The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[RJ]

Ken,

Remember "Every Marine is a rifleman first"!

The Marines still require all manner of its troops to qualify annually with a rifle. That includes pilots, air crew and the scopedopes from the Marine Air Control Squadrons. And I believe the requirement includes all Women Marines as well.

Point of fact, after the Fall of Baghdad, the 11th Marie Regt. (Artillery) began rotating their big gun units back to California. Volunteers were called for from the ranks of the cannoncockers to flesh out the Infanty units that had taken casulties. Many of the 11th Marines stayed in Iraq for another three months while 0311 replacements were shipped in to replace them. The volunteers included cooks and bakers from the Artillery Regt who performed as infantrymen.

Picking the fly ash out of the pepper and arguing about the best choice is all well and good. It seems to me the M-16 and its variants wa excellent in Iraq for the most part. More city town activity and not a lot of long range rifle requirements.

Afgahanistan is a wider and more spread out Area of Operations. Seems a 7.62 or 6.5 lupara round is needed to reach out to 800 or 1,000 yards.

There are a lot of Britsh .303 Enfields in Afganistan and the range of that
old man killer is 1,000 yards.

It is very inconvient to have a 20 round magazine that cannot kill the guy who is killing your friends because the shooter is 300 yards beyond their capacity to kill him.

Some where last year in this thread, some Marine units were experimenting with a 12 man squad configeration and possibly using some of the automatic rifles the Marines are concidering to replace the SAW. I believe there are 4 different AR's in the study.

Has any feed back on those activities floated to the top yet?

[Granite_State]

Some where last year in this thread, some Marine units were experimenting with a 12 man squad configeration and possibly using some of the automatic rifles the Marines are concidering to replace the SAW. I believe there are 4 different AR's in the study.

We bought the HK model, it is now being fielded by five Marine Corps battalions as the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle (mine's one of the five). Spent most of today sitting through classes on it, will be on a range with it (more watching than shooting) tomorrow afternoon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Inf...utomatic_Rifle

[JMA]

Picking the fly ash out of the pepper and arguing about the best choice is all well and good. It seems to me the M-16 and its variants wa excellent in Iraq for the most part. More city town activity and not a lot of long range rifle requirements.

and the 5.56 could adequately penetrate the brick and concrete cover found in such urban environments?

There are a lot of Britsh .303 Enfields in Afganistan and the range of that old man killer is 1,000 yards.

But luckily, not too many shooters who can achieve that are to be found there.

Have you heard of any ISAF troops been taken out by single aimed shots from 400m and beyond?

[kaur]

JMA asked RJ

Have you heard of any ISAF troops been taken out by single aimed shots from 400m and beyond?

I found those claims.

Recruited from Pakistan, Egypt and Chechnya, the snipers could kill from up to 650 yards away and were considered a serious threat by British commanders.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-strikes.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

[JMA]

JMA asked RJ

I found those claims.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-strikes.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

Yes, we have spoken about those "imported" snipers before somewhere here.

I understand they were foreign and were finally taken out.

The context of my post related to the availability of "a lot of Britsh .303 Enfields" in Afghanistan and my question as to whether they were being effectively used.

So I guess I should have reworded my question as follows:

"Have you heard of any ISAF troops been taken out by single aimed shots fired by an Afghan from a .303 Enfield from 400m and beyond?"

I will try to be more accurate in future.

[RJ]

JMA,

Good or better than good snipers come in all sizes and shapes. Trained snipers are the norm, but the Afagini in the tribal areas produce the occasional excellent shot that could devastate a M-16 only enviroment at will.

In a recent ops a Marine Bn. encountered such an individual. He used cover, concealment and a deep firing point where he had a narrow, but effective field of fire. He wounded at least 4 marines and killed one before he was licated and eleminated. It wasn't a Enfield 303 that did the work but a Russian sniper rifle.

Mypoint is if you only have M-16 capabilities, you are going to lose in the long shot environment of Afgahistan. The small caliber is not the only option.

Granite State - Thanks for the catch up. What caliber is the new AR the Marines are transitioning to?

JMA I doubt that all the foreign elements in Afganistan have been eleminated?

[Granite_State]

granite state - thanks for the catch up. What caliber is the new ar the marines are transitioning to?

5.56.

[Demon Fox]

Every squad needs designated marksmen. Many, if not most, of the engagements in AF are 200m or less. The typical SOP is for the squad leader to call in a HIMARS, JDAM, or Excalibur to take out one or two enemy riflemen. They get the bad guy, but find dead women and children at the impact site as well. These situations could be resolved with a rifleman and a bit of good aim. At 200m, that's a head shot even with an M4 - especially with the ACOGS sites most soldiers use these days!

SPRs combined with the 77 grain 5.56 match round makes a good sniper rifle. My team was training at the High-Angle Sniper Course in Hawthorne, NV a few years ago. We had one SPR, and its owner consistently hit targets out to 1,000 meters in very heavy winds. He even started plinking at 9mm targets on the other side of the valley, which had to have been at least 1,300 meters away. The Marine instructors weren't too happy to find the 5.56 rounds burned holes through the steel 9mm targets even at that range! :-D So, for anyone wondering about the capabilities of a 5.56 round - there you go.

It's interesting how much a difference there is in the performance between the 62 grain green tip standard issue 5.56 and the 77 grain. Ops in Iraq demonstrated an insurgent could take several green tip hits and keep running, but one hit from a 77 grain puts him down flat.

Like some of the folks here, I am a believer in the power of the 7.62x51. While conducting training in Drake Shoots (Rhodesian Cover Shoots), it was very clear that the 7.62 weapons could penetrate completely through medium-sized trees that stop 5.56 cold. It makes the enemy rethink his definition of "cover". Oh, by the way, if any of you guys reading this are combat leaders I highly recommend you teach your men Drake Shoots. It is one of the most effective techniques I've seen - just be cognizant of collateral damage when using the technique.

As already discussed, there is definitely a weight problem with 7.62 - yes, it's friggin' heavy and soldiers carry enough weight as it is. Also, the magazines will generally only carry 20 rounds due to size. Less ammo, more weight. You can't always have an attached MG team with your squad, so I think the solution is to have a 7.62 designated marksman weapon or two assigned to the squad. It sounds like a better job for the rifleman found in each Army fire team. A solution could be something like the 7.62 SCARS rifle, or perhaps introduce a new and improved weapon similar to the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)? SR-25 or M110 SWS may be the answer.

DF

[JMA]

Welcome Demon Fox,

It's interesting how much a difference there is in the performance between the 62 grain green tip standard issue 5.56 and the 77 grain. Ops in Iraq demonstrated an insurgent could take several green tip hits and keep running, but one hit from a 77 grain puts him down flat.

So I wonder who can explain why the 62 grain is standard issue?

Like some of the folks here, I am a believer in the power of the 7.62x51. While conducting training in Drake Shoots (Rhodesian Cover Shoots), it was very clear that the 7.62 weapons could penetrate completely through medium-sized trees that stop 5.56 cold. It makes the enemy rethink his definition of "cover". Oh, by the way, if any of you guys reading this are combat leaders I highly recommend you teach your men Drake Shoots. It is one of the most effective techniques I've seen - just be cognizant of collateral damage when using the technique.

May I suggest that you consider adding the "Dead and Alive Shoot" to the Drake Shoot training.

Simply, on a field firing range you have a section/squad approach a second squad who are positioned in a firing position/trench line/whatever. At the moment the "defending" squad leader would order his men to open fire give the advancing squad the order to "take cover". They take cover and you turn the "defending" squad around to as not to see the next step.

A figure 12 target is then positioned at each point where an advancing squad member has taken cover. The advancing squad are then withdrawn behind the firing point to watch. The "defending" squad are then turned around and conduct a Drake/Cover shoot into the area where the advancing squad took cover.

The "advancing" squad are then taken by instructors/platoon NCOs to their positions to see if they came out of the contact "Dead or Alive". Remedial training can be conducted then and there.

Once completed swap the squads around. The squad with the most "dead" pay for the first round in the canteen later.

The aim of the exercise (apart from simply training troops to seek proper cover) is to indicate that the Drake/Cover shoot works both ways.

As already discussed, there is definitely a weight problem with 7.62 - yes, it's friggin' heavy and soldiers carry enough weight as it is. Also, the magazines will generally only carry 20 rounds due to size. Less ammo, more weight.

I have said this before and will say it again... that before anyone starts to consider compromising on the type of weapons and the amount of ammo carried because of weight considerations look elsewhere to see where weight can be shed from the infantryman's burden.

It is interesting to note that the Brits are finally coming to the realisation that the additional weight being carried by soldiers nowadays is having serious negative side effects.

We’re getting to a point where we are losing as many men making mistakes because they are exhausted from carrying armour (and the things that go with it) than are saved by it. - from Donkeys led by Lions - The British Army Review Number 150

Now many of these patrols are a few thousand metres long and probably don't move beyond the range of indirect supporting weapons (which they should have) in their base of origin. So why carry all the kit?

You can't always have an attached MG team with your squad,...

Why not? I suppose you are talking about a 7.62mm LMG?

... so I think the solution is to have a 7.62 designated marksman weapon or two assigned to the squad. It sounds like a better job for the rifleman found in each Army fire team. A solution could be something like the 7.62 SCARS rifle, or perhaps introduce a new and improved weapon similar to the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)? SR-25 or M110 SWS may be the answer.

DF

Good to see someone out there is looking for "the answer". You are in the minority as too many these days just seem to not only to go with the flow but when questioned aggressively defend the status quo.

[JMA]

JMA,

Good or better than good snipers come in all sizes and shapes. Trained snipers are the norm, but the Afagini in the tribal areas produce the occasional excellent shot that could devastate a M-16 only enviroment at will.

In a recent ops a Marine Bn. encountered such an individual. He used cover, concealment and a deep firing point where he had a narrow, but effective field of fire. He wounded at least 4 marines and killed one before he was licated and eleminated. It wasn't a Enfield 303 that did the work but a Russian sniper rifle.

Mypoint is if you only have M-16 capabilities, you are going to lose in the long shot environment of Afgahistan. The small caliber is not the only option.

JMA I doubt that all the foreign elements in Afganistan have been eleminated?

I suggest we are talking at crossed purposes. I was merely reacting to the comment that because there are many 303 Enfields in Afghanistan there is necessarily a risk from long range sniping. The fact that foreigners are being brought in as snipers and where Afghans have the skill they use proper sniper rifles probably indicates that the presence or otherwise of 303 Enfields is somewhat academic.

That ISAF forces need weapons that are capable of effective fire out to the longer ranges is self evident. This could just as well be a LMG as a specialist rifle.