Suppressive Fire

[SethB]

I'm well aware of what he was trying to say.

I am equally aware of the difficulty of actually hitting an engine block. At any distance.

I've seen them missed when shooting from 20M aware at a stationary target on a balmy day on the flat range.

[JMA]

That is the question I am asking. What and why? I opt for CRISAT, not because it's particularly good, but because its a good comparative medium. No one has been able to describe a better standard. Therefore, "good enough."

Not good enough. Certainly the US could do a better job if they wanted... but there is no incentive at the moment as all that would achieve is to prove how substandard the 5.56mm calibre is that they foisted on their own military and NATO.

I suggest you just need a round that is mostly adequate. 5.56mm and 7.62mm ball will do 90% of what might be required.

No Wilf. I remember as a recruit and later as an officer cadet been taken to the field firing range to watch a demonstration of our weapons vs their weapons. Apart from which ammo/weapon was better I certainly left knowing more about the capabilities of our weapons and that gave confidence. No doubt what thickness of tree the FN (firing 7.62x51mm NATO) could penetrate.

Agreed. I've never heard of any infantry targeting the engine block. I would just train them to shoot the centre of mass.

OK, think about it. What happens if the internals of the engine block are damaged on an in gear moving vehicle?

Actually the story of how the US selected 5.56mm has been covered in exhaustive detail.

So now what is outstanding is the investigation into how they got it so wrong and what to do about it.

By close quarter weapon, I mean 200m, which is really the maximum range I would ever bother to teach your average bod to engage with, as an individual, from the standing position.

Since when has the infantry's individual weapon been down graded to 200m? Since they introduced the BB ammo?

But seriously the Brit training is that even with the SA80 (family) there can be effective section fire out to 600m. Should that be revised?

[JMA]

Seth,
The point is to bring the vehicle to an immediate stop. A .50 round will do just that in addition to going through most commercial bricks and cinder blocks, and light armor.

Shooting the radiator (assuming there even is one located behind the grill) will not stop the vehicle. Shooting the oil pan ? Not sure how I would accomplish that from 4 to 800 meters away ?

Shooting the driver (assuming you could get a clean shot) still does not mean the vehicle comes to an abrupt dead stop (which is why we have decelerators and dead man switches on bulldozers - heart attack equals flooring the gas pedal ).

Thank you.

And the vehicle stops where you want it to (in the killing zone) and as the enemy troops debus you hit the clacker and detonate the claymores... and send your enemy on their merry way.

[William F. Owen]

The point is to bring the vehicle to an immediate stop. A .50 round will do just that in addition to going through most commercial bricks and cinder blocks, and light armor.

12.7mm may stop an small engine with one hit. I very much doubt 7.62mm AP would stop a truck engine, immediately, even if you managed to his the block, multiple times. I also very much doubt that the round would even reach the block, still stable enough to do good work.

What would stop it, is destruction of the sub-systems, especially ignition and HT leads, etc. This was certainly the case with aircraft engines in WW2. Fact is, firing at where you think the engine is, is essentially a "statistical approach."

[JMA]

Not really anything based on scientific method here. I don't see how you can say 5.56mm failed. That was very, very poor mechanical experimentation.

I said the USMC had done some work on the matter, I did not say it was definitive. OK, so if you remove the test where the weapons fire at the walls from 45 degrees then the 5.56 passes. Happy now?

Yes, they have found that an earthen wall that stops 30mm will stop 5.56mm. Also 5.56mm will not perforate old T-55 tanks hulls. ...but 5.56mm will kill a member of the Taliban at 800m - If you have a 20 inch barrel on your M-249!

Was this the result of a proper testing process or just the result of casual observations? Do you not believe that soldiers when arriving in theatre should be informed of (amongst many other things) what their weapon is capable of in the local conditions?

In 1944, it was found that .303 didn't penetrate 14th century church walls commonly found in northern France. Scandal!

No they knew that before they landed in France. The scandal is that later - in 1963 - on the basis of lighter weight ammo the penetration ability was downgraded and the troops were sold a cock and bull story that the change was in fact an improvement.

There's a difference between, requirement and performance. Knowing the performance of a round should be part of training. Creating a requirement is a whole other ball game.

Knowing the performance in Afghanistan conditions? Is that being done... or do the troops rely on learning through trial and error?

Once that is learnt then yes perhaps a requirement for a weapon capable of filling the penetration gap may be identified.

As far as the primary penetration test for a infantryman's bullet is concerned it applies to soft tissue. It is difficult enough to hit a target in a fire fight and you need to issue your soldiers with a weapon that will put the enemy on his ass first time and then he stays down... and does not have a chance to take a shot at you through not being fully incapacitated.

[JMA]

12.7mm may stop an small engine with one hit. I very much doubt 7.62mm AP would stop a truck engine, immediately, even if you managed to his the block, multiple times. I also very much doubt that the round would even reach the block, still stable enough to do good work.

What would stop it, is destruction of the sub-systems, especially ignition and HT leads, etc. This was certainly the case with aircraft engines in WW2. Fact is, firing at where you think the engine is, is essentially a "statistical approach."

I told you that among a certain set of SF this is being done. We must assume they have identified the need and done their homework.

If you feel the need to be convinced then why not run some tests yourself ... and then do an exercise on engine block placements in vehicles likely to be encountered for this purpose.

Oh yes the ammo:


Cartridge, 7.62mm, Armor Piercing, M993

Used by M60 and M240 machine guns, and the M24 Sniper Weapon System. Intended for use against current and future light armored targets. The M993 offers the capability to defeat these targets at ranges 2 to 3 times that of previous AP ammunition.

The projectile assembly consists of a tungsten core penetrator contained in an aluminum cup and jacketed by tombac (similar to standard gilding metal, 90% copper, 10% zinc) clad steel. The shaped tungsten core provides enhanced armor penetration, representing a key departure from the current 7.62mm ball service round. The Bofors CGAB produced cartridge utilizes a conventional brass cartridge case with a Berdan primer. The propellant is a single base type manufactured by Bofors and the primer is manufactured by Dynamit Noble.

The M993 7.62mm AP Round is capable of penetrating a 7mm thick high hardness armor (HHA) plate at a distance of 500 meters from the muzzle of the weapon. This corresponds to 1/4" armor plate at a distance of 550m.
Source

[Stan]

I'm well aware of what he was trying to say.

I am equally aware of the difficulty of actually hitting an engine block. At any distance.

I've seen them missed when shooting from 20M aware at a stationary target on a balmy day on the flat range.

Forgive me, because I was not getting that impression from your previous post.

Somewhat echoing Wilf's post below, firing into the engine bay means the fuel system, block, ignition components, etc. ... a much larger target if you will.

Wilf, I wouldn't use a .30 caliber round on anything but deer. And, you are quite correct (which is what I thought I made clear), you need to know your aircraft and vehicles before you begin to fire at gay abandon

JMA,
Claymores ? Now I'm getting a woodie

[William F. Owen]

I told you that among a certain set of SF this is being done. We must assume they have identified the need and done their homework.

I have a very good friends with UK SF background and I would make no such assumption. IIRC, the AP ammo requirement from UK SF in Ulster was to do with improvised armour fitted into cars and vans used by the IRA.

If you feel the need to be convinced then why not run some tests yourself ... and then do an exercise on engine block placements in vehicles likely to be encountered for this purpose.

...and what would the purpose of the test be?
Soldiers will basically shoot where they think they can hit. Good enough to get the engine compartment on a moving vehicle, let alone the block.

[William F. Owen]

Knowing the performance in Afghanistan conditions? Is that being done... or do the troops rely on learning through trial and error?

So you assume that the Afghan environment has unique characteristics? Is there a standard Afghan tree trunk? Door? Rural Wall? You cannot have one set of weapons for Afghanistan and another set for somewhere else.

Once that is learnt then yes perhaps a requirement for a weapon capable of filling the penetration gap may be identified.

So how would you identify that gap? Describe the process for me.

As far as the primary penetration test for a infantryman's bullet is concerned it applies to soft tissue.

Not in the UK. Most small arms doctrine has used CRISAT data since about 1995.

I have seen nothing in last 10 years from the last 40 years to show that the correct mix of 5.56mm and 7.62mm at the platoon level is deeply flawed, or that anyone can present better data to make more informed decisions.
Time was when the platoon was 9mm and .303. Worked well enough.

[Blah]

Out of curiousity, Mr. Owen, what would be the "correct mix" of 5.56 and 7.62?

[William F. Owen]

Out of curiousity Mr. Owen, what would be the "correct mix" of 5.56 and 7.62?

a.) Call me Wilf.

b.) "Correct mix" will be the one proven just about right by experience and dependant on the operation. For a 30 man platoon, 2-3 x M-240/GPMG, and maybe 2-3 (7.62mm)"Sniper/Sharpshooter rifles." Everyone else can just carry an 5.56mm IW, some with the M203 attached.

I'd actually suggest what optics and sensor fits the weapons have to be just as important.

[Blah]

"Correct mix" will be the one proven just about right by experience and dependant on the operation. For a 30 man platoon, 2-3 x M-240/GPMG, and maybe 2-3 (7.62mm)"Sniper/Sharpshooter rifles." Everyone else can just carry an 5.56mm IW, some with the M203 attached.

Ahh, does that mean you don't believe in the SAW concept? (unless you consider those IWs as well)

I believe there was an article near the beginning of this year that stated that US soldiers deploying to Afghanistan would be getting 2 DMRs per squad equipped with M14 EBRs.

Here it is: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/03/army_m14_032210w/

[William F. Owen]

Ahh, does that mean you don't believe in the SAW concept?

I am certainly a SAW sceptic. I did some interviews of Afghan veterans last month and the UK's L110 LMG is called "the noise maker." Given the choice the boys want to carry the GPMG. The problem seems to be the 10-inch barrel.

Now I've played on the range with IDF's Negev, and it's a very impressive weapon, at least in its most recent iteration. Good as it is, I'm not sure I want to have the weight and trouble of 2 x belt fed weapons types in a platoon.

The weight carried in TI-sights and NV would seem a better choice.

[jcustis]

Ok, we seem to finally be drifting back to the original topic. Blah, I'd like to offer a few comments to your original post.

Which brings us back to the US... What I've gleaned from the testimonies of soldiers returning from Iraq/Afghan is that many of the riflemen carry around 500-600 (some have claimed as many as 1000) rounds of 5.56 ammunition with them on patrols, not to mention all of the other munitions and equipment they have to carry. This seems awfully excessive to me, and I wonder if this is due to the nature of their approach to suppression. I wouldn't be surprised if "firing in the general direction of the enemy" works on the insurgents there, however I wonder if it would work if the US were to face a similarly capable military.

I am not sure where you have seen these testimonials, but I can tell you that from a Marine Corps perspective, the 500-600 round count is patently not true, and anyone who said they carried 1,000 rounds is an outright liar and should be shot himself.

What you are talking about here is a loadout of 18 magazines, and the average infantryman has neither the quantity of pouches (issued to him) to carry that many magazines, or the real estate on his armor carrier to place the pouches.

If a larger quantity of ammunition is carried, that is typically because of difficulties with resupply, and the prospect of lengthy contacts in sequence. It is NOT because doctrine tells them to carry that load and use un-aimed fire to suppress the enemy.

[Fuchs]

Depends.
Part of those 500-600 could be belted or still packaged in cardbox or stored in the backpack.

(I'm no fan of huge ammunition loads, though.)

[Infanteer]

10 Mags (300 rounds) is what I've seen kicked around as the "standard". Some carry a few more, some a few less. I've never heard or seen someone try to carry 1000 rounds of rifle ammunition. This is 33 mags.

Over and above the 300 rounds, tack on something for the crew-served weapons (belt of 7.62mm, mortar bomb).

Soldiers with the LMG would typically carry 3-4 boxes; 600-800 rounds. Now, that being said this takes me back to a conversation I had with Ken White. We haven't had issues with the thing in Canada, but we employ it like a rifle - operated by a single soldier within "section level" tactics. It is usually not employed as a machinegun using the unique characteristics of a machine gun. Makes me wonder if there is any real advantage gained to the extra weight and rounds carried if it is employed as a Rifle?

[Blah]

I am not sure where you have seen these testimonials, but I can tell you that from a Marine Corps perspective, the 500-600 round count is patently not true, and anyone who said they carried 1,000 rounds is an outright liar and should be shot himself.

They weren't all loaded into magazines. Around 7 - 10 magazines, the rest were stored in their pack for reloading the mags.

Regardless, I've never really personally heard someone say they carried less than 300 rounds overall that I can recall.

[Infanteer]

In 7 months I never carried 300 rounds. My standard load-out was 210 rounds in 7 mags along with 4 smoke, 1 frag and either an M-72 or a belt of 7.62.

[Blah]

Well, regardless, there was one person who claimed he wouldn't leave the FOB if all he could carry were 300 rounds.

It's good to see that isn't the norm though, although it seems to be more common with American troops.

[jcustis]

Well, that takes the anecdotal information from "many" to a lone guy.

Oh, and I was tracking on the additional ammunition as likely being stowed in a pack or such, and that pack stowed back in a vehicle, not on our backs on a daily basis.