The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[SethB]

Realistically, if you think an infantry rifle should have a 600M range, then the M4 can already do it.

For that matter, the 95% of Soldiers that aren't tasked with shooting the enemy with an IW would be best served by something small and portable.

[Ken White]

Realistically, if you think an infantry rifle should have a 600M range, then the M4 can already do it.

How much damage will the bullet actually do when it gets there?

For that matter, the 95% of Soldiers that aren't tasked with shooting the enemy with an IW would be best served by something small and portable.

Whoa. 95%. 95%?

Aside from the basic fact of combat life that ALL soldiers, by definition (and location) may well have to shoot the enemy with an IW and they had better be adequately trained (and practiced...) to be able to that with a weapon that is reliable and effective in worst case scenarios, I suggest that if the percentile cited were to be in fact correct, then the Army to which it applied would have some really significant organizational and purpose problems...

I think considering SOF, Scouts and everything else, it's nearer 90%.

Minor quibble made only to present the point that the exact numbers aren't critical. Regardless of the exact number, any figure in that range is still way too high and an indictment of the aforesaid organizational and purpose problems. Not to mention the training attitude and impact...

[jps2]

Is our main problem regarding light infantry main weapon and its efficiency in AfPak and small war is that they were design (M4, SA80, and others compact carbines) for high intensity conflicts where infantry have to fix the opponent infantry while support fire (machine guns, tanks, artillery) suppress the opponent.

The failure is that support fire can't be used in COIN because of collateral casualties.

So we re-discover that rifles are more effective than carbines in trained and composed infantrymen (should I say riflemen ?)

[SethB]

How much damage will the bullet actually do when it gets there?

According to most people that I've talked to, it will do enough. A friend of mine has killed people at 900M with an SPR.

Aside from the basic fact of combat life that ALL soldiers, by definition (and location) may well have to shoot the enemy with an IW and they had better be adequately trained (and practiced...) to be able to that with a weapon that is reliable and effective in worst case scenarios, I suggest that if the percentile cited were to be in fact correct, then the Army to which it applied would have some really significant organizational and purpose problems...

Once you add up all the CS and CSS guys, then add the guys that use crew served weapons, indirect fire systems and the like, and then the leadership, you have a minimal number of people actually shooting a rifle at the enemy.

My MTOE weapons is an M16A2, but I feel that I would be best served by an M9 and a CSW.

[Pete]

Rifles do things carbines can't, but carbines can't do some of the things rifles do. The other issue with the M16/M4 family of weapons is the caliber. For those reasons, if it comes down to an either-or choice for an Infantry rifle I'd opt for a long barrel in something more potent than 5.56mm.

[Ken White]

According to most people that I've talked to, it will do enough.

Most of mine, mostly grunts and workaday SF with a random other operator type (all Army) here and there disagree, as do I. S'okay, we can do that.

A friend of mine has killed people at 900M with an SPR.

Possible. Also exceptional -- and the word 'reliably' comes to mind...

Once you add up all the CS and CSS guys, then add the guys that use crew served weapons, indirect fire systems and the like, and then the leadership, you have a minimal number of people actually shooting a rifle at the enemy.

True. One can figure 3 x 27 =111/160 Rifle Co for 69%. Arbitrarily take about ~ 80% of that for Mech inf or ~ 55%. Average about 60% per Bn..

Figure roughly 100-120 Bns (Varies and depends); using 100 Bns that's ~75,000 X .6 = 45,000 / 535,000 = ~ 8.5% ± plus SF, LRS, the odd Convoy escorting MP (or other Branch person) and the like. So either figure, thine or mine is in the neighborhood. Put another way, anyway you slice it, we have too many 'others' not involved in combat by design.

How many of those 'others' get involved in actual shooting combat not by design is another question entirely...

My MTOE weapons is an M16A2, but I feel that I would be best served by an M9 and a CSW.

I'm old, CSW to me is crew served weapon and I suspect that is not what you're referring to. The plethora of initials out there is amazing.

Take the "SPR," I presume you mean a Mk 12 in 5.56 but there are several "SPRs" in various calibers out there including this one LINK and there are others -- proving that any High Speed, Low Drag piece of gear will draw cloning in name if nothing else...

[Blah]

In my opinion, the adequacy or inadequacy of the 5.56's lethality could be argued all day, but in the absence of any satisfactory scientific studies on the matter, the only things that can be provided are anecdotes.

That said, there are more concrete and indisputable attributes of both 5.56 and 7.62.
To isolate 2: The 7.62 provides superior penetration of light cover, potentially allowing troops to end the engagement faster. The 5.56 allows a greater amount of ammunition to be carried, letting them operate longer without resupply.

All very obvious stuff. My question is... If we were to go back in time to 2003 and make 7.62 the service cartridge, would we have been hearing about troops running out of ammo in 2 minutes instead of insurgents taking 30 rounds and not falling? (Hyperbole was intentional)

I often hear something along the lines of, "You cannot carry enough 7.62 in a modern war!" I've never heard an actual quantitative figure stated. How much ammo do you "need" exactly? I realize there is no "average" firefight, which makes the answer to that question more elusive. However, the less that number is, the less the difference in weight between those 2 cartridges. Something to keep in mind.

[Pete]

Way back when, what was the main reason for equipping Infantry with small arms?

[Ken White]

In my opinion, the adequacy or inadequacy of the 5.56's lethality could be argued all day, but in the absence of any satisfactory scientific studies on the matter, the only things that can be provided are anecdotes.

It is not an issue that can be decided by "scientific studies." There are too many variables in human physiology and psychology (both shooter and target, two almost infinite variables right there...), in range, in atmospheric conditions, weapons quality and cleanliness, time of day, vision aids, shooter's ability, cartridge consistency and other factors to really do that. Nor is there any need.

That said, there are more concrete and indisputable attributes of both 5.56 and 7.62.
To isolate 2: The 7.62 provides superior penetration of light cover, potentially allowing troops to end the engagement faster. The 5.56 allows a greater amount of ammunition to be carried, letting them operate longer without resupply.

Those are a few for both, there are more, not least range. Add recoil and ease of training...

All very obvious stuff. My question is... If we were to go back in time to 2003 and make 7.62 the service cartridge, would we have been hearing about troops running out of ammo in 2 minutes instead of insurgents taking 30 rounds and not falling? (Hyperbole was intentional)

I often hear something along the lines of, "You cannot carry enough 7.62 in a modern war!" I've never heard an actual quantitative figure stated. How much ammo do you "need" exactly? I realize there is no "average" firefight, which makes the answer to that question more elusive. However, the less that number is, the less the difference in weight between those 2 cartridges. Something to keep in mind.

Not really. State of training of troops and / or their net combat experience (not time in a 'combat zone' but actual fire fight experience) make a tremendous difference in the amount of ammo carried and used. Basically, the newbies fire on full auto or just fire a lot; the old guys do not. New people will want to carry a LOT of ammo, ten or more magazines plus a few cartons in the pack.

Consider the fact the the basic load for a rifleman in Korea was a full cartirdge belt plus two bandoleers. 10x8 + 2x6x8 = 176 rounds occasionally plus 8 in the M1 for a total of 184. Initially many new guys wanted a couple of more 6 clip bandoleers -- so the old guys who didn't want to carry unnecessary weight would hand over theirs. Old hands went out with 88 rounds and rarely fired all of it while the new guys had 2-300 or more and tended to fire it all in a day...

Viet Nam saw the same thing except with 20 round magazines. Seven was the issue norm, thus 140 rounds -- but the new guys scrounged extra mags and carried cartons, sometimes as much 10 mags plus ten or twelve cartons -- 400 or more rounds. Not likely many ever fired anywhere near that. Most older hands carried their seven mags and found that was more than enough.

Same thing is happening today. I saw an article last week on the topic on present day experience in Afghanistan. Can't find it right now but I'll keep looking and if I find, I'll post a link on this thread.

Bottom line on amount of Ammo is that it's absolutely METT-TC related. One may need more or less than the planned basic load depending on the mission -- but the fact is that a statement like this ""You cannot carry enough 7.62 in a modern war!"" is totally specious IMO.

[RJ]

Ken,

Remember "Every Marine is a rifleman first"!

The Marines still require all manner of its troops to qualify annually with a rifle. That includes pilots, air crew and the scopedopes from the Marine Air Control Squadrons. And I believe the requirement includes all Women Marines as well.

Point of fact, after the Fall of Baghdad, the 11th Marie Regt. (Artillery) began rotating their big gun units back to California. Volunteers were called for from the ranks of the cannoncockers to flesh out the Infanty units that had taken casulties. Many of the 11th Marines stayed in Iraq for another three months while 0311 replacements were shipped in to replace them. The volunteers included cooks and bakers from the Artillery Regt who performed as infantrymen.

Picking the fly ash out of the pepper and arguing about the best choice is all well and good. It seems to me the M-16 and its variants wa excellent in Iraq for the most part. More city town activity and not a lot of long range rifle requirements.

Afgahanistan is a wider and more spread out Area of Operations. Seems a 7.62 or 6.5 lupara round is needed to reach out to 800 or 1,000 yards.

There are a lot of Britsh .303 Enfields in Afganistan and the range of that
old man killer is 1,000 yards.

It is very inconvient to have a 20 round magazine that cannot kill the guy who is killing your friends because the shooter is 300 yards beyond their capacity to kill him.

Some where last year in this thread, some Marine units were experimenting with a 12 man squad configeration and possibly using some of the automatic rifles the Marines are concidering to replace the SAW. I believe there are 4 different AR's in the study.

Has any feed back on those activities floated to the top yet?

[Kiwigrunt]

Same thing is happening today. I saw an article last week on the topic on present day experience in Afghanistan. Can't find it right now but I'll keep looking and if I find, I'll post a link on this thread.

You may be thinking of the link that Wilf supplied in post 845.

[Granite_State]

Some where last year in this thread, some Marine units were experimenting with a 12 man squad configeration and possibly using some of the automatic rifles the Marines are concidering to replace the SAW. I believe there are 4 different AR's in the study.

We bought the HK model, it is now being fielded by five Marine Corps battalions as the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle (mine's one of the five). Spent most of today sitting through classes on it, will be on a range with it (more watching than shooting) tomorrow afternoon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Inf...utomatic_Rifle

[JMA]

How much damage will the bullet actually do when it gets there?

Good point. Are you asking about the 5.56 or the 7.62 or both?

But then the aim of section fire out to 600m is what?

[JMA]

Picking the fly ash out of the pepper and arguing about the best choice is all well and good. It seems to me the M-16 and its variants wa excellent in Iraq for the most part. More city town activity and not a lot of long range rifle requirements.

and the 5.56 could adequately penetrate the brick and concrete cover found in such urban environments?

There are a lot of Britsh .303 Enfields in Afganistan and the range of that old man killer is 1,000 yards.

But luckily, not too many shooters who can achieve that are to be found there.

Have you heard of any ISAF troops been taken out by single aimed shots from 400m and beyond?

[kaur]

JMA asked RJ

Have you heard of any ISAF troops been taken out by single aimed shots from 400m and beyond?

I found those claims.

Recruited from Pakistan, Egypt and Chechnya, the snipers could kill from up to 650 yards away and were considered a serious threat by British commanders.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-strikes.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

[JMA]

JMA asked RJ

I found those claims.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-strikes.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

Yes, we have spoken about those "imported" snipers before somewhere here.

I understand they were foreign and were finally taken out.

The context of my post related to the availability of "a lot of Britsh .303 Enfields" in Afghanistan and my question as to whether they were being effectively used.

So I guess I should have reworded my question as follows:

"Have you heard of any ISAF troops been taken out by single aimed shots fired by an Afghan from a .303 Enfield from 400m and beyond?"

I will try to be more accurate in future.

[RJ]

JMA,

Good or better than good snipers come in all sizes and shapes. Trained snipers are the norm, but the Afagini in the tribal areas produce the occasional excellent shot that could devastate a M-16 only enviroment at will.

In a recent ops a Marine Bn. encountered such an individual. He used cover, concealment and a deep firing point where he had a narrow, but effective field of fire. He wounded at least 4 marines and killed one before he was licated and eleminated. It wasn't a Enfield 303 that did the work but a Russian sniper rifle.

Mypoint is if you only have M-16 capabilities, you are going to lose in the long shot environment of Afgahistan. The small caliber is not the only option.

Granite State - Thanks for the catch up. What caliber is the new AR the Marines are transitioning to?

JMA I doubt that all the foreign elements in Afganistan have been eleminated?

[Granite_State]

granite state - thanks for the catch up. What caliber is the new ar the marines are transitioning to?

5.56.

[Demon Fox]

Every squad needs designated marksmen. Many, if not most, of the engagements in AF are 200m or less. The typical SOP is for the squad leader to call in a HIMARS, JDAM, or Excalibur to take out one or two enemy riflemen. They get the bad guy, but find dead women and children at the impact site as well. These situations could be resolved with a rifleman and a bit of good aim. At 200m, that's a head shot even with an M4 - especially with the ACOGS sites most soldiers use these days!

SPRs combined with the 77 grain 5.56 match round makes a good sniper rifle. My team was training at the High-Angle Sniper Course in Hawthorne, NV a few years ago. We had one SPR, and its owner consistently hit targets out to 1,000 meters in very heavy winds. He even started plinking at 9mm targets on the other side of the valley, which had to have been at least 1,300 meters away. The Marine instructors weren't too happy to find the 5.56 rounds burned holes through the steel 9mm targets even at that range! :-D So, for anyone wondering about the capabilities of a 5.56 round - there you go.

It's interesting how much a difference there is in the performance between the 62 grain green tip standard issue 5.56 and the 77 grain. Ops in Iraq demonstrated an insurgent could take several green tip hits and keep running, but one hit from a 77 grain puts him down flat.

Like some of the folks here, I am a believer in the power of the 7.62x51. While conducting training in Drake Shoots (Rhodesian Cover Shoots), it was very clear that the 7.62 weapons could penetrate completely through medium-sized trees that stop 5.56 cold. It makes the enemy rethink his definition of "cover". Oh, by the way, if any of you guys reading this are combat leaders I highly recommend you teach your men Drake Shoots. It is one of the most effective techniques I've seen - just be cognizant of collateral damage when using the technique.

As already discussed, there is definitely a weight problem with 7.62 - yes, it's friggin' heavy and soldiers carry enough weight as it is. Also, the magazines will generally only carry 20 rounds due to size. Less ammo, more weight. You can't always have an attached MG team with your squad, so I think the solution is to have a 7.62 designated marksman weapon or two assigned to the squad. It sounds like a better job for the rifleman found in each Army fire team. A solution could be something like the 7.62 SCARS rifle, or perhaps introduce a new and improved weapon similar to the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)? SR-25 or M110 SWS may be the answer.

DF

[JMA]

Welcome Demon Fox,

It's interesting how much a difference there is in the performance between the 62 grain green tip standard issue 5.56 and the 77 grain. Ops in Iraq demonstrated an insurgent could take several green tip hits and keep running, but one hit from a 77 grain puts him down flat.

So I wonder who can explain why the 62 grain is standard issue?

Like some of the folks here, I am a believer in the power of the 7.62x51. While conducting training in Drake Shoots (Rhodesian Cover Shoots), it was very clear that the 7.62 weapons could penetrate completely through medium-sized trees that stop 5.56 cold. It makes the enemy rethink his definition of "cover". Oh, by the way, if any of you guys reading this are combat leaders I highly recommend you teach your men Drake Shoots. It is one of the most effective techniques I've seen - just be cognizant of collateral damage when using the technique.

May I suggest that you consider adding the "Dead and Alive Shoot" to the Drake Shoot training.

Simply, on a field firing range you have a section/squad approach a second squad who are positioned in a firing position/trench line/whatever. At the moment the "defending" squad leader would order his men to open fire give the advancing squad the order to "take cover". They take cover and you turn the "defending" squad around to as not to see the next step.

A figure 12 target is then positioned at each point where an advancing squad member has taken cover. The advancing squad are then withdrawn behind the firing point to watch. The "defending" squad are then turned around and conduct a Drake/Cover shoot into the area where the advancing squad took cover.

The "advancing" squad are then taken by instructors/platoon NCOs to their positions to see if they came out of the contact "Dead or Alive". Remedial training can be conducted then and there.

Once completed swap the squads around. The squad with the most "dead" pay for the first round in the canteen later.

The aim of the exercise (apart from simply training troops to seek proper cover) is to indicate that the Drake/Cover shoot works both ways.

As already discussed, there is definitely a weight problem with 7.62 - yes, it's friggin' heavy and soldiers carry enough weight as it is. Also, the magazines will generally only carry 20 rounds due to size. Less ammo, more weight.

I have said this before and will say it again... that before anyone starts to consider compromising on the type of weapons and the amount of ammo carried because of weight considerations look elsewhere to see where weight can be shed from the infantryman's burden.

It is interesting to note that the Brits are finally coming to the realisation that the additional weight being carried by soldiers nowadays is having serious negative side effects.

We’re getting to a point where we are losing as many men making mistakes because they are exhausted from carrying armour (and the things that go with it) than are saved by it. - from Donkeys led by Lions - The British Army Review Number 150

Now many of these patrols are a few thousand metres long and probably don't move beyond the range of indirect supporting weapons (which they should have) in their base of origin. So why carry all the kit?

You can't always have an attached MG team with your squad,...

Why not? I suppose you are talking about a 7.62mm LMG?

... so I think the solution is to have a 7.62 designated marksman weapon or two assigned to the squad. It sounds like a better job for the rifleman found in each Army fire team. A solution could be something like the 7.62 SCARS rifle, or perhaps introduce a new and improved weapon similar to the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)? SR-25 or M110 SWS may be the answer.

DF

Good to see someone out there is looking for "the answer". You are in the minority as too many these days just seem to not only to go with the flow but when questioned aggressively defend the status quo.