Weapons review from Iraq veteran

[Nerd King]

Wow, let's go over this:

schlitzzlipzz (or something like that):

"In room-to-room fighting US troops do not use 3 round bursts?"

In my experience, no.

"Given the short range when doing this, I find it hard to believe that they would not use the 3 round burst. The actual 'climb' of the weapon (after targeting COM) might be beneficial."

I just told you in a previous post why it is not useful. Re-read it. Jamming is increased, accuracy goes out the window, richets are more common, etc etc. In fact I think are according to doctrine 3-rd burst is only used for responding to a near ambush (IOW you are in deep **** already, so might as well loose some rounds) and for clearing trenchs (Where the enemy is straight ahead so screw accuracy). Use controlled pairs. You might not be taking me seriously, but I have hundreds of hours of MOUT training that make this point pretty damn well.

"Ive fired the M16A1 on full auto (using controlled bursts) and at 5 meters or less, using non-shoulder firing techniques, its not hard to hit a man sized target. I notice most US troops in Iraq use a shoulder type stance though."

Full auto is not 3 round burst. They are different weapons and they work differently. And yes we use shoulder stances because we prefer to have control over our weapons while firing and moving, rather than trying to imitate Rambo.

"Shotgun Round Pictured earlier: Its actually a muzzle loader sabot round but why not have something like that for a shotgun?"

See my comment about US military not using effective rounds. BTW did you say that is muzzle loaded????!!!

"Suppression in CQB? Its a fight to the death with no quarter given."

Suppression is a factor in EVERY firefight. One of the biggest factors.

John D Salt:

"If nothing else, it demolishes the silly argument I've seen someone make that people only fall over when shot because they are conditioned to by what they see on TV."

Wow, I can't believe that arguement! From what I have seen the only time someone keels over when shot is when they recieve an immediately fatal hit i.e. heart head spine. Even then not always

BigDuke 6:

Your post come off as exceptionally condescending and generally ignorant of the issues at hand. You sound like some logistics weenie officers, fighter pilots, and arty officers I know.

Or maybe you are in the media. They tend to act like condescending know-it-alls too. And as an infantryman myself, I am scared if there are folks like you at the Pentagon. I invite you to come over to my unit and use that same smug crap you just spewed.

You basically have strung together some common-sense concepts that everyone here already knows and accepts, and combined them with some swipes at the folks whose boots you don't deserve to shine and a few well-placed total misconceptions. Oh, it SOUNDS convincing, but then again you seem to blend bullcrap with logic quite well. Bravo.

I'm not going to bother picking your post apart bit by bit because I have better things to do with my time than waste it on an ignorant, condescending jackass such as yourself. My last post here, this is just f*ing disgusting that people like you can actually be this retarded.

Tarqueline:

"IIRC the original concern was with "untreatable wounds", and the dumbasses decided watching people die lingering deaths from wounds that respond poorly to medical care in't fun for anybody."

I know what the original intent of the rulings was, and it was made by people who will never have to experience the real-life effects of their fantasy policies. War is isn't pretty no matter what ammo you are using, and if people can't stomach that then maybe they should leave the work to others. If our military can't use deadlier rounds, then how come they aren't outlawed to civilians or federal personnel? Because they don't have to follow dumb ideas that other nations make up.

Ok, so I should either kill him outright, or just "wound him a little". Sorry folks, but you can't have your cake and eat too. Real life doesn't work that way.

[akd]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I think BigDuke6 made a very well articulated post; don't diminish it by semantics. He's correct in his points - the main practical effect of fire is suppression, even if the desire is something else.

Practical effect and functional purpose are two different things and should not be confused.

But in fact, the main function of the individual rifle in most wars is to supress, not kill.

[Bigduke6]

Akd,

While you draw breath, I'll take the opportunity to say, no, it's an accurate description. Supression of opposition foot soldiers is a desired tactical effect, like smoke to conceal friendly movement (you're temporarily invisible) or Antiochus Gonatus' famous "spark of fear" which, once struck in a unit, makes previously brave men disfunctional in combat, and so easy to kill.

Supression allows you options you did not otherwise have; attack, retreat, stick your head up to figure out where to call in air or artillery, and so on.

Killing and wounding are a different tactical effect. Once that is achieved you don't have to worry about the victim any more. Once supression is achieved you do have to worry about the target, he is not killed but just with his head down.

Trying ineffectually to kill some one with a rifle, and effectively achieving supression, is not the same as killing him with a machine gun or an Arc Light strike. So I don't see the error in my logic, perhaps you can point it out.

A problem when considering supression is that the people most interested in it, the infantry, often have an inflated opinion of the effectiveness of their weapons. They are trained to believe their role in a battle is to seek out the enemy and kill him with their small arms, when in fact their role is to seek out the enemy, suffer acceptable casualties in the process of finding him, in some cases get the enemy pinned, and but anyway then bring in a serious weapon to kill the enemy.

Infantry is of course trained to maneuver for flanks and use their personal weapons to destroy the enemy. However, in any kind of even contest, the infantry doing the running around and maneuvering is eventually shot to bits. As any infantryman will tell you, the absolutely most dangerous thing to do in a firefight is to stand up.

As a result long-term wars frequently see a deterioration of the quality of infantry, and thereby an increase in its need of support weapons, precisely because too many of the well-trained, maneuver-capable infantry has gotten hit running about demonstrating the effectiveness of its personal weapons. The survivors learn to bring in the big stuff, and to ignore the officers telling them about the effectiveness of their own weapons.

If infantrymen think too much along those lines, they figure out their personal weapons don't really do much for their survival. Infantry with that attitude doesn't risk itself very much, and - see above - the whole point to infantry is expending a human life or two instead of something expensive like a vehicle or an aircraft.

So, infantry to this very day is told its personal weapons are for killing, that the weapons kill effectively, and that if the infantryman does his job well he will decisively increase his chances of survival.

Which is hogwash. If an infantryman wants to survive he should refuse orders and accept jail over war, and if that's unacceptable he should keep as low a profile as possible, volunteer for nothing, and become a huge fan of calling in every support weapon in the book, whenever possible, and let some one else worry about the wasted ammunition and infantry's reputation.

As time has gone on in the last century infantry has become more and more aware what a raw deal it is to be an infantryman in a medium-intensity war, and so armies have become more and more proficient at convincing prospective infantrymen doing their job makes sense.

Some of the most advanced armies to this very day give recruits bayonet training; bayonets, you may recall, were developed to keep cavalry armed with swords away from infantry squares armed with muzzle loading black powder muskets. It has nothing to do with the infantry doing any killing, and everything to do with convincing infantry its personal weapons really are effective, that the way to use them properly is to be agressive, so the infantry will go forward and risk getting killed.

Uhh...the enemy is suppressed because you are trying to kill him with a weapon designed to kill him. Bit of an ass-backwards argument there. [/QB]

[Battlefront.com]

From what we can tell there is still a fairly large number of the older 7.62 based Soviet weapons in Syria, though the 5.45 based weapons will likely be standard for Syrian Army forces. The older weapons would likely be found in militias, police forces, and irregular forces. It is interesting to note that Russians fighting in Chechniya were reported to be quite fond of chuking their AK 74s in favor of AK 47s because of the increased stopping power.

Someone mentioned a shotgun/5.56 combo. There is such a thing, though it is still being tweaked. The XM-26 LSS has been tested in Afghanistan by 10th Mountain Dicision and apparently was well thought of, though I don't think it is yet in large production. The LSS is a modular shotgun that can be used stand alone or attached to the rails of an M4 or M16. Here are some pics (note the outdated M4 is being used):

This is largely seen as a useful tool for urban breaching and room clearing, but also for non-lethal uses such as crowd control. When stripped of its stock it weighs less than the M203, though obviously it is a bit more bulky.

Steve

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

I was responding to your statement, you said full auto at 15m or less. I am assuming you are firing from the hip, or holding the M16 by the pistol grip and shooting around a corner or over a parapet or some other obstacle. To me that might be as good as firing blind.

In other words spraying fire at that distance is bound to hit something, but that sounds as if a desperate situation has been reached, and it is no longer a controlled building/room clearing operation.

I am talking about room clearing operations. 5-10 meters is the average size room.

But I still am not sure what you are going on about. And now I do not care either.

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

Yes that's a muzzle-loading projectile. Pretty neat really. It plows through tissue evidently.

Perhaps Nerd is suffering from PTSD? While I find his input interesting, I could do without the uncontrollable pontifications.

I think that room clearing operations would still benefit from special rounds. I think some sort of high velocity 'sabot' type solution might work. Being struck by many projectiles quickly seems to have some benefit in putting down BG's.

To suppress soemone in a room that you are in is quite a feat. Keep them hiding under the desk?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Nerd King:

I know what the original intent of the rulings was, and it was made by people who will never have to experience the real-life effects of their fantasy policies. War is isn't pretty no matter what ammo you are using, and if people can't stomach that then maybe they should leave the work to others. If our military can't use deadlier rounds, then how come they aren't outlawed to civilians or federal personnel? Because they don't have to follow dumb ideas that other nations make up.

The original intent of the Hague IV ruling was to outlaw weapons "calculated to cause unnecessary suffering". No mention of untreatable wounds, as Tarquelene seems to think, nor of deadliness, as you seem to. Poisoned projectiles are outlawed, but otherwise the intent is simply to prevent gratuitous nastiness which has no military necessity.

As for the US being bound by "dumb ideas other people make up", the Hague peace conference of 1907 which produced Hague IV was convened at the suggestion of the President of the United States.

As for "people who will never have to experience the real-life effect of their policies", recall that the President in question was Teddy Roosevelt, who I believe was no stranger to combat.

All the best,

John.

[Bigduke6]

Nerd King,

Well my friend, just so that you know, I was in the U.S. infantry about twenty years ago, when you were just wee tot, most likely. Gave them four years of my life, give or take. Volunteered at a time when patriotism wasn't very popular, I did.

And guess what? Sometimes my job, strangely enough, sends me to places where people are shooting at one another, sometimes. Heck, I was on the border of Transnistria just last week.

Have you ever heard of Transnistria? If you are a professional infantryman it might be worth your while - there are Russian peacekeepers out that way, and their job is keeping Catholic ethnic Romanians from shooting up Orthodox Christian ethnic Slavs. There's plenty of corruption, tons of smuggling, and something like 20,000 tons of old Soviet-era munitions and weapons in the region, that no one is really keeping good track of. So maybe I am full of hot air, but then again, maybe I know something about low-intensity conflicts and the weapons used in them, that you don't.

I certainly am not condescending, as far as I am concerned you are quite brave to stick your opinion in a forum inhabited mostly by a bunch of crabby wargaming grogs. Still, please don't attack me for using a language style you may not hear every day.

In any case, and I am sure all the old infantrymen posting here will back me up on this, keep your head down, don't be a He-Ro, and for God's sake don't volunteer. The world is too big and life is too grand, to end it at a young age helping some officer prove infantry is capable of closing with the enemy and killing him all by itself. Let him do it himself.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

[snips]

Trying ineffectually to kill some one with a rifle, and effectively achieving supression, is not the same as killing him with a machine gun or an Arc Light strike. [snips]

Some of the most advanced armies to this very day give recruits bayonet training; bayonets, you may recall, were developed to keep cavalry armed with swords away from infantry squares armed with muzzle loading black powder muskets. It has nothing to do with the infantry doing any killing, and everything to do with convincing infantry its personal weapons really are effective, that the way to use them properly is to be agressive, so the infantry will go forward and risk getting killed.

It's certainly true that artillery does the lion's share of the killing in "big people's war"; it's also certainly true that "Suppression is the key infantry task". However, I disagree with the conclusion you apparently draw from this, namely that the infantry's job is to fix the enemy so that arty can strike him. It's the other way round; for all the casualties it inflicts, the main task of artillery is, like that of the infantry, suppression. It is the infantry's job to go in for the final kill. It's not for nothing that the fixed callsign for infantry in the British Army used to be "Foxhound".

To obtain this final decision, the other significant task of the infantry is to close with the enemy. When I was in the TA the mission of the infantry was stated as "To close with the enemy, observe him, and destroy him"; now we have come over all maneouvrist, this has been re-cast to read "To close with the enemy, observe him, and act in such a way as to bring about his defeat" (and I have seen the disgruntled addendum "Provided that's OK with everybody and no-one gets hurt"). But "acting in such a way as to bring about his defeat" can still, even in this age of lightweight mobile 'phones and one-calorie soft drinks, mean a screaming-Jesus bayonet charge.

The qualities that need distinguishing here are destructiveness and decisiveness. Artillery is far more destructive than infantry, and has been since Napoleon's time. It is, however, practically incapable of producing a decision on its own. A decision is only reached when a friendly infantryman can "winkle the other bastard out of his hole and make him sign the peace-treaty". The bayonet is fairly rarely used, and much more rarely does it inflict casualties, but while vastly less destructive than artillery, it is much more decisive. Once the battle has got to knife-fighting range, it is going to be decided pretty soon, one way or the other.

You'll have heard the old saw "Tanks can overrun things, artillery can destroy things, but only infantry can hold ground". What "holding ground" means is that your infantry can walk over the ground, and his can't. You may have any number of billions of dollars' worth of Buck Rogers wonder-junk surveilling and monitoring and bombarding a piece of ground, but until your infantry can walk over it, you don't control it.

Guilio Douhet doesn't believe me, of course, but he's hugely and colossally wrong.

All the best,

John.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nidan1:

I was responding to your statement, you said full auto at 15m or less. I am assuming you are firing from the hip, or holding the M16 by the pistol grip and shooting around a corner or over a parapet or some other obstacle. To me that might be as good as firing blind.

In other words spraying fire at that distance is bound to hit something, but that sounds as if a desperate situation has been reached, and it is no longer a controlled building/room clearing operation.

I am talking about room clearing operations. 5-10 meters is the average size room.

But I still am not sure what you are going on about. And now I do not care either. </font>

[Nidan1]

Nerd King,

Can you point to the specific post by Bigduke6 that you find to be condescending. Usually on this forum if you want to point out something stupid or condescending in a person's post, you quote the post, so that the rest of us can have a clue as to what you are talking about.

While you certainly talk as if you know what's going on, you certainly must accept the fact that you are not the only person on this forum who is or was ever in the infantry.

You may have first hand knowledge of the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but anyone can bloviate on about certain weapons and cartridges and how they may or may not work in real life, even a novelist without any combat experience at all can tell a good war story with the right research tools and a talent for words.

I am not saying that you are not a bona fide life taker, but you might want to lighten up on personal attacks, seeing that you are new here, and a lot of us have relationships with other posters that go beyond the superficial.

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

I shot a Dog in Reno..just to watch him s**t

Hey Nidan why don't you lighten up yourself? I don't want to hear about your relationships at all.

[Tarquelne]

I know what the original intent of the rulings was, and it was made by people who will never have to experience the real-life effects of their fantasy policies.

You're saying they missed out on the opportunity to be shot with a dum-dum bullet? Or to have a son crippled by the same? I suppose you're correct, that most would have either been past the age of active combat service (in the case of those of military background) or they were civilians.

So what? Do you have anything else, or is it just "dumbass" because they aren't combat vets? I don't mean to be insulting, but combat vets can be dumbasses too.

War is isn't pretty no matter what ammo you are using, and if people can't stomach that then maybe they should leave the work to others. If our military can't use deadlier rounds, then how come they aren't outlawed to civilians or federal personnel? Because they don't have to follow dumb ideas that other nations make up.

Or because other nations are perfectly willing to let our police shoot us with such weapons, but object when we might do it to them. By the same token, we might trust feds. to not use such rounds when inappropriate, where we wouldn't trust, for example, the Syrian Army.

Ok, so I should either kill him outright, or just "wound him a little". Sorry folks, but you can't have your cake and eat too. Real life doesn't work that way.

No. Not "little wounds", but "untreatable wounds." So as not to cause "unnecessary

suffering." And, given that it's war, the bar for that is set pretty high. Others have drawn the line at "untreatable wounds", and closely associate that with the effects of explosive bullets or things with a similar behavior.

IIRC US isn't a formal adherent to the treaty (or at least these parts of it), but follows the rules only when it feels like it.

For example, I think snipers can use ammo that's similar to "dum dums" because it's an accepted method of increasing long range accuracy.

But so far as I know it's not cost that's keeping the US from using "nasty" ammo, but something else.

I've given a few reasons why this might - and I think does - make sense: Why some undetermined loss in "stopping power" is worth accepting.

And, by coincidence, they're reasons I'd find persuasive whether or not they came from a combat vet.

Thanks in part to you're posts I've come to believe that the choice to not use enhanced effect rounds is a good one. But if you've got something else besides (to paraphrase) "Stopping power is more important than anything else. I'm a combat vet, we know these things." I'd really love to see it.

[Tarquelne]

The original intent of the Hague IV ruling was to outlaw weapons "calculated to cause unnecessary suffering". No mention of untreatable wounds, as Tarquelene seems to think, nor of deadliness, as you seem to.

You're right. What Tarquelne seems to remember is that the inability to adequately treat wounds caused by explosive amunition is why they were considered to cause unnecessary suffering.

I probably used that phrase because it's one I see bleeding-heart liberals kick around more than "uncessary suffering." It's more graphic, I suppose. And uncessary suffering, given the subject, may be hard to pin down.

[ December 07, 2005, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

Isn't killing someone an untreatable wound?

The most humane thing IS either not shooting someone at ALL...or killing them outright. If they can be put down so they lose conciousness, then thats OK also. They won't suffer and will bleed out that way. And they won't shoot back.

But asking a soldier to constantly risk his life by using ammo that entails he risk his own life is stupid.

Medical advancements have made most injuries treatable. Its amazing how gangsta morons are saved everyday at hospitals.

[ December 07, 2005, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com ]

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

I shot a Dog in Reno..just to watch him s**t

Hey Nidan why don't you lighten up yourself? I don't want to hear about your relationships at all.

Ok Gaylord, whatever you say.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

Isn't killing someone an untreatable wound?

Only if you do so in a manner that prevents ressurection where ressurection is normally possible.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

I shot a Dog in Reno..just to watch him s**t

Hey Nidan why don't you lighten up yourself? I don't want to hear about your relationships at all.

Ok Gaylord, whatever you say. </font>

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

Was Gaylord a dog killer also?

[Tarquelne]

More like :Username: if you ask me. Gaylord wouldn't get involved in things in such a mundane way.

And anyone responding to him should be pummeled.

Except me.

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

Next time I shoot a dog, I am going to bedazzle it with flashing lights while I wear my space-hamster goggles with filters that allow me sneak up on the canine.

I will mount a white screen in front of the dog to measure the actual 'pink-misting' quotient. A diaper will be installed on the dog this time (my living room rug still smells).

[Bigduke6]

John,

You are of course quite right, I agree with pretty much everything you say. It's my conclusion you're getting a bit skewed, I think. We have sort of an emphasis disconnect.

My point is of course that in the critical phase of the combined arms firefight - the battle for fire superiority if you will - personal infantry weapons supress at best, and often do nothing useful. In this aspect of the battle, where the intense killing is taking place, and the battle for fire superiority is on, the infantry's main function is to find targets for things that really can kill; be it an MG or a Spectre gunship.

In my view, infantry's primary job if the mission is go forward is very much what it is in CM (it is amazing how good a game it is). Infantry goes forth and finds the enemy in some form of recon by death. Oh sure they snoop and poop, and sometimes it works, but infantry is human and they are opposed by humans, and war is war, and it is better to get a single scout shot than a bunch of guys.

Infantry to my mind holds ground primarily by keeping the other infantry out, because if they can do that, they can make the ground they are on a real pain, if not untenable, for other combat arms.

So yes, winkling out is important, and when it is complete it is by definition decisive, as that means the other guy's infantry is out of the picture, it is ejecte from a bit of ground. And nothing can do that but infantry.

But I think you would agree with me that infantry only rarely winkles (love that word) successfully, without the assistance of the other combat arms.

So I don't think we disagree so much as to the function of infantry, as to when we see the infantry's main job done. I see that at the tipping point in the firefight, when one side establishes fire superiority and begins systematically killing the opposition. Therefore I focus on the infantry's contributions to that process: finding things to kill and connecting the right killing system with the right target. This is a very efficient system as the infantry has a very personal stake in getting this done fast, because if they don't they lose the firefight, and fear of death really focuses a person's efforts.

You OHH see (I am postulating here) infantry's main job as completing the process of capturing or denying ground, based on the logic that nothing other than infantry can do the winkling out necessary to convert a firefight into a meaningful tactical success. Without the winkling, the fighting is just exchange of fire and attrition; with the winkling, the use of tactics and maneuver becomes possible.

Without branding you a maueverist with the baggage that carries, how's that for a read of your POV?

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

What's silly about it? When I was shown something similar with a single 7.62 round from an LMG, it was pointed out that the water-filled drum is about the same mass and density as a human target.

If nothing else, it demolishes the silly argument I've seen someone make that people only fall over when shot because they are conditioned to by what they see on TV.

Silly is probably too strong a word. It only demonstrates the KE of the round, which is probably worthwhile in itself, but it has nothing to do with stopping power. It does not demonstrate how much KE is transferred to a human target if the bullet passes straight through (which it probably will), and it does not demonstrate the damage it does on the way.

I remember another Mythbusters episode where they shot at a pig with varios rounds... it hardly moved. At least that demo showed how much KE is transferred to the target.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

I wasn't talking about the russian army - I was talking about total usage.

Yesh, I got that - but who gives a damn about the total usage!

It's not as if most of the armed forces/factions/gangs that use the Kalashnikov or a variant of it would be doing so because it really is the best mutha funkin' AR in the galaxy. They do it because it's in their price range, and it is available. AND cause it is a good, reliable weapon. Not state of the art, but good anyway.

Now, here though, we are discussing something different. And there the decision of the Soviet armed forces to go for a smaller calibre is more important: they COULD have kept using the 47. Or they COULD have given the 74 only to special branches like they initially did. Yet, during a time that they were involved in warfare in Afghanistan, being able to draw from their experiences, they gradually armed their whole army with the new, smaller-calibred weapon.

Which would signify to me that either they were just clueless and decided to do what the Damn Yanks had done, or, while still being clueless, they figured that there are very real advantages in going for a smaller caliber. I find the latter more believable. And I would be surprised if greater lethality wasn't one of those (expected) advantages.

Whether AK-74 really is better at killing things than AK-47, I don't know. But I have more faith in the tests done by Soviet arms experts than the gut feel of a few Russian grunts that served in Chechnya, because gut feel is really everything that they have.

[akd]

Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

Next time I shoot a dog, I am going to bedazzle it with flashing lights while I wear my space-hamster goggles with filters that allow me sneak up on the canine.

I will mount a white screen in front of the dog to measure the actual 'pink-misting' quotient. A diaper will be installed on the dog this time (my living room rug still smells).

Shut up. You watch too many movies and are making us dumb by proximity.