The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Fuchs]

And how long did it take someone to notice this?

Well, the PSG-1 of 1972 already had a free-floating barrel to reduce its dispersion. Maybe the tech is even older.

[Steve Blair]

Free-floating barrels is certainly older than the PSG-1. I'd say in some quarters it goes back to at least the 1950s.

[Fuchs]

On the other hand, weapons like the RPK probably have a bipod on the barrel in part to create this dispersion. It's not always a disadvantage, especially not in cyclic fire.

[Ken White]

...around the BAR...what was the employment technique for the weapon?

Did the BAR support the team, or was the team supposed to support the BAR< and seize the next piece of dirt to allow it to get into action?

I'd guess about 90% of the time. The other 10% or so was somewhat situation but more often Leader dependent, a few gave preference to automatic fire but most Marines were then into aimed fire. The dual rate full auto capability of the BAR was in fact often modified to eliminate the low rate full auto and produce semi-auto fire on that setting while retaining the high rate full auto -- this had the added advantage of lightening the weapon and the Bipods were often discarded as well. It was possible to squeeze off a single shot on low rate by deft trigger manipulation but given adrenalin or other jitters, often an inadvertent burst was fired at night, thus disclosing the position of an automatic weapon.

Most use of the BAR was in the assault as a supporting fire weapon; people were known to modify the organization and place two or even all three BARs under one FT Leader. It was often carried by assaulting teams and on combat patrols but was rarely carried on recon patrols.

Recall also that at the time, the Co MG Platoon had 6 M1917A1s AND 6 M1919A4s. They carried the A4s in the assault or movement to contact, then, for the defense or a static position, converted to the Water Cooled and the A4s were passed out two each to the rifle platoons to augment defensive fires. Thus a G Series TOE Rifle Co had not 6 but 12 MGs -- plus 27 BARs. The MGs were supported and provided support; the BARs mostly provided support and were rarely supported by their assigned FT.

[Kiwigrunt]

That’s pretty clear Ken, that makes a lot of sense IMO.

So in simplistic terms, for a true MG the team (pertaining to the gun at least) exists for the benefit of the gun, and for lighter weapons like BAR and IAR the gun exists for the benefit of the team. I think that is an important conceptual differentiation towards answering some of Jon’s questions. And that may be where the SAW creates a bit of confusion since it is perhaps too little to take on the support role usually associated with at least a MMG/GPMG, and too big and hungry to be much less than that.

Your mentioning the dropping of the bipod on the BAR follows nicely on the previous few posts as well.

The L86 first came out with the bipod fixed to the barrel and had the supporting frame extending from the receiver added to free-float it.
I wonder how much effect adding a pod directly to the barrel has compared to fixing it to the hand guard, with standard rifles like FAL and M16 where the hand guard is itself fixed to the barrel. So the barrel is not really free floating anyway. Would it make much difference here?

JMA, with regards to scopes on rifles. The Brits had to actually change the numbers pertaining to their qualification shoots (I can’t find anything on it in a hurry) when they changed from L1A1 to L85. Every rifleman had suddenly become a marksman. Where the average score with the L1 may have been (and I’m just stabbing here) 50%, it jumped up to somewhere in the eighties. Mind you, lighter recoil would also have played a part in this.
And I think it may have been similar for us ANZACs, but have never seen any text on it.

For shorter range work, well, up to around 200 I think, red-dot sights are great. I’m not sure if there is any hard data on the difference it makes but I’d be surprised if it is not in a few orders of magnitude, certainly regarding snap-shooting at ranges above say 20 or so. Hmmm, I'm sure this too has been discussed elsewhere....
Added later: Just refreshed my memory. A bit on it here and here.

[Chris jM]

JMA, with regards to scopes on rifles...And I think it may have been similar for us ANZACs, but have never seen any text on it.

I'm not going to dispute the Brits findings, however I will say that the simple 'score' at the end of a weapon's qualification test isn't a good measure of a sight's worth.

Last week I fired a weapon's qual both with an ACOG and a std 1.5 scope - and scored higher on the 1.5, somewhat perplexingly. Unfortunately ACOG doesn't manufacturer an scope that improves ones' innate marksmanship! My results aren't unique, though. An ACOG/ 4x-like scope won't necessarily improve a shooting "score" in many tests.

Put it this way - when you have time to identify, align (especially if you know the exact range of the tgt) and place your shots, it will come down to your abilities as a shooter more than your ability to align your sights on a target.

This is misleading, however, as I agree that the ACOG/ 4x like sights are a huge leap ahead. They allow you do detect, recognise, identify and (if you need to) engage at a greater range - no small benefit. Further (apologies to the anti-Boydists out there, but his cycle fits in nicely to my point) the OODA-loop process is far faster with an ACOG. You can observe a target sooner, judge the distance far better using the provided human-dimension bars and once you start shooting it is a lot easier to judge your fall of shot, thus leading to a more effective application of fire (aim-off) process so your hitting what you need to. These benefits combined are a huge elevation in capability, but can be very hard to measure on a range shoot when you know the serials that will appear (thus negating the benefits of observation), you know the distances (no need to use the scope's ability to estimate range) and have no rounds/ opportunity to apply proper aim-off so repeated fire is effective.

[Kiwigrunt]

Last week I fired a weapon's qual both with an ACOG and a std 1.5 scope - and scored higher on the 1.5, somewhat perplexingly.

Agree with all you say, except that you are comparing a scope against a scope, rather than open sights. The std 1.5 scope on the Steyr is fairly basic compared to other scopes available today, yet I still think it's a fairly good scope for its intended purpose, including short range with both eyes open. And the Kiwi version with X-hairs is probably the best one for longer ranges.

[Kiwigrunt]

Maybe the last few posts should pop over to this thread. A lot has been discussed there.

[JMA]

I'm not going to dispute the Brits findings, however I will say that the simple 'score' at the end of a weapon's qualification test isn't a good measure of a sight's worth.

Last week I fired a weapon's qual both with an ACOG and a std 1.5 scope - and scored higher on the 1.5, somewhat perplexingly. Unfortunately ACOG doesn't manufacturer an scope that improves ones' innate marksmanship! My results aren't unique, though. An ACOG/ 4x-like scope won't necessarily improve a shooting "score" in many tests.

Put it this way - when you have time to identify, align (especially if you know the exact range of the tgt) and place your shots, it will come down to your abilities as a shooter more than your ability to align your sights on a target.

This is misleading, however, as I agree that the ACOG/ 4x like sights are a huge leap ahead. They allow you do detect, recognise, identify and (if you need to) engage at a greater range - no small benefit. Further (apologies to the anti-Boydists out there, but his cycle fits in nicely to my point) the OODA-loop process is far faster with an ACOG. You can observe a target sooner, judge the distance far better using the provided human-dimension bars and once you start shooting it is a lot easier to judge your fall of shot, thus leading to a more effective application of fire (aim-off) process so your hitting what you need to. These benefits combined are a huge elevation in capability, but can be very hard to measure on a range shoot when you know the serials that will appear (thus negating the benefits of observation), you know the distances (no need to use the scope's ability to estimate range) and have no rounds/ opportunity to apply proper aim-off so repeated fire is effective.

OK, thanks for that.

Surely the optics in a range setting must enhance the ability of of even the previously poor shot to hit the target more accurately and more often?

Nothing replaces the "aiming, holding, breathing, squeezing" skills but it must surely be better than the standard metal sights.

We issued early versions of the optical sights to the more skilled, senior and experienced soldiers. and they were happy to use them on ambush and recce tasks for the perceived benefit (say taking out the driver of the leading vehicle) but for close fluid contact (in fire force) settings it was found that it was easier and more efficient to use both eyes and the metal sights than to switch from open eyes to optics multiple times.

So after confirming the obvious (which in your experience is not so obvious it seems) that the use of optical sights will improve range scores I would move on to ask how that translated into a higher kill rate in contacts. Difficult I know as there is no before and after to compare and the war evolves. But what I do hear is that there is some concern about the rifle and the calibre as at the ranges the contacts apparently take place the rifles perform sub-optimally (meaning they don't hit the enemy).

Now one would be forgiven for thinking that at these longer ranges these rifles with optical sights would perform optimally, yes? It appears not.

Is it the soldier? Is it the rifle? Is it the calibre, is it the optical sights?

[William F. Owen]

So after confirming the obvious (which in your experience is not so obvious it seems) that the use of optical sights will improve range scores I would move on to ask how that translated into a higher kill rate in contacts.

Not sure anyone has ever gathered the data, but we know from field trials that soldiers with effective optic sights hit more targets at greater range then without.

Is it the soldier? Is it the rifle? Is it the calibre, is it the optical sights?

There is a massive amount of work done on this. Rifles are more accurate than the soldiers. The optic sights make hits more likely.
IMO, if there are shortcomings or room for improvement, they are in training and application of fire.
It's been proven in testing done in 2005, that the UK APWT qualification makes no difference to a soldiers ability hit targets under pressure, and you cannot train out what makes soldiers miss the target, for reasonable cost.

[Kiwigrunt]

Not sure anyone has ever gathered the data, but we know from field trials that soldiers with effective optic sights hit more targets at greater range then without.


There is a massive amount of work done on this. Rifles are more accurate than the soldiers. The optic sights make hits more likely.

So here’s a thought. Maybe ‘ease of aiming’ is a more sensible focus than ‘accuracy’. We tend to fixate on accuracy in the sense of reducing a 116 mm group down to 67 mm at exactly 100 or 200 in the prone position one and a half hours after lunch on Thursday afternoon.
In combat, for the average rifleman (not talking about marksmen here), that difference in accuracy as such may not be as crucial as simply the ability to throw his rifle on target with the aid of a user friendly scope, compared to being miles off as a result of less user friendly open sights, where front and rear sight have to be lined up. Sure, the more one trains with open sights, the more proficient one should become. But is the extend to which that rifle range proficiency turns to kak under combat conditions to some degree mitigated with the use of scopes? And how indeed do you measure that? So again, not talking accuracy as such, but just ease of ability to get that rifle into aim. And for this purpose, a scope probably doesn’t even want to be too fancy, just rugged and user friendly.

JMA said:

We issued early versions of the optical sights to the more skilled, senior and experienced soldiers. and they were happy to use them on ambush and recce tasks for the perceived benefit (say taking out the driver of the leading vehicle) but for close fluid contact (in fire force) settings it was found that it was easier and more efficient to use both eyes and the metal sights than to switch from open eyes to optics multiple times.

Perhaps this having to close one eye has a more negative effect than we may be aware off, under combat conditions. I wonder if that has ever been looked into?

Hmmm, that 1.5 X scope on the Steyr may indeed not be so bad after all. Easy to use with both eyes open. I believe the Ozzies are the only ones who used this scope relatively extensively under combat conditions. Any Ozzie feedback?.....I think however that they too are upgrading more and more to Elcan and Acog type scopes.

[William F. Owen]

So here’s a thought. Maybe ‘ease of aiming’ is a more sensible focus than ‘accuracy’. We tend to fixate on accuracy in the sense of reducing a 116 mm group down to 67 mm at exactly 100 or 200 in the prone position one and a half hours after lunch on Thursday afternoon.

Well there's a difference between "grouping" and "hand-held" dispersion. Grouping is usually done in relation to "zeroing" but it has very obvious relevance to the effective range that you can reasonably engage a target. In the British Army those distances remained the same for 7.62mm AND 5.56mm.
Most people have never trained for, or even tested, their dispersion of shots from the standing un-supported position at a target 100m away, while firing at a consistent rate.

In combat, for the average rifleman (not talking about marksmen here), that difference in accuracy as such may not be as crucial as simply the ability to throw his rifle on target with the aid of a user friendly scope, compared to being miles off as a result of less user friendly open sights, where front and rear sight have to be lined up.

I broadly concur. I'm not a kit junky, but I am impressed with ACOG TA-32 and similar. There is also an Israeli sight unit, built by ITL, that is used on the Tavor, which is pretty impressive.

In all honesty it never occurred to me that optics were not an advantage. Common sense really. Why would you not?

[Uboat509]

So here’s a thought. Maybe ‘ease of aiming’ is a more sensible focus than ‘accuracy’. We tend to fixate on accuracy in the sense of reducing a 116 mm group down to 67 mm at exactly 100 or 200 in the prone position one and a half hours after lunch on Thursday afternoon.
In combat, for the average rifleman (not talking about marksmen here), that difference in accuracy as such may not be as crucial as simply the ability to throw his rifle on target with the aid of a user friendly scope, compared to being miles off as a result of less user friendly open sights, where front and rear sight have to be lined up. Sure, the more one trains with open sights, the more proficient one should become. But is the extend to which that rifle range proficiency turns to kak under combat conditions to some degree mitigated with the use of scopes? And how indeed do you measure that? So again, not talking accuracy as such, but just ease of ability to get that rifle into aim. And for this purpose, a scope probably doesn’t even want to be too fancy, just rugged and user friendly.

I would say that those are completely different issues. You can do quick aimed fire with an ACOG and I have had friends who were proficient at it but it is generally avoided by most. Eye relief and the need to be directly lined up behind the sight make it a huge pain to deal with. Some of us use a red dot sight mounted on top of the ACOG although that is not perfect either as it raises the sight well above the barrel. Many other prefer to use non-magnified red dot type sights like the M68 or the EOTECH. Red dot type sights are great for quick target aquisition at closer ranges and some swear by them at longer ranges over iron sights.

[Chris jM]

In reply to JMA and to build upon Wilf's statement, a magnified optic won't improve your grouping. You are very right Kiwigrunt in pointing out that the 1.5 scope is different to iron sights - something I had taken for granted.

Regardless, I will hand-on-heart say that if you can align a low-powered scope/ iron sights on a visible point of a target and take repeated shots, a magnified optic won't improve your ability to shoot more accurately in the same circumstance. The marksmanship factors at play will be dictating the grouping size, not ones ability to see the target, and being able to 'reach out and touch' the point of aim will not solve the factors that make a shooter inaccurate, such as a firer's poor breathing techniques, changing grip, trigger pull, etc. I can say this with some experience, as I myself am far from an inspired shot!

The major assumption to my above claim is in regards to a sight picture. If the iron sights aren't effective in ensuring the firer is always aligning the weapon the same way, obviously they will create further issues. That is on benefit to a sight - if you can see the target picture, you know where your rounds are going. Not only do you have to see a target picture with iron sights, you have to ensure you are aligned correctly.

However the benefit of optics is beyond grouping size - you can detect, recognise and identify targets to shoot out too further away and adjust your own fire faster, thus making you able to deliver more accurate fire quicker. Your marksmanship abilities have not changed from when you picked up the optic, but your abilities to deliver fire as part of a tactical unit have increased.

Also, the sight picture of a magnified optic normally has aides to assist in judging distances. That is a further assistance.

Kiwigrunt, please never defend the steyr's 1.5 power scopes! They are not bad, as such, but they are directly comparable to iron sights - in some cases worse, especially as you cannot accurately shoot at night with the built-in sights.

Uboat509 - you have a good point in that a red dot sight can be great for close-in shooting, however my experience in this area is minimal so I won't comment further in this area. I am interested in the claim that a red dot can be good at longer ranges... very interested. I know there is a sight (I think it is called the ECLAN, I'll have to check later) that a lever changes the picture from a red dot image, 0 x mag to a bullet drop compensator sight picture, 4 x mag. When we tested sights for the NZDF we opted for the ACOG TA family, but this dual mode scope may have special benefits.

[Kiwigrunt]

In reply to JMA and to build upon Wilf's statement, a magnified optic won't improve your grouping. You are very right Kiwigrunt in pointing out that the 1.5 scope is different to iron sights - something I had taken for granted.

Kiwigrunt, please never defend the steyr's 1.5 power scopes! They are not bad, as such, but they are directly comparable to iron sights - in some cases worse, especially as you cannot accurately shoot at night with the built-in sights.

You are contradicting yourself here I agree that it's useless in low light.

Uboat509 - you have a good point in that a red dot sight can be great for close-in shooting, however my experience in this area is minimal so I won't comment further in this area. I am interested in the claim that a red dot can be good at longer ranges... very interested. I know there is a sight (I think it is called the ECLAN, I'll have to check later)

correct. Reading up on it in some other forums suggests some mixed opinions about it.

[Chris jM]

You are contradicting yourself here I agree that it's useless in low light.

Wow. I never cease to be amazed at just how utterly stupid I can be at times.

The value gained by a detailed proof-reading, huh...

[JMA]

In reply to JMA and to build upon Wilf's statement, a magnified optic won't improve your grouping. You are very right Kiwigrunt in pointing out that the 1.5 scope is different to iron sights - something I had taken for granted.

Regardless, I will hand-on-heart say that if you can align a low-powered scope/ iron sights on a visible point of a target and take repeated shots, a magnified optic won't improve your ability to shoot more accurately in the same circumstance. The marksmanship factors at play will be dictating the grouping size, not ones ability to see the target, and being able to 'reach out and touch' the point of aim will not solve the factors that make a shooter inaccurate, such as a firer's poor breathing techniques, changing grip, trigger pull, etc. I can say this with some experience, as I myself am far from an inspired shot!

The major assumption to my above claim is in regards to a sight picture. If the iron sights aren't effective in ensuring the firer is always aligning the weapon the same way, obviously they will create further issues. That is on benefit to a sight - if you can see the target picture, you know where your rounds are going. Not only do you have to see a target picture with iron sights, you have to ensure you are aligned correctly.

This is good stuff.

I have mentioned the basics before (aiming, holding, breathing, squeezing) and noted throughout my career that many soldiers had never mastered these basics and therefore were effectively "bad shots" with the resulting lack of personal confidence in a combat setting making them effectively a liability.

We worked on our troopies to improve their application of the basics and a certain amount of peer pressure built up in that "so-and-so couldn't hit a cow on the head with a banjo at three paces" and that "he should be issued with a machete rather than rifle". Peer pressure among soldiers is brutal but on the positive side it does make those on the receiving end more susceptible to this coaching.

The officers I trained were coached and were able to group 4" at 100m and 1" at 25m and had the importance of the basics repeatedly emphasized. This is not an instruction task but rather a personal one on one coaching task (probably why its often not done throughly enough). They needed to coach their troopies in this manner (or know what their sgt was supposed to be doing). I hope they did.

The aiming over iron sights must be checked using the aiming disc (unless there is some new gizmo now in use). See it here. It was good in 1909 and it works today.

My honest suggestion to you is that if you have any reservations about your own personal ability you should find one of the old school weapon instructors who knows and understands the four principles of marksmanship and approach it as a matter of "revision" and reinforcement.

Helpful would be the following: The Marksmanship Principles

and, Four Fundamentals of Marksmanship

[JMA]

I would say that those are completely different issues. You can do quick aimed fire with an ACOG and I have had friends who were proficient at it but it is generally avoided by most. Eye relief and the need to be directly lined up behind the sight make it a huge pain to deal with. Some of us use a red dot sight mounted on top of the ACOG although that is not perfect either as it raises the sight well above the barrel. Many other prefer to use non-magnified red dot type sights like the M68 or the EOTECH. Red dot type sights are great for quick target aquisition at closer ranges and some swear by them at longer ranges over iron sights.

What conclusions can be drawn from this?

[JMA]

Perhaps this having to close one eye has a more negative effect than we may be aware off, under combat conditions. I wonder if that has ever been looked into?

Not sure about a negative effect but I'm not sure how you train a soldier to shut out 80% or more of his vision by looking through an optic sight when in contact at ranges from 5m-50m (or even 100m if the fire is effective). It is not a natural thing to do in such a stressful situation. Peripheral vision is what you need to 'watch' the men on your left and right and keep in line (and know when a gook pops up unexpectedly to the flank). To shut that down (or restrict it) is unthinkable (to me at any rate).

Once the decision has been made to do something (like universally introduce optical sights) nothing will be allowed to get in the way. For example I was back in the South African army when the final tests for the introduction of the R4 rifle were being carried out. I had to take my company to the range and do some basic shooting with the R1 then the ARMSCOR guys laid out R4s on the firing point and everyone had a few shots and we asked for comment. Crap like "did it feel lighter" "was there less recoil" ...

When they asked me I said the change lever (like the AK) was on the wrong side (for a right hander) and asked if it came in different but lengths. I could see the see the senior guy saying "don't write that down". The decision had been taken and nothing was going to get in the way of the roll out.

So to answer your question. Nothing will be "looked into" if it is likely to cast any doubt on the universal use of optic sights.

[William F. Owen]

The officers I trained were coached and were able to group 4" at 100m and 1" at 25m and had the importance of the basics repeatedly emphasized.

Some context may help here.
That is the standard to basic British Army SASC FSR standard, dating from the 1890's. It is believed to have been based on game shooting standards used to qualify guest shots on sporting estates and big game hunts.
You can get that standard of shooting in about 1 training day.
All it tells you is that that shooter has no bio-mechanical or ophthalmic impediment applying fire out to 300m - group 12 inches at 300m. It is merely the most basic standard for range shooting - safe to train. Everyone should do it. I understand it is still taught today.
....but it has little or no relevance to the operational application of fire. That is not just my opinion, but a fact proven in trials.
This was learnt (and forgotten) back in 1942. The "Battle Drill" Schools basically came up with the idea that what soldiers actually needed, was not lots of hour lying in a range, but to learn the limitation of their weapons and what they could reasonably be trained to hit, under stress, on operations.

- so can you hit a 5-second exposure of a Fig-11 at 100m, from the standing position, wearing your patrol pack and body armour? Can you do it wearing NVGs? etc etc etc.

For those interested in Optic sights and bi-pods, it is worth reflecting that the in theatre modifications for all Infantry L-85's have an improved optic sight, and mono-pod fore-grip - all based on operational trials, and feed back from theatre.