Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer: A critique.

Status
Not open for further replies.
My original comment was in thinking more about an M14 sniper package, rather than something with both short and long range capabilities. But even with a sniper package, a good detachable mount would allow you to throw the glass on when you wanted it and remove it when moving in cover.
Click to expand...
That's probably best -- a low power scope (perhaps a variable 1 to 4) wth a quick dismountable and return-to-zero mount.
 
I have no issue with red dots and so on. I'm only talking about magnification here, in a more traditional scope.
Click to expand...
Well, like you originally said, you've never been in the military so I would respectfully say you don't really know what we're talking about in this thread. No military uses hunting optics on any rifle. Even full tube scope on a precision bolt action has a mil-dot reticle which can be used for rapidly adjusting shots in combat. And Squad Designated Marksmen do not use bolt actions or full tube scopes. They use M14s, and some M110s with ACOGs or similar low magnification optics with a backup for close shooting. You're approaching this from a hunting angle and thinking about it terms of hunting rifles with hunting scopes. That has nothing to do with ranged shots against people who are shooting back, and the equipment necessary for that.

You're basically arguing against soldiers using scopes they don't use, in a situation they're not in, on guns they're not issued.
 
Well, like you originally said, you've never been in the military so I would respectfully say you don't really know what we're talking about in this thread.
Click to expand...

I said I was never in the infantry or marines. But even so, I know that snipers still use traditional scopes.
 
Even if we discount the SLA Marshall work in Korea that I cited there is still the Evaluation of Small Arms Effectiveness Criteria study, which was not generated from after action surveys but from combat photographer footage.

In many ways, that study is better as it covered four different conflicts: WWII in the European theater, WWII in the Pacific, Korea, and Vietnam.

Of course, since that study also found that the bulk of firing takes place under 200m, we should probably ignore that one too.

BSW
 
And screw the optics! A good rifleman can easily hit a target at 400 or 500 meters with iron sights - and at close range with those same sights.
Click to expand...
Shooting at a high-contrast target, in good lighting, from a good shooting position, with youngish eyes---sure. But shooting at a low-contrast target, or under poor lighting, or from a contorted shooting position, or with older eyes or glasses, it's a lot harder.

In my (limited) experience, at twilight or at night, iron sights on a rifle are pretty much useless without a mounted flashlight, unless you are shooting at a brightly lit target.
 
Combat isn't like a known distance, mowed, rifle range in sunshine? The targets move and hide? They don't have bullseyes on them?

Do the Hague people know about this? That's just barbaric!

BSW
 
It's really hard to find a one size fits all as so many weird things happen. Combat is not really much like hunting or target shooting. Most of the stuff I was in, you rarely saw who was shooting at you much less get a chance to aim no matter what your sights. Much of the time they shoot from good cover and from accross a barrier like a gully, rice paddy so they can't be quickly assaulted. When we returned fire they cut and run usually. But that's not always true either. If you see them it's trouble. either a trap or big assault. But again it's hard to count on anything but it's being hard . Even if you don't get to use it, more range and accuracy is better in my book. The one time you need there is no substitute.
 
In my (limited) experience, at twilight or at night, iron sights on a rifle are pretty much useless without a mounted flashlight, unless you are shooting at a brightly lit target.
Click to expand...

This.

When the sun has just gone over the mountains, and the contacts are wearing drab man-dresses and moving expertly through the same rocks they've grown up around, iron sights are next to useless. Give me a nice red point to put on the source of movement.
 
Most of the stuff I was in, you rarely saw who was shooting at you much less get a chance to aim no matter what your sights. Much of the time they shoot from good cover and from accross a barrier like a gully, rice paddy so they can't be quickly assaulted.
Click to expand...


My approach to combat shooting is to place it in the tactical context. The purpose of shooting in combat is to win the fight, so your shooting program should be an integrated part of your tactics.

During the Viet Nam era, the Army emphasized “React to Ambush” or “React to Contact.” The idea was, if you were ambushed at close range (50 meters or less) you should charge the enemy. Otherwise, you should run away from the ambush. But if it were merely contact (and not an ambush) you should engage in a firefight.

To make this work, of course, you would need three additional men in the rifle squad – a tape man to measure the distance between you and the enemy, an interview man to question the enemy leader, “Were you set up for us, or were you just as flabbergasted as we were when the shooting started?” and of course a referee to call the close ones.

The point is, it doesn’t make sense to expect a man (let alone a unit) to instantly choose the correct response among three diametrically opposed options when under fire. So I established my own “React to Contact” drill.

1. Take cover. This is automatic, anyway – why fight Mother Nature? And it’s logical – when the shooting starts all you know is that you’re in contact and you’re still alive. This means no high-speed metal particles have passed through the space you occupy. So the best thing for you to do is reduce the amount of space you occupy and get behind something, too.

2. Locate the enemy. A lot of people who have never been in combat think this is easy. It isn’t. You need to train on the crack-thump method – when you hear the crack of the bullet, be alert to listen for the thump of the gasses escaping from the muzzle. That will tell you approximately where the enemy is. Combine that with looking for flashes, dust, and signs of movement to locate the bastards.

3. Return fire. The taxpayer has provided you with all the ammunition you can carry. Use it – but use it correctly (more on this later.)

4. Locate the men on your right and left. Small units disintegrate when first under fire. That’s natural, so it’s up to you to start putting your unit back together.

5. Relay orders and information – restore the chain of communication and command.

Now let’s translate this drill into effective shooting. To understand how this works, go outside and lie down. Get low, as if your life depended on it (as it does in combat) and look in the direction of your imagined enemy. Visualize a horizontal line in space. Move this line down until you can confidently say, “There can’t be an enemy below that line.” Now imagine another horizontal line and move it up until you can confidently say “There can’t be an enemy above that line.”

Add left and right limits, and you now have a shallow box. The enemy is somewhere in that box, and if you can’t do anything else, you can methodically work that box, keeping all your shots into that narrow zone where the enemy has to be. If you spot evidence of an actual enemy location (dust, moving bushes, muzzle flashes, etc.) work that area carefully, shooting at and around the suspected location. Fill that space with bullets. But semiautomatic only – there is no good reason for full auto fire from hand-held weapons.

Now, you’re part of a unit. This is a collective enterprise, not an individual undertaking. So let’s make it a group effort; to do that we add the leaders’ duties. To accomplish this I had officers and NCOs load with solid tracer – other than machine gunners, only officers and NCOs had tracers.

The squad leader visualizes his squad sector using the same techniques as individual soldiers, then he marks the limits by firing two shots at the left limit, two at the right limit, and two at center of sector. This distinctive two-shot tracer fire, plus a standard left-right-center pattern alerts soldiers and allows men who don’t see the whole pattern to accurately estimate what their squad leader wants.

Now individual soldiers and team leaders divide up the squad sector. If I’m on a flank, I work that flank toward the middle. If I’m in the middle, I work the center of the target box toward both ends. I and my team leader want to see other men’s shots hitting in “my” part of the squad sector – so we know we’re delivering overlapping fire. NCOs want to see some shots hit short – a ricochet can kill, a high shot won’t do any good. Keep your fire low.
When a leader spots a suspected target, he begins to fire steadily at it – that stream of tracer tells everyone “Everybody shoot at this area.” Similarly, if a leader shoots full auto at a target it means “Machine guns concentrate on this area.” Leaders terminate fire concentrations by shooting the left-right-center pattern again.

Another combat problem is to get people to stop shooting. This is done by firing bursts of full auto tracer high above the target area. That means, “Hold your fire, dammit!”

These simple techniques, plus a lot of training and good squad supervision, will dramatically increase a unit’s kill rate in combat.
 
I agree with Art and the "elderly" article posted. The posted critique makes a huge assumption that Afghanistan isn't different and it is well documented that it is (or at least was) different. When the enemy knows your weakness they make every attempt to exploit said weakness.

Busting a move on them with some wisely deployed M-14's fixed their little red wagons but good.
 
If anyones interested here a link to the report on the battle of Wanat: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/Wanat.pdf

There is a lot of detail, but it's basically about COP Kahler, a combat outpost that is attacked and almost overrun. Extremely close fighting. Go to page 141 if you want to read about weapons that were adequate for defense and the failures of other systems, especially when used at full auto for an extended amount of time. Vanity Fair, yes, and other news outlets have written some decent stories about the situation and the survivors. Operation Rock Avalanche, depicted in the movie RESTREPO, also demonstrated that the fighting can become extremely close quarters. Units have been and currently use a range of weapons in Afghanistan, the M14 is no stranger in that theater of war.
 
Damn, Vern.

That part of my life is over, but that post presents a very coherent way of communicating essential information viscerally, quickly, and unambiguously.

I'm really impressed.
 
These simple techniques, plus a lot of training and good squad supervision, will dramatically increase a unit’s kill rate in combat.
Click to expand...

Vern Humphrey: That entire post was solid gold (and should be a sticky on the rifle forum). All your posts are excellent...but that one especially so.
 
A lot of the long distance shooting by squad level troops in afghanistan is done with the 240 bravo machine gun. The gunner walks the rounds into the target with the help of tracers. Any of you that shoot at long distances understand the extreme amount of drop at 700 yds plus. Without tracers you do not know where the rounds are hitting and cannot correct. The enemy knows the range of our rifles. I suppose that is where air strikes come in.
 
Derek Zeanah said:
Damn, Vern.

That part of my life is over, but that post presents a very coherent way of communicating essential information viscerally, quickly, and unambiguously.

I'm really impressed.
Click to expand...

Me too. I been out of RA for decades, but it all came back in a flash. I started sweating and ducking mentally and the fire box locked into my vision in about two heart beats - yeow that was a good piece of writing :eek:
 
The quickie order of events for me was Dash, Down, Crawl, Observe, Sights, Fire followed by GRIT

Dash, Get the hell out of the immediate line of fire, even a couple of feet helps

Down, If the enemy can see your ass, he can shoot it

Crawl, Mr Naughty saw where you hit the dirt, keep the ass down and crawl to where you won't get peppered and can return effective fire

Observe, Look for Who, What, Where, When, How and make sure the rest of the team know what you know

Sights, Use your and your buddies information, set your range and visually build and sweep the box

Fire.....just what it says

Whilst suppressing, wait for the boss to get to Group, Range, Indication, Type of fire, follow up with Approach, Assault, Fight through and Re-Org.

The worrying part is sometimes I can't remember what I had for dinner last week but the mnemonics and battle orders are there just like yesterday..... :cool:
 
I am currently in a light infantry batt in RC east. My last 3 engagements were from over 650 meters. Ive had to treat 7.62 wounds in almost falling trajectories from them arching aks and RPMs
 
I am currently in a light infantry batt in RC east. My last 3 engagements were from over 650 meters. Ive had to treat 7.62 wounds in almost falling trajectories from them arching aks and RPMs
Click to expand...
.......and there you have it, stay safe soldier.
 
.......and there you have it
Click to expand...

Have what?

arching aks and RPMs
Click to expand...

Machine gun fight at machine gun ranges...hits with rifles are mostly random accidents. It's called plunging fire and is a function of beaten zones...not rifle sights. Hitting an area target like a COP, convoy, or platoon frontage of dismounts is fairly easy...with any rifle. The same is true in both directions...absent proper cover. Connecting aimed fire against individual targets from a great distance is a different ball of wax.

I spent quite a bit of time in the same RC East (long before it was called RC East) running an SF led guerrilla battalion of indigenous mercenaries. When we were engaged at 650+ meters...it was infinitely preferable to finding oneself in a fight at under 150 meters. At 650 meters, AK equipped bad guys are delivering AK harassing fire, completely imprecise and generally ineffective. My concern then was not with enemy riflemen. RPGs going 950 meters got my attention. PKMs arcing in from 750 meters got my attention. 122s, 107s, SPGs, & mortar fire got my attention.

Fire at me with an AK from 650+ meters...and I'll kill you with lots of different tools that are far better than a fire team's rifles. Fire at me from 650 meters with AKs and I know that one of two or three things is happening:

1) You are weaker than my force and afraid to stand for very long or...

2) You are a supporting fires position for the Muj I actually need to worry about...the ones who are attempting to flank me and get inside 150 meters while I'm distracted or suppressed by your long range fire. Or the ones reloading the crew served fire raining down on my position.

3) You are baiting me to move into your prepared kill zone.


I grew up on the M14, was a school trained sniper assigned an M21 for decades, and have a deep appreciation for a variety of Sniper Weapon Systems, but...

I could randomly grab most any US Infantry platoon in Afghanistan today, assign every single man an optic mounted M21 (or an M24...or an SR-25...or an M110) and be lucky to find find four Joes who could consistently and reliably kill someone at 650+ meters with rifle fire. Probably not that many.

We don't train our non-sniper/non-DMR guys to be able to hit anyone with a rifle at 650 meters. Issuing them a tool with that capability won't change the equation. Most folks using a MKI Eyeball can't even make the PID (Positive Identification) at 400 meters that would allow them to fire under ROE (Rules Of Engagement).

The idea that our infantry would somehow wreak havoc by having every man issued a 750-yard capable DMR gun is nothing but a load of crap. It simply would not work out that way.

It's about training more than tools. Give me a Sniper Section, say 4-6 trained shooters, plus spotters, C2, and security...and I'll give you a significant body count out at the distances where the mil-formula comes into play. While that's happening, I'll probably be dropping some 60mm WP, belt fed fire, and some 40mm Hi-Velocity on you to boot...neutralizing your cover...while adjusting a Call For Fire...and maneuvering against you. Maybe some AT-4, Javelin, or Carl Gustav rockets headed your way as well. Followed up by an AC-130, AH-6, or FA-18 Close Air Support strike.

In Afghanistan, at 650+ meters...I'm looking for your gunners and crews...not your riflemen. The AK armed riflemen hardly matter and don't have the ammo load (or accuracy) to keep up sustained suppression against my position or formation.

Death and wounds come in a lot of flavors. IED strikes kill from 2 meters. 107mm warheads kill launched from over 2000 meters. But, getting hit by 7.62 x 39 from 650+ meters mean you were just very unlucky...'cause the guy that fired it didn't have an actual sight picture on your chest. Getting hit with a belt fed machine gun at 650+ means that you got within the normal effective fire envelope of that gun...and didn't have cover. What's that got to do with rifle fire?

Issuing M14s or SCAR 17s to all of our guys wouldn't much change the inverse of that rifle fire equation either. It would just give them a much heavier load to hump, reduce firepower, slow down and degrade responsive fires during CQB fights, and limit unit ability to logistically sustain engagements. All for little (if any) return in terms of enemy killed.

People that are locked into an every-man-a-DMR fantasy do not understand how infantry combat actually works. There is so much more involved than than the range scale imprinted on your rifle's rear sights.

We issued a 500+ yard gun for years...the M16A2. It didn't work out so well in combat. I wonder why? :rolleyes:

The single best thing we could do for Soldier rifle skills would be to force the Army to add USMC-style KD 500 yard qualification training (using M4s w/ both iron sights and optics). Do this as part of Basic Rifle Marksmanship during Initial Entry Training...for everyone. The weapon is capable. The troops are currently not.

The final half-klick has always been owned by the Infantry...but never through sole use of rifle fire.
 
Last edited:
A rifle that is well suited as a military service rifle, for regular troops who have machine gunners, rockets, artillery, and air support, would not necessarily be the best choice for an "insurgency" or "Second Amendment" purpose rifle, for someone who is on the other side of a regular force.

The 5.56mm AR platform makes a lot of sense for the former -- but a battle rifle or long range precision rifle might make more sense for the latter (belt fed MG's and explosives aside).

So if you're a citizen who is buying his own personal rifle to uphold his 2nd Amendment duties, you may have some very different considerations when it comes to weapon choice than someone who is serving in a military unit... in which case you will have your rifle issued to you, and won't have a whole lot of say in the matter!
 
RobGR said:
If anyones interested here a link to the report on the battle of Wanat: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/car...pubs/Wanat.pdf

There is a lot of detail, but it's basically about COP Kahler, a combat outpost that is attacked and almost overrun. Extremely close fighting. Go to page 141 if you want to read about weapons that were adequate for defense and the failures of other systems, especially when used at full auto for an extended amount of time. Vanity Fair, yes, and other news outlets have written some decent stories about the situation and the survivors. Operation Rock Avalanche, depicted in the movie RESTREPO, also demonstrated that the fighting can become extremely close quarters. Units have been and currently use a range of weapons in Afghanistan, the M14 is no stranger in that theater of war.
Click to expand...

Wanat was a joke in that some idiot commander put there FOB smack bang in the middle of a valley surrounded by highground with only 49 US and 24 ANA soldiers protecting it. They also gave them surveillance and air support (Drones) but took them away to fly a "higher priority mission" leaving them totally exposed. End Result 9 US Servicemen dead and 24 wounded, what a waste.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjF9MzI0BEo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer
2 3 4 5
Replies
113
Views
7K
Jaws
J
C
  • Locked
Army Report: GIs Outgunned in Afghanistan
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
4K
X-Rap
X-Rap
C
  • Locked
Taking Back The Infantry Half-km: Britain’s L129A1
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
JShirley
JShirley
B
  • Locked
Survey of Marine Infantry Reveals Complaints About Rifle
Replies
5
Views
742
Eightball
E
S
  • Locked
Combat distance
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
OEF_VET
O
Back
Top