I figured this would be the board to ask. I was recently reading an article that was rather disparaging of the accuracy of US forces at range. This was mostly focused on the army. The general upshot was that army personell are not given the time during their training to develop accurate long range fire with their rifles as using other weapons and systems eats up more and more time, and infantry engaging at 300+ meters has been devalued for decades prior to Afganistan. Does anyone know if this is correct? If so would you consider it a problem?
The fundamentals that you are taught during basic training are pretty solid techniques, and easy to learn and maintain. There can be a whole host of factors for inaccurate fire, such as wear and tear on equipment, and to be honest, trying to shoot accurately under the stress of a combat situation is hard. My biggest gripe also, is the round we use. The 5.56mm sucks.
Well, I would expect them to be. But I'm given to understand from the article that they get relatively little time with them. You could teach technique for a week at a basketball camp, but that alone doesn't make someone able to reliably sink three pointers. Same idea here. That's a topic that's seen a lot of discussion. However I note that Russia has also moved to a 5.56ish round. And that isn't some kind of standardization thing like you could say applies to NATO countries or something as their round isn't compatable with ours, just similar. Or is this a docternal thing? As I understand it the 5.56 was supposed to be popular due to the lighter weight of the round allowing more to be carried (still a concern for our weighed down troops operating using supressive fire tactics), being easier to operate on burst/full auto, and its short ranged characteristics. If you don't value those than it wouldn't be a good round.
As a former grunt and NCO, I would have loved to spend more time on the range than we did, but that simply wasn't a reality. You have to take into account a couple of factors. First of all, units are allocated some much ammo, and range time. That's due to the ratio of shooting rages vs. Units and soldiers. There's also training schedules that units strictly adhere too. Granted, marksmanship, is a very important skill that a soldier needs to learn and practices, but there's also a whole host of other skills that they regularly need to train on as well. Simply put, there's just not enough time to make every grunt a expert shooter. That being said, there are a whole host of marksmanship drills that a time savvy NCO can have his soldiers do, that don't involve a range or ammo. Yes, I think the new variant of the Russian AK shoots a 5.56 type round. I also don't see NATO switching from the 5.56 due to the vast stockpiles of the round. I'm just speaking from my own experience with the 5.56, and the whole list of complaints I have about it. The basic load for every infantry rifleman is around three hundred rounds. So if you were to use a heavier round, there might be a slight difference in the weight of the load a grunt carries. The standard IBA(body armor) with ceramic plates weights somewhere close to forty pounds, then you add all the other junk you attach to it, you're pushing almost sixty pounds easy. So who knows if round weight would make a difference or not. Also, when you operating a weapon like the m4 on burst or the SAW which also shoots the 5.56, accuracy isn't the primary concern. Automatic fire isn't intended for accurate shooting. Fire suppression is simply intended to keep the bad guy's head down so you can maneuver on him, and eventually neutralize him.
I would think the short barrel length of the M4 would also play a part in accuracy at any range. The 5.56 is actually a pretty accurate round from an M16, I don't personally have any experience with the M4, though, so the above is a guess.
I don't know what article the OP is citing, but I would argue the opposite. With optical sights fairly common now, things like red dot that also allow for range correction, the accuracy of the typical infantryman has improved. The Army is actually considering going to shorter barrels on their carbines.
Well studies for decades have shown that you can teach soldiers to shoot as accurately as you want but as soon as the target starts shooting back accuracy goes out the window and soldiers end up shooting 999 times out of 1000 just to make the other guy duck and stop shooting back for a second not to actually kill him.
I don’t know much about the US infantry. I vaguely remember (if I am not mixing with German) that a basic unit has different weapons – like – a light machine gun shooter, a sharp shooter, a grenade/RPG launcher then a few guys with m4 or m6. They should be carried by a personnel carrier which has a heavy machine gun or a light cannon. The unit acts as a unit, that is the commander should know the basics of using each weapon as needed in each situation. The success also depends on many things which are not exactly just shooting from a range. Normally the commander would call choppers or something on 300+meters, it is not like each side would be shooting at each other like in a shooting range. You do not expect everyone to be a sharp shooter or Soviets having more training on the Soviet side. Thus you receive training and ammo which is academically derived from probable situation of engaging Soviets. During the war it will become clear that the situation is miscalculated, then you’d get adjustments, extra armor etc. The Soviets will do the same. Russians have a submachine gun which recoils once per 2 shots, but Russians cannot afford it. I am afraid it is a mistake to think that we can afford everything we want, otherwise we would buy the gun. (On a side note it is academically calculated that the average life time of your unit on the battlefield with Soviets is an X minutes. At least it is what commanders of the Soviet units are taught in military schools) How do you think the number of supplied coffins is calculated? The point is that your view from a shooting range of course is a lot more valuable than view of journalists and liberals/democrats, but you do not see the whole picture taught in military schools. As a part of your training you should be trained to get into the personnel carrier in 10 seconds, keep the weapon clean, etc etc. If you are concerned about you personal survival then I guess you should spend some time in a private school and pay for it from your pocket. The suggested “dry” ( no shooting) training should be no less important, - how you run with a weapon, fall, run back - it should be glued to the target, aim from a difficult position, recharge never looking at the weapon etc. So go to a gym and take a fake m4 and work out for $20/hour if you are concerned about your chances to live The point is – to hit a target is important. Not to become a target is no less important. What do you think? I couldn’t find a similar gym classes in the US but I think there should be ones? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6tKw7vQnFk"]YouTube - ‪Training of Russian soldiers.‬‏[/ame]
Absoultely true. We were trained to shoot out to 500 yards with our M4/16s and could consistently hit man sized targets with Ironsights or RCOs(optics). The RCOs really enhanced marksmanship because you could easily adjust for range on the fly and see what you were hitting. People also forget that for long range engangments machine guns can really reach out and touch you. SAWs and 240s can hit targets out to a 1,000 yards. In addition, many infantry platoons have a designated marksman armed with some variant of a sniper rifle.
The NATO 5.56 is a bit anemic. The older M-14 and the M-60 .30 cal packed a lot more energy on target. Then again a .50 caliber will deal a love tap to be remembered. Unless the training has changed dramatically, 300 yards was the maximum training range unless you went to sniper school. I stood on the sniper range in Chu Lai, RVN. There was a man-sized silhouette at 1,000 METERS that, to graduate, the trainee got one bullet and all the time he needed to hit the target, or go back to the end of the line. I couldn't even SEE the target.
I believe it is 100% correct. And I am rather unique, having served both with the US Army, and the Marine Corps. And the differences can be seen in how both services conduct their annual rifle qualification. Now in the Marines, we were taught to make careful and well aimed shots. "Annual Qualification" was a 4-5 day annual event, with 3-4 days of "pre-qualification", where you practiced your marksmanship, then a final "qualification" day where you shot for score. And the ranges we shot at mystified the majority of soldiers I have served with. In a Marine Corps qualification course, you fire at fixed range targets, from 200-500 meters away. The accuracy of each shot was recorded (from 2-5 points per shot), and your score computed after a total of 50 rounds (15 slow fire and 10 rapid fire at 200 meters, 5 slow fire and 10 rapid fire at 300 meters, and 10 slow fire at 500 meters). The Army however has you qualify 2 times a year. And qualification takes only 45 minutes to an hour. You fire from 6-21 rounds to set your sites, then 40 rounds to qualify. And the targets are "pop-up" targets, from 25-300 yards away. They are up for only a few seconds, then they go down. If you do not shoot them in time, then there is no score. I absolutely hate the Army system. It favors speed and reflexes over accuracy. While many guys score higher then I do, very few of them have the ability to shoot at long range targets. Most find it hard to believe that a person can even shoot a bulls eye at 500 meters, even though myself and other former Marines tell them that we easily did it on a regular basis. I remember reading a book in the 1980's that compared the Army "shot per kill" ratio in Vietnam against the Marines. And the expenditure was around 10 to 1 rounds per kill by the Army compared to the Marines. There, it is more about putting massive amounts of rounds downrange, instead of making each shot count. And even more telling in this difference is the "alternate qualification course" the Army uses. Instead of pop-up targets, you shoot at a paper target set at 25 meters away. This qualification target has 10 targets of differing size, that simulates how a man sized silhouette would look like at differing ranges. You fire 4 rounds into each one, then your score is computed from that. The irony is that I qualify Expert with that one every time, but only a Marksman with the pop-up targets. But most soldiers I know hate this system, scoring lower with the paper targets then they do with the pop-ups. Of course, shooting from 25-300 meters is nowhere near as difficult at shooting to 500 meters. The Army stresses speed over accuracy. And the bouncing all over a firing line is not something a skilled fire team or squad would do in combat. You scan your own sectors and ranges, you do not bounce all over the target area in front of you. And if a target does drop down behind a burm, you hold until he pops his head back up then shoot him. You do not take your sight off of him to shoot at somebody 300 meters away, then try and reacquire him at 150 meters. Besides, it is pretty much impossible to cheat on the Marine course, since each round is fired and accounted for. Almost every time I have seen an Army course done, soldiers take extra rounds with them, so they can fire 2-3 rounds at a target. They are all scored by computer, so it is an easy system to cheat.
As I understand it, at a fireteam level you should have an LMG and an underbarrel grenade launcher. At the squad level these days you might gain a single designated marksman. A platoon would add in medium machine guns. And then at the company level you'd get some mortars. Sprinkle various rockets here and there. I believe that had been the thinking for some time now, along with air support and the like. The reason this is coming up is that we aren't engaged in a major war with the Soviets. We are engaged in very short wars with inferior foes, and then loooooong insurgencies. With the insurgencies being the hard and more dangerous part. The terrain of Afganistan has led to much greater use of dismounted infantry, and air support is limited by distances, elevation, and last but certainly not least the rules of engagement (the press says mean things about our soldiers when an airstrike kills some nearby civilians or destroys structures.) It has also led to engagements with foes that like to take shots at longer ranges and higher elevations, and often not stick around for long. Hurm. Now I was asking about this first out of curiosity, but also out of wondering if encouraging civilian marksmanship might have positive national security implications. However are you guys that that you don't think accuracy beyond current basic qualification is really that useful, even in Afganistan like conditions?
They've since changed the Marine qual to RCOs instead of ironsights...which is ultimately probably better. They've also thrown in Table 2 into the basic qual which is just failure to stop and pivots drills at, if I can remember, 100 ft and 25 ft???
Machine guns, particularly when combined with a T&E, can be extremely accurate. I also think I only ever fired my M4/M16 on burst at the range for "fun". It was pretty much understood that burst was worthless and should never be used in combat. Could just be a Marine thing though I guess.
A T&E along with a tripod a great in defensive positions and gun trucks, but you hardly find infantry carrying those on foot in urbanized areas.
Even for bootcamp? No way! Iron sites teach discipline and patience and encourage fundamentally sound shooting. Something like that. I managed to avoid requalifying for a long time and by the time they finally forced me to go I was a terminal lance. I totally half-assed the "table two" portion of the shoot and got a turd score. It's funny because on my first deployment my platoon did an extended shoot package with SOTG and Force Recon. We must have each shot off over 3,000 rounds a piece on table two shooting, but I had an M4 and a red-dot site.
We in the Army had a marksmanship system called spray and pray. The bullets didn't cost us anything and were usually plentiful. Besides the tracers at night looked better than a bottle rocket.
the only good thing about 29 palms was it has a boat load of ranges. it seemed like we where assualting postions with little green pop up targets every week. lol. theres probably more 29 palms range footage on youtube then any other base in the U.S.
I think for bootcamp too. I qualed my last time with Ironsights but I think the very next group got to use RCOs. RCOs are more realistic though. Table two was a joke. The grunts would ace it without trying and half the POGs would UNQ.
