1959 Infantry Combat Effectiveness Chart

A

arizonaicedtea

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Victoria, BC, Canada
This data seems to show a big nexus at 100yd distance. Willingness to fire past 100yd is there but ability to see (and ID?) a target with the naked eye past 100m is about 25%. Why does the defensive range engagement stats drop off at 300yd versus offensive action? Likely because the engagements on the offense only occurred during the daytime where as the defensive battles were fought 24/7 skewing the stats.

I notice the first table shows firing the rifle in combat but does not mention statistics for hitting in combat. The second table shows hitting on a target on the range (probably on a flat, known distance range). This tells little about effectiveness in combat but does show that even in the golden days of marksmanship training with a full bore rifle troops were hesitant to engage at a target past 100yd in the offense or defense and had a less than 40% chance of hitting him anyway under ideal circumstances.

I'd say the biggest training fault here is inability to judge distance past 100yd with iron sights, especially at night, a skill we still do not assess in marksmanship in the army. Optics helps this but does not completely correct it. Optics certainly help the percentage if seeing and ID'ing the target.

Where are the stats from?
 
Last edited:
Found them on the gun blog, the poster there extracted the information from a book about selecting infantry weapons for the military that (I believe) was composed of government documents.
(Don't hold that to me, I'm going off memory here.)

I totally agree with you on the topic of optics, it doesn't make you a better shooter but it can help distinguish that canadian from a korean.
 
Similar stuff can be found in the Collector Grade book The Black Rifle.

Interestingly, the German army did some after action studies after WWI and concluded that the average individual was unlikely to see and be able to engage an individual enemy soldier much past 300 meters. This led to between the war studies on a new cartridge which ultimately led to the 7.92x33 kurtz.
 
I wonder if those graphs are attributed to SLA Marshall? He is a now discredited WWII and Korea American researcher who tried to deteremine why some soldiers fired at the enemy and others did not. Marshall wanted to learn what made for a good soldier, vs one who would not contribute to the mission. He wrote several books that described some unintelligible fighter factor. His work had a few too many consistent findings, and that is what got him into trouble.
 
"...especially at night..." You can't see anything at 100 yards out in the boonies. Not even movement. Key being 'in the boonies'. Unless there's bright moonlight, of course.
 
paulz said:
Similar stuff can be found in the Collector Grade book The Black Rifle.

Interestingly, the German army did some after action studies after WWI and concluded that the average individual was unlikely to see and be able to engage an individual enemy soldier much past 300 meters. This led to between the war studies on a new cartridge which ultimately led to the 7.92x33 kurtz.
Click to expand...

Whatever happened to the 7.92x33? Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the AK-47s 7.62x39mm be based of it? Anyone know if Mikhail Kalashnikov based the AK-47 design off the Stg.44?
Also wondering if anyone has fired an Stg.44 and can comment on the abilities of the 7.92mm round.
Heh sorry for all the questions...
 
I remember the Shoot To Live final phase, The Night Shoot. Using artificial light, close up range of under 100 yds, if I recall. I was unsure of my probable hits, using iron sights at a difficult to see Fg 11 target. We only got 1 crack at it. 28 hits out of 40 was the minimal standard. I was pleased to see I met the standard, but this was one match I had little confindence in. I can understand the difficulties of those involved in night time firefights.
 
And throw in a ridiculous amount of muzzle flash being thrown up from C9s, C7s, and C8s and you it becomes nearly impossible. I Can't even begin to imagine the chaos of a close quarters firefight in the dark... jesus.
 
A few of my thoughts about self reporting in an uncontrolled test environment:

- How did they know how many enemies were not seen?

- People are prone to claim more kills/hits than there actually were, especially if multiple combatants are seeing and engaging the same targets, or bodies/wounded can't be recovered.

- Does anyone remember hearing the story about Korean quilted coats "stopping" M1 carbine bullets? A kevlar vest won't do that.
 
qm 86 said:
i remember the shoot to live final phase, the night shoot. Using artificial light, close up range of under 100 yds, if i recall. I was unsure of my probable hits, using iron sights at a difficult to see fg 11 target. We only got 1 crack at it. 28 hits out of 40 was the minimal standard. I was pleased to see i met the standard, but this was one match i had little confindence in. I can understand the difficulties of those involved in night time firefights.
Click to expand...

fnc1? Good Shooting.
 
arizonaicedtea said:
Whatever happened to the 7.92x33? Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the AK-47s 7.62x39mm be based of it? Anyone know if Mikhail Kalashnikov based the AK-47 design off the Stg.44?
Also wondering if anyone has fired an Stg.44 and can comment on the abilities of the 7.92mm round.
Heh sorry for all the questions...
Click to expand...

Good questions.

The Russians were experimanting with the 7.62X39 at about the same time as the Germans. GECO had a smaller round than the 7.92 kurtz before the war, which is very similar to the 7.62X39. Opinions vary amoung firearms historians as to whether the Russians came up with the idea independantly, stole the idea via espionage, or were given the idea during the friendly co-operation and co-development period before the war.

The 7.92 kurtz was designed to use as much existing tooling and equipment as posible, hence the calibre (7.92mm), it also had the same base diameter as its big brother. This was forced on them by wartime manufacturing and logistics constraints. Similarly, the Russians kept the calibre the same as their in service rounds (i.e. 7.62). Pre war researchers preferred a 7mm or even a bit smaller calibre. So both the 7.92 kurtz and the 7.62 M43 were dictated by industrial and wartime economic circumstances.

After the war, there was actually some experimentation done with the 7.92mm kurtz. Very early FN FALs were chambered in it. When all was said and done, American prejudice against medium/intermediate cartridges killed any western use of the 7.92mm kurtz, and some VERY promising British developments (.270, .280, .280/30 etc).

As mentioned, the Russians already had the 7.62 M43 round developed and needed the calibre to stay the same, so that killed Eastern use of the 7.92mm kurtz.

As to whether the AK is based on the MP/STG-44, that is also controversial and historians are divided on the issue. Certainly the AK and the whole idea to develop an "Avtomat"/Assault rifle was insprired by the MP-44 and in overall layout it is very similar. Hugo Schmeiser was also a prisoner in Izevsk, and there are suggestions that he worked on the design, or helped develop the mass production techniques, though the Russians and Kalashnikov deny this.

Like most modern rifles, the AK is a mix of previous success. The long stroke piston and attached carrier are certainly similar to the MP-44, as is the general layout. The bolt and trigger mechanism are insrpired by the Garand, and the safety from a remington hunting rifle.

So I would say that the 7.92mm kurtz and the MP-44 definitely inspired or spurred development of the AK and M-43 cartridge, but neither was a copy of the original German design.
 
Thanks for the informative and in-depth answer. It still makes me slap my palm to my face when I read about the Americans killing both British and German designs before switching over to a cartridge that (in my opinion) is equal at best, inferior at worst.
(Keeping in mind I have never shot any of the experimental British offerings, but its on my bucket list)
 
arizonaicedtea said:
Americans
Click to expand...
Canadians had the casting vote on the adoption of 7.62 NATO. Blame Canada. It is a pity Canada isn't dependent on the UK for its military rifle technology :).

They used to tell me that infantry converting from SLR to the SA80 with the 4x optic got better scores, especially the poorer shooters. But infantry recruits on the 4x optic SA80 (who had never used iron sights) had the same average score as recruits on the iron sighted SA80. By the end of boot camp.
 
Canada was also instrumental in trying to come up with a compromise that would let the Americans keep the 7.62mm T-65 case, which was basically a shortened 30-06, but give a smaller, lower recoil. more ballistically efficient bullet. There were several, all based around a 7mm bullet. Most often called the 7mm "compromise". only a South American country ever bought it, and they rebarelled their FNs to 7.62 not long after.

The story of NATO cartridge selection could fill several books. First the Americans didn't want anything smaller than the 30-06 (they expected powder technology would give the .308 about the same power). They considered a 7mm "intermediate cartridge "too underpowered", despite having almost adopted an identical round (the .276 Pedersen) in the 1930's.

Then a few years later, the high velocity .22 is the new and best thing, and NATO ended up with the 5.56mm. Now with the increase in the use of optics and fighting in desert and mountain terrain in Afghanistan and Iraq, questions are being raised about the ability of the 5.56mm's lethality and barrier penetration at the longer ranges we are now fighting at, and there is talk of the 6.8SPC or something similar being ther flavour of the month, which is ballistically almost identical to the 7mm rounds rejected in the '50s.

I keep imagining an FN-MAG/C-6 that weights several ponds less, and ammo that weights 2/3 of 7.62, and an FN FAL that also weighs a couple of ponds less and recoils less, enough to allow realistic full auto from it. The C2/L2 Automatic Rifle is considerred by many to be a failure, but keep in mind, it was developed when the .280 was still the big idea. Likewise, and EM-2 would only need composite stocks, some rail and a muzzle device to look ioke it had just been developed. HAving said that, I still dearly love my C1A1.

Back to the original subject. The original intent of Canada and the UK issuing optics to every soldier was to increase his capability in low light without the cost of NVGs. The increased shooting scores and longer effective range were a bonus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom