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.
{ 105 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
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
← Previous Comments