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...c=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.

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.