Army Report: GIs Outgunned in Afghanistan

Politics Daily ^ | 04/2/10 | David Wood

[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.

[OneWingedShark]

>The M-16 has gone through how many revisions, 4 or 5, and you want to do another? Odd how, for 50 years, the rifle never quite seems to do well, and one more “fix” will do the job...

Much like Communism as a form of government... or our tax code.

>The fact is, as someone pointed out up the line, the Mattie Mattel was another gift to the Leftists from Robert Macnamera. Riflemen shoot it because they have to, not because they want to.

Agreed. If I were in charge of setting up the general load-out for [Infantry] units it would be something like:
P-90 for Room-clearing/CQB units (the short length and high capacity magazine make it ideal in such situations),
Probably a .45LC for the ranged-ops; especially if officer’s handguns were chambered for the .45LC[, regular .45ACP otherwise] (like the Taurus Judge); yes, I’d definitely get rid of the 9mm.

>Personal opinion: I was lucky enough to qualify with the M-14 in boot camp, and even over the years, with experience on the 16, FN, AK-47 and 74, the 14 was the best.

I haven’t had the opportunity to fire the M-14, so I can’t really rate it.

[Favor Center]

“P-90 for Room-clearing/CQB units (the short length and high capacity magazine make it ideal in such situations),”

The round itself is somewhat anemic.

“Probably a .45LC for the ranged-ops;”

I take it “ranged-ops” means “point blank range”?

[OneWingedShark]

>“Probably a .45LC for the ranged-ops;”
>
>I take it “ranged-ops” means “point blank range”?

Point blank IS a range. ;)

[Favor Center]

“Point blank IS a range. ;)”

True, but usually a very short range for something like .45LC. ;)

Don’t take a pistol round to a rifle fight. ;)

[OneWingedShark]

>“Point blank IS a range. ;)”
>True, but usually a very short range for something like .45LC. ;)

Come to think of it you’re right. I have a .22/.410 double barreled [O/U] gun that is awesome to shoot {IMO}.

>Don’t take a pistol round to a rifle fight. ;)

You’re right; I should have caveat-ed with a larger propellant load and appropriate cambering... I have a bunch of .410 sabot rounds that will put a dent in the ~3/16in cast-iron siding of an old hot-water heater. That’s more what I was thinking of... high-speed, but enough mass not to be overly blown-about by the wind. {As long as you’re firing in real-world atmosphere air-resistance and ‘windage’ will be present.}

[Mr. Lucky]

M-1 Garands and Browning Automatic Rifles would probably deliver greater performance at 500 yards than the M-4.

[calex59]

In 1960, I qualified(as did my whole battalion)with some of the first M14s to come on line to those of us in Germany. None of them had selector switches and the reason given was that the hand guards that were made of plastic would melt under auto fire. I suspect the main reason was they didn't want to teach us how to control the beasts under full auto. Still, I would prefer an M14 semi-auto over an M16 or M4. One shot, one kill. Yep, you can carry more ammo with the 5.56 but you need more to drop someone.

I, personally, would have opted for a round similar to the .300 savage, which has better ballistics than the 7.62X39 round, is lighter than the .308(7.62X51)and was an existing round at the time.

Unfortunately, McNamara was the idiot in charge. Putting a brand new untested rifle into combat with the resulting jams and failures to fire should have landed that a**hat in jail. Yes, they got it working eventually but a lot of our boys were killed because their weapons wouldn't work before they did fix the problems with jamming and they still have a weak round that is even weaker in the short barreled M4.

[Favor Center]

“M-1 Garands and Browning Automatic Rifles would probably deliver greater performance at 500 yards than the M-4.”

They also weigh considerably more.

[Joe 6-pack]

"I, personally, would have opted for a round similar to the .300 savage, which has better ballistics than the 7.62X39 round, is lighter than the .308(7.62X51)and was an existing round at the time."

Many years ago I was told I was an idiot because I thought the .250 Savage would make a great compromise round between the 5.56 and 7.62.

Somebody went through a lot of work to develop the 6.5mm Grendel in order to essentially replicate the ballistics of the .250 Savage :-)

[calex59]

Yes, I believe a .250 savage would have worked quite well, but the military, like all bureaucracies, has to do things their own way, usually creating more expense than necessary to achieve the same or, in some cases, poorer results than existing equipment.

[archy]

I’m trying to imagine the accuracy of an AK-47 at 500+ meters...do the bad guys ever hit anything?

I've got an SKS, whhich shoots the same 7.62X39 mm round as an AK, and as far as accuracy goes, it's good for about 100-150 yards. After that, the bullet loses energy fast and drops like a rock.

Y'all should give a try to the RPK, the squad automatic weapon version of the Kalishnikov, most usually found with a 40 or 45-round magazine, a bipod, and a 24-inch-long barrel.

The last one I had would easily keep every round from a magazine on a GI silhouette target at 400 meters, firing about one shot per second on semi. Headshots at 300 were quite possible, but the guns were really meant as automatic weapons to allow squad maneuvering. With a 75-round drum in place [7,62 version, or double-taped 45-round *Royal* magazines for the 5,45mm veRPK74 version] they'll fill that role very nicely, though since the weapon lacks a quick-change barrel, they do overheat to some extent. That's being addressed at the Molot factory even now.

The Russians are no fools. They formerly had one sniper with an SVD per platoon, but that was before Afghanistan and Chechnya. Now it's more like two per squad. And the RPK can also be used with a telescopic sight or NOD if required.

[archy]

“Point blank IS a range. ;)” True, but usually a very short range for something like .45LC. ;) Don’t take a pistol round to a rifle fight. ;)

I would note that some US Marine security detatchments are now utilizing upper receiver assembleys for their M16A3 and M4 rifles that are chambered for the cal.50 Beowulf/ 12.7 x 42 mm Rb round. Embassy restrictions prevent their use of M203 grenade launchers, SAWs or LMGs that might *scare* the local citizens, but the rifle or carbine-based uppers look enough like the common M16/M4 to get by. And they will stop a car or light truck, whe a single magazine fof 5,56mm from the standard rifle may not.

[Favor Center]

The .50 Beowulf is a bear stopper within 100 yards. Definitely not a pistol round. More like a mini .45-70.

[gundog]

Well...a lot of misinformation is out there re: AP. Ted Kennedy running around shouting that 30-30 ammo was AP didn’t help. A lot of old-school Dems figured Teddy wouldn’t lie about a thing like that.