MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

[William F. Owen]

The FN weight was fine and we (again my commando) did not allow slings and did “Pokey Drill” (rifle dexterity drill ) everyday after muster parade.

Why no slings? Never understood this. It became a fashion fad in the British Army in the 1980's. Surely better to have a sling than not. If someone uses the sling incorrectly or at the wrong time, address the training or discipline issue. Do not make something "less useful."

The height of dissonance came for me, when doing a patrol competition, we were told "put your slings on to do the assault course, then take them off!!!" HUH!!

[JMA]

Why no slings? Never understood this. It became a fashion fad in the British Army in the 1980's. Surely better to have a sling than not. If someone uses the sling incorrectly or at the wrong time, address the training or discipline issue. Do not make something "less useful."

The height of dissonance came for me, when doing a patrol competition, we were told "put your slings on to do the assault course, then take them off!!!" HUH!!

Well the one school of thought (practiced by the Israelis) is to sling the weapon (in low gunslinger mode) to free up the hands to do other things while the other is to free up the hands from other tasks to to hold onto and use their personal weapons. The closer you are to combat seems to influence your 'relationship' with your weapon.

The simple matter was that we all had a piece of paracord which we used to tie on the rifle or MAG behind the right shoulder for parajumps. So if needed to use both hands to drag bodies around or collect equipment or chop an LZ it took seconds to tie the paracord on.

The hassle with slings is that they needed to be taped for noise and they got hooked onto all kinds of things. Only the gunners had slings.

[Fuchs]

The problem is probably that many weapons have 18th century-ish slings. We could do (much) better.
The slings for SWAT teams look different, for example - and in the long run I'd like to see long weapons attached to the upper body/waist carrier system when not in use.

[GI Zhou]

Slings lost fashion with the SLR (FN-FAL), perhaps before) in the Australian military due to the needs of jungle warafre and their habit of getting caught on anything and everything. With the Syeur AUG certainly slings became more noticeable and more people carried them. On a medium to large frame, the Steyr dosn't get in your way when close to the body. I had a strong web loop sewed onto the top of my 'H' harness, a lockable karabiner put through it, and then the Steyr sling through the karabiner.

I could drive a vehicle yet have it with me within my right arm's reach upon exiting the vehicle, of when I was doing something and needed both hands, or my left hand free but had control of the rifle. Couldn't use it on the range as would send the weapons instructors into apoplexy.

[AdamG]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/0...nship_040410w/

The Army will replace its Cold War marksmanship strategy this summer with one that has basic trainees shooting more rounds, fixing jams and changing magazines — key skills all soldiers need in today’s combat.

“What we’ve learned through eight years of war is that’s now how our soldiers are having to shoot in combat,” Brig. Gen. Richard C. Longo, director of training for the Army’s deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7, told Army Times. He described the current program, which is geared toward passing a single, live-fire test, as a “very sterile environment and a very predictable marksmanship qualification process.”

Initial Military Training Marksmanship, a program that draws lessons from the war zone, will become the Army standard for teaching new soldiers how to shoot in all five initial entry training centers beginning July 1.

[Schmedlap]

Regarding the epiphany in the Army Times piece... holy crap. We're "learning" this???

[Ken White]

holy crap. We're "learning" this???

The Asymmetric Warfare Group (LINK) started pushing what is the 'new' BCT / OSUT rifle marksmanship program six or seven years ago through their traveling Combat Applications Training Course. They sold it from the bottom and but it finally took hold when Jackson jumped on it for BCT in '05 or so and Benning followed for infantry OSUT. Last I heard, Leonard Wood wasn't using it, though that may have changed by now.

As always, the impetus for combat application improvements comes from the bottom and works its way up -- the Generals are always the last to accept and acknowledge the changes and then generally only when it's too well embedded to be turned off. They don't want to invent anything in case it doesn't work so they try to deter others from doing so. Some are willing afterward to take credit for 'implementing' a change they fought tooth and nail...

Anyone who thinks armies are improved by actions from the top down hasn't spent a whole lot of time in one...

[reed11b]

We'll have to agree to disagree there. I can count the number of company level operations that I've done since 2003 on two hands. The rest was platoon or below and I can't imagine going without the 240s. Fire team missions - perhaps our most common - yeah, I can see leaving the 240 at the PB.

Sorry to whip out the time machine, but Schmedlap, could you imagine leaving the 240 behind if you had closer vehicle QRF or better HE projection abilities at the squad and/or platoon level?
Reed

[Schmedlap]

Sorry to whip out the time machine, but Schmedlap, could you imagine leaving the 240 behind if you had closer vehicle QRF or better HE projection abilities at the squad and/or platoon level?
Reed

It depends.

As a general guide, if they're headed for a static position, okay to leave it home (as noted - most of our missions were fire team level, and those were all static positions, other than insertion and extraction). If they're going to be spending most of their time moving around, bring it unless QRF is really, really close. But, in most instances I'd say bring it.

I don't think HE projection would factor in. 203 and 240 are used for entirely different purposes. Adding one doesn't make up for the other.

[reed11b]

It depends.

As a general guide, if they're headed for a static position, okay to leave it home (as noted - most of our missions were fire team level, and those were all static positions, other than insertion and extraction). If they're going to be spending most of their time moving around, bring it unless QRF is really, really close. But, in most instances I'd say bring it.

I don't think HE projection would factor in. 203 and 240 are used for entirely different purposes. Adding one doesn't make up for the other.

Just for clarification, I never equate a 203 to better HE projection. More of them would make little differance. The USMC Multishot grenade launcher maybe, though I have never used one. Precision (guided mortars, XM-25), Direct fire (Carl Gustav, XM-109 25mm rifle) or possibly something like the above mentioned multishot GL are more in line of what I was thinking. Whoever decided that the main issued 203 round needed to be DP should slapped. Hard.
Reed
P.S. I do think a better round, sites and more oppertunity to train w/ the 203 would make it more useful, just less then ideal.

[Schmedlap]

Just for clarification, I never equate a 203 to better HE projection. More of them would make little differance. The USMC Multishot grenade launcher maybe, though I have never used one. Precision (guided mortars, XM-25), Direct fire (Carl Gustav, XM-109 25mm rifle) or possibly something like the above mentioned multishot GL are more in line of what I was thinking.

I haven't used those alternatives. But, I was always happy with the M203. I've long felt that it is the most underutilized and underappreciated weapon that we carry.

P.S. I do think a better round, sites and more oppertunity to train w/ the 203 would make it more useful, just less then ideal.

No ####, there I was. Baghdad in 2003. Some knuckleheads decided hang out on a rooftop about 200 meters from us and spray magazines of 7.62mm at us. Unamused, but concerned that we could not engage them with small arms without putting any civilians behind them at risk, I decided that we would drop 40mm on top of them. One of my team leaders was a crack shot with the M203. I told his squad leader to move to a certain location and start dropping grenades. Apparently, a different team leader overheard this radio transmission, assumed that I just meant for everyone to start lobbing 40mm, and about 10 seconds later, as I moved to his position, I saw him with weapon pointed to the sky, finger on the trigger. I said, "no!" just as he squeezed off the round.

Being directly behind him, I could see as the round sailed through the air. My concern was the mosque and minaret directly between his position and the shooters. Have you ever seen that clip of Carlton Fisk in Game 6 of the 1975 World Series? (If not, see here @2:55). That was me on the side of a highway in Baghdad at high noon, with 7.62mm impacting on the ground in the general vicinity. I was using every bit of body language, hand waving, and verbal command that I could muster to urge that 40mm round to "stay right, stay right!" Fortunately, it did stay right and missed that minaret by, I'm guessing, less than 10 feet before hitting the rooftop where said knuckleheads were firing at us. We never did find out if we got them, but the shooting stopped.

[William F. Owen]

“What we’ve learned through eight years of war is that’s now how our soldiers are having to shoot in combat,” Brig. Gen. Richard C. Longo, director of training for the Army’s deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7, told Army Times.

I'd be a lot happier if he had just said, "We used to be very stupid. Now we are changing that."

One of the things that really irritated me about the British Army's very poor formal weapons training of the 1980's and early 90's was it's utter irrelevance to operational conditions. We wasted 1,000s of rounds passing the completely useless APWT, with SLR and SA-80, - then go field firing in Canada and find no one in the Battalion could hit anything with a 66 or 84mm.

[JMA]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/0...nship_040410w/

The quote said:

"... , fixing jams and changing magazines — key skills all soldiers need in today’s combat."

Was there ever a time when these were not key skills?

Can someone direct me to the current training please.

[JMA]

One of the things that really irritated me about the British Army's very poor formal weapons training of the 1980's and early 90's was it's utter irrelevance to operational conditions. We wasted 1,000s of rounds passing the completely useless APWT, with SLR and SA-80, - then go field firing in Canada and find no one in the Battalion could hit anything with a 66 or 84mm.

I'm trying hard to understand this.

The APWT is for 'personal weapons' so how does that connect to a "66 or 84mm" whatever they be?

[William F. Owen]

I'm trying hard to understand this.

The APWT is for 'personal weapons' so how does that connect to a "66 or 84mm" whatever they be?

66mm is the M72-LAW and the 84mm is the 84mm Carl-Gustav M2 RRL.
Not much good being marginally skilled with a rifle when you need to be able to use projected HE weapons.
The reason we were not very good with them is we virtually never practised using them. My point being is that you have equally skilled with ALL weapons in the platoon, not just the rifle.

[JMA]

66mm is the M72-LAW and the 84mm is the 84mm Carl-Gustav M2 RRL.
Not much good being marginally skilled with a rifle when you need to be able to use projected HE weapons.
The reason we were not very good with them is we virtually never practised using them. My point being is that you have equally skilled with ALL weapons in the platoon, not just the rifle.

Marginally skilled with a rifle? Is there a test against which we can objectively evaluate this statement? (I would be horrified if you are correct)

I suggest that there are a number of steps in this process. First is proficiency with ones personal weapon. How we establish proficiency is of course a difficult one to obtain consensus over.

Then we look at the various supporting weapons. Of course for the designated machine gunners it is their personal weapon. Then we ask the question what level of proficiency is required with this 'supporting' weapon from the other members of the section/platoon? Realistically.

Then we can move onto the weapons you mention. I have always found there to be budget or allocation restrictions on ammo use. So what does one do?

Do you take what allocation you have an train up a few soldiers to a reasonable level of proficiency or do you spread out the allocation and end up with nothing more than a familiarisation exercise?

Thinking back we used their weapons like the RPG-7 and when we needed to have them for a particular op we would select the right guys (combat experienced, cool under fire and likely to hit the target in a combat setting) give them 5 rockets each and let them go shoot them in a similar range setting as was operationally expected.

I guess we could have trained more on the RGP-7 as we certainly captured enough weapons and ammo but seemed to settle for this option. Maybe it was the logictics of recovering the ammo some which looked a bit dodgy? I don't know.

Perhaps in peacetime we hype the value of the so-called 'ideal' to much? All the while knowing that we will never get near there. Even in a war we battle to get close to the ideal.

Its like turning a supertanker at sea.

[Fuchs]

My point being is that you have equally skilled with ALL weapons in the platoon, not just the rifle.

Not everybody needs to be proficient with all weapons of a Plt. Let's say the Plt has two Carl Gustafs. It would be enough to train the men assigned to CGs and all leaders (who tend to have been longer in service than others) with it.
The others can make do with 20 min familiarization with a two sim shots each and observing the firing & effects of live ammo (more for morale purpose than anything else).

The same goes for sniper rifles if you've got them in the Platoon.

Personal weapons, AT munitions (M72, M136, Pzf 3) and machine guns are different. Machine guns are much in use on vehicles and on checkpoints, so at least half of the soldiers should be good at them.


Better qualifications are nice to have, but I wouldn't set them as requirement for readiness.

[William F. Owen]

Marginally skilled with a rifle? Is there a test against which we can objectively evaluate this statement?

Being able to pass the APWT was proven to have no benefit to shooting conducted under stress. This was confirmed by trials. Most empirical evidence seems to indicate that a "good enough" standard of shooting is all that is required.

I suggest that there are a number of steps in this process. First is proficiency with ones personal weapon. How we establish proficiency is of course a difficult one to obtain consensus over.

Rgr that.

Then we can move onto the weapons you mention. I have always found there to be budget or allocation restrictions on ammo use. So what does one do?

There's sub calibre devices, TPTP rounds, and today you even have simulators.

Perhaps in peacetime we hype the value of the so-called 'ideal' to much? All the while knowing that we will never get near there. Even in a war we battle to get close to the ideal.

Well IIRC Moltke said that in war only the simple succeeds. My whole point is to keep it all very simple. My take is to massively reduce "musketry" to simple operational shooting skills and spend the rest of the time and budget on the other platoon weapons.

[William F. Owen]

Not everybody needs to be proficient with all weapons of a Plt. Let's say the Plt has two Carl Gustafs. It would be enough to train the men assigned to CGs and all leaders (who tend to have been longer in service than others) with it.

In the 1980's Everybody in a UK Platoon was trained on every weapon in the platoon, and had to pass a TOET (test of elementary training) on that weapon. That was never a problem. Spare afternoon, pull the 84's out of the Armoury and do dry drills till sunset.

The problem was acquiring the skill to shoot them, or even shooting them enough to find out who was actually any good with them. We simply never invested the money in the systems that probably mattered most.

[JMA]

Being able to pass the APWT was proven to have no benefit to shooting conducted under stress. This was confirmed by trials. Most empirical evidence seems to indicate that a "good enough" standard of shooting is all that is required.

I look at it this way. If a soldier can't group (from the prone position) 5 rounds within 4 inches @ 100m or 1 inch @ 25m then you do two things. You fire his instructor and take his weapon away and issue him with a machette.

All he will do is make the contact area more noisy and be a greater danger to you than the enemy.

Once qualified to marksman level in the equivalent of APWT then the real training can begin.

Remember there is basic training and recruit training and then there is ETS training (exercise trained soldier). In most armies the basic training does not flow directly into being inserted into unit already in a war situation.

In Rhodesia we did and that made the training people get a lot smarter. And in many instances the training instructors were NCOs rotated out of ops to do the training and subsequently were 100% operationally current.

There's sub calibre devices, TPTP rounds, and today you even have simulators.

OK, but that is not live firing. So can we agree then that the live ammo allocated to training will be fired by the selected crews who in turn are probably selected as a result of using the other stuff?

Well IIRC Moltke said that in war only the simple succeeds. My whole point is to keep it all very simple. My take is to massively reduce "musketry" to simple operational shooting skills and spend the rest of the time and budget on the other platoon weapons.

Ok, lets agree on the basics here and they are , aiming , holding, breathing and squeezing. Once this is mastered at the 'entry level' say by score a 4" group @ 100m etc etc then we introduce light variation, moving targets, making the shooter out of breath before having to shoot etc etc. What goes and what stays and what gets added?

But yes... I think I can see where you are coming from. More kills are propably made by weapons other than rifles and so concentrate on where the difference will be made.