The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[jmm99]

What sort of pass-fail rate do the "candidates" have on this:

From standing, engage a 0.5 x 1m target at 100m, given a 5-second exposure. Fire as many rounds as you need. 1 hit per exposure is required, and you must score on 4 out of 5 exposures.

Repeat the same, prone supported at 300m. Same qualification required

First thought was how could anyone fail this. But, if you gave it to a random population in the US, the results might well be bleak. Hopefully, the population in Israel is more rifle-centric.

[William F. Owen]

What sort of pass-fail rate do the "candidates" have on this:
First thought was how could anyone fail this. But, if you gave it to a random population in the US, the results might well be bleak. Hopefully, the population in Israel is more rifle-centric.

As I have never tested it, I don't know. It's meant to be a standard that most people with some training can pass. Certainly young infantrymen should have no problem. That's the point.

[Michael C]

I am new to the forums, and new to this question, but I have some thoughts of my own.

When it comes to suppression of the enemy, I have been in Afghanistan when we employed suppressive fire--in every sense of the word. Enemy fire becomes horribly inaccurate once bombs or artillery are dropping. When a platoon or company has fifty caliber machine guns, 120mm mortars and bombs dropping, then the enemy quickly disperses.

Having said that, the terrain of Afghanistan has made most of this debate academic. How frequently do we engage targets we can see? When was the last time a platoon maneuvered up a mountain side to clear an objective? When distances between Soldiers and AAF are measured starting at 400 meters, why do M4s matter?

This brings me to my general point, the weapons we need are the highly accurate weapons that can devastate the enemy. These are sniper rifles and their ilk. A highly accurate weapon that yields one kill is ten times better then many automatic weapons yielding none.

[Ken White]

Having said that, the terrain of Afghanistan has made most of this debate academic. How frequently do we engage targets we can see? When was the last time a platoon maneuvered up a mountain side to clear an objective? When distances between Soldiers and AAF are measured starting at 400 meters, why do M4s matter?

However, Afghanistan has not made this academic; the way we are fighting (so far) in Afghanistan has just moved it aside temporarily. It can and likely will become a big issue at other times in other places. Maybe even in Afghanistan in the future. Been place where Artillery and air weren't always available...

As for targets one can see, complex issue. I suppose you noticed that the ANA troops could spot movement or targets with the naked eye long before most Americans. It's an environmental conditioning thing and one that given our tour system most Americans will not adequately develop or acquire. That's one of the benefits of working with locals in such places. It's also an ability that can be improved with better training by us. Target identification and selection is rarely taught or trained nowadays because in the schoolhouse, it doesn't get a high 'Go' rate and therefor is embarrassing to the School Commandant and in the units, it gets moved aside for consideration of others training or other fluff having nothing to do with warfighting.

Last time hundreds of US Platoons maneuvered up hundreds of mountains was in Viet Nam. Time before that was Korea; then WW II before that, then -- well, you get the idea. It can happen again in your lifetime. We were not always as risk averse as we are today -- and probably will not be so averse in a future war. I wouldn't bank on that risk aversion always ruling how we do things...

I won't waste time on the M4 which was always a bad idea of Barry McCaffrey's but it is the weapon of issue and it works okay for most things. I can visualize the frustration of having to deal with it in Afghanistan. Though the 82d seemed to acquire a slew of M14s from somewhere.

The adoption of the M4 shows the stupidity (there is no other word for it) of thinking all wars will resemble any selected war (or any one persons idea of the future). They don't, they're all different and what works great in one may not work at all in another and the future's hard to see. Thus, equipment HAS to be a compromise that will work fairly well in almost any situation. The US army often forgets that and as it's the largest service, often drags the others who generally know better along.

Welcome aboard.

[COMMAR]

As for targets one can see, complex issue. I suppose you noticed that the ANA troops could spot movement or targets with the naked eye long before most Americans. It's an environmental conditioning thing and one that given our tour system most Americans will not adequately develop or acquire. That's one of the benefits of working with locals in such places. It's also an ability that can be improved with better training by us. Target identification and selection is rarely taught or trained nowadays because in the schoolhouse, it doesn't get a high 'Go' rate and therefor is embarrassing to the School Commandant and in the units, it gets moved aside for consideration of others training or other fluff having nothing to do with warfighting.

Great point!! & often overlooked. Funny thing is I was just reading about that earlier today in an article about Nat Sec Adviser & former USMC CMC Gen Jim Jones visit to Camp Leatherneck.

2nd MEB Cmdr Marine Brig Gen Nicholson (their are 2, 1s in the Army-RC South Dep Cmdr) brought that very pt up, and I had the same thought.

Even though we'll probably never get to the point of accuracy in A'stan as a 'Born & Bred' local Afghan, Target ID & Selection has not gotten the attention it deserves.

Fortunately, due to some go foresight by General Conway & Mattis, those are the very things the Combat Hunter Program was designed to address thru a comprehensive approach.


Combat Hunter's main pts of instructions: Concealment, Advanced Observation & Surveillance Techniques, Profiling, & Man-Tracking

[COMMAR]

Even though we'll probably never get to the point of accuracy in A'stan as a 'Born & Bred' local Afghan, Target ID & Selection has not gotten the attention it deserves.

Let me clarify, I meant accuracy as in recognizing whats out place and the sight acuity of slight movements as locals who know every crag & valley; not sight picture, aim, shoot accuracy.

[Michael C]

Sir,

An excellent point about ANA target selection. Absolutely they could see things that we frequently could not. Training on Target selection and Identification are vital skills we do not train. In fact, thinking of my battalion's last Weapon's Density, I don't think a single range incorporated difficult to see targets on any training on Target selection.

I guess I will clarify my intent on my earlier post. I would like to see two changes in this subject. The first is the adoption of long range marksmanship weapons at the platoon level. The best example I have is the M14 because of the range it gives a platoon leader. With the M14 needs to come much more detailed and thorough marksmanship training at the 500-1000 meter ranges.

Second, the Army needs to move towards a more holistic view of battle. The current thinking of the FM 7-8 of suppress, flank, assault dominated the discussion on accuracy earlier in this thread. I brought up Afghanistan, and I believe examples range from Iraq to Somalia (and probably Vietnam and Korea as well) where plenty of battles did not remotely resemble the FM7-8 paradigm. We need more flexible thinking when it comes to how we realistically fight battles.

Having said that, your point about the ANA is spot on.

[Ken White]

...The first is the adoption of long range marksmanship weapons at the platoon level.

Well said. We adopted a weapon marginally suited for purpose at the time at least partly due to political maneuvering, the M16. We then engineered it to a point where it was LESS effective. Then shortened the barrel to make it still less effective...

Moral of that story is generally adopt equipment that is capable of worldwide service and save theater or purpose specific items for small batch contracts. Obviously, it would be nice if we kept the domestic politics out of weapon purchases but I suppose that's too much to ask.

...The current thinking of the FM 7-8 of suppress, flank, assault dominated the discussion on accuracy earlier in this thread... We need more flexible thinking when it comes to how we realistically fight battles.

You're absolutely right -- and good units make sure that is done. However, TRADOC, the Training Centers and the Schools generally do not pay that any mind because they want a rote process that is easy to teach and easy to test -- and that will have a high 'Go' rate so they look good. Units that are less than good -- and face it, all units are not equal -- don't find the time or take the effort to train innovation or foster initiative

It is a leadership problem. A significant leadership problem. That happens when uniforms and softball teams and such frippery are more important than training and combat skill. Regrettably, to entirely too many of all ranks in the Armed Forces, training is not a priority and initiative is something to be quelled lest it 'embarrass' the command -- or someone...

[jcustis]

won't waste time on the M4 which was always a bad idea of Barry McCaffrey's but it is the weapon of issue and it works okay for most things. I can visualize the frustration of having to deal with it in Afghanistan. Though the 82d seemed to acquire a slew of M14s from somewhere.

Ken, what frustraions are you talking about? Terminal velocity at longer ranges, like 400-500 meters, .55 grain bullet flight through light concealment, or the ability to hit a target at those ranges?

If a shooter can make consistent hits at with an M4 at 500 yds, I would imagine that would cover a basic necessity.

[Ken White]

If a shooter can make consistent hits at with an M4 at 500 yds, I would imagine that would cover a basic necessity.

Partly true; first problem is that few shooters can do that; second is what does that too small pill do when it does hit at that range?

The M4 works, it's adequate -- but it is NOT a good infantry weapon for worldwide service.

[jcustis]

second is what does that too small pill do when it does hit at that range?

Then we're talking terminal ballistics, and you won't get an argument from me. I'm not so sure, however, that the average soldier can pull off the same long range shot from a M-14 similar larger-caliber rifle that he might with a M4 or M16.

[William F. Owen]

Then we're talking terminal ballistics, and you won't get an argument from me. I'm not so sure, however, that the average soldier can pull off the same long range shot from a M-14 similar larger-caliber rifle that he might with a M4 or M16.

This is all the area of the debate between technology, physics, and human performance in it's widest sense. We are remarkably short of some quite simple data in this area. It's always an argument between effectiveness and efficiency, and the like with like comparisons are pretty hard to come by because the data is actually lacking.

Once we have sensible benchmarks, we can have sensible debates. In the absence of testing, such bench marks are generally lacking.

[Ken White]

Wilf and for a lack of data, my subjective opinion is that I do not understand what you're saying, jon. I understand that the M14 is heavier and has greater recoil -- other than that, I don't understand why with halfway decent training (which is mostly lacking in the working level of all services) he shouldn't be able to obtain hits at 500 meters.

Admittedly, I started out with an M1 and the M14 I later used was lighter and had a lower recoil impulse and the M16 was of course yet lighter and had even lower recoil to contend with so each new weapon was 'easier' (or more fun / less work) to shoot -- but that doesn't mean that the others are hard to shoot.

[Fuchs]

500 m hits with M14 are reasonable range performance with an optical sight (preferably magnifying), while iron sights are quite poor at such ranges.

Scoring hits at such ranges requires rather good conditions in either case. No strong wind gusts, target moving at most steadily, shooter has the nerves/time/rest to hold the rifle steady and the rifle should still be zeroed.

500m should really be reserved for designated marksmen/sharpshooters/snipers.

[jcustis]

I've written two long posts, just to have internet explorer crash on me each time. We cannot produce shooters who can routinely hit with an m4/m16 at 500yds, so we definitely cannot make amends by trying that with a rifle with greater recoil.

[Ken White]

for Fuchs: Don't agree, I carried an M1 in Korea and routinely got hits at 5-600m and so did most Marines at the time. I've gotten hits at 500m consistently with an M-14 on many ranges. Both with iron sights, the first in combat, the latter not -- all under adverse weather and wind condition on occasion and with consistency over about 15 years or so in several different climates and terrain sets. It takes training and practice but it's not difficult to train, just takes a fair amount of ammo for most urban dwellers who aren't shooters, more than most nations now allocate.

For Jon: See my comment to Fuchs just above. I've never been able to get consistent hits at 500m with an M16 -- dare I suggest it's the weapon? Or, perhaps more accurately, the weapon, the sights (to include optics) and -- very much -- the ammunition...

Back in the day with the M1 and M14 in the Corps, it was not possible to fire Expert without at least a couple of 600 yard (548.64m) hits. I could usually fire 6-8 out of ten and rarely a possible at 600 yds -- and I was not a super shooter. That not least because the Corps made me shoot right handed (left handed and left eye is master eye. I can do better with a pistol ).

The M16 was predicated on a 300m max combat range (dumb but no one would listen to the many who said it was dumb. Later raised to 350m IIRC -- 500 was never really an issue). I've seen a lot of folks including me who could get consistent hits at that range -- very few who could punch consistent groups at 500m. The M4 has an much shorter barrel so I would logically expect less long range accuracy from it.

Not to mention less long range stopping power. I wouldn't even waste ammo trying to hit targets at 500m with an M4 (or an M249) nor would I let troops try -- unless there was a really good shooter around, then I'd restrict such shots to him. If your MG guys with the 240s are well trained, they should be able to finger off a single shot at that range with fair accuracy.

[Kiwigrunt]

I’d agree that improved ballistics needs to be looked at (also mentioned on the M4 thread). The Mk 262 appears to be a good starting point but is apparently deemed too expensive for general issue as it is Match grade (and I’m sure that would totally blow the budget considering all those MRAPs and other such toys rolling around in the sandbox).
And I still like the idea of a halfway-round, at about 6.5 mm, but that will never happen.

I do think that Wilf is bang-on with regards to optics, and agree with Jcustis, that we disregard recoil at our peril. Data exists (I don’t have it) to some point. When the Brits replaced the SLR with a lighter recoiling rifle with an optic, improvements in marksmanship went through the roof (same soldiers, same training). Same here with the Steyr. As they say, a hit with a .22LR is more effective than a miss with a .50.
Sure, training time and all that. But if a lighter recoiling rifle (with an optic, but you can put that on an SLR as well of course) gives you such a big head start, how much more training time would be required (and realistic) with something ‘heavier’? Hmmm, just realising, we really are talking about two separate things here: recoil and optics (oh, and weight!). So with the above mentioned data, what would have given the biggest advantage, the lighter recoil or the optic? I’d better stop now because I’m starting to confuse myself.

Now there's an idea Ken

Not to mention less long range stopping power. I wouldn't even waste ammo trying to hit targets at 500m with an M4 (or an M249) nor would I let troops try -- unless there was a really good shooter around, then I'd restrict such shots to him. If your MG guys with the 240s are well trained, they should be able to finger off a single shot at that range with fair accuracy.

Would there be an advantage in giving our gpmg's a semi-auto capability, like the Bren used to have? Especially since they are more frequently equipped with optics as well.

[Kiwigrunt]

Jcustis, you posted this on the M4 thread. I’ll comment here as I think this thread is more suitable.

One thing I think we definitely need to take a long, harder look at, is the use of rifle grenades, if for just the mere fact that regardless of whether a bullet-trap or blank-fired design is used, making an inert trainer can't be all that difficult, and incredibly more cost-effective than training with 40mm HEDP or TP rounds.

If we want projected HE capability that any shooter can employ, while not burdening the TL or grenadier down with the sole responsibility, how awesome it would be to issue every rifleman an inert RG, then send them out to a hasty range with a few blanks, at least once a quarter. We conduct similar training with pnuematic mortar systems, and it can't be any harder retrieving the device than it is looking for golfballs...even easier in a cleared-out area.

With the 203, what is actually the biggest issue? Is it familiarization with the weapon itself, is it the sighting systems, or is it skills regards judging distances? If it is the latter, than can that be overcome with training more specific to solving that issue, not requiring so much use of ammo?
On the NZ 203’s we have pretty basic (nay, crappy) sights but the Oz 203’s seem to have far better ones, with what looks like a red dot, similar to the ‘piggy back’ that you see on some Acog’s. see picture.

I think that the biggest issues with rifle grenades are weight and bulk, compared to 40 mm. I don’t know to what extent that may be justified by a potentially bigger bang at the receiving end. I seem to remember that the NZ army tested rifle grenades prior to adopting the 203 but the Steyr itself was not very keen on the recoil.

[Ken White]

Plus tolerance of recoil can be trained, it just takes more firing than many are willing to pay for -- though those same people have no problem in spending big money for pretty uniforms, bands, flags and such...

Simply a matter of what's important.

The Mk 262 appears to be a good starting point but is apparently deemed too expensive for general issue as it is Match grade...

True, that's why the two others I linked to are being explored. The Mk 318 in particular offers, with slight modification, a good GP round -- right now it's a specific CQB round. The tungsten powder round still needs much work i'm told.

As they say, a hit with a .22LR is more effective than a miss with a .50.

Then 'they' have never been in a major fire fight with lots of people milling about. Or had to deal with opponents in heavy winter clothing...

Would there be an advantage in giving our gpmg's a semi-auto capability, like the Bren used to have? Especially since they are more frequently equipped with optics as well.

Idea even older than I am; well trained MG troopies and BAR gunners were doing that long before I was born. Maybe no one teaches trigger manipulation now days...

Using the .50 single shot is easy, just let the Bolt Latch do it's thing but with many other weapons, you have to possess a trained trigger finger. Lot cheaper and easier than adding single shot capability. Handy also to respond for long range targets without giving away the position of your automatic weapons, day or night.

[Kiwigrunt]

The Mk 318 in particular offers, with slight modification, a good GP round -- right now it's a specific CQB round.

Hey, that looks interesting (somehow missed it in your previous post).
Wonder if that's a follow-on from the old (well, not that old) brown-tip which was solid brass and said to be still quite expensive. It's interesting to see that bullet weight is still 62 gr. and the 7.62 version is only 130 gr. Now if that works than we may have a case of performance improvement with reduced (if only slightly) weight and recoil.

Then 'they' have never been in a major fire fight with lots of people milling about. Or had to deal with opponents in heavy winter clothing...

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)

Idea even older than I am; well trained MG troopies and BAR gunners were doing that long before I was born. Maybe no one teaches trigger manipulation now days...
Using the .50 single shot is easy, just let the Bolt Latch do it's thing but with many other weapons, you have to possess a trained trigger finger. Lot cheaper and easier than adding single shot capability. Handy also to respond for long range targets without giving away the position of your automatic weapons, day or night.

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?