MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

[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...).

[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...

[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.

[William F. Owen]

Just to clarify:

a.) The 10cm at 100m (4 inches at 100 yards) has been the UK grouping requirement since at least 1921. It is done prone, and it is done to zero the weapon. Works for iron sights, optics, and even Thermal Imagers.

b.) The basic Marksmanship ship test I proposed, assumes that zeroing the weapon is not a problem or a challenge. It is intended for a 5.56mm IW with optics. It is done STANDING, not prone.

[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.

[jcustis]

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

.

They have not changed, at least not for the majority of the reactive ranges (RETS) that at least the Corps still uses.

We have recently started to utilize Larue battery-powered steel poppers that are a reduced profile target. A hit means that you put the round someplace in a very small zone. Under goggles, you can even see the ensuing spark. These are a significant improvement over the "crazy Ivan".

[Pete]

A personal problem of mine is that my ability to concentrate varies considerably -- during a game of pool I'll sink five balls in a row and then scratch on the eight-ball. When shooting looking at a paper target lets you see how you're screwing up. If you're in the habit of calling your shots you can usually see where each of them went when you see them on paper.

The problem with letting gun nuts have too great a role in designing marksmanship training is that they never think enough is enough, whereas the training and personnel guys want to give it three weeks to run people through the pipeline. The very complicated ladder rear sight on the old Springfield M1903 is an example of what happens when the gun nuts with amber shooting glasses are allowed to take over the asylum.

[JMA]

On marksmanship alone (not weapons handling),
a.) Train for a quite limited test with individual weapons. Check and test that the soldier can group 10cm at 100m, and can thus zero his weapon.

b.) Then train him to score hits, from the standing position on a 0.5 x 1m target, exposed for 5 seconds at 100m. He can fire as many rounds as he wants. He just has to hit once. 10 exposures. 7 must show hits, to pass.

After that, expose him to a lot of CQB training and firing under field conditions, though would bring together marksmanship and weapons handling.

OK, now this.

I speak of CQB or other short range contact firing and use what I believe was common to Brit training of that time.

The first guide was instinctive shooting and the use of a double tap.

Another: Your sights in blur, your target in clear.

And: Look at what you are shooting at, not at what you are shooting with.

Now this is all iron sights stuff. Optics for short range? Not sold on 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]

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.

[Ken White]

Wow...Quite honestly if a soldier can't get to a 4" group from the prone position on a range at 100m then...

The soldier isn't the issue, the weapon and ammunition are. You obviously failed to note that I agreed with you on that standard but stated that the reality was the weapon was not capable of doing that. It should be but it flat is not.

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.

Has nothing to do with theory, which I note you are quite strong on. Has everything to do with reality, the laws of physics -- and politics.

Here's (LINK) a quote from the Wiki:

"As with many carbines, the M4 is handy and more convenient to carry than a full-length rifle. The price is slightly inferior ballistic performance compared to the full-size M16, with its nearly 6" (15 cm) longer barrel. This becomes most apparent at ranges of 300 yards and beyond. Statistically, however, most small-arms engagements occur within 100 yards.[citation needed] This means that the M4 is very much an adequate weapon for the majority of troops. The marginal sacrifice in terminal ballistics and range, in exchange for greatly improved handling characteristics, is usually thought to be a worthwhile compromise." (emphasis add / kw)

All the items I placed in bold contribute to mediocre performance and the use of the words "slightly inferior" and "marginal Sacrifice" are very much subjective -- as is the "greatly improved handling." Note particularly the last quoted sentence. That statement may be correct for the Generals who like handiness and don't have to worry about the extremely poor ballistics and accuracy. You don't have to worry about that either.

Unfortunately, the kid who has to zero a marginal weapon suffers some degradation.

Here's a LINK to the contract specification, scroll down to Paragraph 3.4.6. Note the diagram. With a requirement that sloppy, it's a minor miracle to be able to get a 4" / 10.16cm group at 91m / 100yds. The fact that most can do it is a saving grace but does not excuse the poor performance of the weapon or, more so, its ammunition. Note also that every weapon is not tested (Table 2 at Paragraph 4.5.2.4.), merely selected numbers from a production batch. That process can be and is gamed by manufacturers...

It is an adequate combat weapon but only barely and is just another example of the extreme and unhelpful politicization of US defense procurement policies added to penury on important things that fail to rise to and adequate level of importance in the eyes of the unknowing. Or uncaring...

Yet again an idealized view crashes head on into a reality that differs...

[JMA]

The soldier isn't the issue, the weapon and ammunition are. You obviously failed to note that I agreed with you on that standard but stated that the reality was the weapon was not capable of doing that. It should be but it flat is not.Has nothing to do with theory, which I note you are quite strong on. Has everything to do with reality, the laws of physics -- and politics.

And I am not convinced that the problem you report on the quality of the M4 and issued ammunition is of the scale that requires the relaxation of the 4" weapon zeroing requirement at 100m by more than 50% to max allowable 6.3"

Here's (LINK) a quote from the Wiki:All the items I placed in bold contribute to mediocre performance and the use of the words "slightly inferior" and "marginal Sacrifice" are very much subjective -- as is the "greatly improved handling." Note particularly the last quoted sentence. That statement may be correct for the Generals who like handiness and don't have to worry about the extremely poor ballistics and accuracy. You don't have to worry about that either.

That quote from Wikipedia has no citation (so carriers no authority), sorry.

But, if we are to take use of the words "slightly" and "marginal" into account then it does not lead to your use of "extremely poor ballistics and accuracy" and the relaxation of the zeroing requirement by 50%.

Unfortunately, the kid who has to zero a marginal weapon suffers some degradation.

OK, just how marginal this weapon is in terms of accuracy for the purpose of a series of 5 round groups at 100m is yet to be determined. What we know is that the vast majority of soldiers need to work at the marksmanship ability with the help of good coaching and much practice... (and that is not theoretical)

Here's a LINK to the contract specification, scroll down to Paragraph 3.4.6. Note the diagram. With a requirement that sloppy, it's a minor miracle to be able to get a 4" / 10.16cm group at 91m / 100yds. The fact that most can do it is a saving grace but does not excuse the poor performance of the weapon or, more so, its ammunition. Note also that every weapon is not tested (Table 2 at Paragraph 4.5.2.4.), merely selected numbers from a production batch. That process can be and is gamed by manufacturers...

That I see as being the specification. I would guess that most weapons perform better than that. I do however agree that to allow this poor performance to make it into the specification should be a concern.

It is an adequate combat weapon but only barely and is just another example of the extreme and unhelpful politicization of US defense procurement policies added to penury on important things that fail to rise to and adequate level of importance in the eyes of the unknowing. Or uncaring...

A nation gets the politicians they deserve (after all they elect them) and its rather disappointing to see a clearly out of control procurement system operating to the detriment of the armed forces. Maybe the military needs to be a little more shall we say... abrasive, in order to put things right?

Yet again an idealized view crashes head on into a reality that differs...

Not everything is negotiable Ken, a soldier can either shoot to the required minimum standard or he can't and where the tools he is given to do the job are perceived to be substandard the individuals shooting ability and his ability to handle weather conditions become even more important. If the military doesn't have the skilled marksmanship coaches then get these Appleseed Project guys involved to help get on top of the problem.

No idealised view here Ken. I find it hard to believe that a nation (any nation) can knowingly and avoidably send its soldiers into battle with substandard kit. And barley a whimper is heard.

[William F. Owen]

Now this is all iron sights stuff. Optics for short range? Not sold on that.

How much shooting with modern combat optics, or NVGs have you done?

[120mm]

To think I, in my poser-like way, went on patrol on Thanksgiving day, with my issued Serb M92 "Krinkov", with an OGA guy and his HK416 and another three-letter guy with his M4, accompanied by Belgians with their FN rifles, as well as Germans with G36s and a combination of ANA, ANP and Arbaki with Hungarian and Soviet copies of AKs.

It's hard to understand what is the exception and what is the rule these days in Afghanistan.

[82redleg]

Not everything is negotiable Ken, a soldier can either shoot to the required minimum standard or he can't and where the tools he is given to do the job are perceived to be substandard the individuals shooting ability and his ability to handle weather conditions become even more important. If the military doesn't have the skilled marksmanship coaches then get these Appleseed Project guys involved to help get on top of the problem.

No idealised view here Ken. I find it hard to believe that a nation (any nation) can knowingly and avoidably send its soldiers into battle with substandard kit. And barley a whimper is heard.

Now you're just talking out your 4th point of contact. I can shoot quite a bit better than 4 inches at 100 yards, but if the rifle doesn't perform that well, then the rifle doesn't perform that well. Most rifles should, but I haven't shot every M4, and Ken's post on the specs says what the standard for the rifle is. We can expect the riflemen to improve the mechanical performance of the rifle, only to meet it, no matter how good the rifleman is.

And, so I don't have to reply to your next post. 1x and 1.5x, parrallax free optics greatly speed the ability to engage close targets. Even 3x - 4x, of the correct type (ACOGs using BAC, for example) don't result in any degradation, as long as the skill is properly trained. Of course, engaging rapidly with iron sights is a skill that must be trained, too.

[Ken White]

That I see as being the specification. I would guess that most weapons perform better than that. I do however agree that to allow this poor performance to make it into the specification should be a concern.

That's all I said...

That quote from Wikipedia has no citation (so carriers no authority), sorry.

I don't believe anyone would ever deem the Wiki to be authoritative in any case. I certainly do not. The quoted "slightly" and my "extremely" are interpretations and opinions. The actuality is likely somewhere in between as is usual. What is your experience with the weapon -- and the particular weapon is the issue, not the shooters or weapons in general -- in question?

At any rate your acknowledgement that it is a cause for concern is precisely what I contended.

I'll also note that the majority of your pronouncements also carry no citation so can we assess them as not carrying any authority.

A nation gets the politicians they deserve (after all they elect them) and its rather disappointing to see a clearly out of control procurement system operating to the detriment of the armed forces. Maybe the military needs to be a little more shall we say... abrasive, in order to put things right?

If you from a distance think it's disappointing, you should try living with it. The military tradition in this country does not tend to abrasiveness with the elected civilian 'leadership' and we prefer it that way, YMMV. Speaking of politicians, how were and are all yours doing?

Not everything is negotiable Ken, a soldier can either shoot to the required minimum standard or he can't and where the tools he is given to do the job are perceived to be substandard the individuals shooting ability and his ability to handle weather conditions become even more important. If the military doesn't have the skilled marksmanship coaches then get these Appleseed Project guys involved to help get on top of the problem.

My, the perfect solution. Why didn't we think of that...

No indeed, not everything is negotiable -- nor is everything perfect when humans are involved. That's reality, not negotiation. One copes and does ones best at ignoring the armchair critics ungrounded in distant realities.

No idealised view here Ken.

Really? Boy, you fooled me...

I find it hard to believe that a nation (any nation) can knowingly and avoidably send its soldiers into battle with substandard kit. And barley a whimper is heard.

And that's not an idealized view? Heh. In any event, I agree in theory. However, the reality is that most nations have done that to one degree or another for Centuries as hundreds of millions throughout history -- less you, apparently -- have experienced. I doubt we'll see much change in that.