Army Report: GIs Outgunned in Afghanistan - Page 2

Army Report: GIs Outgunned in Afghanistan

This is a discussion on Army Report: GIs Outgunned in Afghanistan within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I thought the bigger problem right now was that target distances in Afghanistan are beyond what we are training our guys to consistently shoot at. ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: Army Report: GIs Outgunned in Afghanistan

  1. #16
    Member Array metallic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    156
    I thought the bigger problem right now was that target distances in Afghanistan are beyond what we are training our guys to consistently shoot at. I think the Ernhart even makes this exact same point, suggesting we make changes to the way that we train our troops to shoot. So my real question is, why the focus on the actual rifle and round used instead of on the training that our troops are receiving?
    Kimber Pro TLE II (EDC)
    Bersa Thunder .380 (EDC)
    Sig Sauer P226
    Bushmaster XM15-E2S
    Winchester Model 70 .270


  2. #17
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,563
    They are both lacking. The troops are not trained for shooting at distances past 300 yards, or different elevations or compensating for wind and even if they were, the round is more like a 22lr by the time it arrives, particularly if launched from an M4 with a 16" (or less) barrel. The primary wounding mechanism of the 5.56 doesn't really work past 50-100 yards with the M4 barrel. Most people would not hunt deer with the 5.56 round at 100+ yards out of a bolt action with a 22" barrel. We need to work on basic marksmanship, but the projectile has to do the job when it hits the target, otherwise all the training in the world won't fix the problem. 308, 6.8SPC, 6.5 Grendel will all do the job over 300 yards.

  3. #18
    Member Array Raider39a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    335
    Not to start with inter service rivalry but I would like to hear the Marine side of this issue. are they having problems with their M16s stoked with ACOG sights? is this because the army has gone M4 in their frontline companies that is causing problems for them?

    It would be an interesting experiment to take frontline grunt companies, put 6.8 uppers in their rifles, ACOGs, and plenty of ammo, and with logistic support to feed these new weapons for the frontline guys... let see what happens. You don't have to pay 8 grand to issue M110 per soldier.

    maybe we can borrow the some FALs/L1A1 from our British allies. i am sure they have a ton on those mothballed in some armory in Britain. put some scopes in them. these rifles serve them well in the Falklands.

    yup, it would really suck if @ 600 yards, you are using an M4 and Johnny Taliban is using a old SMLE rifle with a lot more range than you do.

    For the sake of our troops, I hope that they fix this problem fast.
    "embrace the suck" - our warriors in the sandbox... it implies that do the best you can in impossible conditions.
    "no plan survives intact upon contact with the enemy" - wisdom of the Grunts.

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    [QUOTE]
    The primary wounding mechanism of the 5.56 doesn't really work past 50-100 yards with the M4 barrel.
    Excellent post.

    Most people would not hunt deer with the 5.56 round at 100+ yards out of a bolt action with a 22" barrel.
    Yep, I do not hunt deer with the 5.56 mm. However, I do kill big hogs using the M193 5.56 mm round. When a hog is hit low just behind the shoulder the bullet penetrates 5-7" into the chest, yaws 90 degrees and fragments. Most hogs are DRT.

    There are numerous .223 and 5.56 mm rifles in my safe. Barrel lengths vary from 16" on an AR to 26" on a Remington 700. I will not take a shot at a hog over 100 yards away with my 16" barrel AR. When using my longer barrel guns I will take a shot at a big hog out to about 175 yards and no further. After 175 yards the 55 grain bullet of the M193 round loses its magic really fast even when fired from a long barrel rifle.

  5. #20
    Member Array DIXIETWISTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    486
    i think the .223 is a sub par round. thats why i dont deer hunt with it.... give the boys some .270 or 30 .06 . i have shot small deer with a 22-250 which is larger than a .223... with poor results. i mean they need at least a .308 at them distances.
    You may not like guns. You may choose not to own one. That is your right.
    You might not believe in God. That is your choice.
    However, if someone breaks into your home at 3AM the first two things you are going to do are:
    1) Call someone with a gun.
    2)Pray they get there in time." - A wise man

  6. #21
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    Sticks - by far the most common weapon in the hands of the BGs over there is the AK. I came across one guy with an SMLE, but he had only a handful of rounds for it. The SVD also exists in small numbers, but nowhere near enough to be considered common. The fact remains - the most common weapon of our enemy is just as anemic (if not more so) than the most common weapon in our arsenal. We have more LMGs, GPMGs, and HMGs (not to mention Grenade Machine Guns like the Mk 19) than the enemy, by a large margin. If we are not dominating the fight between 300 and 600 meters, it's not simply because the M4 is some sort of worthless paperweight.

    Also, their marksmanship skills leave a LOT to be desired. I've trained Afghans, and seen them (and their BG counterparts) in action. In general terms, they can't shoot for squat. By and large, they do not grow up hunting (there ain't much to hunt in most of the country), and they don't have a tradition of marksmanship (though they do have a tradition of "warrior-ship").

    The few times they actually shot at us from range, they completely missed every one and every thing, including vehicles. A major reason they use IEDs and suicide bombers is precisely because they are so massively over-matched in a rifle-to-rifle fight.

    This is not to say that more options is a bad thing for the line squads, simply that a few more M14s, or new uppers, or whatever other "easy" solution we come up with here in our living rooms is going to magically make Camp Perry champions out of every grunt in A-stan....
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  7. #22
    Member Array dmaxx3500's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    16
    H&K 91 in .308,,then get heavy bombers[b-52] and start softing up the targets first

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    I am not overly impressed with this term paper. And basically that is what it is. While I, in my extremely brief military career did not attend SAMS, I have several friends who have. Don't let the name of the school mislead you. There are some very bright people attending and teaching there. But as with any population group they can't all be the sharpest knife in the drawer. I am not saying that the author is necessarily in the lower third or whatever of his class there, just that it is not gospel just because a SAMS student wrote it.
    Heck, we don't even know what kind of grade he got on this!
    Based on my limited knowledge of operations over there I would tend to agree that it is more rifle country than carbine country. I would not go so far as to say that we need to replace the cartridge. I think we need to launch it from the appropriate platform for that environment.

    The bigger issue in my mind though is why do front line troops there have M4s to begin with? I was just looking at some of the new MRAPs and various other things parked at Ft Hood yesterday and they raised some questions in my mind.
    If we are designing and fielding new vehicles in response to the OPFORs tactics, and these vehicle designs are dictating the basic load out for our troops, are we not allowing the OPFOR to dictate almost completely the terms of engagement?
    How much can we protect our people before we are actually reducing their combat effectiveness? And by reducing their effectiveness are we inviting more aggressive attacks against them?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #24
    Senior Member Array Super Trucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    534
    So if I am reading this correctly it sounds like they need to stop trying to get college grads into the military and let some of the back woods guys that normally wouldn't quailify. Then give them the Rem 700 that they already know how to use and send them on their way.

  10. #25
    Distinguished Member Array jumpwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1,271
    A sub-MOA .308 semi-auto rifle with decent glass can be had for under $3,000; even less if you place an order for 10,000 of them.
    "The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    cafepress.com/bgstudios

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    Not trying to disparage army soldiers here, just pointing out that they are being screwed by a system that seeks to push them through to the battlefield without the skills they need to do their job. I have a few freinds who are Army officers and even they know that their rifle training is a joke from what they tell me. (except for one who went to Ranger school) I train better and harder with my rifle before deer season than they do before going to war for goddness sake. I don't remember the exact details, but from conversations I have had with them about their rifle quals, I would be hard pressed to call them anything other than beginners. Not their fault of course, no one is teaching them. I have had at least two Army Lts ask me to take them to the range and teach them how to shoot better. One (A National Guard Lt. assigned to JAG corps so that may explain this one) asked if I would be willing to come out and teach her unit to shoot better, if she could clear it with the higher ups. The whole bunch, from what she told me, can barely qualify, yet are being deployed to war zones quite often. They wish they were better trained, but are embarrassed to ask for better training because that would mean admitting that they aren't proficient.

    From my own somewhat antiquated experience, I tend to believe that what is said about the Army training is likely very true. My unit used to go to an Army base in the 90s and shoot their pop-up range. sillouhette targets from 25 to 300 meters. No problem, just aim amd shoot. With the 5.56 and a 300m bzo the rifle will consistently ping the targets. We used the full 20" barrel M-16A2 of course. Anyway, from what I could tell, that is how the army was trained to shoot. BZO and bang away.
    Of course as Marines we were required to be proficient out to a minimum of 500 yards. We also had to hit a bullseye, which meant doping the rifle to hit center at different ranges. At least a Marine had a dope book with sight elevation settings for his particular rifle out to 500. Doing that also gave him an idea of how the sights and trajectory work in relation to one another.

    At the time, the Army system was toughted as being superior to a static KD (known distance) course, due the the unknown distances of the targets. It may have helped build confidence, but unless you get out beyond 300, I see no advantage. Setting a bzo and clanging targets within the point blank range of the cartridge (+ or - 3" from POA) may make someone an effective urban or jungle shooter, but it doesn't make him a rifleman. These boys didn't grow up with this stuff, they need to be taught how to dope for elevation and for windage. A solid week of KD training followed by a week of random distance popups out to at least 500 m (prefferably under differing wind conditions) would certainly give the boys a good start toward building the necessary skills. Adopting a real rifle cartridge (7.62) as the standard for troops fighting in terrain such as in Afgans would also help.

    I could be wrong about all of this, I'm just going by what i have heard from others recenlty and experienced myself long ago.


    OPFOR - were there many FAL variants on the ground in enemy hands?
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    Paco - the equipment deficiencies of WWII are legendary. Our stuff was quite often inferior in every way to that of our enemy, and it stayed that way throughout the war. To imply that this is the first war where there were people (and note that it's not ALL people) complain about the equipment is just...silly.
    Must respectfully disagree; WWII was not a war about superior weapons, it was a war about superior Industrial might. Yes, side by side the German Tiger Tank was superior to the Sherman in every way. But we produced 30 Shermans for every 1 Tiger. And when a Tiger went down, it usually stayed because of parts interchangeability issues. A Sherman with a blown engine could be returned to the fight in 24 hours........

    And I would stack the M1 Garand up against any Battle rifle of WWII; heck for that matter, it still stacks up against many modern battle rifles.
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by edr9x23super View Post

    And I would stack the M1 Garand up against any Battle rifle of WWII; heck for that matter, it still stacks up against many modern battle rifles.
    I agree, a G.I. firing the '06 cartridge was not going to be outranged by his counterpart on the opposing side very often if ever.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  14. #29
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    sgtD - I never saw a single weapon in .308 in the hands of the enemy, and I never captured any in the MANY caches we took. That's not to say they don't exist, but I never saw one.

    As for the equipment deficiencies - yes, the M1 was a better rifle. Other than that, our equipment was, pound for pound, generally inferior. We made up for that, as noted, with industrial capacity and force projection. Also note that the M1 was not the preferred weapon in the Pacific theater, where contact distances were generally much closer. Also note that, even in the ETO, there were relatively few instances of rifle-on-rifle engagements beyond 500 meters...

    Equipping the average line infantryman with a bolt action .308, as some have suggested, is ridiculous. The 500+ meter shot is an extreme rarity across the full spectrum of combat operations, and to suggest that we use a rifle that was obsolete as a standard combat arm more than 70 years ago bespeaks a deep lack of understanding on the issue.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    sgtD - I never saw a single weapon in .308 in the hands of the enemy, and I never captured any in the MANY caches we took. That's not to say they don't exist, but I never saw one.

    As for the equipment deficiencies - yes, the M1 was a better rifle. Other than that, our equipment was, pound for pound, generally inferior. We made up for that, as noted, with industrial capacity and force projection. Also note that the M1 was not the preferred weapon in the Pacific theater, where contact distances were generally much closer. Also note that, even in the ETO, there were relatively few instances of rifle-on-rifle engagements beyond 500 meters...

    Equipping the average line infantryman with a bolt action .308, as some have suggested, is ridiculous. The 500+ meter shot is an extreme rarity across the full spectrum of combat operations, and to suggest that we use a rifle that was obsolete as a standard combat arm more than 70 years ago bespeaks a deep lack of understanding on the issue.


    Agreed. The m-1 m-2 carbine and tommy gun were preferred by many in the jungles of the pacific, including some of my own family members. OF course the flame thrower was highly effective as well. I think that is the point of the article. Equipment and training that works in urban warfare or jungles may not work in the mountains. Or, if it does work, there still may be something that would work better.

    Just to clarify, while I think that the training could be better, and should be better, it is still far superior to our foes and I am thankful for and proud of all who now serve on my behalf. I just want the best for those who give their best for us. I think its what they deserve. Reliance on hit-tech and air power is a great and wonderful thing that perhaps saved my own life at one time, however it is no substitute for the basics. The proper equipment and a high level of training and proficiency as a rifleman should always be something to fall back on and the people in charge should make sure that our servicemen have both, even if rarely needed. Better to have it and not need it than .........
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. US Army Flight Surgeon Found Guilty of Failure to Deploy to Afghanistan
    By Sig 210 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 16th, 2010, 07:51 PM
  2. Mexican Army Outgunned by Drug Traffickers -- Another attempt to blame U.S.
    By freethead in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 19th, 2010, 05:48 PM
  3. Concealed Carry Holder Outgunned?
    By CJ810 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: September 30th, 2009, 11:07 AM
  4. In Afghanistan
    By SIGguy229 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: December 26th, 2008, 06:52 PM
  5. Outgunned!
    By ebd10 in forum Defensive Books, Video & References
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 19th, 2005, 09:45 AM

Search tags for this page

bushmaster xm15-e2s

,

bzo for 22-250

,

is the army outgunned in afghanistan?

,

windage adjustment oo bersa thunder 380

,

xm15-e2s bzo

Click on a term to search for related topics.