Most US firefights shot out at less than 30 yards

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
The Herald (Glasgow)


May 31, 2003

SECTION: Pg. 6

LENGTH: 429 words

HEADLINE: Most US firefights shot out at less than 30 yards, classified report finds

BYLINE: Ian Bruce Defence Correspondent

BODY:


THE vast majority of firefights between US and enemy infantry during the Iraq campaign took place at less than 30 yards' range and engagement of targets beyond 100 yards was "rare", according to a still-classified US Marine Corps report on the conflict.

Even US snipers picked off fedayeen gunmen and Saddam's Republican Guard at distances which only once exceeded 300 yards, although their rifles were capable of killing at more than 1000.

Despite the employment of state-of-the-art technology which allowed US bombers to fly round trips from Missouri to strike targets half a world away in Baghdad with pinpoint accuracy, the "grunt's war" on the ground was fought out at little more than the effective range of eighteenth-century muskets. The study, involving interviews with marines who took part in the advance on the Iraqi capital, is aimed at identifying equipment problems to allow improvements to be made in the way America wages war.

Its initial conclusions show that most marines thought the standard M16 rifle was too long and unwieldy for the job of clearing buildings room by room. Some used shorter, captured AK47 assault weapons or pistols in preference to anything from their own armoury. The group is now recommending that every marine is issued with a pistol as a back-up.

The British system of moving equipment in freight containers on trucks fitted with their own cranes comes in for praise as being "three times as efficient" as the US method of transporting individual items.

The UK logistics chain simply dumped the containers filled with requested kit close behind the fighting lines to be unloaded and their cargoes forwarded by battlegroup drivers. The empty containers were retrieved on the next supply run. US forces had no comparable distribution method, leading to delays in re -supply and a slowing down mobile operations.

The shortage of ceramic plates for body armour was a prime concern. The plates were said to be "worth their weight in gold" and saved five lives in one battalion alone.

The marines now are to request development of a lighter and wider plate. A flak jacket with protective front and back plates weighs 35lb, a considerable burden to infantry in hot climates who are already carrying up to 60lb of kit.

Despite the weight penalty, the study concludes that the Sapi - small arms protective insert - plates were "God's gift to the Marine Corps".

British forces who took part in the campaign are to carry out their own detailed review of the performance of equipment later this year.
 
I have read much of this in other documents.

A couple things that stand out in my mind.

We have been reading for years, posts about how the M16 lacks power at long range and we have to go with the M14 for all these long shots.

Second, we have been hearing that the Army's M4 Carbine was a grave mistake because it has a 14.5" barrel and the Marines were the only smart ones because they stuck with the 20" barrel.

But, when you ask a Marine, he tells you that the average distance of engagement was 30 yards and he wishes they had a much shorter rifle.
 
They hardly need me to tell them, but the Corps should be cautious that they don't re-equip to fight the last war. Short rifles are great in MOUT and other confined battlefields, but I'll bet the AARs were different in Afghanistan.
 
Not trying to be funny. I honestly can't remember.
Were the Marines deployed to Afganistan ?
 
Last edited:
Well, this goes back for my devil's advocate argument about replacing M4 carbines with FN P90 SMGs. If we're only going to prepare for firefights under 100 yards, the P90 offers even less weight, recoil, and more ammo. Right? Will put a .22 caliber hole clean through a badguy, just like an SS109 round from an M4 will, right?
 
Hmmm...maybe it is time for the M16 to be replaced by the Ruger 10/22.

Lighter, more cost effective, soldiers can carry more ammo, less recoil..
 
444--

I wasn't trying to imply the Marines were in Afghanistan, but I suppose they are forbidden by law or something unofficial from learning from the Army's experience in a theater different from Iraq right?;)
 
My nominee for the backup handgun:

Stainless Ruger GP100 in 9mm with moonclips and a 4" tube. Fixed sights regulated for NATO hardball.

Yes, I'm serious. It's a *backup*, it needs to be stone-axe reliable in bad conditions. 9mm fodder is available everywhere, most of the time you can even use captured stock. There's no controls or prep to fire, it's "grab and go". And in quantity they'll only cost $300 or less, with training costs very low too.

Kits containing extra springs, a spare takedown pin and 20 moon clips would fill half the volume of a cigarrete pack and could keep the gun running indefinately.
 
I guess you didn't understand, I don't know if the Marines were in Afganistan or not. I was asking a question.
I do know the Army was there, but I don't know how their weapons performed. I know I have read a lot of stuff on the internet by guys who wern't there and really don't know anything about it, but would like you to think they do. That information ran the gammit, but I take all of it with a grain of salt.
 
Murphy's laws of combat clearly state

#6: your weapon is made by the lowest bidder.
#24:Things that need to go together to work,
usually can't be shipped together.
 
backup handgun

just issue kahrs in 9mm for use as backup handguns.

IMHO, their rifles should be short stocked 16 inchers. the unwieldy factor is because the A2 stock is too long, not the barrel length.
 
As Boats alluded to earlier, it would be a bad thing to equip our grunts with specialized equipment for a particular war, but the idea of a short rifle, maybe a bullpup design in order to keep the OAL short, might be something to look into.
Personal favorite for 30 yards and under? 12 gauge high capacity with maybe a high cap 45, compensated for fast follow up shots.
 
The marines were among the first conventional forces on the ground in Afghanistan. In addition to securing Camp Rhino, the y secured Khandahar Airfield. I am aware of at least one significant engagement at each location. My Battalion releived the Marines at Khandahar in mid-January 2002.

Based on my experience in Afghanistan, I would not say the Marines and the Army differ to greatly on the issue of the M-4.
 
according to a still-classified US Marine Corps report on the conflict.

Still classified? It has received pretty wide Internet distribution for a supposedly classified study. The quotes he is citing on straight from the Marine Corps study that has been posted to every gun board forum on the net.
 
Primary weapon: M4 with barrel cut to optimum length for the chosen round. OAL reduced by shortening the stock, which really does get in the way when you're wearing a flak jacket and pack.

BUG: Smith & Wesson Model 66 or 686, chambered for the .357. Lots of cheap shooting with the .38 and you can step up for combat. I wouldn't mind the aforementioned Ruger if the quality was there. Everyone knows that Smith rules the revolver world!
 
Are there any decent callopsible stocks for the M16? Something that when extended is sturdy enough to allow proper use of a sling, and when collapsed is short enough to be out of the way. Folding stocks usually make some part of the weapons controls hard to access, but a true collapsing stock seems to be whats desired - as long as it really is sturdy enough to work properly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top