Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan

[HorrigEn]

Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan:
Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer

A Monograph By
Major Thomas P. Ehrhart
United States Army

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

sorry if its repost, I ve searched with no succes.

[JJHH]

Conclusion:


This capability exists only in properly equipped, properly trained infantryman.

[James]

The USMC recently began fielding a new (for the USMC) type of 5.56mm ammo for use in rifles and carbines; a 62 grain hollow tip (NOT hollow point) that offers better range, accuracy and terminal ballistics than 62 grain green tip.

Source. (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/)

I find the changing evolution of military needs interesting. By and large, militaries around the world favored large caliber battle rifles until late in WWII, when the Germans, evaluating their experiences on the Eastern Front, determined that most infantry engagements took place within 300 meters and that firepower was more important than accuracy. That became a fundamental, guiding thought in infantry small arms development for more than 60 years. Now, here we are, and things seem to have started evolving again.

Another interesting thing Major Erhart mentions is the fact that the U.S. Army was considering a .276 round as early as the 1920s. I think the obvious answer for our needs today is to develop a rifle that fires a 5.56mm round, has a barrel of 14.5" or less, and offers point of aim, point of impact accuracy and one shot, one kill terminal ballistics from 0 - 800 meters. ;)

[Gunge]

^so true
its interesting to think how close the garand was to being chambered in .276 pederson
i like the 6.8 and am thinking about buying an upper (tax ref)
i wish the 5.56 62 gr greentip was a little more inexpensive as well

[Dominique]

I think it'd also work wonders if accuracy was stressed. I don't care how accurate a weapon is, or how powerful the round is, if the person using it can't hit the broadside of a barn. Every year I am amazed at the number of people who have problems qualifying, with their weapon, because they don't seem to have a grasp of marksmanship fundamentals. Instead of spending valuable training time on the range, building basic marksmanship skills, we're out wasting time on ****** harassment, training, or some sh*t that could be handled by the CSM putting out the command's policy on what will and will not be tolerated.

[James]

I think it'd also work wonders if accuracy was stressed. I don't care how accurate a weapon is, or how powerful the round is, if the person using it can't hit the broadside of a barn. Every year I am amazed at the number of people who have problems qualifying, with their weapon, because they don't seem to have a grasp of marksmanship fundamentals. Instead of spending valuable training time on the range, building basic marksmanship skills, we're out wasting time on ****** harassment, training, or some sh*t that could be handled by the CSM putting out the command's policy on what will and will not be tolerated.

I agree. The paper written by Major Erhart describes an old qual course from 1949 that sounds fantastic.

[Flagg]

Trying to take the insurgents point of view, i can think of few things more intimidating than an opposing army chocker full of soldiers well versed at destroying static and moving targets at unknown distances and angles of engagement from 0-600m with limited reaction time using a weapon firing a hard hitting round.

I'm paraphrasing my favorite infantry CSM of all time who said something like "Somebody needs to clear out the beancounters two grenades per office so we can get on with training for war using the best tools."

Maybe the seemingly efficient and cost effective option isn't so efficient or cost effective when in contact.

[Jippo]

I'm not quite convinced that ever rifleman needs to be able to effectively engage targets at 500m. Of course it is nice if they can, but there are quite a few variables that come to play in those distances and plenty of things to judge. Why not beef up with weapons that can do the range without effort, like light mortars etc.?

[kayaker]

I find the changing evolution of military needs interesting. By and large, militaries around the world favored large caliber battle rifles until late in WWII, when the Germans, evaluating their experiences on the Eastern Front, determined that most infantry engagements took place within 300 meters and that firepower was more important than accuracy. That became a fundamental, guiding thought in infantry small arms development for more than 60 years. Now, here we are, and things seem to have started evolving again.


Indeed. Yet interestingly western armies first switched to heavy "battle rifles" such as the G3, M14, etc until as late as the 1980's (SLR) before settling for the sturmgewher or assault rifle type rifles with the intermediate cartidge.

[zema_06]

Indeed. Yet interestingly western armies first switched to heavy "battle rifles" such as the G3, M14, etc until as late as the 1980's (SLR) before settling for the sturmgewher or assault rifle type rifles with the intermediate cartidge.

the 5,56 is NOT an intermediate cartidge...

[Dominique]

I'm not quite convinced that ever rifleman needs to be able to effectively engage targets at 500m. Of course it is nice if they can, but there are quite a few variables that come to play in those distances and plenty of things to judge. Why not beef up with weapons that can do the range without effort, like light mortars etc.?

While not every Soldier, Marine, Airman, or Sailor need to be able to engage targets at 500m, anyone on the pointy end of the stick, damn sure better be able to hit what they're shooting at. It's not doing any good for you to be able to sling 500 rounds per minute at targets 500m away, if all the bullets are doing is burning holes in air. One well aimed shot, is far more effective than the fifty rounds that missed.

[Jippo]

That's actually more or less what I was thinking, Dom. In my humble opinion designated marksman -concept is sound. I think that if every squad has one guy who can deliver accurate fire to 600m and above it is good enough. That one guy is able to achieve the same as the whole squad. He can fire at targets of opportunity that present themselves at that distance. I should think that there aren't that many good targets that one can hit after the first shot anyway. Pumping 100 rounds downrange after that will not gain anything.

But if one wants real good effect at that range I would go for mortars integrated with infantry formations in different configurations. Especially so with new smart fuses

[James]

I finished the paper and found it both interesting and sound. I will say that the author lacks some knowledge about USMC training and standards. He described, at one point, the use of shooting jackets. When I was in boot camp in 1993 they were already a thing of the past. Also, the USMC annual qualification course was far from the only shooting we did, at least in the infantry. The qual course was marksmanship, pure and simple, and had it's basis in what the author seems to feel is the missing link between soldiers today and the regulars in World War One; namely, the ability to read the wind, adjust sights, and shoot at long ranges. We shot bullseyes and silhouettes, not just bullseyes. When I was on active duty during the 1990s, I recall that the annual qualification process took two weeks. Week one, we zeroed our rifles, shot the KD course a bunch of times, and finally shot for score late in the week. The whole second week was devoted to combat shooting; moving targets, multiple targets, all within either 100m or 200m (I can't remember now).

[KEEPER0311]

I finished the paper and found it both interesting and sound. I will say that the author lacks some knowledge about USMC training and standards. He described, at one point, the use of shooting jackets. When I was in boot camp in 1993 they were already a thing of the past. Also, the USMC annual qualification course was far from the only shooting we did, at least in the infantry. The qual course was marksmanship, pure and simple, and had it's basis in what the author seems to feel is the missing link between soldiers today and the regulars in World War One; namely, the ability to read the wind, adjust sights, and shoot at long ranges. We shot bullseyes and silhouettes, not just bullseyes. When I was on active duty during the 1990s, I recall that the annual qualification process took two weeks. Week one, we zeroed our rifles, shot the KD course a bunch of times, and finally shot for score late in the week. The whole second week was devoted to combat shooting; moving targets, multiple targets, all within either 100m or 200m (I can't remember now).

Dead on James. Hasn't changed much since your day.

[James]

Dead on James. Hasn't changed much since your day.

Good to know. Semper Fi.

[Dean1962]

Double post. Sorry 'bout that.

[Dean1962]

the 5,56 is NOT an intermediate cartidge...

Actually, it is. 7.62x51, 7.62x54R and similar cartridges are considered to be full power cartridges. 7.62x38, 5.56, 5.45, 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 are considered intermediate cartridges, and 9mm, .45, 10mm, and other pistol rounds are exactly that; pistol rounds. Due to the fact that pistol rounds are often used in submachineguns, the term intermediate cartridges has been used to indicate lower powered, shorter assault rife ammunition.

[Dominique]

I finished the paper and found it both interesting and sound. I will say that the author lacks some knowledge about USMC training and standards. He described, at one point, the use of shooting jackets. When I was in boot camp in 1993 they were already a thing of the past. Also, the USMC annual qualification course was far from the only shooting we did, at least in the infantry. The qual course was marksmanship, pure and simple, and had it's basis in what the author seems to feel is the missing link between soldiers today and the regulars in World War One; namely, the ability to read the wind, adjust sights, and shoot at long ranges. We shot bullseyes and silhouettes, not just bullseyes. When I was on active duty during the 1990s, I recall that the annual qualification process took two weeks. Week one, we zeroed our rifles, shot the KD course a bunch of times, and finally shot for score late in the week. The whole second week was devoted to combat shooting; moving targets, multiple targets, all within either 100m or 200m (I can't remember now).

And that's exactly what I'm saying is missing. I've seen units come to the range where people haven't touched their weapon since last time they had to qualify. They basically get thrown on the zero range, with no refresher training, get told to zero their rifle, and/or optic, and then told to roll on down to the qual range. I'm a firm believer, that if you take the time to reinforce the basics, not just a couple of hours in the class, or a short block of instruction on the range, combined with actual trigger time, under the eye of a qualified instructor, lethality on the battlefield would show a marked increase.

[Hollis]

At the range, we had shooting jackets and gloved. 500 Yards was done in the ****e position. With a M14 I have shot out to 1000 M, fairly effective. Range (if memory is right) was set at 200, 300 and 500 yards. At 500 Yards the bull was 36 inches.


Some other thoughts, combat arms (grunts) are about 10-20% of our forces. I am a strong believer in training as you fight and what Dom said.

[wildcat]

And that's exactly what I'm saying is missing. I've seen units come to the range where people haven't touched their weapon since last time they had to qualify. They basically get thrown on the zero range, with no refresher training, get told to zero their rifle, and/or optic, and then told to roll on down to the qual range. I'm a firm believer, that if you take the time to reinforce the basics, not just a couple of hours in the class, or a short block of instruction on the range, combined with actual trigger time, under the eye of a qualified instructor, lethality on the battlefield would show a marked increase.

what is worse, they then deploy, without getting any extra time shooting.

My CO was proactive with us and booked us a week so every body in the company did get to shoot everything we have in the arms room, also had mout training, this was Dec 03, 2 months before we deployed to Iraq.

[James]

And that's exactly what I'm saying is missing. I've seen units come to the range where people haven't touched their weapon since last time they had to qualify. They basically get thrown on the zero range, with no refresher training, get told to zero their rifle, and/or optic, and then told to roll on down to the qual range. I'm a firm believer, that if you take the time to reinforce the basics, not just a couple of hours in the class, or a short block of instruction on the range, combined with actual trigger time, under the eye of a qualified instructor, lethality on the battlefield would show a marked increase.

When I started working as a contractor in 2002, it was as an instructor for the USN in a force protection/marksmanship program. I always stressed to the students and our Navy liaison that good shooting skills wouldn't be attained and retained in a one or two week program, with nothing else, but that they took frequent practice to maintain. A lot of commands had little interest beyond checking a pre-deployment checklist box that indicated X number of crew members had been through Y amount of training. The sailors I trained were exactly the type who would have been involved with something like the USS Cole attack or current stuff off Somalia.

I'm proficient because I've put a lot of time and effort into shooting over many years, and I think that's what it takes. Too many commands out there are hampered by budgets and limited training resources.

[Lt. James Anderson]

Operations in Afghanistan frequently require United States ground forces to engage and destroy the enemy at ranges beyond 300 meters.

And he already mentioned that in those situations when we are engaged at "the ranges beyond 300 meters" it is with medium and heavy weapons. How do you counter those weapons with small arms? That doesn't make much sense to me. It's not like they are out there in the open but just far away and out of reach of the M4.

Most small arms engagements still happen within 300 meters (in my experience and according to what I heard from others who got back from Afghanistan recently) .


These operations occur in rugged terrain and in situations where traditional supporting fires are limited due to range or risk of collateral damage. With these limitations, the infantry in Afghanistan require a precise, lethal fire capability that exists only in a properly trained and equipped infantryman. While the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine, and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate.
Comments from returning non-commissioned officers and officers reveal that about fifty percent of engagements occur past 300 meters. The enemy tactics are to engage United States forces from high ground with medium and heavy weapons, often including mortars, knowing that we are restricted by our equipment limitations and the inability of our overburdened soldiers to maneuver at elevations exceeding 6000 feet. Current equipment, training, and doctrine are optimized for engagements under 300 meters and on level terrain
There are several ways to extend the lethality of the infantry. A more effective 5.56-mm bullet can be designed which provides enhanced terminal performance out to 500 meters. A better option to increase incapacitation is to adopt a larger caliber cartridge, which will function using components of the M16/M4.

He already gave the answer. Problem is not bad marksmanship training but them holding the high ground and using the terrain advantage against us (9 times out of 10 that was the case when I was there). And the other part is about being overburdened with gear.

I might be wrong on all of this but that's just my opinion. It is an interesting paper and there's nothing wrong with better/more marksmanship training.

[ThePlato]

Finished the article as well and overall I found the paper informative and sound. I believe it certainly includes many fine points of improvement for increasing lethality in the current war. Certainly the history of caliber change was fascinating especially the bit regarding the Pederson rifle and the cartridge length that was originally proposed.

[Mark Sman]

The U.S. Military was on the right track with the combo of the 6mm Lee Navy rifle and the 6mm Colt Automatic Machine Gun during the 1890s.

Too bad that track wasn't followed up with smokeless designs. Way ahead of its time in doctrine, capability and logistics.

[bababooey]

Just a thought. When I was in, there were .22 caliber adapters for the M-16A1's and an indoor range for practice. We'd practice before our live fire qual's in the field. Score's were up. When this was discontinued, scores were down. In this age of computer games, do units have electronic indoor ranges? I played with FATS machines a couple times, but it was a big setup with its own building and was not a casual affair so one could practice.
'

[Jurinko]

Modern tactics is to flood the target with heavy, precise and concentrated fire which has surely much sense, but reading Screaming Eagle series from Don Burgett (101st AD), their paras trained to hit with every round; "every time you pull the trigger, there must be meat on the table". Once they walked into German ambush in Bois Jacques forest (north of Bastogne). They fell on the ground, rolled away and despite facing German MG nest maybe 50 meters far away head on, author and his companion shot just two rounds each, killing and wounding the whole MG crew. Nerves of steel!

[James]

Modern tactics is to flood the target with heavy, precise and concentrated fire which has surely much sense, but reading Screaming Eagle series from Don Burgett (101st AD), their paras trained to hit with every round; "every time you pull the trigger, there must be meat on the table". Once they walked into German ambush in Bois Jacques forest (north of Bastogne). They fell on the ground, rolled away and despite facing German MG nest maybe 50 meters far away head on, author and his companion shot just two rounds each, killing and wounding the whole MG crew. Nerves of steel!

I read those books and found them very enjoyable. But... hitting with every round? I think he's exaggerating.