Page 45 of 49 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 900 of 978

Thread: The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

  1. #881
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RJ View Post
    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.

  2. #882
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    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.

  3. #883
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    11

    Default

    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

  4. #884
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon Fox View Post
    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]

  5. #885
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    11

    Default

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

    v/r

    DF

  6. #886
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    press the "quote" button

  7. #887
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon Fox View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon Fox View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon Fox View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon Fox View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon Fox View Post
    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.

  8. #888
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    11

    Default

    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

  9. #889
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Welcome aboard, DF.

    The 240 incident you cite is probably not one I know of but there have been at least two others that I'm aware of. In all those cases, there's a possibility the ammo was not causative -- could well have been simply coincidence. Lot of things can cause weapon failure, even age....

    The standard pressure for 7.62x51 in US service hovers around 50K psi -- that includes the M118 Match. However, some folks buy special lot, off DODIC stuff like the special purpose M993 AP which pops at 55,115 psi. Those same guys buy some also special lot M118 for longer range usage and those can go up to 60,200 psi.

    All 7.62 issue weapons are batch tested with the M60 High Pressure Test cartridge at 67.5K psi so theoretically that even 60.2K psi should be a no worries item.

    Since the M240 has to be able to handle that max, the blow up may well have been caused by something else...

  10. #890
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    11

    Default

    OK, back to the ammo stuff:

    The following is copied straight out of FM 3-22.9 (12 August 2008) Chapter 2, pages 2-35 thru 2-36:

    -------------------------------------------------------
    This section provides information about different types of standard military ammunition used in M16- and M4-
    series weapons.

    Use only authorized ammunition manufactured to U.S. and NATO specifications (Table 2-8).

    Table 2-8. Authorized ammunition.

    M193 cartridge –
    5.56-mm, ball
    Plain tip The M193 is the
    standard cartridge for
    field use with the M16A1
    rifle.
    The M193 cartridge is a center-fire cartridge
    with a 55-grain, gilded metal-jacketed, lead
    alloy core bullet.

    M196 cartridge –
    5.56-mm, tracer
    Red or orange tip The M196 cartridge is
    used only in the M16A1
    rifle.
    Its main uses are for
    observation of fire,
    incendiary effect, and
    signaling.
    Soldiers should avoid long-term use of 100
    percent tracer rounds, which could cause
    deposits of incendiary material or chemical
    compounds that could damage the barrel.
    When tracer rounds are fired, they are mixed
    with ball ammunition in a ratio of no greater
    than one-to-one with a preferred ratio of
    three or four ball rounds to one tracer round.

    M199 cartridge –
    5.56-mm, dummy
    Six grooves along
    the sides of the
    case beginning
    about 1/2 inch
    from its tip
    The M199 dummy
    cartridge is used in all
    M16-/M4-series
    weapons during dryfiring
    and other training.
    This cartridge contains no propellant or
    primer.
    The primer well is open to prevent damage
    to the firing pin.

    M200 cartridge –
    5.56-mm, blank
    (no projectile)
    Case mouth is
    closed with a
    seven-petal
    rosette crimp,
    violet tip
    The M200 blank
    cartridge is used in all
    M16-/M4-series
    weapons.
    N/A

    M855 cartridge –
    5.56-mm, ball
    Green tip The M855 cartridge is
    used in the M16A2/3/4
    and in M4-series
    weapons.
    The M855 cartridge has a 62-grain, gilded
    metal-jacketed, lead alloy core bullet with a
    steel penetrator.
    The primer and case are waterproof. This
    round is also linked and used in the M249.
    NOTE: This ammunition should not be used
    in the M16A1 except under emergency
    conditions, and only at targets less than 90
    meters away. The twist of the M16A1 rifling
    is not sufficient to stabilize the length of the
    round's projectile.

    M856 cartridge –
    5.56-mm, tracer
    Red tip (orange
    when linked 4 to 1
    for the M249)
    The M856 tracer
    cartridge is used in the
    M16A2/3/4 and M4-
    series weapons.
    The M856 tracer cartridge has
    characteristics similar to the M196 tracer,
    with a slightly longer tracer burnout distance.
    This cartridge has a 63.7-grain bullet.
    The M856 does not have a steel penetrator.
    NOTE: This ammunition should not be used
    in the M16A1 except under emergency
    conditions, and only at targets less than
    90 meters away. The twist of the M16A1
    rifling is not sufficient to stabilize the length
    of the round's projectile.

    M862 cartridge –
    5.56-mm, short-range
    training ammunition
    (SRTA)
    N/A The M862 SRTA is used
    in all rifles and is
    designed exclusively for
    training.
    The M862 SRTA can be used in lieu of
    service ammunition on indoor ranges and by
    units who have a limited range fan that does
    not allow the firing of service ammunition.
    If adequate range facilities are not available
    for sustainment training, SRTA can be used
    for any firing exercise of 25 meters or less.
    This includes the 25-meter scaled silhouette,
    25-meter alternate qualification course, and
    quick-fire training.
    SRTA can also be used for urban operations
    (UO) training.
    NOTES: 1. See Appendix A for use of SRTA
    in training.
    2. Although SRTA closely replicates the
    trajectory and characteristics of service
    ammunition out to 25 meters, the settings
    placed on the sights for SRTA could be
    different for service ammunition. SRTA
    should not be used to battlesight zero
    weapons that will fire service ammunition.
    3. SRTA ammunition must be used with the
    M2 training bolt.

    M995 cartridge –
    5.56-mm, armor piercing
    (AP)
    Conventional
    brass cartridge
    case
    Aluminum cup sits
    at the rear of the
    projectile (for the
    purpose of
    properly locating
    the penetrator
    within the
    projectile)
    The M995 cartridge is
    used by the M249
    (SAW), M16/A2/A3/A4,
    and M4-series weapons.
    It is intended for use
    against light armored
    targets.
    The M995 offers the capability to defeat light
    armored targets at ranges two to three times
    that of currently available 5.56-mm
    ammunition.
    The M995 cartridge consists of a projectile
    and a propelling charge contained in a brass
    cartridge case. The projectile is a dense
    metal penetrator (tungsten carbide) enclosed
    by a standard gilded metal jacket. The
    cartridge utilizes a double base propellant. A
    standard rifle cartridge primer is used in the
    case to initiate the propelling charge.

    --------------------------------------------------------


    You may notice that neither Mk262 Mod 0 nor Mk262 Mod 1 77 grain ammo is NOT on this authorized list of ammunition for the M16 and M4 family of rifles. SethB, you ARE correct that the 77 grain can be put through M4/M16s with documented good range and effects; however, if the Army didn't put it on the authorized list they probably had a reason. Additionally, the 77 grain is usually in such short supply that it is reserved for the unit's SPRs/Mk12s.

    You'll also notice that some of the ammo is restricted when it comes to the M16A1, to include the M855 standard green tip.

    As for the development of the 77 grain, below are some websites that discuss it. Most claim it was developed specifically for the SPR; a couple mention development for competition purposes (which makes logical sense). One source also mentions that USAMU indeed led the development for combat purposes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_12_S..._Purpose_Rifle

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/mk12.htm

    http://www.snipercentral.com/223.htm

    http://www.angusarms.com/SPR.htm

    http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/b...2-mod-1?page=2

    http://www.thegunzone.com/556faq-nb.html

    http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/Articles.asp?ID=145

    http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/hist_mk262.html

    http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=28326



    As for the 7.62x51 173 grain M118 and 175 grain M118LR match ammo: if you want to link it up and give it a shot through an M240, go right ahead. I'll be standing back behind the line when you do. :-)

    v/r

    DF

  11. #891
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    This makes me feel old. When I was a kid we bit the end of the cartridge to pour the powder in before we rammed the ball home. When the barrel was badly fouled British .577 rounds were easier to ram than the U.S. .58 stuff. No doubt JMA remembers .577-calibre from his rhinoceros-hunting safari days.

  12. #892
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Ken, you could very well be correct on the M240 issue. It happened in a different group than mine and word got around. My Bn leadership also suggested lining up a bunch of sniper rifles and burning the ammo. OK, we had over 53,000 rounds of M118 7.62x51 match ammo - you do the math! I told the commander that he would have to buy a bunch of new sniper barrels after we were done! We wound up just eating the ammo on our FY report. There was just no legal or safe way to get rid of it.

    I once witnessed an M240 have an accidental discharge due to poor maintenance. It was new guy on our team using another team's MG at a convoy live-fire range. We broke apart the M240 to see if there was mechanical malfunction to explain the AD. When we opened the feed tray the metal was literally peeling off from rust. I was furious at the blatant neglect and our new guy was cleared of wrongdoing.

    Here is the list of authorized M240B ammo from FM 3-22.68 (Jul 06):

    The M240B machine gun uses the following types of ammunition. See also table 3-3:

    􀁹 Cartridge, 7.62-mm Ball M80—for use against light materials and personnel, and for range training.

    􀁹 Cartridge, 7.62-mm Armor-Piercing M61—for use against lightly armored targets.

    􀁹 Cartridge, 7.62-mm Tracer M62—for observation of fire, incendiary effects, signaling, and for training. When the gunner fires tracer rounds, they mix with ball ammunition in a ratio of four ball rounds to one tracer round.

    􀁹 Cartridge, 7.62-mm Dummy M63—for use during mechanical training.

    􀁹 Cartridge, 7.62-mm Blank M82—for use during training when simulated live fire is desired. The gunner should use a BFA to fire this ammunition.

    v/r

    DF

  13. #893
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Not particularly concerned about shooting heavy OTMs through a short barrel. I've done enough of it.

    It may not be on the approved list, but it wasn't designed for combat use and the fact that it was eventually approved for anything is a tribute to a few people that shepherded it through the system.

    See Ken's post for a coherent discussion of pressures.

    And for M855, you can't shoot it through an M16 or M16A1 because the 1:12 twist barrel wont stabilize the longer bullet.

    M4s and recent M16s have a 1:7 barrel, although 1:9 will stabilize M855 just fine.

  14. #894
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    11

    Default

    LOL, Pete:

    A few months ago I was reading an article in a hunting magazine (can't remember which one) and there was an Africa safari story in there. The author described the standard light, medium, and heavy rifles taken on safari. I was laughing, because in this case the "light" gun was something like a .458, the "medium" gun was a .600, and the "heavy" gun was a friggin' .700 with a 1,000 grain bullet!! The article had a pic showing the author test firing the .700 . . .

  15. #895
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

  16. #896
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Regrettably, I recall that "study."

    It colored the thinking of the Army -- to no good end, consumed massive amounts of research and development money and produced -- nothing.

    Other than harm.

    It was a farce and it has adversely impacted my thinking about about statistical analyses by academics on combat matters since it hit the street in the mid-50s. The '59 and 60s date mentioned are from the time it was declassified, the study was completed in the early 50s.

    Combat is not a numeric exercise and 'statistics' gathered invariably reflect specifics at a time and place -- those may or, more likely, may not be applicable at another time and place with different people doing ostensibly the same thing in a setting only slightly modified. Numbers and metrics should be used to assess combat efforts with great caution.

    This study was also the lever for much US Army foolishness in attempting to use technology to compensate for poor training, a disastrous failure that is still entirely too prevalent.

  17. #897
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    This study was also the lever for much US Army foolishness in attempting to use technology to compensate for poor training, ...
    To be honest, that became a hallmark as early as '42, then rooted in the lacking numbers of experienced leaders.

  18. #898
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post

    Combat is not a numeric exercise and 'statistics' gathered invariably reflect specifics at a time and place -- those may or, more likely, may not be applicable at another time and place with different people doing ostensibly the same thing in a setting only slightly modified. Numbers and metrics should be used to assess combat efforts with great caution.
    I just wonder how the study could get so bad markmanship results at 300 yards, and such a small difference between the experts and standard shooters.

  19. #899
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default True

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    To be honest, that became a hallmark as early as '42, then rooted in the lacking numbers of experienced leaders.
    In itself indicative of a training shortfall. Training cannot substitute for experience in all cases -- but it does a better job than technology in most.

    Particularly when emphasis on that technology leads to near total reliance upon it -- and it fails...

    Firn:

    Good question. A good deal has to do with weapon quality and with over-maintenance which in the US Army at least causes significant early wear with resulting mechanical looseness and even deformed parts. Heavily used combat weapons also develop microscopic and almost undetectable barrel droop from excessive heat buildup; that can only be ascertained by bore scoping and that's a depot operation (not always performed to save time and money...). There is also a US Army issue with what is an "expert" shooter. The nominal standard has always been rather low.

    That's one flawed 'study.'

  20. #900
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    This study was also the lever for much US Army foolishness in attempting to use technology to compensate for poor training, a disastrous failure that is still entirely too prevalent.
    True, but that's always been the American way. There were the Spencer rifles and carbines during the Civil War and the Pedersen Device idea during War I.

    If I recall correctly the statistical study Fuchs posted was cited as one of justifications cited for adopting the M16 in 1965. At the time when the M14 vs M16 thing was going on I've also gotten the impression that McNamara had a big grudge against U.S. Army Ordnance, particularly its sprawling empire of depots and installations, which he wanted to convert into DoD facilities. I also read something to the effect that the comparative shoot-off by Ordnance between the M14 and the FN was then regarded at the DoD level as having been rigged in the M14's favor. The old Army Ordnance gave us some true subject matter experts like Julian Hatcher but I fear they had begun to think they had all the answers about everything. It could have been sort of a "Pride comes before a fall" kind of thing.
    Last edited by Pete; 03-04-2011 at 01:15 AM. Reason: Fix typo.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •