Impression is better than suppression...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kiwigrunt
I get that with regards to making a hitting lighter bullet totally ineffective. That still doesn't make a missing heavier bullet any more effective though.;) (apart from maybe a suppressive effect)
Suppression is mostly misunderstood -- trained troops will not be deterred by any volume of misses; they will be deterred by accurate fire. The key is simply to minimize the number of misses -- regardless of caliber.
Quote:
Would the accuracy potential not be increased with a semi mode to allow for following through on the trigger pull, as opposed to having to concentrate on a careful short and sharp trigger pull? Or am I being pedantic now?:p
Perhaps a slight increase; you still have with many automatic weapons the problem of the recoiling mass moving forward regardless of single shot cape or trigger manipulation. The Brownings escape that problem by firing from a closed bolt, as did the FG 42 and the Johnsons in WW II on semi auto (while switching to an open bolt for full auto). So does this LINK little gem. If that new one works out, it'll be a while before they appear in large numbers and there a a LOT of MAG 57 / GPMG / M240 variants around. There are also too many Minimis but that's another thread... :D
A Definition of Suppression
Suppression: An effect of action that causes the enemy to fail to act, through fear of harm.
Note: Suppression can be delivered by sensors as well as weapons, if the enemy believes that being detected will lead to his being harmed.
....so we use small arms fire to suppress the enemy, to fix him, so he will not move, and to prevent him firing back at us, so as we can deliver increasing effective harm against him.
Roger so far?
Partly, with respect to winter clothes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rifleman
A position (conviction?) formed from observing the effects of the .30 Carbine on the Chinese?
Also applied to even .30-06 and .45 though obviously to a far lesser extent. The milling mob applied to Viet Nam and elsewhere and to various calibers. As an aside, 9mm x 19 is worthless as a combat cartridge, only thing it offers is low recoil enabling a good shooter to achieve better accuracy with less noise in certain conditions.
Problem in a heavy firefight is that targets are fleeting thus 'good' hits are hard to obtain; that the sheer numbers occasionally preclude hits on person X because person Y suddenly gets in the way and absorbs or deflects the bullet. Add to that the difficulty of getting some folks to fire slowly and accurately when they are receiving fire, deflection of bullets by various things, even leaves, in or on an untidy battle space and the need to punch through some minor elements of cover -- you arrive at a desire for superior penetration and knock down power.
My son carried an M-14 on his second trip to Afghanistan, recoil / weight not withstanding. I would've also...
How many rounds to train?
Ken White,
You talked about training shooters to hit targets at 500m. How much ammunition did that require? What methodology did the trainers use?
Hasn't changed much since I went through in 1949.
the major difference being that it was far easier to get a hit at 600 yards with an M1 than it is at 500 with an M16.
LINK.
Back then it was 3rds to confirm zero (daily), 10rds 0ffhand / 200 yds, 10rds kneeling / 200 yds, 10rds Sitting / 300 yds, 10rds prone / 300 yds, 10rds prone / 600yds for a total of 53rds a day times five days = 265 rds per man plus for the 105 requiring makeups, another two or three days, say an average of about 290-300 rds per per man on the known distance range. Add Field Firing on pop-up and obscured targets at ranges from 25 yds to 600 yrds (it was 600 yds then with the M1, now reduced to 500 for the M16 [and that's optimism if I ever saw it]), three days of it at 80 rds per run including five for zero confirmation, thus 240 rounds per man + 290 = ~ 530 rds per man. Repeat annually and add in unit training live fire exercises and you get an annual requirement of about 1,000 rds per man for Infantry units. Minimum requirement, that. More would be better, upo to about 2,000 rds per man (allowing for the slop of people on leave, special duty, in hospital, etc. giving those present slightly more).
With todays weapons, ammunition and training enhancements, it could almost certainly be done with slightly fewer rounds -- and there are some people who should not qualify annually simply because they'll never likely fir a round in anger. Shooting is like riding a bike, if your initial training is really good, sustainment isn't all that necessary; just a refresher before you might have to use it. That does not apply to the Infantry who need to shoot more, not less but a lot of folks are shooting every year who do not need to do so.
Units other than Infantry would require much less, half that 1K rounds or even fewer. Figuring Infantry at about 25% of a modern force, you'd get a realistic ammo requirement of about 550-600 rds per man for each 100K persons in the force (100K x .25 x 1K = 25M rds + [75K x 500 rds = 37.5M rds] = 62.5M x .9 {because almost never will everyone fire every year} = 56,250 rds / 100K = 562 rds). At about .30 per rd, that's $180.00 per man in ammo and about $20. in targets and ancillaries; total of around $200.00 per man -- less than his working / combat uniform and boots.
Well less than the cost of a Kevlar vest and probably more beneficial...
Most people carry way too much ammo...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcustis
What was the typical (if that term can be applied) combat load for the M1 and M14? I know it was probably easy enough to toss a bandolier of clips over the shoulder, but on the standard webbing, were the ten clip pouches typically loaded with a 8-rd Garand clip or 2x 5-rd stipper clips?
Basic load for the M1 was 184 rounds for most infantry; 10 clips of 8 in the belt (Airborne Infantry was less, 168 rds, 8 clips in 4 pouches on a pistol belt) = 80 (64 Abn) + 2 bandoleers of 6 x 8 = 96 == 176 (152 Abn) + one clip in the weapon = 184 (168 Abn). In practice, the bandoleers were sometimes taken, sometimes not and latitude was allowed the troops most of the time to determine their own ammo load. Most guys initially carried too much ammo and as they learned, rarely took the bandoleers; some frequently took the clips out of a bandoleer and put them in a pocket (bad idea, the ammo invariably got jamming dirty and / or displaced forward in the clip) but most didn't bother. Joe's pretty good at reading the real METT. So, you're right, 80 rounds plus 8 in the weapon for most the majority of the time...
Little stuff needs to be trained. The M1 functioned better when dirty -- and all combat rifles get dirty -- if the clip was inserted with the uppermost round to the right, so the old guys put their clips in the ammo belt so that each clip would be properly oriented in they had to reload in the dark or rapidly without looking at the placement. Just as all your old guys load their mags into the pouches properly oriented for a rapid reload without looking.
Five round stripper clips in .30 were rare and were never used with the M1; occasionally, the BAR guys would get some instead of cartons. BAR men carried 13 mags, 12 on the belt, 1 in the weapon (only issued 12 but they always had an extra; some had several extras they carried in their packs. Somehow, the extra belt issued for the Assistant AR man always seemed to get lost...
Quote:
And when the M14 came into use, were the M-1956 universal ammunition cases really used?
Yep, each pouch would hold two 20 rd mags for the M14, perfect fit. Five mags were issued per wpn, thus most guys carried 100 rds. Bandoleers with 12 5 rd stripper clips were available but were almost never carried; easier to scuff some extra mags and load ;'em, carry them in the Ruck. Basic load was 220 rounds, five mags plus two bandoleers. As with the M1, bandoleers were rarely carried and new guys quickly learned they were carrying too much ammo. Recall though, that the M14 was issued to most as semi-auto only.
The M 1956 pouches each would carry two 20 rd M16 mags comfortably, three with a tight fit & that's where the jerk string on mags came from; still around even though no longer needed :wry: I usually carried my survival kit in one pouch, three mags in the other, one mag in my Jungle trousers left pocket which had an inner pocket for that purpose and one in the weapon plus three or four cartons of 20 in my ruck (never used); 100 rounds in mags, never got down to my last mag.
Quote:
When an M4-toting guy pauses to think of a stripped-down loadout of 80 (M1) or 120 (M14) rounds, I wonder whether the smaller round count wasn't a worry because the bad guys had comparable loadouts.
Nope, not a worry. Why would it be? If I can shoot more accurately and can use my ammo wisely, I'll have some left when he's out even if he started with twice as much as I did. Even if he's as good and well trained as I am, we're nominally even -- I can handle that. I don't get your logic on that one...
The only reason that 300 plus rounds are being carried by many today is simply due to the fact they can waste ammo with no penalty. Try that on the beach after the Shore Party gets clobbered and the ASP gets hit with ten mortar rounds -- and there will be no more Ammo until tomorrow...
It's just like your canteens or camelback -- you can drink it all real quick or you can pace your usage. The ability to fire on full auto will be used -- and misused -- unless it is trained properly. Our fire discipline is pathetic. I've seen recent videos of people responding to mortar and rocket attacks with automatic weapons fire at night. :eek: :rolleyes:
I never fired my M16 on full auto and wouldn't allow people that worked for me to do so. Lotta firefights in my Platoon Sergeant days including a couple of big, multi-battalion fights and all the Troops were still alive when I left, carrying seven or eight 20 round mags -- or less... ;)
That's good and needs to be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcustis
...Lot's of emphasis on controlled and hammer pairs because so many of the table iterations are fired from 10-50m...
However, so does this:
Quote:
...deliberate, well-aimed single shots remain appropriate for threats engaged at distance.
We need to avoid excessive concentration on one range / technique -- and to training actions that become too firmly embedded to the exclusion of thinking and alternative methods and thus become, to our opponents, very predictable.
That will get a lot of our people killed unnecessarily.
The total spectrum of combat must be taught and trained constantly. The Troops can handle it; problem is that's a LOT of work for the Commanders, leaders and trainers. Therefor... :o
ADDED: Off the wall question, Jon. Do they teach the kids to count rounds fired? You can generally tell a good pro from even a talented amateur -- the pro will always know how many rounds he has left in the mag and in total... ;)