aimed rifle fire by infantry?

[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.

 

[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