Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army Report: GIs Outgunned in Afghanistan
Politics Daily ^ | 04/2/10 | David Wood

Posted on 04/03/2010 1:03:04 PM PDT by neverdem

American troops are often outgunned by Afghan insurgents because they lack the precision weapons, deadly rounds, and training needed to kill the enemy in the long-distance firefights common in Afghanistan's rugged terrain, according to an internal Army study.

Unlike in Iraq, where most shooting took place at relatively short range in urban neighborhoods, U.S. troops in Afghanistan are more often attacked from high ground with light machine guns and mortars from well beyond 300 meters (327 yards, or just over three football field lengths). The average range for a small-arms firefight in Afghanistan is about 500 meters, according to the study.

Unless U.S. troops under attack call in artillery or air strikes and risk civilian casualties, the only way they can fight back is with long-distance precision shooting -- a capability currently in short supply among infantry units, according to a study done at the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., by Maj. Thomas P. Ehrhart.

According to Ehrhart's paper, Army infantrymen do not regularly train and practice shooting at distances of more than 300 meters. The round fired from their M4 carbines and M16 rifles, the 5.56mm bullet, don't carry enough velocity at long distances to kill.

While the Army has moved recently to equip each infantry company of about 200 soldiers with nine designated marksmen to overcome this problem, they don't often carry weapons with sufficient killing power at distance, and there aren't enough of them, Ehrhart reports.

Army spokesmen had no immediate comment on Ehrhart's paper, which was released by SAMS last month and given wider circulation by defensetech.org and the Kit Up! blog on military.com.

Most infantrymen in Afghanistan carry the M4 carbine, a version of the standard M16 rifle, but with a shorter barrel. It was designed to allow soldiers to operate from cramped armored vehicles and in the city neighborhoods of Iraq. But the shorter barrel robs the weapon of the ability to shoot accurately at long distances, because the bullet doesn't acquire as much stabilizing spin when it is fired as it does in a longer barrel.

Soldiers commonly are taught in training to use "suppressive fire,'' in effect returning enemy attacks with sprays of gunfire, which are often ineffective in Afghanistan.

One reason is the ineffectiveness of the most commonly used round, designated the M855. Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, was once accidentally shot in the chest with an M855 round from a light machine gun; rather than being killed, he walked out of the hospital several days later.

Ehrhart recalls seeing a soldier shot with a M855 round from a distance of 75 meters in training. Twenty minutes later he was "walking around smoking a cigarette.''

Such incidents may be flukes, but they do illustrate that the rounds can lack killing power. Most infantrymen are equipped to fire the M855 round from their M4 carbine, M16 rifle, or the SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon), a light machine gun. When a firefight erupts in Afghanistan, they are unable to fire back accurately at more than 200 or 300 meters, leaving it to soldiers with heavier weapons -- the M240 machine gun, 60-mm mortars or snipers equipped with M14 rifles.

"These [heavier] weapons represent 19 percent of the company's firepower,'' Ehrhart wrote, meaning that "81 percent of the company has little effect on the fight.

"This is unacceptable.''

One quick fix, he suggested, is to equip the designated marksmen within each company with a powerful weapon that can kill at long distances, the M110 sniper weapon, which is effective out to 800 meters.

These rifles are expensive -- about $8,000 apiece. But you could outfit every infantry squad in the Army with two M110 rifles for the price of one U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor supersonic stealthy fighter, Ehrhart noted.

Ironically, American doughboys in World War I were better trained and equipped for Afghanistan-style firefights than today's GIs.

"The U.S. infantry weapon has devolved from the World War I rifle capable of conducting lethal fire out to 1,200 yards, to the current weapon that can hit a target out to 300 meters but probably will not kill it,'' Ehrhart wrote.

The School of Advanced Military Studies, where Ehrhart was a student last year, trains the Army's brightest young officers for senior leadership. His unclassified paper, written last year, does not reflect official Army positions. But the paper has rocketed around in military circles and has been read avidly in some units preparing to deploy to Afghanistan.

But even before his report began circulating widely, some Army units were acting on the hard-learned lessons from Afghanistan, where the Army has been fighting for almost nine years.

Several weeks ago I watched an infantry battalion of the 10th Mountain Division's 4th Brigade Combat Team working on live fire maneuvers in central Wyoming.

One key focus, according to Command Sgt. Maj. Doug Maddi, was to hone soldiers' skills in high-angle and long-distance shooting -- precisely the skills not widely required in regular Army training, according to Ehrhart.

Where normal Army marksmanship training is often conducted on level ground against pop-up targets, Maddi and the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Chris Ramsey, had their men shooting up towering ridgelines and down steep inclines, and at distances out to 600 meters.

The battalion's troops, wearing their full battle kit, also were firing live rounds while running, and while running with heavy packs, up and down the steep Wyoming ridges.

"We're here to replicate the environment of Afghanistan," said Ramsey, who brought his battalion to Wyoming from its home base at Fort Polk, La. "We don't get this kind of terrain at home."

Ramsey told me he had not read Ehrhart's paper before his battalion deployed to Wyoming for a month's training in early February. Polishing those skills was "intuitive," he said. But he said the paper now has been read across the battalion.

At a meeting with reporters this week, Army Secretary John McHugh was asked whether he was familiar with the Ehrhart report. McHugh said he was not, but after hearing a brief description, he said he would track down the paper and read it.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; banglist; bhodod; ehrhart; ehrhartreport; guns; oef; oefsurge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-214 next last
To: Joe 6-pack

Firearms
M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun
FN Browning M1899/M1900
Colt Model 1900
Colt Model 1902
Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammer (.38 ACP)
Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammerless (.32 ACP)
Colt Model 1905
Remington Model 8 (1906), a long recoil semi-automatic rifle
Colt Model 1908 Vest Pocket (.25 ACP)
Colt Model 1908 Pocket Hammerless (.380 ACP)
FN Model 1910
U.S. Model 1911 pistol
Colt Woodsman pistol
Winchester Model 1885 falling block single shot rifle
Winchester Model 1886 lever-action repeating rifle
Winchester Model 1887 lever-action repeating shotgun
Winchester Model 1890 slide-action repeating rifle (.22)
Winchester Model 1892 lever-action repeating rifle
Winchester Model 1894 lever-action repeating rifle
Winchester Model 1895 lever-action repeating rifle
Winchester Model 1897 pump-action repeating shotgun
Browning Auto-5 long recoil semi-automatic shotgun
U.S. Model 1917 water-cooled machine gun
Model 1919 air-cooled machine gun
Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) of 1917
Browning M2 .50-caliber heavy machine gun of 1921
Remington Model 8 semi-auto rifle
Remington Model 24 semi-auto rifle (.22) Also produced by Browning Firearms (as the SA-22) and several others
The Browning Hi-Power, the last pistol that John Browning developed
The Browning Superposed over/under shotgun was designed by John Browning in 1922 and entered production in 1931


161 posted on 04/03/2010 7:49:15 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Firearms
M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun
FN Browning M1899/M1900
Colt Model 1900
Colt Model 1902
Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammer (.38 ACP)
Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammerless (.32 ACP)
Colt Model 1905
Remington Model 8 (1906), a long recoil semi-automatic rifle
Colt Model 1908 Vest Pocket (.25 ACP)
Colt Model 1908 Pocket Hammerless (.380 ACP)
FN Model 1910
U.S. Model 1911 pistol
Colt Woodsman pistol
Winchester Model 1885 falling block single shot rifle
Winchester Model 1886 lever-action repeating rifle
Winchester Model 1887 lever-action repeating shotgun
Winchester Model 1890 slide-action repeating rifle (.22)
Winchester Model 1892 lever-action repeating rifle
Winchester Model 1894 lever-action repeating rifle
Winchester Model 1895 lever-action repeating rifle
Winchester Model 1897 pump-action repeating shotgun
Browning Auto-5 long recoil semi-automatic shotgun
U.S. Model 1917 water-cooled machine gun
Model 1919 air-cooled machine gun
Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) of 1917
Browning M2 .50-caliber heavy machine gun of 1921
Remington Model 8 semi-auto rifle
Remington Model 24 semi-auto rifle (.22) Also produced by Browning Firearms (as the SA-22) and several others
The Browning Hi-Power, the last pistol that John Browning developed
The Browning Superposed over/under shotgun was designed by John Browning in 1922 and entered production in 1931


162 posted on 04/03/2010 7:49:15 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

All of this is by design, This is a POLICE Action under the guise of the United nations, we are NOT SUPPOSED to win, we are there just for show. If it was really a war like WWII, that area would be called The Vast Sea of Glass.


163 posted on 04/03/2010 7:50:45 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: parthian shot

I’ve noticed that on the War Porn ping to weaselzippers.


164 posted on 04/03/2010 8:04:10 PM PDT by mcshot (The nightmare is playing out. America is being conned by ignorance & fraud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

May have already been answered, but what is up with this?

“Our troops have been forced to build tiny,open firebases in the fishbowl bottoms of valleys - surrounded by tree studded hills and mountains.”

Even I, a retired Naval Aviator, know better than to give the height advantage away!


165 posted on 04/03/2010 8:04:58 PM PDT by Taxman (So that the beautiful pressure does not diminish!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Taxman
See the links at my post #78, for one example. There are many more -

also see my posts # 54 and 55.

Our troops have been under incredible disadvantages - CRIMINAL disadvantages - and it has multiplied under this regime. I do not know how obama dares show his face to our troops.

I notice in his fly by to Afghanistan this past week - his handlers evidently decided not to show the troops faces/reactions. They showed only one short video to my knowledge - and it was a tight camera shot, so close you could only see the face of one soldier in the background...who happened to be black, but decidedly no smile.

Quite a contrast from the times Bush visited the troops. The loved him as their CIC. They despise their present one. I believe one of the reasons he was - finally - willing to send more over there is because he wants as few of our loyal, oath takers in country.

WAtch for "Restrpo" - per post 54/55 - and Sebastian's book: "WAR"

166 posted on 04/03/2010 9:04:54 PM PDT by maine-iac7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

A match load has to be supersonic at those distances. Our match loads tend to run “hot” compared to commercial 223. The mk 262 load developed for DMR use IS a match load using 77 grain Sierra Match Kings and is similar or exactly (service depending) what the service teams use across the course and is very “hot”. M118LR is a match load too. Both are used for “man killing”.

We certainly don’t load them down so far the weapon barely functions. Target pistol is NOT like target rifle. Yes, we have known distances. You will have the SAME problems with wind with the 762 NATO and the 556.


167 posted on 04/03/2010 9:05:40 PM PDT by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: davetex

I think it’s 4th Cav Regiment


168 posted on 04/03/2010 9:08:20 PM PDT by smokingfrog (Free Men will always be armed with the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

It has its uses, one of which is that it is very easy to train to proficiency/confidence. The M-14 is a much more powerful rifle, but it limits the amount of gear and ammunition the soldier can carry.

The original design for the M-16 was chambered in 7.62. Armalite still makes it, Bushmaster made it, LWRC and DPMS make them. Replacement cost pretty much eliminates the possibility of replacing the 5.56 rifles with 7.62 models. They played around with using the 6.8mm SPC cartridge, which is a short .270 that will function through lower receiver of the M-4 / M-16. But they wouldn’t make the switch, even though they only had to replace less than half of the rifle. I think cost was the factor. If they wouldn’t do that, they certainly won’t change the whole thing.

I also find the Major’s assessment of World War I equipment to be out of line. I had a 1917 Eddystone, the primary rifle used by the Doughboys. It was a great rifle, accurate and fun to shoot. It was also a five shot bolt action that loaded through stripper clips. It had a ladder sight and it weighed a ton. It was superior to the M-16 only in terms of bullet energy. It was larger and heavier. The ammunition weight reduced the number of rounds that could be carried. Recoil was significant. It didn’t bother me, but there are plenty of people who react poorly to recoil. It had to be taken off target to reload, a massive mistake in combat.

If he was referring to the infamous “walking fire” tactic with the Browning Automatic Rifle, he should go read the accounts of numerous soldiers who were ordered to fight that way, even after they demonstrated that they couldn’t hit anything using the method.


169 posted on 04/03/2010 9:31:14 PM PDT by sig226 (Mourn this day, the death of a great republic. March 21, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sylvester McMonkey McBean
. Expanding rounds > non-expanding rounds. The question that needs to be asked is, why aren’t we using the most effective ammunition?

First of all, while the 5.56 rounds, either the old 55gr or the new 62gr ones, don't expand, they do yaw when they hit flesh. That results in a nasty wound channel, and a large temporary cavity, which may crush or otherwise damage tissue. Second, exanding rounds are banned by treaty. Even the Soviets did not use them (but the 7.62x39 and 5.54x39 rounds they do use, also yaw in flesh).

170 posted on 04/03/2010 9:39:16 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Favor Center

Very accurate right out of the box. Rifle shoots much better than this particular rifleman.


171 posted on 04/03/2010 9:47:12 PM PDT by karnage (worn arguments and old attitudes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Why don’t they just start issuing M-14s to those troops? Or at least that new Knight’s Armament 7.62x51 sniper rifle?


172 posted on 04/03/2010 9:49:19 PM PDT by Armedanddangerous (Montani Semper Liberi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I think the Hajjis are now mostly using the 5.45 AK-74s and the dragonov or SVD sniper rifles.


173 posted on 04/03/2010 9:50:58 PM PDT by Armedanddangerous (Montani Semper Liberi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar
The only M-14s still in the Army inventory are probably those in museums and with units like the Old Guard which uses them for ceremonial purposes. Most of the M-14s were probably destroyed after they were fully replaced by the M-16.

Many M-14s were destroyed, but many are also in use by "designated marksmen" at the squad level. The Navy also has a bunch for shipboard use. (including as line throwers, but not just such "beneign" uses).

Some use the M-21, which is an upgraded M-14, semi-auto only

The Navy/Marines now have some Mark 11 Model 0 :

Meanwhile the Army has some M110 rifles:

The latter two are versions of the Knights Armament SR-25 in 7.62x51. Which in turn is derived from the Armalight AR-10, also in 7.62x51, which was basis for the AR-15/M-16 line.

174 posted on 04/03/2010 9:54:05 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

the G-3 style rifles

The 308 hk-417

The Knights Armament rifle

and of course the M-14.

If they just let a contract for several thousand HK-417s or the M-14 then this is no longer a problem.

Of course, they could just ressurect the FN-FAL.


175 posted on 04/03/2010 9:54:05 PM PDT by Armedanddangerous (Montani Semper Liberi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Riodacat

they make them in vero beach florida.


176 posted on 04/03/2010 9:55:11 PM PDT by Armedanddangerous (Montani Semper Liberi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: karnage

they could always adopt the barrett 6.8 rifle.


177 posted on 04/03/2010 9:56:13 PM PDT by Armedanddangerous (Montani Semper Liberi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

No, it isn’t.

See how easy a response is, if you make it without any facts or thought?


178 posted on 04/03/2010 9:59:01 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: karnage

The stock rifles usually need a bedding job, trigger work, and a heavy contour barrel to perform well. They require frequent rebedding work to keep them going, too. There are good reasons they are pretty much gone from competitive service rifle shooting.


179 posted on 04/03/2010 10:04:34 PM PDT by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: 2111USMC

MN91/30s. Can reach out and touch someone. $4k = 1 gun or $4k =40 guns with ammo! Hmmm......

Yea, I’d ship one of mine to a soldier in Afganistan. That is, is I had one.


180 posted on 04/03/2010 10:27:23 PM PDT by morkfork (Candygram for Mongo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-214 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson