MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

[Jones_RE]

I read the paper. It seems to me that with a combination of 'battle zero' and the fundamentals of marksmanship (stance, grip, sight alignment, sight picture, breath control, trigger control and follow through) you can hit a man sized target at 300m. If you are only training to hit anywhere on a 20" target at that range then you don't even need to be very good at the fundamentals - a 6" group at 100m is good enough. Because the bullet's trajectory with the rifle's basic setup will always be somewhere close enough the soldier never needs to worry about estimating range.

If you want to have a chance at hitting at 500m then not only do you need to be better at the fundamentals - a 4" group at 100m is necessary, you also need to be able to estimate the range to the target, understand the trajectory of the bullet and adjust accordingly. Also, you're going to have to learn to take into account wind and elevation - and this is with a stationary target!

I read the author as recommending a weapon with better long range capability and teaching soldiers to use more than the most basic fundamentals. I can't think of a sufficient reason not to do both immediately.

[William F. Owen]

I read the author as recommending a weapon with better long range capability and teaching soldiers to use more than the most basic fundamentals. I can't think of a sufficient reason not to do both immediately.

Vast cost for no proven increase in effectiveness is the best reason not to do it.
I do not doubt you can find better rounds than 5.56mm, but so what? A platoon mix of 5.56mm and 7.62mm is proven to work.
What's wrong with M262-5.56mm and M118-7.62mm?
Better than an M877 and M80 mix? OK - so there's an improvement right there, and the weapons all stay the same.

[kaur]

Jones RE said:

I read the author as recommending a weapon with better long range capability and teaching soldiers to use more than the most basic fundamentals. I can't think of a sufficient reason not to do both immediately.

I think that US military knows how to train sharpshooters. To improve situation this means that every soldier must pass Squad Sharpshooter program. This adds 1 week to training if I understand correctly.
For a long time there was available "Squad Sharpshooter Concept" in internet by Michael R Harris http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/smallarms/Harris.pdf It has disappeared now

About ammo and calibre. For some period I used very often Soviet ammo 5,45x39 (brain child of Soviet engineers that figured out that US new M-16 is "better" than AK-47) and 7,62x39. You can make just one test to compare the effectiveness. Arrange night shooting with tracers on the filed where grass is above the waist. With 5,45x39 you can see nice vertical rocket show in the sky with few holes. With 7,62 the picture is much more horizontal. I presume that you can see the same picture if you test 5,56x45 vs 6,5/6,8.

[Fuchs]

I recall an exercise in about '96.

We were walking in squad column for just a few hundred metres when suddenly a referee declared us to be dead. 100 m to the left was another squad in ambush - we didn't seem them.

Similarly, I didn't spot well-camouflaged soldiers as close as 20 m at times and most often when someone reported to me that they were expecting an attack I was usually not confident to spot attackers earlier than at 25-100 m due to the terrain.

The emphasis on scoped rifles and such is fine, but let's not fool ourselves; competent opponents would not expose themselves at 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 m unless they were unaware of our proximity. It would be easy to score a 600 m hit during the very first days of combat against green opponents and also in rather chaotic situations (such as when your Bn was overrun and you're suddenly in the enemy's rear).

Other than that, I expect rifles and scopes to serve you well thanks to their ability to repulse.
Infantry weapons are 99.999% about minimizing the enemy's options in your proximity and 0.001% about actually hitting enemies. The age of rifles ended with rifled, quick loading artillery back in the late 19th century.

I'm not thinking of only suppression here. The mere ability to shoot someone at 400 m will motivate him to avoid any exposure at 400 m (after a few unlucky green soldiers got shot). He won't voluntarily cross open areas that serve as your killing zone - at least not without much support (such as smoke or IFV).


The effect of marksmanship at 200 m is therefore very little more than a mere "keep them away" upgrade to a weapon really meant for the close fight.
The actual mission, no matter what it is - hold or take terrain, make prisoners, kill & wound - would only marginally affected by a difference between two and ten weapons in a squad being capable of effective fire beyond 300 m.

In fact, I like rifles (~G3) more for their ability to penetrate indoor walls and trees than for their sharpshooting suitability.
I do also like scopes (3x - 4x) more for the confidence and target ID capability they give than for their actual advantage in long-range shooting.

It's all quite difficult and different in open mountainous areas. The problem with these is that infantry wouldn't cut it there against a powerful enemy no matter what kind of rifle it uses. Mountain warfare against powerful opposition requires much, much more - and the small arms design plays a very minor role in that orchestra.


The matter is completely different if the opposition lacks
* accurate mortar teams with good mortar ammunition supply,
* single shot firing range training and hunting experience
* body armour (even soft one becomes quite relevant at long range)
* medical support
* artillery
* camouflage equipment and training
* tactically educated & trained leaders



By the way; I'd like to offer a very short & concise summary of how I would write infantry doctrine:
Avoid being seen unless it's necessary for mission accomplishment and change your position ASAP if you assume that your position is compromised. Passive protection and movement techniques won't offer enough survivability. Survivability is the most important precondition for mission accomplishment.

[carl]

About ammo and calibre. For some period I used very often Soviet ammo 5,45x39 (brain child of Soviet engineers that figured out that US new M-16 is "better" than AK-47) and 7,62x39. You can make just one test to compare the effectiveness. Arrange night shooting with tracers on the filed where grass is above the waist. With 5,45x39 you can see nice vertical rocket show in the sky with few holes. With 7,62 the picture is much more horizontal. I presume that you can see the same picture if you test 5,56x45 vs 6,5/6,8.

Kaur, forgive me but I don't quite understand what you mean by this.

Also, I am interested in opinions in how the XM-25 will or won't help with the problem outlined by MAJ Ehrhart.

[Fuchs]

He refers to the greater susceptibility of small calibre bullets to deflection by foliage/grass.

The effect is on the order of a few degrees usually. Deflections on a steep angle up are usually the result of contact with the ground itself, of course.

[OfTheTroops]

ballistics
small=straighter
every deer hunter knows these things
can i hit what i am aiming at with little training? yes
5.56 is good

[Ken White]

Big is shock.

A lot of training is always better than a little.

5.56 is good, light and easy to carry and shoot. However, I've seen too many people hit with the little pills who keep on moving, too many bullets not penetrate minor cover and too many rounds deflected in moderate vegetation to agree that 5.56 is a good combat cartridge.