MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Amrs Lethality in Afgh.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by carl

Without the training no hits will be made at extended ranges no matter what kind of rifle. And improved training will improve the effectiveness of what we have now. Everybody wins, but as I have gathered from reading SWJ over the years, that might be harder to do than getting new equipment.

There are real limits to what you can train people to do when it comes to "skills". Some can shoot, some cannot, and some never improve. Plus almost all training is a function of quantity and quality and both of those cost money, so are the first things to get cut.

Could the problem also be addressed by increasing the number of GPMGs carried (per Kaur) or 51mm type mortars or even using the M203 for indirect fire?

If your Platoon has 2-3 GPMG, a 60mm hand-held mortar and some 6-8 M203, I cannot really think what else you can reasonably ask for, bar perhaps 66mm M72s and maybe some ATGM, dependant on need.
The simpler you make the equipment, the easier you make the training reach a higher standard.

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

If your Platoon has 2-3 GPMG, a 60mm hand-held mortar and some 6-8 M203, I cannot really think what else you can reasonably ask for, bar perhaps 66mm M72s and maybe some ATGM, dependant on need.
The simpler you make the equipment, the easier you make the training reach a higher standard.

It's a bit off the scope because it's just munitions, but I would keep in mind the grenade & mine repertoire.

The German army doesn't use "Claymores", for example - a serious drawback for ambushes in my opinion.

[reed11b]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

An infantry squad comes in contact with the enemy, is pinned down by small arms fire and calls CAS for help.
In high end warfare, it would have been suppressed in the kill zone for 30-120 sec before being killed by mortar fire.


An outpost is established in company strength.
An army opponent would have destroyed it with artillery before its completion.

A civil engineering project is being guarded by infantry and light AFVs in an agricultural area.
Again, arty & good bye.

Sorry Fuchs, but I have read many many AARs that suggest that the "lethality" of arty is not even close to what the manual says. Tima and again, troops that have gone to the ground have survived arty and gotten back in the fight. Example: the actual impact area of an arty round is small and most of the blast energy goes up and is dispersed.

An infantry-on-infantry contact in hilly terrain. One part of the small unit fixes, the other attempts to flank.
Competent armies have a security element in their flanks to stall flanking attempts - a two-man team with LMG suffices.

A house/compound is being assaulted. Suppressive fires + assault.
Again,a competent enemy would defend from more than one position, providing kill zones around the house from detached security elements or other fortified positions.

I actually agree almost 100% on this one. See Wilf's fire team concept for what I would do about it (i.e tactic and training based solutions, not equipment) and add some improved organic HE direct fire capability.

Infantry patrols without (near)permanent concealment or cover.
A sniper pair with a heavy rifle and actual AP cartridges kills them off one by one until they reach cover or concealment. Their vest plates are being penetrated at 500+ m.

A fortified position is being assaulted by TB infantry. The defenders shoot back.
Everyone looking over the wall instead of through a tiny slit or periscope would be shot by snipers. Every position without overhead cover would be a mortar kill zone. Every fortified position that has been identified a few minutes or more ago would already be a death trap, a mere firing mission for the enemy artillery with later mopping up by infantry.

WOW, where do these mega soldiers live and how do we recruit them!
Seriously now, your concept of lethality is not shared by historic or modern AARs.

Infantry is carrying M136s on patrol through a barren environment.
An enemy IFV arrives and accepts their surrender.

or not.
Reed

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by reed11b

Sorry Fuchs, but I have read many many AARs that suggest that the "lethality" of arty is not even close to what the manual says. Tima and again, troops that have gone to the ground have survived arty and gotten back in the fight. Example: the actual impact area of an arty round is small and most of the blast energy goes up and is dispersed.

You're writing about HE with PD fuse. In other words; you're late by 40-60 years.

Today's arty shells detonate before impact, the effect goes downwards and sidewards.This was first done with 90mm AAA shells in late 1944 Ardennes offensive.

ICM shells (1970's and later tech) lack even the dispersal pattern weakness of HE shells (which left forward and rear quite untouched by fragments).

Your statement sounds as if someone told others in 1914 that arty is harmless based on Crimean War experiences.

Seriously now, your concept of lethality is not shared by historic or modern AARs.

Maybe you should read AARs of armies that did more than mere strategic mopping up or beating up Third World forces during the 20th century.

My concept of lethality fits easily to experiences like the one that the average remaining life expectancy of a newly promoted German Panzergrenadier 2nd Lieutenant was measured in mere weeks (single digit!) during 1943-1945.

And let's not forget that dead people rarely write AARs.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by reed11b

Sorry Fuchs, but I have read many many AARs that suggest that the "lethality" of arty is not even close to what the manual says.

Sorta make one wonder why the 'manual' would say something different...

Tima and again, troops that have gone to the ground have survived arty and gotten back in the fight.

Now that's true. Done it myself. Also have just charged right through it and survived. Unfortunately, I had a number of friends who weren't so lucky.

Combat is weird -- you can find examples to prove almost anything. I saw a guy in Korea take a 76mm round that passed through his stomach, you could literally see through him -- he was back to duty in about six weeks...

Saw a Viet Namese with an undetonated 40mm Grenade HE round in his thorax, the Medics removed it. Wuithout blowing him or themselves up...

On balance, Artillery was the biggest killer in WW I and WW II, averages generally running between 65 and 80% if Artillery was involved in the action. There's this:

""The cause of wounds suffered by soldiers varied widely depending on specific circumstances. A British Corps reported 42.8% wounds caused by bullets during the El Alamein offensive. However the percentage of battle wounds to british soldiers by weapon 1939-45 overall was:

Mortar, grenade, bomb, shell ...........75%
Bullet, AT mine................................10%
mine & booby trap...........................10%
Blast and crush.................................2%
Chemical.......................................... 2%
other............................................. ...1%

from J Ellis WWII Databook table 57 p257""

Recall also that those figures and the ones of which the 'manual' cued were based on those who received medical treatment; in a war, no one does autopsies to determine what killed Johnny. Nor do they do memorial services or ramp ceremonies -- too many casualties for all that stuff.

Example: the actual impact area of an arty round is small and most of the blast energy goes up and is dispersed.

Uh, yeah -- unless they're using VT or Proximity fuzes. Then, as Fuchs said, they pop overhead and rain down. Also, don't discount the damage of fragements deflected from that upward dispersion -- or from the rocks and dirt thrown out of the crater at high speed. I've still got little pebbles and flecks of steel that pop out of my bod from Korea. The piece of steel under my kneecap is a handy weather predictor....

WOW, where do these mega soldiers live and how do we recruit them!

No mega bods required. Presented with the opportunity, you'd do it...

Seriously now, your concept of lethality is not shared by historic or modern AARs.

If you mean AARs from Afghanistan or Iraq (IIRC, 44% of Medevacs in Iraq during 2003-06 were for disease or accidents) or even Viet Nam, they don't really count cause the bad guys didn't really have much in the way of HE support and were generally outnumbered heavily by us (though one could say that their IEDs are poor mans artillery...). Perhaps you can find me some from Korea or WW II that corroborate what you say?

As UBoat 509 said the other day, anyone who thinks the 60mm mortar isn't dangerous hasn't been on the receiving end.

[Kinnison]

I wrote on this subject before the Ehrhart article was published, and I agree with him. Go to www.thefreedomcommentaries.com and read "Not Invented Here" under the Weapons category.

[Jones_RE]

I read the paper. It seems to me that with a combination of 'battle zero' and the fundamentals of marksmanship (stance, grip, sight alignment, sight picture, breath control, trigger control and follow through) you can hit a man sized target at 300m. If you are only training to hit anywhere on a 20" target at that range then you don't even need to be very good at the fundamentals - a 6" group at 100m is good enough. Because the bullet's trajectory with the rifle's basic setup will always be somewhere close enough the soldier never needs to worry about estimating range.

If you want to have a chance at hitting at 500m then not only do you need to be better at the fundamentals - a 4" group at 100m is necessary, you also need to be able to estimate the range to the target, understand the trajectory of the bullet and adjust accordingly. Also, you're going to have to learn to take into account wind and elevation - and this is with a stationary target!

I read the author as recommending a weapon with better long range capability and teaching soldiers to use more than the most basic fundamentals. I can't think of a sufficient reason not to do both immediately.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Kinnison

I wrote on this subject before the Ehrhart article was published, and I agree with him. Go to www.thefreedomcommentaries.com and read "Not Invented Here" under the Weapons category.

Quote said article:

But the “really fast little bullet” school’s theory that a high-velocity .22 caliber bullet would reliably do the job of dropping an enemy combatant with one round at standard engagement ranges has been proven wrong in the most important laboratory of all, the battlefield.

The aim of SCVH is to reduce hand held dispersion and increase hits. - which it does.
No bullet was ever predicated on "dropping an enemy combatant with one round at standard engagement ranges." That's a pop-fallacy.
The Battlefield does not produce reliable data and therefore is in no way a laboratory. Ops Analysis does produce data. - and there is none I have ever on 5.56mm lethality - or on any "bullet" for that matter for pretty obvious reasons.
Complaints about 5.56mm are almost unique to US Forces, and have been for 40 years. The recent UK issues were not to do with lethality, but range, and based on yet another false set of premises.
All summarised in my article here

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Jones_RE

I read the author as recommending a weapon with better long range capability and teaching soldiers to use more than the most basic fundamentals. I can't think of a sufficient reason not to do both immediately.

Vast cost for no proven increase in effectiveness is the best reason not to do it.
I do not doubt you can find better rounds than 5.56mm, but so what? A platoon mix of 5.56mm and 7.62mm is proven to work.
What's wrong with M262-5.56mm and M118-7.62mm?
Better than an M877 and M80 mix? OK - so there's an improvement right there, and the weapons all stay the same.

[kaur]

Jones RE said:

I read the author as recommending a weapon with better long range capability and teaching soldiers to use more than the most basic fundamentals. I can't think of a sufficient reason not to do both immediately.

I think that US military knows how to train sharpshooters. To improve situation this means that every soldier must pass Squad Sharpshooter program. This adds 1 week to training if I understand correctly.
For a long time there was available "Squad Sharpshooter Concept" in internet by Michael R Harris http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/smallarms/Harris.pdf It has disappeared now

About ammo and calibre. For some period I used very often Soviet ammo 5,45x39 (brain child of Soviet engineers that figured out that US new M-16 is "better" than AK-47) and 7,62x39. You can make just one test to compare the effectiveness. Arrange night shooting with tracers on the filed where grass is above the waist. With 5,45x39 you can see nice vertical rocket show in the sky with few holes. With 7,62 the picture is much more horizontal. I presume that you can see the same picture if you test 5,56x45 vs 6,5/6,8.

[Fuchs]

I recall an exercise in about '96.

We were walking in squad column for just a few hundred metres when suddenly a referee declared us to be dead. 100 m to the left was another squad in ambush - we didn't seem them.

Similarly, I didn't spot well-camouflaged soldiers as close as 20 m at times and most often when someone reported to me that they were expecting an attack I was usually not confident to spot attackers earlier than at 25-100 m due to the terrain.

The emphasis on scoped rifles and such is fine, but let's not fool ourselves; competent opponents would not expose themselves at 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 m unless they were unaware of our proximity. It would be easy to score a 600 m hit during the very first days of combat against green opponents and also in rather chaotic situations (such as when your Bn was overrun and you're suddenly in the enemy's rear).

Other than that, I expect rifles and scopes to serve you well thanks to their ability to repulse.
Infantry weapons are 99.999% about minimizing the enemy's options in your proximity and 0.001% about actually hitting enemies. The age of rifles ended with rifled, quick loading artillery back in the late 19th century.

I'm not thinking of only suppression here. The mere ability to shoot someone at 400 m will motivate him to avoid any exposure at 400 m (after a few unlucky green soldiers got shot). He won't voluntarily cross open areas that serve as your killing zone - at least not without much support (such as smoke or IFV).


The effect of marksmanship at 200 m is therefore very little more than a mere "keep them away" upgrade to a weapon really meant for the close fight.
The actual mission, no matter what it is - hold or take terrain, make prisoners, kill & wound - would only marginally affected by a difference between two and ten weapons in a squad being capable of effective fire beyond 300 m.

In fact, I like rifles (~G3) more for their ability to penetrate indoor walls and trees than for their sharpshooting suitability.
I do also like scopes (3x - 4x) more for the confidence and target ID capability they give than for their actual advantage in long-range shooting.

It's all quite difficult and different in open mountainous areas. The problem with these is that infantry wouldn't cut it there against a powerful enemy no matter what kind of rifle it uses. Mountain warfare against powerful opposition requires much, much more - and the small arms design plays a very minor role in that orchestra.


The matter is completely different if the opposition lacks
* accurate mortar teams with good mortar ammunition supply,
* single shot firing range training and hunting experience
* body armour (even soft one becomes quite relevant at long range)
* medical support
* artillery
* camouflage equipment and training
* tactically educated & trained leaders



By the way; I'd like to offer a very short & concise summary of how I would write infantry doctrine:
Avoid being seen unless it's necessary for mission accomplishment and change your position ASAP if you assume that your position is compromised. Passive protection and movement techniques won't offer enough survivability. Survivability is the most important precondition for mission accomplishment.

[Schmedlap]

Quit griping about the weapon

Field better ammo

Field better ammo

Field better ammo

Field better ammo

Field better ammo

[carl]

Originally Posted by kaur

About ammo and calibre. For some period I used very often Soviet ammo 5,45x39 (brain child of Soviet engineers that figured out that US new M-16 is "better" than AK-47) and 7,62x39. You can make just one test to compare the effectiveness. Arrange night shooting with tracers on the filed where grass is above the waist. With 5,45x39 you can see nice vertical rocket show in the sky with few holes. With 7,62 the picture is much more horizontal. I presume that you can see the same picture if you test 5,56x45 vs 6,5/6,8.

Kaur, forgive me but I don't quite understand what you mean by this.

Also, I am interested in opinions in how the XM-25 will or won't help with the problem outlined by MAJ Ehrhart.

[Fuchs]

He refers to the greater susceptibility of small calibre bullets to deflection by foliage/grass.

The effect is on the order of a few degrees usually. Deflections on a steep angle up are usually the result of contact with the ground itself, of course.

[OfTheTroops]

ballistics
small=straighter
every deer hunter knows these things
can i hit what i am aiming at with little training? yes
5.56 is good

[Ken White]

Big is shock.

A lot of training is always better than a little.

5.56 is good, light and easy to carry and shoot. However, I've seen too many people hit with the little pills who keep on moving, too many bullets not penetrate minor cover and too many rounds deflected in moderate vegetation to agree that 5.56 is a good combat cartridge.

[OfTheTroops]

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

[kaur]

carl, Fuchs and Ken White explained my point.

It seems that calibre debate is not over.

Mattis pushed for 6.8mm ammo

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news..._ammo_031010w/

... and I don't understand fully (foliage, ground, wall? aspects) this argument

Does that mean that 7.62 rounds don’t have sufficient stopping power?” Brogan asked about Kasal’s actions. “I submit the answer is no. If there had been a central-nervous shot, it might have dropped him. The same is true with 5.56 ammunition. Location is more important than stopping power.”

after watching this youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzIOa...eature=related

Why some people want .45 pistols when they can get hollow point 9 mm ammo?

http://pistol-training.com/archives/2436

[Fuchs]

...because there's .45ACP hollow point ammo as well.

Terminal ballistics are very complicated, a discussion rarely makes sense because most often most participants know misleading anecdotes and myths while the hard facts are based on imperfect data and testing devices.

[Bob's World]

(I know you guys are having fun, but you do realize this is like debating about Ford Trucks vs Chevy Trucks; or the virtues of Blondes vs. Brunettes, right?)