers are often firing up to reach the Taliban takes a lot of training to become accurate with the weapon. The Army should either consider changing to the more powerful round 7.62 or 6.8 or buy weapons where the upper receiver can be quickly changed to a different caliber. Additionally, we have the best logistics support in the world why do they still load our soldiers down with these heavy rucks. Finally, we depend way to much on technology in our weapons. We are fighting guys basically in their P.Js and sandals and they are kicking our butts way too often. Secondly, we need a light, quickly loaded weapon like the RPG. This weapon is low tech, cheap, very effective we need to copy it.
If we're talking combat at 500+ meters, you may as well forget about grenade launchers.
Shooting at an ememy, who's in a concealedelevated hide, with your M16, at 500+ meters is very different than shooting tagets on the range. The target doesn't have a scope, it doesn't shoot back, and it's 30+ inches above ground level. I think 11B's need more exposure to scopes and optics in Basic and AIT and I think the Army needs to consider issuing 'match' rounds for units on long range patrols. I also think Company level combat units need at least 2 scout/sniper teams.
Could always issue something like the AR-10 (or the M-14s as they are probably still in storage somewhere). The only issue I have with M-14 suggestions are that it means another weapon to support, which translates into a slight uptick in truck traffic going up the Khyber for the Taliban to attack.
As much as I've seen people commenting on the use of fire support; entrusting everything to distant artillery or airstrikes is not the way to go. Didn't air support "fail" at Robert's Ridge?
There's no easy solution short of living off the land (seizing food from farmers at gunpoint) and eschewing body armor, switching to motorcycles and increasing tolerance for casualties (in essence, putting us in the shoes of the Taliban, or any other insurgency). Not particularly tolerable at all.
I will jokingly suggest that we bring tanks to Afghanistan. Something like the Leopard, or the old M60's…
Could always issue something like the AR-10 (or the M-14s as they are probably still in storage somewhere). The only issue I have with M-14 suggestions are that it means another weapon to support, which translates into a slight uptick in truck traffic going up the Khyber for the Taliban to attack.
Addendum: Rollo's right. An accurate shot on a range is not quite the same as doing it under fire. This would apply whether or not you had a 5.56 or a 7.62; but this doesn't address lethality at long range, which might be important as well.
Does anybody know where that thousands of rounds per kill number from Vietnam come from? I mean, does it include rounds expended by helicopters prepping a LZ or tanks shooting the brush to flush out hypothetical enemy? One day I'll get an answer…
As previously posted by Former Ranger, some have caught on but quite a few of you have missed,whatever happened to the command..move the heck up? A soldier/leader who has common sense to assess that is the most lethal instrument.
500M is quite a long range to be decisively engaged in small arms fire no matter what caliber in my opinion. Say you're in a squad/platoon and someone fires at you from about 500M, he might get the first guy out in the open, but I guarantee you I would be taking cover. I have been out for a while, did I miss something? Are our soldiers dropping like flies from small arms fire from 500M from so called "superior" caliber by the taliban? If that's the case we all should be scared.
I thought the USMC had as a basic criteria that every Marine had to be able to accurately engage targets out to 500 yards, with the M16. Another thing I noticed. In some recent video footage, it looked as if the marines were using M4 carbines, not the M16A4, which I thought was the standard USMC issue. So one think that the USMC, would have a better handle on the above mentioned issues, that the US Army.
Once again, firing to 500 on a range is WAY different than engaging a target that is elevated and shooting back. Wake up people, it's the weapon not the warrior. See longshadow's and rollo's comments above.
i almost never see a Carl Gustav being used by regular infantry. this would be an ideal weapon. 5,6 shots a minute, all kinds of ammo to use, but i almost never see them. the m-16 has a longer barrel, the Corps has the best shooters, but how bout a change in caliber? keep re-working watever m-14's we have left, its a different rifle now.
you cant fire more than a few shots a day with that weapon. the concusion is that powerful
First of all and with all due respect you guys know this is a Major's thesis right? I agree with looking into better equipment, training. There is always room for improvement. What I would like to know is when was the last time the major, or anyone "who's been there done that" for that matter was just picking off the enemy left and right at 500meters. Not just one or two hooligans standing still even when his buddy next ot him just got shot.
More time spent on the range and better range training would help I am sure of that. I hate hurry up sight in your weapon, shoot qaul and go home. That does nothing for you in combat and then everyone can feel hapy about themselves and check the block. The U.S. Army is infamous for this. At least the Marines us the Known Distance range and train Marines to shoot. Plus in many places the army shoots still fighting the Warsaw pack method. Fighting positon and pop up targets. Not moving targets. shootinf from standing, kneeling ect.
Fighting position qualification is over, we even have to shoot from the "Gasp" Kneeling position now. Shooting on the move and from behind cover is already standard for IET and coming soon for the rest of the Army. Even th eAir Force here at Lackland issue weapons at the beginning of IET instead of just during weapons training.
you know the only people known, in my experience to do Qualfactories is the goddamn National Guard (TEXAS). everywhere else ive been, the supply POGs would drop 3x what we needed. we would qual all our guys and then do stressfires and reflex-fires, shoot-moves and then more smoke sessions with followed by stressfires. ive done unknown distance shooting, spoting, so much shooting i hated the range. point is; if you wanna make fun of how we train our POGs feel free. delude yourself into thinking that the corps is the bomb compared to the army because the INFANTRY KICKS CORPS A$$!
Getting the infantry out of the MRAPs would help. Our DCG-O berated the Brigade Commanders to get their troops out of the trucks and up in the hills on my Afghan tour. On multiple occasions with one of our Brigades, the Route Clearance Teams asked for support from Infantry they were supporting to flank known IED hotspots. "We don’t get out of the trucks" was all the response they got, so the engineers did it themselves (Curahee’d again). Only a few M2 and Mk19s were manned because only the drivers were left in most of the MRAPs. Swapping the M4 for the C7A2 would make a difference; the longer barrel improves ballistics at long range and the collapsible stock to get a better fit with armor. Some of our females and smaller males could only qualify with red dot sights because their face was 4-6 inches away from the rear sight when shooting with a vest..
To hit a man-size target at 500 meters, with a standard issued infantry weapon, takes time and patience to make an accurate shot, even with the different optical devices out there. Plus, in a heated firefight who wants to expose themselves to enemy fire long enough to get off an accurate kill shot?
I do not know what the current statistics are in numbers killed per rounds fired, but in Vietnam the average ratio was about 600,000 rounds to one. Alot of spreying and praying going on. And in Vietnam most of the firefights were well within the 75 to 80 meter mark due to the VC and NVA wanting to neutralize US indirect fire support.
we can gripe all day long about what the army should do and not do as to range regulations and the almighty marine corps tactics (no disrespect to the corps) what it basically comes down to is the improper use of assets available to the infantry ie as stated : mortars, CAS, Artillary, Shoulder fired rockets etc.. we do have these assets and soldiers are trained on operation however commanders need to pay attention to tactics learned from previous engagements from ourselves and other countries as well. more money should be spent on proper training on the equipment we do have not building equipment that we do not need. I’m a firm believer that an infantryman is only 10% effective inside of a truck. let us go roam and patrol so we can truly do our jobs, an engagement is too far away from my element to accuratly suppress then train more on closing distance. stop building vehicles we cant use and start training your soldiers to be affective in battle. not targets to put on video. that would be my gripe.
The one thing that amazes me is that someone actually had to write a paper about the short coming of the M-4 / M-16 in this fight. At 500 meters the ability to effectively engage a raghead with the 556 round and the ability to clearly see a target without optics is a challenge. Again why is this a surprise?
Weight of ammo is nothing if the Infantrymans only option to to allow the enemy to plink away and mistakenly get within 175-300 meters where we might have a chance of killing the idiots.
I think increasing the number of M240B’s per squad would be my gut reaction for a quick fix. It’s an excellent reliable weapon and surprisingly accurate using tracer – man-size targets at 500 meters no problem. Ok it’s heavy but you can patrol with it. It’s also good in close quarters too – suprisingly controlable Rambo style. In the long term get the M240L out there.
The Army has always conducted itself as an 'ARMY', that is large, heavy, mechanized and cumbersome. They also have allowed marksmanship to take a back seat to the many other competing priorities. My brothers in the Army need to follow the Marines in this case. The Marines have always placed the utmost priority on marksmanship, combat marksmanship, light and quick forces maintaining the ability for agile fire and maneuver. While burdened against their will with slow armaments and vehicles they are returning to their roots, shedding the pounds, and re-equipping for light force missions with maximum lethality.
While the always debated switch from the 7.62 round to the 5.56 round and light infantry weapons may have worked to some success in Viet Nam and extra weight is always the enemy of infantry, a return to a true 800 to 1,000 meter infantry weapon is paramount for this type of warfare.
The Marine motto: Every Marine a rifleman and the old Marine adage of Cooks and Bakers can win fire fights should be ever as true today.
Update rifle? Absolutely. Existing M-14 stocks in the meantime of course. Updated round or return to the 7.62x51mm, either is preferable to a 55 grain fmj projectile at long ranges.
Are you saying sir that the Marines (supposedly all infantry) is better than the ARMY? Not all army can be infantry and not all infantry can be paratroopers. And in case you didnt know, not all army is mechanized. My point is dont make generalizations. Im an Airborne Ranger but I dont walk around belittling the NAVY's infantry.
PWNED
Maybe the brass should recall what Patton said about the M1 Garand. It beats the heck out of the M14.
Gen. George Patton? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the General was long in Arlington before the M14 was developed.
This is because they are legs. They don't want to work hard and train their men. Anybody seen this super soldiers overseas? You never see them at the range. All of this talk is referring to is legs, big army, team leaders who don't want to be team leaders. Yeah I got it, big army doesn't neccessarily get all the equipment and air support and all of that, however, what it comes down to is the soldier. Be a professional, act like one, fight like one, kill like one.
Bottom line is the news from the front in A-stan, it takes 5 or 6 center of mass hits just to put aan enemy soldier down past 200 meters. The big army is using the m 4. It was not designed to be used in combat. It was designed to be used by people in the rear for personal defense. It was meant to replace a handgun with a more effective/affective weapon. The receiver ovals after approximately 6,000 rounds due to heat transfer from the barrel and that direct gas blow back operation. Sending carbon, propellant gas, and particles into the receiver is not a good weapon design when you are in a fire fight and the weapons stop running. The M 14 and M 16 seem to be good basic plateforms but need to be tweaked for the environment of operation. I just hope they spend my money on American made and American owned products and stop buying all the big and small weapons and hardware from Europe.
Agree with much of what has been said here. The simply fact is the 556 round relys on yaw and fragmentation to do damage. That is velocity dependant and at much more than 100 yards it simply doesn't yaw. It also doesn't shoot through intermediate barriers well. The M14, the FAL, or an M16 variant in 6.8 will overcome much of these issues. YOu have to be able to shoot through cover, and deliver effective fire at long range. For US lawenforcement, the AR15/M4 may be close to ideal, but for a main battle rifle it is seriously deficient.
if they are not gonna change calibers etc., at least put longer barrels on the M-4's. Doesnt LWRC sell a rifle you can swap out the upper in a bigger caliber? At least change barrels, and WHY isn't there enough CG's to go around? Buy more, every company should have a fair amount of them, damn iffective too.
Read the paper.
Concur with some.
Non-concur on the 5.56 issue. Was effective for me from 600M to 50M out of an M4 with ACOG. Terminal effects are completely secondary to shot placement. And none of it matters if you aren't willing to close with the enemy and finish him. Never expect one round to drop a guy, and if he does drop, shoot him a few more times just to be sure.
This is simply a case of using the lessons learned from the last war to fight the current one.
The doctrine needs to change more than the kit. And the major was locked into Army thinking which gave him his numbers. He is a victim of doctrinal thinking.
203s and SAWs also have a 500m range, which is half of your fireteam. So, the numbers are closer to 45% are able to return fire at long ranges.
Lethality is truly related to shot placement. Recently a very large man was brought low by 2 shots to the chest with .22 cal pistol. Lets teach the boys to shoot and push the bad guy out of their weapons range. Brin
I wish every platoon had a Gustav, its not real heavy and its eaasy to operate. I also wish the Army would phase out the 5.56.
Just As I have always said: 5.56 is an American Aberration.
Either you are in your own, then you Need range or you are dismounted , then weight is Not that important…
Just my 2 Cents…
they should learn form the Germans in ww2 10 person squad based one mg, 2 40mm grenade revolvers 4 riflemen 2 sub-machine gunners and machine pistols for all
the center of the battlefield is the infantry not tanks not aircraft INFANTRY!
the more efficient use of resources like instead of high tech equipment how about some training
the base of any combat system is the human the more well trained he is the better and faster he can work the higher chance of survive he has
and how about a 40mm pistol or better copy the russians noting wrong with that the chinese do and they seem to be doing fine