The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[JMA]

JMA asked RJ

I found those claims.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-strikes.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

Yes, we have spoken about those "imported" snipers before somewhere here.

I understand they were foreign and were finally taken out.

The context of my post related to the availability of "a lot of Britsh .303 Enfields" in Afghanistan and my question as to whether they were being effectively used.

So I guess I should have reworded my question as follows:

"Have you heard of any ISAF troops been taken out by single aimed shots fired by an Afghan from a .303 Enfield from 400m and beyond?"

I will try to be more accurate in future.

[RJ]

JMA,

Good or better than good snipers come in all sizes and shapes. Trained snipers are the norm, but the Afagini in the tribal areas produce the occasional excellent shot that could devastate a M-16 only enviroment at will.

In a recent ops a Marine Bn. encountered such an individual. He used cover, concealment and a deep firing point where he had a narrow, but effective field of fire. He wounded at least 4 marines and killed one before he was licated and eleminated. It wasn't a Enfield 303 that did the work but a Russian sniper rifle.

Mypoint is if you only have M-16 capabilities, you are going to lose in the long shot environment of Afgahistan. The small caliber is not the only option.

Granite State - Thanks for the catch up. What caliber is the new AR the Marines are transitioning to?

JMA I doubt that all the foreign elements in Afganistan have been eleminated?

[Granite_State]

granite state - thanks for the catch up. What caliber is the new ar the marines are transitioning to?

5.56.

[Demon Fox]

Every squad needs designated marksmen. Many, if not most, of the engagements in AF are 200m or less. The typical SOP is for the squad leader to call in a HIMARS, JDAM, or Excalibur to take out one or two enemy riflemen. They get the bad guy, but find dead women and children at the impact site as well. These situations could be resolved with a rifleman and a bit of good aim. At 200m, that's a head shot even with an M4 - especially with the ACOGS sites most soldiers use these days!

SPRs combined with the 77 grain 5.56 match round makes a good sniper rifle. My team was training at the High-Angle Sniper Course in Hawthorne, NV a few years ago. We had one SPR, and its owner consistently hit targets out to 1,000 meters in very heavy winds. He even started plinking at 9mm targets on the other side of the valley, which had to have been at least 1,300 meters away. The Marine instructors weren't too happy to find the 5.56 rounds burned holes through the steel 9mm targets even at that range! :-D So, for anyone wondering about the capabilities of a 5.56 round - there you go.

It's interesting how much a difference there is in the performance between the 62 grain green tip standard issue 5.56 and the 77 grain. Ops in Iraq demonstrated an insurgent could take several green tip hits and keep running, but one hit from a 77 grain puts him down flat.

Like some of the folks here, I am a believer in the power of the 7.62x51. While conducting training in Drake Shoots (Rhodesian Cover Shoots), it was very clear that the 7.62 weapons could penetrate completely through medium-sized trees that stop 5.56 cold. It makes the enemy rethink his definition of "cover". Oh, by the way, if any of you guys reading this are combat leaders I highly recommend you teach your men Drake Shoots. It is one of the most effective techniques I've seen - just be cognizant of collateral damage when using the technique.

As already discussed, there is definitely a weight problem with 7.62 - yes, it's friggin' heavy and soldiers carry enough weight as it is. Also, the magazines will generally only carry 20 rounds due to size. Less ammo, more weight. You can't always have an attached MG team with your squad, so I think the solution is to have a 7.62 designated marksman weapon or two assigned to the squad. It sounds like a better job for the rifleman found in each Army fire team. A solution could be something like the 7.62 SCARS rifle, or perhaps introduce a new and improved weapon similar to the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)? SR-25 or M110 SWS may be the answer.

DF

[JMA]

Welcome Demon Fox,

It's interesting how much a difference there is in the performance between the 62 grain green tip standard issue 5.56 and the 77 grain. Ops in Iraq demonstrated an insurgent could take several green tip hits and keep running, but one hit from a 77 grain puts him down flat.

So I wonder who can explain why the 62 grain is standard issue?

Like some of the folks here, I am a believer in the power of the 7.62x51. While conducting training in Drake Shoots (Rhodesian Cover Shoots), it was very clear that the 7.62 weapons could penetrate completely through medium-sized trees that stop 5.56 cold. It makes the enemy rethink his definition of "cover". Oh, by the way, if any of you guys reading this are combat leaders I highly recommend you teach your men Drake Shoots. It is one of the most effective techniques I've seen - just be cognizant of collateral damage when using the technique.

May I suggest that you consider adding the "Dead and Alive Shoot" to the Drake Shoot training.

Simply, on a field firing range you have a section/squad approach a second squad who are positioned in a firing position/trench line/whatever. At the moment the "defending" squad leader would order his men to open fire give the advancing squad the order to "take cover". They take cover and you turn the "defending" squad around to as not to see the next step.

A figure 12 target is then positioned at each point where an advancing squad member has taken cover. The advancing squad are then withdrawn behind the firing point to watch. The "defending" squad are then turned around and conduct a Drake/Cover shoot into the area where the advancing squad took cover.

The "advancing" squad are then taken by instructors/platoon NCOs to their positions to see if they came out of the contact "Dead or Alive". Remedial training can be conducted then and there.

Once completed swap the squads around. The squad with the most "dead" pay for the first round in the canteen later.

The aim of the exercise (apart from simply training troops to seek proper cover) is to indicate that the Drake/Cover shoot works both ways.

As already discussed, there is definitely a weight problem with 7.62 - yes, it's friggin' heavy and soldiers carry enough weight as it is. Also, the magazines will generally only carry 20 rounds due to size. Less ammo, more weight.

I have said this before and will say it again... that before anyone starts to consider compromising on the type of weapons and the amount of ammo carried because of weight considerations look elsewhere to see where weight can be shed from the infantryman's burden.

It is interesting to note that the Brits are finally coming to the realisation that the additional weight being carried by soldiers nowadays is having serious negative side effects.

We’re getting to a point where we are losing as many men making mistakes because they are exhausted from carrying armour (and the things that go with it) than are saved by it. - from Donkeys led by Lions - The British Army Review Number 150

Now many of these patrols are a few thousand metres long and probably don't move beyond the range of indirect supporting weapons (which they should have) in their base of origin. So why carry all the kit?

You can't always have an attached MG team with your squad,...

Why not? I suppose you are talking about a 7.62mm LMG?

... so I think the solution is to have a 7.62 designated marksman weapon or two assigned to the squad. It sounds like a better job for the rifleman found in each Army fire team. A solution could be something like the 7.62 SCARS rifle, or perhaps introduce a new and improved weapon similar to the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)? SR-25 or M110 SWS may be the answer.

DF

Good to see someone out there is looking for "the answer". You are in the minority as too many these days just seem to not only to go with the flow but when questioned aggressively defend the status quo.

[Fuchs]

The aim of the exercise (apart from simply training troops to seek proper cover) is to indicate that the Drake/Cover shoot works both ways.

That's part of the reason why I'll never be a good trainer at anything, I guess.
I take too much for self-evident and not in need of a demonstration.

[JMA]

That's part of the reason why I'll never be a good trainer at anything, I guess.
I take too much for self-evident and not in need of a demonstration.

Well I hope you realised that back when you were serving

My experience is that the average 18 year old infantry trainee is generally not rocket scientist material and if he has the smarts at 18 his mind is on other things

So that is why a regime of demonstration, explanation, imitation where the seemingly obvious is stated and thereafter repetition, repetition, repetition... until it becomes second nature is an absolute necessity. The right people to carry out this training are hard to find and once found should be looked after like the crown jewels.

[Demon Fox]

So I wonder who can explain why the 62 grain is standard issue?

Good question, JMA. The 77 grain was made specifically for the SPR. It's too hot of a round to put through a M4 or M16. You risk damage to the weapon and injury to the firer. It's the same problem as using match 7.62x51 ammo intended for sniper rifles in an M240B MG. Match ammo is hotter. A couple of years ago some guys from one of the SF groups were trying to get rid of fiscal year ammo and linked up a bunch of match 7.62 and started firing it through an M240B. The gun blew up and injured two men. MGs and rifles are designed to have specific types of ammo put through them. Going outside these specifications can lead to bad things. Another example is taking a 40mm grenade made for a Mk-19 and putting it into an M203 or M79. Not good.









May I suggest that you consider adding the "Dead and Alive Shoot" to the Drake Shoot training.

Simply, on a field firing range you have a section/squad approach a second squad who are positioned in a firing position/trench line/whatever. At the moment the "defending" squad leader would order his men to open fire give the advancing squad the order to "take cover". They take cover and you turn the "defending" squad around to as not to see the next step.

A figure 12 target is then positioned at each point where an advancing squad member has taken cover. The advancing squad are then withdrawn behind the firing point to watch. The "defending" squad are then turned around and conduct a Drake/Cover shoot into the area where the advancing squad took cover.

The "advancing" squad are then taken by instructors/platoon NCOs to their positions to see if they came out of the contact "Dead or Alive". Remedial training can be conducted then and there.

Once completed swap the squads around. The squad with the most "dead" pay for the first round in the canteen later.

The aim of the exercise (apart from simply training troops to seek proper cover) is to indicate that the Drake/Cover shoot works both ways.


I haven't heard of that training being done. Good stuff. The most difficult thing about training the Drake Shoots is finding a range to do it on!! Almost all ranges are cleared out open areas with long fields of fire. To train Drake Shoots, you must ask your Range Control Office to get you a range with lots of trees, bushes, and other cover and concealment to hide the targets. With proper application of Drake Shoots, your unit will achieve 100% hits on the targets without being able to see the targets! Trust me, it works!!

I've watched YouTube videos and such where the US soldiers were firing back at Taliban attacks and complaining they can't see their enemy to fire accurately. Drake Shoots actually eliminates the necessity of seeing your enemy to hit him. Instead, you aim at his likely locations for cover and concealment.



I have said this before and will say it again... that before anyone starts to consider compromising on the type of weapons and the amount of ammo carried because of weight considerations look elsewhere to see where weight can be shed from the infantryman's burden.

It is interesting to note that the Brits are finally coming to the realisation that the additional weight being carried by soldiers nowadays is having serious negative side effects.



Now many of these patrols are a few thousand metres long and probably don't move beyond the range of indirect supporting weapons (which they should have) in their base of origin. So why carry all the kit?


I have never been a believer in always wearing Level IV body armor. It's ridiculous. Commanders enforce it for the purpose of reducing their own blame if a soldier gets killed. Yes, that Level IV has saved several soldiers lives by stopping a 7.62 round, but every incident I have personal knowledge of the round struck in an unarmored area of the body. I personally believe only Level II should be worn to protect from shrapnel - the biggest killer. Only in door-kicking CQB situations where enemy contact is likely should soldiers slide in their plates.

Being a sniper myself, I and my team mates would investigate sniper incidents in our area in Diyala Province, Iraq. We would locate the unit that was there and interview them on what happened. We found some interesting similarities in all the attacks:

1. The shot was never heard by any friendly forces. This indicates good sniper TTP of setting back inside a room.

2. The bullet never hit an armored part of the body. Usually the side of the soldier.

3. The range of the shot was always less than 200 meters - usually around 100 meters.

4. The sniper never took more than two shots then withdrew. If he got a first time hit, then only one shot was fired. Good sniper discipline.

5. Sniper attacks ALWAYS occurred during a MOUT clearing operation approximately one hour into the operation. This means the sniper team was called into the area by his HQ after hearing CF were operating in an area. An hour into the operation, all buildings are cleared and secured and people are starting to "relax" a little.

6. Sniper attacks ALWAYS occurred when the supporting Air Weapons Team (AH-64s or OH-58Ds) had left station to refuel (guess what - that's about an hour into an operation!). They greatly feared attack helos.

7. The snipers targeted the soldiers who looked like they are in charge. This was usually the officer or senior NCO who is standing around in the open.

8. Sniper aim wasn't that good. "Sniper" is a misnomer. It was more like some guy who could use a site fairly well and hit a person at about 100 meters. Additionally, reporting it as a "sniper" has a negative affect on soldier morale. It induces fear that is probably injustified.




Why not? I suppose you are talking about a 7.62mm LMG?

MG teams in the platoon aren't always available to direct support a squad.


Good to see someone out there is looking for "the answer". You are in the minority as too many these days just seem to not only to go with the flow but when questioned aggressively defend the status quo.[/QUOTE]


Thanks,

v/r

DF

[Demon Fox]

So I wonder who can explain why the 62 grain is standard issue?

Good question, JMA. The 77 grain was made specifically for the SPR. It's too hot of a round to put through a M4 or M16. You risk damage to the weapon and injury to the firer. It's the same problem as using match 7.62x51 ammo intended for sniper rifles in an M240B MG. Match ammo is hotter. A couple of years ago some guys from one of the SF groups were trying to get rid of fiscal year ammo and linked up a bunch of match 7.62 and started firing it through an M240B. The gun blew up and injured two men. MGs and rifles are designed to have specific types of ammo put through them. Going outside these specifications can lead to bad things. Another example is taking a 40mm grenade made for a Mk-19 and putting it into an M203 or M79. Not good.









May I suggest that you consider adding the "Dead and Alive Shoot" to the Drake Shoot training.

Simply, on a field firing range you have a section/squad approach a second squad who are positioned in a firing position/trench line/whatever. At the moment the "defending" squad leader would order his men to open fire give the advancing squad the order to "take cover". They take cover and you turn the "defending" squad around to as not to see the next step.

A figure 12 target is then positioned at each point where an advancing squad member has taken cover. The advancing squad are then withdrawn behind the firing point to watch. The "defending" squad are then turned around and conduct a Drake/Cover shoot into the area where the advancing squad took cover.

The "advancing" squad are then taken by instructors/platoon NCOs to their positions to see if they came out of the contact "Dead or Alive". Remedial training can be conducted then and there.

Once completed swap the squads around. The squad with the most "dead" pay for the first round in the canteen later.

The aim of the exercise (apart from simply training troops to seek proper cover) is to indicate that the Drake/Cover shoot works both ways.


I haven't heard of that training being done. Good stuff. The most difficult thing about training the Drake Shoots is finding a range to do it on!! Almost all ranges are cleared out open areas with long fields of fire. To train Drake Shoots, you must ask your Range Control Office to get you a range with lots of trees, bushes, and other cover and concealment to hide the targets. With proper application of Drake Shoots, your unit will achieve 100% hits on the targets without being able to see the targets! Trust me, it works!!

I've watched YouTube videos and such where the US soldiers were firing back at Taliban attacks and complaining they can't see their enemy to fire accurately. Drake Shoots actually eliminates the necessity of seeing your enemy to hit him. Instead, you aim at his likely locations for cover and concealment.



I have said this before and will say it again... that before anyone starts to consider compromising on the type of weapons and the amount of ammo carried because of weight considerations look elsewhere to see where weight can be shed from the infantryman's burden.

It is interesting to note that the Brits are finally coming to the realisation that the additional weight being carried by soldiers nowadays is having serious negative side effects.



Now many of these patrols are a few thousand metres long and probably don't move beyond the range of indirect supporting weapons (which they should have) in their base of origin. So why carry all the kit?


I have never been a believer in always wearing Level IV body armor. It's ridiculous. Commanders enforce it for the purpose of reducing their own blame if a soldier gets killed. Yes, that Level IV has saved several soldiers lives by stopping a 7.62 round, but every incident I have personal knowledge of the round struck in an unarmored area of the body. I personally believe only Level II should be worn to protect from shrapnel - the biggest killer. Only in door-kicking CQB situations where enemy contact is likely should soldiers slide in their plates.

Being a sniper myself, I and my team mates would investigate sniper incidents in our area in Diyala Province, Iraq. We would locate the unit that was there and interview them on what happened. We found some interesting similarities in all the attacks:

1. The shot was never heard by any friendly forces. This indicates good sniper TTP of setting back inside a room.

2. The bullet never hit an armored part of the body. Usually the side of the soldier.

3. The range of the shot was always less than 200 meters - usually around 100 meters.

4. The sniper never took more than two shots then withdrew. If he got a first time hit, then only one shot was fired. Good sniper discipline.

5. Sniper attacks ALWAYS occurred during a MOUT clearing operation approximately one hour into the operation. This means the sniper team was called into the area by his HQ after hearing CF were operating in an area. An hour into the operation, all buildings are cleared and secured and people are starting to "relax" a little.

6. Sniper attacks ALWAYS occurred when the supporting Air Weapons Team (AH-64s or OH-58Ds) had left station to refuel (guess what - that's about an hour into an operation!). They greatly feared attack helos.

7. The snipers targeted the soldiers who looked like they are in charge. This was usually the officer or senior NCO who is standing around in the open.

8. Sniper aim wasn't that good. "Sniper" is a misnomer. It was more like some guy who could use a site fairly well and hit a person at about 100 meters. Additionally, reporting it as a "sniper" has a negative affect on soldier morale. It induces fear that is probably injustified.




Why not? I suppose you are talking about a 7.62mm LMG?

MG teams in the platoon aren't always available to direct support a squad.


Good to see someone out there is looking for "the answer". You are in the minority as too many these days just seem to not only to go with the flow but when questioned aggressively defend the status quo.

Thanks,

v/r

DF[/QUOTE]

[Demon Fox]

Hey, how the heck do you get those blue quote boxes from other people's input?

v/r

DF

[SethB]

So I wonder who can explain why the 62 grain is standard issue?

It was designed for the SAW and adopted because it could penetrate a helmet.

The 77 grain was made specifically for the SPR.

No. It was made specifically for the AMU. It was taken to Afghanistan as a stopgap round in 2001. The design was later changed.

It's too hot of a round to put through a M4 or M16. You risk damage to the weapon and injury to the firer.

No, you don't. Besides, the M4/M16 are essentially the same in every way. You want to show me some documentation.

It's the same problem as using match 7.62x51 ammo intended for sniper rifles in an M240B MG. Match ammo is hotter.

No. 7.62x51 has pressure limits.

A couple of years ago some guys from one of the SF groups were trying to get rid of fiscal year ammo and linked up a bunch of match 7.62 and started firing it through an M240B. The gun blew up and injured two men. MGs and rifles are designed to have specific types of ammo put through them. Going outside these specifications can lead to bad things.

I rolled my eyes on this one. I really did.

Who are you? You haven't filled out a profile, nor have you introduced yourself.

[Demon Fox]

Well, now that I'm aware there is a profile page, I'll fill it out.

For everyone: hello, I am a retired 18Z (plus 18F and 18E). I live in Colorado Springs and currently doing contract work. I find the blogs and stories here in the SWJ very interesting and informative. I like seeing the differences in opinions and experiences.

SethB: you say you rolled your eyes at the M-240 story, but just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. My own battalion leadership suggested linking the 7.62 match to get rid of it before fiscal year turn-in, and we told them no - bad idea.

When experienced 18Bs say not to use certain ammo in certain weapons, I tend to believe them.

v/r

DF

[JMA]

JMA,

Good or better than good snipers come in all sizes and shapes. Trained snipers are the norm, but the Afagini in the tribal areas produce the occasional excellent shot that could devastate a M-16 only enviroment at will.

In a recent ops a Marine Bn. encountered such an individual. He used cover, concealment and a deep firing point where he had a narrow, but effective field of fire. He wounded at least 4 marines and killed one before he was licated and eleminated. It wasn't a Enfield 303 that did the work but a Russian sniper rifle.

Mypoint is if you only have M-16 capabilities, you are going to lose in the long shot environment of Afgahistan. The small caliber is not the only option.

JMA I doubt that all the foreign elements in Afganistan have been eleminated?

I suggest we are talking at crossed purposes. I was merely reacting to the comment that because there are many 303 Enfields in Afghanistan there is necessarily a risk from long range sniping. The fact that foreigners are being brought in as snipers and where Afghans have the skill they use proper sniper rifles probably indicates that the presence or otherwise of 303 Enfields is somewhat academic.

That ISAF forces need weapons that are capable of effective fire out to the longer ranges is self evident. This could just as well be a LMG as a specialist rifle.