C.J. Chivers, the New York Times’ excellent war reporter and a former Marine, has a great post on why the Taliban make lousy marksman. The fact that Chivers compiled the data from first hand experiences in the field, mainly interviews with Marines fighting in the south, lends some real heft to the analysis. Chivers noticed a common theme from survivors of multiple Taliban small arms ambushes who said they were at engagements ranges where they should have been hit, but emerged unscathed.
The main reason the Taliban are so lousy at gun fights is the lack of formalized training, he says, and a limited knowledge of marksmanship fundamentals.
“Let’s dispense outright with talk of born marksmen. Although some people are inclined to be better shots than others, and have a knack, marksmanship itself is not a natural trait. It is an acquired skill. It requires instruction and practice. Coaching helps, too. Combat marksmanship further requires calm. Yes, the combined powers of clear vision, coordination, fitness, patience, concentration and self-discipline all play roles in how a shooter’s skill develop. So do motivation and resolve. But even a shooter with natural gifts and strong urges to fight can’t be expected to be consistently effective with a rifle with iron sights at common Afghan engagement ranges (say, 200 yards or more, often much more) without mastering the basics.”
Other reasons include: relying on “pray and spray” automatic fire from AK-47 assault rifles, the really poor condition of many of those rifles which are often foreign knock offs of the original Kalashnikov design, old and mismatched ammunition (as any frequent shooter knows, good ammunition is key to consistent marksmanship), widespread eye and vision problems among Afghans that go untreated and the difficulties in standardizing training across a widely separated and not all that connected insurgent fighting force.
All of which is good news for American troops, Chivers says. “When it comes to rifle fighting, the Taliban – absent major shifts in training, equipment and logistics – are likely to remain mediocre or worse at one of the central skills of modern war. And the chance of any individual American or Afghan soldier being shot will remain very small.”
It’s a really worthwhile post so go and read it now.
– Greg
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Good Morning Folks,
Here we go again relearning the lesson of Vietnam. On marksmanship there are two here.
First. The AK-47 “NEW” is not an accurate weapon. With typical Chinese/Russian/Eastern European ammunition in has an accuracy of about 6 moa, minutes of angle, translation a good rifleman with a bench support can place five round in a 6” target at 100 yards or more. The same myth by the also holds for their ability with a mortar, the are pretty cra**y at that too. In Vietnam it was very rare for a VC/NVA with an AK-47 or Chicom Type 56 to hit a target over 100 yards. The US M-16 of the early 1960′s had a 3″ moa. All this is with iron sights of course.
Second. Marksmanship is a trainable skill that is perishable and needs constant re-training. This is expensive and burns up a lot of ammunition. So far with modern Armies the United States is the only one that even makes an effort to train it’s soldiers in basic marksmanship and sadly for most soldiers that is a week in BCT and that’s it. The Marines do a better job, I think they now have three weeks of basic marksmanship training in their boot camps. The born marksman is rare and few, it is a myth that all males of developing countries are good shot because they had an AK-47 as a childhood toy.
The current M-4A1′s and M-16A4′s have about 1.75 moa accuracy
The slow evolution into glass sighting devices certainly give the American Soldier/Marine an advantage over any other soldier. It took over 40 years for the Generals to pick up on this though.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
you always post such good stuff.
Danku.
When I was In Baghdad we dealt with a security force on our base who did some interesting things with their AK’s. Apparently, the “cool” thing to do is to saw off your buttstock. They say it makes it more comfortable.
The Iraqi I talked to showed me how easy it is to shoot by putting one hand out there and shooting it like a pistol.
I had never felt so safe in my entire life than that day when I found out I didnt have to worry about actually getting shot anymore heh.
I suppose that the Taliban don't spend a whole lot of time target shootin' on the range, either. In Iraq, we could easily tell the professionals from amateurs by the condition their weapons were in. Most were very, very dirty. Hadn't been cleaned for months. We ran into some Mujahadeen once however, and their weapons were absolutely spotless. Don't forget that, although a generation has passed since they fought the Russuans, the "old-timer" Mujahadeen are as good as anybody. So keep your heads down!!
Healt requirement for good shot is also higher than many believe. Having lived all your life with a riffle you start discarding that because you cant stay good health all time. The arm thikness tells it all. If there is something its mostly fat. Include sloppy stomach and you get a zero aim guy who doesnt even know hes zero because he has newer been better.
It migth have something to do with their food. You just have to eat 10 times the normal european nutrition standard dose to be able to train that much daily. With talib training mentality as far as I have seen in vids ect.. they would be fatter than the avarage Missisippian.. :) :)
Cant the Taliban shoot their own by mistake, drats or shoot thier foot.
Just have some napalm hit some Taliban spot & Roasted Taliban for the day
Yeah, but just like the big sky, little bullet theory they only have to get lucky once.
Makes me happy I live in a country where basic firearm competency is easy to attain. I doubt I'd be much good in combat, between wetting myself and curling up into the fetal position. But I at least know to keep my weapon in good operating condition, how to zero the sights, Iron or optic, and to clean it religiously after every firing, as well as on a regular basis just as a prophylactic.
Thank god for ignorance in our enemies.
I don't know, posts like this always bother me. It reminds me of when the science magazines posted what the original WTC bombers did wrong when they first tried to blow up the WTC. One magazine even showed how they should have done it…. Geez…
You'd think we should post on how wonderful the talibans current marksmenship skills are to encourage them to continue them.
"Spray and Pray" must be Allah's will. :)
If they were dumb enough not to know how bad their marksmanship was, we would have beaten them already.
Its not about marksmanship, or the US would have won already, its not about firepower, or again the war would have been over in days. Its about fighting a war. Thats the US's weakness. They don't know how. They are too pampered and think that they can buy a win simply by throwing borrowed money at it. It reminds me of the Germans. They always had the greatest percision engineering, and the best weapons. Thier uniforms were fashioned by Hugo Voss (just look aty those mickey SS uniforms with all their black and red, and silver trim).
They had it all. The only problem was they kept loosing wars. Now if that isn't a flaw, I don't know what is. It was because they wer arrogant, and got all thier potential allies offside. They believed in their own propaganda regarding sub-humans and inferior peoples. they mistook the invasion of the defensless Saar an example of their military might, just as the US thought that invading Panama proved thier abiltiy to win a war. All this is very familiar gentlemen.
So much for the invincible warriors from the Graveyard of Empires.
Maybe we shouldn't tell them this? Perhaps they realize this, but can't do anything about it? I wonder how someone would attempt trying to create a marksmanship training program for an open source insurgency?
I am willing to bet that Defense Tech isn't read by them. Even if it was, I am sure they wouldn't listen. Maybe some of the smarter ones, but not the dumber ones.
No matter how much technology progresses each soldier and Marine must be held accountable for high standards in marksmanship. Lately the trend has been to slacken the standards, this does no one any favors. There is always time for excellent marksmanship training.
This is amazing. This is the same website that was going on about how the US Army needed to change all thier weapons because they were being out shot by the Taliban with thier AKs from 300 meters away! Seems like you just need to keep coming up with excuses as to why they are out fighting you. The AK may only shoot to 7MOA, but the Taliban have probably figured out (as did the VC) that an American chest is 12MOA.
The reason that the Taliban are winning the war, is not because of their weapons, its because thay Afghanis. They are not some foriegn invading force. They have been doing this for hundreds of years, just ask the english and the Russians. They actually live there, they have no more chance of loosing the war than they have of winning a war in the US if they invaded it. Cut your losses and get out of there, you did in Vietnam, have more or less done so in Iraq.
Nothing bad happened after those losses, learn from your mistakes and get your kids out of there. Its not a game. You are exceeding you ability to pay back your chinesse credit card to finance this war. You have excedded your credit card limit, and your kids, and their kid's kids are going to have to pay it all back with criminal interest. The world has moved on, its not France in 1944. Who cares about some goat herders in the desert. They had nothing to do with what the Saudis did on 9/11.
By the way, I have owned both the AR-15 and the AK-47. if I had to choose, I would toy with the idea of picking the AR-15, but if my life really depended on it, I would choose the AK-47
Really? An Ak-47 is like an Apple product. Sure its durable, and maybe even looks nice, and its operating system is stable. But it is over hyped, and praised far too much for its own good.
The hardest part to believe PETE is that you sound like you actually believe this nonsensical BS you're spewing.
Go back to your padded cell and STOP taking the "meds".
Lay off the AK. 3rd world idiots have been giving it a bad name for a log time. No, it's not a sniper rifle, it's not even a long range engagement weapon, (But can be if you're skilled enough at using it.) but who cares?
I'm with Pete. If something bad really hit the fan, I mean, "One Second After" bad, and I could only pick one weapon to defend myself and my family, hunt for food and use without worry, it would be my AK. Period hands down. End of story.
Hmmmm….well over 110-130,000,000 users don't seem to think that its over hyped. BY the way, do you know that they call the AK-47 the 'Weapon of slow mass distruction'. According to the UN, approximately 220-240,000 people a year are killed by it. Try telling them died ones its over hyped. But then again with over 11,000,000 AR-15s made to date, its an excellent rifle as well
I didn't say "over hyped" Pete, I said ti has been getting a bad name, primarily because of the "pray-n-spray" we always see associated with it.
FFS man, you even argue with people who agree with you?
Now I'm starting to agree with infantryjj,
"F&*^% you Pete"
I wish the "soldiers of allah" would wear those white headbands in combat like they do in their propaganda pics/videos.
Oh, and I forgot…F&*^% you Pete
B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber
http://www.asiapress.tk/2010/02/b-2-spirit-stealt…
If it came down to it, betweem the M16/AR15 and the AK47/74 debate, my pick is the M14. Nuff said.
As far as the dabate about the Taliban outshooting or not outshooting NATO debate, as expressed by Pete above…100 AKs against a platoon…Spray and pray versus marksmanship and fire discipline. I will pick the professional marksman with fire discipline every day. Patton had it right.
"When it comes to rifle fighting, the Taliban – absent major shifts in training, equipment and logistics – are likely to remain mediocre or worse …"
Absent major shifts in training .. so once we're done training the Afghan army, and half those new, decently trained Afghans switch to the Taliban, then this article will be revised? (admittedly, I'm being a pessimistic devils advocate here..)
..and Re Pete, he's sort of correct in one sense, at least.. if you look at threats to the US, Taliban: small; National Debt (and personal/individual debt): very very very big. Remember, McDonalds and SUV roll over kill way more people than Al Qieda ever could, not saying we shouldn't do our best to kill those Taliban etc f'ers since we're there, but its important to keep things in perspective and apply resources wisely (and no, I'm not comparing voluntarily going to McDonalds (which I am going to do for lunch, in my SUV) to involuntarily being killed on 9/11.)
If I had to put my money on something taking us out, it'd be gov't spending and a drying up of credit available to the fed.. starting w/ Reaganomics and continuing to Obamanomics.. not some uneducated goat herder who's never gone over the hill two miles from his mud hut.
The new Echo One variant is a third generation M-14.
All this rambling about the M4 versus the AK is moot in the mountains and villes of AFGN. A 7.62 round is far superior to the 5.56mm. I don't want to hear the lame argument about the added weight of larger caliber ammunition. If you can get a confirmed take down at distances beyond the AK and snipe an RPG team into submission, the extra weight is NOT an issue ! The Marines have had it right since WW1. One round = 1 less enemy to worry about.
There are an estimated 25,000 Taliban in Afghanistan. Tell me where to send my $50,000 cheque to pay for the ammo bill so the USMC can win the war in a few days. GOD its just so simple! Its a wonder you didn't let us all in on your litlle war winning strategy before now. Anyway i'm off down to the bank, have the account details ready for when I get back.
The last time I heard of such 1 to 1 shooting was at Babi Yar in September 1941.
Which is hardly news; the comments about rifle calibres or pistol styles that rage back and forth ignore the most important thing – if it's a reasonable quality weapon that you've maintained well, have been taught to use (or at least read the proper manuals) and have actually used, repeatedly and regularly, then it's probably good enough, but if you're not using it regularly then no amount of technology will help. The only thing that really jumps out is a good quality gunsight, which (fortunately) is not necessarily availible.
It always seems wierd when millions will be spent on weapon competitions when spending half that money on range time and ammunition would probably give you a better result….
The problem is that there's nothing 'magical' about infantry boot camp. Basic infantry procedure is widely published in whatever language takes your fancy – it's just a question of getting a unit of insurgants together with the time, space and ammunition to waste in training together to get it right. A bearded, pashtun version of R. Lee Ermey useful but (unfortunately) not compulsory.
The sights on AK are too close together. If the rear sight is off a tiny bit, the AK-47's sight placement enhances the misallignment significantly more that a weapon with a longer distance between the sights. And come on Russian made weapons aren't known for accuracy when new let alone 30 to 40 years of combat in one of the most godforsaken places on earth. Now I read that some of the older mujhedeen were putting away their AKs and dusting off their old enfields. I also heard that the Afgans can tell who is doing the shooting by the noise, Full Auto + Yelling + RPGs = Taliban, Semi-Auto + Shouts = NATO forces(lacking of Radio comms for everyone), Semi-Auto + Silence = US Forces.
After 30 years or more of War, If the Afgans were natural born marksmen don't you think that there would be less of a problem for Troops there today? or at least a whole lot less of Afgans to shoot at our Troops?
My 2cnts is that for as long as they been fighting with the aks, i probably think that the barrels are worn out. The grooves are almost nothing and maintenance is non existing for the talibans weapons. So i think that the m-16 has the advantage in that us has weapons maintenance and markmenship. The disadvantage is that the m16 and its 5.56 round has an range of 300meters an aks is 500m. We do need a heavier round for a distance of firefights happening in agfhan. out over 500 m. I loved my m16a1 for its accuracy and lightweight. Firing it on full auto was the best thing in the world, a 30rnd mag in 3 seconds. thats my 2cts
The Taliban don't need to be good marksmen! An Afghan with a rusty Mosin-Nagant fires at an American patrol and the cost of killing or neutralizing that that Afghan is very high. By the time that the American troops fire their small-arms ammo and call in an artillery strike and maybe an air-strike, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on men, equipment and ammo. It's the acountants who know who is winning the war. They know better than the generals. With the US going broke and headed for a financial crisis, everyone should know the score.