Rifle Combat at Less than 300 Meters

[HorseSoldier]

So, the conclusions of the studies bear closer examination. My gut feeling is that there is still a place for aimed small arms fire.

Also, it's possible Project Salvo is an attempt to solve with technology a problem that can only be solved with training.

I think it should be kept in mind that the Project Salvo study did not just fuel the development of an American assault rifle, it also was part of the motivation for refining training techniques with things like limited exposure pop-up ranges, early permutations of CQC/CQB shooting, etc (note I'm not saying that such things were based purely on Salvo, but it was involved).

Sure, you can introduce rifles with magnified optics that fire at a high cyclic rate with zero recoil, but I bet hit probability will be solved on the personnel, rather than the materiel, level.

+1. While I am a true believer in the benefits of things like the ACOG and AimPoints, EOTechs, etc., no matter how much you refine the weapon, the sights, and the ammunition, the weak link in the whole system will always be the human animal behind the gun. (Barring some technological development that prevents the body from reacting to life and death threats the way it is hard wired to.)

Training has advanced quite a bit in the last 50-60 years, both in terms of orienting towards how and where combat really occurs as well as recognizing the physiological issues involved in marksmanship under combat conditions.

While we probably will see future refinements in technique, the main problem right now is that while we can make some improvements in battlefield performance and results with combat-focused training . . . it just requires a lot of time, money, ammo, etc., to do it, and the actual improvement in performance may or may not look cost effective in the eyes of senior military leadership, political leadership or, for that matter, the average American tax payer -- for better or for worse, an unfortunate fact is that we live in a world of finite resources. The trick is to maximize bang for buck kind of benefits -- and I think we have made a lot of progress in that respect since I joined in the early 90s.

 

[GunTech]

While I am a true believer in the benefits of things like the ACOG and AimPoints, EOTechs, etc., no matter how much you refine the weapon, the sights, and the ammunition, the weak link in the whole system will always be the human animal behind the gun. (Barring some technological development that prevents the body from reacting to life and death threats the way it is hard wired to.)

That is it in a nutshell. Since there only so much we can do on the soldier side, we look for technological solution. But we are at diminishing returns.

Finally, no one seems to recognize that in the 'big army' small arms are a very small factor in combat. Most casualties are produced by air power and artillery, followed by other support weapons. Small arms are at the bottom of the heap, responsible for perhaps 1% of casualties. So improving performance by 100% only results in a 1% total improvement in lethality in the grand scheme of things.

Of course the infantryman armed with his rifle, sees things very differently.

 

[chieftain]

Finally, no one seems to recognize that in the 'big army' small arms are a very small factor in combat. Most casualties are produced by air power and artillery, followed by other support weapons. Small arms are at the bottom of the heap, responsible for perhaps 1% of casualties. So improving performance by 100% only results in a 1% total improvement in lethality in the grand scheme of things.

It may be true in traditional symmetrical warfare. It is not true in asymmetrical warfare.

Iraq, most of our casualties are IED's or small arms. I don't know where it presently stands which of the two is leading right now.

That is the problem of applying one set of criteria to all our troops. Right now we are fighting two totally different asymmetric wars.

That is why more training not less is the answer. It is why any one group of technologies will not solve all problems. It is why many folks don't understand the problem in the other theater of operations.

It is why one group of troops should be dedicated to each theater. The recent suggestion of dedicating the Corps to Afghanistan, and the Army to Iraq made very good strategic and tactical sense. The training could be much more on point. War is a dynamic. That dynamic is ALWAYS changing and evolving, unique to that war/theater.

Unfortunately the other services and DOD didn't want to give the Corps a chance to show what they can do, again. An Air Force General said it best. If the Corps comes in, they will not need much Air Force Support. Yup. Primarily logistic support.

Just as an aside, the Corps dedication to the 20" barreled M16, makes more sense in Afghanistan than Iraq and the Army's desire to go with a short barreled rifle makes more sense in Iraq than Afghanistan. Makes sense to me.

But what does a fat old sucker like me know anyway.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Evil Monkey]

It is why one group of troops should be dedicated to each theater.

In the context of weaponry, that's saying mountain troops should be issued 7.62mm M14, urban troops should use 5.56mm, special forces should use 6.8mm, add MG's, short bbl weapons, different mags, etc. IT'S A NIGHTMARE!

The military doesn't like that. They want logistical simplicity. They are after whatever is streamlined, easy to supply, easy to maintain, simplifies training, saves money for bigger things, etc.

This concept may be detrimental to individual weapons performance in certain theaters, but that's the military. Watcha' gonna do?

 

[RP88]

isnt the idea to find a medium where both or multiple dynamics would meet, though? Then, maybe designing a rifle based on that would be more effective?

Or perhaps you could modify the idea of the modular weapon system name given to the M4 and such by making MWS's more diverse and used as well as adding the options of converting between ammo and barrel lengths that would be more suitable for whatever dynamic a rifleman would encounter. Granted, the kits would be more expensive than a standard-issue (and mean that we'd have to start producing more than one part/bullet/etc.), but since when was anything in our military cheap?

However, yes, this may be unnecessary in many cases. But perhaps simply giving a rifle more options is a much better idea instead of trying to settle on an 'all-purpose' intermediate

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OK, this seems to have wandered far enough afield without addressing the original poster's question. Please start new topic-specific threads if you want to continue the discussion.