PDA

View Full Version : The combat shotgun



Kiwigrunt
06-09-2010, 11:09 PM
This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkL_MZLaqSs&playnext_from=TL&videos=rQl1zo8SiQA&feature=sub&fmt=18) shows the new UK combat shotgun. I believe NZ has adopted a shorter barreled version of the same weapon. The US have had this weapon as a standard now for some years but they still don't seem to be used much at squad level.

What are your thoughts on replacing a rifleman's individual weapon with a hard-kicking short range shotgun? Personally I can't see much of an increase in capability beyond breaching doors and perhaps stopping vehicles with solid slug. I think if I was point man of a patrol I'd prefer an assault rifle any day.

Does a shotty really increase the chance of a hit because of the spread? The spread is not all that great so you still have to aim just the same. And there are already two short-barrelled Minimi's per section. A short burst at short range.....? Or a short burst with an IW (dare I suggest it)?

It's hard to argue the stopping power but that is probably more a discussion about 5.56. I'd hope that the introduction of a whole new weapon is not a round-about way of overcoming that.

morealtitude
06-09-2010, 11:47 PM
I'd agree that a shottie doesn't appear to provide much advantage in infantry combat, with very specific exceptions. 'Spread' as you say is limited, and with spread, the stopping-power of a .12-guage discharge is going to be pretty limited beyond very close range, even if you manage to wing somebody. Given reduced stopping-power (except at ranges below ~30 feet) and vastly reduced range versus AR (esp 7.62mm variants) I wouldn't want a combat shotgun as my primary. The only real use I can see for it would be, as you say, for breaching, and possibly room clearance in CQC context, and I would see its value only as a secondary personal weapon. This is certainly not a solution to the 5.56mm debate.

JMA
06-09-2010, 11:59 PM
This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkL_MZLaqSs&playnext_from=TL&videos=rQl1zo8SiQA&feature=sub&fmt=18) What are your thoughts on replacing a rifleman's individual weapon with a hard-kicking short range shotgun? Personally I can't see much of an increase in capability beyond breaching doors and perhaps stopping vehicles with solid slug. I think if I was point man of a patrol I'd prefer an assault rifle any day.

As a young officer I carried a shotgun until I had a contact while on the move at last light. Fired the 7 rounds in about 3 secs then caught my finger while trying to reload. Luckily a cheap lesson learned.

Thereafter only allowed a shotgun as a second weapon and only for ambush ops where he would fire the seven shots then pick up his FN and take it further from there. (and a Claymore mine was better than 10 shotguns)

What ammo? Can't see any point in a solid slug. Otherwise LG, 00, SG?

In that video they talk about coming across enemy at close range in the corn fields. Are the TB such idiots that they will hide out in corn fields? Best way to clear cornfields is from the air looking down.

Seen that type of shotgun in photos of US Marines. What's their experience?

SethB
06-10-2010, 12:29 AM
Shotgun slugs buzz through cars and other barriers very, very well. Other than that... They can be used to 100M or more with some degree of accuracy.

Buckshot at a short range will be so closely spaced that you'll need to sue the sights. Beyond optimum range it spreads out and you need to use slugs.

Properly shooting a shotgun requires a great deal of training. You have to be on top of ammunition management, able to switch munitions at will and you have to know how to use them in order to get full effect, such as being able to use richochets to get into dead space.

I don't claim to know how to use one. I had such a shotgun for a while and grew tired of the deficiencies when compared to an M4 copy.

William F. Owen
06-10-2010, 05:11 AM
What are your thoughts on replacing a rifleman's individual weapon with a hard-kicking short range shotgun? Personally I can't see much of an increase in capability beyond breaching doors and perhaps stopping vehicles with solid slug. I think if I was point man of a patrol I'd prefer an assault rifle any day.
Concur. I played a lot with the UK issue Remington 870 "Wing master." Complete waste of time for anything other than breaching.

To agree with JMA, I would not want to blunder into a Talib in a corn field with just a shotgun. Anything you can do with it, you can do better with an L85 - IMO, but I'll defer to anyone with actual relevant experience.

Chris jM
06-10-2010, 06:18 AM
This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkL_MZLaqSs&playnext_from=TL&videos=rQl1zo8SiQA&feature=sub&fmt=18) shows the new UK combat shotgun. I believe NZ has adopted a shorter barreled version of the same weapon. The US have had this weapon as a standard now for some years but they still don't seem to be used much at squad level.

The NZDF has the Benelli M3A1 and, to my untrained eye, it looks like the Brits have the M3 of some description, too. We have two barrels in service as well, and the user can swap them as required.

They are intended to be used as a secondary wpn in all mid to high intensity tasks.

Chris jM
06-10-2010, 06:27 AM
What ammo? Can't see any point in a solid slug. Otherwise LG, 00, SG?


In terms of lethal ammunition, your right in that their appears to be some obvious drawbacks to the buckshot/ slug type rounds.

There are, however, some pretty impressive rounds out there for the close-in infantry fight. A British firm produces the FRAG-12 which is a family of HE rounds. One is designed for stand-off breaching, one for anti-pers and one for armour penetration (I'd read this as more penetrating a barricade or engine block rather than the traditional blowing through an APC's side, though). I know the USMC trialled these a few years back; beyond that I don't know who is using them or where. The company claims all the FRAG-12 have a max range of 200m.

Link: http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/FRAG%2012.pdf

I mentioned the Less Lethal application of shotgun in this thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=10380), which died rather quickly. Of interest, though, is the XERP 12 ga round that can be fired from any std shotgun.

The Taser XREP 12ga shell: http://www.taser.com/pages/VideoDetails.aspx?videoid=97

Polarbear1605
06-10-2010, 03:33 PM
I was a US Marine Security Force Combat Pistol and Shotgun instructor for a short while, many, many years ago. As officer I also made it a point to carry a shotgun when I was in combat. IMO the shotgun is an outstanding weapon, and at least one should be welcomed in each rifle squad. The variety of ammo is a major advantage. If you are going to carry one in combat you definitely need the slug rounds because sooner or later you will need to reach out and touch someone passed that 20 to 40 meters range. The good thing about the slug is it will drop anything it hits; even if it does not penetrate body armor and it is amazingly accurate. With a little practice the operator can quickly switch between 00 buck and slugs. The true tribute to the shotgun is the WWI trench shotgun. It had two primary purposes; first in the defense to prevent the trench from being overrun. The trench shotgun did not have a trigger disconnector allowing the weapon to be fired each time it was pumped. Six rounds of 00 buck (6x9 pellets) meant the weapons could quickly launch 54 32 cal rounds. I was surprised to see this scenario in the recent HBO series “Pacific” showing John Basilone’s heroics. Of course, trench clearing was the second purpose. Again very effective, in fact, it was so effective the Germans of WW1 tried to have it outlawed.

Firn
06-10-2010, 06:21 PM
I was a US Marine Security Force Combat Pistol and Shotgun instructor for a short while, many, many years ago. As officer I also made it a point to carry a shotgun when I was in combat. IMO the shotgun is an outstanding weapon, and at least one should be welcomed in each rifle squad. The variety of ammo is a major advantage. If you are going to carry one in combat you definitely need the slug rounds because sooner or later you will need to reach out and touch someone passed that 20 to 40 meters range. The good thing about the slug is it will drop anything it hits; even if it does not penetrate body armor and it is amazingly accurate.

I have never wielded a combat shotgun, only the hunting variety. Anyway the Paradox gun , basically a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel which was only rifled close to the end of the barrel was considered by many experienced big game hunters of the British Empire to be with a soft, heavy lead slug a fantastic choice for pretty much any dangerous game bar the most thick-skinned of game (rhinos, elephants). A huge advantage of the slow but heavy slug was that it kept trucking even when it hit twigs and grass - not bad when shooting at a Tiger charging through the high grass. ( I personally never have used a slug on game, as it is strangly outlawed in my region to do so)


Weighing in the case of a 12-bore but 7 Ibs. or 7 1/2 Ibs., the Paradox shoots a heavy conical ball with extreme accuracy up to 100 yards or more, while when used with shot, it is as effective as a good shot gun. Its lightness, handiness ands power render it a most valuable weapon for tiger or bear shooting, as also for use upon deer in forested areas, and for running shots up to 100 yards or so, it is to be preferred to any rifle. (the .303 Lee was already in heavy military and hunting use)

That pretty much sums the power of a slug up.



With a little practice the operator can quickly switch between 00 buck and slugs. The true tribute to the shotgun is the WWI trench shotgun. It had two primary purposes; first in the defense to prevent the trench from being overrun. The trench shotgun did not have a trigger disconnector allowing the weapon to be fired each time it was pumped. Six rounds of 00 buck (6x9 pellets) meant the weapons could quickly launch 54 32 cal rounds. I was surprised to see this scenario in the recent HBO series “Pacific” showing John Basilone’s heroics. Of course, trench clearing was the second purpose. Again very effective, in fact, it was so effective the Germans of WW1 tried to have it outlawed.


The experienced hunter and possibly the main driving force behind the British sniping effort in WWI, MAJOR H. HESKETH-PRICHARD wrote the following in this regard:



I was always very much afraid all through the war that, having started poison gas, the Germans might start using shot guns loaded with buckshot for work between the trenches. Had they done so, patrolling would have become a horrible business ; but I suppose that they were restrained by the fact either that such weapons are not allowed by the Geneva Convention, or that the British Isles have such a supply of shot guns and cartridges that the advantage would not remain long upon their side. As it was, things were much more satisfactory, for there was plenty of excitement out in No Man's Land, what with machine-gun bullets and rifle fire, without the added horror of a charge of small shot in the face.

This was of course before the common soldier had access to assault rifles and machine pistols. In short I have no doubt in its power, I just wonder if it is worth the weight, especially that of the heavy ammunition. I guess it depends very much on the specific situations.


Firn

qp4
06-10-2010, 06:54 PM
I'm not sure that anyone could seriously say that carrying a shotgun is a replacement for a rifle or carbine. The only time I've seen people toting shotguns as a primary weapon is because it just looks cooler, same as the one knee pad thing, and it's been on FOBs. My experience with the shotgun is purely as a breaching tool, and it stays backslung except to pop doors.

Infanteer
06-11-2010, 04:11 AM
My guys loved carrying it for the LCF - we'd usually always have one strapped to a bag on patrol. More a tool than a weapon in our line of work, but the intimidation factor works well; I had guys bring them out to get some restless locals to calm down once....

Rifleman
06-11-2010, 09:57 PM
FWIW, many cops are replacing shotguns with AR-15s whenever possible. More ammo before a reload, more ergonomic, better range, and much better for precision shooting, which is going to count for a lot in a situation like an active school shooter.

My 870 has been converted to a dedicated less lethal. It's loaded with drag stabilized bean bag rounds.

When the general consensus is that shotguns don't have as much police application as they used to I can't imagine how they could have much military application. As mentioned, the exception is breaching.

Bob's World
06-12-2010, 09:28 PM
There is actually a dire need for non-lethal weapons in Afghanistan, and a 12-guage offers a good option for that.

Give a sentry 1-2 beanbag rounds followed by double ought, while a teammate covers with the M240. Way too many "warning shots" being used to blow Afghans off their motorcycles as they approach checkpoints, and way too many soldiers and lower level commanders taking heat for the same; with no real option for the soldier being offered other than "courageous restraint." Give the kid a real option, and he'll likely take it.

SethB
06-12-2010, 09:55 PM
Mixing lethal and less lethal is usually considered to be risky. It goes back to ammunition management.

That is why you see 870s with orange stocks. They aren't ever loaded with lethal rounds, and when one cop hands the shotgun off to the next they unload, inspect and reload the weapon to ensure that no lethal rounds got mixed in.

Bob's World
06-12-2010, 10:05 PM
Mixing lethal and less lethal is usually considered to be risky. It goes back to ammunition management.

That is why you see 870s with orange stocks. They aren't ever loaded with lethal rounds, and when one cop hands the shotgun off to the next they unload, inspect and reload the weapon to ensure that no lethal rounds got mixed in.

We all know the horror stories of going between Blank and Ball, and guys getting killed when a mag of ball goes in during a MILES engagement following a livefire.

Clearly it would have to be closely managed and supervised; with severe penalties for the jackass prankster who decides to shoot his buddy with a beanbag.

Chris jM
06-12-2010, 10:11 PM
Mixing lethal and less lethal is usually considered to be risky. It goes back to ammunition management.

That is why you see 870s with orange stocks. They aren't ever loaded with lethal rounds, and when one cop hands the shotgun off to the next they unload, inspect and reload the weapon to ensure that no lethal rounds got mixed in.

This is something I'm working on (professionally) right now, and if anyone out there has any further info or 'I've done it this way and it worked well/OK/not at all' I'd really appreciate info here or via PM.

Also, any points on how you can/ have dealt with the different aiming points/ zeroing requirements for each ammo type would be excellent.

Back to the above comment, mixing rounds is very risky, agreed. There are ways around it - say, a separate person (commander, 2I/C?)carries the lethal rounds and only supplies them when required.

I think it's worth developing TTPs for mixed round loads, especially when you add breaching into the mix. Having someone be able to shoot a lock off and then be able to fire a bean-bag (or the 12ga Taser!!) if required is a good capability.

If anyone is interested, the British Army is fielding the Benelli M4. It's like the M3 but from what I have read is only semi-auto, making it unable to fire all less lethal types and most breaching types, which require the pump-action mode to cycle between rounds.

Uboat509
06-12-2010, 10:24 PM
There is actually a dire need for non-lethal weapons in Afghanistan, and a 12-guage offers a good option for that.

Give a sentry 1-2 beanbag rounds followed by double ought, while a teammate covers with the M240. Way too many "warning shots" being used to blow Afghans off their motorcycles as they approach checkpoints, and way too many soldiers and lower level commanders taking heat for the same; with no real option for the soldier being offered other than "courageous restraint." Give the kid a real option, and he'll likely take it.

I disagree completely. Giving a soldier a less than lethal weapon as his primary and then double ought buck in a combat zone is a bad idea. Having a less than lethal option available is not necessarily a bad a idea but making it the primary puts that soldier in a very bad position. When you need the lethal option and all you have is been bags and double ought at a check point, your chain of command has failed you. Certainly we need to do out best, within reason, to make sure that we are killing the right people, but we are getting way too wrapped up in the little details and trying too hard to make this whole thing safe. Out military is NOT a police force and never will be, nor should we expect it to be. I seriously doubt that the difference between an acceptable outcome and a not so successful outcome is going to come down to a few guys on motorcyles getting killed because they fail to respond properly to a checkpoint.

Kiwigrunt
06-13-2010, 01:03 AM
It looks to me like there needs to be a clear differentiation between lethal and less lethal.
I can see the sense in having ‘beenbag-shotties’ available as secondary weapons, in checkpoint type scenarios. That is very different from having a ‘combat shotgun’. Technically those concepts can of course be combined by mixing the different types of ammo. But from a doctrine and tactical perspective I can’t see it working. Do you give each section a combat shotgun just so they have a less than lethal capability when needed, and justify that as a reason to have a combat shotgun? (With all the inherent risks mentioned in above posts.) I should think that an arms room available less than lethal weapon (shotgun or otherwise) makes more sense. And I think the above mentioned idea of painting it orange is not silly either. And then the kid that Bob’s World mentions knows exactly what he/she is holding.

If it is decided that a combat shotgun is needed for door breaching etc, than I wonder if a different weapon should be issued for that purpose. And that could IMO be a very simple and short pump action like shown below. That could potentially be holstered.
If however HE shells like the Frag 12 that Chris alluded to become successful and desirable than this shortie would probably not suffice. But then I would see the shotgun more as a grenade launcher that can be used as a rifle/shotgun/doorbreacher. But would there be a need/justification for it with 40 mm already available? Would Frag 12 be just another reason/justification for having a shotgun?

Chris jM
06-13-2010, 01:31 AM
ITechnically those concepts can of course be combined by mixing the different types of ammo. But from a doctrine and tactical perspective I can’t see it working. Do you give each section a combat shotgun just so they have a less than lethal capability when needed, and justify that as a reason to have a combat shotgun? (With all the inherent risks mentioned in above posts.)

It's not perfect, obviously, but I think it is a very worthwhile compromise.

The one weapon can provide lethal, less lethal and breaching effects when desired. You only need one weapon system, with all the benefits that come from rationalising supply and especially training requirements.

Risks are always present and they obviously need to be managed. The flexibility and utility the 12ga offers as a weapon system appears to be a great option. If it's only required as a less lethal option, then only deploy it with bean-bag rounds and your done. The ability to re-role it to assist in other mission types, though, give it a huge utility factor that the single-role equivalent wpns lack.

slapout9
06-13-2010, 02:00 AM
In the 82nd we had Winchester M-1200's with a bayonet lug on it that we kept for Civil Disturbance/Riot Control training and it would certainly be good at that. In Police World I had the basic Remington 870 with slugs per department SOP. More accurate and they were considered pretty good man stoppers.

Having been shot at with a shotgun that had 00 buck in it. I can tell the Psychological/Intimidation factor is greater than the actual effect. The shot pattern does not spread out like you think it will, as has already been pointed out, which is why I am still here writing this. Had it been a slug things might have turned out different. The noise of the weapon also has an intimidating effect.

It would be a good CQC weapon for clearing rooms maybe, but in actual Combat I don't know if it would be worth the weight. It is good for Police work as has been mentioned but serious combat is a different matter IMO.

Bob's World
06-13-2010, 02:33 AM
I disagree completely. Giving a soldier a less than lethal weapon as his primary and then double ought buck in a combat zone is a bad idea. Having a less than lethal option available is not necessarily a bad a idea but making it the primary puts that soldier in a very bad position. When you need the lethal option and all you have is been bags and double ought at a check point, your chain of command has failed you. Certainly we need to do out best, within reason, to make sure that we are killing the right people, but we are getting way too wrapped up in the little details and trying too hard to make this whole thing safe. Out military is NOT a police force and never will be, nor should we expect it to be. I seriously doubt that the difference between an acceptable outcome and a not so successful outcome is going to come down to a few guys on motorcyles getting killed because they fail to respond properly to a checkpoint.

Insurgency may be warfare, but COIN is not. COIN is dealing with a civil emergency. Right now we are ordering our soldiers to apply courageous restraint, and to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. We have given them the orders, and have given them some suggestions cooked up at higher level hq as to how to implement those orders, but we have not given them new tools designed for what they were told to do.

Now, we too can debate the orders, but that will not change the orders or the fact that the soldiers need better tools to execute them.

All of those who insist on calling FID "COIN"; and those who insist on approaching COIN as warfare are, IMO, sadly off the mark. We are not a bunch of Colonial masters out to simply beat down the locals and keep our puppet governance in power, and keep the profits flowing; yet we continue to dig up the tactics of that era and discuss them as valid for the mission we face today. They aren't. And that is before you factor in the effects of the current advances in information technologies that render a whole other segment of oldschool COIN obsolete. Pop-Centric tactics are better, but they are tactics all the same and still require a strategy to shape their employment. Surging additional troops is good logistices, but also requires a strategy to drive the employment of those resources.

So, question is, if this operation was being conducted in Frankfurt (or London, or Kansas City?) instead of Kandahar would you want your soldiers to have effective non-lethal weapons? Is this somehow different because we are in someone elses country?

Chris jM
06-13-2010, 02:52 AM
Insurgency may be warfare, but COIN is not. COIN is dealing with a civil emergency...yet we continue to dig up the tactics of that era and discuss them as valid for the mission we face today. They aren't.

Sir - So contemporary COIN is, for the military elements involved, a foreign civil enforcement mission?

That would then indicate that the force elements deployed are better off assuming civil LE TTPs and equipment/ capabilities.

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, or argue for or against what you've said. Rather, this is a genuine question as it relates to how we train and deploy (esp with regards to less lethal means) as you see it.

Rifleman
06-13-2010, 03:02 AM
So, question is, if this operation was being conducted in Frankfurt (or London, or Kansas City?) instead of Kandahar would you want your soldiers to have effective non-lethal weapons?

Bob,

If less lethal is needed, okay, but I believe it needs to be a dedicated less lethal gun. I side with those who are against using both less lethal and lethal ammo in the same gun at different times. And the accepeted term in cop circles is less lethal not non-lethal. A bean bag round to the head can kill.

Bob's World
06-13-2010, 03:12 AM
You must understand the nature of the conflict you are in; as well as what it is your national interests are that you hope to address in said conflict; and then what your mission then therefore is and how to best accomplish it.

I think if each of those are decision points that shape major course changes, we've addressed critical decision points with some seriously flawed assumptions about Insurgency, COIN, what interests are at stake, how to best address them, etc, etc.

But, as a rule, yes, I believe that for the government, COIN is best looked at as a civil emergency, and handled as such as well. Civil leadership remains firmly in charge and military capabilities are brought in only as required to supplement where civil capabilities are lacking or are inadequate to the task. That is before you bring in your first foreign troop to assist you in your COIN

We then, are that foreign troop. Does it suddenly become a "war" for us because we are on foreign soil and there to preserve our own national interests over everything else, to include the wellfare of the populace or the interest of the nation we are supporting?

Some would argue yes, or otherwise we should simply stay out of it altogether. Some would argue that you must engage, but also that one can't simply justify any means to by the ends desired.

If your question is: Do I think we need to wage war in Afghanistan to preserve our critical national interests in Afghanistan; I would argue that no, we do not. Unless that is we see our critical national interest to be the preservation of the Karzai government in the face of popular revolt. At that point we have no choice. But I would caution, when we thwart the will of a nation's populace to preseve the governments the west desires over the governments that those popualces desire, we plant the seeds of terrorism in the process. Many of those seeds will sprout in those oppressed lands; but some will sprout among disaffected related communities within our own borders as well.

Bob's World
06-13-2010, 03:15 AM
Bob,

If less lethal is needed, okay, but I believe it needs to be a dedicated less lethal gun. I side with those who are against using both less lethal and lethal ammo in the same gun at different times. And the accepeted term in cop circles is less lethal not non-lethal. A bean bag round to the head can kill.

This is a thread about the validity of shotguns in combat. My only point was that they have a role as a delivery vehicle for a family on non-lethal rounds.

With a follow-on point that this is a major shortfall for our troops currently.

The points after that soon left this small tactical topic and got after some aspects of the larger issues I wrestle with. Sorry.

Ken White
06-13-2010, 03:32 AM
Insurgency may be warfare, but COIN is not. COIN is dealing with a civil emergency... but we have not given them new tools designed for what they were told to do.Maybe we're using the wrong tools for the job.

I totally agree that 'COIN' is a civil emergency and not 'warfare -- thus war fighters are an inappropriate tool selection. :eek:
Now, we too can debate the orders, but that will not change the orders or the fact that the soldiers need better tools to execute them.Why will that not change? Is that a lock? Should it be? :confused:
All of those who insist on calling FID "COIN"; and those who insist on approaching COIN as warfare are, IMO, sadly off the mark...We can agree on that.
So, question is, if this operation was being conducted in Frankfurt (or London, or Kansas City?) instead of Kandahar would you want your soldiers to have effective non-lethal weapons? Is this somehow different because we are in someone elses country?Uh, yes it is different. If the operation was being conducted in Frankfurt, London or K.C. we probably would avoid using the Army... :wry:

Back to the thread:

Uboat509 and Rifleman are both correct -- so are you -- there's a need for less than lethal; Most soldiers should NOT be issued such weapons; they should be clearly and colorfully identified as less than lethal and they should be dedicated to that purpose and used by specially trained guys or gals, probably MPs and never issued to combat infantry units. Ees not their yob...

Doing THAT would be an invitation to the problems you seek to avoid...

Kiwigrunt
06-13-2010, 03:58 AM
This is a thread about the validity of shotguns in combat. My only point was that they have a role as a delivery vehicle for a family on non-lethal rounds.

With a follow-on point that this is a major shortfall for our troops currently.

The points after that soon left this small tactical topic and got after some aspects of the larger issues I wrestle with. Sorry.

Not at all. Yes, my intention here was indeed to examine the shotgun in a combat role. That said, it was unavoidable that within the first few posts the less lethal issue had to pop up. The shotgun would be about the only ‘normal’ firearm well capable of being used in that role.

Chris jM made a good attempt at starting a conversation here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=10380&highlight=lethal), that should cover some of those aspects of the larger issues that you wrestle with.
As Chris mentioned himself, the conversation died young. I’m not sure why because, as you do, I think it is an important issue. I had little to contribute but eagerly awaited more…
There is a relatively strong LE representation here but most of us are/were military. Maybe we still have some trouble getting our heads around this less lethal stuff. We probably really just want it to go away so that we can concentrate on a more black and white and traditional mindset with regards to what armies ‘should’ be used for. Whether we like it or not, our armies will be used for COIN, FID, peacekeeping etc. for a long time yet.


Added:
Missed Ken’s post. Fully agree....ees not their job, but, as per my last, they are given the job. Wrongly, but I don’t think it will change. That makes them the meat in the sandwich and they will need tools to deal with it.

Chris jM
06-13-2010, 04:08 AM
BW, I set everything off on the tangent. My bad. The idea that we are policing, not soldiering in the purest sense of the term, interests me and leads directly into the following...



Uboat509 and Rifleman are both correct -- so are you -- there's a need for less than lethal; Most soldiers should NOT be issued such weapons; they should be clearly and colorfully identified as less than lethal and they should be dedicated to that purpose and used by specially trained guys or gals, probably MPs and never issued to combat infantry units. Ees not their yob...

Doing THAT would be an invitation to the problems you seek to avoid...

In an ideal world, yes. The ideal world being where the infantry are deployed to the higher-intensity areas where the mission sees the close-with, seek-out, sieze-and-hold sorta stuff. Unfortunately the west lacks the quantity of expeditionary police forces and military police forces to be able to specialise in such a way. Thus infantry and, and most likely will continue to be, on the checkpoints and on stability (presence?!?) patrols through populated areas. Do we create a specialised 'less lethal' position in each patrol, or just factor the less lethal capability into our existing infantry tool-kit?

From my army's experience it (less lethal) has to be an infantry task through necessity. Alternatives, short of radical re-rolling of forces and ToEs, just don't exist.

What we can do is clearly define the less lethal weapons/ ammo natures, train the users and commanders and then rely on proper judgement and employment by the operators.

Ken White
06-13-2010, 04:39 AM
In an ideal world, yes. The ideal world being where the infantry are deployed to the higher-intensity areas where the mission sees the close-with, seek-out, sieze-and-hold sorta stuff. Unfortunately the west lacks the quantity of expeditionary police forces and military police forces to be able to specialise in such a way. Thus infantry and, and most likely will continue to be, on the checkpoints and on stability (presence?!?) patrols through populated areas. Do we create a specialised 'less lethal' position in each patrol, or just factor the less lethal capability into our existing infantry tool-kit?If we lack the right tools for the job due to cost, personnel strengths or other shortfalls, we probably should acquire the proper toools OR not undertake the job at all...:mad:

I suggest we in the west really need to ask ourselves exactly what we think we're doing in our interventions?

Most such interventions by general purpose western forces are undertaken due to a small 'l' liberal desire to make things better -- those same people then turn around and criticize such interventions as militaristic neo-colonialism etc. etc. and cry for them to end prematurely. That makes no sense. Not only is it not ideal -- doesn't need to be, BTW -- it's dumb. :rolleyes:

Right off the top of my head, I cannot think of a single such intervention by western forces that was truly worth the cost and effort. Do you know any?

Do not take that as saying the west should not get involved, that's not what I said, not at all. I believe there should be more involvement. It should be undertaken earlier, should be intelligence driven (we do that fairly well, we just don't act on the intel at all well); involve aid, diplomatic efforts and limited special forces-like military assistance -- anything to avoid committing the GPF who will never do it well (nor should they be able to do so)...
What we can do is clearly define the less lethal weapons/ ammo natures, train the users and commanders and then rely on proper judgement and employment by the operators.Umm, are these the same Commanders who cannot be trusted to properly conduct patrol and show presence in such interventions? ;)

Seriously, I understand and you're regrettably correct given current realities but it is a slippery slope and best avoided -- and the non-lethal weapons should never be the only weapon issued and should be clearly identifiable as non-lethal -- just as the bearer's other weapon(s) should be lethal and clearly identifiable as such.

William F. Owen
06-13-2010, 05:26 AM
There a whole range of "Less than Lethal" munitions of the 40mm GL. Back in the day, most patrols in Ulster carried a 37mm "Baton" gun, for just that reason - and you can fire a 37mm baton round out of an M-203!! - oh yes! I've done it. :)

Chris jM
06-14-2010, 09:12 AM
I suggest we in the west really need to ask ourselves exactly what we think we're doing in our interventions?


Being a good servant of my Queen and country, I'm doing what's asked of me. And, following my commander's intent, we do it with as little harm as is possible.

I'm skipping the majority of your question with this answer - sorry, but it is true from my perspective.

In undertaking these tasks, until we are told to refocus our main effort on 'pure' warfighting rather than the armed constabulary/ warfighting combination, there is an obvious capability gap.

I'm not arguing against you given your acknowledgement of 'current realities'. It's not a slippery slope ahead of us - it's one were already well into.

So the capability cap exists, and the tasks required of us are unavoidable. I see the question of 'avoidability' as completely academic and theoretical and agree with BW that 'this is a major shortfall for our troops currently'.


Rifleman - I side with those who are against using both less lethal and lethal ammo in the same gun at different times.

From my perspective this isn't an issue - we can't afford the diamond-studded solution different weapon systems for 12 ga lethal, less lethal and breaching so my defence force has to make do with what we've got. There are pros and cons to the 12-ga-everything approach - flexibility and ease of logistics/ training vs the necessity for robust C2 and TTPs.


Ken White - they should be dedicated to that purpose and used by specially trained guys or gals, probably MPs and never issued to combat infantry units. Ees not their yob...

Unfortunately it is our job, now, so we'll do what we've always done... we'll make do with our own issued kit, and once deployed around our allies we'll find what expensive piece of kit of yours does it best, and we'll steal it :D

Ken White
06-14-2010, 03:08 PM
Being a good servant of my Queen and country, I'm doing what's asked of me. And, following my commander's intent, we do it with as little harm as is possible.

I'm skipping the majority of your question with this answer - sorry, but it is true from my perspective.for the bulk of the questions I asked. That's always been considered a stock answer by many who serve... :wry:

Though I would suggest consideration of the fact that an Army deciding to do its job "with as little harm as possible" is itself on a slippery slope and may very well have an adaptation problem if confronted with heavy combat.
I'm not arguing against you given your acknowledgement of 'current realities'. It's not a slippery slope ahead of us - it's one were already well into.

So the capability cap exists, and the tasks required of us are unavoidable. I see the question of 'avoidability' as completely academic and theoretical and agree with BW that 'this is a major shortfall for our troops currently'.We can disagree on that -- if you and Bob's World said perceived shortfall, I'd agree while pointing out that IMO you're both looking for a technical solution to a problem of poor training. :D

"Avoidability" may academic and theoretical at your level; it is not at all academic for the politicians who make decisions on actions. They need to be a bit smarter -- and it is the job of serving Soldiers to make them smarter...

That said and while I certainly accept your answer to most of my comment, I don't believe that answer addresses this question:

"Umm, are these the same Commanders who cannot be trusted to properly conduct patrol and show presence in such interventions?" :D

slapout9
06-14-2010, 04:30 PM
Unfortunately it is our job, now, so we'll do what we've always done... we'll make do with our own issued kit, and once deployed around our allies we'll find what expensive piece of kit of yours does it best, and we'll steal it :D

See that Maneuver Warfare stuff does work sometimes:D:D:D

JMA
06-14-2010, 05:21 PM
Being a good servant of my Queen and country, I'm doing what's asked of me. And, following my commander's intent, we do it with as little harm as is possible.

If you are talking about harm to own forces then I can agree.

However, if you are talking about the enemy I can't agree.

I would be interested to know if you can remember the circumstances this indoctrination was forced upon you?

Chris jM
06-15-2010, 09:55 AM
Though I would suggest consideration of the fact that an Army deciding to do its job "with as little harm as possible" is itself on a slippery slope and may very well have an adaptation problem if confronted with heavy combat.

You have 100%, whole-hearted endorsement from me in this. As with everything in life, opportunity costs accompany every decision. The route to pop-centric COIN has come at a cost, either consciously made or unwittingly, and the effects will be felt into the future. How much this affects your Army I can only guess at, but my army has effectively shunned anything over low-intensity combat in favor of high-end policing.


We can disagree on that -- if you and Bob's World said perceived shortfall, I'd agree while pointing out that IMO you're both looking for a technical solution to a problem of poor training. :D

It's a technical solution to a problem of poor training and poor policy. However, due to the shortfalls, there is a capability gap requiring an immediate solution. Fixing training is certainly a worthy course of action, but won't alleviate the immediate need for our soldier's to be able to deploy less lethal effects. Fixing poor policy is another question altogether... I think we're as likely to fix that as a beauty queen is as likely to achieve world peace.



That said and while I certainly accept your answer to most of my comment, I don't believe that answer addresses this question:

"Umm, are these the same Commanders who cannot be trusted to properly conduct patrol and show presence in such interventions?" :D

I'm trying out this whole manoeuvre warfare thing, targeting your strengths and avoiding your weaknesses. Turns out MW is great on paper but falls apart when employed against an adaptive opponent (this doubles as a response to Slapout's comment, as well!) :D

Chris jM
06-15-2010, 10:06 AM
However, if you are talking about the enemy I can't agree.

I would be interested to know if you can remember the circumstances this indoctrination was forced upon you?

I'm talking about harm, full stop, enemy/ civ/ FF inclusive. I perceive it to be cultural so I see the indoctrinate is total and all-encompassing. Perhaps I'm wrong - I rather hope that I am...

I would say this is a luxury born of NZ's position and boutique recent strategic involvement/ military history.

Example - I sat in a lecture yesterday on our approach to irregular activity, given by one of our instrumental HQ/ leadership types. It lumped our recent 'successes' in Bouganville, Bosnia, East Timor, Solomon Islands and Bamiyan (Afghanistan) to the application of a competent 'hearts and minds' approach. Assumed and explicitly stated as a conclusion was the fact that 'hearts and minds' kiwi-style was our way of the future to operational success.

A further case in point - we have our defence review (new government white paper) due it in a few months. Public reporting indicates that our MinDefence will elevate 'humanitarian disaster relief' to being a core defence function, and we will reallocate procurement and training accordingly.

Don't shoot the messenger - I don't believe that playing soccer with kids in Timor and handing out blankets in Bamiyan helps our cause - but this view is institutionalised. I held this view when I first participated on this board, and that learning experience was a rather brutal way of undermining my organisational upbringing.

In academic defence of a 'do minimal harm' policy, it's not that bad a concept. After all we need to win the peace - what better way to do that than ensure your avoid destruction and killing wherever possible? It won't work against a competent or conventional army that requires defeat, but against a threat group that is relatively weak, the policy holds up. Knowing when NOT to apply it will be the trouble, and the consequences of misapplication will be very, very painful.

Now, where were we? Shotguns?

JMA
06-16-2010, 05:36 AM
I'm talking about harm, full stop, enemy/ civ/ FF inclusive. I perceive it to be cultural so I see the indoctrinate is total and all-encompassing. Perhaps I'm wrong - I rather hope that I am...

When an army spends its time on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions and is most unlikely to ever allow itself to get sucked into a real shooting war to any significant degree then it can indulge in the luxury a doctrine of low harm military operations. Perhaps even be proud they they never fired a shot in anger during the deployment to such-and-such a country. (This is not work for an army)

Perhaps this should evolve into another thread where perhaps the necessity of small countries to even train with say armour which they will probably never ever use can be debated.

Countries in Africa maintain large militaries (for their size) to suppress their own people and prey on their neighbours rather than defence of their own nomeland.

For instance what are the realistic prospects of an invasion of the NZ islands?

Rex Brynen
06-16-2010, 10:53 AM
When an army spends its time on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions and is most unlikely to ever allow itself to get sucked into a real shooting war to any significant degree then it can indulge in the luxury a doctrine of low harm military operations. Perhaps even be proud they they never fired a shot in anger during the deployment to such-and-such a country. (This is not work for an army)

I'll have to start a thread on this at some point, but frankly whatever the national political authorities decide the army will do is "work for an army." It may not be the army's preferred work, and it might well clash (in terms of TTPs) with other things the army does. That's life.

Equally, the development folks would prefer not work in warzones, the diplomats find it simpler when they just have to deal with states, and the IC finds it more convenient when they have to do collection against peer competitors and not insurgents hiding in slums, caves or the bush. However, that's really all irrelevant. None of them--the army included--gets to say (as sometimes happens in the threads here) "sorry, we don't do windows."

Now, back to the shotgun thread...

Ken White
06-16-2010, 02:54 PM
On the subject of less than lethal weapons, I believe US police experience has shown that the Orange painted shotguns they use for less than lethal situations are an advantage as if photographs are taken of someone aiming a shotgun at a rioter and that weapon is orange, then lethal intent is not shown by an otherwise exploitable photo.

Thus the FN 303s of the US Army are orange to preclude that potential windfall for opponent propagandizing and info ops. Bad news is the Troops hate to be told to carry them -- because they've found out that opponents quickly develop a tolerance for less than lethal stuff as they learn that only a few people might get hurt a bit and no one will be killed, thus the opponents tend to be actually emboldened by the less than lethal stuff.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it... :wry:

Uboat509
06-16-2010, 03:04 PM
So, question is, if this operation was being conducted in Frankfurt (or London, or Kansas City?) instead of Kandahar would you want your soldiers to have effective non-lethal weapons? Is this somehow different because we are in someone elses country?

Not a bit. You can couch it in whatever language you like but the fact is there are a lot of people over there actively seeking to do our servicemembers harm. They are organized and they are not terribly constrained in how they do it. That sounds like war to me. In that situation I want our servicemembers in the best position to protect themselves, regardless of what race, creed, color, etc. the enemy is. And trying to label me a racist because I do not subscribe to your view of how we should best prosecute this war is, at best, insulting.

Fuchs
06-16-2010, 05:03 PM
I think he aimed rather at the problem how to value life.
We've discussed this in a thread here before, and there were several voice clearly in support of valueing the life of a foreign civilian much lighter than the life of an own (or allied yet not indigenous) soldier.

That and the respect for civil liberties, property and so on are interesting topics.

Let's assume a terrorist was spotted in the U.S., and the police searched his village and house the same way the military would do in Afghanistan. What would be the public reaction about the behaviour?

Or let's think about roadblocks/checkpoints.


The different respect for life can lead to different hardware choices.

JMA
06-21-2010, 07:29 PM
I'll have to start a thread on this at some point, but frankly whatever the national political authorities decide the army will do is "work for an army." It may not be the army's preferred work, and it might well clash (in terms of TTPs) with other things the army does. That's life.

Yes please start that new thread.

There is not enough time to train the "army" (any army) to carryout all the various tasks politicians commit them to.

There are not enough people in every country who are intellectually capable of switching from from task to another at the drop of a hat and then onto a third shortly thereafter.

The word "policing" should give it away. When its policing they want then they should use the police or a police force.

Anyway I await your thread on this topic with some interest.

slapout9
06-21-2010, 07:44 PM
The word "policing" should give it away. When its policing they want then they should use the police or a police force.


I agree but they might need to be Military Police as opposed to just regular police. In a lot of ways Military police and Military Policing are a much better concept for what a COIN force could or should look like.

davidbfpo
06-21-2010, 09:08 PM
Fuchs cited:
Let's assume a terrorist was spotted in the U.S., and the police searched his village and house the same way the military would do in Afghanistan. What would be the public reaction about the behaviour? Or let's think about roadblocks/checkpoints.

I know a well known writer has used this situation before and IIRC used words similar to "Imagine an Iraqi security force patrol conducts a house search / VCP in the USA, based on Iraqi law and RoE, with the same language skills as the US military in Iraq".

Indeed I suspect we have had posts, even a thread on that theme before.

JMA & Rex,

Been a long day, what is the new thread about? I'll happily start one off.

fwi1298
06-21-2010, 11:56 PM
getting back to the point, question; is the shotgun a valid weapon for use by the infantry? any weapon is valid for use by the infantry, when two key points are applied, is it nessicary to acomplish the mission , is it used with in it's limits as a weapon. this , unfortunitly, assumes the operator is both adiquitly supplied and trained in the use of said weapon

DMR
08-27-2010, 03:04 PM
getting back to the point, question; is the shotgun a valid weapon for use by the infantry? any weapon is valid for use by the infantry, when two key points are applied, is it nessicary to acomplish the mission , is it used with in it's limits as a weapon. this , unfortunitly, assumes the operator is both adiquitly supplied and trained in the use of said weapon

I have written this in a couple of other mediums, but I'll share it here also:

Full Spectrum Shotgun Employment

The shotgun is the most misunderstood weapon in the Brigade Combat Team. The combat shotgun has found new life in the Infantry during the war on terror and through “Modularity” with the BCT being equipped with 178 M-500 shotguns. However, at issue is that no single “doctrinal” resource exists supporting the current combination of roles the shotgun is being employed in. Units are forced to either search through multiple FM’s, depend on unit “SME’s”, or simply make it up. The result is often shotguns being used in improper roles such as a primary weapon without a stock or supporting pistol, or as a secondary weapon with the full stock slung across the soldiers back. Here I will attempt to impart the lessons learned over the last five years of employing shotguns in the 10th Mountain Division.
Methods of Employment:

The shotgun should be employed in one of two methods. In the first method the shotgun is employed as a primary weapon with a full stock. Considerations for the commander when employed in this manner are the limited range and reduced ammo capacity of the shotgun. A soldier conducting house to house fighting at close ranges may be well served by the standard shotgun. However, skills that must be ingrained are: reloading constantly or the “load what you shoot” rule and transitioning to a handgun. With only six rounds at their disposal a shot-gunner may find themselves out of ammo quickly in a fire fight. Reloads must occur at every lull in the fight. Transitioning to a hand gun is one method of staying in the fight if you run out of ammo. Simply put, the shotgun is lowered and the M-9 is drawn and a controlled pair fired when the shotgun is out of ammo. The shot gunner maintains the M-9 until the situation allows him to reload the shotgun. The same process is used for a stoppage that can not be cleared by immediate action.

In the second method the shotgun is employed as a secondary weapon. In this case the primary weapon for the soldier is the M-4 or M-16. The shotgun is then typically employed with a pistol grip and some sort of retention system. The 10th Mountains Infantry ILARM course teaches the shotgun being slung on the firer’s side and to transition from the M-4 to the shotgun, then back again.

In the role of a secondary weapon to the M-4 the shotgun is carried un-cocked on an empty chamber or with an expended cartridge in the chamber. When employed the gunner pulls the M-4 across his body away from the shotgun, then brings up the shotgun, racks the slide and fires. Once engagement is complete the gunner leaves the shotgun action closed on the expended round and transitions back to the M-4.This process is repeated as required. The gunner will then reload the shotgun when the tactical situation permits.

The fundamental operation of the shotgun in ether role is the same. Vigorous racking of the slide back then forward assures positive extraction, ejection and chambering of the rounds. Weak manipulation of the slide will result in the shotgun suffering a malfunction. Immediate action for any malfunction is to cycle the action again. If you are still unable to fire transition to the M-9 or M-4 and continue the fight. Once the tactical situation allows go into remedial actions to clear the malfunction or reload as required.

Operational Roles of the Shotgun:

The greatest strength of the shotgun and its greatest weakness is the versatility of its ammo. Everything from bird hunting loads, slugs, flares; to 12 ga. High Explosive rounds are available today. Currently the Army only authorizes a few loads: #9 Shot, 00 Buck, M-1030 Breaching rounds, M-1012 and 1013 Less Lethal rounds. Other rounds such as the Action FRAG-12 (USMC), Joint Non-Lethal Warning Munition (JNLWM), XM-104 Non-Lethal Bursting Hand Grenade and the Extended Range Point Less-Lethal Munitions are in various stages of development and should be expected to lead to new training requirements. This leaves a bewildering array of possible roles, anti-personnel, breaching, less-lethal, ect based on the type of rounds at the commanders disposal. Further many rounds can be used in multiple roles. For example 00 buck can be used to conduct breaches, but presents an increased risk of collateral damage to civilians of fellow soldiers. Also, lack of a STRAC that sufficiently supports training with the shotgun has extremely hampered commanders understanding the shotgun.

Currently, the shotguns roles can be divided into three general roles: 1. Offensive Weapon, 2. Breacher, 3. Less-Lethal Munitions delivery system.

As an offensive weapon the shotgun should be employed as a full stocked weapon employing 00# buckshot rounds, supported by a pistol (M-9 or M-9A1 for the US military). In this role commanders must account for the limited effective range of the shotgun. Employing the current 00# buckshot loads 25-35 meters is the soldier’s realistic effective range. Employed without a stock this range is reduced to approximately 10-15 meters. Future munitions such as the Action FRAG-12 or a type classified slug round combined with an improved sighting systems should be expected to increase this range to 100 meters when accompanied by an improved sighting system.

In the breaching role the shotgun provides the commander with increased momentum when conducting urban operations. The breaching shotgun is extremely effective in quickly defeating locked doors with reduced risk to the soldier compared to manual breaching methods. The M-1030 round is the primary breaching round, however, has only been procured in small numbers. The M-1030 round presents the most effective breaching round and presents the lowest risk for collateral damage. Commanders should also be aware that M-1030 rounds are not effective anti-personal rounds much further than arms reach.

ALWAYS USE BALLISTIC EYE PROTECTIVE GOOGLES WHEN CONDUCTING BALLISTIC BREACHING

In the role of less-lethal munitions delivery system the 12 gauge shotgun offers exceptional versatility. Utilizing the shotgun instead of systems such as the FN-303 Individual Serviceman Non-Lethal System (ISNLS) reduces the training and sustainment burden on the commander also, since he already has shotguns organic to the unit. Here, more then any area, though the lack of training ammo or qualification standards has defeated the commander. The current M-1012 round provides the commander with a low to medium point pain compliance munitions effective to about 30 meters. The M-1012 round is most effective in a low threat environment against an individual target. The M-1013 is a medium pain compliance round designed for use against multiple targets, however, it is also effective against a point target. Munitions such as the USMC Sting ball grenade or Army XM-104 Non-Lethal Bursting Hand Grenade, with grenade launching cup extend the less lethal range up to 100 meters. Employed from the grenade launching cup attached to the shotgun the commander has an extremely effective method of dispersing rioting mobs. Developmental rounds such as the Flarebang also provide the commander with the ability to deliver more effective warning shots by providing a visual and audio cue. This round should approve exceptionally effective at check points.

DMR
08-27-2010, 03:05 PM
continued


SOPs:

Units must consider how they configure their combat loads of shotgun ammo if they are using multiple types of ammo on a operation. Units must determine the method of employment, then the role the shotguns will be used in. For example the commander determines that they will employ the shotgun as a secondary weapon. He further sees the role as being primarily to conduct breaching with a secondary mission of delivering Less-Lethal munitions. The commander elects in this case to designate shotguns as primary breachers and proscribes they will be loaded with breaching rounds in the mag tube, breaching rounds in the shotgun ammo pouch (fighting load) and less lethal ammo carried in the right canteen pouch (sustainment load). In each case the chamber is empty or after initial contact is closed with the pump unlocked.

Commanders may also segregate the types of munitions into special teams. The commander thus reduces the requirement to clear weapons in order to switch munitions. Instead the squad leaders are able to call forward a special team to meet the need as required. He has further reduced the likely hood of firing a lethal breaching round into a situation requiring less-lethal. Further segregating the load carried by the soldier reduces the likely hood of introducing the “wrong” round while reloading.

The same principles apply when the shotgun is employed as a primary weapon. The primary difference is based on METT-T one of the two loads carried should be 00 Buck. This provides the shot gunners lethal force and specialty munitions as required. Mixing more then two types (lethal, less lethal and breaching) of ammo per soldier should carefully considered and have sufficient measures in place to prevent employing the wrong munitions for the target.

Training Plans:

Commanders frequently are unable to locate qualification standards due to the lack of a supporting field manual. The STP for shotgun qualification is no longer in print and is difficult to locate online also. Short Range Marksmanship (SRM) standards are ironically listed in the M-16 manual. Listed after the M-16 SRM standards shotgun and automatic firing standards are described as being the same as rifle SRM. Less-Lethal munitions also do not have a published standard. The Civil Disturbance Manual, FM 3-19 and FM 3-22.40 Tactical Employment of Non-Lethal Weapons outlines a recommended range standard; however, notes the Army Does not have a qualification standard. Furthermore, no standards for breaching qualifications are published Army wide.

STRAC also does little to help commanders. Different types of Infantry organizations have different STRAC authorizations, with the Stryker BDE’s being the best resourced (Table 5-79). Some of those authorizations include breaching munitions, some do not. None of the STRAC shotgun tables support Short Range Marksmanship or Live Fire Exercises. Commanders must develop and resources a realistic training plan that will allow them to integrate the shotgun in to the full spectrum of operations. They must then push for the training system to provide them with enough ammunition to support their plan.

When developing their Breaching training plan the question of procuring doors is a frequent issue. A command or installation faces purchasing enough doors for 178 shotguns per BCT to conduct shotgun breaching semi-annually. Commanders should consider using such training aids as the Breaching Technology’s Shotgun Breaching Door or Royal Arms Breach Door Trainer. Either door provides for a reusable training door that can be emplaced in a MOUT Site or MOUT LFX facility in support of all phases of training. Both doors support M-1030 rounds. Prior to procuring any breaching doors the command must do a risk assessment and is advised to coordinate their actions with the Installation Safety Office and their Range Division.

Commanders must also be aware that units and individuals are also modifying the issue shotguns to better meet their requirements with un-tested commercial parts. Such modifications are violating the Technical Manual and Army Regulation 750-10 Army Modification Program. While there are improvements that could be made to the issue shotgun, they are outside the scope of this article. Currently the only approved method for requesting modifications is through an Operational Needs Statement for “Special Missions Modifications”.

Once properly understood and resourced the shotgun presents the commander with many additional capabilities that he is able to tailor to his mission. From lethal force to less-lethal or breaching the combat shotgun is on hand and ready to support the Infantry.

Kiwigrunt
01-31-2012, 11:41 PM
Who dat?

Kiwi shotgun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FEwPfWT5zSk)

ganulv
02-01-2012, 01:34 AM
Who dat?

Kiwi shotgun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FEwPfWT5zSk)
“I’ve never seen such as that.” A pump or automatic shotgun, that is. I understand the theoretical advantages, but how does it hold up in practice? I tend to prefer as few pieces as possible in pieces of technology, myself. I tend to see every additional part as one more thing that might break.

As if anyone asked me, of course! :p

Kiwigrunt
02-01-2012, 02:10 AM
“I’ve never seen such as that.” A pump or automatic shotgun, that is. I understand the theoretical advantages, but how does it hold up in practice? I tend to prefer as few pieces as possible in pieces of technology, myself. I tend to see every additional part as one more thing that might break.

As if anyone asked me, of course! :p

This point is often brought up in comparing pumps with semi-autos. Pumps have fewer fiddly bits that can break down, and they are not sensitive to underpowered ammo.

Hopefully the fact that a Benelli like the M3 is about three times the price of an 870 will be reflected in the quality of the weapon. I think this M3 could indeed be the best of both worlds. It gives you a semi most of the time with the ability to ‘simplify’ it down to a pump, rather than seeing it as a pump that has been made unnecessarily complicated.

That does however leave the question, does it complicate training unnecessarily?

AdamG
02-02-2012, 05:10 PM
I have written this in a couple of other mediums, but I'll share it here also: Action FRAG-12 (USMC),

Having written about shotguns before, nice - two thumbs up!

That little Frag round deserves it's own footnote

http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/FRAG%2012.pdf

Vojnik
02-02-2012, 05:43 PM
I agree but they might need to be Military Police as opposed to just regular police. In a lot of ways Military police and Military Policing are a much better concept for what a COIN force could or should look like.

I think that, in practice, a marchausse or gendarmerie is not quite the same thing as the US military's Military Police or Security Forces.

A shotgun can be a good tool in the toolbox. Just ensure individuals are properly trained on it. I distinctly remember some folks who replaced me in Ramadi in '04 complaining that they only had a limited amount of shotguns...and one of their "moto" Majors insisted on carrying one of them himself. That's probably not the appropriate use of a shotgun, unless he was the primary breacher for the battalion.

Also, has anyone considered the Saiga-12? :D

http://en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120131/171045859.html


Izhmash, the manufacturer of the legendary Kalashnikov AK-47, will supply Saiga-12 semi-automatic smoothbore shotguns to a number of police forces in the U.S., Izhmash reported on its web site on Tuesday.
The contracts were signed at the Shot Show exhibition in Las Vegas on January 17-20. The first Saiga-12 deliveries to U.S. law enforcement were already made in January 2012, Izhmash General Director Maxim Kuzyuk said.
At the exhibition, Izhmash also signed an agreement on exclusive imports to the U.S. market with Russian Weapon Company and an agreement with Fime Group as Izhmashs partner for manufacturing classic firearm models.

Vojnik
02-02-2012, 05:55 PM
“I’ve never seen such as that.” A pump or automatic shotgun, that is.

Really? The SPAS-12 dates back to 1979. And if you've seen the original Jurassic Park" movie from 1993, you've seen a SPAS-12. Works fine against dinosaurs.:wry:

I think the key here is training. I don't think that there are enough man-hours devoted to good-quality rifle/carbine handling and marksmanship now. Issuing weapons without issuing knowledge is silly.

The "value of life" conversation, as well as the "Iraqi Army/ANA in America role-reversal", definitely has been done quite a bit. However, in either case, I don't think that the majority of individuals will know exactly what to do in either situation, until they are actually confronted by it. Also, that exact moment when things go from "policing" to "combat" is often a bit fuzzy.

ganulv
02-02-2012, 07:27 PM
“I’ve never seen such as that.” A pump or automatic shotgun, that is.Really? The SPAS-12 dates back to 1979.
Even though I’ve never been one of those Americans—“Matthew’s a tolerable American!” as someone who isn’t quite clear on what the word ‘compliment’ means once proclaimed in my presence—but even I don’t know why an American would need to know anything about imported scatterguns. It would be like an Italian cyclist riding a Cannondale or something. :D

Firn
02-02-2012, 07:44 PM
Even though I’ve never been one of those Americans—“Matthew’s a tolerable American!” as someone who isn’t quite clear on what the word ‘compliment’ means once proclaimed in my presence—but even I don’t know why an American would need to know anything about imported scatterguns. It would be like an Italian cyclist riding a Cannondale or something. :D

What about the Berettas, the Benellis, the Franchis? Italy is rightly considered to be a country of the shotgun, not the rifle, as a battuta di caccia was more about fowl or rabbits then deer.

Anyway a modern high-quality semi-automatic shotgun is as a modern full-suspension MTB a fine piece of modern technology, even an American one ;)

Stan
02-02-2012, 07:44 PM
“I’ve never seen such as that.” A pump or automatic shotgun, that is. I understand the theoretical advantages, but how does it hold up in practice? I tend to prefer as few pieces as possible in pieces of technology, myself. I tend to see every additional part as one more thing that might break.

As if anyone asked me, of course! :p

Hey Matt,
Actually, the idea is fairly sound if you consider why the folks at Colt put a "forward assist" on an (ahem) otherwise fully functioning semi and full auto weapon - the M-16 (most of us wondered about that since the early 70s). A semi-automatic shotgun is prone to jams for all the reasons Kiwigrunt posted and having the pump in place is remotely (ass-backwards) the same as having a forward assist. You can either slam the round home (bad idea if time is on your side), or choose to eject the jammed round (real good idea even if time isn't on your side :D ).

In closing, I wouldn't trade my Winchester 1200 for any of those fancy Italian or Russian works of art. If it ain't broke.... :cool:

Hippofeet
02-02-2012, 09:45 PM
I would not want a shotgun as my primary. Although there are shotguns that take magazines, ammunition management and reload speed would suck. Now, searching small boats, or small rooms with lots of people, ok, but I would think a sub gun would do the job better. I have only trained a few times in shoot houses, but it was enough to give me the opinion that a shotgun is big and heavy, and shells go all over when I get freaked out or excited, when I really just want them to go in the gun. I need to learn to load without flipping it over lol. Too bad about flechette rounds. Then, you would have something. I could not manage differentiating between lethal and less than, under stress. I mean, would you look down at the round? only have those rounds in certain loops on your gear? It gives me the creepy crawlies.

ganulv
02-02-2012, 10:39 PM
Hey Matt,
Actually, the idea is fairly sound if you consider why the folks at Colt put a "forward assist" on an (ahem) otherwise fully functioning semi and full auto weapon - the M-16 (most of us wondered about that since the early 70s). A semi-automatic shotgun is prone to jams for all the reasons Kiwigrunt posted and having the pump in place is remotely (ass-backwards) the same as having a forward assist. You can either slam the round home (bad idea if time is on your side), or choose to eject the jammed round (real good idea even if time isn't on your side :D).
My original thought was that rolling two functions into one gun (a semi-auto for heavy loads and a pump for less lethal loads) could lead to unfortunate situations both ways. But it does make sense to think of it as a semi-auto that’s easier to clear.

You could also deal with the rate of fire vs. jamming dialectic by buying up some Ithaca 37s. Though I assume a different set of unfortunate situations might ensue.

Vojnik
02-02-2012, 10:51 PM
Even though I’ve never been one of those Americans—“Matthew’s a tolerable American!” as someone who isn’t quite clear on what the word ‘compliment’ means once proclaimed in my presence—but even I don’t know why an American would need to know anything about imported scatterguns. It would be like an Italian cyclist riding a Cannondale or something. :D

Touche, my good sir. :D

Also, I would not want a shotgun as a primary.

AdamG
02-03-2012, 05:48 AM
Really? The SPAS-12 dates back to 1979. And if you've seen the original Jurassic Park" movie from 1993, you've seen a SPAS-12. Works fine against dinosaurs.:wry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vxK4kf4AqA

:cool:

Stan
02-03-2012, 03:49 PM
You could also deal with the rate of fire vs. jamming dialectic by buying up some Ithaca 37s. Though I assume a different set of unfortunate situations might ensue.

At Aberdeen they challenged us to a skeet competition against the MPs on base, and the folks with over and under shotguns were less fatigued and had near perfect 25 target matches.

The 8-shot model 37 is essentially a Winchester 1200 minus the bayonet mount and a very respectable piece of American Iron.

The often mistaken myth about free recoil reduction. Some just get a dependable and very heavy weapon (approx. 10% reduction in recoil) and then there are others who cut the stock down and drill holes into every available area of the barrel and choke, effectively reducing the overall weight of the weapons and the felt recoil is in fact worse :D

Surferbeetle
02-04-2012, 04:46 AM
The often mistaken myth about free recoil reduction. Some just get a dependable and very heavy weapon (approx. 10% reduction in recoil) and then there are others who cut the stock down and drill holes into every available area of the barrel and choke, effectively reducing the overall weight of the weapons and the felt recoil is in fact worse :D

Stan!

FPSRussia and the AA-12 Fully Automatic Shotgun on the YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOoUVeyaY_8) :wry:

Stan
02-04-2012, 08:09 AM
Stan!

FPSRussia and the AA-12 Fully Automatic Shotgun on the YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOoUVeyaY_8) :wry:

Hey Steve,


"Keep this mind, don't try this at home... I'm a professional Russian!"

I was almost enjoying the video til he tried to cut the door in half and said that sierra :D

I especially enjoyed the demonstration on how to install the barrel choke :rolleyes:

I believe WE have already had that patent design since 1898 however :cool:


John Moses Browning, the legendary American gun designer, invented the first practical self-loading shotgun in 1898 (http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/be/browning-auto-5-e.html). It must be noted, that at the time the autoloading shotgun was something of absolute novelty, and the task of designing such gun was severely complicated by the fact that the switch over from black powder to smokeless ammunition was well under way, and general quality of shotgun ammunition was rather uneven,to say the least. Nevertheless, Browning managed to make his prototype model work, and work well.