AP - US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe some of the arms makers could get some stimulus money and start producing M14s or a version of the M16 or M4 firing a larger cartidge. It would put people and other related industries ( Steel for example) to work and help the economy. Ammo makers and other component makers would benefit. Maybe the wheel could be reinvented (762 x39). There are at least a few other good calibers that would work. And who knows after the war is over the CMP could sell modified semi-auto versions to the public as well as ammo. I better stop Im heading in the direction of "what if we were a free country and promoted civilian markmanship more than football or basketball ?" Or what if every citizen had to qualify with his service rifle that he or she kept at home. Im sorry everybody I got off the track.
 
Afghansitan isn't exactly stacked with expert marksmen... Keep in mind that there are multiple weapons in the military's inventory for reaching out to a variety of ranges. The concept of "layered defense" still plays here, and in the Army we've gotten better about designated marksmen with heavier calibers being in the conventional forces.

Switching back to an M-14 as a standard issue weapon... not likely to have an impact on the war either way.
 
RE: Long range targets. Isn't that what .50's are for??? And helicopter mini-guns? And bomblets?

Seriously, the .223 & .30 Russian are close/medium range calibers (< 300M) and were never intended for long range shooting. So, yes, longer range rifles are needed in the mountains.

As for "layerd defense", that only works if the wonks in DC give the OK to use the heavy stuff.

With regard to future rifles, I predict that a short case, high velocity 6mm, will be considered and probably adopted.
 
Last edited:
Just to add some ignorance to the fray. Do all troops have an ACOG on their M4s? Speaking personally, a 300m firefight would be futile with iron sights. To me, hitting a man size target fully exposed would hard enough much less only seeing a head peeking out around a rock.

Are there 100s of Afghan BGs running around the mountains with superficial flesh wounds from being shot with the 5.56 at 300m? The article seems to imply that they are getting hits just not killing the BGs.

Easy on me lads, remember the first sentence.
 
many doubt the accuracy of the afghanistan rebels, these are people who were raised with guns, hunted with them there whole life and taught to ambush, these are marksmen and i bet there pretty profiecient at shooting long ranges compared to the avg insurgent in iraq. and the 7.62x54 R may be a common cartridge and it is capable of hitting targets at long ranges that are man sized. the military does not like changing cartridges they dont want special ammo to feed there rifles, so i am about 90% sure they are just going to use the 7.62x51 its commonly used still and it isnt to nasty on recoil.
 
The 7.62x51 is not for every infantryman and for our current doctrine of squad based combat the 5.56 is fine for most of the guys on the ground, whether or not it is good for the arm chair commandos I don't think so as they seem to be compensating for something since they seem to insist bigger is better for everyone.
Click to expand...

and

Maybe some of the arms makers could get some stimulus money and start producing M14s or a version of the M16 or M4 firing a larger cartidge.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet that current manufacturers of M-14 based rifles, such as Springfield Armory (M1A series at current production rates), could meet the requirement of putting one or two M1As (semi-auto) into a squad. If not, up production. Stimulus money won't be needed: gov't contracts can be quite lucrative!

I'm also good with the idea of keeping it semi-auto until such time full-auto models are available, if even needed. If you've ever shot an M-14 on full-auto you might be just as happy to have a semi-auto only version :)!

As TRM pointed out, the squad design offers flexibility, so we don't need to run out and replace every M-4 with an M14.
 
sonier said:
many doubt the accuracy of the afghanistan rebels, these are people who were raised with guns, hunted with them there whole life and taught to ambush, these are marksmen and i bet there pretty profiecient at shooting long ranges compared to the avg insurgent in iraq.
Click to expand...

Might I suggest a reading of these two articles from the NYT on Afghan Marksmanship?

"Afghan Marksmen - Forget the Fables"
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/afghan-marksmen-forget-the-fables/

"The Weakness of Taliban Marksmanship"
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/the-weakness-of-taliban-marksmanship/

When the CO has a fire team set up the .50 cal in the middle of the street to return fire, and they don't take a single hit, I don't think there's much to worry about from the vaunted "raised on guns" Afghan rebels.

And the NYT would never be seen as offering up propoganda on the pro-US side, I don't believe.
 
lol just because new york times says they cant hit jack dosnt mean that there rifles have the capabilities to do so. In all reality these insurgents, rebels, taliban whatever you want to call them are still people and people can still become experts at certain things, and im pretty sure there are some good shots among them, Also im not referring to the AK-47 im refering to the old surplus rifles they have access too, the 7.62x54 is a nasty cartridge and all it takes is one good shooter to use it.
 
I watched the video, how far do you think that wa from the smoke and the treeline im thinking 1000 yards. notice the marines not firing much its beyond there range.
 
sonier said:
lol just because new york times says they cant hit jack dosnt mean that there rifles have the capabilities to do so. In all reality these insurgents, rebels, taliban whatever you want to call them are still people and people can still become experts at certain things, and im pretty sure there are some good shots among them, Also im not referring to the AK-47 im refering to the old surplus rifles they have access too, the 7.62x54 is a nasty cartridge and all it takes is one good shooter to use it.
Click to expand...

I never said they could not become good shots, nor that they were all using AKs. Did I say they were all bad shots? No. I specifically mentioned Lee-Enfields and M-Ns as the long range weapons of choice, and linked to an article in which they were being used effectively to suppress an American advance.

What you seem to ignore, though, is the article that speaks about why they aren't all good shots - bad eyesight, poor training, etc. The myth is that every single Afghan who is able to pick up a rifle can and will be able to shoot the wings off a fly at 1000 meters. You seem to buy into that, and refuse to see any other possibility.

Corrective lenses and good training may help the Afghan/Taliban forces, but that's not where they expend their resources.

Also, did you not see in the one article where the number of US deaths/casualties by gunfire has steadily dropped over the last several months, while the number by bombings has increased?

If they were such wizards with rifles, and could become experts, why would this be the case?
 
shockwave writes

In the previous citations of this exact article posted here over the past year, the conversation eventually turns to the fact that the Afghanis have absolutely horrible weapons and do not know how to shoot them well. There's a whole mythos built around the feared Afghan Mountain Fighter and it's mostly bunk.
Click to expand...

#1 in Iraq and A-stan, there have been many instances of fighters taking long range shots at US Troops with AK-47s etc. Basically these guys were taking pot-shots at a large group of men. Someone lobbing shots 800 yards away with an old Enfield or Mosin isn't aiming at a specific soldier and missing, he is basically shooting at the group hoping to get lucky. At that kind of range an AK is basically no threat and a WW2 era bolt gun is a small threat.

The problem is our troops don't have the guns to shoot back and eliminate either one. And we do need to eliminate him, because the guy taking potshots today is the guy who is going to be laying IEDs tomorrow.

"When Marines did get hit, it often appeared that the fire came from PK machine guns or the local contingent of snipers – not the riflemen who make the Taliban’s rank-and-file."

This statement supports that view.



UpTheIrons writes

I never said they could not become good shots, nor that they were all using AKs. Did I say they were all bad shots? No.
Click to expand...

yes, you did, by implication, say that pretty much they were all bad shots. The rest of your paragraph is a strawman, so I shall ignore it.

For the articles linked, here's the deal.

YES, afghan men are hunters and raised to shoot before they can walk...at least out in the boon-docks. You have the same number of skilled afghan rifleman as you have always had, it's just that the number of city dwellers have SKYROCKETED in the last 100 years.

So now rather than having 10 crack shots in the area you have 10 crack shots and 1,000 AK wielding 'pray and spray' types.

This is definately more dangerous than an area with ZERO crack shots and 1,000 AK wielding 'pray and spray' types' as is encountered in Iraq.

The articles linked also talk about the total effectiveness of snipers, and notes very few men have been killed by them. This is a misdirect. Snipers have never accounted for buckets of casualties. One of the real value of snipers lie in how a single gunman can inflict a lot of fear and tie up a lot of resources. When 30 men are pinned down by reasonably accurate fire by a single man, that is a military success.

I am also going to say that "sniper" being talked about all through these articles is really a very different animal than what most of us think of. The stereotypical sniper has the ability to consistently hit man-sized targets in the 600 meter range. The Afghan Mountain Riflemen (as opposed from the city dweller conscripts) does not have that skill. BUT his skill is more in line with a lifelong deer hunter, or even a guy who has attended a few appleseed shoots. With a rifle capable of delivering a killing blow at 600-1000 meters AND plenty of time to make many shots, you have a real threat. All the marksmanship skill you need is the ability to hit a two-car-garage door 1 time out of 10 at 600 yards. While the average AK wielding conscript level taliban fighter cannot do that, a fair number of old school 'raised up in the mountains' Afghan men can accomplish that feat.

Finally, attempting to judge the skill of the enemy sniper contingent based on how many casualties are inflicted compared to other wars is in my eyes beyond silly due to the unbelievable different terrain and methodology of warfare being used, as well as more advanced medical care etc.
 
Not many M14 around, I think they sure could use them...I know theres alot of Garands out there...I know, their old an "heavy" an outdated.....but if I was there for long range shooting an knockdown power, I would love to have one of mine. Or even a 1903, both are going to put a 30/06 bullet out there a long ways...at gunshows I see older gentleman looking at me when I look at a Garand...."You like that?" they ask..."Ya, I've got 3 of them. I've shot AR's an been in the Army, but I got one of these last year an love them," ....Then they tell me about how they served with one an what a fine rifle they are...Amen.
 
Don't forget all those .303 Enfields that 'ol CW gave 'em back in the '80s.

It'd be nice to see the 6.8 SPC and 20" barrels become standard issue.
Click to expand...


Well I'm pretty confident that our guys can outshoot a bunch of worn out beat to hell WW2 rifles that have been floating around the desert for the past 60 years.

The Afghans are not exactly known for being good shots, and for having stuff thats not total junk. I also doubt that their worn out Enfields can hit much at 600+ yards.
 
akodo said:
UpTheIrons writes
I never said they could not become good shots, nor that they were all using AKs. Did I say they were all bad shots? No.
Click to expand...

yes, you did, by implication, say that pretty much they were all bad shots. The rest of your paragraph is a strawman, so I shall ignore it.
Click to expand...

I would think that the actual training and physical condition of the insurgents actually IS germane to the discussion. sonier specifically said that they could become expert shots. That cannot happen if they do not improve their physical condition or combat training. Regardless of the number of crack shots in each group, there is still an abundance of 'pray and spray-ers' whose training seems to consist of "Here's the trigger, here's a magazine, death to the infidels and Allahu Ackbar!" Now, increase the crack shot ratio, and there could be a problem.


akodo said:
The articles linked also talk about the total effectiveness of snipers, and notes very few men have been killed by them. This is a misdirect. Snipers have never accounted for buckets of casualties. One of the real value of snipers lie in how a single gunman can inflict a lot of fear and tie up a lot of resources. When 30 men are pinned down by reasonably accurate fire by a single man, that is a military success.
Click to expand...

And I said exactly that:
I specifically mentioned Lee-Enfields and M-Ns as the long range weapons of choice, and linked to an article in which they were being used effectively to suppress an American advance.
Click to expand...

And I do agree with you on their definition of a 'sniper' by the way. What the NYT calls a sniper is not what many of us would classify as a sniper. But I never said anything about snipers turning the tide in a broad way.


akodo said:
Finally, attempting to judge the skill of the enemy sniper contingent based on how many casualties are inflicted compared to other wars is in my eyes beyond silly due to the unbelievable different terrain and methodology of warfare being used, as well as more advanced medical care etc.
Click to expand...

Again I never did that. The article did, but the article also compared the casualty rate from 2001 to recently:

FTA:
So have gunshot wounds to Americans in Afghanistan become more lethal?

The data since early last summer, when more troops were flowing into the country as part of the Obama administration’s so-called Afghan surge, offer a glimpse. From early last June through April 3 of this year, 478 American service members were struck by hostile gunfire in Afghanistan and 59 of them died of their wounds. This works out to a lethality rate of about 12.3 percent ... In Afghanistan, the lethality rate of bullet wounds from 2001 through early last June was 15.6 percent. Since then, it has dropped. These lethality rates, both long-term and short, suggest that precision rifle fire from higher-powered rifles has not been a large-scale national phenomenon at any time during this war, and certainly not in the last several months.
Click to expand...

Maybe we are aguing past each other, since the OP was all about the relative effectiveness of 5.56 at long range, but the actual conditions on the battlefield do play into that discussion.

It appears that we (with 5.56) can harass them at long range better than they can harass us (with 7.62x39). Throw in some .303 and 7.62x54, and the complexion changes considerably. Still, one must be able to see relatively well at long range in order to put steel on target, as it were.
 
The M-4/16 in .223 not effective??? Really, we tried to tell the idiots that in 1968. We were screaming the information at em Febuary 16-24th I guess they couldn't hear us over the noise of the enemies gunfire. The .223 is not a reliable man stopper.
 
It appears that we (with 5.56) can harass them at long range better than they can harass us (with 7.62x39). Throw in some .303 and 7.62x54, and the complexion changes considerably. Still, one must be able to see relatively well at long range in order to put steel on target, as it were.
Click to expand...

They do not need to see well at long range. They are typically firing at a group of men, or an outpost. They fire off some rounds that land within the general area and change locations.
They setup ambushes, ieds, various traps, etc

The following is some great insight into the type of fighting that goes on in the mountains and what weapons work well:

Here is a decent article on the Korengal Valley:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/01/afghanistan200801?currentPage=1



Also on the Korengal Valley are several videos in this PBS story which is almost exclusively the soldiers in action without commentary. It shows how they try to win the support of the local elders and ties in well with the other article I linked. Creating ties with various local communities is a big part of current strategy.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/pakistan802/iwitness/rubin.html


It is from a few years ago but relates to the type of fighting concerning the OP. Same terrain.


As far as calibers. What is ideal for longer range can leave soldiers more vulnerable in a close and medium range ambush. A lot of small cartridges allow lead sent in the direction of the enemy to last longer and fix them better.
Every soldier with a larger caliber weapon is one less soldier that is available to send large amounts of lead over time.
Heavier rounds weigh more, so they can carry fewer, and they will run out quicker suppressing the enemy.
The same tactics don't work as well with less ammo.
Everything is a trade off.
A lot of the most effective tools available to NATO forces can sometimes require suppressing the enemy for long periods of time. While aircraft are inbound, artillery is receiving information, or others are flanking or maneuvering.
So every fewer 5.56 weapon means they can last less time without additional supplies. Some fewer may increase performance in certain ways, but there is sacrifice.
That sacrifice is a reduced amount of time that the enemy can be fixed.
If you lose the ability to fix the enemy without quickly running out of ammo that means artillery and air power will be less effective, and flanking and various squad tactics will be much more difficult.




The enemy does win some victories with various remote outposts, and it was a big reason for the abandonment and retreat from many remote areas awhile back to focus on the more populated regions.
Or "strategic repositioning" I think they called it before the surge.
NATO has since pushed back into more similar areas.

This is a place that has a strong culture in insurgency and resistance going back hundreds of years. They celebrate defeating the British, the Soviets, and other battles.
With such a culture it would be more surprising if there was not a steady flow of new insurgent recruits when there is foreign occupation.
Even the definition and criteria for what will be considered victory is changing for US and NATO forces faced with this reality.
Talks with Taliban are being welcomed. Taliban are even being invited to join the government, the military, and the police forces of Afghanistan now.
Karzai just last month even threatened to join the Taliban a couple times. The Taliban have so much support he has to do such political posturing just to retain some legitimacy.

It has almost been a decade in Afghanistan, and it looks like it would take at least another decade.
I don't know if our nation will be willing to stay that long.
And when and if the Afghan government falls sometime after forces are withdrawn the replacement will likely be even worse than before. Much like what happened in Iran after the Shah fell.
You can only prop up a minority to rule over the majority for so long and pretend it is the will of the people, and when it falls and the majority regain control they hate you more than ever for it.
It appears we would have almost the same thing over there as before 9/11 not long after withdrawing, only more actively anti-US.
So there is a strong argument for staying there, but I don't see victory anytime soon unless they keep redefining what will be considered victory.
 
Last edited:
psyopspec says: there's a mix of Aimpoints and ACOGs.

---------------------------------

Which do the troops generally prefer? The Aimpoint that's best for close range work < 100m, or the ACOG that's not as fast up close but is better for longer ranges?
 
Those rounds were coming in groups of 3.

I'm thinking psl in 7.62x54 or a heavy caliber mg. (From the comfort of my computer chair).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Canadian military donates 2,500 rifles to Afghan army
Replies
14
Views
836
junyo
J
P
  • Locked
Undisciplined Afghans endanger Marjah Marines.
Replies
5
Views
652
Johnny Guest
J
A
  • Locked
3,000 Marines headed to Afghanistan... and i'm one of them
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
3K
silverlance
S
L
  • Locked
Iraqi army to adopt m-16
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
bloodedsky
B
SSN Vet
  • Locked
Exploding bullet
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
chuck520
C
Back
Top