Re-enter the Battle Rifle?

[SeanNewman]

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

I6,

No debates from me, but all of your points about different types of ammo and what they can do in a 5.56 are moot because Canadian infantry soldiers use C77.  It's wonderful that someone else on the battlefield might be able to insert whatever ammo they like, but that is not the reality of the ammo you sign for.

Don't get me wrong, as I am sure you know our service ammunition is pretty much the Cadillac of the world's standard 5.56 load so I am more than content with it.  However, it is what it is, and until anything else comes along we have no choice but to put emphasis on 875m/sec.

 

[Infanteer]

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.

Sharpshooter it is then.

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. 

2.  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.

You misunderstood my comment - I wasn't saying fights will be 25-100m, I'm saying those range bands are essentially the only ones where the individual rifle will have a real part to play on killing the enemy; anything beyond and, as the research of Owen and Storr alludes to, the individual rifle just isn't a real player.  To paraphrase LCol Storr "Rifles have been more accurate (and deadly) then the soldiers using them".  It is significant to note that they look at the Rifle as it functions in the system of the sect or pl as opposed to its individual range characteristics.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

You misunderstood my comment - I wasn't saying fights will be 25-100m, I'm saying those range bands are essentially the only ones where the individual rifle will have a real part to play on killing the enemy; anything beyond and, as the research of Owen and Storr alludes to, the individual rifle just isn't a real player.  To paraphrase LCol Storr "Rifles have been more accurate (and deadly) then the soldiers using them".  It is significant to note that they look at the Rifle as it functions in the system of the sect or pl as opposed to its individual range characteristics.

So do you feel that we should at the section level move to replace C7s with PDWs equipped with grenade launchers, along with a Designated 'Sharpshooter' Rifle and a LMG or GPMG?

 

[SeanNewman]

...range bands are essentially the only ones where the individual rifle will have a real part to play on killing the enemy; anything beyond and, as the research of Owen and Storr alludes to, the individual rifle just isn't a real player...

Wow, that is really bizarre and I think completely out to lunch.  The only thing I can think of is that his comments are made in a defensive-type context where your rifles are really just meant as local protection for the support weapons like the AA an MGs that will do the majority of the killing and in that context I agree.

I know that Rommel speaks very highly of having more percentage of your forces in the firebase than the assault, but that's far from saying that smaller weapons are only within 100m.  Hmmmm.

I also don't know where he's coming from by saying that modern weapons have out-grown the soldiers because in the 1800s skilled soldiers were shooting things from several hundred metres away reliably.  I would argue the same point that you have above that it is more about soldiers' marksmanship getting worse than the rifles getting better, but as I have stated...sadly it's easier to give them a rifle that makes it easier for them to hit something at 600m than it is to train everyone up to that level.

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

Not challenging that.  However, obviously one must ensure he is prepared to fight at all ranges and in my assessment that is not worth the trade off in giving up 100m+ of effective range (again, our variable that we can not easily change is ammo load).  If you can show Colt Canada how to produce a 12" barrel that fires a 5.56mm NATO round at 1,000mps I would sing your praises and convert to shorter barrels I promise  ;D

 

[Infanteer]

Wow, that is really bizarre and I think completely out to lunch.  The only thing I can think of is that his comments are made in a defensive-type context where your rifles are really just meant as local protection for the support weapons like the AA an MGs that will do the majority of the killing and in that context I agree.

Read the article - the accuracy studies, and conclusions drawn from them, were taken from offensive scenarios.

This has a large part to play:

It appears that a soldier’s ability to hit a given target is typically reduced by a factor of ten or so when he is moved from a static rifle range to a field firing area where he has to select cover, move, shoot and so on.  It is reduced by a further factor of ten or so if there is an enemy firing back at him.  It is reduced by another factor of ten if the enemy has machine guns, or if he has tanks; and by a hundred if he has both.  We begin to see why many thousands of rounds can be fired, but very few actually hit.

 

[SeanNewman]

Infanteer,

I am beginning to see that we are finding more common ground than I originally thought we had, particularly because of the part you added at the bottom.

I believe a lot of that has to do with the way we conduct training and do our drills, all of which are going to change on my watch.  You not expect someone who trains in a classroom environment with drills meant for a conventional range to succeed in combat the same way a guy who trains how he fights will. 

I can not influence the CDS to give units billions of rounds, but what I can do (and am doing) is changing the C7/C8 handling drills and PWTs to be more combat-based.  On a PWT3 you will now be shooting from 400m as well as CQB, and you will have to shoot and remedy stoppages while wounded.  PWT4 will be even more advanced shooting of all types including improvised fire positions, etc.  That is the extent of what I can influence/change but I'm doing what I can.  No, it's not the same as simulating combat, but the end state is that the soldier will be many steps closer to real combat when he actually sees it.

I believe a large chunk of the problem will be fixed by changing PWT4 away from CQB-only ranges which is where the majority of deploying forces train.  How can we expect them to hit something from 400m if we only ever train them at 25m?  That decision is the result of both the OIC Urban Ops and myself coming to that consensus.  People need to be exposed to CQB earlier (PWT2) at a basic level, but not fixate on it later.

 

[vonGarvin]

On a PWT3 you will now be shooting from 400m as well as CQB, and you will have to shoot and remedy stoppages while wounded. 

That's right.  The School of Foot is getting tougher.  We will shoot you (don't worry, it's just a .22) and then you will have to complete the PWT prior to receiving medical attention  >

(Sorry for the slight tangent)

 

[SeanNewman]

...We will shoot you...

Heck, I was just thinking the ARSO could say "Shot in left arm", but you're in charge of Standards and I like your way much better.

Perhaps it could be some sort of Mini RC-IED on the shooter's rifle that causes a stoppage and blows his hand up a little bit.

 

[Infanteer]

Infanteer,

I am beginning to see that we are finding more common ground than I originally thought we had, particularly because of the part you added at the bottom.

I believe a lot of that has to do with the way we conduct training and do our drills, all of which are going to change on my watch.

Well that's what I meant from the start - why didn't you read my mind....

Anyways, drills are one angle to attack the problem highlighted above; however, there is some convincing arguments made that drills simply won't get a soldier over the "psychological hump" - I remember reading them somewhere at the Small Wars Journal; I'll see if I can dig them up.

Technology may help in the future, but I ain't holding my breath.  The biggest source of lethality for a section and, more significantly, a platoon is - in my opinion - the combined arms system and how it is organized, led and employed; it's really a 1+1+1 = more than 3 (as you put it).  Here's another good read from LCol Storr, who seems to be one of the few guys actually looking into the nuts and bolts of battle.

High Explosive: Shock Effect in Dismounted Combat

In the end what does this mean (to avoid a circular blah-fest).  It is how one combines precision fire, area fire, HE and indirect fire on a bad guy that determines how he best gets killed.  The Sharpshooter program definitely has a role to play in this - and if we have the ability to push this to 3-4 dudes per platoon, awesome.  When it comes to the more baseline Rifleman, there is nothing wrong with trying to improve ballistics and individual marksmanship (as I said, every little bit helps) but these are likely to be merely drops in the bucket compared to effectively dropping HE on a guy's head and, when resources and time are limited, we should make sure we're putting our eggs into the right basket.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[vonGarvin]

Anyways, drills are one angle to attack the problem highlighted above; however, there is some convincing arguments made that drills simply won't get a soldier over the "psychological hump" - I remember reading them somewhere at the Small Wars Journal; I'll see if I can dig them up.

As I recall from reading some book way back when, the British Army did so with the "hump" of shooting other humans by having human-shaped targets on their ranges. 

it's really a 1+1+1 = more than 3 (as you put it). 

I believe the word you seek is synergy.

Glad to be of service.  "Techonology" may not help, but the TECHNOVIKING is always an asset!

 

[Infanteer]

As I recall from reading some book way back when, the British Army did so with the "hump" of shooting other humans by having human-shaped targets on their ranges. 
I believe the word you seek is synergy.

No - I'm not referring to Grossman's junk theory about non-firers, I'm referring to the psychology of getting shot at which, as the study highlighted by Storr points out, reduces accuracy by exponential factors.  Technology to help would be some Power Armour.

So do you feel that we should at the section level move to replace C7s with PDWs equipped with grenade launchers, along with a Designated 'Sharpshooter' Rifle and a LMG or GPMG?

Although the case can be made along these lines and, if taken to extremes, recommendations of soldiers carrying a pistol and lots of crew-served weapon ammo, I wouldn't go out of my way to reduce the capability of the individual soldier too much.  Our rifle, for the time being, is fine - I'd prefer that money and time be dedicated to a new mortar, a good sharpshooter rifle, and the resources for good training for rifle platoons.

That being said, bullpups sure are nice to carry.

 

[vonGarvin]

No - I'm not referring to Grossman's junk theory about non-firers, I'm referring to the psychology of getting shot at which, as the study highlighted by Storr points out, reduces accuracy by exponential factors. 

Roger, understood. 

 

[GAP]

In our patrols, way back when... ;D, after we were issued the M-16, we always had one or two DM's with M-14's (7.62), we all shared in the humping of 60mm mortar ammo, baseplate & tube, and also the LAWs, and, depending how long we were thinking we were going to be out, assist in carrying the extra ammo for the M-79. Then we had our own ammo, as much as we wanted to carry in bandoliers & mags.

 

[SeanNewman]

I believe the word you seek is synergy.

Nerd alert!  Stop being such an AOC-qualified Technogeek and using big words that troops don't use in their everyday conversations.

Next thing you know, you'll be putting things like "envisaged" and "nature abhors a vacuum" in Op Orders.  Just kidding, obviously nobody would really do that.

Farva,

You are hinting at something that ties in with the bayonet thread as well, and it is something a lot of people don't like to talk about because it involves fighting spirit and admitting that we may not be the best at closing with and destroying the enemy.  What our trade used to be about was advancing to contact and eagerly awaiting the enemy to show himself so we could tear through him like crap through a goose.  However, as much as there have been valiant cases where that has happened, for a large part our doctrine is unintentionally changing to the infantry coming under contact and going firm as a firebase and calling in a Hellfire to do the assault.

Now I am not at all playing the part of the armchair quarterback saying "why don't troops go out there and put their lives on the line more" when they don't have to.  Not at all.  I understand the mindset of being in a convoy on the receiving end of multiple IEDs, and having an idea where the trigger man is.  It is in fact much easier to call C/S 0 and it's C/S 0's job to support the ground soldier however they can with destroying that threat, but I fear that baton is dangerously close to becoming the rule instead of the exception to hold firm and wait for HE of some sort to come in.

If I were to make a thesis out of this long post, it would probably go in depth about what a soldier is willing to do to fight for his own country versus someone else's while supporting a COIN in a host-nation environment, but I won't even open up that can.  At the end of the day I would hate to write the letter that read "Well actually we had all sorts of assets available that could have killed the man who ended up killing your son, but since I wanted the Infantry to be more aggressive I ordered them to close with...".

Food for thought, just observations not criticisms.

GAP,

How in the hell could a soldier be expected to fight with an M14?  You know how hard it is to fight with a bulky M16, don't you??? 

 

[GAP]

How in the hell could a soldier be expected to fight with an M14?  You know how hard it is to fight with a bulky M16, don't you???

Sweet rifle....don't diss it!! Hated the M-16 for the longest time. With an M-14 when you hit somebody, he stayed hit.

 

[SeanNewman]

Sweet rifle....don't diss it!!

Trust me, I'm not.  Today you can have that stopping power* (marginally more, actually) with less pounds.

I am still for most people carrying 5.56 because the "pros" of even lighter and less recoil do count for a lot.  If you ever require rapid rate, 5.56 is going to get you far more rounds on target whether you're talking about an MG or a rifle than 7.62.

However just as it's best to mix a lot of 5.56 MGs with some 7.62 MGs, I argue it's the same with rifles.

 

[KevinB]

I will grant C77 is accurate ammo, and I will conceed Cadillac of 5.56mm as long as we can amend it to Cadillac of SS109 type ammo.

I don't beleive every soldier needs to shoot 1,000 rds a day, but I'd like to see more range time.

I really like what your doing with the PWT's -- although I'd recommend a taser for the arm, it will numb it to being useless for a point...
  ;D
Additionally I do think that SimFX stuff can be a great training tool if used properly.  5.56mm Sims leave a mark.

Unless the SAT rooms have C7A2's and C8SFW/FTHB's and can add PEQ/PAC's and lights - its really not teaching much, and they need to get rid of the retarded mag rest stoppage that the USMC insisted on for the FATS system (that became the SAT).

I don't beleive the Canadian soldier has any problems mindsetwise killing the enemy.

 

[SeanNewman]

Post

1.  Agreed...I meant conventional "standard issue" ammo load.

2.  Noted on the Taser, as long as I can stipulate in the Annex "Kevin B accepts all potential risk associated with what we are about to do".

3.  I was just in contact with the range and trg safety people last week.  While the project isn't on warp drive, we are moving in the right direction with things like ShortStop and (name escapes me) the frange one that turns to powder.

4.  Noted on SATs.  I hate the mag rest stoppage too.

 

[KevinB]

Simmunition also has a Black CQT round, it is potentially lethal, but stops in 1/4" Plywood, and penetrates Cardboard -- it is good for using using opaque sheeting and cardboard for cover from view is not cover from fire...
However it uses the Blue Sim 5.56mm bolts, and introduces a potentially lethal ammo, in a non lethal marking system, so some elements will have concern (and some rightly so).  However it does have a much smaller template than their standard CQT Frangible.
*note standard frangible is really tough on barrels and suppressors.  It eats the throats out of guns and the baffles in cans at an outrageous rate.
  I've only tested about 1000 rounds of the Black Sim rounds, but recoil, sound are much decreased, and reliability is higher than the SimFX marking rounds due to the solid tip (compressed polymer and copper IIRC) plus it seems to work okay in cans.
But they can I have been experimenting with is a beater, and I only shot about 200rds so not enough to see major baffel damage in our baffles, some lighter designs maybe, but we overbuild our NT-4 so it can also work on LMG's etc.)

I've been tazed a few times (only in training, surprising I know), and from all studies, a healthy person not hopped up on drugs/extreme levels of alcohol will have no problems.  But I'd love to see DLR's reaction to anything with my name on it

 

[Illegio]

Leave something to percolate for a few days...

If your going to a 7.62mm SharpShooter System (or Marksman Rifle System as the 2002 thought) which I think is the way to go at the Section/Squad level, then having the same system with just an optical change seems to me to the be the logical road, as your SharpShooter (which I will no doubt cause all sorts of problems when it gets abreviated to SS, so I will use DM) really only needs to learn more longer range shooting skills to use the same scope as the SASS equipped Sniper, and it merges the supply chain for both systems

Not quite sure what you're saying here. On the one hand, I agree with the idea of sharing a common platform while using different optics if possible (which is what you seem to suggest at first,) but I would not suggest training the sharpshooters to use the sniper optic. If the SASS ever does materialize, I believe that it's almost a given that they will slap a S&B on it, given that both the .338 and the .50 use it, in order to maintain commonality across all platforms. The S&B is a great scope, but it is not an ideal sharpshooter optic.

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.

Call me a skeptic, but is there such a beast that can be used to both clear rooms and shoot accurately out to 800m? And weigh only a bit more than a C7? It may be an issue more related to ammo than the rifle, but shooting the C3A1 out to 800m there have been numerous instances where we were seeing rounds tumbling prior to going through the paper targets. What does this bode for a 7.62 AR-pattern rifle with a barrel 20" or shorter?