Army Report: GIs Outgunned in Afghanistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Army is not going to upgrade their small arms. In fact they are not even going to add any long distance small arms training. What they are doing is having recruits run through simulated towns, and barricades. Short range training closer to Police training.



http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/04/army_marksmanship_040410w/
Marksmanship changes to prep GIs for war zone

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Apr 5, 2010 5:49:23 EDT

The Army will replace its Cold War marksmanship strategy this summer with one that has basic trainees shooting more rounds, fixing jams and changing magazines — key skills all soldiers need in today’s combat.

“What we’ve learned through eight years of war is that’s now how our soldiers are having to shoot in combat,” Brig. Gen. Richard C. Longo, director of training for the Army’s deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7, told Army Times. He described the current program, which is geared toward passing a single, live-fire test, as a “very sterile environment and a very predictable marksmanship qualification process.”

Initial Military Training Marksmanship, a program that draws lessons from the war zone, will become the Army standard for teaching new soldiers how to shoot in all five initial entry training centers beginning July 1.

Basic Rifle Marksmanship will still culminate with soldiers taking a timed test in which they fire 40 rounds of ammunition at 40 pop-up targets. Shooting from the prone and kneeling positions, trainees must hit 23 targets to earn a passing score.

However, trainees will then go through a standardized Advanced Rifle Marksmanship course that forces soldiers to shoot from behind barricades, reload, move in a tactical setting and shoot until the targets are “dead.”

The weeklong ARM course wraps up with a Combat Familiarization Fire, an event that “gives the soldier a feeling of, ‘now that you have qualified with your weapon, here are scenarios that you might experience in the operational environment in your first unit of assignment,’ ” said Col. Terry Sellers, operations officer for the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga.

Under the new strategy, infantry trainees at Benning will shoot 730 rounds and non-infantry trainees will shoot 500 rounds. Traditionally, they have shot about 300 rounds.

“As a former division commander, I don’t think you can shoot enough,” said Lt. Gen. James Thurman, the Army’s G-3/5/7. “You’ve got to challenge soldiers in this environment today with different techniques of how you do marksmanship from basic marksmanship to all marksmanship levels.”

The sweeping overhaul is part of the Army’s Outcome-Based Training, a mindset designed to replace what has come to be viewed as a strict, by-the-book training doctrine that required “little or no thinking” with a new methodology designed to prepare soldiers for combat by teaching them why things work rather than just how to follow orders.

It began in late 2007, when Benning officials set out to revamp Army marksmanship training with a goal of shifting out of the Cold War mindset that focused on preparing soldiers for a large-scale, defensive fight against invading Warsaw Pact armies.

Sgt. 1st Class Erick Ochs, a combat-experienced drill sergeant at Benning, said the new strategy is geared toward the realities of the battlefield.

“It’s definitely more combat-oriented,” said Ochs, who has had two tours in Iraq and one tour in Afghanistan. It teaches new soldiers that their individual weapon “isn’t just a tool for punching holes in paper; this is a tool that will help me survive on the battlefield,” Ochs said.

In addition to drawing on their own combat experiences, trainers sought help from the Army Marksmanship Unit and the Asymmetric Warfare Group, a special unit established five years ago to help senior Army leaders find new tactics and technologies to make soldiers more lethal in combat.

Many of the techniques used in the pilot come from the training methodology these units have been teaching to combat units for the past several years.

One proven approach is to have trainees begin marksmanship training “shooting slick,” meaning without combat equipment, to become comfortable with their weapons.

The relaxed environment may sound like a radically new idea, but the Marine Corps uses a similar approach when it comes to recruit marksmanship training.

Soldiers in Basic Combat Training will go through the entire 13 days of Basic Rifle Marksmanship and qualify slick. They begin wearing combat equipment on day one of Advanced Rifle Marksmanship.

Soldiers in infantry start slick and add body armor, helmet and load-bearing gear on day 10 of BRM and wear it through qualification.

The new marksmanship strategy grew out of the pilot that infantry trainees have been exposed to since 2008, but there are differences.

Non-infantry trainees shoot with iron sights throughout BRM and begin training with optics and lasers in Advanced Rifle Marksmanship. Infantry trainees learn to zero, with both iron sights and the M68 Close Combat Optic, early in BRM. Zeroing is the process of adjusting the rifle’s sights to ensure that the bullets strike where the soldier aims on the target.

“We want to get the guy using the piece of equipment that he is going to be using in combat as soon as possible,” said Maj. Kevin Butler, operations officer for the 198th Infantry Brigade at Benning.

Butler fought in Afghanistan in 2002 and was severely wounded in a bomb attack in Iraq in 2007.

Infantry trainees also shoot more, 370 rounds in BRM and 360 in ARM. Non-infantry trainees shoot 310 rounds in BRM and 190 rounds in ARM.

“Just like a tank crewman is going to learn to use his weapon in his advanced individual training, the infantryman’s weapon system is his rifle, and he is expected to operate it at a higher degree of efficiency than any other soldier,” Butler said.

All trainees will go through the Combat Familiarization Fire at the end of Advanced Rifle Marksmanship. The tactical lane is designed to look like a setting they might encounter in Iraq or Afghanistan. As trainees move down the course, they must use the partially destroyed cars, rubble and makeshift walls as cover while engaging random targets.

In some cases, soldiers will have to score “multiple hits on a bobbing target to get that target to stay down,” Sellers said. The reality on the battlefield is that the enemy may not go down with just one shot, he said.

“You engaged the enemy, it took you multiple rounds to kill it, and it’s killed,” Sellers said.

To earn a perfect score, soldiers will use all 26 rounds to drop the 15 targets on the course.

Infantry trainees must score 16 hits out of 26 as a requirement for graduation, Butler said.

Non-infantry trainees will not receive an official score.

“The standard Army qualification is a measure of how well an individual can engage single or multiple targets at a variety of distances,” Butler said. “The Combat Familiarization Fire does a much better job of integrating all the skills someone is going to be required to do in a combat situation.”
 
Inquisitive rhetoric - repetitive questions asked and answered don't inform the clueless in this conversation anything. It's already been shown too many non-vets don't have a clue theire already is a mix of weapons being used and supplied ammo, tactics adjusted to the situation, and they have a complete lack of understanding the mission isn't about killing every insurgent possible.

If the gamers and keyboard commandos would put down their joysticks, step away from the screen, and get a three year enlistment, most of these questions would never come up. Only one in a hundred is now a veteran, down from one in ten during the '70's. In those days casual conversation at a gun store or holiday with family got a quick and gritty answer about what really happens in the field. Today's mall-raised consumer doesn't have a clue, literally, no education or training on the subject whatsoever.

But they sure do fill the airwaves with their opinions.
 
According to Ehrhart's paper, Army infantrymen do not regularly train and practice shooting at distances of more than 300 meters. The round fired from their M4 carbines and M16 rifles, the 5.56mm bullet, don't carry enough velocity at long distances to kill.

Wonder if Mr Ehrhart would stand at 350 meters and let me shoot at him. I mean, he wont' die right?

And of course Army doctrine doesn't usually have infantrymen engaging targets at 300+ meters with their M4's... but hey, it's more fun this way.....
 
I said I have no combat experience as an infantryman. I didn't say I had never been shot at. I'm 56 y.o. I served 7 1/2 years(1971-1978) in the U.S. Air Force, most of it on AC-130's. I am very ignorant of infantry tactics, arms, and training.Unlike some, I don't preternd to know it all. That's why I ask
 
Game set & match to Tirod's posts. Tactics, Hague is already gone, hearts & minds, etc.

But, to the extent that a caliber war is merited at all, it does seem to me (possibly) the 6x45 round (a) adds a fair/measurable amount of performance without adding much more weight at all (really virtually no more weight when compared to a 75 gr 5.56 round), and (b) suffers less relative loss of performance when going from 20" to a 14.5" bbl.

Seems to me that the 6.8 spc or similar is gonna add a lot of weight, and make it less ammo that the soldier/marine can carry. A 115 gr 6.8 bullet weighs 53% more than a 75 gr 5.56 bullet, but an 80 gr (let's say) 6x45 bullet weighs only 7% more. All those extra grains of the 6.8 spc can add up to significant ounces and pounds to the soldier already weighed down with body armor & gear.

Just my non-expert two cents.
 
David Wood is a mediocre journalist. I am not going to get into a rediscussion of the Ehrhart article, which was discussed both here and [on TFL (where Major Ehrhart graciously took part in the discussion). Instead I am just going to point out where this "news article" "played the telephone game" with major points of information.

American troops are often outgunned by Afghan insurgents because they lack the precision weapons, deadly rounds, and training needed to kill the enemy in the long-distance firefights common in Afghanistan's rugged terrain, according to an internal Army study.

As others have already noted, this wasn't a study. It was a paper written as part of an academic program. The paper is the opinion of one man.

The average range for a small-arms firefight in Afghanistan is about 500 meters, according to the study.

Actually, the paper itself states that 50% of engagements happen under 300m. The remaining 50% happening over 300m, of course. I read the entire paper by Major Ehrhart and do not recall any suggestion that the average engagement range was 500m. It strikes me that if 50% of the fights happen under 300m, then it is highly unlikely that 500m is the average range.

The round fired from their M4 carbines and M16 rifles, the 5.56mm bullet, don't carry enough velocity at long distances to kill.

Actually Maj. Ehrhart said nothing of the sort, instead he had a pretty nuanced and intelligent discussion of the terminal ballistics of 5.56 and pointed out that it has reduced lethality below a certain velocity.

But the shorter barrel robs the weapon of the ability to shoot accurately at long distances, because the bullet doesn't acquire as much stabilizing spin when it is fired as it does in a longer barrel.

This is utter BS as anybody who has shot a carbine AR knows. I've personally shot my 16" out to 600yds. The limitations on accuracy from a shorter barrel are linked to a shorter sight radius and less velocity (meaning greater drop and greater wind effect). It has ****-all to do with "not enough stabilizing spin." The Ehrhart paper does not discuss this at all, so I have no idea how David Wood arrived at this conclusion.

Such incidents may be flukes, but they do illustrate that the rounds can lack killing power.

Rounds that don't strike major organs or the central nervous system lack killing power, regardless of how big they are.
 
But that doesnt answer my question. Its still going to slow to cause a large amount of damage outside the bullet track and probably wont fragment.
A yawing 6.8 produces a greater temporary cavity at all distances, which increases potential for permanent disruption of soft tissues that may tolerate the temporary cavity produced by a yawing 5.56 at the same distance.
 
I thought that those fancy ARs were the silver bullet!

Couldn't they just carry around an upper chambered in a heavier round?!?!?!:D
 
The Army will replace its Cold War marksmanship strategy this summer with one that has basic trainees shooting more rounds, fixing jams and changing magazines — key skills all soldiers need in today’s combat.

One of the more interesting things about Major Ehrhart's paper was the historical discussion of marksmanship training in the Army. Not suprisingly, the course of fire he singled out as most realistic occured right after WWII and was fairly involved (and similar to the newly proposed course in some ways). Within a few years of the end of WWII, that marksmanship course of fire went the way of the dodo as a result of budget cuts.

It seems the one trend that is constant is that as soon as the war is over, the military gets to work cutting all of those expensive programs that train people on the realities of war.

Tirod said:
If the gamers and keyboard commandos would put down their joysticks, step away from the screen, and get a three year enlistment, most of these questions would never come up. Only one in a hundred is now a veteran, down from one in ten during the '70's.

Not all veterans serve in the infantry or actually see any combat if they do. I got more than my share of misinformation directly from military instruction - sometimes by decorated combat veterans repeating myths like ".50 cannot be used against personnel" or other silly bits of military lore.

Joe sees a bad guy at 300yds and pops off 5 rounds at him. He "knows" he hit him and therefore determines 5.56 is inadequate at that range. In reality, Joe may not be very good at estimating range and may have shot high or missed entirely. Collecting good data for Army studies is probably not even his secondary priority.

I get the general point that even more uninformed people added into the debate probably doesn't add much; but often times I think at a fair amount of the misinformation is internally generated.
 
For now they have what they have, changing bullet diameter and weight while keeping the existing platform will result in a weapon that may have greater impact at some distance but will have a poorer trajectory.
The more compact size of the M4 has probably saved more lives than would have been lost in the house to house nature of these present wars and calls on the internet for M1 Garand's and M14's for every man are of the make believe.
The SDM with a 7.62 is a good program and some transition to a shorter high powered weapon for general issue should be pursued but the reality is there will be a long time for development, production, and distribution that will likely last longer than the present wars.

On a personal note I have little trouble hitting prarie dogs at 3 & 4 hundred yds depending on the wind and mansized targets are not much trouble past 500. The prarie dogs have a definate strong reaction to the energy of the bullet so I'm pretty sure there is some smack behind it, enough that I would want nothing to do with being on the recieving end.
Marksmanship training for line units should be a huge focus, this should include doping wind and other field situations.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top