It certainly was an interesting read, as I've heard much more disapproval over full-auto in an M16 than praise for it.Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt
I personally think that a 7.62x51 rifle would be better for jungle fighting, although I suspect I'm in the minority. My rationale is that the 7.62 will penetrate dense vegetation better than the 5.56, and would thus provide a greater killing/suppressive effect.
Last edited by Blah; 12-13-2010 at 12:46 PM.
Thoughts...
As a Reconnaissance Platoon Sergeant in 1966, I enforced a firm no automatic fire rule for that reason. No problems once I bounced a Steel Helmet off one guys back in a firefight because he violated the rule...I very much agree but would note that the 7.62 was a big problem for the little Viet Namese. For most western troops, the 7.62 would be a better pick in heavy vegetation for the reason you mention.
I personally think that a 7.62x51 rifle would be better for jungle fighting, although I suspect I'm in the minority. My rationale is that the 7.62 will penetrate dense vegetation better than the 5.56, and would thus provide a greater killing/suppressive effect.First, I would disapprove -- full auto fire is only rarely effective and therefor rarely beneficial. Techniques always have to be adjusted to operating modes and METT-TC. That adjustment must be constant, you've got to assess each day and change modes when appropriate..Would you guys disapprove or approve the use of full-auto in rifles during Vietnam? Considering that that article quoted above states that the line of sight was often not much more than 5 meters in front of them, and that many engagements were around 15 meters.
Secondly, the linked article must be analyzed with caution. The Australian Area of Operations was unique in several respects and the Australian and US Armies had differing operating philosophies.. Note that most of their contact were in ambushes or reactions to them -- negligible 'hot LZs.' Most American units had different experiences, more helicopter assaults, fewer ambushes and more meeting engagements.
I read that article last year and I understand what they say -- but I have reservations about their conclusion. Strong reservations. Much depends on the enemy and the terrain / vegetation but as a general rule, massive volume fire in several varieties of all that are in my observation rarely as effective as a smaller volume of accurate fire -- accurate not being one shot, one kill but fire directed very near the proper target. One problem with the high volume of fire folks is that most of that fire will go in places where no opponent is located. It's wasted. If it's automatic, about 2/3 of it will be high...
I once fired one magazine on automatic (2LTs do the craziest things). Learnt enough from that never to do it again ... nor to allow any of my troops to do that either. We carried the FN MAG on a ratio of 1:4 so we really got all the firepower we needed from that baby. The riflemen were fillers, always (at least) one facing backwards and unlike the conventional training where the machine gun was deployed on the higher ground flank we pushed it right up front to be there and operating in those first critical seconds when contact is made.
So how does the gunner fire? - bursts of 2-3 rounds in a controlled fashion.
So how did the riflemen fire? - single rounds or at most double taps in a controlled fashion.
With caution indeed. I have a massive problem with averaging the number of rounds fired per kill achieved. Not sure what the point is as every contact is unique and different in one way or tuther enough to question the value of the finding.Secondly, the linked article must be analyzed with caution. The Australian Area of Operations was unique in several respects and the Australian and US Armies had differing operating philosophies.. Note that most of their contact were in ambushes or reactions to them -- negligible 'hot LZs.' Most American units had different experiences, more helicopter assaults, fewer ambushes and more meeting engagements.
I would add that for raw unexperienced troops the noise of battle can be intimidating. However, combat experienced troops know and are able to differentiate between the odd stray round and really close stuff. One just needs to watch the difference in reaction to battlefield "bangs" between new guys and the old soldiers.I read that article last year and I understand what they say -- but I have reservations about their conclusion. Strong reservations. Much depends on the enemy and the terrain / vegetation but as a general rule, massive volume fire in several varieties of all that are in my observation rarely as effective as a smaller volume of accurate fire -- accurate not being one shot, one kill but fire directed very near the proper target. One problem with the high volume of fire folks is that most of that fire will go in places where no opponent is located. It's wasted. If it's automatic, about 2/3 of it will be high...
In a fire force setting where one could be close to a contact but not personally and physically involved the last thing you needed was troopies ducking and flinching every time a high miss or ricochet passed overhead. We needed to upgrade the battle inoculation part of our training.
Simply put find a piece of bush which will pass for a range. Get the troopies to lie (section at a time) on the firing point. Get your sergeant to fire over their heads high and close so that they can differentiate between stray shots and the real deal. (The Health and Safety Gestapo will never allow this - so that is why I suggest you just disappear into the bush somewhere.) Let the distances vary from 100-150m to 10m. And close is as close as possible.
Also use different weapons (theirs and ours) so that they learn to ID the various weapons at various ranges.
The need result is that you realise when you can clearly hear the shots they are probably not aimed at you but when the noise (of the crack) turns into a "sensation" then you know he wants to convert you into a notch on his buttstock.
I actually took price at the fact that on the firing range I was able to put four to five rounds into a kneeling target at 30 m with my G3 on full auto. The first impact was usually low left (hip), the last one in the opposite shoulder.
Such a burst coupled with the quality of the German 7.62NATO bullet ends every doubt about "stopping power".
There are different people with different skills. The fact that a small minority of soldiers are capable of the controlled, accurate and discriminate use of automatic rifle fire should not open the door for the indiscriminate use of automatic fire in panic or otherwise by soldiers who find themselves in difficult circumstances.
It is rather when the crunch comes that the quality of the training should come out.
If you want to know what can go wrong read the Wanat study
A few quotes:
and... Bogar had fired about 600 rounds at the cyclic rate of fire when his “SAW jammed, basically it just got way overheated because he opened the feed tray cover and I remember him trying to get it open and it just looked like the bolt had welded itself inside the chamber. His barrel was just white hot.”
Soldiers should train as they intend to fight. If you believe that automatic fire is OK then make the additional ammo available for training. No training on auto, use of it on ops... end of story.McKaig began to experience problems with his M4. “My weapon was overheating. I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn’t charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down.”
Lets get back to the hotdog posers who insist on using an AK-47. I would suggest that they pony up the cost of 1,000 rounds of the ammo and pass a shooting table and weapon handling (stoppage drills etc) then their request can be considered.
The stopping power of the NATO 7.62 is undisputed. Can't think what the Americans were thinking when they introduced that pea-shooter firing 5.56?
Last edited by JMA; 12-14-2010 at 10:08 PM.
Oops, I meant "pride", not "price". I #§$% my typos.
It is in fact fairly well-documented exactly what designers were thinking. We;ve killed a lot of knuckleheads with it in the days that have ensued. Is it the best? Depends on way too many points of view to cover in a single thread here.The stopping power of the NATO 7.62 is undisputed. Can't think what the Americans were thinking when they introduced that pea-shooter firing 5.56?
no automatic fire rule
What do you think about the idea of issuing semi-only rifles to the troops, or to the new troops? Would you support it?
Not really
One could go semi-auto only without too great a penalty but there is a need for very, very rare full auto fire. Some ambush situations, breaking contact, CQB in buildings and the like. Not always in those examples but sometimes...
For combat, better to have a capability that one may use rarely than to not have it when one might need it. In this case, given little additional complexity, small to no weight increase (other than ammo usage...) ease of manufacture and such, there is no significant burden attached to the weapon. The training requirement is increased but only slightly.
Using semi-auto only weapons is essentially a technological cover for inadequate training. The full-auto problems of lack of accuracy and excessive ammo expenditure are obviated by better training. Thus the weapon should not be the issue, training should be. All things considered, best to keep the capability and train better.
The one issue that relates to the weapon and its design is the sequence of the change lever switching. For example the AK goes Safe-Auto-Single, while the FAL FN goes Safe-Single-Auto. This has an impact with (as you say) undertrained troops.
Yes. The difference is indicative of the underpinning philosophy.
The USSR undertrained and knew it so they compensated by emphasizing the use of full auto and requiring a conscious decision to go to semi-auto. Tactically and training-wise, the AK was a direct descendant of the PpSh series...
The west with the FAL and the M-16 reversed that requiring extra effort to get to full auto. The M14 and some nation's FALs were issued as semi-auto only and required armorer modificiation to employ the full auto capability. In the US Army, that worked but again it was just a mechanical substitute to compensate for mediocre training. The M16 with all weapons full auto capable had no problems in good units, bad units allowed misuse. The US Army's foolish and flawed attempt to improve full-auto accuracy with a burst limiter only encouraged poor habits without improving accuracy. It is a good example of providing a capability for one thing that gets used for others. Some believed the 3-round burst was to save ammo and thus encouraged its use(???
). Fortunately, that aberration of a mechanical substitute is on the way out.
Give the troops the capability they need and train them to use it properly. Really easier and cheaper than complicating the logistic system for no good reason...
You sure about that?
It seems to me that the current reality is that its easier to complicate the logistic system than to provide army wide high quality training even if that were cheaper and a dedicated and professional corps of instructors existed.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks