The single guiding principle to armed conflict.

Status
Not open for further replies.

shaka

member
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
39
I have added the following question to my Frequently Asked Questions:

Question: Is there a single guiding principle to armed conflict? What one aspect of combat is essential to victory and, if control of it is lost, ensures defeat in spite of all other advantages?

Answer: Distance. Fight at a distance where your weapon is effective and your opponents’ are ineffective and you can prevail against overwhelming odds, shatteringly-powerful weapons and tack-driving accuracy. That is really all there is to it.

Consider a short, stocky man boxing with a tall, skinny man; or one with a knife against one with a club; or one with an H&K MP5 against one with a Ruger 10-22; or a BRDM crew against a Javelin missile team. What determines the outcome in each case? Distance and nothing else.

Even when the belligerents’ weapons are comparable, maneuver accomplishes nothing but to maintain control of distance. If three muggers armed with knives form a skirmish line and you, armed with a knife also, move laterally to attack their flank, what are you doing? You are controlling distance – you close with one while keeping the other two outside of their weapons’ range until you are done cutting the first one.

A deer rifle is most effective at ranges of 300 to 500 yards. If civilians never close within the 200-yard maximum range of machineguns and RPGs or stand-off farther than the 600-yard minimum range of artillery and air strikes, they can defeat even professional infantry. But lose control of distance for even an instant and defeat is imminent. This is why motorcycles are so important to civilian snipers; distances can change in a matter of seconds and only a motorcycle is fast enough to close in on or withdraw from enemy troops.

For more details, see my Outline of Sniper Tactics.
 
Last edited:
McBride said the average distance of a fight in war between personal combatants is 35 yards. Maybe you should first have the willingness to fight and then figure out how far before you take them on.

jj
 
General Geoff writes:

Unless you're talking about a .22lr machine gun, I'd say you're grossly underestimating the maximum effective range.

I reply:

A SAW is not particularly dangerous outside of 200 yards - try holding on a man-sized target and see how many hits you get. At 300 yards a bolt-action rifle will almost always win and at 400 yards (the maximum range that SAW sights can be set for) it is no contest.
 
Just Jim writes:

the average distance of a fight in war between personal combatants is 35 yards.

I reply:

That depends a lot on which war you are talking about.

The most relevant war for this discussion is Grozny. The Chechens were fairly safe from machineguns and RPGs staying at least 200 yards from Russian troops and from artillery and air strikes staying within 600 yards.
 
Question: Is there a single guiding principle to armed conflict?

Yup there sure is and it’s really simple I want to live
What one aspect of combat is essential to victory and, if control of it is lost, ensures defeat in spite of all other advantages?

Training. you train like you fight. You fight like you train. When I was in the Army we ran crew drills till we could literally do it in our sleep. I assembled and disassembled an M-16 till I could do it blindfolded in under two minutes. They train you and train you and train you to do it by the numbers no matter what when the bullets start flying you do don't even have to think you just follow the crew drill.

I carry my pistol in the same place the same way every single day, I practice drawing from that position every day. the other day something startled me at work( It was enough for me to percieve a legitimate threat) I didn't even realize I'd drawn till it was all over
 
General Geoff writes:

Have you ever fired a machine gun?

I reply:

Yes, I've fired a SAW.

However, before you get all fired up, I want to point out that American weapons and training are a lot better than Russian weapons and training. The 200- to 300-yard estimate is really referring to fighting the Russians and is based on what I know about the Chechan conflict.
 
FYI, the maximum effective range for the M249 (5.56mm) SAW is considered to be 1,000 meters. Heavier machine guns that fire 7.62mm and .50BMG have much farther effective ranges than that.
 
The most relevant war for this discussion is Grozny. The Chechens were fairly safe from machineguns and RPGs staying at least 200 yards from Russian troops and from artillery and air strikes staying within 600 yards.

The reason 35 yards was average was because your position was about to be discovered. People won't fire untill they are certian of a hit because they give away their postion be they at 200 yards or what ever.

jj
 
PremiumSauces writes:

While I agree with the general premise (good point), I think arty can hit beyond 600 yards - well beyond 6,000, in fact.

I reply:

600 yards is its minimum range. They (and I mean the Russians) cannot get closer than that to their own troops with either artillery or air strikes for fear of friendly fire.

We (the Americans) can, but I'm not talking about fighting the US Army.
 
What determines the outcome in each case? Distance and nothing else.

#1 Suprise. Take a look at how those single shot 45acp Liberator pistols were to be used...at cigarette smoking distance. Distance doesn't matter much if you have the element of suprise. I'd rather try a shot at 100 yards and an SKS and suprise on my side than 300 and a winchester model 70 30-06 when the enemy knows I am coming. Suprise is key to using your motorcycle too, I'd never get on a motorcylce and ride away except if I and it were behind cover/concealment, or if I could do it before they realize what just happened.

#2 Luck. Whenever lead is flying, luck on your side is a good thing. Some famous pistoleros have said "you can get in a gunfight, do everything right, and still end up dead"

#3 Cover. Distance helps in that it makes you a much more difficult target to hit. Cover does the same thing. I'd rather be at 200 yards in a foxhole than at 300 yards standing out in the open.

#4 Movement. Moving targets are harder to hit, and it helps you achieve distance, reach cover, escape, advance, and flank

#5 Skill at arms. A guy who cannot hit his target is at a severe disavantage. Lack of skill really begins to show at distance. Having a slightly inferior weapon but superior marksmanship can and will make a difference. At a certain point, it isn't the rifle, it's the shooter. It doesn't take much skill for a man with a rifle to use distance and capitolize on his weapon over a pistol...but John Q average with his iron sited deer rifle (or even scoped) vs someone very skilled (marine squad advanced marksman) with an assault rifle (ar-15) plus good mid range optics (acog 3x)? I'd put my money on the person with the intermediate rifle and the skills.

#6 Guts. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.

#7 Blending in. Be it Camo in the woods or wearing civilian garb and mixing in with the locals, 'disappearing' is the best way to not get shot.

But actually there is an overriding element in all of these. Tactics and maneuver (ehanced by communication) Hitting the enemy in a vulnerable postion, flanking the enemy this is what determines winners. This need not be on a large scale either. How did most gunfights really end in the old west? Some guy pops out of the bushes and empties his levergun into his enemy's back.


Don't get me wrong, distance is good, but it is not everything.

If civilians never close within the 200-yard maximum range of machineguns and RPGs or stand-off farther than the 600-yard minimum range of artillery and air strikes,

Umm, hope they don't know how to use their machineguns...hope they don't have any grenade launchers, hope they don't have any mortars, hope they don't have any Armored Fighing Vehicles to mess with your distance calcuations, hope they don't flank you.

This is why motorcycles are so important to civilian snipers; distances can change in a matter of seconds and only a motorcycle is fast enough to close in on or withdraw from enemy troops.

I don't think I'd ever try jumping onto a motorcycle if I was out in the open in the line of fire, no matter how fast it lets you get distance, belly crawl is a good way to not get shot too. I don't see a motorcyle as a way to 'get distance' if you loose it but to 'get the hell out of dodge after taking your 1-3 shots utilizing suprise'
 
Shaka = Awesome

I have been on your sniper flash cards site, and it is ingenious.

The USSOCOM should have their soldiers train by your quick target acquisition system if they aren't already dreaming in automatic range & windage.

Although abandoning slide rules and etc seems risky.

BTW Akodo, if you read up on his site, he DOES NOT SUGGEST his tactics are suitable for fighting the USMC. He says "Intended for use by 3rd world nations/against third world nations"
 
General Geoff writes:
FYI, the maximum effective range for the M249 (5.56mm) SAW is considered to be 1,000 meters. Heavier machine guns that fire 7.62mm and .50BMG have much farther effective ranges than that.

I reply:

Federal .223 ammunition with a 55-grain Sierra BTHP bullet, has 98 foot-pounds of energy at 1000 yards and (I estimate, since Federal's software does not go out to 1000 meters) about 70 to 80 foot-pounds at 1000 meters.

Since the sights can only be set for a maximum of 400 yards, your statistics seem a bit exagerated.

I am not suggesting that one attack a static position that has heavy machine guns. That would be suicidal.

It should be clear (and is if you read my Outline of Sniper Tactics) that I am talking about attacking a convoy as it moves through one's city, as the Chechens did as the Russians advanced through Grozny. Nobody is accurate out to 1000 meters when firing from a moving vehicle and my 200- to 300-yard estimate is a lot closer to reality.
 
Tactics in general are the most important. In urban conflict you never know what distance you might be engaged with the enemy. Not to mention you don't have much control over how far away you can be from them. Since its not PC to just drop a huge bomb on a city nowadays, people have to fight it out. How exactly are you going to control your distance to the enemy (and be outside of their weapons ranges) in a urban environment? The only way you could is to either drop artillery which means innocent people will die, or have snipers setup from a distance. The snipers wont have much of any shot, not to mention if people don't come out to fight they will never have a shot.
 
I highly doubt that the sights of a SAW only go out to 400 meters. Even if that's true, however, it's irrelevant. Standard operating procedure for hitting targets that far away with a machine gun is to "walk" the stream of fire out to your target (this is what tracers are for). 90ft-lbs of energy might not seem like much, but when you're getting hit with a barrage of anemic bullets, I doubt you'll be able to tell the difference.
 
Do you think a poorly trained 3rd world dictator-trooper would be walking the fire towards his opponent while being sniped at?

How long do you think a decent marksman is going to take to hit somebody firing a LMG full chatter?
 
-_- on the sniper flash card site, he explains his tactics are for use "by 3rd world/against third world"

Ive said this before.

Obviously, your average Joe-The-Deer-Hunter or John-The-EBR-Fanatic cannot achieve anything against the USMC.

Then again, the USMC allow families in Iraq to keep and bear and use fully automatic weaponry (not against them, ofc) for self defense, so this is a moot point.
 
Akodo writes:
I'd never get on a motorcylce and ride away except if I and it were behind cover/concealment, or if I could do it before they realize what just happened.

I reply:

My tactics page is entirely about urban combat. Infantry weapons work a LOT better in a rural environment, which is why I would never advise anyone to engage infantry with a deer rifle out in the country.

If you park your bike in the living room of a private house, fire out the window when a target presents itself (being careful to fire over an obstacle like a canal) and then run like a scalded cat, you have a good chance of surviving.

If you stay in the house, they will blow it up. In the past - the distant past - snipers were advised to pile sandbags up in the house they were hiding in. A visit to the Army Surplus store will locate yellowing WWII Army manuals with pictures of snipers in a house behind their little pile of sandbags.

Today, that would be absurd. Nobody shoots at a house where a sniper is; they blow it up.

Akodo writes:

belly crawl is a good way to not get shot too

I reply:

That's a good way to get surrounded.

Personally, I would advise the run-like-a-scalded-cat technique.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top