Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan

My point is the Brits and the US Military have learned that its not in the best interest of COIN to go around smashing the crap out of everything. Canada has a lot of new toys and when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Rolling around in a LAV dropping JDAMs and using your M777's is very force protectionist and a good way to keep your casualties down in the short term, but does nothing for hearts and minds.

The CF experiment with the DMR is a farce, the C7CT and the AR10T are poor pieces of kit, and the doctrine behind it is off wilting in a field.

Adding another tool in the tool kit and increasing the accuracy and training of the soldiers with their individual weapons would IMHO be a much better use of the limited budget and in the long run reduce casualties in the COIN environment.
 
My point is the Brits and the US Military have learned that its not in the best interest of COIN to go around smashing the crap out of everything. Canada has a lot of new toys and when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Rolling around in a LAV dropping JDAMs and using your M777's is very force protectionist and a good way to keep your casualties down in the short term, but does nothing for hearts and minds.

The CF experiment with the DMR is a farce, the C7CT and the AR10T are poor pieces of kit, and the doctrine behind it is off wilting in a field.

Adding another tool in the tool kit and increasing the accuracy and training of the soldiers with their individual weapons would IMHO be a much better use of the limited budget and in the long run reduce casualties in the COIN environment.

Afghanistan is not Iraq,the model for the successes there does not apply. The taliban on numerous occasions have decided to slug it out with Coalition Forces, this is not a traditional COIN environment,the big hammer is required more often than not,this has been shown time and time again.
Rolling around in a LAV dropping JDAMS has provided the security environment to allow GoA to begin projecting force and conducting operations, scaled back operations would have us back in the situation we faced in 2006 with the taliban/bad guys poised to attack Kandahar City.
I agree 100% with the need for a dedicated DMR rifle,we need to take a serious look at replacing the current weapons and developing a doctrine and training system for prospective DM.
 
What you do for a living is change parts on weapons that real soldiers use,maybe repair Coleman stoves and bicycles nothing more.
Your scope of experience is about as long as your nose as far as combat operations go,you have NOT been there and done that,you are a support troop and should be proud of that ,but passing yourself off as someone who is an expert in these matters is laughable at best, pathetic at worst.
I assume your comments were directed at KevinB , you really should learn a bit about the people you are insulting,KevinB has truly been there and done that,and is a respected member of both US and Canadian Defense Industries unlike yourself.
 
Angrysoldier, I suggest you review the board rules, as you are breaking them in heaping disrespect on others on this thread with your childish comments and insults.

Further insults, trolling and baiting type posts will result in gross punitive actions most appropriate for a friday....
 
Don't throw away perfectly good weapons because they don't suit one conflict, save them for the next.

Throwing them away is also a huge waste of taxpayers money...

:mad:

Methinks Russia has the best system...don't throw any of the stuff out, just store it for a rainy day, to use or to sell.
 
The Canadian experiment with DMR has been a failure IMHO a lack of a dedicated training program and employment doctrine has yet to be established.

thats too bad

why not employ the guys who don't make sniper and employ them as DM as from what I am told most fail because of stalking?

I know of one regiment that was swearing by the C7CT why i can't fathom.

I think KB had a damn good point with more training, but I think its more a problem of time just my WOG view :D
 
thats too bad

why not employ the guys who don't make sniper and employ them as DM as from what I am told most fail because of stalking?

I know of one regiment that was swearing by the C7CT why i can't fathom

Not a bad idea for utilizing the skills obtained by those who have them. As Reaper and Kevin both pointed out, why not improve the training(and obviously equipment as well) for all soldiers?

TDC
 
I'm sorry, are you saying the issue is time based as in not enough time to train everyone?

not that at all, everybody is trained to a set standard but from my experience in support its a check in the box you either do good or you don't. people master skills at different rates sometimes one does not have the time provided to perfect them.

that's support and my experience.

now what goes on with a rifle company i don't know. so don't ask me. Best to get info from the guys in the game.

one more thing i am not an expert KB and reaper could likely contribute more, I know what i know and know what i don't know and i am as curious as anyone else.
 
So I guess I was right then.Seems to me what is needed is an AMU (advanced marksmanship unit)to either offer courses ala train the trainer,OR travel around to units teaching people advanced skills with the C7.Give guys the chance to see that they can make good hits past 300m all the way out to say 600m.
 
So I guess I was right then.Seems to me what is needed is an AMU (advanced marksmanship unit)to either offer courses ala train the trainer,OR travel around to units teaching people advanced skills with the C7.Give guys the chance to see that they can make good hits past 300m all the way out to say 600m.

(yeahhhh!!!!) as I stretch in me easy chair

its easy......for me to critque.........and i think its a good idea but there are plenty of old hands who have been there and done that who could make better comments
 
not that at all, everybody is trained to a set standard but from my experience in support its a check in the box you either do good or you don't. people master skills at different rates sometimes one does not have the time provided to perfect them.

that's support and my experience.

now what goes on with a rifle company i don't know. so don't ask me. Best to get info from the guys in the game.

one more thing i am not an expert KB and reaper could likely contribute more, I know what i know and know what i don't know and i am as curious as anyone else.

Ok, I see what you're saying now.

TDC
 
thats too bad

why not employ the guys who don't make sniper and employ them as DM as from what I am told most fail because of stalking?

I know of one regiment that was swearing by the C7CT why i can't fathom.

I think KB had a damn good point with more training, but I think its more a problem of time just my WOG view :D


For the most part that is what's done, guys that fail off late from the sniper course get the rifle.
 
One small step for the Marines, one giant leap for the SCAR.

MARINE CORPS TIMES said:
February 15, 2010

The ‘barrier blind’ bullet––SOST rounds to replace M855 in Afghanistan

By Dan Lamothe

The Marine Corps is dropping its conventional 5.56mm ammunition in Afghanistan in favor of new deadlier, more accurate rifle rounds, and could field them at any time.

The open-tipped rounds until now have been available only to Special Operations Command troops. The first 200,000 5.56mm Special Operations Science and Technology rounds are already downrange with Marine Expeditionary Brigade–Afghanistan, said Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan, commander of Marine Corps Systems Command. Commonly known as “SOST” rounds, they were legally cleared for Marine use by the Pentagon in late-January, according to Navy Department documents obtained by Marine Corps Times.

SOCOM developed the new rounds for use with the Special Operations Force Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, which needed a more accurate bullet because its short barrel, which at 13.8 inches, is less than an inch shorter than the M4 carbine’s. Using an open-tip match round design common with some sniper ammunition, SOST rounds are designed to be “barrier blind,” meaning they stay on target better than existing M855 rounds after penetrating windshields, car doors and other objects.

Compared to the M855, SOST rounds also stay on target longer in open air and have increased stopping power through “consistent, rapid fragmentation which shortens the time required to cause incapacitation of enemy combatants,” according to Navy Department documents. At 62 grains, they weigh about the same as most NATO rounds, have a typical lead core with a solid copper shank and are considered a variation of Federal Cartridge Co.’s Federal Trophy Bonded Bear Claw round, which was developed for big-game hunting and is touted in a company news release for its ability to crush bone.

The Corps purchased a “couple million” SOST rounds as part of a joint $6 million, 10.4-million-round buy in September — enough to last the service several months in Afghanistan, Brogan said. Navy Department documents say the Pentagon will launch a competition worth up to $400 million this spring for more SOST ammunition. “This round was really intended to be used in a weapon with a shorter barrel, their SCAR car¬bines,” Brogan said. “But because of its blind-to-barrier performance, its accuracy improvements and its reduced muzzle flash, those are attractive things that make it also useful to general purpose forces like the Marine Corps and Army.”

M855 problems
The standard Marine round, the M855, was developed in the 1970s and approved as an official NATO round in 1980. In recent years, however, it has been the subject of widespread criticism from troops, who question whether it has enough punch to stop oncoming enemies.

In 2002, shortcomings in the M855’s performance were detailed in a report by Naval Surface War fare Center Crane, Ind., according to Navy Department documents. Additional testing showed shortcomings in 2005. The Pentagon issued a request to industry for improved ammunition the following year. Federal Cartridge was the only company to respond.

Brogan said the Corps has no plans to remove the M855 from the service’s inventory at this time. However, the service has determined it “does not meet USMC performance requirements” in an operational environment in which insurgents often lack personal body armor, but engage troops through “intermediate barriers” such as windshields and car doors at security check points, according to a Jan. 25 Navy Department document clearing Marines to use the SOST round.

The document, signed by J.R. Crisfield, director of the Navy Department International and Operational Law Division, is clear on the recommended course of action for the 5.56mm SOST round, formally known as MK318 MOD0 enhanced 5.56mm ammunition.

“Based on the significantly improved performance of the MK318 MOD0 over the M855 against virtually every anticipated target array in Afghanistan and similar combat environments where increased accuracy, better effects behind automobile glass and doors, consistent terminal performance and reduced muzzle flash are critical to mission accomplishment, USMC would treat the MK318 MOD0 as its new 5.56mm standard issue cartridge,” Crisfield wrote.

The original plan called for the SOST round to be used specifically within the M4 carbine, which has a 14½ -inch barrel and is used by tens of thousands of Marines in military occupational specialties such as motor vehicle operator where the M16A4’s longer barrel can be cumbersome. Given its benefits, however, Marine officials decided also to adopt SOST for the M16A4, which has a 20-inch bar rel and is used by most of the infantry.

Incorporating ‘SOST’
In addition to operational benefits, SOST rounds have similar ballistics to the M855 round, meaning Marines will not have to adjust to using the new ammo, even though it is more accurate.

“It does not require us to change our training,” Brogan said. “We don’t have to change our aim points or modify our training curriculum. We can train just as we have always trained with the 855 round, so right now, there is no plan to completely remove the 855 from inventory.”
Marine officials in Afghanistan could not be reached for comment, but Brogan said commanders with MEB-A are authorized to issue SOST ammo to any subordinate command. Only one major Marine 5.56mm weapon system down-range will not use SOST: the M249 squad automatic weapon. Though the new rounds fit the SAW, they are not currently produced in the linked fashion commonly employed with the light machine gun, Brogan said.

SOCOM first fielded the SOST round in April, said Air Force Maj. Wesley Ticer, a spokesman for the command. It also fielded a cousin — MK319 MOD0 enhanced 7.62mm SOST ammo — designed for use with the SCAR-Heavy, a powerful 7.62mm battle rifle. SOCOM uses both kinds of ammunition in all of its geographic combatant commands, Ticer said.

The Corps has no plans to buy 7.62mm SOST ammunition, but that could change if operational commanders or infantry requirements officers call for it in the future, Brogan said.

It is uncertain how long the Corps will field the SOST round. Marine officials said last summer that they took interest in it after the M855A1 lead-free slug in development by the Army experienced problems during testing, but Brogan said the service is still interested in the environmentally friendly round if it is effective. Marine officials also want to see if the price of the SOST round drops once in mass production. The price of an individual round was not available, but Brogan said SOST ammo is more expensive than current M855 rounds.

“We have to wait and see what happens with the Army’s 855LFS round,” he said. “We also have to get very good cost estimates of where these (SOST) rounds end up in full-rate, or serial production. Because if it truly is going to remain more expensive, then we would not want to buy that round for all of our training applications.”

Legal concerns
Before the SOST round could be fielded by the Corps, it had to clear a legal hurdle: Approval that it met international law of war standards.

The process is standard for new weapons and weapons systems, but it took on added significance because of the bullet’s design. Open-tip bullets have been approved for use by U.S. forces for decades, but are sometimes confused with hollow-point rounds, which expand in human tissue after impact, causing unnecessary suffering, according to widely accepted international treaties signed following the Hague peace conventions held in the Nether- lands in 1899 and 1907.

“We need to be very clear in drawing this distinction: This is not a hollow-point round, which is not permitted,” Brogan said. “It has been through law of land warfare review and has passed that review so that it meets the criteria of not causing unnecessary pain and suffering.”

The open-tip/hollow-point dilemma has been addressed several times by the military, including in 1990, when the chief of the Judge Advocate General International Law Branch, now-retired Marine Col. W. Hays Parks, advised that the open-tip M852 Sierra MatchKing round preferred by snipers met international law requirements. The round was kept in the field.

In a 3,000-word memorandum to Army Special Operations Command, Parks said “unnecessary suffering” and “superfluous injury” have not been formally defined, leaving the U.S. with a “balancing test” it must conduct to assess whether the usage of each kind of rifle round is justified.

“The test is not easily applied,” Parks said. “For this reason, the degree of ‘superfluous injury’ must ... outweigh substantially the military necessity for the weapon system or projectile.”

John Cerone, an expert in the law of armed conflict and professor at the New England School of Law, said the military’s interpretation of international law is widely accepted. It is understood that weapons cause pain in war, and as long as there is a strategic military reason for their employment, they typically meet international guidelines, he said.

“In order to fall within the prohibition, a weapon has to be designed to cause unnecessary suffering,” he said.

Sixteen years after Parks issued his memo, an Army unit in Iraq temporarily banned the open-tip M118 long-range used by snipers after a JAG officer mistook it for hollow-tip ammunition, according to a 2006 Washington Times report. The decision was over- turned when other Army officials were alerted.
 
The article has a lot of holes.

The USMC originated the Barrier Blind concept a while back, SOCOM thru Crane jumped on board not specifically for SCAR, but because they saw an advantage in any small arm.
 
This is war and name of the game is lethality, 1 hit should equal 1 kill or at least wound the human target to total incapacity and in my opinion the 5.56 is not lethal enough, heck lets be serious most responsible hunters would only use this caliber as an effective varmint round.
This report is spot on and I must ask all the armchair soldiers out their "what would you prefer to take in to battle? I sure as hell would not want to go to war with glorified a varmint gun no matter how good it was.
 
This is war and name of the game is lethality, 1 hit should equal 1 kill or at least wound the human target to total incapacity and in my opinion the 5.56 is not lethal enough, heck lets be serious most responsible hunters would only use this caliber as an effective varmint round.
This report is spot on and I must ask all the armchair soldiers out their "what would you prefer to take in to battle? I sure as hell would not want to go to war with glorified a varmint gun no matter how good it was.

Will you stand in front my my AR and let me shoot you? I didn't think so.

TDC
 
Back
Top Bottom