Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer

[Old Time Hunter]

Hey Shirley, I will stand corrected from the perspective of not being able to find documentation pertaining to your "urban" legend in regards to 2 to help one. It does say in the Dr.Odell investigation that which I said earlier, due to the severity of the wounds entailed, there is greater need of assistance (surprisingly, because of our adherence to the Haag Conventions, most of the treating of wounded enemy combatants actually fell to our medical treatment...even back in Nam). Now, that all being said, talked with two of my ex-platoon buddies after your dillatory comment and both came back to our CO fielding complaints about the M16A1 with the collateral benefits due to wounding in the firing zone taking more belligerents out of the fire fight. They heard it, and I know I heard it, and our CO wasn't bright enough to make it up all on his lonesome...so it had to come from somewhere.

This I did see, even after the M16A1 deployment (I do not care what anyone else says, some of that ball ammo was still in the field):

We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19, Believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own rifle. Practically every one of our dead was found with his [M16] torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it.
- Marine Corps Rifleman, Vietnam

This statement came from the Congressional investigation into the M16 and .223 ammo.

 

[mljdeckard]

These problems were caused by the army, NOT Stoner, which have since been rectified.

 

[Hatterasguy]

So I'm sitting on a ridge in Afghanistan. I'm scanning down in the valley and I see movement. I look through the glasses and I can barely distinguish three men with AK pattern rifles. Wow. Dang. If only I had a rifle that cou........wait. Radio. "Hi. Is this the mortar platoon?"

At least they can't shoot back at you.

 

[d2wing]

Thanks unit91. I really need to get my temper under control. My fingers are way faster than my judgement sometimes.

 

[Mr. T]

With all the talk here I haven't heard anyone talk about the multi-caliber capable rifles that are being developed, which allow the average soldier to switch from 5.56 to 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, or even 7.62 NATO. This type of rifle would, IMHO address the mission specific issues that are going on in this post. Personally I think the 5.56 round is adequate -- adequate, not ideal in all scenarios. The biggest problem as I see it is the overall load the average soldier is asked to hump into the field. The 5.56 round seems to allow the troops to carry more gear and yet still provide them with the necessary capacity to deliver fire superiority in most cases. The 5.56 is a lethal round...look at the body counts our guys are racking up in both theatres. The lack of recoil allows a wider range of soldiers to be more accurate than they would be with say 7.62. You have to remember that not all of our troops are farm boys or grew up hunting; many of them are from inner cities where guns are "evil" things to be avoided; many of them have their first experience with firearms in the military, thus the 5.56 with its mild recoil makes their transition into the firearms world a more manageable one. SDM's can fill the bill for more lethality when called upon to do so, so that the average troop can still be served well by the 5.56 NATO round. At least that's the way I see it.

 

[Averageman]

I just came back from a year in Iraq as a contractor. I'm military retired and at age 48, I can honestly tell you I don't have any idea how anyone can move with the gear they are required to currently carry.
Just the K-Pot and Flak jacket alone will slow you down to the point where any heavier gear would be too much. Any change to 7.62 would be as far as I can see impossible just on the added weight alone.
It would be my guess that changes in current vests would have to be made in order to lighten the load enough to sustain a caliber change. Perhaps advances on both sides need to be made?
I remember reading a book by S.L.A. Marshall about the weight of a Soldiers gear some years ago. If I remember correctly I think 45 was about optimum and 70 was more the norm.
I spent all of my time in Service in Combat Arms, getting anyone to try anything new was nearly impossible. As a small arms instructor I reccomended we create an event similar to a Biathalon to train more realistically for combat shooting. A race from range to range with weapons and gear, stopping at various small arms ranges along the way to engage targets.....You would have thought I suggested that we all go home and slap Grandma.
So like it or not I don't see 5.56 going away anytime soon.

 

[Mr. T]

Averageman -- how much does the current body armor weigh? I would be interested in seeing how much the gear weighed for troops in Viet Nam, Korea, WWII versus the troops today. It sure looks like the guys today are humping a lot more stuff.

 

[mljdeckard]

Mr T-

Remember, that just because a rifle system has multiple caliber or barrel options, the vast majority of the soldiers won't ever switch. They will use it as issued and never change it.

I have an interceptor vest with plates, and I don't have a scale to weigh it on, but yeah, it's a chunk. This is why we have seen more gear become modular, so that soldiers can take or leave what they need to for the mission, rather than just throwing everything in the ruck. My job is entirely vehicle borne, I can keep the gear I need on me and leave a bug-out bag in the hummer to grab if I need it.

 

[twofifty]

At least they can't shoot back at you.

With AKs, the 3 guys being mortared down in the valley might also be our ANA allies, you know, the Afghanis that we trained to fight with us.... Oooops, sorry...oh well. Next.

 

[twofifty]

I just came back from a year in Iraq as a contractor. I'm military retired and at age 48, I can honestly tell you I don't have any idea how anyone can move with the gear they are required to currently carry.
Just the K-Pot and Flak jacket alone will slow you down to the point where any heavier gear would be too much. Any change to 7.62 would be as far as I can see impossible just on the added weight alone.
It would be my guess that changes in current vests would have to be made in order to lighten the load enough to sustain a caliber change. Perhaps advances on both sides need to be made?
I remember reading a book by S.L.A. Marshall about the weight of a Soldiers gear some years ago. If I remember correctly I think 45 was about optimum and 70 was more the norm.
I spent all of my time in Service in Combat Arms, getting anyone to try anything new was nearly impossible. As a small arms instructor I reccomended we create an event similar to a Biathalon to train more realistically for combat shooting. A race from range to range with weapons and gear, stopping at various small arms ranges along the way to engage targets.....You would have thought I suggested that we all go home and slap Grandma.
So like it or not I don't see 5.56 going away anytime soon.

Biathlon-like training. I like it.

Too bad the Army smothers imaginative proactive thinkers who don't want to fight or train for today's war with the last war's tactics. Thing is that it is our kids who are paying the ultimate price while the brass further their careers and pensions.

 

[C-grunt]

Averageman -- how much does the current body armor weigh? I would be interested in seeing how much the gear weighed for troops in Viet Nam, Korea, WWII versus the troops today. It sure looks like the guys today are humping a lot more stuff.

When we deployed in 2003 for the invasion I was a SAW gunner. With my gun, vest, ammo and other tidbits my carry around gear, not including ruck, was just under 100 pounds. I carried 900 rounds of linked 5.56 and shot a grand total of, I believe, 76 rounds the whole tour. LOL

We had Tanks and Brads, we didnt use our personal weapons that much.

 

[Old Time Hunter]

When we deployed in 2003 for the invasion I was a SAW gunner. With my gun, vest, ammo and other tidbits my carry around gear, not including ruck, was just under 100 pounds. I carried 900 rounds of linked 5.56 and shot a grand total of, I believe, 76 rounds the whole tour. LOL

We had Tanks and Brads, we didnt use our personal weapons that much.

The Major alluded to the small percentage of combat troops actually engaging in an actual fire fight, I wonder if that has changed at all. C-grunt, from your post, it appears not much has changed.

By the way, the flak jackets back in my day were useless against direct small weapon fire in general and the 7.62 X 54R especially, is the new body armor more effective?

After reading the entire "paper" by the Major, he does bring up good points:

1. It seems the enemy belligerents engage from high ground, predominately
2. They maintain a fluid engagement of movement.
3. The terrain they engage from does not allow support or indirect fire from us.
4. The general combat training of our troops does not include longer distance situational engagements.
5. In general the 5.56 is marginal at best at current engagement distances, but with training and modification it can be.

Some of this does make sense in that our primary strategy is to engage in 'closer' quarters, bringing the fight to 'our' sweet spot so to speak. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Averageman]

Mr. T, I never took the time to actually weight the Vest and K-Pot I was issued at Ali Al-Saleem to take in country with me. I had an older heavier version of the Vest. It may have been issued to our troops 2 to 4 years ago. The weight of both I would assume to be between 50 and 60 pounds together.
It in my opinion that it made you too heavy to be fast to react. I don't consider myself an expert on body armor; but I know when I have too much gear on. It is one thing to be able to sustain a hit from a rifle caliber bullet; it is another to know that I will likely sustain another before I can move to cover because my gear is slowing me down.
Biathalon like training always made sense to me. It is one thing to lay in the grass prone and relaxed with controlled breathing and punch nice holes in paper. When your heart rate is racing from the last half mile you sprinted, you load two magazine, choose your firing position and fire at pop-up targets and speed and accuracy are what count, well thats another. You tell me what more realisticlly trains Soldiers.

After reading the entire "paper" by the Major, he does bring up good points:

1. It seems the enemy belligerents engage from high ground, predominately
2. They maintain a fluid engagement of movement.
3. The terrain they engage from does not allow support or indirect fire from us.
4. The general combat training of our troops does not include longer distance situational engagements.
5. In general the 5.56 is marginal at best at current engagement distances, but with training and modification it can be

I would say thats it in a nut shell. They have a little more experiance than we do working this terrain. Adapting and taking tactical advantage shouldnt take that long for us, our kids are amazingly resiliant.
How Ironic that the cover of Army Times is about our Marine brothers getting new ammo to solve this problem.

 

[jobu07]

The Major alluded to the small percentage of combat troops actually engaging in an actual fire fight, I wonder if that has changed at all. C-grunt, from your post, it appears not much has changed.

By the way, the flak jackets back in my day were useless against direct small weapon fire in general and the 7.62 X 54R especially, is the new body armor more effective?

After reading the entire "paper" by the Major, he does bring up good points:

1. It seems the enemy belligerents engage from high ground, predominately
2. They maintain a fluid engagement of movement.
3. The terrain they engage from does not allow support or indirect fire from us.
4. The general combat training of our troops does not include longer distance situational engagements.
5. In general the 5.56 is marginal at best at current engagement distances, but with training and modification it can be.

Some of this does make sense in that our primary strategy is to engage in 'closer' quarters, bringing the fight to 'our' sweet spot so to speak. Correct me if I am wrong.

OTH, i'll try to address a couple of your points.

What the Major alluded to, and C-Grunt's post as well, are both correct. Even though we operate on a non-linear battlefield which now sees all MOS' (not just combat arms) in the fight, very few soldiers actually fire thier weapons. From my experience, i've watched video and heard feedback from LOGPAC units who's main tactic was to just break contact. Even though they are "trained" for the fight they choose not to fight. Your average loggy typically isn't going to bring the fight to the enemy. Nothing against these MOS'. My Infantrymen depend on them for everything. Class 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. They are vital.

Flak jackets of the day, correct me if i'm wrong, were just soft armor, right? Today's IBA's, IOTV's, and geeze - even the high speed stuff i've never seen, is some good stuff in terms of the ability to stop. The SAPI and ESAPI plates are rated to stop 7.62 ball and 7.62 AP respectively. This info is easily found about the net. The big thing is the soft armor the plates lay over is no better than it was 40 years ago. Soft armor is just that, soft armor. No matter how you cut it, it's only going to be able to withstand (at best) high powered pistol rounds.

Going back to the Major's paper. The Infantry half-click is a lot more than just being able to hit your target at 500 meters. There are a lot of factors working against each other out there today. The basic premise of the Infantry is to close with and kill the enemy. No one is going to argue that. But the way we do it isn't rocket science. As was nicely alluded to earlier, the favored means of killing the enemy is through indirect fires. When that isn't available fires enable maneuver. That is to say, "SSG Smith, your squad, suppress. SSG Jones, your guys, follow me." Even if the engagements is 1000 meters away initially, while one squad suppresses the second will utilize favorable terrain to maneuver on the enemy. And it sucks, but you will spend a lot of time running with your 100+ pounds of gear from cover to cover until you're in position to assault the enemy.

My point with the last paragraph is that there is a lot more to effectively engaging the enemy than being a good shot. Every internet commando's dream is to sit on some rock overlooking a valley and picking off hordes of (insert your favorite enemy here) with thier scoped weatheremchesterbergy at 1000 yards with no support or supply.

The military may operate in a counter-insurgency enviorment now and we may play crime scene investigator in the house we just raided at o'dark thirty. But when it comes right down to it, it won't matter what bullets you're using. 5.56, 6.5, 7.62, 50 bmg, 9mm. It may sound antiquated, but it is what is being taught to our young combat arms leaders everyday. The sexy stuff that happens inside houses has been the same for a long time as well. The military has been teaching how to clear a room for a long time. It's no different with a 20" M16 than it is with a 14.5" M4. Hell, I did it in the school house with an M240B. Let me tell it, it sucks, but you can do it with whatever weapons are at your disposal.

In the end, the way you approach the problem is much more important over what you're approaching it with. Software over hardware as they say.

 

[Jaws]

The 5.56 as main cartrige is like a trying to cover with a short blanket in a cold night. if you cover your head, your legs are going to stick out in the cold and when you pull it over your legs, you'r head will be out in the open.
The 3.5-4 grams bullet is just not enough to do what is required from the main combat cartridge.
You can tweak the bullet all you want to get both, terminal performance and penetration to the required range, but is only so much you can do with a such a light projectile.
Only since 5.56 came out, people call a car windshield "intermediate barrier" for a military main rifle.

 

[C-grunt]

The Major alluded to the small percentage of combat troops actually engaging in an actual fire fight, I wonder if that has changed at all. C-grunt, from your post, it appears not much has changed.

By the way, the flak jackets back in my day were useless against direct small weapon fire in general and the 7.62 X 54R especially, is the new body armor more effective?

Some of this does make sense in that our primary strategy is to engage in 'closer' quarters, bringing the fight to 'our' sweet spot so to speak. Correct me if I am wrong.

I should point out with my post that everyone in my unit who was able to engage did any chance they got. We only got in one fight where the enemy had a large fighting force. I was too far away to engage, so my team leader using a M24 and I using the laser range finders, called out gun nests and snipers for the tanks and scout trucks that were in the fight.
You can read about that fight here http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,438870,00.html
We had an embedded reporter with us.

Our next big fight was Carballa. We were outside the city blocking so the rest of the division could move through the "Carballa Gap". The engineers built us nice fighting positions for the tracks. Every night Iraqi armor and trucks would come out of the town, but our scouts and artillery made short work of them. Every so often a fast truck would get by the scouts and our Brads would light them up with 25mm fire.

After that, was the push into Baghdad. The forces there quickly fell apart and the combatants we did fight were ill trained and traveled in small groups. They didnt utilize cover very much and were predictable. they would pop around a corner, hip fire their AKs and then go back around the corner. Thing is, as long as you didnt shoot the crap out of that corner, they would do the same thing a few seconds later. Therefor the firefights didnt require much shooting to resolve.

Now when we returned in 2005, the insurgents fought differently. Where we were at, they wouldnt get in firefights with us. They did a few times, but got their butts kicked bad. They much preferred the IED, mortar and rockets. Every so often the would shoot an RPG at a convoy, but that reqiuired exposing yourself at close-ish range.

 

[Coal Dragger]

I did Iraq in 2004 (USMC 0351 Assault-Man). The M16 did OK so long as it was kept reasonably clean and lubed. The 5.56 NATO did OK (not great though) out of a 20" barrel, but it has enough velocity to reliably fragment out of a 20" barreled M16A4. Can't comment on on target performance from an M4 since I never used one in combat, although I don't imagine whacking off 5.5" (27.5%) of the barrel length off would help terminal performance much.

In my own personal opinion, if I were king (what a nice thought) we would scrap the M16 platform and the 5.56 NATO as a front line combat arm. I don't have a big problem with the M16 operating system reliability wise, but in the interests of making maintenance by troops easier I would get away from direct gas and go to a piston. The main reason to scrap the M16 is to get away from the confines of the M16's magazine well, and crappy magazines. The magazine well is too small, and so are the magazines, to accommodate a significantly more powerful round that isn't a really big compromise.

For example the 6.8mm SPC has some promise except for the short stubby bullets it is saddled with to fit inside the magazine, and the base case is about 5gr of powder short of being able to push bullets hard enough for any kind of longer range performance. Then we have the 6.5mm Grendel, which has fat stubby cases that are not exactly an ideal shape for reliable feeding in a mass produced auto loading rifle. Of course it does use nice long 6.5mm bullets with a high BC, except it still is again about 5gr short of enough powder capacity to really give them some zip.

What kind of performance could we get with a magazine/magazine well that was about 1/4" to 3/8" longer and maybe just a little wider? Now all the sudden you have a true middle weight cartridge option you can get a case in there with enough powder capacity to push say a 6.5mm bullet of 115-120gr at a reliable 2700fps or so with real world chamber pressures.

 

[shootr]

"The twist rate determines whether the round stabilizes in air, not whether it stabilizes in flesh and has little to do with terminal performance."



So what's your point?

Mine is that an overly-stabilized bullet is less prone to fragment or disrupt, aside from being undersize for the task at hand. I'm aware of the cold weather tests that indicated more twist was required to meet the spec in cold weather. Again - so? Now the twist is 7:1 and unless the projectile yaws and / or fragments - it's pretty much drilling .22 holes in targets. Given the velocity required for it to fragment and the short 14.5" barrel - users have an effective range of 300 yards according to several studies and the data reported here.

Also - if a projectile is less stable in the air it will be less stable in the medium it strikes and more likely to either fragment or yaw. It's certainly not going to become MORE stable after striking something.

My point is that subsequent changes to the system have made it less effective. I just don't see what you're trying to say.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Mine is that an overly-stabilized bullet is less prone to fragment or disrupt

My point is that there is no way you can overstabilize a spitzer bullet to the point it does not upset in tissue because of the twist rate. If you'll click on the link it will describe the science involved.

Also - if a projectile is less stable in the air it will be less stable in the medium it strikes and more likely to either fragment or yaw.

There is no relation between the two. You would need orders of magnitude more spin in order to stabilize a bullet in flesh. The difference between 1:14 and 1:7 is like the difference between having a 1,000lb weight dropped on your head and having a 1,000lb weight AND a butterfly dropped on your head.

 

[model of 1905]

I read this awhile back and the one thing that I took from it and put into use was rezeroing my M4 at 100 rather than 25. I am quite pleased with the results and it has definitely tightened my groups at 200+. I am using an Eotech 517.

 

[SHvar]

"When you say "i've seen that happen first hand" do you mean the same way you saw a brigade of the 82nd Airborne jumping into Desert Storm with Bushmaster M4s? "

You like to take a few words or phrases to make a subject fit your arguement, not what was said entirely, thats like saying "Im going to the grocery store today" when in fact the actual phrase was "Im going to the grocery store next week, and stopping at my brothers today". Get your facts straight.
That brigade that was present had some Bushmaster M4s, mostly Commissioned officers recieved them, scout recon, etc.

By the way, who are you to tell someone who was there in person what happened, and what didnt? Oh, I know, because you didnt see it on CNN, ahhhh. Thank you..

 

[unit91]

@SHvar: I'm confused. Who are you addressing?

 

[RedLion]

Well, its pretty interesting that they say 50% of engagements occur outside of 300 yards, so that must mean 50% occur within 300 yards, which logically means we need to change our main rifles so deal with the 50% past 300 yards in Afghanistan.

The author failed to note that the U.S. government found in Korea that long range accurate rifle fire does little to enemy forces. I also fail to see how the "effectiveness" of the long range abilities of U.S. soldiers in WWI connects with today's modern battlefields, especially since that seemed to have little effect on the outcome in WWI, WWII or in Korea.

The author states that a bullets like the 6.8 and other will somehow be more effective at 500 yards by showing ballistics gel test that were clearly shot within 100 yards. Just because a bullet will have more energy at 500 yards does not mean that it will be more lethal. Also with averages of thousands of rounds per enemy death, how does it seem logical to believe that soldiers will be able to effectively use the touted extended range of these new cartridges? And if these medium range small arms attacks are so prevalent, why are the vast amount of casualties from Afghanistan and Iraq from IEDs ?

For some reason, this author and many other seem to believe that government economics seem to exist only to stop soldiers from receiving the best possible weapons. If the author took note of the impact of the cost of all the wars that took place in modern history, they might realize that wars are prohibitively expensive. The Vietnam war cost an estimated $686 billion dollars, and by 2008, the Iraq war cost an estimated $694 billion dollars. WWII cost an estimated $4.1 Trillion dollars (and yes that is with a capital T) It is only logical that for a war to actually be worth winning, the cost must somehow be kept in check, wherever possible. Judging that most U.S. citizens seemed very upset with economic down turn after Vietnam, and the rise in taxes to pay for the first Gulf War, I highly doubt that anyone can make the case that extra spending for a new cartridge/rifle/machinegun is worth it, when we have the .223 and .308 already in large quantity and in production.

Lastly, I highly doubt that a change in small arms in the U.S. military will hinder the Taliban and other armed forces ineffective. They have shown that they are able to adapt very quickly and effectively to most U.S. tactics and weapon systems. With longer range small arms, they will simply change their tactics to marginalize any advantage longer range small arms have to offer.

 

[Coal Dragger]

^ Great so you'll go into battle with a .22LR then, since the projectile will make it 500M and there is no proof that more energy or a larger bullet is more lethal at longer distances.

Not to be too offensive, but unless you have used the M16/5.56mm in a combat environment your opinions are not all that relevant. The observations of those that have are a bit more useful, especially those that have engaged targets at longer distances with that weapon system and cartridge.

 

[KW]

How many soldiers have actually hit a enemy combatant at 500m+, been sure that no other friendly shooters in a different position actually hit them, and then been able to go examine said enemy to see what the effect of their shot was? I'm betting that's a pretty darn small club.

M855 out of an M4 or M16 is still gonna poke a hole through someone at that range. And is there really that much of a difference between .224" and .308" when we're talking about a hole in your liver or heart or head?

The much greater issue is can you actually see, range, and hit the target? We're talking about a moving human in low contrast clothing that doesn't want to get shot and is taking advantage of cover and concealment. And he's at an unknown range, with no wind flags. And you don't have a bench rest to take advantage of not to mention all the adrenaline that is pumping through you. Oh, and your rifle/ammo (whether it be an M1, M14, M16, M4 etc.) is shooting 3-4 MOA. One more tidbit - you've never practiced taking these kind of shots in training.

It just seems a little crazy to me to push for a caliber change that would try to establish some parity between our rifles/carbines vs. their mortars/heavy machineguns (which is a complete pipe dream to begin with) when we don't even train our soldiers to do that kind of shooting. Not to mention that we have more/better mortars and heavy machineguns, as well as tanks, field artillery, close air support etc. Why not start with training, and maybe a match quality bullet. Once you start making hits at that distance then decide if a bigger caliber is really necessary and worth the compromise that comes with it.