MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

[JMA]

All been done and very scientifically.

By people who have never been in combat?

[JMA]

No, it isn't. He may be a member of a coalition special operations unit who has Afghans integrated into it.

One hopes it is not widespread (beyond the Aussie in that photo) and just an isolated case of a "poser" being allowed to do his own thing.

The problem with this mix and match use of weapons is that each weapon has its distinctive sound and the standard response to a AK/RPD/RPK being fired is to let rip in that direction. For pseudo teams it would be an "all" AK situation but to mix it up when wearing your own kit is insane.

[jcustis]

jcustis, why this kind of choice?

I couldn't see the article text when I first looked at the picture link this morning, but I see now that his SOF status was explained already. My only guess is just as stated before...they may have Afghans integrated into the unit, and there is a point to him using what they use. I don't think that makes sense, mind you, but that is my best guess.

[William F. Owen]

By people who have never been in combat?

In some case yes, .... but that misses the point. How people say they behave in combat, and how they actually did behave varies greatly. What people remember is also often contradicted by facts and empirical evidence.

Case in point being how well people shoot in combat and/or what actually happened as a result. As concerns combat marksmanship, testing shows a lot of people are lying their asses off.

[SethB]

So what is your solution to marksmanship training?

[JMA]

In some case yes, .... but that misses the point. How people say they behave in combat, and how they actually did behave varies greatly. What people remember is also often contradicted by facts and empirical evidence.

Case in point being how well people shoot in combat and/or what actually happened as a result. As concerns combat marksmanship, testing shows a lot of people are lying their asses off.

No sure that it misses the point at all. If such studies are run by those (or at least strongly influenced by those) who have much combat experience then there will be an understanding of the stresses under combat conditions which may be the cause of the drop in marksmanship in combat. Naturally when you speak to the troops about this it needs to be anonymous.

One trains soldiers on Drake/Cover shoots and Jungle Lanes to attempt to make the aimed shooting an instinctive reaction which for some does override the distractions of being under fire. It works for some but not for others.

To ask them in an interview situation what they did when they know what the answer should be is inviting them to lie.

It would be ideal to have a test for how people will behave/respond in combat and how they will be able to apply themselves to shooting in combat would be ideal... but there isn't. I hope some progress is being made though.

[William F. Owen]

So what is your solution to marksmanship training?

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

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

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

[William F. Owen]

If such studies are run by those (or at least strongly influenced by those) who have much combat experience then there will be an understanding of the stresses under combat conditions which may be the cause of the drop in marksmanship in combat.

That's the logical ideal. Unfortunately combat experience is not a coherent experience. More over men, who can translate a very varied set of experiences in combat into training are very rare (Wigram, Jary etc).
Those who can translate the same into the conduct of trials and studies are incredibly rare.

[JMA]

That's the logical ideal. Unfortunately combat experience is not a coherent experience. More over men, who can translate a very varied set of experiences in combat into training are very rare (Wigram, Jary etc).
Those who can translate the same into the conduct of trials and studies are incredibly rare.

I would love to see how they would design such a study.

[JMA]

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

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

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

OK I won't knit-pick the shoot but I would suggest that the individual's performance when contact is initiated for the first time is still uncertain.

[tankersteve]

By JMA:

One hopes it is not widespread (beyond the Aussie in that photo) and just an isolated case of a "poser" being allowed to do his own thing.

The problem with this mix and match use of weapons is that each weapon has its distinctive sound and the standard response to a AK/RPD/RPK being fired is to let rip in that direction. For pseudo teams it would be an "all" AK situation but to mix it up when wearing your own kit is insane.

Wow, that is a great method there - firing without trying to identify a target. Sounds like a great TTP for the COIN environmetn. When you are training and fighting with indigenous forces, and they are using AK-47s, perhaps IDing your target before you 'let rip' is the proper method. Your way doesn't sound like a very disciplined way to fight in the present environment.

JMA, while I respect your previous service in a tough war, often you seem to bring very little relevance to the discussion of the present fight. If it isn't the way you did it then, you give it very little credence. However, we have progressed mightily in what we knew from just 7 years ago, in equipment and training. If you aren't aware of the progress, your statements just look like baiting or an outdated view.

As for the Aussie being a 'poser' for carrying a local rifle, if you are patrolling with a local force as an advisor, and you have intentionally chosen pouches that allow various sizes of magazines, and you have trained to a good standard with that weapon system, carrying the same weapon makes excellent sense. Every weapon will now make the same sound. Ammunition can be shared. And you have shown your partners that you don't need a gee-whiz cool-guy gun (with $$$ lasers and stuff) to fight the same enemy that they are fighting. As JCustis says, 'Building wasta!'

In summation, you responded to a picture with little knowledge of the situation or current TTPs and why they might be applicable, because YOU never executed them. Perhaps you should read more and post less.

Tankersteve

[JMA]

By JMA:

"One hopes it is not widespread (beyond the Aussie in that photo) and just an isolated case of a "poser" being allowed to do his own thing.

The problem with this mix and match use of weapons is that each weapon has its distinctive sound and the standard response to a AK/RPD/RPK being fired is to let rip in that direction. For pseudo teams it would be an "all" AK situation but to mix it up when wearing your own kit is insane."

Wow, that is a great method there - firing without trying to identify a target. Sounds like a great TTP for the COIN environmetn. When you are training and fighting with indigenous forces, and they are using AK-47s, perhaps IDing your target before you 'let rip' is the proper method. Your way doesn't sound like a very disciplined way to fight in the present environment.

JMA, while I respect your previous service in a tough war, often you seem to bring very little relevance to the discussion of the present fight. If it isn't the way you did it then, you give it very little credence. However, we have progressed mightily in what we knew from just 7 years ago, in equipment and training. If you aren't aware of the progress, your statements just look like baiting or an outdated view.

As for the Aussie being a 'poser' for carrying a local rifle, if you are patrolling with a local force as an advisor, and you have intentionally chosen pouches that allow various sizes of magazines, and you have trained to a good standard with that weapon system, carrying the same weapon makes excellent sense. Every weapon will now make the same sound. Ammunition can be shared. And you have shown your partners that you don't need a gee-whiz cool-guy gun (with $$$ lasers and stuff) to fight the same enemy that they are fighting. As JCustis says, 'Building wasta!'

In summation, you responded to a picture with little knowledge of the situation or current TTPs and why they might be applicable, because YOU never executed them. Perhaps you should read more and post less.

Tankersteve

We seem to have "read" that photo differently, and I am not going to go after you for having done that.

Maybe you didn't see the second soldier and note that he was not carrying and AK. Explain that then?

When the majority of ones contacts are at less than 50m often less than 10m there is no time for pussy footing around. In fact I recall an external (Zambia) where a group of Selous Scouts (whites) arrived (in contradiction of the orders) with AKs and in gook kit. At some point they got in front of the SAS and got shot up to hell and back. Served the posers right. We had plenty of posers in my little war and they are a type which can be spotted a mile off. There were units which attracted posers and those that chased their asses away. Posing is an attempt to seem more than what you really are. Do you really what that type anywhere near you in a fire fight?

As to where things stand today. The consensus is that while the kit has vastly improved due to the kit burden and the reduced standard of individual training the operational performance is sub optimal.

As one of the contributors here states that one needs to be thankful that today's Taliban are such poor soldiers... I can say the same in respect of my little war.

There are 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. How many are being sent home either under close arrest or just thrown out of the op area? If the answer is less than a platoons worth a week you have a bigger problem that you may care to admit.

[82redleg]

As to where things stand today. The consensus is that while the kit has vastly improved due to the kit burden and the reduced standard of individual training the operational performance is sub optimal.

In general, yes. In the specific case of high-end SOF, I'm not sure that most here would agree with your contention. I've never been around Aussie SOF, so I can't speak intelligently about them, but they have a good reputation.

There are 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. How many are being sent home either under close arrest or just thrown out of the op area? If the answer is less than a platoons worth a week you have a bigger problem that you may care to admit.

Care to explain this? I don't understand why we should be sending 40 or so guys home every week under arrest.

[Ken White]

New film from Tarantino.

The fact that one of the Strynes is carrying an AK and another an apparent M4 doesn't need any explanation. You and I weren't there so we have no idea why that little dichotomy. Your point on signatures is valid -- in close terrain and at close range. Afghanistan doesn't offer much of either. Further, mission dependent, he may have wanted to send a false signature image...

Most of the SOF guys are working with Afghans 'by direction of' so the fact that no Afghans were shown in the picture proves nothing. The fact is the guy carried a weapon he wanted to or believed he should use and idle, ill informed, speculative, arm chair kibitizing adds nothing other than pixels to any discussion .

Nor does it prove anything except that, as Tanker Steve pointed out and as I told you months ago, good experience in one war does not automatically translate into correct or even reasonable answers for another.

On the innuendo front, as for the "platoon's worth a week," I presume you can provide links or some proof that purports to support that rather sweeping accusation? Or is that too experience derived from one war...

[SethB]

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

That is a 3.9 inch group at 100M. To put that in perspective, acceptance standard for an M4 carbine is about 4 MOA. Which is just slightly larger than the group that you are proposing that Soldiers be able to shoot.

That doesn't add up.

The current US Army standard is 4CM at 25M. Much more realistic.

I can shoot the kinds of groups that you want, but I wouldn't want to do it without the advantage of a rifle that was up to it.

[Rex Brynen]

The fact that one of the Strynes is carrying an AK and another an apparent M4 doesn't need any explanation. You and I weren't there so we have no idea why that little dichotomy.

Dammit, Ken--does this mean I can't launch into my critique of US airborne doctrine based solely on the fact that your avatar shows a rabbit descending by parachute? I had it primed and all ready to go...

[JMA]

That is a 3.9 inch group at 100M. To put that in perspective, acceptance standard for an M4 carbine is about 4 MOA. Which is just slightly larger than the group that you are proposing that Soldiers be able to shoot.

That doesn't add up.

The current US Army standard is 4CM at 25M. Much more realistic.

I can shoot the kinds of groups that you want, but I wouldn't want to do it without the advantage of a rifle that was up to it.

Wilf is correct in that to properly zero a weapon at 100m you need to group five rounds into a 4 inch (10cm) circle.

At 25m that translates to 1 inch (2.5cm).

The above is with iron sights - with optics the groups on a range from the prone position should be tighter.

[JMA]

In general, yes. In the specific case of high-end SOF, I'm not sure that most here would agree with your contention. I've never been around Aussie SOF, so I can't speak intelligently about them, but they have a good reputation.

Was "my contention" limited to high-end SOF? So lets stick with your "in general" agreement with my overall contention shall we?

Care to explain this? I don't understand why we should be sending 40 or so guys home every week under arrest.

Do try to be accurate. I said "...either under close arrest or just thrown out of the op area?".

The under arrest number would comprise those held for murder, assault, sexual assault, drug offenses, theft etc etc and given the 100,000 plus soldiers out there and the odd report that makes the news this amount should be reasonably substantial.

Then you need to add to that those soldiers who are sent home for operational offenses from cowardice to refusing to follow a legal command (probably also under close arrest).

Than the last category would be those who just flat out fail to perform operationally or develop (real or contrived) emotional problems while in theatre.

I am aware that the Brits have sent officers and senior NCOs home where they have failed to perform operationally. I am assuming the same has applied to troopies who just don't cut it.

I am not aware of the scale of the problem among US troops and have heard that there is (or was) the tendency to keep supposed PTSD cases in theatre so I would then qualify this comment by saying those soldiers who should be sent home.

... or is everything just fine and dandy over there?

[JMA]

The fact that one of the Strynes is carrying an AK and another an apparent M4 doesn't need any explanation. You and I weren't there so we have no idea why that little dichotomy. Your point on signatures is valid -- in close terrain and at close range. Afghanistan doesn't offer much of either. Further, mission dependent, he may have wanted to send a false signature image... .

OK so you too have stated your opinion on the matter. You happy now?

OK so you are good with a short range weapon being selected for medium to long range combat situations?

Yes the message. It just as well could have been "look at me I've got an AK".

Any guesses why calling a guy carrying a AK a poser touched a nerve with Tanker Steve?

PS: go try to find a pic of Aussies in Afghanistan where they are pictured with the ANA they are mentoring who are carrying AKs. I obviously need some help on this.

[82redleg]

[QUOTE=JMA;110443]Was "my contention" limited to high-end SOF? So lets stick with your "in general" agreement with my overall contention shall we?[quote]

But the photo is a SOF operator, so its irrelevant to your contention (which I happen to agree with).

The under arrest number would comprise those held for murder, assault, sexual assault, drug offenses, theft etc etc and given the 100,000 plus soldiers out there and the odd report that makes the news this amount should be reasonably substantial.

Then you need to add to that those soldiers who are sent home for operational offenses from cowardice to refusing to follow a legal command (probably also under close arrest).

I had 75 men in my battery- in 12 months, none of them committed this type of offense. Neither did any of the men in my BN, or in the infantry BN that I supported. This is 1000 men, give or take, in 12 months. We must have been lucky none of them committed any crimes of this type.

Than the last category would be those who just flat out fail to perform operationally or develop (real or contrived) emotional problems while in theatre.

I am aware that the Brits have sent officers and senior NCOs home where they have failed to perform operationally. I am assuming the same has applied to troopies who just don't cut it.

I don't know about Brit practice. We don't send people home- we reassign them to a job that they can handle. Why should the less capable get over. THere are plenty of jobs that need doing.

I am not aware of the scale of the problem among US troops and have heard that there is (or was) the tendency to keep supposed PTSD cases in theatre so I would then qualify this comment by saying those soldiers who should be sent home.

... or is everything just fine and dandy over there?