MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

[kaur]

Bob's World said:

Ford Trucks vs Chevy Trucks; or the virtues of Blondes vs. Brunettes

I'm not so sure.

Some time ago there was discussion somewhere about M855 and this poor Volkswagen with lucky passangers.



If SOST works as promised I may take my words back.

[Firn]

I looked a bit around and found this concerning optics, weapons etc. This is of course about snipers in WWII, and rather good ones at that, but I think it is telling about the challenges of accurate rifle fire under "difficult" situations.

Interview von Hans Widhofner (1976) an drei deutsche Scharfschützen (Hetzenauer, Allerberger und Wirnsberger), erschienen in Truppendienst (Autor: Hauptmann WIDHOFNER H., Scharfschützen (I-III); TRUPPENDIENST Ausgabe 1967 Teil I: Seite 109 bis 113, Teil II: Seite 224 bis 229, Teil III: Seite 297 bis 299) - ENGLISH

Widhofner questioned three seasoned snipers individually. They are designated in the order A, B and C. All three were members of the Third Mountain Division of the former German Army. With respect to their person please note the following:

A. Matthäus Hetzenauer of Tyrol fought at the Eastern Front from 1943 to the end of the war, and with 345 certified hits is the most successful German sniper.

B. Sepp Allerberg of Salzburg fought at the Eastern Front from December 1942, to the end of the war, and with 257 certified hits is the second-best German sniper.

C. Helmut Wirnsberger of Styria fought at the Eastern Front from September 1942, to the end of the war and scored 64 certified hits (after being wounded he served for some time as instructor on a sniper training course).

1. Weapons used?

A. K98 with six-power telescopic sights. G43 with four-power telescopic sights.

B. Captured Russian sniper rifle with telescopic sight; I cannot remember power. K98 with six-power telescopic sights.

C. K98 with 1.5-power sights. K98 with four-power telescopic sights. G43 with four-power telescopic sights.


2. Telescopic sights used?

A. Four-power telescopic sight was sufficient up to a range of approximately 400 meters, Six-power telescopic sight was good up to 1,000 meters.

B. Used for two years a captured Russian rifle with telescopic sight; yielded good results, Six-power telescopic sight mounted on K98 was good.

C. 1.5-power telescopic sight was not sufficient; four-power telescopic sight was sufficient and proved good.


3. What is your opinion on increasing the magnification of your telescopic sights?

A. & B. Six-power was sufficient. There was no need for stronger scope. No experience with greater magnification.

C. Four-power is sufficient in both cases.


4. At what range could you hit the following targets without fail?

A. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 600 meters. Standing Man up to 700-800 meters.

B. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 400 meters. Standing up to 600 meters.

C. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 400 meters. Standing Man up to 600 meters.


5. Do the ranges indicated by you apply only to you, i.e. the best snipers, or also to the majority of snipers?

A. & B. Only to the best snipers.

C. To me personally as well as to the majority of snipers. A few outstanding snipers could hit also at longer ranges.

B added: Absolutely positive hitting is possible only up to about 600 meters.


6. What was the range of the furthest target you ever fired at, and what kind of target, size?

A. About 1,000 meters. Standing soldier. Positive hitting not possible, but necessary under the circumstances in order to show enemy that he is not safe even at that distance! Or superior wanted to satisfy himself about capability.

B. 400 to 700 meters.

C. About 600 meters, rarely more. I usually waited until target approached further for better chance of hitting. Also confirmation of successful hit was easier. Used G43 only to about 500 meters because of poor ballistics.


7. How many second shots / Additional shots were necessary per ten hits?

A. Almost never.

B. One to two. Second shot is very dangerous when enemy snipers are in the area.

C. One to two at the most.

The percentage under "realistic" circumstances in a Great war. See also question 4.

13. Percentage of successful hits at various ranges?

Up to 400 meters A. 65 percent C. 80 percent

Up to 600 meters A. 30 percent C. 20 percent

Additional information: A. This is why about 65 percent of my successful hits were made below 400 meters.


B. Do not remember. Mass of hits were below the range of 600 meters.

C. Shot mainly within range of 400 meters due to great possibility of successful hit. Beyond this limit hits could not be confirmed without difficulty.


14. Do these percentages and ranges apply to you personally or are they valid for the majority of snipers?

A. This information is applicable to the majority of snipers as well as to the beat snipers, for: the majority of snipers could hit with absolute certainty only within a range of 400 meters due to their limited skills, the best snipers could hit with reasonable certainty at longer ranges; they in most cases, however, waited until enemy was closer or approaching the enemy in order to better choose the target with respect to its merit

More about optics and their importance:

19. Was it advisable to equip the sniper with a double telescope (binos)? What magnification did the double telescope have?

A. 6 x 30 enlargement was insufficient for longer distances. Later I had a 10 x 50 telescope which was satisfactory.

B. Double telescope was equally important as rifle. No further information.

C. Every sniper was equipped with a double telescope. This was useful and necessary. An enlargement of 6 x 30 was sufficient up to a range of about 500 meters.


20. Would you prefer a periscope which allows observation under full cover?

A. Was very useful as supplement (Russian trench telescope).

B. No.

C. Was used when captured.


21. Were scissor stereo telescopes (positional warfare) used?

A, C. Yes, when available. Was used mutually by sniper and artillery observer.

B. No.

Wind and moving targets.

27. How did you overcome side wind?

A. By my own judgment and experience. When necessary, I used tracer ammunition to determine wind drift. I was well prepared for side wind by my training at Seetaleralpe where we practiced often in strong winds.

B. By own judgment. We did not shoot when side wind was too heavy.

C. No explanation since snipers do not shoot with strong winds.


28. Can you recall the rules pertaining to your behavior when shooting at moving targets?

A, B, C: No; importance is own judgment and experience as well as fast aiming and fast firing.

TO&E and "designated marksmen"

10. Were you incorporated into a troop unit?

All three belonged to the sniper group of the battalion. C was the commander of this group. They numbered up to 22 men; six of them usually stayed with battalion, the rest were assigned to the companies. Observations and use of ammunition as well as successful hits had to be reported daily to the battalion staff. In the beginning, the snipers were called up cut of the battalion, as the war continued and the number of highly-skilled snipers decreased, they were often assigned and given their orders by the division. In addition, a few marksmen in each company were equipped with telescopic sights. These men did not have special training but were able to hit accurately up to about 400 meters and carried out a great deal of the work to be done by "actual snipers". These specially equipped riflemen served in the company as regular soldiers. This is why they could not achieve such high scores as the "snipers".

Recruitment:

17. From what group of persons were snipers selected?

A. Only people born for individual fighting such as hunters, even poachers, forest rangers, etc without taking into consideration their time of service.

B. Do not remember. I had scored 27 successful hits with Russian sniper rifle before I was ordered to participate in sniper training course.

C. Only soldiers with experience at the front who were excellent riflemen; usually after second year of service; had to comply with various shooting requirements to be accepted in the sniper training courses.

To be continued...


Firn

[Firn]

Interviews with soviet soldiers in this case snipers.

Initially the exercises were easy. The size of a target – full-length, half-length, and running targets. Then they complicated the exercises gradually. The most difficult thing was to fire at a “head” target that suddenly appeared for several seconds at a distance about 300-400 meters.

More about distances.

There was another episode when we executed a specific task. A German sniper appeared at our sector of defense and started troubling us. Volodia and I used the same tactics of hunting. There was, however, only one difference: the day was sunny, therefore I slightly rocked my rifle with the optical sight over the parapet to motivate the German to fire.

As a rule, sniper's position lay a bit into the no man's zone. The best distance to fire was some 300–500 meters. We took our positions in the dark. We were allowed to leave them in the daytime only if it was possible to do it imperceptibly. If not – we sat until dark.

To execute a specific order we spent as long time as needed to liquidate the appointed target. More frequently we had free daily hunting and we liked it. You continue fighting from the same position as long as you are sure that it hasn't been discovered. Otherwise you should make off quickly.

Another interview by a female sniper:

But the Germans also put a sniper to watch us. And so I was watching, observing during my shift (because the eyes would get tired), and Marusia said: "Let me take the watch now." She got up, it was a sunny day, and she apparently moved the lens. As soon as she got up, there was a shot, and she fell. Oh, how I cried! The German was 200 meters away from us. I screamed so loud it could be heard all over the trenches, soldiers ran out: "Quiet, quiet, or they'll open mortar fire!" But how could I be quiet? She was my best friend. We sat until the evening, and I kept crying all that time. Then we buried her. I remember there were many wildflowers. It was at Orsha, at the 3rd Belorussian Front. Later her grave was moved to Mogilev, that's where she had been born. Later Nadia Lugina was also wounded from among us. My second partner was also named Marusia, last name Guliakina.

A.D. What were you taught at the school?

They taught us tactics, how to shoot, how to camouflage. Also ballistics, how the bullet flies. Here it flies, here it hits -- I forgot everything already.

A.D. Sniping partner couples were formed at the school?

At the school. When we came as civilians, Marusia Chikhvintseva and I stood next to each other, so we remained partners with her.

A.D. And did you train as partners?

Yes.

A.D. So it seems that the entire group was sent to one sector of the front?

No. Many of us graduated, I couldn't say how many now, but they sent us to all fronts.

A.D. But your group was constant? You had six pairs, right?

About 12 of us, six pairs. Simultaneously. A squad was 10 soldiers, but there were more of us.

A.D. What was the total number of Germans you killed?

I don't remember, Germans killed in battle weren't counted, only in the defense.

A.D. How did you count the kills?

The commander in whose trench we were would write a note. And we would return with it.

A.D. Then it's not clear, what if you only wounded him?

Yes, it could be, but we counted as killed.

A.D. So if he fell, that's a kill?

Yes. How would you check?

A.D. What was the usual distance you fired from?

At the school or at the front?

A.D. At the front.

1200 meters, and 200 meters. Our lines were close. Once Germans attacked our trench and took some girls prisoner, and killed them there. They killed Klava Monakhova. Only one soldier survived, there was an abandoned dug-out, simply a hole in the soil covered with a ground-sheet with snow on top, he hid there. Germans held out for a day, so he spent the day there.

A.D. What was the standard distance from which you fired? Or an optimal one?

Well, what's there to say? The rifle could shoot two kilometers in a straight line. But you could observe up to 800 meters. At the school we fired at 200, and 300. There was night target practice. Different kinds of shooting.

A.D. Even at night?

Even at night. How else?

A.D. Did you shoot at night at the front?

No.

A.D. And in the moonlight?

No. As soon as it dawned we went to our position, as soon as it got dark we returned. We stayed not in the trenches, but at the regiment commander's command post.

A.D. How many shots did you fire from one position?

One. You couldn't do two.

A.D. Or else you'd get killed?

Of course!

A.D. So, in practice that would amount to one shot per day?

Yes, if you kill, otherwise you might not have even one.

A.D. And partners were always next to each other?

Yes, at arm's length. Together all the time. Some went outside the defenses, but we didn't. Why? Because minefields had to be cleared, and that was very difficult and dangerous for the sappers. Then again, we stood as soldiers in the daytime, while the soldiers were resting. There were fifty soldiers in a trench. Ten of them, no more, stood watch at night

...

A.D. Did you use binoculars?

No, only the optical sight.

A.D. But the sight doesn't have a good field of view?

You could see 800 meters very well. You would sit there without moving, and if you moved, then you were noticed. A sniper would lie there quietly and see to the distance of two kilometers, 800 meters wide. He would observe everything. When I got tired, I would say "Marusia, I'm done," -- she would start observing. Because sniper's task was to eliminate commanders, machine gun emplacements, messengers that would be running around. They also had to be eliminated. Soldiers were not necessary, mostly -- officers, commanders. You would fire one shot, let go of the rifle, and lie there. You would wait until your partner fired her shot. When it became dark, we left our position. During the day we walked around, looked for a good spot to lie in wait. Sometimes picked a spot in front of our trenches. After picking a spot, took up the position when it was dark. Then we lay there without moving a muscle until the next evening, because you couldn't crawl away in the daylight. If there was an attack, that was different, then you would get up and run. Otherwise, you would lie in that spot to the end.

A.D. Did you have hand grenades?

Yes. We carried two hand grenades on our belt. One for the fascists, one for yourself, so you wouldn't be captured by the fascists. It was necessary.

A.D. Did you fire in the crosswind?

Yes, we were trained to do that. And firing at moving targets as well. Different things. Some fired, others spun those targets. At our school, there was one good trench, and one small one. God save you from being sent there, you would spend the entire day in the snow. After you returned, you would literally tear your foot bindings off your feet. Everyone's feet hurt.

A.D. Because you had to lie in the snow?

Yes. At the front we also lay in the swamps. Near Leningrad, there were only swamps. If a horse passed by, there was water under the hoofs. You would wash yourself with it, and even drink from that hoof print.

A.D. Did you have a regular Mosin rifle?

Yes, a three-line rifle (line=1/10 inch, 3 lines=7.62 mm - trans.) with a bayonet. Regular one. Always with a bayonet and an optical sight.

A.D. Why the bayonet?

Just in case, if you go on the attack. An entrenching tool, a mess tin, two grenades, ammo, first aid kit.

A.D. What was the farthest target you hit?

Near the Dnieper, a machine gunner and a sniper.

A.D. What was the distance there?

Across a field, they were sitting in a shed. Probably a kilometer, if not more. A target could be hit up to two kilometers.

A.D. You were attached to a regiment? A sniper squad was attached to a regiment?

To a regiment. A trench was given to us. That was the place we went until the offensive began. In a designated area.

A.D. What was the sense in that? If you couldn't occupy the same position?

There was a lot of room there. We had 500 meters, and there were two of us.

..

A.D. Maybe there were some incidents you could talk about in detail?

How I killed? It was horrible. Better not. I told you, Olga and I lay at arm's length from each other. We spoke quietly because the German would be there not far in front of us. They were listening to everything. Their outposts were better organized, after all. We tried not to move, to say something quietly, find a target. Everything would grow so numb! For example, I would say: "Olia, mine." She would already know -- she wouldn't kill that one. After the shot I would only help her observe. I would say, for example: "There, behind that house, behind that bush", and she would already know where to look. We took turns shooting. During the daytime we were always in position, came and left at night. Every day. No days off.

A.D. So you're saying, you couldn't move the rifle?

Absolutely no!

A.D. So how did it lie? Simply against the shoulder?

Against the shoulder and your finger was always on the trigger. Because you might've had to pull it at any moment. The sector of fire was 800 m. And so you would look, and suddenly a target would appear. When the target reached the crosshairs, then I fired. This means that the target walked into the shot on its own. And, of course, that spot would've been ranged.

There is certainly far more to good shooting in war than markmanship...


Firn

[Firn]

The "Finnish view on sniping" raises some other points, but mostly reinforces the older ones.

The Russian snipers seem to execute their tasks with extraordinary patience and tenacity and seem to have excellent material at their disposal. This can be concluded from the fact that they were able to discern even the least movement at great distances and that they concentrated their efforts only upon well-selected, sure and visible targets. Generally speaking, they were interested only in sure targets. Also the cooperation between several snipers seems to be smooth and the allocation of the different phases of the work well-organized.

It seems that once in a while two snipers go after the same target, for it happened that two men walking side by side were hit almost at the same time. On another occasion, one of our [Finnish] snipers was taking aim at his opponent when another enemy sniper shot his rifle to pieces. The sniper's mate not only takes care of the observation, but also the deception of the enemy. He tries by all conceivable means to lure lookouts and guards from their protective cover.

Enemy snipers have used "dum-dum" ammunition, which made it more difficult to locate the spot from which the shot was fired but easier for the enemy to observe a hit.

(4) Ranges and Performances

Depending upon the distance between the lines, the ranges run from 100 to 900 yards, but occasionally enemy snipers have tried shots up to 1,400 yards. The usual and most effective distance is 200 to 400 yards, but even at 600 to 700 yards the accuracy of fire has been fairly satisfactory.

The fire readiness and speed of fire have been good even on moving targets, a proof on the one hand of thorough training, and on the other of the indispensability of the telescopic sight.

The speed and accuracy of fire gave rise to the suspicion that snipers posted in buildings made use of special aids. The accuracy of the fire may be illustrated by the following examples:

At 200 to 400 yards several scissors telescopes and periscopes were smashed to pieces. One sniper shot down a small rock which had been placed in an observation slit three times in rapid succession.

When one of our MG platoon commanders lifted his hand just once above the snow-wall to repair the alarm wire a Russian sniper scored a hit on his hand at 100 yards. A sniper was hit several times through an observation slit fashioned into the snow-wall with a stick. Various objects lifted by our men above the parapet, as a trial, were generally hit. It also happened that Finnish observers behind periscopes, were shot at through the snow wall.

To sum it, at least in my humble opinion:

If facing a competent enemy, only an unseen and/or unsuppressed, well-trained and suited soldier with good equipment can kill well at longer ranges with individual rifle-fire.


Firn


P.S: The "scoring system" differed considerably between the Germans and Soviets but there were also similar approaches:

A.D. What was the total number of Germans you killed?

I don't remember, Germans killed in battle weren't counted, only in the defense.

A.D. How did you count the kills?

The commander in whose trench we were would write a note. And we would return with it.

A.D. Then it's not clear, what if you only wounded him?

Yes, it could be, but we counted as killed.

A.D. So if he fell, that's a kill?

Yes. How would you check?

12. In what warfare could the sniper be most successful?

A. The best success for snipers did not reside in the number of hits, but in the damage caused the enemy by shooting commanders or other important men. As to the merit of individual hits, the snipers best results could be obtained in defense since the target could be best recognized with respect to merit by careful observation. Also with respect the numbers, best results could be obtained in defense since the enemy attacked several times during a the day.

B. Defense. Other hits were not certified.

C. Best results during extended positional warfare and during enemy attacks; good results also during delaying action.


30. What was the method by which your hits were certified?

A, B, C, By observation and confirmation by an officer, non-commissioned officer or two soldiers. This is why the number of certified hits is smaller than the actual score.

Both sides didn't "score" during attacks or battles. But the Germans had far more stringent certification requirements. One can easily see that given an equal amount of "success" the overall numbers of certified hits had to be considerably lower for a German sniper compared to a Soviet one.

[Ken White]

Shock is at least as critical in handguns if not more and I still dont have a .45 Anyone would have more luck moving that argument than the 30-06 v .223

It's more critical. Apparently, no one is having any luck moving either argument...

Kaur: Purely anecdotally, the 7.62x39 is a better cartridge in vegetation than the 5.56x45; penetration and disabling varies. Both are IMO a little weak for a combat cartridge. The .30-06 is overkill and even the 7.62x45 is also a little more than is needed; the two most common are a little less than is desirable IMO. The various 6 - 6+ mm types may have some merit. No test is likely to prove that, combat has a way of overturning test results.

Fuchs: True but the scientific method founders on shooting people -- or even pigs whose body parts are quite close to human densities -- though we did do that in the Troop Test of the AR-25 back in the early 60s before the western world got excessively touchy feely.

Bob's World: Also true but typically, a person will pick one or the other and will then fight you if you tell him or her they bought a bad truck and the other is better. It all boils down in a sense to personal foibles, likes and dislike and what one is familiar with -- which does not make it unimportant...

[Pete]

I know you guys are having fun, but you do realize this is like debating about Ford Trucks vs Chevy Trucks ...

Inland Manufacturing Division, General Motors Corporation made more M1 Carbines than any other manufacturer during World War II, so Chevy has the edge when it comes to small arms.

[kaur]

About Finnish snipers. According to 21th century definition, those guys were more like marksmen. The irony is that most of them fought without optical sights. Simo Häyhä, the soldier who is on the top of world sniper kills list, had rifle without optical sight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

PS I'd like to ask also advice from you. How sharphooters became snipers during I WW? Their tasks were the same (sharp shooting), but they got new name. Is this just flirt with words by Englishmen? I can't find no explanation to this

This is funny picture. Upper picture says that those guys are snipers, but lower picture talks about scharfscütze (which means sharposhooter in German).

http://books.google.ee/books?id=qLCm...age&q=&f=false

[Firn]

If we look at the fundamentals I think we can draw several conclusions concerning effective long-range combat shooting against competent opponents.


Some tentative insight:


1) Only men which are not effectively suppressed can kill effectively over long distances (tautology alert)

2) Only tactical skill, care, patience and camouflage can make detection and thus suppression or death difficult enough, but fierce battles and firefights help the sharpshooters to conceal themselves in the fury of battle (but put them at high HE risk).

3) Only optics allow for effective observation and shooting at longer ranges and under difficult light situations. Binoculars are considered by experienced users essential (as well as NV for night combat). A good spotting scope can be of the greatest value and a periscopes a very useful supplement. (Thermal sights could greatly facilitate observation.)

4) Only one or at the very most two shots are advisable (or possible before death) outside a (major) firefight when good true enemy snipers are on the battlefield. (Modern sound suppressors should make a huge difference. Mitigation of the thermal signature could also be of great importance)

5) Only independent positioning and action allows for truly effective observation and rifle fire during "calm" periods and firefights. (This is linked to camouflage, detection and suppression. Sharpshooters who bunches up with a squad which blasts away can be suppressed with far greater ease than somebody working in front, the rear or on the flanks. )

6) Only a team of sharpshooters can keep up a constant, high standard of observation and readiness over a long period of time and deliver effective rifle fire out to extreme ranges and in adverse conditions (changing side winds, etc.)

... Last but not least ...

7) Only well trained and suited men and women with suitable equipment can be effective sharpshooters. Not too many can be trained for this task(s).


Thoughts:

For the reasons mentioned above, accurate long-range shooting might be delivered better by an independent section at platoon level or even company level or higher than by soldiers in a normal rifle squad. This doesn't mean that a "designated marksman" with a versatile weapon is futile at the squad level. Both the cost of the equipment and the training should be prohibitive...



Firn

[Kiwigrunt]

As has been touched upon before, regardless of calibre and even scopes, if the enemy can’t be seen he can’t be hit. This could be an interesting development towards coming to grips with that elusive AK trigger puller. It is still in development stage but as it becomes more precise you may not even need to see the shooter. Some HE on an accurately defined spot may do the trick.

[carl]

PS I'd like to ask also advice from you. How sharphooters became snipers during I WW? Their tasks were the same (sharp shooting), but they got new name. Is this just flirt with words by Englishmen? I can't find no explanation to this

Sniping in the Great War by Martin Pegler covers about everything having to with this subject. I thought it quite interesting.

[Rifleman]

This thread has drifted into thoughts and points that might fit better in the Recon/Sniping and the DM/Sharpshooter threads. Having said that:

Sharpshooting used to be synomimous with skirmishing, not sniping.

The transition from skirmishing to true sniping happened during The Late Unpleasentness when Confederate blockade runners started bringing through small numbers of English target rifles; usually Whitworths but some Kerr rifles were used too. The men who used them continued to be called sharpshooters. Sometimes they were called independent sharpshooters to distinguish them from skirmishers.

Several of the points made in post #68 by Firn were known and practiced by Confederate sharpshooters.

A lot of the success of Alvin York and Sam Woodfill is because of point #2 in post #68.

Night vision and suppressors were frequently used on night operations by 9th ID snipers in the Mekong Delta. I think the suppressors were SIONICS, which is another way of saying the infamous Mitchell WerBell made them.

9th ID sniper operations went back and forth between true sniping and DM employment. Snipers were sometimes indepentent and at other times might be attached to a rifle platoon for something like a night ambush.

[William F. Owen]

I don't like new military expressions but one here is suitable. During some of the OA and field trials the UK did back in the 1990's they came up with "Close Precision Engagement," CPE. It covers the effect gained by both Sniper and Designated Marksman.

Point being there is no difference, given the same weapon and the same skill. The issue is getting the weapons into positions where they gain effective hits. - after that all the discussion tends to be about supporting the rational for snipers being a better investment than DM's - given the same weapon, and basic equipment.

The arguments all become about things not directly associated with causing enemy casualties.

[GI Zhou]

Sniping in the Great War by Martin Pegler covers about everything having to with this subject. I thought it quite interesting.

Sniping in France written by the fellow who developed sniping in the British Army in the First World War, Major Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard, is the book to read. If you look him up on Wikipedia there is a link to an on-live version of his book.

[Pete]

I don't like new military expressions but one here is suitable.

Uh-oh. Either a window of opportunity is causing Wilf to have a paradigm shift or they're having an earthquake in Partachia ...

[Firn]

Afghan Marksmen — Forget the Fables

For those of you who have served in Afghanistan, or been exposed to gunfighting there via other jobs, your input would be welcome. One of the company commanders shared his insights in an interview soon after the fighting at Marja tapered off. In the annals of the Afghan war, Afghans are supposedly crack shots, some of the best marksmen on earth. Captain Karabin, a veteran of the war in Iraq, summed up neatly a rifle company’s experience that pointed otherwise. “I used to say in Iraq that I’m only alive because Iraqis are such bad shots,” he said. “And now I’ll say it in Afghanistan. I’m only alive because the Afghans are also such bad shots.”

This is one of the reason why they seem to increasingly rely on crew served weapons and IEDs.

When Marines did get hit, it often appeared that the fire came from PK machine guns or the local contingent of snipers – not the riflemen who make the Taliban’s rank-and-file.

Still I find it strange that so many are so bad shots. To much automatic AK fire? All the old poachers grown up with bolt rifles gone? Zero to no training? Messed up rifles and dirty, old and scrambled ammunition from all sources? Knocked up sights?


Firn

P.S: Karabin sounds like a nice name for a soldier and shooter.

[Schmedlap]

We can equip our Soldiers with the best weapons imaginable and it will have little impact unless we give them the right ammo and - here's a new and novel idea that we've never read on SWC - actually train them properly. A well trained Soldier with an M4 isn't going to have any problems hitting his target. But if the ammo goes through the enemy's body like a needle, then just hitting the enemy isn't going to be sufficient. You're going to need to put every round directly in the pelvis, knee cap, CT region, or head. That's not always feasible. It's tough to "aim small, miss small" if crazy Akmed is sprinting through a marketplace.

Solution: hollow tipped 72-grain ammo. It works. We already know it works. We already manufacture and field it. But we don't manufacture or field enough of it. Yes, I'm a broken record on this issue. It seems to be such an easy fix, such a no-brainer, such a straightforward solution. Is there something I'm missing here? Keep the weapon that Soldiers are familiar with and give them better ammo that has already demonstrated its utility. Is this just a horrible idea for some reason that I've overlooked?

[Fuchs]

Does anybody have a statistic on the percentage of Iraq / AFG enemies killed by
- air attack
- indirect fires
- crew-served weapons fire (maybe excluding SAW)
- AFV fires
- individual weapons fire (maybe including SAW)
- other?

I do somehow doubt that the individual weapons share is a large one.

[Schmedlap]

Does anybody have a statistic on the percentage of Iraq / AFG enemies killed by
- air attack
- indirect fires
- crew-served weapons fire (maybe excluding SAW)
- AFV fires
- individual weapons fire (maybe including SAW)
- other?

I do somehow doubt that the individual weapons share is a large one.

I don't have country-wide or operation-wide statistics, but I know that my battalion killed nearly 100 and wounded over 200 more in 2005. Off hand, I can't recall an occasion when any were killed by indirect fire. I'd say most (maybe 70%) of KIAs were small arms (mostly M4, M249, but also M24) and 25mm HE and/or 240C. The rest were (from most frequent to least) M240B, 40mm, frag grenade, and AT-4. Similar proportions for WIA (except maybe 25mm HE had a higher share of WIA; believe it or not, 25mm HE probably resulted in a higher ratio of WIAs to KIAs than other weapons). There were a few occasions when Hellfires were launched, but I don't think we ever confirmed whether those resulted in KIA or WIA.

[Firn]

We can equip our Soldiers with the best weapons imaginable and it will have little impact unless we give them the right ammo and - here's a new and novel idea that we've never read on SWC - actually train them properly. A well trained Soldier with an M4 isn't going to have any problems hitting his target.

In some instances the deck is also stacked against the soldiers and shooting will necessitate other skills, tools and preparations. Take for example this video


The (intrinsic) problems:

a) The enemy overwatch large parts of the COP from the high ground.

b) The enemy can easily initiate the fight and has to observe and attack only a small area.

c) The enemy can be almost everywhere on the surrounding slopes and has excellent concealment

d) The enemy can easily fire from multiple direction

e) The enemy has thus a much easier job at suppressing the unit, because as one soldier sums it nicely up - they can see me and I can't see them.


Some tentative solutions:


a) The paparets are flat and give any movement above them easily away -> this was already deplored in WWI. The messy "German trench" with hidden, low loopholes was considered to be a role model.

At this time the efforts to camouflage our loopholes were extraordinarily primitive—indeed, concealment was nearly impossible in the form of parapet then in use. Many of our units took an actual pride in having an absolutely flat and even parapet, which gave the Germans every opportunity of spotting the smallest movement. The parapets were made of sandbags beaten down with spades, and it is not too much to say that along many of them a mouse could not move without being observed by the most moderate-sighted German sniper. It was curious how some few commanding officers stuck to these flat parapets in the face of all casualties and the dictates of common-sense, even after the High Command had issued orders upon the subject. At a later date a trial was instituted, and proved that in spotting and shooting at a dummy head exposed for two and four seconds over a flat parapet, the number of hits was three to one, as compared with the same a exposure when made over an imitation German parapet.

b) Better training in observation, head and shoulder camouflage, loopholing and in careful movement.

c) The issue and training of periscopes and spotting scopes. The former allow observation under heavy direct fire, the latter can be very valuable to find and ID persons and things.

This actions can only be small parts of the larger effort. All in all I would rank in such specific cases good observation and good mortar fire higher than mere good shooting.

In the long monotony of the trenches during that bleak winter of 1915, the only respite besides work which was possible to our soldiers was the element of sport and excitement introduced by sniping and its more important and elder sister, observation. Sniping in a dangerous sector—and there were many of these— was really neither more nor less than a very high-class form of big game shooting, in which the quarry shot back. As to danger, there are in Africa the lion, the elephant, the buffalo and the rhinoceros, and though the consensus of instructed opinion agrees that in proportion more hunters come back feet foremost from lion hunting than from the pursuit of the three other forms of dangerous game, yet I suppose that no one would dispute that the German sniper, especially when he is supported on either flank by Kamaraden, was far more dangerous in the long run than any lion.

I'm quite sure that it would also boost the morale of the Allies if more of those casual shooters could be killed.


Firn

[gute]

I recently read Attack State Red, They Fought For Each Other and None Left Behind and do not remember reading complaints about the performance of the the 5.56. In Attack State Red (follows the Anglican Battalion in Helmand Province in 2007) most the kills by the Brits were from mortar, GPMG and snipers. When Taliban was killed in close it was with IW or grenades.

At the end of WWII the U.S. Army did a study about the performance of U.S. infantry in WWII and concluded that squads should be no bigger then 9-10 and a squad should solely be a maneuver element or a base of fire, but not both. There were similar conclusions at the end of the Korean and Vietnam wars.

Eventhough I think the FN P90 would make a great PDW and would be effective in urban combat, I agree with Mr. Owen about costs so there is no need to change the caliber of IWs. Obviously, what hinders the effectiveness of the M4 is the lack of barrel length, which the SA-80 does not lack. The Marine Corps has been pretty happy with the performance of the M16A4. I did talk to a former Marine who fought in Fullajah and he said a lot of the time the 62 grain 5.56 went right through bad guys without causing significant damage, but the 7.62 always crushed. He did say that some guys got a hold of 77 grain and they did not have any problems.

So for some of the more knowledgable members/readers how about re-organizing the U.S. Army platoon and Marine Corps rifle platoons into two 9-man maneuver squads and one 9-man weapons squad? The manuever squad would have IWs, M32s, M72s, DMs, and IARs, and the weapons squad would have two M240s and a mortar. Question: Would a company commander be better off with three platoons of 40-45 or four platoons of 30 (not including weapons platoons) or does it not matter?