Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer: A critique.

[Jaws]

THe 5.56x45mm was not the result of serious testing and research to find a good intermediate assault rifle cartridge.
5.56x45mm is no intermediate cartridge. It wasn't designed to be one. It's the millitary version of a varmint cartridge.
The 5.56mm M16 was intended to be a replacement for the carbine. Basically a PDW.
McNamara shoved them down people's throat as main rifle and main cartridge.
It was just another bad decision in a long history of bad decisions. 7.62x51mm was a mistake, and 5.56 was another mistake. Had they adopted the .276 or .280 british, the 5.56mm would have never happened.

Nobody that did research to find a good intermediate cartridge, found a 3-3.5gram bullet of 5-6mm diameter to be great assault rifle cartridge. Regardless of speed.
Everyone that ever did that kind of testing and research, came to the same conclusion: 110-135grain bullets between 6.5mm-7mm being shot at 2500-2700 feet per second. That's where all people that do their homework come to, when they look for assault rifle cartridges.

McNamara shoved the 5.56mm/ar15combo down peoples throats, and the army is stuck with the little cartrige, little mag and little rifle that shoots it. All this 7.62x51mm rifles popping up allover the place are a direct result of the shortcomings of the combo.

Every new cartridge that atempts to fix the problem has to be compatible with the little mag made for 5.56mm AR15. That's why there's no progress. The army ,and now NATO are slaves to the smallest cartridge and the smallest rifle that can shoot it. You need a clean sheet aproach to come to something usable. And if you do your homework right, you can have your cake and eat it too. You can have a single cartridge for both rifles and machine guns, without the need for scores of different rifles and machine guns in both cartridges.

Everyone keeps saying "it costs too much to change". That's BS. You can say that if your entire budget was 5 billions or somnething, but look at the money DOD is wasting every year. Over 500 bilions every year lately!
In the last two years alone, US DOD gave the Afghani army alone about 20 billion. Max two billions could have changed all the rifles, cartridge end everything for all US troops. There's so much waste that never does nothing good in DOD that saying there's no money for a cartridge and rifle its embarasing.

Now even LSAT was defunded.. that was the last chance to fix the problem. But they have money to buy thousands of I-pads for the airforce and 7 thousand a piece snipere rifles for Afghanis that may shoot you in the back with them.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Your alternative scenario is actually true. Afghanistan IS a much different combat environment than Iraq, Korea, France, or Guadalcanal.

The other factor in infantry weapons and training that's overlooked here is the effect of elevation differences on shooting. The Army does not currently have effective training at the light infantry team and squad levels for shooting accurately over large elevation differences.

 

[pikid89]

I think regardless of what the AVERAGE range of engagements is not as important as the fact that most of the US ground troops have lost or never learned the skills needed to effectivley engage man size targets at 3-500 yards, with out special equipment. The fact that an Army infantryman only has to score a 125 on the aqt is evidence of this as those 125 points can be scored without a single hit on the 400 yard stage and only a few hits on the 300
This is why programs like Project Appleseed are critical to bringing the US back to its tradition of being a Nation of Riflemen.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I've never been in the infantry or marines, so take my comments as coming from an amateur.... but, certainly in a theater like Afghanistan they absolutely need a few men in each unit with M14's or something similar. And screw the optics! A good rifleman can easily hit a target at 400 or 500 meters with iron sights - and at close range with those same sights.

 

[Robert101]

I don't own a .223 as it is too weak for my non-military needs. My "amateur" non-military battle rifle is a 7.62X51MM (308 Winchester) -Please, no comments on how these 30 cals are different. I now have the luxury of making my own decisions.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

And screw the optics! A good rifleman can easily hit a target at 400 or 500 meters with iron sights - and at close range with those same sights.

As someone who shot Expert at every range prior to the one where I finally acknowledged that I needed glasses, I can say that you have better eyesight than I do if you believe this.

Can you ID a target at 500 yards without optics? What if it's, like, war, and people are, like, hiding behind cover and stuff?

If given the choice, I'll take optics every time.

 

[C-grunt]

I've never been in the infantry or marines, so take my comments as coming from an amateur.... but, certainly in a theater like Afghanistan they absolutely need a few men in each unit with M14's or something similar. And screw the optics! A good rifleman can easily hit a target at 400 or 500 meters with iron sights - and at close range with those same sights.

Good luck finding someone who is wearing drab clothing hiding among some vegetation on the side of a mountain with no optics.

 

[HorseSoldier]

So? Maj. Ehrhart has access to non-open source data that you don't, as well as personal connections in-country. You simply don't have the standing to contradict his assertions.

So what is he doing posting non-open source material and/or lessons learned from it in an open source?

Yes, but are you really arguing that a man with a full power rifle and a magnified optic will be as fast to engage the enemy or get multiple hits as one armed with a full auto, low recoil weapon with a 1X optic?

Put them both on a clock and see who makes the hits faster at 0-300. There's a reason that 7.62x51 rifles aren't competitive in Three Gun except in their own special category.

Not only that, but put the shooters on a clock replicating a 30 or 60 minute firefight and see how many of the 7.62x51 guys are black on ammo before the threat is eliminated.

Seems our buddies the British have noticed that they are being shot at from ranges that the 1950’s ideologues at ORO considered impossible:

Shot at or just plain shot. This infantry half klick silliness isn't a discovery that we're losing gun fights at 500. It's that we're getting largely nuisance engagements at ranges where the bad guys can be reasonably sure they can escape at the expense of much hope of reliably causing casualties. All of which is probably related to the fact that we don't let people in theater use indirect effectively to eliminate threats that were its bread and butter in every other conflict in the last 100 years.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KodiakBeer
I've never been in the infantry or marines, so take my comments as coming from an amateur.... but, certainly in a theater like Afghanistan they absolutely need a few men in each unit with M14's or something similar. And screw the optics! A good rifleman can easily hit a target at 400 or 500 meters with iron sights - and at close range with those same sights.

Good luck finding someone who is wearing drab clothing hiding among some vegetation on the side of a mountain with no optics.

Amen!

One thing I learned early in the game is that in combat, people tend to hide! Optics in combat serve the same use they do in hunting -- providing you with the ability to poke a bullet through a hole in the brush, or some similar obscuring or protecting barrier.

You almost never see the enemy out in the open. You often see flashes, dust, and similar signs that the enemy is "somewhere over there." With good optics, you can see and hit.

 

[Pindarslight]

^^^^ I agree, a lot of engagements happen where target is rough at best, Taliban has done this before they know how to handle large scale forces.

In my experience with troops that come from there is typical hit and run and or large scale ambush with more then 20 enemy. Afgahn is primarily rural and mountainous prime terrority for complex attacks using anti air and tank weapons on ground forces.

Our hands are tied due to international image..look at Israel as an example. With 24 hr media coverage it's hard to do anything secretly..which is bull<deleted>. I think we need to A) kickass then rebuild...or B) mind our own business and for once take care of ourselves it's not like anyone truly cares what we say till we pull the trigger...

 

[KodiakBeer]

Can you ID a target at 500 yards without optics? What if it's, like, war, and people are, like, hiding behind cover and stuff?

Somebody has optics. Your scope isn't to find the target, it's to shoot the target. It's been pointed out many times in this thread that most engagements are not happening at long range, so why completely blind yourself for the common close range engagements when you can still engage the occasional long range target with iron sights?

Again, I'm an amateur, but I regularly plink rocks, etc, at long range with my FAL. It's easy. And I'm a hunter that spots game at long range in much more brushy country than Afghanistan. My hunting rifle is scoped (1x5), but if I was trudging around in country where somebody might suddenly start shooting at me from close range, I'd remove that scope and throw it as far as I could.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I think we need to A) kickass then rebuild...or B) mind our own business and for once take care of ourselves it's not like anyone truly cares what we say till we pull the trigger...

You bring up a good point. As Clauswitz said, "War is politics carried on by other means."

What he meant is that wars are not fought for their own sake -- they are fought so the victor can control what happens after the war. And that means that before we go to war, we have to understand our aim is to completely defeat the enemy -- and then to stay in control until things are just the way we want them.

That means all-out fighting followed by a long occupation -- but people who look at the world through rose-colored glasses refuse to understand that.

 

[Chindo18Z]

...or the conditions in Afghanistan are radically different from every other place the Army and Marines have fought in the 20th century.

No, they are not. There is a lot of open country, but anyone familiar with Utah or Southern Colorado would be instantly at home. For that matter, there is just as much open country in Central/Northern Germany, Kansas, Korea, West Texas, or Iraq as you will find in Afghanistan.

I've served all over Afghanistan, all over Iraq, most of Europe (including the Alps), various locations in Africa, in the Arabian Peninsula, SW Asia, the Balkans, Central America, Korea, Japan, and the Caribbean. I've trained for or seen combat in various mountainous, desert, jungle, woodland, arctic, savannah, steppe, veldt, farmland, swamp, riverine, surf zone, and prairie environments.

In comparison, I never noticed anything unique about Afghanistan's terrain while I was there.

Afghanistan's terrain varies from lush river valleys to flat sandy deserts to rolling hill country to irrigated dike farmlands to high Dry Sierras / forested Rockies type environs. Urban terrain is urban terrain wherever you find it.

Suppress the enemy's crew served with yours...then take careful aimed shots with a base of fire aimed at fleeting targets...and wait for your own heavy fires to put the smack on the other guy while you maneuver. Nothing new here.

From an Infantryman's perspective...a hill fight is a hill fight...and most damage is done with supporting arms...as has always been done. Machine guns, mortars, rockets, artillery, sniper weapons, and CAS do the work. Everyone claims they want the ability to engage at 500+ meters with rifles while conveniently ignoring the fact that:

1) In properly trained hands (with today's optics), a rifleman already has that technical capability in terms of range/accuracy with an M16/M4/M4A1 and 5.56. The same round out of a SAW is considered good to go well beyond 500.

2) Very few folks (on any side) can hit the broad side of a barn past 300 meters with any standard service rifle, regardless of caliber, while under fire. An ACOG equipped 5.56 rifleman who can't hit at 500 meters...can't hit with 6.8 or 7.62 either. It's about training...not ballistics.

3) The Afghan enemy are (for the most part) atrociously poor riflemen (much worse than our guys). The casualties they inflict at distance come from their heavy weapons (although anyone can catch a random "to whom it may concern" rifle bullet).

4) Damn few Soldiers or Marines effectively tagged anyone with precision aimed .30-06 rifle fire past 250 yards during WWII or Korea. Hitting a running target at 150 yards with a rifle was considered to be a good day's work in 1944...and in 1953.


Does anyone really think that Taliban forces are wringing out 500+ yard effective fire from AKs? (That's a rhetorical question). Effective rifle Fire and Maneuver distances are the same as they have always been... 300 meters or less. Our guys simply get more hits at 100-400 these days because of superior optics and better training in comparison to our foes.

What the good Major was alluding to when describing average engagements of 500 meters or more was the fact that this is the distance that the enemy begins hosing ineffective rifle rounds at approaching Americans...and usually preparatory to withdrawing. The effective fight is finished at much closer ranges where rifles are involved...because we maneuver and utilize supporting fires to allow closure on the objective. Effective enemy fire is usually initiated with IEDs, mines, RPGs, or indirect fire, supported by machine guns. AK fire mainly provides background noise.

Most Taliban are NOT delivering precision fire with .303 or 7.62x54R rifles. The vast majority (98%) are humping ratty looking AKs (some without shoulder stocks), PKMs, and RPGs.

Good shots can hit at 500 meters. Average marksmen rarely do. Poorly trained shooters just put random lead in the air at that range.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I was trudging around in country where somebody might suddenly start shooting at me from close range, I'd remove that scope and throw it as far as I could.

Why? What advantage would that give you?

I've been in combat in thick jungle. I've hunted deer in similar conditions. I've never found a scope to be a disadvantage.

 

[Pindarslight]

1+

Chindo I agree..

 

[X-Rap]

Chindo18Z
Right on, I am trying to understand if the infantry ever owned the 500 meter with a battle rifle that didn't have some optics.
I think the rifleman is better equipped and trained today than at any time so I'm betting those little 5.56 are hitting their targets with some regularity.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Why? What advantage would that give you?

It wouldn't leave me without sights at close range. I have been there and done that in a very different venue, and I will never put myself in that situation again.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Most modern magnified combat optics also work with 1x non-magnified optics or iron sights. No need to throw away your long range advantage.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Most modern magnified combat optics also work with 1x non-magnified optics or iron sights. No need to throw away your long range advantage

I'd be fine with that.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It wouldn't leave me without sights at close range. I have been there and done that in a very different venue, and I will never put myself in that situation again.

How would having a scope leave you without sights? I've shot both men and deer with scope sights, at ranges of around 15 yards or so, and found the scope to be no disadvantage at all.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Try finding a moving target in brush at close range with magnification. Try the same shot with iron sights. One method is faster than the other.

If scopes were just as fast, we'd hunt rabbits with scoped rifles and shotguns. Heck, we'd just scope our carry pistols...

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Heck, we'd just scope our carry pistols...

We're starting to. Google Trijicon RMR. Optics are faster. The RMR can also be attached to the top of an ACOG to give the shooter magnified and non-magnified capabilities. I've used this setup in Afghanistan and it works wonders.

 

[d2wing]

I agree with Chindo. X-rap. When I was in we had to shoot out to 600meters to qualify, we had the quick kill training, and assault training. Those were on the M- 14 days when we were all expected to be competent riflemen. I do not think training as riflemen is near as good now as back then from what recent vets tell me. On the other hand maybe today's training and equipment is more realistic.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Try finding a moving target in brush at close range with magnification. Try the same shot with iron sights. One method is faster than the other

I have, many a time.

And while I usually use a shotgun for rabbits, I often take them with a Kimber M82 with a 4X scope. The same rifle is my squirrel rifle, and I've shot many a squirrel at very short range with it, often moving.

 

[KodiakBeer]

We're starting to. Google Trijicon RMR. Optics are faster.

I have no issue with red dots and so on. I'm only talking about magnification here, in a more traditional scope. My specific problem comes from hunting where I do. I used to use typical 3x9 scopes, but when a bear jumps up at close range you're freaking blind! And they tend to do that - they lay there in the brush until you get within "their" space and then jump up and make a display. I solved that by going to a 1x5 scope with a post reticle which is kept on 1x until I want to pot a deer at long range.

I'd be just as happy with decent iron sights, in most situations.

My original comment was in thinking more about an M14 sniper package, rather than something with both short and long range capabilities. But even with a sniper package, a good detachable mount would allow you to throw the glass on when you wanted it and remove it when moving in cover.