EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL RIFLEMEN IN AN INFANTRY SQUAD

[dpast32]

And here's another, relatively interesting 'Study', from 2017.

[PDF] EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL RIFLEMEN IN AN INFANTRY SQUAD - DAIR - Acquisition Research Program - Naval Postgraduate School
dair.nps.edu › NPS-AM-18-025

LINK At:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://dair.nps.edu/bitstream/123456789/2262/1/NPS-AM-18-025.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjLl426jqzxAhVSElkFHW2aAaE4FBAWegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw33r3KzHjvPALtxDnNLgSQA

[CPM]

Two officers who never spent a day in the Infantry start their report referencing World War 1, then make judgement calls about what the next infantry rifle should be. Government work at its finest.

Waiting in the optometrists office and read the whole thing. Save yourself the time and don’t. What a waste of time for something they can stick on their LinkedIn.

[ggammell]

You deliver more than UPS. Top notch.

[C-grunt]

I just saw that the "taking back the Infantry half kilometer" was in the beginning of that paper. Not sure if this is where that paper came from or this work just uses it but I have a couple issues with it.

1. The overwhelming cause of lack of lethality from rifleman at 500 meter is missing the target.

2. Unless we are going to switch to a ridiculous new battle rifle round a 500 meter hit isn't going to be a hammer unless you hit specific vital spots.

3. I worked with a guy that was a SEAL and tested the 6.8 overseas. He found it no better than 5.56 except he couldn't get easy replacement ammo from outside his supply chain. To quote him "a good hit was a good hit and a bad hot was still a bad hit"


Now to the paper as a whole and the effectiveness of a single rifleman. Well that's really going to depend on which rifleman we are talking about. There are some non shooting mother****ers in an infantry company. There are also guys who are much more likely to engage the enemy early on than others. History is ripe with stories of single Soldiers and Marines doing very heroic things and changing the flow of a battle either by themselves or through actions they took.

[lowprone]

And only hits matter , .30 calibre hit matter more !

[1168]

I just saw that the "taking back the Infantry half kilometer" was in the beginning of that paper. Not sure if this is where that paper came from or this work just uses it but I have a couple issues with it.

1. The overwhelming cause of lack of lethality from rifleman at 500 meter is missing the target.

2. Unless we are going to switch to a ridiculous new battle rifle round a 500 meter hit isn't going to be a hammer unless you hit specific vital spots.

3. I worked with a guy that was a SEAL and tested the 6.8 overseas. He found it no better than 5.56 except he couldn't get easy replacement ammo from outside his supply chain. To quote him "a good hit was a good hit and a bad hot was still a bad hit"


Now to the paper as a whole and the effectiveness of a single rifleman. Well that's really going to depend on which rifleman we are talking about. There are some non shooting mother****ers in an infantry company. There are also guys who are much more likely to engage the enemy early on than others. History is ripe with stories of single Soldiers and Marines doing very heroic things and changing the flow of a battle either by themselves or through actions they took.

Spot on, particularly about the Half Km.

[26 Inf]

Two officers who never spent a day in the Infantry start their report referencing World War 1, then make judgement calls about what the next infantry rifle should be. Government work at its finest.

Waiting in the optometrists office and read the whole thing. Save yourself the time and don’t. What a waste of time for something they can stick on their LinkedIn.

Actually, three officers, two of whom had infantry and/or mech infantry commands. One was the Assistant Product Manager (APM) for Army Handguns, Carbines, and Subcompact Rifles, including the Modular Handgun System.

I'm going to read the meat of this tomorrow, too late now.

[dpast32]

Hey Kids, I just happened across it & forwarded it, don't blame me for all the content, I wasn't the author. Every once & a while I come across stuff while searching for something else. If I see something that 'might' be of interest to 'some' of us here, I post it, plain & simple.

Best, Dom P.

[1168]

Hey Kids, I just happened across it & forwarded it, don't blame me for all the content, I wasn't the author. Every once & a while I come across stuff while searching for something else. If I see something that 'might' be of interest to 'some' of us here, I post it, plain & simple.

Best, Dom P.

I appreciate this type of content.

[dpast32]

THANKS 1168, I appreciate it !! In fact, the other report, [ "In search of the ghost gun" ] or really what appears to be a Master's Thesis is also somewhat interesting, as it follows the relative effectiveness of U.S.G.I. Infantry Small Arms up until at least the RVN era, & possibly further, but I've yet to finish reading it through. THANKS AGAIN

Best, Dom

[Spooky1]

I appreciate you posting this, this way I can read the content and learn something from the discussion hear.

[glocktogo]

I just saw that the "taking back the Infantry half kilometer" was in the beginning of that paper. Not sure if this is where that paper came from or this work just uses it but I have a couple issues with it.

1. The overwhelming cause of lack of lethality from rifleman at 500 meter is missing the target.

2. Unless we are going to switch to a ridiculous new battle rifle round a 500 meter hit isn't going to be a hammer unless you hit specific vital spots.

3. I worked with a guy that was a SEAL and tested the 6.8 overseas. He found it no better than 5.56 except he couldn't get easy replacement ammo from outside his supply chain. To quote him "a good hit was a good hit and a bad hot was still a bad hit"


Now to the paper as a whole and the effectiveness of a single rifleman. Well that's really going to depend on which rifleman we are talking about. There are some non shooting mother****ers in an infantry company. There are also guys who are much more likely to engage the enemy early on than others. History is ripe with stories of single Soldiers and Marines doing very heroic things and changing the flow of a battle either by themselves or through actions they took.

Recalling the words attributed to Heraclitus:


For every one hundred men you send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty are nothing but targets. Nine of them are real fighters; we are lucky to have them, they the battle make. Ah, but the one. One of them is a warrior and he will bring the others back.
--Heraclitus, philospher/tactician, around 500 B.C.

[crusader377]

1. The overwhelming cause of lack of lethality from rifleman at 500 meter is missing the target.

2. Unless we are going to switch to a ridiculous new battle rifle round a 500 meter hit isn't going to be a hammer unless you hit specific vital spots.


If people were truly honest with themselves, infantry rifles effective ranges have been higher than the average soldier could utilize their rifles for at least a 100 years. A British Lee-Enfield, Mauser 98, or Springfield M1903 were all capable of effective ranges of 600M to 800M. However, due to training and the relatively primative sights an average soldier could not hit a single man on the battlefield at that range.

Actually the Springfield .45-70 trapdoor or the British Martini-Henry rifle from 150 years ago had an effective range of 400M-500M. Could your average soldier hit an individual target at that range in combat, probably not.

[C-grunt]

If people were truly honest with themselves, infantry rifles effective ranges have been higher than the average soldier could utilize their rifles for at least a 100 years. A British Lee-Enfield, Mauser 98, or Springfield M1903 were all capable of effective ranges of 600M to 800M. However, due to training and the relatively primative sights an average soldier could not hit a single man on the battlefield at that range.

Actually the Springfield .45-70 trapdoor or the British Martini-Henry rifle from 150 years ago had an effective range of 400M-500M. Could your average soldier hit an individual target at that range in combat, probably not.

Not only that, people tend not to just stand around in the open during combat. In 2005 I made the longest shot of my Battalion that deployment at 410 meters. The longest shot our snipers took was something like 375 meters. I was using a SDMR with an ACOG and shooting M262. So the shot itself was pretty easy. But the only reason I was able to make that shot is that my squad was in an overwatch position well away from the rest of our unit. The insurgent was shooting at my unit about 300 meters to his south and I was 400 meters to his northeast. So while he was utilizing cover and concealment from the guys he was engaging, he was basically wide open for me. However after I shot that dude and my team leader started engaging with his M4/Aimpoint, the group of insurgents took cover from us and I never saw them again well enough to make a good shot. After that we just shot into the treeline, bushes, and small canals where we last saw them, hoping to score a few more hits.

In my experience, actually seeing dudes at over 200 meters in combat is hard. I think the adoption of the ACOG and now the 1-6 LPVO as a standard rifle optic has and will improve the riflemans lethality at range vastly more than a change in rifle cartridge.

[crusader377]

Not only that, people tend not to just stand around in the open during combat. In 2005 I made the longest shot of my Battalion that deployment at 410 meters. The longest shot our snipers took was something like 375 meters. I was using a SDMR with an ACOG and shooting M262. So the shot itself was pretty easy. But the only reason I was able to make that shot is that my squad was in an overwatch position well away from the rest of our unit. The insurgent was shooting at my unit about 300 meters to his south and I was 400 meters to his northeast. So while he was utilizing cover and concealment from the guys he was engaging, he was basically wide open for me. However after I shot that dude and my team leader started engaging with his M4/Aimpoint, the group of insurgents took cover from us and I never saw them again well enough to make a good shot. After that we just shot into the treeline, bushes, and small canals where we last saw them, hoping to score a few more hits.

In my experience, actually seeing dudes at over 200 meters in combat is hard. I think the adoption of the ACOG and now the 1-6 LPVO as a standard rifle optic has and will improve the riflemans lethality at range vastly more than a change in rifle cartridge.

This is coming from the perspective of an Artillery Officer although my company FSO time was with a light infantry company in Afghanistan. My thoughts are that your 500M+ targets are much better dealt with by your crew served weapons and your company mortars or other assets at battalion or even brigade level.

[1168]

company mortars.

Check.

[crusader377]

Check.

IMO, one of the most underrated weapons. 60mm mortar has a burst radius of 20M and max range of over 3500M and around 1200-1300M in handheld mode if memory serves. Plus very responsive and very fast on target.

[chamber143]

The whole 556 Vs 30 cal is much like the 9 vs 45. Yeah a 30 cal hit is harder than a 556 in the same location as the 45 is over the 9. Problem with the argument is that Both a 9 and 556 is a good spot are lethal as well. We know that all the logistics and supply chain is built around 556 and that isn’t changing anytime soon. Not to mention so many can’t fire the soft shooting 566 well so a 7.62 is only going to be worse. Not to mention the cost of those rounds would be drastically higher to purchase than the 62 gr we use now. Remember that amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics.

[1168]

IMO, one of the most underrated weapons. 60mm mortar has a burst radius of 20M and max range of over 3500M and around 1200-1300M in handheld mode if memory serves. Plus very responsive and very fast on target.

1,340 in handheld. There is a technique involving a whiz wheel, some math, and drop fire that’ll let you go further, but you risk breaking the baseplate. 500m is charge 1 and easy peasy. I’ve smoked people with charge 2 in handheld. “Just shut up and drop it...I’ll worry about the bubble”.

[crusader377]

1,340 in handheld. There is a technique involving a whiz wheel, some math, and drop fire that’ll let you go further, but you risk breaking the baseplate. 500m is charge 1 and easy peasy. I’ve smoked people with charge 2 in handheld. “Just shut up and drop it...I’ll worry about the bubble”.

Thanks! I got out in late 2003 so my memory was a little off.

[sinister]

This is coming from the perspective of an Artillery Officer although my company FSO time was with a light infantry company in Afghanistan. My thoughts are that your 500M+ targets are much better dealt with by your crew served weapons and your company mortars or other assets at battalion or even brigade level.True -- if your hands are not bound by a requirement to clear indirect fires from someone 500 miles away.

[C-grunt]

This is coming from the perspective of an Artillery Officer although my company FSO time was with a light infantry company in Afghanistan. My thoughts are that your 500M+ targets are much better dealt with by your crew served weapons and your company mortars or other assets at battalion or even brigade level.

Oh I completely agree. Coming from a mechanized unit and being part of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Ive seen first hand the power that combined arms has. A handful of Bradleys and 3 or 4 Abrams produce a base of fire that is insane. We had one battle with an Iraqi unit that tried to ambush a scouting element we sent over a bridge into a farming community. They were dug in well, with machine gun nests built into the houses, a couple mortar pits, sniper perches on roofs, the whole nine yards. The tanks literally just started volley firing HE rounds at the buildings and the Scout humvees and a M113 engaged the ground troops. We then levelled everything with our 120mm mortars. We killed at least a full company of Iraqi troops within an hour with no US casualties and only one tank taking very minimal damage (practically cosmetic) from a rocket to the side. A couple weeks later we were tasked with holding a line outside of Karbala while the rest of the division got in place to hit Baghdad. Over the two days there we destroyed dozens of Republican Guard vehicles as they started to creep out of Karbala to try and engage us. Between the Bradley 25mm, the Abrams, and artillery called in by the Scouts, I dont think an enemy soldier ever got within 1000 meters of our lines. It was a pure shooting gallery. Once we hit Baghdad though, things changed. We still had the tanks and Brads to give extra firepower and cannons to use when they could, but artillery was a no go. There, the individual rifleman became much more useful. The flow of battle and limited sightlines really hampered the crew served guns as well.

Fast forward to 2005 and I am now fighting in a rural(ish) farming area in eastern Iraq. We were securing the town of Al Muqdadiyah and it's surrounding areas. We still had some ability to use artillery and mortars but it was far more limited than 2003. We used the vehicles as our base of fire with the 240s. We rarely rolled out in humvees as there were just too many IEDs. But the Brads and tanks carried a crap load of 7.62 on tap. I dont think our tankers fired a single 120 round that deployment and the Brads fired a fairly low amount as well. But a 240 with a 1000 round belt and a 10x thermal scope makes for a great suppressive fire platform.

[lysander]

If people were truly honest with themselves, infantry rifles effective ranges have been higher than the average soldier could utilize their rifles for at least a 100 years. A British Lee-Enfield, Mauser 98, or Springfield M1903 were all capable of effective ranges of 600M to 800M. However, due to training and the relatively primative sights an average soldier could not hit a single man on the battlefield at that range.

Actually the Springfield .45-70 trapdoor or the British Martini-Henry rifle from 150 years ago had an effective range of 400M-500M. Could your average soldier hit an individual target at that range in combat, probably not.

You are forgetting the fact that there are such things as "area targets" . . . .

Not all targets are "point targets" . . . .

Infantry should not have to rely on the GPMG for suppression at ranges longer that 300 yards.

The problem with relying on indirect fire support is the US has not fought anyone with serious counter-battery capability equal to our own since 1945, maybe 1951-52.

[Straight Shooter]

I wish I had my assortment of books by Col. Cooper in front of me to quote properly-
but I know he was big on the idea of competent riflemen owning the battlefield. Utilizing tactics, marksmanship along with an effective rifle/caliber...being able to hit anything in effective range to him was very important. His book The Art of the Rifle is a must read, in my opinion.

[sinister]

In the 70s, when it looked like the US Army would be facing a LOT more Warsaw Pact targets coming at us in Europe, training literature put out, "If I can SEE it, I can hit it. If I can hit it, I can kill it."

Optics (ACOGs) in the SOPMOD, then individual Marine and infantry soldier issue is helping.

[blade_68]

The whole 556 Vs 30 cal is much like the 9 vs 45. Yeah a 30 cal hit is harder than a 556 in the same location as the 45 is over the 9. Problem with the argument is that Both a 9 and 556 is a good spot are lethal as well. We know that all the logistics and supply chain is built around 556 and that isn’t changing anytime soon. Not to mention so many can’t fire the soft shooting 566 well so a 7.62 is only going to be worse. Not to mention the cost of those rounds would be drastically higher to purchase than the 62 gr we use now. Remember that amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics.

👍 Spot on

[dpast32]

A big 10-04 on that ! Without supply / re-supply, you will before you know it become 'Black' on your primary, ammunition & water, either of which will send you deep into the poop. Remember, we could debate / argue for days & days over the issue weapons & calibers, but as we know, everyone tends to have their particular opinion, usually based upon 'their' individual experiences. There are SO MANY components that have to be debated when selecting a large forces issued weapons, that many truly don't realize all the little requirements that go into the overall mix. I really hate to even bring this up, but it's somewhat similar to the semi-recent mass exodus of Law Enforcement Agencies dropping their larger caliber Duty Pistols, & ummmm, 'upgrading' to the 9x19 for overall issue. As with pretty much everything else these days, things are changing so rapidly, & LE isn't immune from from that. Respective Recruits & On Duty Personnel are much, much more diverse than ever before, while a great many unfortunately have had literally no exposure to firearms use, & or training. I guess what I'm attempting to say is that the Brass have determined that rather than increased & enhanced weapons training, both while in the Academy, & continuing as an 'In Service' Regimen, they feel simply better [ aka = much more ecnominal ] to just reduce the duty caliber thereby increasing weapon controllability, & by default also capacity. This particular view definitely does has its proponents, but then, so does the larger caliber crowd. IMHO, I view the U.S. Military's task of selecting the best suited option for the largest portion of the personnel, for the most economical choice. In the end, the 'bitter end', it seems that it always come back around to the cost, & or the lack thereof !! Hopefully in all of their thinking, debating, arguing, & tallying, they haven't forgotten the G.I. who's going to have to utilize that weapon, for better or worse.

Best, Dom P.

[mlberry]

One thing that has not been mentioned is the requirement for a select fire weapon and why the armies went to the intermediate round. The more powerful rounds are not controllable in automatic fire. I do not believe we can have it both ways. We tried that with the M14 with the result that most of those rifles were locked for semi auto fire only.

The studies in the 1950's recommended the intermediate round (5.56) to control the infantryman's half kilometer based on the fact that the average soldier simply couldn't see the target beyond that range. Why lug around heavier ammunition that would never be used at the 800yd+ it was designed for? If you want the longer range fine, but you will loose your automatic fire capability.

[rauchman]

I didn't see mention of it in the attached article, but would armor penetration be a consideration?

[T2C]

One thing that has not been mentioned is the requirement for a select fire weapon and why the armies went to the intermediate round. The more powerful rounds are not controllable in automatic fire. I do not believe we can have it both ways. We tried that with the M14 with the result that most of those rifles were locked for semi auto fire only.

The studies in the 1950's recommended the intermediate round (5.56) to control the infantryman's half kilometer based on the fact that the average soldier simply couldn't see the target beyond that range. Why lug around heavier ammunition that would never be used at the 800yd+ it was designed for? If you want the longer range fine, but you will loose your automatic fire capability.

You bring up a valid point about the M14. Shooting one in automatic mode can be a difficult task. The old adage about shooting the M14 in full auto was "the first round hits an enemy soldier, the second round hits an enemy helicopter, the third round hits an enemy high altitude bomber and the fourth round hits an enemy satellite."

[sdacbob]

In the 70s, when it looked like the US Army would be facing a LOT more Warsaw Pact targets coming at us in Europe, training literature put out, "If I can SEE it, I can hit it. If I can hit it, I can kill it."

I remember those signs along with "If it can be seen, it can be killed"

[Wake27]

I didn't see mention of it in the attached article, but would armor penetration be a consideration?

It is now. Most (if not all) of the talk about changing calibers in the past five-ish years has been around the prevalence of body armor with neer peer competitors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sinister]

OLD MAN RANT FOLLOWS:

The average Army infantryman has never verified his zero at 200 yards on an E-type silhouette, ever.

The average Army infantryman never shoots on a known distance range to see where his rifle groups, let alone past 300 Meters.

The average infantryman has never qualified for score with his rifle, laser, and goggles at night.

The infantry is qualifying girls as 11B and 11C infantry. They (and slight build men) may or may not have problems qualifying with a bulkier, heavier / heavier-recoiling, and longer next-generation M4/M16 replacement.

[lysander]

OLD MAN RANT FOLLOWS:

The average Army infantryman has never verified his zero at 200 yards on an E-type silhouette, ever.

The average Army infantryman never shoots on a known distance range to see where his rifle groups, let alone past 300 Meters.

The average infantryman has never qualified for score with his rifle, laser, and goggles at night.

The infantry is qualifying girls as 11B and 11C infantry. They (and slight build men) may or may not have problems qualifying with a bulkier, heavier / heavier-recoiling, and longer next-generation M4/M16 replacement.

"What is" versus "what should" . . . .

[1168]

OLD MAN RANT FOLLOWS:

The average Army infantryman has never verified his zero at 200 yards on an E-type silhouette, ever.

The average Army infantryman never shoots on a known distance range to see where his rifle groups, let alone past 300 Meters.

The average infantryman has never qualified for score with his rifle, laser, and goggles at night.

The infantry is qualifying girls as 11B and 11C infantry. They (and slight build men) may or may not have problems qualifying with a bulkier, heavier / heavier-recoiling, and longer next-generation M4/M16 replacement.

Truth. They need to actually train for more than the just day qual before considering new weapons, IMO.

Speaking of KD ranges, what of UKD ranges? Not really a thing, either.

[GTF425]

OLD MAN RANT FOLLOWS:

The average Army infantryman has never verified his zero at 200 yards on an E-type silhouette, ever.

The average Army infantryman never shoots on a known distance range to see where his rifle groups, let alone past 300 Meters.

The average infantryman has never qualified for score with his rifle, laser, and goggles at night.

The infantry is qualifying girls as 11B and 11C infantry. They (and slight build men) may or may not have problems qualifying with a bulkier, heavier / heavier-recoiling, and longer next-generation M4/M16 replacement.

We just need to keep buying new shit. That'll do the trick.

[czgunner]

OLD MAN RANT FOLLOWS:

The average Army infantryman has never verified his zero at 200 yards on an E-type silhouette, ever.

The average Army infantryman never shoots on a known distance range to see where his rifle groups, let alone past 300 Meters.

The average infantryman has never qualified for score with his rifle, laser, and goggles at night.

The infantry is qualifying girls as 11B and 11C infantry. They (and slight build men) may or may not have problems qualifying with a bulkier, heavier / heavier-recoiling, and longer next-generation M4/M16 replacement.Yes.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[CPM]

Military. Industrial. Complex.

Arrow > Indian

[Wake27]

OLD MAN RANT FOLLOWS:

The average Army infantryman has never verified his zero at 200 yards on an E-type silhouette, ever.

The average Army infantryman never shoots on a known distance range to see where his rifle groups, let alone past 300 Meters.

The average infantryman has never qualified for score with his rifle, laser, and goggles at night.

The infantry is qualifying girls as 11B and 11C infantry. They (and slight build men) may or may not have problems qualifying with a bulkier, heavier / heavier-recoiling, and longer next-generation M4/M16 replacement.

So true. We’ve been trying to plan several ranges for OCT and the few pop ups are booked solid but the known distance is unbelievably wide open.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[d2wing]

Referring to post 14 by C-grunt.
I agree with this as a Vietnam vet. Clear shots were extremely rare for me. But when they do occur you need the optics and accuracy to make the shot. I liked the M16 over the M14 in some situations but both were very accurate. My good friend was a sniper armed with a scoped match M-14. He was very lethal in some battles as shown in the book, "Black Horse Riders". In my opinion every platoon should have at least two snipers equipped with 7.62 NATO rifles with optics.

[davidjinks]

Training and using your elements for the assigned task is what makes a mission successful. If you have a shit squad you’ll get shit results. If you have a squared away squad you will be successful. And individual rifleman can bring a lot of pain on an enemy if used correctly.