A good read for the military guys.

J996

J996

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
123   0   0
Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan:Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer

I am posting this here because it mainly deals with the AR platform, its use in service and I found it a damn good read. Takes a while to read through it all but lots of really good info regarding optics and marksmanship training/qualification.

I absolutely love what this Maj is proposing in regard to upgrading the rifle qualification program to include some old school goodness from 1949!! (diagram page 63).

Its from 09 so some of you may have read it before.




http://www.scribd.com/doc/27765477/...istan-Taking-Back-the-Infantry-Half-Kilometer
 
For all of the forward assist haters. ;)

p.41 said:
The problem was that the ammunition and themagazines where sandy and prevented the weapon from fully chambering the first cartridge. Use of the forward assist when inserting a new magazine dramatically increased reliability.
Click to expand...
 
Just starting to dig into this.

I've had a couple of military folks tell me how they use and have needed their forward assists. Interesting how the civilian and military world differ when the guns undergo vastly different treatments.
 
J996 said:
Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan:Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer

I am posting this here because it mainly deals with the AR platform, its use in service and I found it a damn good read. Takes a while to read through it all but lots of really good info regarding optics and marksmanship training/qualification.

I absolutely love what this Maj is proposing in regard to upgrading the rifle qualification program to include some old school goodness from 1949!! (diagram page 63).

Its from 09 so some of you may have read it before.




http://www.scribd.com/doc/27765477/...istan-Taking-Back-the-Infantry-Half-Kilometer
Click to expand...


Interesting read!
 
If your doctrine says 500m, you can be sure your potential enemies are saying "500m to 1000m will belong to us then", and training for that result.

Funny how 100 years ago service rifles were sighted up to over 2000 yards and tests at the time showed the lethality and effectiveness of plunging rifle fire at those ranges.

WWI showed the power of machine guns fired indirect in batteries. Fire so heavy it literally beat barbed wire entanglements flat.

There aren't many fields of military science where capability has actually decreased in the last 100 years but this is one of them.

To say "we have other weapons for that" is no answer at all. "Other weapons" are not always available, and not always effective. Why deliberately limit your capabilities through training and doctrine when it's not technically necessary?

Or is it just that the doctrines are being written to fit the technology? Technology chosen without sufficient study or consultation.
 
RRCo. said:
If your doctrine says 500m, you can be sure your potential enemies are saying "500m to 1000m will belong to us then", and training for that result.

Funny how 100 years ago service rifles were sighted up to over 2000 yards and tests at the time showed the lethality and effectiveness of plunging rifle fire at those ranges.

WWI showed the power of machine guns fired indirect in batteries. Fire so heavy it literally beat barbed wire entanglements flat.

There aren't many fields of military science where capability has actually decreased in the last 100 years but this is one of them.

To say "we have other weapons for that" is no answer at all. "Other weapons" are not always available, and not always effective. Why deliberately limit your capabilities through training and doctrine when it's not technically necessary? or at least definetly the use of machine guns in batteries in the indirect role.

im not arguing the articale but i'm just tryying to understand how all these weapons arent a replacement for volley rifle fire and machine guns in batteries...

Or is it just that the doctrines are being written to fit the technology? Technology chosen without sufficient study or consultation.
Click to expand...

wait what? there is close air and gunships and accurate(ish) artillery and 25mm auto cannons and mk19's and 50's that all fill those two roles.... how is we have other weapons for that not an answer?
Im not arguing the article or even your point im just wondering how anyone of these or combo of these weapons isnt a repllacement for the two ww1 or earlier tactics you mentioned
 
Last edited:
RRCo. said:
If your doctrine says 500m, you can be sure your potential enemies are saying "500m to 1000m will belong to us then", and training for that
Click to expand...

Do you really think our most likely enemies have the skill, ability and (most importantly) the time to train every soldier to own a 500m-1000m zone with small arms? That is is ludicrous statement.

The common jihadist can no more own that 500m-1000m with their standard suite of small arms than could a country outfitted along the same lines as us.

Owning a 500m bubble with every weapon in a platoon would be a solid bedrock to form further actions on, unlike now where essentially only the LMG's and C6's can effectively engage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom