Re-enter the Battle Rifle?

[Infanteer]

That brings up a bit of a different note though that we realized when manning the section, and we're pretty much at the point where almost nobody but the commanders have just a C7 anymore because of the C9s, M203s, and now this.  Unless we drop one of the M203s because of the CASWs, every soldier is going to be a support weapon.

As I was reading your post I was going to post a "WTF!" post in response, but you covered my concern here.

I apologize if I'm covering ground already tread here, but I'd rather (and I did) employ the DM weapon at the Pl-level.  The Rifle Pl Wpns Det is a perfect place to hold this capability.  Usually, I'd stick the DM with the GPMG team and I'd have the perfect precision/area effects passed 600.  I see no need to push this down to the section level - his fight is on "the next 100 meters", so to say - just my opinion.

As for dropping M203s for this/due to the CASW I fundamentally disagree.  The CASW has drawn a lot of ire due to it being put in a zero-sum game with the 60mm mortar, but I still have problems with the doctrine/employment of the system that seems to get overlooked due to a fancy bullet.  The M-203 is, aside from the NM-72, the perfect way (and only) for the Sect Comd to project HE in his "next 100 meter" fight.  The CASW has limited chances to assist a section due to a) sections and platoons often being away from company HQs and b) the CASW system being a very bulky and static system.

Bottom line, CASW is company level and M-203 is sect level.  DM Battle Rifle should be Pl level.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[KevinB]

I like the idea of a DM team at Pl level.  However in dispersed operations - the Pl is not always together, and the SDM (Squad/Section DM) is a real asset, especially when not in a LAV centric entity. 

One of the reasons I like the 16" SDM 7.62mm is that the shooter can fight with the section, and yet still offer a needed precision range organic to it.  Especially in villages and the outlying areas, the SDM can controll ground and with a higher powered optical sight report back to his Section Cdr and Pl Cdr, and engage if required.

With an 8 man section
Sect Cdr - C8
#1 Rifleman - C8 M203

#2 Rifleman TL Gp 2 - C8
#1 LMG

#3 Rifleman - SDM
#4 Rifleman - C8

Sect 2I/C - C8 M203
#2 LMG

Feel free to throw the M203's where you want.


Throw a PDM (Platoon DM) with the Pl Hq - and the Pl WO/ Pl Cdr can task him as needed.

 

[SeanNewman]

As I was reading your post I was going to post a "WTF!" post in response, but you covered my concern here.

Had a massive reply to your post written from work and it wouldn't let me post.

To answer your placement question, there are two reasons:

1. There have been some very good simulations performed that suggest the farther forward you push the sharpshooters the better, and the more you have the better.

2. We have direction not to change the OrBats, which would happen by placing them in a weapons det.

When I first started researching it I also thought a platoon weapons det seemed like a good fit, but I have now seen enough to convert me.  Section level is best.

Also, do not be worried about someone in the section lugging around a 32 pound McMillan that they can't do anything with.  The sharpshooter will have a weapon light enough to be able to still be a fully functional soldier.  In fact, his left bicep will take less of a beating than the M203 gunner because his rifle will only weigh a bit more than a C7.

 

[daftandbarmy]

FYI...

Americans outgunned by Taleban’s AK47s

The future of the standard issue infantry rifle used by American troops in Afghanistan is under review amid concerns that it is the wrong weapon for the job.

With its light bullets the M4 rifle lacks sufficient velocity and killing power in long-range firefights, leaving US troops outgunned by the Taleban and their AK47 Kalashnikovs and the old Russian SVD sniper rifle.

British Forces face the same dilemma but the Ministry of Defence said yesterday that there was no plan to review the SA80A2 rifle, which fires the same Nato 5.56mm calibre rounds as its US counterpart. “We constantly review all of our capabilities,” a spokesman said.

However, Britain has followed the US in investing in 400 new larger-calibre Sharpshooter rifles, which use a heavier 7.62mm round, and are effective at longer ranges. The weapon is expected to be deployed in Afghanistan, alongside the standard rifle, by the end of the month

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7135496.ece

 

[KevinB]

Anyone who thinks that an Ak-47 or Ak-74 outguns an M4 needs their head examined.

SVD/clones, PK MG's and heavier stuff sure it goes further. 

The biggest issue in this is more software related than hardware...

 

[SeanNewman]

I understand your last sentence and I could not agree with your more, but your first comment surprises me a bit.

There is no question whatsoever that marksmanship training trumps velocity, joules, and tumble/fragment.  I would rather have a section worth of people who could accurately fire their rifles in combat than a battalion of soldiers who train a 4x4' screens once per year.

But all other things being equal I would take "all of the above" if given the option and the M4/C8 is far from ideal.  One of the key selling points of the original 5.56x45 NATO was the velocity so carbines have made me scratch my head ever since.  Yes, in confined spaces such as inside a vehicle or something, but in my opinion they should have never been allowed in the hands of an Infantry soldier.

I will keep quoting the Fackler Velocity until the cows come home, even though some other people on this board jump down my neck when I do because obviously they know more about terminal ballistics than the Letterman Institute of Military Trauma Research.

Even he points out what you and I agree with though, in that a well-placed pellet is more effective than a .50 cal round that misses.

 

[Infanteer]

Anyone who thinks that an Ak-47 or Ak-74 outguns an M4 needs their head examined.

Agreed; especially in the hands of Afghan insurgents.  The biggest problem is when our guys try to match round counts and marksmanship goes out the window.

1. There have been some very good simulations performed that suggest the farther forward you push the sharpshooters the better, and the more you have the better.

2. We have direction not to change the OrBats, which would happen by placing them in a weapons det.

When I first started researching it I also thought a platoon weapons det seemed like a good fit, but I have now seen enough to convert me.  Section level is best.

I like the idea of a DM team at Pl level.  However in dispersed operations - the Pl is not always together, and the SDM (Squad/Section DM) is a real asset, especially when not in a LAV centric entity.

I don't know what went into the simulations you saw, so I can't comment on their applicability - I'm basing my views off of operational experience employing the DM.  Dispersed operations for sections were quite the norm - treat a DM system like any support weapon; give the sections Atts of either the weapon or an element from the Weapons Det to beef it up; having 2x GPMGs allowed me to do this. 

I had two qualified DMs, one with my HQ and one in a Rifle Section.  Between myself and my section commander who had the DM, I as the Rifle Pl Comd had much more use and was better able to employ the DM.  I suppose it's on the level with giving a TOW det to a Pl Comd or a Coy OC - the OC would probably, in relation to the ground he deals with, put the thing to use better.  If I had to put DM as a Pl-asset or a Sect-asset, I'd opt for having it at Pl level.  If it was at Sect, I would just take the DM from one of my sections....

That being said, I'm never one to turn a capability down.  If the Infantry was willing to cough up the money for the guns and the time to train 4 riflemen per platoon, I'd be happy.  I would be a little leery about losing "pure" bayonets, but my DM employed his C8 fine with a decent rifle bag on his bag.  Infidel 6 probably has the best option - an all around battle rifle that can almost be dual-employed.

I don't think anything is required for TO&E amendment; 40-man Rifle Platoons gives you alot of room to play with.  I had my second weapons det guy in the DM spot.  He had no problems managing both roles and somebody could pick up the number 2 role if needed with a simple "hey, get over there". 

As for 8/10/12 man sections and where to stick the guy - I've given up on screwing around with numbers of the "ideal" section.  I never employed my Platoon as per the nice page in the PAM due to a variety of reasons.  I'm sold on the Aussie concept of the 4-man fire team and defining these teams by its primary function of maneuver or support.  A platoon consists of 10 of these and can use them however it sees fit; 5 8-man groups, 4 12-man groups, a few light groups and a heavy group, small groups with an additional group manning cars if mounted.  "Maneuver" fire teams (6 in a Pl) would have rifles and LMGs while "Support" fire teams (3 in a Pl) would have the heavies and the DMs.  Mix-and-match accordingly!

Basically, in the end it probably doesn't matter where it gets stuck - the Rifle Pl Comd will task tailor his organization as he needs it (as will the Sect Comd); I've found in theory (and in practice, when I started really getting tasked) the organizational principle above worked best.

 

[Infanteer]

But all other things being equal I would take "all of the above" if given the option and the M4/C8 is far from ideal.  One of the key selling points of the original 5.56x45 NATO was the velocity so carbines have made me scratch my head ever since.  Yes, in confined spaces such as inside a vehicle or something, but in my opinion they should have never been allowed in the hands of an Infantry soldier.

I don't think I'd agree with that - I'll stay away from ballistics as I only know the basics, but ballistics, in my opinion, plays a bit-part in battlefield effectiveness.  Maneuver, suppression and crew-served weapons are the deciding factor in a firefight, not the terminal velocity of a personal rifle, which plays a very minor role in killing guys.  As such, if I can reduce the bulk of the rifle (even by 4 inches) then I'd do so.

These two articles are worth reading concerning the topic.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/owen_RDS_feb2010.pdf

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Real_Role_of_Small_Arms_RDS_Summer_09.pdf

 

[SeanNewman]

Infanteer,

The difference between a C7 and a C8 in terms of weight or maneuverability is almost completely negligible, and you know as much as I do that people want the C8 for the LCF more than anything else.  For centuries, soldiers carried weapons a hell of a lot heavier than a C7 so if someone claims that a C7 is just too bulky then I will call them weak to their face.

However, the difference in lethality between a C7 and C8 is massive for many reasons.  You are completely correct that a million other factors come into play when talking about a unit's overall lethality, but there is no justifiable reason at all to give up the extra accuracy and lethality of a C7.

In fact, it's almost tantamount to weapon malingering because you're intentionally giving yourself a less effective weapon for no justifiable reason.

As for the sharpshooter concept, I have access to all the Afghan PORs with how sharpshooters were employed.  I know what all the BGs did and I have the overall picture of what worked best for the capability as a whole and what the pros and cons are of each.  I am not discounting your experience at all, and your comments on the flexibility of employment as to how the commander sees fit are noted.

Again, you are not losing a pure bayonet, though.  He will be much closer to a standard C7 rifleman than a C9 gunner.  He is a soldier first, not a sniper-light.

You last comment about it not mattering where it will "get stuck" shows that I may not have been clear enough in the doctrinal changes.  The plan is to embed this at section level, not treat it as a support weapon like a C6 or 84.  If I wrote "support weapon" earlier then I apologize.  It wouldn't need to be task tailored and in fact everything I have seen suggest that pooling this asset is counter-productive to its effectiveness.  The farther forward guaranteed precision effects can be pushed out the better, and if they are pooled you're back to having a section that can't hit someone at 600m without killing everything around him.

 

[vonGarvin]

To amplify what Petamocto said, instead of one per platoon (in which case, it would make sense to centralise it at Pl HQ), the intent is to have three per platoon.  For flexibility, during a "lawfield corridor" section attack, that "marksman" is really just another rifleman.  In Panjwayi, it's one more tool in the section commander's toolbox that allows him to hit to 600m (which he can arguably already do), but with more accuracy and arguably, precision.

(Remember, accuracy is a necessary, but not sufficient, component of precision.  To illustrate, a C9 LMG may be accurate to 600m, but certainly not precise)

 

[dapaterson]

You last comment about it not mattering where it will "get stuck" shows that I may not have been clear enough in the doctrinal changes.  The plan is to embed this at section level, not treat it as a support weapon like a C6 or 84.  If I wrote "support weapon" earlier then I apologize.  It wouldn't need to be task tailored and in fact everything I have seen suggest that pooling this asset is counter-productive to its effectiveness.  The farther forward guaranteed precision effects can be pushed out the better, and if they are pooled you're back to having a section that can't hit someone at 600m without killing everything around him.

Mission Command.

 

[SeanNewman]

Mission Command.

It's not about telling them how to suck eggs (which someone has already put a lot of time into) so much as it is giving them something that will make them far more effective because that's the best place to employ it.

Are we micro managing when we tell the sections to have C7s, M203s, and C9s?

Further, it's not a weapon like a mortar where 1 + 1 + 1 = greater than 3 concentration of force-wise.

If there were only one per platoon, then an argument could be made to put it as a weapons det asset but then it would not be a true sharpshooter (soldier first).

Keep in mind that nobody is telling a commander that he can't pool them if a situation arises that may in fact call for multiple sharpshooters (say for example an ambush/raid that is best started by killing three specific people at once).  All that is being said is that there is enough evidence to suggest the best baseline/default place for it to be located is with every section.

 

[vonGarvin]

The one point here I'd like to make is that the doctrinal model for the rifle section will (hopefully) see 3 x Marskmen per platoon, put down one per section.  That's the start state.  So, as stated, nothing stops the pl comd from saying in his orders something like this:
"1 section.  Grouping: detach OPCOM to 3 section 1 x Marksman.  Tasks: xxx
2 section.  Grouping: detach OPCOM to 3 section 1 x Marksman.  Tasks: xxx
3 section.  Grouping: attached OPCOM from 1 section, 1 x Marksman.  OPCOM from 2 section, 1 x Marksman.  Tasks: yyy"
So, the tools and the training will be pushed out with such numbers that there will be (hopefully) 3/platoon, 9/coy, 27/bn, etc and so forth.  All without increase in PYs.  (that keeps certain people happy, trust me)

 

[rampage800]

Pet,

I do agree with the marksman being pushed down/created at the section level, I think this analogy though needs a little work;

For centuries, soldiers carried weapons a hell of a lot heavier than a C7 so if someone claims that a C7 is just too bulky then I will call them weak to their face.

As warfare evolves maybe the weapons are getting lighter but the loads guys are carrying certainly aren't, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the average load a Canadian soldier carries now is 2-3x heavier than his counterpart in WW 2.  You can can make enough arguments for the C-7 vs the C-8, I think that the fact they carried heavier weapons before so it shouldn't bother us now is a bit flimsy in this context.

Anyhow, my 2 cents, hope this doesn't derail a pretty interesting thread.

 

[Infanteer]

Two discussions here - type of rifle and doctrinal employment of DM:

1.  Battle Rifle

Infanteer,

The difference between a C7 and a C8 in terms of weight or maneuverability is almost completely negligible, and you know as much as I do that people want the C8 for the LCF more than anything else.  For centuries, soldiers carried weapons a hell of a lot heavier than a C7 so if someone claims that a C7 is just too bulky then I will call them weak to their face.

However, the difference in lethality between a C7 and C8 is massive for many reasons.  You are completely correct that a million other factors come into play when talking about a unit's overall lethality, but there is no justifiable reason at all to give up the extra accuracy and lethality of a C7.

Small sure - but every little bit counts; same as getting rid of 3-5 mags helps shed a few pounds.  As the articles posted above point out, the "massive lethality" difference between a 16" rifle and a 20" rifle is almost meaningless on the battlefield.

So, in the end, I am just not concerned by the switch and I don't feel it's "weapon malingering", especially when the likelihood of effective use (25-100m) means that those ballistics are largely moot.

2.  Infantry DM

As for the sharpshooter concept, I have access to all the Afghan PORs with how sharpshooters were employed.  I know what all the BGs did and I have the overall picture of what worked best for the capability as a whole and what the pros and cons are of each.  I am not discounting your experience at all, and your comments on the flexibility of employment as to how the commander sees fit are noted.

Again, you are not losing a pure bayonet, though.  He will be much closer to a standard C7 rifleman than a C9 gunner.  He is a soldier first, not a sniper-light.

You last comment about it not mattering where it will "get stuck" shows that I may not have been clear enough in the doctrinal changes.  The plan is to embed this at section level, not treat it as a support weapon like a C6 or 84.  If I wrote "support weapon" earlier then I apologize.  It wouldn't need to be task tailored and in fact everything I have seen suggest that pooling this asset is counter-productive to its effectiveness.  The farther forward guaranteed precision effects can be pushed out the better, and if they are pooled you're back to having a section that can't hit someone at 600m without killing everything around him.

Not disputing your data, just explaining my personal experience and again, I'm never one to sneeze at extra capabilities (where's my flamethrower?)  What you are proposing sounds very similar to the new Australian PAM where all 4 man infantry fire teams include a DM.

Where you're going with the proposal begs the question (which may have been touched upon earlier); if the plan is to push these out as a section capability, why don't we just aim to improve the marksmanship of the rifleman as a whole instead of a unique program and rifle that will be handed to 1/3 to 2/3s of the Riflemen in a platoon?

 

[KevinB]

I would argue that you can have a much more effective C8 system than a C7.
  Accuracy is a non starter as the C8SFW (or whatever its being called outside CANSOF) is just as accurate to the level or capability as the C7.

I will point out I won a 500m Deliberate one year in Ottawa using a Colt 14.5" M4A1, and the 300m and something else at 2004 NSCC with a 16" gun.

I'm a big Fackler guy - dont get me wrong - however there are much better rounds that do not rely on impact velocities as much for effect.
  70gr Black-Hills "Brown Tip" Optmized 5.56mm (Barnes Solid Copper TSX)
  77gr TOTM (Bonded OTM - part of the USMC initial Barrier Blind ammunition RFI from 2005)
  62gr SOST (hint google Trophy Bonded Bear Claw  :nod

Even the 77gr Mk262 will upset in tissue at a lot lower velocities that M855/C77 ball due to the longer OAL, and the same OAL allows it to fragment at lower velocities due to the addition strain.

All of these are JAG approved for Unrestricted Land Warfare use in the US of A.  AND as a bonus they have flash retardant in the propellants so your muzzle side signature is not as bad. 


That said -- there are areas where 7.62mm NATO trumps it -- shooting cars and other barriers.
But CF C21 ball is not a great round for anti-personnel usage - as it does not really upset and fragment, in fact in gel it typically makes 5.56mm M855 look stellar.

If you look to a DM gun - you also need to look to ammo, if you want a more effective solution.


Yes I think the Section/Squad needs a 7.62mm DM system
  - and if using C21 ball for the interim gets it done, great.


BUT they CF needs to start looking into more effective ammuntions.

Secondly a real look (and this is an issue across NATO) at combat markmanship needs to be done. 
 

 

[vonGarvin]

...why don't we just aim to improve the marksmanship of the rifleman as a whole instead of a unique program and rifle that will be handed to 1/3 to 2/3s of the Riflemen in a platoon?

Part of this is the physical limitations of both the external and terminal ballistics of the 5.56mm round out to 600m.  In essence, it's a mix of technology and training to fill a 'gap': the precise fire out to 600m at the section level. There are a whole whack of issues, but in the end, the idea is to create this capability without losing others (eg: massed fire at point blank ranges to counter human wave attacks: just in case the Koreans make it this far! >)

 

[Matt_Fisher]

The difference between a C7 and a C8 in terms of weight or maneuverability is almost completely negligible, and you know as much as I do that people want the C8 for the LCF more than anything else.  For centuries, soldiers carried weapons a hell of a lot heavier than a C7 so if someone claims that a C7 is just too bulky then I will call them weak to their face.

When you comment that the .303 SMLE or FN-FAL C1A1 was heavier than the C7 or C8, don't forget to take into consideration the weight of all the ancillary equipment that a rifleman is now required to carry that he didn't have to carry previously:
Optics, STANO, body armour, batteries, more water than was previously carried, etc.
When we're turning what was once a fast moving rabbit into a lumbering turtle, weight, even as seemingly marginal as it may be, all adds up.  At some point, something's got to give in terms of weight reduction, but the question is what to let go?

 

[KevinB]

Secondly doing CQB with a 20" barrel is no fun.

Its fine in a Plywood Sim room  with no furniture, but a small foreign house/hut with small crawlspaces and it is impossible.

I attended a CQB Instructor class with a LE dept down here, the SWAT guys and I had 11.5" barrels, some of the Mil and Patrol LE guys have 14.5" or 16" guns, and it was downright painful to see them trying to clean a small bathroom or crawlspaces on the local base (some abandoned houses).

I'm not saying go out and give the Infantry C8CQB's but I do think the 16" is the best GP Compromise in a 5.56mm gun.

 

[SeanNewman]

1.  Battle Rifle...especially when the likelihood of effective use (25-100m) means that those ballistics are largely moot.

2.  Infantry DM...why don't we just aim to improve the marksmanship of the rifleman...

On a side note, if using Canadian doctrine I think you'll find it easier to stop using DM now because the call has been made way above my level to not use it.  "Marksman" in the CF is not a job but a test score.  Someone who is a Marksman has scored 39/49 on a PWT3, that's all.  An Airforce Staff Officer can be a "Marksman".  Sharpshooter is what the CF is calling the actual job of what we're talking about.

1.  I would not get too fixated on the 25-100m range band if I were you, regardless of what you may hear during Urban Ops / Gunfighter camps.  Every theatre is different, and even if your entire tour was in a city it is extremely dangerous to focus your weapons only on the fight inside 100m lest our next enemy know how to shoot better than Afghan Insurgents and they kill us all from 400m stand off.  We must have both area and precision capabilities at all ranges.

2.  You're preaching to the converted here, but I can not do the impossible.  As much as I would love nothing more than the Army to put Infantry soldiers on a live training range every week to fire 1,000 rounds, but the ground truth is that will never happen.  An no offense, but every time someone has your opinion that the fight is only inside 100m, that many fewer rounds get fired from 300+ which further kills long-range accuracy.  The only thing I can influence is the PWT system which I am in the process of doing (other threads on the details, but generally PWT4 will be advanced shooting of all types, not just CQC).  Until you can convince the CDS to give rifle battalions JTF-levels of ammunition, it is up to the commanders (like yourself) to get your guys in the SAT as much as possible if money isn't there.  Yes it would be better to make everyone a better shot, but that COA is far more expensive than taking your best shooters and giving them a better rifle to make use of their skills.