Proposed New US Service Rifle Cartridges

To the man who said he never engaged the enemy beyond 300 meters, why is that? Given that 300 meters is a round number, there still must be a valid reason that at least riflemen did not engage the enemy beyond that range. I don't know whether or not it is acceptable, though. But I can think of some good reasons.

The obvious thing is the difficulty of making hits at that distance on a target that is likely to be shooting back and making every effort not to show very much of himself, same as yourself. Perhaps there are other reasons.

And how much of all of this thread might apply to another environment? Much of the Middle East looks the same, some parts flat, some parts anything but. The rest of the world will look a little different in places. It was not for nothing that the Jungle Warfare School was in Panama instead of Kansas.
 
Another paragraph. And no, he's saying they they're the only ones CAPABLE of engaging the enemy (outside of machine guns and mortars). The rest of the company is ineffective.
Click to expand...

So what are the enemies using that is giving them the capability for effective egagement of our forces that we can't respond to effectively?

It isn't AK-47s or -74s. They will have the same limitations as the M16FOW if not more.
 
IF you would READ the report, or have been there, you would know. But since you are too lazy or unable, I have done it for you.

"Combat in Afghanistan has shown several trends. The enemy takes advantage of the terrain and engages patrols or convoys from high ground. He also combines this advantage with heavy weapons systems and mortars from a distance, typically beyond 300 meters."

I'm not sure how familiar you are with russia's fight in afghanistan, but they used choppers to leap frog troops from high terrain to high terrain to cover convoys and limit the enemy's advantage of terrain.
 
No offense but I keep my surfing to this forum. No point in running around all over the place when all knowledge can be found here.

So the enemy uses heavy weapons and takes the high ground. Can we do that, too?

There was something I saw on the news probably years ago now of some convoy going through some valley somewhere in either Iraq or Afganistan. Actually it was more like a canyon. It was ambushed, as could only be expected, I suppose. Those in the convoy responded by unleashing a fearsome volley of fire that literally smoothered the hillside. They suffered no casualties, don't know about the enemy. That's one way to do it.

An interesting read from ages ago on the subject of military operations in that part of the world is "Bugles and a Tiger," by Masters, who served with a Gurkha Rifle regiment in the 1930s (and on into WWII) on the Northwest Frontier. Interesting to compare their experiences with today.
 
Yes, but if the link is right there, why not click on it?

You *could* shoot at everything around you...I believe this was called a "death blossom" when we did it, but it has since been frowned upon being you have no positively identified targets. What the writer of this report is saying is if you have 200 soldiers and only 40 of them able to fight...there's a severe problem going on with your weapons and training. Basically you have 160 worthless targets waiting to fill a bodybag.
 
IF you would READ the report, or have been there, you would know. But since you are too lazy or unable, I have done it for you.

"Combat in Afghanistan has shown several trends. The enemy takes advantage of the terrain and engages patrols or convoys from high ground. He also combines this advantage with heavy weapons systems and mortars from a distance, typically beyond 300 meters."
Click to expand...

I appreciate the help.:rolleyes:

I am at work, and I can't get through our internet filters. I should be working instead of messing around on the internet.:D

They are using DShKs, mortars and PKM machine guns from high ground and you are expecting our guys to respond with rifle fire?:confused:

So you expect a patrol that is potentially in an enfilade situation (as any good ambush should be intiated) to return effective fire on a defiladed enemy that has the high ground and most likely previously zeroed the ambush point?

I would think that would be nearly an untenable position even with a whole team of snipers....

I'm not sure how familiar you are with russia's fight in afghanistan, but they used choppers to leap frog troops from high terrain to high terrain to cover convoys and limit the enemy's advantage of terrain.
Click to expand...

Not something that I have done alot of research on, but considering our superior pinpoint artillery and CAS capabilities, I would assume that we could forgo the need to actually put boots on those hills and just keep the patrols under the umbrella of the aforementioned assets. But I defer to your military experience. I am just an engineer that designs door components and shoots for fun on the weekends.:D
 
You *could* shoot at everything around you...
Click to expand...

Of what benefit is having 2X the number of rounds on you for the same weight cost, if you are just going to waste all of them killing dirt?

"What Good is redoubling your efforts once you have lost sight of your goal?"

What the writer of this report is saying is if you have 200 soldiers and only 40 of them able to fight...there's a severe problem going on with your weapons and training. Basically you have 160 worthless targets waiting to fill a bodybag.
Click to expand...

And if they all carried a round that was capable of the task at hand (engaging the enemy at the range he so often chooses to open the engagement at), even if they were not up to hitting small obscure targets at 500 meters, they'd be carrying ammo for someone who could.....

I think I have an inkling how those 160 guys would feel, because during Gulf War I, I was driving across the vast "Endles Beach With No Water" sitting a top a 6 ton pile of artillery shells and propellant, and my personal weapon was effective to 800 meters at an area target ...... when you could generally see for miles. ....... only my job was to keep those munitions handy for our 8" guns, so we could kill the enemy over the horizon.... but we had zero confidence in the "plastic pea shooters" we carried everywhere....... I can't imagine having to rely on similar equipment if my job was to close with them enemy and kill him, in similarly open terrain..... and the vertical nature of A-stan would only compound the problem.
 
My Squad Designated Marksman was by far the hardest working guy in my squad. He had the right weapons and optics for most of the stuff we had to do, and for most of our "combat" he was the one who actually had a gun truly in the fight.
 
No, what is expected is 100% of effective soldiers instead of less that 20%. When you get a chance, read the report. It'd keep comments like the last from coming up.

But if the only way to engage the enemy is when he ambushes you, you'd better get good at returning fire. If your weapon is not capable of reaching the enemy, and your training not able to allow you hits...why are you there? To draw fire long enough for somebody who CAN hit the enemy to draw a bead on him?

I've played bait before...its not fun. Might as well give our guys sling shots. Plenty of rocks laying around and about as effective. On the otherhand, had they some rifles capable of reaching out and touching someone, with the traing to put rounds into the enemy EFFECTIVELY, then they'd be more able to engage and destroy the enemy, instead of being on the recieving end of a lead salad delivered by ghosts.

Couple problems with artillery fire and CAS. 1) you have to be inside the coverage envelope (2) you have to have priority of fires (3) you gotta have someone who can call for fire accurately. Not a huge problem if you have an LRAS3 or an MELIOS with PLGR hooked up, thats been zeroed and you know how to use it. Or know where you're at and can call in a good polar plot... And (4) the terrain. Now a good gun crew and all this fancy technolodgy we have is supposed to help this. I've never called for big guns, but I have called for 120mm mortars on hilly terrain, elevation plays a huge part in accuracy. While the enemy may be 800m from your LOS (using a range finder) and 200m above you, they're only 774m from you on a map. If you call in the target using a polar mission (easiest way while on the move) then you automatically are over shooting them by 25m... which is well in the kill radius of a 120mm. If everything else is perfect. Now usually that would be an immediate suppression mission launching whatever they have on hand, and you'd better hope its a PRX or NSB fused HE. Even still, 25m overshot on a hilltop will acutally impact towards the back of the hill, or if they're on the side of a mountain well above them. Now you just have to hope they're not using cover...why would they be?

It may suppress them, but I want to kill them.
 
Last edited:
My Squad Designated Marksman was by far the hardest working guy in my squad. He had the right weapons and optics for most of the stuff we had to do, and for most of our "combat" he was the one who actually had a gun truly in the fight.
Click to expand...

And for the cost of a single FA-whatever*, every man in your platoon could have had the same weapon and skilset he did .....


While attack aircract are fine weapons, when combined with precision guided munitions, they are not always around when you need them, and can come with collateral damage issues. Nothing is as reassuring to to boots on the ground as confidence in his personal skills and equipment.

I have my own theory as to why every swinging Richard 11B is no longer trained to hit man sized targets to 600 yards, and money is not the reason....
 
But if the only way to engage the enemy is when he ambushes you, you'd better get good at returning fire.
Click to expand...

But if the only way to engage the enemy is when he ambushes you, you had better come up with a better plan.

FIFY.

Ceding initiative to the enemy is a bad plan, unless you are planning to lose, or just buy time.....
 
Okay, I skimmed over the referenced documents. I'm not sure I agree with much of what he's saying.

First off, individual abilities play an important part, especially in long range rifle shooting. Notice in the document, reference was made to volley fire at long range. Then he goes on to say how in the movement part of WWI, other weapons were more important.

I hate to say it but it sounds like he was looking for solutions to the problems of soldiers being burden with weapons and equipment by changing to a weapons with better long range capabilities. I'm not so sure if the soldiers can all be trained up to the skill level to take advantage of it. Maybe they can, maybe not. I do know that the army is fighting an enemy that grew up shooting rifles on their home ground and they aren't going anywhere. But notice that they enemy is using heavy weapons. He proposes to combat that with a more powerful rifle? No battle will be won and no decision made by sitting there and just shooting at the enemy, no matter how good a shot you may be.

So let's hear your thoughts about why the infantry is not well trained. It sounds like many of them have already been over there once already.
 
The training is not in place and the weapons are not capable. If you train someone to shoot at a max of 300m with the target sitting still and 1 shot being enough to kill them... Then you're standard is not high enough.

And as far as the better plan, let me clarify a few things. I was enlisted, I didn't make the plans. The enemy is embedded with the civilian populance, not like you're looking for uniforms and posistions, the only way to gain contact and PID a target is when they're shooting at you. Finally, what enemy that has said advantages are going to give them up?
 
To me, the training paradigm in and of itself is flawed. And not just the training only to 300 meters.

The Army's warrior mindset is gone. Poof. Gone. Done. Deleted. Trashed.

Unless your in Delta Force, SF, or maybe one of the Ranger BNs, most of your time will not be spent learning how to close with and destroy the enemey.

You are going to learn how to be sensitive to the populace, prevent sexual harrasment in the work place, recieve countless briefings over why DUIs are bad and STDs are bad.

Bring back bayonet training. Shamelessy rip off the Corps. Soldier first; MOS second. More range time. Encourage private shooting. Bring back formation runs and violent cadences. And a Sergeant Major of the Army that is more concerned with how the Army Rifle Team is doing instead of what shoes you can wear with your PT uniform would be a terrific start.
 
The warrior mindset must be something that came and went after I was in. I wonder what you folks would think of the typical army enlisted man who served in WWII, like my father. He was infantry. He was 28 when he was drafted. Do you suppose he had a warrior mindset? I'm sure he was a much better shot than I was.

I'm not sure about all of the things mentioned in the previous post but I'm certain the army is much more sensitive to casualties than they were at one time. Just the army, that is. I doubt the marines are. I had a weapon in the arms room when I was in the service and I did shoot it but one could not say that it was encouraged. It was only a handgun. What is violent cadence? Never heard of such a thing. And finally, there was no PT uniform when I was in the service. You wore the same boots you wore everyday.
 
I agree, most of the training I received was how to respond to attacks, ambushes, chemical weapons ect.. we occasionaly got to clock some time at the MOUT sites against a non existent enemy or an OPFOR that was unrealistic. With observer controllers that would put you in the morgue for uniform infractions or some obscure regulation violation.

Often times, the best source of knowledge were overlapping veterans, older guys from earlier conflicts that were still in the army. For example, many VN vets were still in service when I was a young soldier.
 
The unit I was in and in fact, the head of the section I was in, was a WWII veteran. Another had been through Korea. Every now and then there would be an item in either the Stars & Stripes or the division paper (this was only 45 years ago) about someone serving in the division who had served in it during either WWII or Korea, which had been only 15 years earlier.

I knew I was getting old when it was longer since I got out than the time between when my father got out and I went in.
 
hate to say it but it sounds like he was looking for solutions to the problems of soldiers being burden with weapons and equipment by changing to a weapons with better long range capabilities. I'm not so sure if the soldiers can all be trained up to the skill level to take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

If they can teach 1980's-90's era 18 y.o. juvenile delinquents to drive big trucks full of explosives across "Germany, Federal Republic of"-across everything from flooded training area tank trails to the Autobahn without mishap, I am sure that with a bit of effort, proper equipment, and a willingness to weed out the unwilling, real basic rifle marksmanship could again be a Common Task..... or at least an essential part of AIT for the 11 and 19 series MOS fields .......
 
I served from '92 to '97 and didn't see any combat except for fighting my buddies for the few "round eyed" girls in downtown Seol while out drinking and tearing up the town.

Other than getting to the range maybe twice a year to qualify with the M16A2 we didn't do a lot of shooting.

If you're not attached to some combat arms section of the Army, you are more concerned with your day to day job. Which is operating and maintaining the Army's equipment including. Seems like I spent more time taking inventory of the equipment conex than I did on the range. I was a helicopter mechanic with the air cav. More time turning wrenches than pulling triggers.

The point is...not everyone is proficient with their assigned weapon. So it really doesn't matter what caliber your everyday pouges are carrying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top