Double post. Sorry 'bout that.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by James; 03-11-2010 at 10:22 AM.
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.Operations in Afghanistan frequently require United States ground forces to engage and destroy the enemy at ranges beyond 300 meters.
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) .
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!