[roscoe]

So what is with all the armies claiming that their infantry is the only one that is taught aimed rifle fire? I was reading John Keegan's history of WWI and he was saying that the Tommies were taught aimed rifle fire and that their ability to hit at distance intimidated the Germans. Then I read the same thing about the Germans in WWII, right down to Hitler opposing development of full-auto assault weapons. Then, while reading about the history of the Garand, I see claims that American soldiers were considered to have the best aimed rifle fire, and that the Axis deemphasized accurate rifle work in favor of artillery.

So what gives, or are they all pretty much full of themselves?

[Nightcrawler]

The current US Army's Army-wide standard for M16 is out to 300 meters. When doing any kind of combat drill, it's normal for the troops to lay suppressing fire in the direction they think the enemy is in; On one hand, it may keep the enemy's head down. On the other, it wastes ammunition with spray-and-pray shooting.

As a rifleman, I prefer to only shoot at what I can see. When I'm a SAW gunner, suppressive fire is my job, and I lay it down.

Long range shooting isn't as important in most armies as it once was. The USMC still emphasizes it, though.

[JShirley]

"The myth of the rifleman." Some will contend- and probably correctly- that most ground battles have been, are, and will be won by volume of fire. Consider that few casualties are actually inflicted by the rifleman compared to arty and air.

[RON in PA]

Studies done by the US Army after WW2 found that high percentages of troops never fired their weapons in combat. Training after the war tried to increase the per cent firing. Also the tactical doctrine of the WW2 US army was to use aimed fire up to 600 yards. That was the theory, from what I've read newbies in combat were taught by the experienced soldiers to forget about aimed fire and to fire into areas suspected of holding enemy troops.

The side that throws the most tonnage in the direction of the enemy usually wins.

[Blackhawk]

Consider that few casualties are actually inflicted by the rifleman compared to arty and air. That's exactly right. In the late '50s, the Army devised the Air Mobile doctrine around the helicopter. It was only natural to equip some of the choppers with guns and rockets and push the doctrine to the point that air power would always be close for our troops. The doctrine was proven in Vietnam and coordinated quite effectively with the Air Force.

Both sides were practically invisible to one another in that terrain, and certainly beyond a few hundred yards. Suppressive fire was quite handy to keep their heads down while artillery or airstrikes were called in.

The UH-1B gunship was succeeded by its natural successor, the Cobra.

Amazing what can be done with total air superiority, and that's been a component of U.S. War Doctrine since those times.

Did you notice that in Gulf War II, the "Air War" prevented the "Ground War" until Iraq was literally grounded or destroyed?

We caught it in WWII sometimes because of weather precluding use of our airpower to support troops and other times because of the distances involved. Choppers and technology now makes airpower organic to troop units possible, and with USAF covering, there's just not a lot of need for battle rifles like the M14 or the infantry battles like those of WWII.

The problem now is if our troops are too closely engaged to use airpower, and that's where the precision of rifles is needed and where the high firepower M16 types shine.

[ButchG17]

I don't know, I think our troops in Samolia pretty well proved that aimed fire certainly can be more effective than a large volume of fire.

[AK103K]

I was always taught that he who has "effective fire" will usually win. Effective fire being fire that you deliver to them and they cant return due to not being able to shoot back. The way things are going with the CMP and hunting in decline, and the attitude towards guns and kids these days, I fear that we will have less and less "shooters" in our military. Then again, the way things are going, maybe all they will need is pistols before to long.

[MP-44]

Years ago in one of the gun mags I saw figures on how many rounds per casualty in each major U.S war from the Revolution thru Vietnam. Anyone have a source for those figures? All I can remember is I was very surprised on how high the #s were, especially for the Revolution & Civil War.

[T.Stahl]

Well, the handbook says that "he who shoots faster and hits better will win."

Blackhawk, I'm a sergeant in a home-defense Bn in our army reserve. Should I ever have to pack my gear and move out into the woods to defend my country, the one thing I certainly won't be able to count on is artillery or air support. The only way to defeat the enemy will be to suprise him and score more hits in shorter time.

MP-44, keep in mind that those statistics will also include the zillions of MG-rounds fired by aircraft.

[critter]

It would seem to me that VietNam contributed to the 'unaimed fire', 'suppressive fire', 'wall of fire', etc ideas because of the places where fighting took place. So much of it was in THICK jungles where a 'long' shot might be within handgun range but the jungle was so think that few emeny could ever be seen except maybe for brief glimpses. In those cases, the M16 full auto could be counted on to 'shred the jungle', perhaps causing a few casualties but at least keeping the enemys head down somewhat and at least keep him from doing as much effective return fire.

Situation determines tactics.

[DMK]

So what gives, or are they all pretty much full of themselves? Take this with a grain of salt, I learned it from the History Channel: It is my understanding that to save ammunition in WWII, troops were trained not to shoot until they were sure of their target and engage with aimed fire, but once in theater, they had to be "untrained" by their NCOs and told to fire heavy surpressing fire to keep the enemy's head down to allow manuvering against them and prevent them from firing back with careful aimed fire.

Of course Army PR would never have admited to that and doctrine, training usually seem to reflect the last war.

My point here being that it's very likely that Armys liked to think that their soldiers were all highly trained marksmen that skillfully picked off their enemys at great distances because that was a romantic notion, but of course real combat is not romantic at all and soldiers who where not all Sgt. Yorks actually used heavy volleys of surpressing fire from their battle rifles in an effort to keep the enemy occupied with anything but shooting them.

[Blackhawk]

Blackhawk, I'm a sergeant in a home-defense Bn in our army reserve. Should I ever have to pack my gear and move out into the woods to defend my country, the one thing I certainly won't be able to count on is artillery or air support. The only way to defeat the enemy will be to suprise him and score more hits in shorter time. If you have no artillery or air support, the enemy will most likely have. You'll be in a situation analogous to WWII tactically but likely facing a 21st Century enemy -- a very bleak situation, indeed. :what:

[4v50 Gary]

First battle I know of that was won by aimed fire was The Battle of Monogahela or Braddock's Defeat as it is better known. Fought in 1755, it consisted of columns of redcoats being blasted to pieces mostly by Indians who were too cowardly ;) to fight in the open and fought from behind cover. Those wily Indians even had the indignity to conceal themselves when they reloaded. The British became so panicked from the losses inflicted by a virtually invisible foe that some fired theirs guns ineffectually into the air. About 900 or so casualties suffered by the Brits & Americans. You see, the problem was that the British failed to send advisers to the Indians to teach them to fight in the open and in closed orders where everybody could touch elbows with the man on either side of him. :) Had they had done that earlier, the two sides would have been evenly matched.

BTW, the British rifle fire that intimidated the Germans was their long range "volley fire."

[MarineTech]

Yes, while long distance shooting seems to be used less in combat, there are still circumstances where it is used. Look at Afghanistan. Our greatest advantage there now is the fact that our troops can engage targets beyond the range and which the enemy can effectively return fire.

Yes, the application of long distance shooting is becoming rare, but I don't think that training troops to do it should be done away with. If we eliminate long distance (500-600yrds) shooting from the training regimen, that's one less option that we may have in an engagement.

[M67]

...or are they all pretty much full of themselves? Best answer yet, I think. :)

A couple of reasons for "them" to be full of it:
1) You can't tell a soldier: "The enemy is much tougher, smarter and better equipped than you are, and, btw, he is a much better shot than you are. Now please get out of your fox hole and charge up that hill against incredibly accurate enemy fire." It probably works better to tell him that "you are the best rifleman in the world, go kick some butt."
2) It's nice if the unwashed masses believe that "our" soldiers are better than "theirs", easier to get money and public support that way. If you want a mother to support your "cause", whatever that may be, would you tell her "I'm going to use your good-for-nothing son as cannon fodder in this jolly little war of ours," or would you say "I'm going to turn your son into the best trained, best prepared soldier/rifleman the world has ever seen. He is going to win this war for us in no time."

Cynical? Me? I believe in accurate rifle fire. Unless you know how to hit a target, a rifle is just a poorly balanced club. An infantryman's job is to carry a rifle. But I don't believe that all those who claim to be the only ones or the best, actually are. I would think that at least some of them are "pretty much full of themselves".

[Ian]

Another impressive victory due in large part ot accurate rifle fire was the Battle of Majuba Hill, during the first Boer War. An outnumbered force of Boers (using early Mauser rifles) captured Majuba Hill (a small mountain really) from a force of English regulars (with Martinis). The Boers took less than a score of casualties out of a force of several hundred (IIRC) while the English were completely routed. The reasons? Accurate fire, excellent Boer use of terrain, and a Boer sniper who shot the English commander from 900 yards out right before the attack. :)

It seems to me that suppressive fire is a valuable tool, quite appropriate to allow an embattled unit to maneuver more safely. When it comes to inflicting casualties, though, either accurate fire or airborne explosives are needed.

[JShirley]

Drat. I was going to mention the Boers as the possible exception to the rule, but forgot. Of course...the Boers didn't win, did they?

John

(Not claiming that the Boers lost because of their superior marksmanship skills. Damn politicians.)

(I still believe we should strive for proper fire discipline; I just don't think it has actually won many wars.)

[Mike Irwin]

At the start of WW I in 1914, British Army standard for its riflemen was a minimum of 15 rounds of aimed fire -- on the standard target of the time -- a minute. This training requirement was affectionately known as "The Mad Minute."

It also wasn't uncommon to have a well-trained soldier manage to break the 20 rounds per minute.

[SIGarmed]

As an example remember the Chosen reservior campaing 1950.
I think its a big mistake to use statistics to limit our infantry to 300m. Statistics don't tell the whole story.

If it wasn't for accurate long range rifle fire no servicemen would have made it back. They were totally out numbered. The chinese had close range weapons and tried to use them as such. Many of them died trying. Put a battle like that in modern times without stressing the importance of longer range shooting and the situation would only be worse. There's a time and place for all kinds of shooting. As a former infantryman it is well known that you can't always count on airpower or artillery.

[Mike Irwin]

"If it wasn't for accurate long range rifle fire no servicemen would have made it back."

Actually, it was carrier based aviation that allowed the withdrawal to happen.

MacArthur was flat-out told that the only hope American troops had was for the weather to hold well enough to allow flight operations. If the weather closed in and flying was impossible, it was very likely that the Chinese would complete the encirclement of the American units.

My uncle was with an Army Signal Corps unit that was pulling back at the same time. He said the sweetest sound in the morning were the Corsairs coming in with rockets and Napalm to hit the Chinese on the hills alongside the route south.

[MarineTech]

Drat. I was going to mention the Boers as the possible exception to the rule, but forgot. Of course...the Boers didn't win, did they?

JShirley,

They won THAT battle though, didn't they. Must have really stunk to have been a Brit during that one.

[JShirley]

Why...now that you mention it...;)

John

Win a battle. Politicians lose the war.

[Nightcrawler]

Folks can cite all the examples they want about how long range shooting doesn't happen anymore. All it takes is one instance where a soldier needs to make a long shot. If he can't do it when he needs to, it could get him killed, and his training has let him down.

The fact that it's less likely to happen is no excuse for not learning a combat skill that allows the soldier to make the most of his weapon. It's NO EXCUSE. If you want to start weeding out unnecessary training, howsabout getting rid of a lot of the non combat related stuff we've learned?

Drill and ceremonies comes to mind. "Army Values" classes, do too. That time would've been much better spent at the range.

The only thing that matters on the battlefield is winning. Winning means being able to kill the enemy anyway you can, however you have to. The rest of it should take a distant second in training priority.

[Badger Arms]

IIRC, whole batalions were held up at times by the skill of a single sniper. I believe that the designated marksman concept is sound. It should be applied more universally. I think that every squad should have a designanated marksman. If more grunts are capable, more should have accurized, scoped weapons.

Back to WWII, it wasn't so much that the Germans prefered accurate rifles, it was that their infantry philosophy was different than ours. If I understand it correctly, Mauser rifles were primarily support weapons used to defend the squad machine guns. MG-34 and MG-42's were the primary weapon in a squad. American infantry tended to use a split approach where the rifleman took up more of the burden than the BAR gunner.

Finally, Aimed fire is often a joke in the heat of battle. This is especially true of fresh troops or seasoned troops engaged in battle with an equally experienced foe.

[Badger Arms]

Just remembered reading where Air Force security forces are training monthly with paint ball guns. PAINT BALL GUNS. I learned more about cover, concealment and tactics from paintball than I did from any book or rifle range experience. Even them laser attachments don't HIT you like the paint does. When paint balling, you get the whole experience and learn that aimed fire should be done from cover.

http://www.af.mil/news/Jan2003/10903601.shtml

[4v50 Gary]

BTW Ian, where did you read about Majuba Hill from?

[Jim K]

Some questions:

1. Name any battle of any size that was won solely due to aimed rifle fire, the forces being approximately equal.

2. Name any war that was decided solely on the basis of the quality of the infantry rifle involved, with discipline, training, airpower, etc. either playing no part or being equal. (Did the Germans or Japanese lose solely because the M1 rifle was "better", or did control of the air, interdiction of supply lines, and a couple of nukes have something to do with it?)

3. Name any battle or war that was won by the US solely because our vaunted .45 pistol was better than the pistol used by the enemy.

Jim

[Badger Arms]

Jim:

You appear to be making accusations here. Is there anybody saying that aimed fire is the sole decisive tool on the battlefield? Far from it. I doubt that anybody would want our army equiped exclusively with Ruger No 1 rifles in caliber 300 Win Mag with high-powered scopes. That being said, I believe that Carlos Hathcock fought and dominated a battle armed only with a Wincherster Model 70 rifle and a spotter with a scoped M-14 and a radio. He called in flares and, in the end, radioed for artillery to cover his retreat. I think it was either a company or a batallion that he held down and decimated. The forces were decidedly NOT equal in size in this situation. What exactly was your point here.

Wars are not decided by the quality of infantry marksmanship, but by the quality, resolve, and support of the total force. One should not ignore aimed fire because wars have never been won with it. No war was ever won with Air Power either, but I doubt the Air Force is going away soon. (in the end, the Marines had to invade Kuwait in spite of a pounding that Iraqi forces got at the hands of the Air Force).

I'm not quite sure this thread had anything to do with the Colt 1911. Where did that come up? That is more an argument of stopping power and the value of handguns in combat than it is one of aimed fire by infantry.

I think that Mogadishu was lost by Somali thugs solely because they did not practice aimed fire. A handful of hunting rifles and a little marksmanship would have brought our rescue to a grinding, bloody halt. As I understand it, over 1000 Somalis died and managed to take only a few Americans with them. This despite their overwhelming superiority in numbers, in numbers of weapons, and in position. They ALWAYS surrounded us.

Aimed fire does not generally win battles, campaigns, or wars. It does serve as a force multiplier, demoralizer and inexpensive tool for eliminating the enemy. Stalingrad? Carlos Hathcock?

[Mike Irwin]

Jim,

Battle of Plevna probably comes closest to meeting your criteria for No. 1.

Then, of course, there's always Amritsar... Not exactly a battle though...

[JShirley]

Jim,

Brits vs Zulu? I realize that rifle vs manual weapons may not exactly be a fair comparison, so your basic point is valid, of course.

John

[Al Thompson]

Rourke's Drift is what your thinking of John.

[JShirley]

Thanks, Al.
I was wrong, to some degree. It seems the Zulus had some firearms, at least:
http://www.battlefields.co.za/history/anglo-zulu_war/rorkes_drift/rorkes_gs.htm

[chieftain]

Wars of today are about heavy weapons. Frankly since the American Civil war, Called the First Modern war by many, heavy weapons are/were the difference.

With that said, any infantry force that cannot engage effectively at maximum range of their organic weapons has a serious problem.

Being able to effectively engage with long range accurate fire is an effective tool. Just as the ability to engage at close range is an effective tool. Both are required skills for an infantry formation.

Several selected major American battles where our infantry did not have the small arms advantage.

Most famous were, San Juan Hill, Spanish Mausers vs Krag Jorgenson 30-40's. We won the battle but got decimated due to the effective long range fire of the Spanish Mausers.

Like the British in the Boar war, we used the experience of the Spanish American war to up grade our small arms to the Springfield '03. The British of course up graded to the best bolt action battle rifle ever issued, the enfield! No one else had the 10 round magazine!

We fought the worst of GuadalCanal with Marines equiped with '03's. After they were relived by the Army equipped with M1 Garands the Marines were pissed off to find out that command did not consider the M1 that much of an advantage over the 03. And had not pushed to get them to the embattled troops.

Yup, Edison ridge etal was won with the 03 and accurate rifle fire!

Another guy already mentioned Chosen, It was the rifle fire not the Airsupport that pulled them through, Was the CAS important, damned right it was, was the Arty critical, damned right it was, but in the end, it's always the RIFLE and the man carrying it!

At the 'Canal the US Navy left the 1stMarDiv with no Navel or Air support at one time. Just their organic artillary and weapons! I went in the Corps while the last of the WWII and some of the Korean war guys were still on duty.

They all cautioned, they will leave you to save themselves when push comes to shove! The only ones to depend on are other Marines! Most of the time the other services will or may show up, but only depend on yourself, your rifle and other Marines all the time. These were men that faught on the 'Canal and at Chosen and 100 other battles of WW II and Korea.

I personally found it no different in Viet Nam. Some time explain to me why we were on the DMZ and not down in the Delta doing the Riverine mission? Ya, explain that one!

It's always about the Rifle in the end! Yours and your buddies.

Fred

[Art Eatman]

During the Chosin Reservoir, the 50th AAA (SP) had at least one battery along for the ride. 8 half-tracks with quad-.50s; 8 M-19 light tanks with twin 40mms.

Art

[goon]

It depends on the situation and who you are fighting.
Two groups are shooting at each other 600 yds away. One has bolt action 308 rifles, the other is armed with AKM's.
Who would win?
Now put them 75 yds away.
Who would have the advantage?

(Who ever had the best air support.) ;)

[Smokey Joe]

Goon: The point is, that the AKM guys would never live to get 75 yd. away. Their advance from 600 yd. would cost them most of their manpower, and all of their morale. And I'd have scouts out encircling and harassing them at night, so no sneak attacks. We're assuming that neither side, here, can call in outside interference. BTW, in the debriefing I'd be complaining to Battalion about having .308's instead of .30-'06's.

You know the rest. In the books you have read, how the British regulars fired and fled/ How the farmers gave them ball for ball, from behind each fence and farmyard wall...Chasing the Redcoats down the road, and only pausing to fire and load.

We Americans have always had an affinity for accurate shooting.

Long live the rifleman.

[Zorro]

Swords? Machetes still are used.

Axes? Still get used.

Pistols? Still used.

Knifes? Still used.

Clubs? Still get used as do hammers.

Long Range Riflemen? Will always be used no matter how good Air to Ground Technology gets.

There is always going to be a special circumstance that is best solved by an old method.

[goon]

Joe: I was thinking of a Jungle type environment when I said that. I also much rather have a scoped 30 caliber bolt-gun and a bipod than any assault rifle. I have fired M-16's and have found them to be more accurate than the semi-auto AK's that I have owned, but they still seem underpowered when compared to a 308, '06, or a 7.62x54.
I just like a little kick.
Is there anything so wrong with that? ;)
On the subject of AK's, they are well known to be about as reliable as your average claw-hammer, but also about as accurate. I think that I was more accurate with a slingshot when I was 8 than I am with an AK now.
That doesn't suit me. I will not use a rifle that I can outshoot, so most AK's are out.
In the debreifing, I would be complaining about not being able to get ammo for the 30'06 that you had issued me. But I wouldn't complain about the fact that I was armed way better than the other guys.:D
It is all academic.

[AK103K]

On the issue of covering the 600 yards under aimed rifle fire, are you assuming that these boys will be walking towards you like the British soldiers of the Revolution? I would think they would be fleeting targets covering the ground in bounding advances that would be hard targets to hit, even for some one in a good rested position. I think you'd be surprised how fast they cover that ground unscathed. Not to mention, even if their return fire is not the most accurate, its going to keep your head down to some extent and at the very least, your not going to be in your top 1/2 moa form. Once with in 200 yards, the AK can easily engage man sized (and smaller) targets that present themselves. Once within 100 yards and closing they will have the advantage, especially at close quaters. Assuming that you are better armed and better capable than the next boy is a dangerous thing. Its not the weapon in your hands that makes you deadly, its the person holding the weapon what makes "it" deadly. If you assume the boy in front of you with the "inferior" rifle is going to act as you want him to, and stand up and still and present a nice target for you at 500 yards, then I think he will have himself a "nice" battle trophy when its over.

[jar]

Depends on the time, place and circumstances. WWI degenerated to a series of futile charges of men against are suppression fire. In nearly every case, men lost, area suppression won. Then there was the 99% of the war when Men in trenches faced other men in trenchs. During that part of the conflict, aimed fire ruled.

Bringing in the issue of support firepower simply muddies the water. When talking about how best to use rifles, it's the situation that determines the best tactic. WWI proved that charging area suppresion fire was usually not the brightest thing to do. So when faced with that choice, the US Army decided that most any other option than the man carried rifle was the best choice.

There is still a place for aimed fire and when used properly, it can be devistating and in some cases, decisive. It certainly is not an issue of one or the other, rather it's which one to employ in a given instance. An army without both in it's tool box will be severely limited.


PS: does this same analogy hold true if the base is moved from rifles to, say, bombs? Is the cruise missle or the smart bomb the technological cild of Aimed Fire, while cluster bombs, FA type bombs and the newest rocket artilery pieces the technological child of area suppression fire?

[Joe Demko]

We Americans have always had an affinity for accurate shooting.

Hogwash.

[goon]

AK-103- A fellow PA'er.;)
I'm not AK bashing. It is just that my experience leads me to believe that a trained rifleman would be better off with something that has more range, power and accuracy.
AK's are about as good as you could ask for up close. The only disadvantage is that in order for your AK to be effective, you have to get close enough that their AK's will hit you too.
Confronted with the remote scenario of the advancing bad guys coming at me, the best weapon to have against those infantrymen would be an entrenched Ma Deuce in an elevated position with an AG, a couple spare barrels and all the ammo I could find. Unfortunately, I am fresh out of those, so a "deer rifle" is the most viable choice for me.

Also, I'm gonna take a wild guess here and say that you may own an AK-103. How do you rate it? I have considered the Saiga conversions from AK-USA, but I am still not quite ready to get one yet. I still have to buy more C&R guns. :D

[AK103K]

goon,
I agree that a trained rifleman can be effective at farther ranges, but I think a lot of what is discussed here is to simplistic. I guess for a certain situation, usually weighted in the writers favor and gun choice, the writer will always prevail. Reality is usually a lot less forgiving and has a way of humbling even the best trained shooter. Are we talking of a group of trained shooters(your side), capable of making hits on targets that only show themselves at a hard run for a short time while the second string is laying in covering fire to keep your head down as they leap frog to you. Or are we talking of a group of untrained people(their side) who mainly walk upright and move towards you while throwing rounds your way, making a nice target of themselves? Whats the terrain your in, flat open land or gullies and washes in thick woods? I think if your dealing with a trained opponent who knows to close with you and knows how to accomplish just that, you will be very busy "trying" to stop them. And just to throw a wrench in the mix, what if they also have riflemen with your capabilities, who selectivly take your "fixed" shooters, as they concentrate on stopping those moving towards you. There are just to many variables to cover with a fixed answer. It would be nice to be able to sit back and pick them all off before they get to you, but I dont think thats realistic, unless they are total morons.
As for the AK103, I have a Krebs AK103K. Its a great little rifle. Of all my AK's it the most accurate. It actually does better at 100 yards than my Bushmaster Disapator, but 200 yards would be my limit, not that it might not do better farther, I know with my eyes it wont. :)

[goon]

Cool. I thought about the AK-103 from AK-USA. I'm pretty sure that is their 223 caliber conversion. I also had a VEPR K 223 that would put 10 rounds in a little over an inch at 100yds. But it was just too barrel heavy to suit me. They have the balance of a sledge hammer.
I've also heard that the SAR-3's are pretty accurate. This may be attributed to the fact that 223 ammo is generally loaded to better quality than 7.62x39. But they are also known to be kind of shoddy.
AK's are sort of toys to me. I like them because they are cheap to own, they almost always work, and ammo is about $80 for 1000rds. But I don't like the fact that most of those pop-cans are safe at 100yds when I am shooting at them with an AK. If I could just find some kind of balance...
Until then I gotta stick with watching cans disintegrate through the scope. :D

[Zigokubasi]

In WWI, when those men going "over the top" got cut down, most of the time it was by something called "the Devil's Paintbrush" - machineguns. Most of the killing power in a squad is in the SAW. Most of the men who died from gunshots (as opposed to arty) in WWI got those from machinegun fire...*accurate* machinegun fire, which is a whole different animal from accurate rifle fire. Lessons learned from WWI resulted in a lot of innovations, like issuing lots of mortars and grenade launchers. Indirect fire from a distance being the best way to counter machineguns.

Now when those men got in trenches, it sure as hell wasn't accurate rifle fire that everyone wanted, it was grenades and submachineguns. Explosives and high-volume close range firepower was the key. I'd sure as hell take a 'trench broom' over an Enfield in that situation any day....

Accurate rifle fire is very important, and can be much more so in a situation where you lack support, such as the early days of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan versus the Soviets. Crusty old bolt-action Enfields ruled in the open terrain of Afghanistan against the AKM. Some Spetsnaz units tried to issue SVDs to as many men as possible to counter that advantage. But eventually, the Mujs got ahold of heavy MGs, mortars, RPGs, and other dandy weapons captured from the Soviets. That changed their behavior quite a bit, but the essence was still there. Even an AK is deadly at range in capable hands.

The 600m .308 vs. AK scenario is unrealistic. Any army worth its salt would have little trouble finding cover and a) moving to close with that unit, b) withdrawing under fire, or c) hunkering down and calling for support. The best bet for those marksmen with the .308's would be to inflict as many casualties as they could before the targets found cover, then fade away. Against a competent adversary, you're not going to win with marksmanship alone, but it sure doesn't hurt....

I'm not sure what AKs you guys are using, but I've never had any trouble hitting a man sized target out to 200 yards with my old MAK-90, and I was deadly to paper plates at 100 yds with my friend's MAADI...unless something's really wrong with your rifle, it sould be capable of combat accuracy out to 300yds. Maybe you've got a SAR with canted sights or something?

[AK103K]

I'm not sure what AKs you guys are using, but I've never had any trouble hitting a man sized target out to 200 yards with my old MAK-90, and I was deadly to paper plates at 100 yds with my friend's MAADI...unless something's really wrong with your rifle, it sould be capable of combat accuracy out to 300yds. Maybe you've got a SAR with canted sights or something?

I'm not saying they wont hit at 300, I think 200 is more reasonable for the 7.62 round, its just that I personally wouldnt have good results with my eyes and the issue sights. I'm sure all my AK's would make the 300 yard hits, some better than others. My SAR's worst groups at 100 yards are around 6" my 103K's best are around 2-3", the others are in between. All in all, I think the 7.62x39 is probably the best all around round for a combat type rifle. Its heavy enough to punch through things a 223 wont and in a package that is smaller and lighter than most 308 caliber guns. Its quicker to shoulder and recoil is easier to recover from for quick repeat shots than the 308. 200 yards and less is probably a more resaonable and probable contact distance and long range guns loose their "handiness" the closer things get. The 223 is to light a bullet to reliably defeat cover and still get to the target. The AK is a handy little rifle that does well for me within my 200 yard self imposed limit. It doent have all the "handicaps" that are always spouted by people who dont like them, especially if you learn the rifle. Lets face it, the weapons weak point is its user.

[goon]

The particular rifle that convinced me was an SAR-1. I shot twelve shots at a sighting in target with it from a bench at 100yds and didn't hit within about 5inches of the center once. I later sold that one off, and I am currently without an AK. But there is an SA-M7 at a local gunshop that I have been watching very closely...

[chieftain]

Guys,

I was just thinking, not always a pretty sight or a good thing.

Why do we advocate aimed fire with our handguns, up close but not with our rifles?

Except at contact range, at what point are some of you advocating not aiming?

The ony gun that is supposed to have a beaten zone is the Machine gun, right?

Now in combat accurate fire will not always produce hits! But will usually be close enough to effect the enemy fire/action. and allow your guys, weapons or tatics to be used to advantage.

Please don't lecture me guy's, I did two tours with the 3rdMarDiv in Viet Nam. Got my seen some **** ribbon and a couple of hearts and some other stuff for credentials. I carried an M14 untill the spring of 69. When a Bridadier personally ordered me to turn it in and get a Mattey Mattel.

By the way I really didn't see any difference in stopping power most of the time, only out at range about 150+. And that didn't happen often! There just wasn't much luke could hide behind that I couldn't shoot through. And of course those times when we had long range fire, I could shoot with effect. Usually by the time I had started shooting, the guns had opened up and luke was already down or covered.

So just when do we not need aimed fire? I will start with one, and that is in the assault! any others.

Fred

[Zigokubasi]

Chieftan, you were never in a "mad minute" in Vietnam? What did they call it..."exploration by fire" or something like that? As I understand it, it was a fairly common practice for the Army to fire pretty much indiscriminately. I'm not saying it was a good thing, but you can't tell me that charlie was perfectly safe out there in the path of all those rounds...aimed or not.

As far as situation that call for unaimed fire...you got assault, and close range, how about breaking contact? IADs called for an entire mag to be dumped in the general direction of the enemy on automatic while moving to break out of an encirclement or 'retrograde motion' under fire...

Maybe in MOUT too...For instance, if I know there's a guy shooting out of a window, and I don't want him popping his head up while a man moves in to toss a grenade into it, I'm sure going to dump as much ammo into that window as I can, to keep his head down and my buddy alive.

Really, that's about it though. I think the general gist of this thread is that aimed fire is well and good, ideal in fact, but history has shown that it doesn't always work out that way in the field. That's not to devalue your experience in any way Chieftan, veterans are invaluable to those of us who've never "been there".

[chieftain]

Zigokubasi,

To be sure many times the guys dumped their magazine contents via the barrel.

That's why the Corps was the first organization to go to the Burst selector on the M16. Fire discipline! Contrary to popular belief, even with the soft recoiling 5.56, if you didn't hit it by the second round any chance of hitting the target was purely luck! Some folks will talk about their capability to walk their rounds onto the target. Forget about it.

If you stop shooting and aim at the target you will hit it faster! Fighting even light recoil/noise/motion is more time consuming than aiming and pulling the trigger!

I personally still don't see any need for full auto in the basic rifle. Their primary job should be supporting the SAW which has finaily taken the place of the BAR and attached supporting weapons, MG's, Rockets etc.

I am told that during the Korean war the US Army did a study on infantry fire power. I would love to get hold of the results of the study.

The story goes. The Army equiped one outfit with 03'. Another outfit with normal M1's and a third out fit with all auto firing weapons, M2 Carbines, Thompsons, M3's and extra BAR's, all the outfits were equiped with appropriate number of BAR's (except as stated) and MG's.

The story goes, the 03's inflicted more casualties and took less casualties thant the other two units.

The Semi auto unit inflicted more casualties and took less casualties than the full auto unit.

I sure would like to know if that is true, I believe it but can't prove it.

Remember we have seen similar results with the police while moving from the revolver to the Semi-Auto, more shots and less hits.

I still believe well trained men with any weapon are the answer.

I can tell you that a semi auto becomes damn near automatic under assault! but much more accurate.

And I would not feel under gunned in a military action with my 03! But the weapon I prefer is my M1A(M14) which of course is Semi Auto.

I think the AK47 is the best assault rifle ever made, I just personally don't care for it. My strength with a rifle is being able to reach out an touch someone, not a sniper, just a real good rifle shot.

Zig sorry that I rambled. I hope I answered at least one of your questions.

Good luck

Fred

And May God Bless America

[Zigokubasi]

Thanks Chieftan, I don't think you're rambling at all. I've never heard that anecdote about Korea, but I'm looking for a mention of it on the 'net. I wouldn't be suprised, as that seems to be the result you'd see given the conditions in Korea. From what I've seen, the terrain was very open and mountainous. Accurate, long range rifle marksmanship should pay off in that situation. However, on the flip side of that coin, there is some evidence that the Germans undertook a study in Stalingrad where an entire unit was equipped with StG-44's, and their effectiveness was compared to a normal unit equipped with Kar-98's and two MG-42's. Traditional German small unit doctrine breaks down in built-up areas, and rather than acting as support for the MGs, those bolt-action rifle armed soldiers found themselves doing as much of the fighting as the machinegunners. In that kind of situation, the fluid dynamics of the Stg-44 armed unit, as well as the shock value of that much close-in firepower, showed that unit to be much more capable in urban combat. But that's all from some vague story I read somewhere on the history of the Mp43/44, so it may or may not be true as well...

Still, even with an StG-44 I'd rather aim than not - barring only those few exceptions mentioned so far (assault, close-in, breaking contact)....

[Distant Observer]

I have thought about this topic and most of these posts confirm my thoughts. I would love to hear from someone with real experience if my thoughts below are accurate.

Aimed fire is ideal. Accuracy of aimed fire is inversely proportional to stress of the firer. Thus the most accurate fire is from a sniper who is initiating the contact and can take his time and calmly aim and fire. Suppression fire is specifically designed to increase the stress of the enemy and reduce his ability to return with aimed fire. Suppression fire is generally not aimed and can vary from just firing so the noise lets the enemy know they are being fired at to targeting known enemy positions even if their cover might conceal them. The effectiveness of suppressive fire will vary based on the experience of the target and how accurate the fire is. The more experienced soldier will understand the danger of effective suppressive fire by seeing the rounds hit the nearby ground or sound of the bullets passing through the air.

My assumption is that aimed fire occurs rarely on the battle field because it is so lethal. Any soldier who is being fired at by an enemy that has clear non-moving target and is not being distracted by opposing fire, that soldier will have a very short life span.

I hear accounts from Iraq of fire fights that take hours. These must consist of lots of low accuracy fire at long ranges while each side tries to maneuver for an attack from an unopposed direction and probably end when supporting fire such as air or artillery make it too dangerous to stay.
Let be clear I have no actual experience and thoughts above are based on reading and watching documentaries on TV. I would love to hear someone with real experience validate or contradict the thoughts above.

[GunTech]

The average rifleman cannot engage targets beyound 500 meters. This is
primarily due to the fact that he cannot see the target because of
intervening terrain, camouflage, etc. Even if the soldier is capable of
shooting at longer ranges in formal marksmanship training. But it gets
even worse.

The majority of rifle fire is at 300 meters or less. 70% is at 100
meters or less, irrespective of terrain. This has been borne out in
Iraq, where most infantry rifle fire is in urban environments.

Firther, targets typically expose themselves for very short times. This
is the very reason the German army first adopted high cyclic rate MGs
and later the assault rifle.

The analysis in the Hitchman report ("Operational Requirements for an
Infantry Hand Weapon") contains some even more interesting material.
Contrary to legent, aimed fire has almost no effect on the production of
casualties. It is worth remenbering that Hitchman's data was from
actual combat, not armchair commandos.


"...rifle fire and its effects were deficient in some military
respects...in combat, hits from bullets are incurred by the body at
random:..the same as for fragment missiles which..are not 'aimed.

..Exposure was the chief factor...aimed or directed fire does not
influence the manner in which hts are sustained...[Despite] evidence of
prodigious rifle fire ammunition expenditure per hit,..the comparison of
hits from bullets with those of fragments shows that the rifle bullet is
not actually better directed towards vulnerable parts of the body."

Further, during the ACR trials of the 1980s, soldiers were exposed to scenarios as much like combat conditions as possible. Soldiers fired at moving, partially exposed targets at unknown distances while being exposed to distractions such as artillery simulators, whistles and the like, and were given intermitted periods of exercise to simulate movement during combat.

Not surprisingly, the ability to engage targets effectively dropped to nearly nil, even for 'expert riflemen'.

The good news is that the increase of the use of suppressive fire has lead to a decrease in friendly casualties. Fire suppression works.

[RedLion]

I think the most important thing to remember is that in either case, long range or close range firepower, the enemy is as smart as you are and will try to negate your advantages and enhance their own. If you have long range capabilities, the enemy will sit and wait for you like the VC did in Vietnam. if you have close range capabilities the enemy will sit a long way off and engage you from distance like the Afghans in the soviet Afghan war.

[everallm]

The good news is that the increase of the use of suppressive fire has lead to a decrease in friendly casualties. Fire suppression works.

It has also led to an increase in Blue on Blue casualties and Blue on Civ deaths. There have been an ever increasing number of "friendly fire" (which aint) as this methodology leads to a mentality of "recce by firepower"

Oh and before we get the usual questions as to veracity, the attached are the results from a simple Google search.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jWGCubkdkMM3y8hTVh.R9oPKXkERQ
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/28/tillman-son-was-political-pawn/
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/display.var.2274757.0.added_security_after_friendly_fire_cd_leaked.php
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1192324038/HONORING-THE-FALLEN

Fire suppression does not work, EFFECTIVE fire suppression works but is generally and sadly lacking.

Unless the grunt on the ground has been trained to be effective, accurate and aimed the end result is the immediate escalation to massive overkill.

This may have been perfectly appropriate if we were still fighting the Cold War scenarios of the ravening "Red Horde" pouring through the Fulda Gap but is doomed to failure in the current urban warfare environments.

As has been seen with the current move in theater to the M14 and 50 cal sniper issuance, effective, aimed fire leads to greater effectiveness.

[Limeyfellow]

Actually, it was carrier based aviation that allowed the withdrawal to happen.

MacArthur was flat-out told that the only hope American troops had was for the weather to hold well enough to allow flight operations. If the weather closed in and flying was impossible, it was very likely that the Chinese would complete the encirclement of the American units.

My uncle was with an Army Signal Corps unit that was pulling back at the same time. He said the sweetest sound in the morning were the Corsairs coming in with rockets and Napalm to hit the Chinese on the hills alongside the route south.

That about describes it. My wife's uncle was in the Marines and was part of the fight and he admit claims that it was the aircraft support that allowed any of them to get out. Unfortantly he passed away this weekend, and he never did like to talk about it much, as such combat leaves many a man scarred.

[GunTech]

Again, more accurate weapons, or longer ranged ones, don't address issues of time and exposure of targets. You can't hit what you can't see, or what is obscured by cover.

And what was addressed generic infantry combat, which is quite different from counter insurgency operations where legitimate targets cannot be distinguished from civilians.

No weapon system is going to fix that problem.

Certainly, friendly fire casualties happen. But the cited stories in no way link the use of fire suppression with friendly fire.

The point in suppressive fire is to both render the enemies fire less effective, and to fix their location so that they can be engaged.

Hitchman's data was based on the evaluation of mass numbers of casualties and engagements, and further validated by reports collected during Vietnam, the Arab-Israeli was and other modern operations, as well as being confirmed during the ACR evaluations.

Aimed fire is a dearly held concept within the American shooting community that isn't borne out in actual combat, according to data collected. The SPIW, ACR and OICW programs were built around this very fact. The Army is not trying to build more accurate rifles. It is looking at systems that compensate for the failure of the man-rifle interface, starting with salvo fire and now looking at computer controlled airbursting ammunition.

BTW, the M-14 is an intrinsically less accurate system than the M16. US military acceptance standards for the M-14 was 5.5 inches at 100 yards - an many contract rifles could not meet this standard. DMR rifles are typically more accurate, but they cannot compete with the M-16 platform, which is why the latter rifle dominates service rifle competitions.

7.62x51 does have better range and barrier penetration, and all rifles benefit from the use of optical sights - probably the biggest upgrade to military small arms in the last 25 years. Typical engagement ranges in current CI operations are such that the extended range capabilities of 7.62x51 systems are not even necessary in the vast majority of actions.

Finally, it is illuminating to look at the ammunition usage stats for current ME operations. Vast numbers of rounds are being expended in relatively minor operations, with hit probabilities well under 1%. However Friendly casualties, while never welcome, remain quite low.

[For Freedom]

BTW, the M-14 is an intrinsically less accurate system than the M16. US military acceptance standards for the M-14 was 5.5 inches at 100 yards - an many contract rifles could not meet this standard. DMR rifles are typically more accurate, but they cannot compete with the M-16 platform, which is why the latter rifle dominates service rifle competitions.

"While a five shot group of 5.6 " at 100 yards may not seem terribly accurate, this includes
the inaccuracy of the M80 ball ammunition factored in. The Boston Ordnance District was
responsible for final acceptance of M14 rifles manufactured by Harrington & Richardson
and Winchester. By Fiscal Year 1962, it had conducted a study into the factory accuracy
testing rejection rate of M14 rifles. 2 The Boston Ordnance District discovered that the
M80 ball ammunition of itself had an average spread of 3.57 " at 100 yards within every
ninety rounds fired. Ammunition inconsistency aside, a rack grade M14 type rifle is
accurate for a battle rifle when properly assembled."

-Lee Emerson

[chieftain]

Again, more accurate weapons, or longer ranged ones, don't address issues of time and exposure of targets. You can't hit what you can't see, or what is obscured by cover.

Unless your weapon can penetrate that cover. Then you increase the exposure and time to hit the target. These are the types of "real combat" facts that these eggheads don't include in their studies.


And what was addressed generic infantry combat, which is quite different from counter insurgency operations where legitimate targets cannot be distinguished from civilians.

No weapon system is going to fix that problem.

Certainly, friendly fire casualties happen. But the cited stories in no way link the use of fire suppression with friendly fire.

Certainly don't. That is the problem. When your dogma is suppressive fire without the benefit of aimed fire, you shoot first not time taken to 'aim' to decide if you have a blue on blue situation. But because suppressive fire is about tactics, it is tactics that must reduce and attempt to limit blue on blue incidents. Aimed fire in fact reduces those type incidents. It's amazing what happens when your riflemen actually look at and ID the target.

Like the Marines in Fallujah, they start making a large number of head shots. Now I have a lot of combat experience, and I don't call that suppressive fire, that is aimed fire. For one example.


The point in suppressive fire is to both render the enemies fire less effective, and to fix their location so that they can be engaged.

Yup, it is one tactic of many available to the infantry commander.


Hitchman's data was based on the evaluation of mass numbers of casualties and engagements, and further validated by reports collected during Vietnam, the Arab-Israeli was and other modern operations, as well as being confirmed during the ACR evaluations.

And he made many wrong assessments and conclusions.


Aimed fire is a dearly held concept within the American shooting community that isn't borne out in actual combat, according to data collected. The SPIW, ACR and OICW programs were built around this very fact. The Army is not trying to build more accurate rifles. It is looking at systems that compensate for the failure of the man-rifle interface, starting with salvo fire and now looking at computer controlled airbursting ammunition.

BTW, the M-14 is an intrinsically less accurate system than the M16. US military acceptance standards for the M-14 was 5.5 inches at 100 yards - an many contract rifles could not meet this standard. DMR rifles are typically more accurate, but they cannot compete with the M-16 platform, which is why the latter rifle dominates service rifle competitions.

7.62x51 does have better range and barrier penetration, and all rifles benefit from the use of optical sights - probably the biggest upgrade to military small arms in the last 25 years. Typical engagement ranges in current CI operations are such that the extended range capabilities of 7.62x51 systems are not even necessary in the vast majority of actions.

Okay, I have let you ramble. Now your own statements defeat your argument. If aimed fire is so ineffective, and unnecessary, why is the use of "optics" brought about such a big improvement? If aiming the weapon is not important anymore, why do we need all our new fangled optics to be effective. BIG disconnect, wouldn't you say?????

OPTICS ARE PRIMARILY USED FOR AIMED FIRE

Go figure.


Finally, it is illuminating to look at the ammunition usage stats for current ME operations. Vast numbers of rounds are being expended in relatively minor operations, with hit probabilities well under 1%. However Friendly casualties, while never welcome, remain quite low.

The reduction of Friendly fire can be attributed to the 'INCREASE' of the use of aimed fire by our troops. Sheesh!

Finally it is funny how none of these examples seem to be able to transfer to the Afghanistan theater of operations. Where aimed fire is even more effective, not less.

Once more go figure.

Fred

[PercyShelley]

Indeed, isn't Afghanistan another one of those environments, like San Juan Hill and the South African veldt that tends to reward a modicum of long-range small arms use? In addition, all those mountains and crummy roads can't be friendly to getting artillery and air support in the right place on time.

[dogngun]

In WWII, the US Army was in transition-going from the bolt action to the auto loading rifle, just beginning to understand ground support aircraft and modern troop mobility and movement.
In Vietnam, it was learning air mobility, small combat unit movement, and ,still,
close air support. We Vietnam-era soldiers were taught in basic to fire accurately up to 300 meters using the then new M-16.
In basic, we never even got to fire it in full auto.

IMO, everyone, infantryman, clerk, mechanic, cook, should be a skilled rifleman-you never know when you might need the skill.
My God, the Marines got it right!

mark
(Former 504 PIR Sp4)

[Vern Humphrey]

Studies done by the US Army after WW2 found that high percentages of troops never fired their weapons in combat.
That was SLA Marshall's "study," published as "Men Against Fire." He did a followup in Korea.

It has since been proven that he made his data up out of whole cloth.

[rdoggsilva]

We drilled with and fired the M1 in boot in the Coast Guard in the 60's. When I was sent to Nam, I boarded junks carrying a Thompson or a 1911. Most of the time both. And I qualified expert with both M1 and 1911. Still glad I was taught aim fire.

[GunTech]

One should keep in mind that there will be exceptions to any general case, and that studies like Hitchman's are general extractions from the analysis of millions of casualties.

Chieftain, you make allusions to errors by Hitchman, and yet you provide no cites. Please quote specific errors in "Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon" and cites for refutations.

I've seen lots of on-line criticism of the Hitchman report, but have yet to see one single specific refutation where an 'error' was quoted, and contradictory data was provided.

Is there a role for aimed fire? Certainly, particularly in specific situations. Hitchman was addressing wholesale ground combat, and noting that statistically speaking the effectiveness of of so called 'precision marksmanship' was not a significant factor in infantry ground combat.

The fact of the matter is that small arms in generally account for less that 1% of casualties on a modern mechanized battlefield, and it is precisely for this reason that little or no effort has been placed on small arms development in the last 50 years aside from generic projects like ACR and OICW which are little more than test bed projects with no goal of actually replacing small arms in the current inventory in any immediate time frame.

Projects like Salvo, SPIW, ACR and OICW have all validated Hitchman in that weapons that addressed the realities of modern infantry combat do lead to an increase in hit probability by introducing systems with multiple projectiles, or high rates of fire combined with intentional nutation of projectiles. ACR did partly achieve the goals of increased hit probability per target engagement. It just failed to produce the 100% improvement the Army was interested in. This was not a result of improved accuracy, but rather by using systems that compensated for the inability of the infantryman to accurately engage point targets while under the stress of combat.

Unfortunately, too many people who have done nothing more than shoot at known distance ranges assume that scenario is valid in infantry combat. There certainly are situations where that occurs, but they are highly limited. Shooting at unknown distances at people who are shooting back at you, while moving, in difficult terrain, where both the shooter and target are utilizing terrain and concealment, is a very, very different matter.

[GunTech]

SLAMs 'studies' are probably a combination of collected and fabricated material, and several knowledgeable sources have supported his contention, while many continue to oppose then - exactly what makes 'Men against fire' controversial.

Regardless of the veracity of SLAM, the it was the catalyst for the Army's adoption of operant conditioning for small arms training, and careful follow ups of the change in training method show that over 95% of infantrymen in engagements in Vietnam fired their weapons.

[GunTech]

Okay, I have let you ramble. Now your own statements defeat your argument. If aimed fire is so ineffective, and unnecessary, why is the use of "optics" brought about such a big improvement? If aiming the weapon is not important anymore, why do we need all our new fangled optics to be effective. BIG disconnect, wouldn't you say?????

OPTICS ARE PRIMARILY USED FOR AIMED FIRE

The primary reason cited by soldiers for not firing quoted in Hichman is that they couldn't see anything - i.e. identify a target. Optical sights make it easier to identify target and reduce the complexity of 'pointing'.

In highly asymmetric engagements, like sniping, Hitchman obviously does not apply. He was addressing mass infantry combat.

[Vern Humphrey]

SLAMs 'studies' are probably a combination of collected and fabricated material, and several knowledgeable sources have supported his contention, while many continue to oppose then - exactly what makes 'Men against fire' controversial.
But doesn't make it accurate.

Regardless of the veracity of SLAM, the it was the catalyst for the Army's adoption of operant conditioning for small arms training, and careful follow ups of the change in training method show that over 95% of infantrymen in engagements in Vietnam fired their weapons.
Which is a refutation of Marshall's theories. Viet Nam should have been a war where few soldiers fired, if Marshall was right.

[GunTech]

As a final comment, I don't think that anyone is really arguing that we should discard aiming, only that the effectiveness of aimed fire is overstated. The Soviets certainly adopted the principle of volume of fire over precision marksmanship, and that is clearly embodied in the inherent accuracy of the AK.

US thinking is still very much linked to the idea of the single, long range rifleman dominating the battlefield - an ideal perpetuated since the war for independence. But any serious scholar will be aware that the effectiveness of rifleman in even that war was rather minimal, and America's important victories in that war were won with regulation muskets and European tactics.

In modern war, it is combined arms and logistics that wins, and small arms of all stripes ultimately have little or no impact on battles.

The infantryman will certainly have a different view on the importance of the rifle, however.

[GunTech]

Vern

My point with regard to Marshal and Vietnam is that Marshall's critiques cause the US Army to change it's training methodologies and to adopt operant conditioning as opposed to traditional known range target shooting, and if (this is a huge 'if') Marshalls numbers - only 1 in 5 men actually fired their weapons in combat - were correct, the change in training techniques had a huge impact. Given that Marshall's numbers are suspect, we can't know for sure. People like Grossman contend there is a natural reluctance among soldiers to shoot other people, and we know that operant conditioning can be used to make people do things that they are reluctant to do.

However, while very interesting, all of this has little or nothing to do with 'aimed fire'.

[Vern Humphrey]

The changes made based on Marshall's theories were in the wrong direction. For example, "Trainfire" had, as you said, soldiers shooting at unknown distances at pop-up targets. But with inadequate grounding in marksmanship -- so the standards were dramatically degraded. Nor was the training any more "realistic" than KD firing.

Another problem introduced by Marshall's bogus study was the emphasis on automatic fire. At Fort Polk in '67 and '68, when I was an AIT company commander, we actually "qualified" troops with full auto fire!!

As a rifle company commander, I had a devil of a time breaking troops of the spray-and-pray mindset and teaching them real combat shooting.

[1911 guy]

I have somewhat limited personal experience and haven't compiled data from years of study, so these are nothing more than personal observations.

I found that I seldom was able to identify anything/anyone past about four or five hundred yards. Unless they started shooting first, we never fired. The possibility of blue/blue casualties was high on our minds, as well as civilian casualties.

By the time someone with binoculars was able to make an I.D., targets at longer ranges were gone.

Volley fire works, but I'd personally define it as "everybody aim at the other guy, someone's bound to hit him", rather than mag dumps in the general direction.

Now a funny story, only because it happened on a simulator, not on a deployment. Movement was seen on the screen (FATS) and everybody opened up. We "killed" a bunch of nuns.

Not only can't you (sometimes) shoot what you can't see, there are times you aught not shoot. The modern battlefield isn't populated solely by combatants. Dead non-combatants makes for bad P.R. and over-compensation by those in charge, saddling you with even more insane requirements.

Sometimes we are the best marksmen in the conflict. Depends on who we're fighting. Somali street gangs? Yep. Trained, organized and equipped forces? Maybe not. I never saw a recovered AK that didn't have the sights cranked "all the way to 11". Seems they thought it made the bullet shoot harder/faster/whatever. Thankfully, I never had to trade shots with anyone even remotely trained. Bad luck, though, can be a S.O.B.

[chieftain]

One should keep in mind that there will be exceptions to any general case, and that studies like Hitchman's are general extractions from the analysis of millions of casualties.

SIGH! I am not talking about exceptions. In fact much of Hitchman's hypothesis and incorrect conclusion are due to his example being the exception.


Chieftain, you make allusions to errors by Hitchman, and yet you provide no cites. Please quote specific errors in "Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon" and cites for refutations.

I don't need cites for me to say he is wrong. Something like the experts stating that the Titanic is unsinkable. His conclusion is wrong.


I've seen lots of on-line criticism of the Hitchman report, but have yet to see one single specific refutation where an 'error' was quoted, and contradictory data was provided.

His conclusions are wrong. The believe me, the Titanic can sink.


Is there a role for aimed fire? Certainly, particularly in specific situations. Hitchman was addressing wholesale ground combat, and noting that statistically speaking the effectiveness of of so called 'precision marksmanship' was not a significant factor in infantry ground combat.

When was the last time we had Wholesale ground combat? World War II. Of course in your first paragraph you correctly state that there are exceptions. Where has there has been wholesale ground combat in the last 50 years involving US troops? The last time was in Korea, The Chinese Thanksgiving offensive of 1950 which included the Corps Chosin fight.

This yahoo, Hitchman is trying to justify why we shouldn't have used aimed fire in major mechanized battles of WW II. And a few scattered others since. THEY ARE IN FACT THE EXCEPTION!


The fact of the matter is that small arms in generally account for less that 1% of casualties on a modern mechanized battlefield, and it is precisely for this reason that little or no effort has been placed on small arms development in the last 50 years aside from generic projects like ACR and OICW which are little more than test bed projects with no goal of actually replacing small arms in the current inventory in any immediate time frame.

The numbers are simply untrue. Weapons other than small arms do deliver and inflict the most casualties. But those numbers are in the 88-90% (10-12% small arms) range, not 99%/1%. If you want the cite look it up. I ain't your secretary. Frankly in some modern conflicts it has run as high as 20%.


Projects like Salvo, SPIW, ACR and OICW have all validated Hitchman in that weapons that addressed the realities of modern infantry combat do lead to an increase in hit probability by introducing systems with multiple projectiles, or high rates of fire combined with intentional nutation of projectiles. ACR did partly achieve the goals of increased hit probability per target engagement. It just failed to produce the 100% improvement the Army was interested in. This was not a result of improved accuracy, but rather by using systems that compensated for the inability of the infantryman to accurately engage point targets while under the stress of combat.

The projects you cite, used Hitchman's incorrect conclusions to justify their ridiculous costs. It was rationalizations, not substantiation.


Unfortunately, too many people who have done nothing more than shoot at known distance ranges assume that scenario is valid in infantry combat. There certainly are situations where that occurs, but they are highly limited. Shooting at unknown distances at people who are shooting back at you, while moving, in difficult terrain, where both the shooter and target are utilizing terrain and concealment, is a very, very different matter.

I have certainly shot a lot of known range courses. I also have substantial combat experience. So just what is your point with this last statement?

If aimed fire is not effective, according to Hitchman and apparently you, why are we finding our guys so effective with the new combat optics, lasers, RedDots..etc?????

Why, because aimed fire does work. It will not create the large number of casualties that crew served and heavy weapons can accomplish. It will get a few more of our guys home alive, and hurry some T's to their meeting with 72 virgins at last count.

I know the damage these modern machines of war can deliver and inflict. I was a FAC. I was instrumental in the delivery of some of the most devastating conventional weapons in our arsenal at our time.

There aren't many Americans alive today that have ever been on the receiving end of a heavy and continuous heavy artillery bombardment. Not over hours, days, or weeks, a couple months. I am one of them.

I still believe in Aimed small arm's fire. I don't know many guys that have been in infantry ground combat that don't. Of course you have Hitchman and his conclusions.

Go figure.

Fred

[telomerase]

I'm sure all the SWORD robots are trained in aimed fire. Of course their successors will be aiming at us, but you can bet they will aim.

[M1911]

The point is, that the AKM guys would never live to get 75 yd. away.That all depends upon the terrain, weather and time of day.

I have shot 600 yard matches with iron sights. Yes, I can hit the 10 ring at 600 yards.

Of course, when I did it I was prone. With a national match sling. The grass was short enough that it didn't block my field of vision. And the target wasn't moving. The target was a high-contrast black-on-white bull. And I had a spotting scope. Someone in the butts was pulling my target and marking my hits. While I was using an AR15, my AR15 had a bull barrel, match-grade 4 1/2 lb, two-stage trigger, and match sights. It was in the middle of the day. I had plenty of sleep the night before. I was using Federal Gold Match 69 gr rounds, loaded one at a time through the ejection port. And no one was shooting at me.

I strongly suspect that hitting a soldier wearing camo at 600 yards with an M4 off the rack, after no sleep, at twilight, when they are moving, rounds are flying around me, I can't go prone because then the long grass would be in the way, etc, would be an entirely different ballgame.

[GunTech]

I don't need cites for me to say he is wrong. Something like the experts stating that the Titanic is unsinkable. His conclusion is wrong.

Sigh. One can't argue facts vs. opinions and gain anything useful. I've been an infantry officer myself and have my own opinion. Opinion without substantiating material is basically a 'religious' argument.

When someone says another person is wrong, but can't say specifically what it was that the said is wrong, or why, there is not point furthering the discussion.

Have you actually read Hitchman? Even the excerpts available in "The great rifle controversy", "The Black Rifle", "US rifle M-14", "SPIW", etc.

One the one hand, we have your opinion, backed up by no objective data or cites whatsoever. On the other hand we have we have Hitchman with his 3 million casualties worth of data, The Hall study, ALCLAD, SALVO, SPIW and ACR all confirming each other, and available for cite.

BTW, the point of crew served weapons is well made. They are far more deadly than rifle fire, and yet they tend to be directed - rather than aimed. According to the aimed fire theory, rifles should be far more effective, but it turns out that crew served weapons are far more effective in producing casualties - a fact identified by every major army.

[GunTech]

Vern

'Spray and pray' is something of an erroneous and pejorative term, and certainly not what was being promulgated by the proponents of Hitchman and having nothing to do with operant conditioning.

Operant conditioning was about developing combat reflexes - to shoot at a threat immediately - one that looked like a human shape, rather than to shoot at a bullseye target at known ranges, and then go into combat where the situation was completely unlike the firing range.

The conclusions draw from Hitchman relate to the concept of firing a swarm of missiles at a target to compensate for aiming errors on the part of the soldier, not pouring massed and random fore in no particular direction.

Development took two tracts. One was the submunition swarm, such as the shotgun firing flechettes or other improved projectiles to extend range to cover the typical combat envelope. The expanding cone of submunitions would compensate for aiming errors on the part of the soldier.

The second track was the serial rifle, where the infantry weapon would fire a short, high rate of fire burst with each projectile having a slightly divergent path (nutation) which would duplicate the 'swarm' concept.

Both concepts worked, but both have their limitations. The British experience in Malaysia validated the shotgun approach, as hits increased in the typical contact and ambush fighting with the introduction of semi-automatic shotguns. However, with the ammunition of the time, range was severely limited.

The serial projectile rifle also demonstrated increased effectiveness. Duplex ammo alone (where 2 bullets were fired from the same case) showed an increased hit probability of 67% over conventional ammunition over the simulated combat conditions of both SALVO and ACR. The G11, with its 2000 rpm burs showed similar improvements. Unfortunately, none met the Army's 100% improvement in hit probability criteria.

Focus now is one so called smart ammunition - computer controlled airbursting fragmentation ammo. The burst radius of the ammunition will compensate for aiming errors, as well as allow the engagement of targets that are protected from convention linear fire by terrain or structures.

You can hit a man behind a wall or in a DFP with a rifle, but you might be able to do with an airbursting munition.

[HorseSoldier]

It has also led to an increase in Blue on Blue casualties and Blue on Civ deaths. There have been an ever increasing number of "friendly fire" (which aint) as this methodology leads to a mentality of "recce by firepower"

Oh and before we get the usual questions as to veracity, the attached are the results from a simple Google search.

The links you provide don't actually prove there's been an increase in Own Goals/Blue on Blue/etc. And one of the links is about a misdirected air strike on an British AFV, which is not suppressive fire in a classical sense. Four anecdotes do not statistics make.

[HorseSoldier]

Unless your weapon can penetrate that cover. Then you increase the exposure and time to hit the target. These are the types of "real combat" facts that these eggheads don't include in their studies.

No you don't. Criticizing "spray and pray" with one breath and then praising blindly blasting rounds through walls that bad guys may or may not be behind in the next is . . . well, poorly conceived.

And he made many wrong assessments and conclusions.

No, he didn't. His findings are just about spot on for how combat shooting actually occurs. And his findings have driven just about all the advancements in training (pop-up/variable exposure ranges, for instance) and advancements in technology (optics like the ACOG and AimPoint, as well as faster handling, flatter shooting weapons and cartridges). It's hard to see how he can credibly be considered to have been wrong when all the fixes since his report have been driven by his findings.

OPTICS ARE PRIMARILY USED FOR AIMED FIRE

Actually, magnified optics are primarily used for target ID/discrimination in the real world. The format of the marines' RCO is actually not optimized for aimed fire at all. It was deliberately selected because, at typical real world combat ranges, it's reticle replicates a red dot sight for fast, poorly aimed shooting.

The reduction of Friendly fire can be attributed to the 'INCREASE' of the use of aimed fire by our troops. Sheesh!

Nope. Reduction in small arms Blue on Blue stems from positive ID of targets before engaging with either deliberate aimed fire or fully automatic suppressive fire.

Finally it is funny how none of these examples seem to be able to transfer to the Afghanistan theater of operations. Where aimed fire is even more effective, not less.

Successful engagement ranges in Afghanistan and Iraq are actually about the same.

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern

'Spray and pray' is something of an erroneous and pejorative term, and certainly not what was being promulgated by the proponents of Hitchman and having nothing to do with operant conditioning.

Operant conditioning was about developing combat reflexes - to shoot at a threat immediately - one that looked like a human shape, rather than to shoot at a bullseye target at known ranges, and then go into combat where the situation was completely unlike the firing range.

I'm well aware of all that -- but teaching "shooting immediately" without teaching troops to shoot and hit first is a mistake. Adding full auto capability to the weapon (as was the case with the M16A1) was a worse mistake.

[HorseSoldier]

Nor was the training any more "realistic" than KD firing.


I'm not sure I understand this claim. The current generation pop up ranges have their issues, but I don't see how randomly appearing targets with limited target exposure times and varying in range out to 300 are not a more realistic training event than working a lane on the KD range. The KD range (or any other flat range shooting on paper) has utility for teaching marksmanship fundamentals, but the pop up ranges build muscle memory for scanning and quick shots at elusive and fleeting targets.

[Vern Humphrey]

I'm not sure I understand this claim. The current generation pop up ranges have their issues, but I don't see how randomly appearing targets with limited target exposure times and varying in range out to 300 are not a more realistic training event than working a lane on the KD range.

For two reasons:

1. Combat does not consist of staying in a hole and watching dirt gouges on the ground where a pop-up (but stationary) target is bound to appear.

2. The basic shooting skills are not developed before using the pop-ups. Remember, practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. Our system often reinforces bad shooting habits.

[HorseSoldier]

1. Combat does not consist of staying in a hole and watching dirt gouges on the ground where a pop-up (but stationary) target is bound to appear.

Some combat does -- the course of fire most of the time I've been in was half from a fighting position and half from the prone unsupported. While the format does kind of resemble a game of whack-a-mole with bullets, it teaches scanning and keeping eyes moving.

It would be much more preferable if the targets could appear most anywhere, if they appeared and then followed an approximate path using cover and concealment, etc . . . but today we augment the pop up range with computerized simulators like the EST that allow individual and fire team/squad level training against targets that move and act more realistically than pop ups.

Add in force on force with simunitions (better than MILES since sims add pain and better condition doing the right thing) and we're probably doing a better job of preparing guys to go in harms way today than we ever have in the history of the US military.

2. The basic shooting skills are not developed before using the pop-ups. Remember, practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. Our system often reinforces bad shooting habits.

I was a pretty experienced shooter by the time I went through basic training, but I felt like the BRM we got did a pretty good job of building basic skills before we hit the qual range and started dealing with pop ups. But, I don't claim to know how what we got in the early 90s differed from what we being done in the late 60s as far as marksmanship training. I assume some kind of improvements had been made along the way. We definitely got almost zero training on auto fire (well, burst fire) beyond a mag or two of fam fire on a 25 meter range.

[charadam]

I hesitate before throwing in my two penn'orth.

From WW1 footage we have all gained an impression of the carnage resulting from going "over the top" in the face of fixed-line machine guns and aimed fire by massed rifles.

But many still got through and many objectives were taken despite the volume of enemy fire.

I am going to express this badly, but anyway - take a block of sky, say 1/4 of a mile on a side, and simultaneously fire a million .3" projectiles into it, the projectiles "cover" 10.5 million square inches. The area of the target is 250 million square inches.

The hit probability is therefore pretty low, given that the area of the human body is of the order of 1000 square inches.