AP - US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kernel

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
2,001
Location
77 Square Miles Surrounded by Reality (Madison), W
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100521/D9FR4ELG0.html

May 21, 4:41 AM (ET)

US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The U.S. military's workhorse rifle - used in battle for the last 40 years - is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban's more primitive but longer range weapons.

As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the performance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round largely discarded in the 1960s.

The M-4 is an updated version of the M-16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. It worked well in Iraq, where much of the fighting was in cities such as Baghdad, Ramadi and Fallujah.

But a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don't retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

Afghans have a tradition of long-range ambushes against foreign forces. During the 1832-1842 British-Afghan war, the British found that their Brown Bess muskets could not reach insurgent sharpshooters firing higher-caliber Jezzail flintlocks.

Soviet soldiers in the 1980s found that their AK-47 rifles could not match the World War II-era bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Mauser rifles used by mujahedeen rebels.

"These are important considerations in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are frequently attacked by insurgents using ... sharpshooter's rifles, which are all chambered for a full-powered cartridge which dates back to the 1890s," said Paul Cornish, curator of firearms at the Imperial War Museum in London.

The heavier bullets enable Taliban militants to shoot at U.S. and NATO soldiers from positions well beyond the effective range of the coalition's rifles.

To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. They are equipped with the new M-110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62 mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet (800 meters).

At the heart of the debate is whether a soldier is better off with the more-rapid firepower of the 5.56mm bullets or with the longer range of the 7.62 mm bullets.

"The reason we employ the M-4 is because it's a close-in weapon, since we anticipate house-to-house fighting in many situations," said Lt. Col. Denis J. Riel, a NATO spokesman.

He added that each squad also has light machine guns and automatic grenade launchers for the long-range engagements common in Afghanistan.

In the early years of the Vietnam War, the Army's standard rifle was the M-14, which fired a 7.62 mm bullet. The gun had too much recoil to be controllable during automatic firing and was considered too unwieldily for close-quarter jungle warfare. The M-16 replaced it in the mid-1960s.

Lighter bullets also meant soldiers could carry more ammunition on lengthy jungle patrols.

The M-16 started a general trend toward smaller cartridges. Other weapons such as the French FAMAS and the British L85A1 adopted them, and the round became standardized as the "5.56mm NATO."

The Soviet Union, whose AK-47 already used a shorter 7.62 mm bullet that was less powerful but more controllable, created a smaller 5.45mm round for its replacement AK-74s.

"The 5.56 mm caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target," said Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. "But at 500-600 meters (1,600-2,000 feet), the round doesn't have stopping power, since the weapon system was never designed for that."

The arsenal, which is the Army's center for small-arms development, is trying to find a solution.

A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges, Tamilio said.

The challenge is compounded by the fact that in flat areas of Afghanistan, most firefights take place at shorter ranges of up to 1,000 feet (300 meters), where the M-4 performs well.

U.S. soldiers in militant-infested Zhari district in southern Afghanistan's Kandahar province said they haven't experienced problems with the range of their M-4 rifles.

Lt. Scott Doyle, a platoon commander in Zhari, said his troops are usually facing Taliban AK-47s.

"When the Taliban get past 300 meters (1,000 feet) with an AK-47, they are just spraying and praying," he said.

Martin Fackler, a ballistics expert, also defended the 5.56 mm round, blaming the M-4s inadequate performance on its short barrel, which makes it easier for soldiers to scramble out of modern armored vehicles.

"Unfortunately weapon engineers shortened the M-16's barrel to irrational lengths," Fackler said. "It was meant for a 20-inch barrel. What they've done by cutting the barrel to 14.5 inches is that they've lost a lot of velocity."

---
 
To bad the AP is so far behind on this. There have been many, many threads on this subject on THR for almost a year now. M14s have been fielded in limited numbers since the war began. I am all for giving the troops what they need to win and if that is M14s or AR10s then so be it. But this is really old news. Doesn't the AP have photos to doctor?
 
Soviet soldiers in the 1980s found that their AK-47 rifles could not match the World War II-era bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Mauser rifles used by mujahedeen rebels.
Wasn't the AK-74 5.45x39mm used by the Soviet army in Afghanistan by the 1980's?
Or is this just a typo on the article?
 
"When the Taliban get past 300 meters (1,000 feet) with an AK-47, they are just spraying and praying,"

How true. It's my understanding that 300 meters is pushing the AK-47's accuracy.
 
there is no such thing as a gun that is good for everything. If we switched to an AR-10 or something in a heavy caliber, then you'd hear stories of people in Iraq wanting their carbines back to deal with the closer-ranged fighting.

that is why teams go out with more than one kind of weapon.
 
Seems to me this calls for an updated M79 grenade launcher, it was rated at 350-400 meters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M79_grenade_launcher

The M320 looks good till you notice they chose a short barrel again! They need to provide something light, simple to use and accurate that the troops can sling over there back so they always have it, thats not provided by a carbine with launcher and other stuff bolted on. Give it enough barrel to bump the range out to 500+ meters.
 
"Don't we have some M-14s somewhere we can degrease and get into play?"
__________________

"Time to issue the M 14s from mothballs."


Didn't former President Clinton order that almost all the U.S. Military's M-14 rifles be destroyed, and there are now very few in storage??

L.W.
 
Didn't former President Clinton order that almost all the U.S. Military's M-14 rifles be destroyed, and there are now very few in storage??
Yes he ordered most destroyed so that they could never end up in the hands of civilians like virtually all previous military rifles had when the time for their retirement had come.
They may have been rendered semi-auto and given an exemption in law to go to programs like the CMP.

Similarly most stored US GI 1911s were destroyed at his orders for the same reason (and when the new version of the CMP was formed after the previous was dissolved just prior they made it a condition that they could never sell handguns so no 1911s could be sold.)


They still have many remaining, but the bulk were destroyed by Clinton. Many have since been returned by various foreign military forces they were loaned to.

They can also be updated to configurations like the MOD 0. Giving them a lot more flexibility.
 
Last edited:
All in all it was a surprisingly accurate article on firearms for the AP.

Sounds like the military is making wise decisions. Not everyone can be a sharpshooter, so a mix of weaponry has its place in situations like this.
 
The M4 wasn't designed to be used past 300-400 meters. OTOH neither was the AK which is what they are shooting back at us with.


The Marines have already addressed this at least with their ammo, if you want a 5.56 to reach out to 600 meters you need heavy rounds and a 20in barrel. 14in barrels just don't cut it for that kind of range.
 
... OTOH neither was the AK which is what they are shooting back at us with.

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.
 
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.

They have crap rifles with mismatched parts and loose screws, most of their clips and magazines have mismatched ammo, much of which is rusting out and a lot of it is old. We are still way better equipped than they are and we have snipers, too. The AP article makes a few good, valid points. Our weapons are not optimized for this theater, but we are still on top in the weapons game.
 
There's a whole mythos built around the feared Afghan Mountain Fighter and it's mostly bunk.

While I agree with your main point regarding the US army being far, far better equipped than the Taliban, I also have to defend feared Afghan Mountain Fighters everywhere and point out that there is a big difference between more urbanized Afghanis and more rural Afghanis... heck, same as exists here. I've encountered in several accounts of US troops that rural ("mountain") Afghanis are much more proficient marksmen than urban Afghanis, due to hunting from an early age.
 
It seems as though the U.S. military is doomed to keep making the same mistakes and relearning the same solutions over and over again. The same people who took away our .30 cal. rifles and replaced them with .22 cal. rifles and took away our .45 cal. pistols and replaced them with .35 cal. pistols don't have a clue. When it comes to the Afghanis, neither did the British or the Russians. Eventually they realize they do not know how to defeat them and leave. Maybe we will too.:banghead:
 
I really didn't notice anywhere in the article where it stated the M4 was inadequete or or under powered. The article just stated what we all already knew, over 300 meters you need a bigger bullet. The article is even so outdated that it says the military is looking for an intermediate round between 5.56 and 7.62 but they make no mention of the 6.8. I bet this article is an old rehash saved for a slow news day.

Nothing "news" about it and nothing worth replacing every M4 with a .308 for. Everyone fails to realize that for the rare occurence of the 5.56 not being up to snuff there will be a guy with a bigger rifle to do the job. 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top