Page 28 of 31 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 560 of 610

Thread: MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

  1. #541
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Understand your point Ken...I don't know, when I was on exchange with the British Army they were not too keen on the LSW (5.56mm mag fed weapon). While it has been over a decade since that experience, the general feeling seemed to be that the LSW was really only a DMR.

    Of course, the other argument is that the gunner carrying the SAW only has 100rds in a "nutsack" available for immediate use.

    Kaur, I understand the "3 rds in 18" at 500m" concept, but that seems like that's not quite the point of a squad suppressive weapon. I thought a "machine gun" was supposed to provide a beaten zone of fire in order to kill/injure within that beaten zone, to provide sustained or cyclic grazing fire in the defensive, or to suppress the enemy to allow fire and maneuver...i.e., I don't just want one guy getting shot in the chest, I want 7-8 guys to either be hit in a cone of fire, or at least fixed and unable to move or shoot back at me whilst I try to blow them to smithereens.

    So if I can't use the IAR for suppressive fire...what do I do with it? In what situation should I be using automatic fire from a magazine fed weapon at greater than CQB range?

    Not being saractic, I'm honestly open to new ideas.
    Last edited by Vojnik; 10-24-2011 at 08:18 PM. Reason: Clarification

  2. #542
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Isn't 33% hits at that range a very good result for somebody who has not been to some kind of special school?
    Getting hits @ 500m with a SAW is nothing special, especially if one in the prone. The SAW, in my experience, is a very accurate weapon - as accurate as the M16A4, a weapon with which it is hard to NOT score 8/10 or better hits on a USMC KD range @ 500m with iron sights.

    The other problems with the SAW (weight, maintenance issues, the inherent issues with an open-bolt belt-fed weapon) exist to a more or less manageable degree, but in my experience accuracy has never been a SAW problem.

  3. #543
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Fifth week of basic I scored 70% hits with G3 (with an old 4x scope) on 450m and was asked why I was missing so much (I did because I was erroneously compensating when in fact I was hitting, but target didn't fall because it was already too perforated).
    True I'm sure but how many guys who are on patrol today in Afghanistan can do that or would be able to make 33% hits at 450m when shooting at people?
    Last edited by carl; 10-24-2011 at 09:49 PM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  4. #544
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking IIRC, back then the entire British Army had problems with the entire SA 80 family.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vojnik View Post
    Understand your point Ken...I don't know, when I was on exchange with the British Army they were not too keen on the LSW (5.56mm mag fed weapon). While it has been over a decade since that experience, the general feeling seemed to be that the LSW was really only a DMR.
    Granted, though I wonder how much of that was predicated on the myth of automatic fires as suppressive...
    Of course, the other argument is that the gunner carrying the SAW only has 100rds in a "nutsack" available for immediate use.
    Depends on several things; the Marines have always had another FT member carrying extra rounds for the BAR / SAW. There are also now reasonably reliable -- and they'll get better -- large capacity magazines (NOT speaking of C-Mags and other flawed mechanical types...).

    There's also the fact that I'm old and grew up with the BAR so the concept isn't alien to me...
    ...that's not quite the point of a squad suppressive weapon. I thought a "machine gun" was supposed to provide a beaten zone of fire in order to kill/injure within that beaten zone, to provide sustained or cyclic grazing fire in the defensive, or to suppress the enemy to allow fire and maneuver...
    I agree with what you say about a "machine gun" -- I submit that a squad suppressive weapon (a) need not be a "machine gun," (b) and question whether an infantry squad needs a suppressive weapon organically -- no question they need to have them available. In discussing suppressive fire, the issues of accuracy, maintenance of rates of fire, size of beaten zones and, most tellingly, caliber and capability arise.
    So if I can't use the IAR for suppressive fire...what do I do with it?...
    Final protective fire.
    Not being saractic, I'm honestly open to new ideas.
    Hopefully, we all are -- but old habits are hard to break...

  5. #545
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vojnik View Post
    Regarding the USMC's IAR...isn't this roughly the same concept as the British Army's LSW? Or for that matter, the RPK or Browning Automatic Rifle?

    Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm open to ideas, but I'm not sure I can see the benefit of a 5.56mm light support weapon firing from 30-round magazines instead of a belt-fed weapon.
    The quote listed below is one of mine from a different forum, so don't mind the odd grammar. The foot stomp is that the M27 should not be compared to the M249 SAW. It is absolutely aimed at filling the automatic rifle role in the fireteam, but the standard response for employment is not automatic fire, or even bursts for that matter, unless a specific type of target (generally massed individual tgts) presents itself.

    During the course of the conversations I had with the assembled Gunners, something formed in my mind that I think was on the tip of my tongue through the 13 pages of this thread, but I just could never really articulate (Chris or somebody else might have, but I don't recall ). In the process of the experimentation, requirements development, testing, etc., the Marine Corps was not in a pursuit for a replacement for the SAW, although a lot of headlines were churned out that made people think so. That's where the whole discussion gets bogged down and twisted...what the Corps has been trying to do is field a weapon suitable to equip the billet that exists in the fireteam (AR rifleman), and also serves (doctrinally) as the asst. tm ldr - an automatic rifle. The SAW is not and never will be an AR, but rather a LMG, and although there are still acolytes to the power of belt-fed suppression, we seem to be moving forward smartly.
    People point to the Brit LSW and the Diemaco LSW, decry them as failures, and look at the M27 to as a copy of the LSW concept and presume that it will fail. There is a considerable amount of empirical data accumulated through testing and experimentation, and now combat operations, to demonstrate that the M27 is better than the SAW at the team level.

    Can some guys rock the SAW well? Absolutely, and I think I was one of them, but when you look at maintenance, training, and other employment issues like mobility, they point to a need for the M27 and a movement of the SAW back to the role of the light machine gun where it should have never left.

    Think of it as less a LSW, and more of a precision, lightweight rifle with the capability to engage select targets with controlled automatic fire when necessary. If the unit wants a full-time lead slinger at the squad level, then they need to send the emma gees.

  6. #546
    Council Member Chris jM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    176

    Default IAR questions

    If I may be so bold, I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify a point of mystery of mine - why did they choose another 5.56 rifle to fulfill this role? I could understand if they went for a 7.62 (or even a 6.X) rifle, as it provides additional range, reach and lethality. I'm mystified by the selection of the HK416, though. If the IAR concept is needed in the 5.56 calibre, why not pull an M16A4 off the shelf, provide a 6x optic (or similar), a bipod and a heavier barrel at the most?
    '...the gods of war are capricious, and boldness often brings better results than reason would predict.'
    Donald Kagan

  7. #547
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    That's a good question. Several companies tried to provide articles for testing, and the HK offering was chosen. IIRC, Colt even had the opportunity to provide a sample, but it either did not pass muster or the company simply did not choose to compete.

    I don't think we are in the ordnance/arsenal business like we used to be years ago, where the Govt develops the design and then turns to industry to say, "okay, make me more of these!" The Navy does some work at Crane, IN, and the Marine Corps has it Precision Weapons Section in Quantico.

    The IAR holds better minute of angle accuracy that the M16A4 does, and in fact reportedly shoots better than the DM rifles that were built out of M16A4s, specifically for a DM role.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Marksman_Rifle

  8. #548
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Vojnik:

    Kaur, I understand the "3 rds in 18" at 500m" concept, but that seems like that's not quite the point of a squad suppressive weapon. I thought a "machine gun" was supposed to provide a beaten zone of fire in order to kill/injure within that beaten zone, to provide sustained or cyclic grazing fire in the defensive, or to suppress the enemy to allow fire and maneuver.
    The question is what makes suppression effect. I think that this is threat to be killed. This is related to precision. IAR is very precise according to comments. IAR is good suppression weapon then

    jcustis:
    The IAR holds better minute of angle accuracy that the M16A4 does, and in fact reportedly shoots better than the DM rifles that were built out of M16A4s, specifically for a DM role.
    I have been thinking also isn't there identity crisis in the heads of squad DM's? Do IAR people and DM people participate same courses now?

  9. #549
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18

    Default

    So what's the best tactical situation to use precision, automatic fires at the 400-500m range?

    I feel like we're talking in circles.

    "What does the Automatic Rifleman do?"

    "Oh, he's the guy who fires his rifle automatically."

    "Why does he do that?"

    "Because he's the Automatic Rifleman."

    Of course, this is the military so that makes perfect sense...
    Last edited by Vojnik; 10-25-2011 at 01:01 PM.

  10. #550
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Vojnik, if you open MAJ Ehrhart's paper then he is writing about taking back infantry half-kilometre. As far as I understand IAR helps squads to do that. I found there answers to Automatic Rifleman questions you asked concerning automatic mode.

  11. #551
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Training is everything is training.

    We often forget that -- and we do not do it at all well...
    Quote Originally Posted by Vojnik View Post
    So what's the best tactical situation to use precision, automatic fires at the 400-500m range?
    Situation dependent obviously but generally in the defense in open terrain. Other than that, little call for it.

    Some will say it can be used in the offense as 'suppressive' fire. Been my observation that against even marginally trained or experienced troops automatic fire does not suppress, precision (or more correctly, accurate) fire does suppress. The volume of fire makes little difference other than as noise and a psychological reinforcement to those who have to go forward -- well trained troops do not need -- or want -- that noise.
    I feel like we're talking in circles.

    "What does the Automatic Rifleman do?"

    "Oh, he's the guy who fires his rifle automatically."

    "Why does he do that?"

    "Because he's the Automatic Rifleman."

    Of course, this is the military so that makes perfect sense...
    Actually, it does make sense. He provides the capability to do just that on the rare occasions when it's actually beneficial as opposed to just cosmetic. That will generally be in providing aimed fire at point targets (not area targets, that's what MGs are for) in support of offensive movement and for final protective fires in the defense and a combination of those techniques for ambushes and counter ambushes.

  12. #552
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    I'm sure I repeat myself, but I cannot resist:

    You should usually avoid giving your position away to a really dangerous opponent (= not Taliban).

    A competent enemy will rarely be visible + identifiable at long ranges (and if so, he'll still be no easy, stationary target).

    Long-range rifle fire is more inaccurate in a firefight and tends to require more ammo = more weight.

    5.56 mm at 400+ m distance isn't exactly powerful. A soft torso armour vest + clothes + pouches and their content = bullet can do at most a smallish injury.

    It's 100% predictable that harassing fires at long range will lead to a more careful enemy, and thus cancel your opportunities of observation at long range. It's better to harness superior discipline in order to enforce caution without enemy harassing fires and to prohibit own harassing fires in order to preserve the value of observation.

    Skilled infantrymen are a scarce resource in an army. Their availability should not be risked in petty harassing fires that are 100% non-decisive. They should be kept ready for actually useful, decisive actions.


    My conclusion is that the firefight at long ranges (300+ m) should be left to designated marksmen with suppressor (= no flash), expert camouflage and some spacing to the rest of the team AND to mortar fire missions.



    Again, it shows that small wars with their marginal capability opposition press conclusions onto standing armies that would be totally wrong in a great war setting.

  13. #553
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Resistance is futile!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    I'm sure I repeat myself, but I cannot resist:
    ...
    Long-range rifle fire is more inaccurate in a firefight and tends to require more ammo = more weight.
    ...
    My conclusion is that the firefight at long ranges (300+ m) should be left to designated marksmen with suppressor (= no flash), expert camouflage and some spacing to the rest of the team AND to mortar fire missions.
    I agree with all you say, including these two statements -- however, both those deserve caveats.

    The first on the basis that its veracity is a matter of training. Truly well trained troops can provide accurate fire up to 500m easily IF they have a weapon that makes that worthwhile. IMO, they should have such a weapon, others will differ. There are times when such fire is necessary, times when it is not. See remark below.

    The second is unquestionably desirable in most circumstances, however, for many reasons it is not always possible. See remark below

    Remark: Armies, regrettably should always train for the worst case. If they can perform adequately in bad situations, they will perform superbly in lesser fights.
    Again, it shows that small wars with their marginal capability opposition press conclusions onto standing armies that would be totally wrong in a great war setting.
    We can -- as always -- totally agree on that that. We, the US, are picking up some bad habits to add to those from Viet Nam that we still have not shed...

  14. #554
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaur View Post
    Vojnik, if you open MAJ Ehrhart's paper then he is writing about taking back infantry half-kilometre. As far as I understand IAR helps squads to do that. I found there answers to Automatic Rifleman questions you asked concerning automatic mode.
    I've read the paper, but I will reread again. I appreciate the comments and will do some research.

  15. #555
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vojnik View Post
    So what's the best tactical situation to use precision, automatic fires at the 400-500m range?

    I feel like we're talking in circles.

    "What does the Automatic Rifleman do?"

    "Oh, he's the guy who fires his rifle automatically."

    "Why does he do that?"

    "Because he's the Automatic Rifleman."

    Of course, this is the military so that makes perfect sense...
    I think you may be getting wrapped around the term 'automatic rifleman'. He isn't the just guy who fires his rifle automatically. The M27 is distinct from the Browning Automatic Rifle in that the standard response in the offense is not to respond to a target by flipping the safety to automatic and dispatching the enemy as quickly as possible with multiple bursts. Good BAR gunners could squeeze off very short bursts or single shots when the slow rate of fire was selected, but it was still an automatic weapon.

    What the Marine Gunners and infantry guys have essentially concluded is that the IAR gunner should move as a rifleman would. He doesn't need the rest of the team or portion of the squad to seize his next firing position for him, as he struggles to relocate to this new firing point. The rest of the team need not fight to protect him as a primary task, and he is not expected to be that "suppressive firepower" fight-stopper that I think too many folk envisioned the SAW gunner was supposed to be.

    The standard response for the IAR gunner is accurate, semi-automatic fire delivered against a point target(s), and he ratchets up to bursts of fully-automatic fire against massed targets, or perhaps enfilade targets, and definitely against area targets. Even in a counter-ambush scenario, the answer is not to spray-and-pray wildly, but you have 28-30 rounds to put out there quickly...if you're not already dead at the initiation. For targets at the 400-500m range, if I need to use automatic fires due to the nature of the target, I'm going to be using a machine gun first if I have one.

    We had a maintenance problem, and a training problem, and a mobility problem, with the employment of the SAW within the team and squad. Time will tell if the IAR is the answer, and if we are looking for a panacea at the end of a length of extruded metal, pins, welds, and polymer, we are already behind the power curve. It has been tested, evaluated, and weighed against the SAW in terms of hits-per-tgt and rounds expended per hit, and it won, but still needs to be looked at as a system.

    Effective suppression is hits on target, and giving dirt naps to the knuckleheads who need them.

    BREAK--

    Fuchs, everything you stated above is really stating the obvious, it seems, for great war settings.

  16. #556
    Council Member Chris jM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Thanks for your last reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    We had a maintenance problem, and a training problem, and a mobility problem, with the employment of the SAW within the team and squad...
    Do you think the USMC has this problem as a service specific issue, or do you think it is universally applicable to all armies with belt-fed weapons in the squad/section?

    I ask this as I have never heard of any issues with the M249 in my army. I wonder whether this is due to a lack of low-level combat experience compared to the USMC, or whether it is a cultural/employment issue.
    '...the gods of war are capricious, and boldness often brings better results than reason would predict.'
    Donald Kagan

  17. #557
    Council Member Chris jM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Just to clarify my last post so it doesn't appear inadvertantly condescending - by 'low level combat experience' I mean small unit, not low intensity, and by 'cultural/employment' I'm referring to where the weapon is located in the unit, how it is employed and to what end, etc.
    '...the gods of war are capricious, and boldness often brings better results than reason would predict.'
    Donald Kagan

  18. #558
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    What the Marine Gunners and infantry guys have essentially concluded is that the IAR gunner should move as a rifleman would.
    He IS a rifleman. That weapon is almost indistinguishable from some assault rifles.


    I concluded a while ago that the IAR will be introduced as SAW replacement, it will be hyped as super-successful and then it will replace the M16 in the infantry.
    The whole program looks like a M16 replacement program done specifically to avoid the pitfalls of the many earlier M16 replacement programs.
    This replacement program comes with its own ideology/doctrine ("automatic rifleman") and a heavy dose of BAR-nostalgia.

    The current pro-IAR propaganda was predictable and prepares for the replacement of the M16 PLUS it distracts from the general incompetence of the Marines in regard to procurement requirements and program management.

  19. #559
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Fuchs, good news for Germany's export oriented indutry! HK first won IAR contest, next Army new carbine contest

    About wound ballistics. It depends a lot what area you hit. Accurate weapon is more lethal with "weaker" ammo. According to one Swede here, shot placement is key to lethality.

    http://www.google.ee/url?sa=t&rct=j&...qD4vog&cad=rja

  20. #560
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Shot placement is impractical. You gotta be glad if you hit at all*.

    You better switch to auto if you're close enough to even consider shot placement.


    *: Assuming competent enemies who are a powerful enough to be a believable threat to your nation at all.

Similar Threads

  1. dissertation help please! US military culture and small wars.
    By xander day in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 01-27-2010, 03:21 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 03:06 PM
  3. Disarming the Local Population
    By CSC2005 in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-08-2006, 01:10 PM
  4. Training for Small Wars
    By SWJED in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-02-2005, 06:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •