MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

[tankersteve]

By JMA:

One hopes it is not widespread (beyond the Aussie in that photo) and just an isolated case of a "poser" being allowed to do his own thing.

The problem with this mix and match use of weapons is that each weapon has its distinctive sound and the standard response to a AK/RPD/RPK being fired is to let rip in that direction. For pseudo teams it would be an "all" AK situation but to mix it up when wearing your own kit is insane.

Wow, that is a great method there - firing without trying to identify a target. Sounds like a great TTP for the COIN environmetn. When you are training and fighting with indigenous forces, and they are using AK-47s, perhaps IDing your target before you 'let rip' is the proper method. Your way doesn't sound like a very disciplined way to fight in the present environment.

JMA, while I respect your previous service in a tough war, often you seem to bring very little relevance to the discussion of the present fight. If it isn't the way you did it then, you give it very little credence. However, we have progressed mightily in what we knew from just 7 years ago, in equipment and training. If you aren't aware of the progress, your statements just look like baiting or an outdated view.

As for the Aussie being a 'poser' for carrying a local rifle, if you are patrolling with a local force as an advisor, and you have intentionally chosen pouches that allow various sizes of magazines, and you have trained to a good standard with that weapon system, carrying the same weapon makes excellent sense. Every weapon will now make the same sound. Ammunition can be shared. And you have shown your partners that you don't need a gee-whiz cool-guy gun (with $$$ lasers and stuff) to fight the same enemy that they are fighting. As JCustis says, 'Building wasta!'

In summation, you responded to a picture with little knowledge of the situation or current TTPs and why they might be applicable, because YOU never executed them. Perhaps you should read more and post less.

Tankersteve

[JMA]

By JMA:

"One hopes it is not widespread (beyond the Aussie in that photo) and just an isolated case of a "poser" being allowed to do his own thing.

The problem with this mix and match use of weapons is that each weapon has its distinctive sound and the standard response to a AK/RPD/RPK being fired is to let rip in that direction. For pseudo teams it would be an "all" AK situation but to mix it up when wearing your own kit is insane."

Wow, that is a great method there - firing without trying to identify a target. Sounds like a great TTP for the COIN environmetn. When you are training and fighting with indigenous forces, and they are using AK-47s, perhaps IDing your target before you 'let rip' is the proper method. Your way doesn't sound like a very disciplined way to fight in the present environment.

JMA, while I respect your previous service in a tough war, often you seem to bring very little relevance to the discussion of the present fight. If it isn't the way you did it then, you give it very little credence. However, we have progressed mightily in what we knew from just 7 years ago, in equipment and training. If you aren't aware of the progress, your statements just look like baiting or an outdated view.

As for the Aussie being a 'poser' for carrying a local rifle, if you are patrolling with a local force as an advisor, and you have intentionally chosen pouches that allow various sizes of magazines, and you have trained to a good standard with that weapon system, carrying the same weapon makes excellent sense. Every weapon will now make the same sound. Ammunition can be shared. And you have shown your partners that you don't need a gee-whiz cool-guy gun (with $$$ lasers and stuff) to fight the same enemy that they are fighting. As JCustis says, 'Building wasta!'

In summation, you responded to a picture with little knowledge of the situation or current TTPs and why they might be applicable, because YOU never executed them. Perhaps you should read more and post less.

Tankersteve

We seem to have "read" that photo differently, and I am not going to go after you for having done that.

Maybe you didn't see the second soldier and note that he was not carrying and AK. Explain that then?

When the majority of ones contacts are at less than 50m often less than 10m there is no time for pussy footing around. In fact I recall an external (Zambia) where a group of Selous Scouts (whites) arrived (in contradiction of the orders) with AKs and in gook kit. At some point they got in front of the SAS and got shot up to hell and back. Served the posers right. We had plenty of posers in my little war and they are a type which can be spotted a mile off. There were units which attracted posers and those that chased their asses away. Posing is an attempt to seem more than what you really are. Do you really what that type anywhere near you in a fire fight?

As to where things stand today. The consensus is that while the kit has vastly improved due to the kit burden and the reduced standard of individual training the operational performance is sub optimal.

As one of the contributors here states that one needs to be thankful that today's Taliban are such poor soldiers... I can say the same in respect of my little war.

There are 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. How many are being sent home either under close arrest or just thrown out of the op area? If the answer is less than a platoons worth a week you have a bigger problem that you may care to admit.

[82redleg]

As to where things stand today. The consensus is that while the kit has vastly improved due to the kit burden and the reduced standard of individual training the operational performance is sub optimal.

In general, yes. In the specific case of high-end SOF, I'm not sure that most here would agree with your contention. I've never been around Aussie SOF, so I can't speak intelligently about them, but they have a good reputation.

There are 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. How many are being sent home either under close arrest or just thrown out of the op area? If the answer is less than a platoons worth a week you have a bigger problem that you may care to admit.

Care to explain this? I don't understand why we should be sending 40 or so guys home every week under arrest.

[Ken White]

New film from Tarantino.

The fact that one of the Strynes is carrying an AK and another an apparent M4 doesn't need any explanation. You and I weren't there so we have no idea why that little dichotomy. Your point on signatures is valid -- in close terrain and at close range. Afghanistan doesn't offer much of either. Further, mission dependent, he may have wanted to send a false signature image...

Most of the SOF guys are working with Afghans 'by direction of' so the fact that no Afghans were shown in the picture proves nothing. The fact is the guy carried a weapon he wanted to or believed he should use and idle, ill informed, speculative, arm chair kibitizing adds nothing other than pixels to any discussion .

Nor does it prove anything except that, as Tanker Steve pointed out and as I told you months ago, good experience in one war does not automatically translate into correct or even reasonable answers for another.

On the innuendo front, as for the "platoon's worth a week," I presume you can provide links or some proof that purports to support that rather sweeping accusation? Or is that too experience derived from one war...

[Rex Brynen]

The fact that one of the Strynes is carrying an AK and another an apparent M4 doesn't need any explanation. You and I weren't there so we have no idea why that little dichotomy.

Dammit, Ken--does this mean I can't launch into my critique of US airborne doctrine based solely on the fact that your avatar shows a rabbit descending by parachute? I had it primed and all ready to go...

[Pete]

Dammit, Ken--does this mean I can't launch into my critique of US airborne doctrine based solely on the fact that your avatar shows a rabbit descending by parachute? I had it primed and all ready to go...

I think that the rabbit in Ken's avatar has something to do with the old Playboy magazine. There are a lot of things young people these days today don't remember -- tonight when I watched Ava Gardner and Richard Burton in the film "Night of the Iguana" she shaved him with one of those old razors that you had to put a razor blade inside. When I was a kid we had Burma Shave signs, airplanes had things that went round and round, and LBJ used to have "Fireside Chats" with us on black-and-white TV. Back wthen there were Model Ts Fords on the road and many of them had "Impeach Earl Warren" bumperstickers on them, partiularly in Texas.

[Pete]

Ken has probably heard all he can stand about the First World War U.S. Army, but during that war the safety razor was Army issue, and afterwards straight razors died out within 20 years. I can't remember whether it was Gilette or Schick, but it was one of the old major brands.

[Ken White]

Dammit, Ken--does this mean I can't launch into my critique of US airborne doctrine based solely on the fact that your avatar shows a rabbit descending by parachute? I had it primed and all ready to go...

Absolutely not.

I have it on good authority that there are Rabbits and parachutes in Canada. That from my son who visited the PPCLI in Edmonton in 2006, saw the expected the Rabbits but thought the Parachutes died with the CAR. He was pleased to find out there were some still around. He also noted that "Canadian women are sort of forward." He didn't expand on that and I didn't ask but it sounds like a trait you and I could and should explore. Therefor you you can pick on our flawed Airplane doctrine and / or the Conejo Paracaidista -- If I can remember why I thought that comment on your local fauna might be of interest to me...

Casual and aside note for Pete. Partly correct on the Playboy Bunny. The avatar relates to a set of circumstances, a parachute jump, a bottle of I.W. Harper and a radio call sign in one Small War. It seemed appropriate for here.

Casual and aside note for Seth B, JMA and Wilf. I'm inclined to agree and to disagree with you. 10cm at 100 meters is totally valid IMO but I also realize our 'standard' for the current weapon is based on its capability and that means for us the ordained (not desired) accuracy really sorta has to be a greater spread. Whether that is an appropriate rationale and standard or not is open to discussion. IMO it is not but it is reality at this time. So 12-16cm at 100m would be more realistic.

I personally have grave reservations on the accuracy and combat applicability of a 25m / 1,000" zero. That bogus 'standard' was introduced partly due to the loss of real estate for range use due to a number of pressures. It was also partly introduced because it is easier on the Trainers...

It really has little validity (not least because on many posts, the ranges are really 1,000 inches or 25.4m...) and replaced the old 200 yd (not 100) zero which was a far better combat zero in most -- not all -- terrain. So FWIW, I'd also run Wilf's standard out to 200m and 15-20cm.

In theory, a 25m (or even a 25.4m ) zero should translate mathematically and mechanically to greater ranges, in practice, for a variety of reasons -- mostly but not all shooter induced -- it is not consistently reliable. Both Shooters and Weapons have personalities and real physical differences. So does the weather and the wind...

The biggest flaw with the Task, Condition, Standard process is that conditions vary wildly and widely from time to time, war to war and situation to situation. The solution to this is to make the conditions in training super hard -- however, that makes more work for the Trainers, who object. Strenuously...

One should always make the training standard harder, not easier, than combat. If a person can meet a really tough standard in training, he or she will have better prospects in combat. To my knowledge, the UK RM SBS is the only force that routinely practices this. OTOH, our current process of low standards to achieve high 'Go' rates in training breeds complaisance and problems.

[Pete]

That sounds like one of those "You had to be there" situations.

[JMA]

10cm at 100 meters is totally valid IMO but I also realize our 'standard' for the current weapon is based on its capability and that means for us the ordained (not desired) accuracy really sorta has to be a greater spread. Whether that is an appropriate rationale and standard or not is open to discussion. IMO it is not but it is reality at this time. So 12-16cm at 100m would be more realistic.

Wow.

Quite honestly if a soldier can't get to a 4" group from the prone position on a range at 100m then, a) either you fire the instructor or b) you take the soldiers rifle away and issue him a machete.

From his grouping ability his ESA (expected scoring area) at ranges going out from there can be calculated. When a hit on a target at 300m can't be guaranteed then you are on a hiding to nothing.

I find it hard to believe that either weapon accuracy or ammunition consistency are factors in the US army in therms of the Theory of Small Arms Fire. Shooter's ability and weather yes. Other two no.

[JMA]

The fact that one of the Strynes is carrying an AK and another an apparent M4 doesn't need any explanation. You and I weren't there so we have no idea why that little dichotomy. Your point on signatures is valid -- in close terrain and at close range. Afghanistan doesn't offer much of either. Further, mission dependent, he may have wanted to send a false signature image... .

OK so you too have stated your opinion on the matter. You happy now?

OK so you are good with a short range weapon being selected for medium to long range combat situations?

Yes the message. It just as well could have been "look at me I've got an AK".

Any guesses why calling a guy carrying a AK a poser touched a nerve with Tanker Steve?

PS: go try to find a pic of Aussies in Afghanistan where they are pictured with the ANA they are mentoring who are carrying AKs. I obviously need some help on this.

[Ken White]

OK so you too have stated your opinion on the matter. You happy now?

Seemingly unlike some, I'm most always happy.

OK so you are good with a short range weapon being selected for medium to long range combat situations?

I'm quite happy that a reasonably well trained guy on the ground will select and use the weapons he believes is best suited for the particular job at hand; say a raid on a compound where some CQB might be the order of the day. I also suspect he would, quite properly, pay little attention to the thoughts of someone several thousand miles away.

Yes the message. It just as well could have been "look at me I've got an AK".

Coulda, woulda -- WE (that includes you) do not know why he had the weapon. You are of course free to indulge in idle speculation. We all have our strengths.

Any guesses why calling a guy carrying a AK a poser touched a nerve with Tanker Steve?

I suspect because the comment was unnecessary and you have a penchant for making disparaging innuendos that strike at anyone or anything that is not the way you believe (sometimes sensibly, sometimes not) it should be or that they should act. Add to that much of such comment is obviously from a point of relative ignorance of the Afghan theater and I suppose that's why he reacted the way he did. I wouldn't say you touched a nerve, I'd say you made an ill informed and speculative somewhat derogatory comment, one of your frequent attacks by innuendo and that you simply got called on it...

PS: go try to find a pic of Aussies in Afghanistan where they are pictured with the ANA they are mentoring who are carrying AKs. I obviously need some help on this.

As on so many things. Obviously. Here you go, results of a less than three minute Google search.

I'm sure your eagle eye will note that the Australians depicted in both pictures are carrying the Stryne infantry's standard issue F88 (Steyr AUG) as opposed to the original pictures second SOF guys M4 like weapon. What that means is that the SOF guys -- Stryne and Afghan -- carry M4 / M16 mods (or whatever they want...) while the regular Infantry is armed with the F88 for the guys from Oz and -- as seen in the pictures below -- the non SOF Afghans still mostly have AKs at this time, though that is changing fairly rapidly (thus my comment that the original pic guy may have wanted to apply a different signature...).

[jcustis]

OK so you too have stated your opinion on the matter. You happy now?

OK so you are good with a short range weapon being selected for medium to long range combat situations?

Yes the message. It just as well could have been "look at me I've got an AK".

Any guesses why calling a guy carrying a AK a poser touched a nerve with Tanker Steve?

PS: go try to find a pic of Aussies in Afghanistan where they are pictured with the ANA they are mentoring who are carrying AKs. I obviously need some help on this.

JMA,

Ken is right, you are coming across as just unnecessarily abrasive.

Look, here's the deal:

-That Aussie, if in fact a SOF guy, probably doesn't need a medium to long range weapon. Why? Because he isn't fighting at those ranges, but probably handling his business direct action-style, and at conversational distance.
-That guy, while partnered with Afghans, probably isn't even all that much of a mentor as he is a partnered troop working with the highest-caliber Afghan soldier. These are not random ANA troops he is working besides.
-The writer of the short article where the picture was initially posted said it himself. After perusing 100's of photographs of SOF operators, this was the first one reviewed where an AK was carried outside of the training aspect. It is therefore highly likely...in fact almost certain...that there is a specific reason why this lad had an AK on his person.

[Pete]

One of the things I disliked about the Train Fire pop-up target ranges during my service in '77-'84 was the inability to look at your shot groups. We could do it on the Canadian bull zero targets, but that was all. Things may have changed since then. There is a use for the old round bull's-eye targets when it comes to marksmanship, even though combat isn't like that.

[JMA]

JMA,

Ken is right, you are coming across as just unnecessarily abrasive.

Look, here's the deal:

-That Aussie, if in fact a SOF guy, probably doesn't need a medium to long range weapon. Why? Because he isn't fighting at those ranges, but probably handling his business direct action-style, and at conversational distance.
-That guy, while partnered with Afghans, probably isn't even all that much of a mentor as he is a partnered troop working with the highest-caliber Afghan soldier. These are not random ANA troops he is working besides.
-The writer of the short article where the picture was initially posted said it himself. After perusing 100's of photographs of SOF operators, this was the first one reviewed where an AK was carried outside of the training aspect. It is therefore highly likely...in fact almost certain...that there is a specific reason why this lad had an AK on his person.

Jon, the overreaction was silly.

I said the following: One hopes it is not widespread (beyond the Aussie in that photo) and just an isolated case of a "poser" being allowed to do his own thing.

Man am I glad I didn't use the word "kit freak".

[JMA]

In general, yes. In the specific case of high-end SOF, I'm not sure that most here would agree with your contention. I've never been around Aussie SOF, so I can't speak intelligently about them, but they have a good reputation.

Was "my contention" limited to high-end SOF? So lets stick with your "in general" agreement with my overall contention shall we?

Care to explain this? I don't understand why we should be sending 40 or so guys home every week under arrest.

Do try to be accurate. I said "...either under close arrest or just thrown out of the op area?".

The under arrest number would comprise those held for murder, assault, sexual assault, drug offenses, theft etc etc and given the 100,000 plus soldiers out there and the odd report that makes the news this amount should be reasonably substantial.

Then you need to add to that those soldiers who are sent home for operational offenses from cowardice to refusing to follow a legal command (probably also under close arrest).

Than the last category would be those who just flat out fail to perform operationally or develop (real or contrived) emotional problems while in theatre.

I am aware that the Brits have sent officers and senior NCOs home where they have failed to perform operationally. I am assuming the same has applied to troopies who just don't cut it.

I am not aware of the scale of the problem among US troops and have heard that there is (or was) the tendency to keep supposed PTSD cases in theatre so I would then qualify this comment by saying those soldiers who should be sent home.

... or is everything just fine and dandy over there?

[82redleg]

[QUOTE=JMA;110443]Was "my contention" limited to high-end SOF? So lets stick with your "in general" agreement with my overall contention shall we?[quote]

But the photo is a SOF operator, so its irrelevant to your contention (which I happen to agree with).

The under arrest number would comprise those held for murder, assault, sexual assault, drug offenses, theft etc etc and given the 100,000 plus soldiers out there and the odd report that makes the news this amount should be reasonably substantial.

Then you need to add to that those soldiers who are sent home for operational offenses from cowardice to refusing to follow a legal command (probably also under close arrest).

I had 75 men in my battery- in 12 months, none of them committed this type of offense. Neither did any of the men in my BN, or in the infantry BN that I supported. This is 1000 men, give or take, in 12 months. We must have been lucky none of them committed any crimes of this type.

Than the last category would be those who just flat out fail to perform operationally or develop (real or contrived) emotional problems while in theatre.

I am aware that the Brits have sent officers and senior NCOs home where they have failed to perform operationally. I am assuming the same has applied to troopies who just don't cut it.

I don't know about Brit practice. We don't send people home- we reassign them to a job that they can handle. Why should the less capable get over. THere are plenty of jobs that need doing.

I am not aware of the scale of the problem among US troops and have heard that there is (or was) the tendency to keep supposed PTSD cases in theatre so I would then qualify this comment by saying those soldiers who should be sent home.

... or is everything just fine and dandy over there?

[Ken White]

"...either under close arrest or just thrown out of the op area?"...The under arrest number would comprise those held for murder, assault, sexual assault, drug offenses, theft etc etc and given the 100,000 plus soldiers out there and the odd report that makes the news this amount should be reasonably substantial.

Or perhaps not...

So in other words you have no evidence to bolster your idle provocation. You then compound that with this:

I am not aware of the scale of the problem among US troops and have heard that there is (or was) the tendency to keep supposed PTSD cases in theatre so I would then qualify this comment by saying those soldiers who should be sent home. (emphasis added / kw)

That's fair game for discussion but the way you posted it becomes still more idle speculation stated as ostensible fact and which is really derogatory innuendo and apparently purposely worded to be provoking. That is not conducive to reasonable and civil discussion. But then, you knew that...

This:

... or is everything just fine and dandy over there?

is certainly a legitimate question and since we all know that rarely if ever in any war is everything fine and dandy, what is a legitimate question becomes due to your phrasing and placement simply another bit bit of provoking innuendo.

There are many issues pertaining to Afghanistan that merit informed and sensible discussion. You have proven you are quite capable of that. You can add much value to this board. You are also capable of getting unduly combative (on a message board, for chrissake...) and are prone to cheap shots and ill informed comments. That's unnecessary and thus you can also be an undesirable distraction on this board. The choice is yours...