Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan

KB

I hear ya and I understand the limitations, I was just commenting on how many don't understand the limitations and capabilities of their gear is all.

the first time i seen an (Elcan in 93? maybe) I asked "hey looks like you can use the reticle for range" the DS looked at me like i had 3 heads:D
 
I saying like "#### the group,make the kill" could be part of the reason why there seems to be a bias against 5.56.If you have to fire 20 shots at a guy to get him to go down...well it must be the ammo.Probably also why so many think the effective range is 300m.300m is more likely the effective range of the personel NOT the weapons system.
I totally agree the UKD shooting should dominate training AFTER individuals get past a certain standard.If you can only shoot a 10"groups at 100m you obviously don't have the skill set yet and need more time getting the basics.
 
X2

Based on velocity data, 300m appears to be the maximum range 5.56 can penetrate soft armour. Also, the external ballistic basicly make Range estimation very critical after 300m which is essentially impractical unless someone is spotting - 300m is the maximum range for point and shoot for 556. 400m to 600m is much more advanced skill as range estimation and understanding of external ballistic will come in big time.

As boring as it sounds, grouping is a measure of consistency and the confidence of actually knowing that a shot hits where the rifle is aimed at. This builds the confidence to call your own shots without going over to the target to see if it hits the paper. Most shooters can call their shots becasue they've shot enough and have seen the targets to verify their calls over the years, at all ranges. Hitting somewhere on a 18"X18" target at one range does not give me confidence to project my hittability to the next 50 or 100m.

unless we can get something more flat shooting than 5.56 -

Longshot said:
I saying like "f**k the group,make the kill" could be part of the reason why there seems to be a bias against 5.56.If you have to fire 20 shots at a guy to get him to go down...well it must be the ammo.Probably also why so many think the effective range is 300m.300m is more likely the effective range of the personel NOT the weapons system.
I totally agree the UKD shooting should dominate training AFTER individuals get past a certain standard.If you can only shoot a 10"groups at 100m you obviously don't have the skill set yet and need more time getting the basics.
Click to expand...
 
Hopefully the flat range will soon be a relic of the past with the new initiative coming down the pipe from DAT, new reactive targets, better range layouts, and realistic training programs are all coming within the next 5 years.
Click to expand...

don't hold your breath, I've been fighting the good fight for several years with regards to targetry.

as for range layouts there is still the need for a conventional range, and in a lot of places there is not a lot of space once you put the danger template on the map.

CEASS is a good training tool and allows for force on force and can be used in most of the training areas.


But the point still is you need to hit your target. I hate going to the range with people that take 15 min to shoot a 5 round group. If you can't get a reasonable 5 round group in 60 seconds you should spend more time learning how to shoot in the SAT trainers, not wasting my time on the range.
 
Part of a comment from Lightfighter on a the same concept
  • A true SME in the field who now works as a civilian contractor after being US SOF inc Tier1 time for years
"I can identify several issues with this report:

>>
>> 1) No indication is made of the metrics used by Soldiers to estimate their engagement ranges.
>> 2) There is no mention of the type of engagements; ie,mounted/dismounted, static - from a COP or in a flexible perimeter (patrol base) and what variance in the predictable engagement ranges are.
>> 3) He doesn't discuss the enemies command of the high ground due to our ridiculous TTP of setting our COPS in the low ground resigning the high ground to the enemy.
>> 4) He fails to ask the Soldiers polled how often they PID.

>> 5) No mention is made of dismounted engagement (chance contact)distances and those percentages.
My personal experience over 9 years of deployment to that country (split between there and Iraq) and 30 plus years of doing this job, has shown that those issues I have ID'ed in the report are just a few that are often overlooked and have been at the heart of the misinformation regarding the ineffectiveness of the 5.56MM round ( in particular M855/SS109). Additionally, my personal experience as recent as my last rotation to AF this past August to November has shown that Troops in general are severally deficit in range estimation. What looks like 500 meters to them is no more than 175-200 meters. Therefore, they engage and don't hit (their way over the target). Further, I have personally seen Soldiers shooting at targets that they say are 200 meters away and are more like 600-700 meters away. Causing them to hit far too short and resulting in their calling their splash at the wrong range...in any event, I offer these to illustrate that just because Soldiers say it, doesn't mean it's true. There are always factors and influences that cause the ego of the American Soldier which impedes them from saying they missed...I see this frequently in some SOF Units as well..."
 
We had transitional ranges in the CF and got rid of them:mad:. They consisted of conventional square ranges with gallery style targets at the end, layed out in lanes but with no set range mounds. They had field firing type terrain so it was sort of like 15-20 individual field firing lanes side by each. Very useful in transitioning range skills from KD to UKD, adopting proper positions according to terrain, etc. The ideal would be incorporating automated targetry at varying positions in depth so you could advance 500m and have 500m of depth in your target band allowing training from 1000m to 0m. Same template space as a 500m range (like we have in Edmonton? Hint hint Woodchopper.)

We also have 500m flat, UKD ranges templated for field firing that support up to section size frontal attacks right beside the conventional ranges. A good tool if its used properly. The tools are here out west and they get lots of use, I can not account for what reserve brigades and easterners are doing.

If the CFOSP is followed correctly it gives the troops the tools they need to progress to field firing adequately. If units skip the training that allows them to develop their skills on the way to the PWT thats their misfortune. There's no bonus for CO's for achieving the minimum acceptable standards quickly.

Marksmanship basics can always be better but can anyone post a link to one published reference that says Canadian Forces operational marksmanship is lacking overseas? A lessons learned roll up, a published after action, a magazine article, anything. Not saying it doesn't exsist, just saying there's not much official negative press out there. I'm not being aggro here or just stiring the pot, I'm actually looking for material for research. If you are CF and know of documented issues with our troops operational marksmanship it would be interesting to read. Not interested in third hand stories but if you have a personal experience in battle to prove a point please share it.

If you are a leader holding rank and making comments here maybe also post saying what you have done to fix things inside your arcs. Have you submitted a UCR, a service paper, published in professional journals, organized a unit shoot or competition? Share the wealth.

If its unclassified, post it so we can all read it. Anecdotes and youtube videos are not proof that the CF's shooting skill is going to hell in a handcart across the board.

I'll go first:

  • Our unit is developing a 10 day instructor package to reinforce material from the Urban Ops Instructor course. It aims to develop coaching skills at the basic gunfighter level (upto CFOSP PWT 4 and beyond). Not just trigger pulling, coaching skills for the guys already qualified PLQ3 as coaches (a weak course at best). We hope to export this inside 1 CMBG in time (already have to some degree). As much as appropriate, parts of this may find its way into the LFWA Combat Shooting team training plan.
  • Our Company does semi-regular competitive shoots (with prizes occasionally)that tests various skills - CQB and medium range with an aim to eventually stretching out to 500m. All the shooting generally incorporates battle fitness before and after (march and shoot etc.) No one is against us or stopping us from doing this.
  • Edmonton Garrison shooting club members can expect similar competitive stuff at competitions this summer and training seminars if they want to do it with their own guns. No big prizes or leagues etc, just good fun training.
 
^^^^sounds good^^^^^^

I don't think our marksmanship is going to hell its just in transition right now I would like to see marksmanship in both the pistol and rifle would be promoted more in the CF but then there is also things that some orgs can do as well, but i am not going to open that can of worms

BTW congrats on getting on the cf team
 
Last edited:
I remember the SMG range in Sardis, they had remote targets popping up at various ranges and a path you could walk and engage the target. This was from the late 70-early 80’s, range was closed due to nearby housing construction.

You don’t need a range to teach people to judge range, take any rangefinder, go out to an area and get the guys to judge ranges, do it in urban and rural areas. Use the range finder to show then how accurate/inaccurate they are. You can also take them out let them judge ranges and then compare it to the topo map, improving map reading and ranging skills
 
shortandlong said:
^^^^sounds good^^^^^^

I don't think our marksmanship is going to hell its just in transition right now I would like to see marksmanship in both the pistol and rifle world promoted more in the CF but then there is also things that some orgs can do as well, but i am not going to open that can of worms

BTW congrats on getting on the cf team
Click to expand...


Thx, wheels are turning already to get a training plan together for Bisley. Looking like a strong team this year!
 
Thx, wheels are turning already to get a training plan together for Bisley. Looking like a strong team this year!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect anything else

as for rifle training .......if anyone else is complaining the best thing you can do is get people interested in service rifle.
 
Colin said:
I remember the SMG range in Sardis, they had remote targets popping up at various ranges and a path you could walk and engage the target. This was from the late 70-early 80’s, range was closed due to nearby housing construction.

You don’t need a range to teach people to judge range, take any rangefinder, go out to an area and get the guys to judge ranges, do it in urban and rural areas. Use the range finder to show then how accurate/inaccurate they are. You can also take them out let them judge ranges and then compare it to the topo map, improving map reading and ranging skills
Click to expand...

the old jungle lane range :D targets on sticks and you pulled on the WD to lift the targets. It would be much easier with the computer controled automated targets.

we just got a bunch of target sheilds so that we can set up the SIT's for this without having to fill hundreds of sandbags. (ask Wainwright RC when you book the SITs)

Ranges Ranges Ranges... where to start, there are so many different types and targetry... the SITs are ok but they are near the end of their lifecycles and getting repairs is dependent on parts and there are no new parts thanks to someone years ago having the birght idea that we needed to 'Canadianize' the off the shelf product :mad:

so for more effective use of the current weapons (small arms) we need ranges where soldiers learn to shoot, basic shooting skills, be that simulated or live. Targetry should be automated (less soldiers working the range more solders shooting) and provide instant feedback on where the shot impacted. Anual refresher training and practice.

Next we need more advanced ranges that are not fixed distances, and the shooters are not static :D more fun to design and template but not that bad really. Need more targetry (smart enough to register hits in zones, kill no kill) and perhaps some on rails to provide moving targets :D

Finally we need complex ranges, were talking urban live fire here again with targets that are smart enough to register hits and react, templating can be very fun. Figure 11 and fig 12 targets on a stick are not what I have in mind for targetry :rolleyes:

So I just need the funding to get a whole wack of targetry :eek: :D

anyone with a few spare milion, let me know
 
For "Urban" Live Fire -- try the Simunition CQT 5.56mm it has a black tip and is pretty decent to 100m - stopped by 1/4" plywood - but it is still a potentially lethal round, uses the same Blue Sim 5.56mm bolt as the 5.56mm FX rounds.
Template is a whole lot smaller than ball ammo.
 
KevinB said:
For "Urban" Live Fire -- try the Simunition CQT 5.56mm it has a black tip and is pretty decent to 100m - stopped by 1/4" plywood - but it is still a potentially lethal round, uses the same Blue Sim 5.56mm bolt as the 5.56mm FX rounds.
Template is a whole lot smaller than ball ammo.
Click to expand...


I was just looking at that last stuff week. :D

small templates make this an interesting option.
 
woodchopper said:
the old jungle lane range :D targets on sticks and you pulled on the WD to lift the targets. It would be much easier with the computer controled automated targets.

we just got a bunch of target sheilds so that we can set up the SIT's for this without having to fill hundreds of sandbags. (ask Wainwright RC when you book the SITs)

Ranges Ranges Ranges... where to start, there are so many different types and targetry... the SITs are ok but they are near the end of their lifecycles and getting repairs is dependent on parts and there are no new parts thanks to someone years ago having the birght idea that we needed to 'Canadianize' the off the shelf product :mad:

so for more effective use of the current weapons (small arms) we need ranges where soldiers learn to shoot, basic shooting skills, be that simulated or live. Targetry should be automated (less soldiers working the range more solders shooting) and provide instant feedback on where the shot impacted. Anual refresher training and practice.

Next we need more advanced ranges that are not fixed distances, and the shooters are not static :D more fun to design and template but not that bad really. Need more targetry (smart enough to register hits in zones, kill no kill) and perhaps some on rails to provide moving targets :D

Finally we need complex ranges, were talking urban live fire here again with targets that are smart enough to register hits and react, templating can be very fun. Figure 11 and fig 12 targets on a stick are not what I have in mind for targetry :rolleyes:

So I just need the funding to get a whole wack of targetry :eek: :D

anyone with a few spare milion, let me know
Click to expand...


The Lockheed martin target system is being phased out soon (hopefully sooner) with a new system that will be suitable for both gallery and field firing ranges. The exact system last I heard hadn't been chosen but Pet is getting the trial set up at some point.
 
Reaper said:
The Lockheed martin target system is being phased out soon (hopefully sooner) with a new system that will be suitable for both gallery and field firing ranges. The exact system last I heard hadn't been chosen but Pet is getting the trial set up at some point.
Click to expand...


Are they now..... :D I think they said that they didn't want an ATS, and Shilo ans Wainwright are going to be the test sites

as for system selection..... I've been asking for 3 years now for an update :rolleyes: or just a hint


I saw a nice little setup (demo'ed by Saab) in Suffield back in Nov-Dec, it worked fine at -25 and recorded every bullet strike, including when fired in burst :D
 
Frangible ammo is already in use by the CF. It is just now making itself available to us, the "unwashed masses.":rolleyes:


KevinB said:
For "Urban" Live Fire -- try the Simunition CQT 5.56mm it has a black tip and is pretty decent to 100m - stopped by 1/4" plywood - but it is still a potentially lethal round, uses the same Blue Sim 5.56mm bolt as the 5.56mm FX rounds.
Template is a whole lot smaller than ball ammo.
Click to expand...
 
5.56 vs ?

I prefer the versatility of a larger cartridge than 5.56 for barrier penetration, lethality at extended ranges, and in closer quarters, I would rather fire a larger calibre against a plated, professional soldier utilizing barriers or in urban environments like Iraq, which is essentially all concrete and cinder block. With better muzzle brakes, larger calibres can be controlled by the weakest man and moved quickly in CQB environments in shorty-style rifles so I don't know why we can't adapt a larger calibre and I don't understand the unwillingness to do so if you can do it cheaply. We should be giving our soldiers more firepower. MORE DAMNIT.
 
We have plenty of firepower, a larger caliber isn't the issue but improving the current one. There are structures in Afghanistan that a LeoII can't pierce, you just have to attack it in a different way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom