Here's a question: M16A2 vs. AR-15

N

Nightcrawler

New member
Say you have two platoons of soldiers, of equal training. One is equipped with M16A2s, with safe-semi-burst trigger groups, the other with AR-15s, identical in every way save they are semiauto only.

Neither side has squad machine guns, or maybe both sides have squad machine guns.

All things being equal, save that one side's rifles can burst fire and the other's can't, does the burst fire soldier have an advantage? If so, explain why you think so.

Continuing the question, let's say the first troops have full auto instead of burst fire. Now do they have an advantage over the semiautoonly guys?

If there's an advantage, in what kinds of engagements would their be one? In a 500-yard sniping fight, full auto isn't really helpful, but closer in, it might be, if you know what you're doing.
 
Full auto in the hands of regular infantry just wastes bullets. Look into the USARMY "Musketeer" evaluations. their findings were that it took 10,000+ rounds of bullets to cause ONE casualty, largely due to "spray & pray" behavior. Had a friend of mine warp the barrel of his M16 that way.

Semi or burst-fire forces infantry handle their weapons differently. They can handle their weapons better and have better ammo discipline.

Burst-fire is probably better than semi when using CONTROLLED/aimed fire. 3 rounds downrange has a better chance to hit than a single round. Multiple hits also have a better chance of putting down a soldier.

Full auto would be good for defending against human-wave/overrun attacks though. Full auto can be employed in an assault to keep the defenders' heads down while you move up.

A 500 yard engagement between two sides armed with M16s/AR15s will cause few casualties.
 
IIRC, the army teaches suppressive fire (cutting loose in the enemy's general direction) which is to keep the enemy's head down while your buddies maneuver up to get the drop on him. It's part of the fire and maneuver tactics. It can be helpful if properly coordinated.
 
Let me preface this by saying I've never been in the military, never been in guard, or anything like that, so take this for what it's worth...

Saw a documenary video on the CNN website on modern urban combat training SU army was using.

Like BigG said -- the first guy inthe door just HOSED the barricade a room's defenders were behind, while the second guy ran around to the side to mop up. Took 'em maybe 2 seconds or less to clear a room of (wild guess) 4-5 defenders.

In that kind of situation, I'd say a team with semis would be SOL... though I'm sure there's ways to compensate for that deficiency with other improvised defenses, I won't pretend to know what they are.

-K
 
The advantage to the burst feature over semi-only is little or none. Burst is a mechanical solution to a training problem. SEF is a different matter.

The military could and should properly train Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines to use full-auto.

Aren't the Marines going to transition to the M4 with SEF?
 
I never cared for the burst option of the M16A2, and the 'A1 on
full auto will mostly waste ammunition, unless you're in really
close. I can get a lot more hits with semi-auto point-and-shoot
than with burst or full-auto.

It seems to me that if you needed full-auto anyway (and don't
get me wrong, you do...), you needed lots of it, so the answer
was always an M-60 or a SAW.

ANM
 
Destructo6 has it pegged

It's a training problem. That and leadership will make the difference. All you need to do is establish an SOP on rate and distribution of fire and train to that standard all the time and you won't have those problems.

You need full auto fire to execute break contact drills, gain fire superiority in a meeting engagement and in certain MOUT/Trenchline clearing operations. In any other circumstances it's just a waste.

So in your scenario the platoon equipped with M16A2s would have an advantage in those areas where the higher rate of fire made a difference (listed above). However if the platoon equipped with AR15s planned and executed things properly they might be able to shape the battle so that the other platoon's superior rate of fire didn't matter. There are a lot of other components besides rate of fire that figure into the equation. If you know the capabilities of your enemy and his weapons systems you can either make them ineffective or in the best case turn them against him.

For example if you took a two man team from the platoon with AR15s and dug them in on the other platoons route. The platoon armed with M16A2s approaches and your decoy team opens up on them from their covered and concealed position, the M16A2 platoon executes their platoon combat drill and expends a large amount of burst fire at your dug in team. As soon as they think they have your team pinned down, they will attempt to maneuver against in in a flank attack. If you choose your terrain right, you can have the bulk of the AR15 platoon waiting in ambush on the route the maneuver element will take in attempting to flank your dug in element. The M16A2 platoon's maneuver element will be up, exposed and focused on the "threat" then you ambush them with a few volleys of aimed semi auto fire. The lack of full auto fire is not a handicap in this situation and the M16A2 platoon has spent their higher rate of fire on your decoy team. A bit of a simplistic explanation, but it works.

Jeff
 
I'll put in my opinion here... I'd rather have a select fire rifle, so in close in situations, and where 'supression' fire is needed, you can go fully auto. But in general, open ground or jungle/forest, where engagements are between less individuals, and at greater distance, single shots, or small aimed bursts might be more affective, and conserve ammo. Switching between the two would be my choice!

...and with a semi-auto, you can just fan the trigger and still spray quite a few rounds rather quickly!

M@
 
I carried the m-60 for 13 mos in viet nam and I'm glad I did. I wish I had abominable no-man back then cuz my squad couldn't hit thier ass on semi even if they stuck the bbl of that plastic p.o.s. in thier back pocket. especially in a fire fight
 
Question is too vague. The issue has been beaten to death. The real issue isn't the weapon, but the soldier. I'll take 12 good soldiers with Flintlock Rifles (note rifles not muskets) over 100 bad ones with full auto M-16's. That having been said, the more options available to the well trained soldier the better. The soldier with the option to use full auto, and the brains to know when, and how to implement it has the advantage (however slight) over an equally well trained (and led) soldier. As was stated above, the burst mode is a "machine" answer to a "man" problem.

Anyone else who knows history will recall that there was a great feeling in the leadership of world militaries that giving soldiers semi-automatic rifles would lead to "wasted bullets". It is a fear that has existed since at least the revolutionary war (not semi-auto specific then). The source of this fear is based on logistics (amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics). Wars in the 20th century have demonstrated that the country that can throw the most lead at the other side wins (with certain caveats). Bullets are cheap in America, people are not, the reverse is true in a country like China. Give'em full auto, and train'em to use it. Tools are worthless hunks of metal without a man trained to use them. But just in case anyone thinks this debate will ever end, it's been going on, in one form or another, for 200 years, don't expect it to end soon.

-Morgan
 
I hate the burst feature. A properly trained soldier can be taught trigger control and to regularly attain two or three shot bursts with each squeeze of the trigger. Give me full auto any day over burst fire.

BTW, given the choice of two shot burst over semi-auto, most shots are going to be semi-auto anyway. Full auto is useful for "mad minute" and barrel melt-downs.
 
It takes both equipment and training

CaesarI,

Your 12 men armed with flintlock rifles would not last long against 100 untrained men with M16s. The musket ruled the battlfield for years after the rifle was invented because the rifle was too slow to load and even at the standoff distance the rifleman enjoyed he was soon in bayonet range and in most cases his rilfe had no provision for mounting a bayonet. Think of the Tueller drill only on a mass scale. The rifleman had an effective range of 200-250 yards vs. the 80 yards of the Infantryman armed with a musket. The riflemen fire a volley killing or wounding several of the Infantryman at 200 yards. Now the remaining Infantrymen have 30-45 seconds to cover 120 yards to put them within musket range or even to put them in hand to hand range with fixed bayonets.

This doesn't mean that rifles served no purpose and units of riflemen were employed in the American Revolution and other wars to support the conventional Infantry armed with muskets, but the could never stand and fight or hold ground because the units armed with muskets could maintain such a higher rate of fire while they advanced.

It takes both equipment and training to be successful. A soldier should know his equipment and it's capabilities and his enemies' equipment and capabilities to be successful. There has to be some kind of parity or the soldier needs to understand how to negate the enemies' advantage.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top