How can you not know where incoming fire is coming from ?

Surely the scout or whoever gives a reference to the Sect Cmd as to where he thinks it is or the rest of the section ends up blind ?


Agree re videos and the number of rounds fired.

.

quote:

How can you not know where incoming fire is coming from ?

Well, lets take what GAhunter said at face value, and see how they may answer your question.

If everyone around you is unloading their weapons at the surrounding countryside, all you could probably hear is the close up gunfire. Probably drowns out the distant gunfire, and could make it hard to tell where it's comming from.

GA is that part of the issue, or is it more complex then that?

Usually, according to my son, it is just an educated guess as to where it is coming from. The main reason is the very extreme ranges involved (800 meters and beyond) and the fact that the bad guys don't fire from one position for too long, not so much because they are afraid of return fire from our guys, but because they are afraid of our most effective weapon -- the field radio -- which is used to call in base fire, Apaches, Kiowas, A-10s and assorted other air assets once their position is detected.

And as far as these much heralded incoming projectile radars, he said they didn't work very well at all in the mountains, as did not the hand released drones that they put up. It was just a matter of scanning the mountains with your eyes and trying to detect movement or muzzle flash, much like soldiers under fire have done for a couple of centuries.

During their deployment, my son's infantry company only lost a couple of guys to enemy small-arms fire, in spite of the almost constant small-arms engagement that took place over the course of their year their. The great majority of their casualties were at the hands of IEDs. Fortunately, he left before the current spate of murders performed by "friendly" forces.

At 800m+ it sounds like most of these engagements are at ranges beyond the effective small arms range of both sides. That would add to the round count.

Yes, but it's not beyond the range of their 107mm recoilless rifles, which is the weapon that inflicted the most casualties on my son's unit in these encounters (including causing my son to get a Purple Heart).

Sorry, I didn't realise you were talking that ype of distance.

I was thinking more 100 - 500.


Not sure how the US Soldiers do it but does firing off into the hill side at 800 metres actually achieve anything ?

I can understand if you are bugging out and need covering fire but just firing back wildly ?

Anyway, GA, hope your sun is OK.

Take cover and suppress the enemy. You suppress by firing on known and suspected enemy positions using all of the firepower at your disposal. Then, you begin manuevering by advancing and flanking or moving to a more advantageous position. It sounds quite simple when stated this way, and it is. What complicates it all is the conditions. You are maneuvering as a part of an element towards an unknown threat, often during limited visibility and almost always in difficult terrain. Then there is the fact that someone out there is trying to kill you and your buddies.

In addition to the unknown threat and keeping all your movement and fire in "your sector", you have to watch out for your buddy on your left and right. Steady, controlled, suppressive fire prevents the bad guys from placing effective fire on you while you move in to destroy the threat. That often means firing on areas to deny the enemy the use of that terrain for manuevering or escaping. So yes, sometimes that requires "wasting" a lot of ammunition.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Sorry, I didn't realise you were talking that ype of distance.

I was thinking more 100 - 500.


Not sure how the US Soldiers do it but does firing off into the hill side at 800 metres actually achieve anything ?

I can understand if you are bugging out and need covering fire but just firing back wildly ?

Anyway, GA, hope your sun is OK.

He's fine, and in a year of patrols, he did not lose (fatality) a single soldier to enemy fire, though he had a few seriously injured -- all to recoilless rifle.

SFRanger is absolutely right; before you criticize the ability of the US Soldier to hit targets, you must realize the nature of modern warfare. Rarely does the enemy actually show himself and more rarely does the US Soldier aim and fire at one. More likely he is doing as stated; firing at known and suspected enemy positions using supressive fire with all weapons available, both direct and indirect. That technique uses a lot of ammo; hard for those trained to fight a first world enemy to comprehend. Better to spend bullets than lives. They are not firing wildly even though it seems like they are firing at nothing but terrain. Those terrain features could hold bad guys and even if they don't, they won't. In tanks we use a technique called "recon by fire:" which could seem like a waste of ammo to some; that is to fire on suspected enemy positions as you travel; if anyone is there, they will return fire and then you know where they are so you can fire and or maneuver against them.

the debate RE effective range (or lack of it)of the M4 would be a lot more spirited if all of the dead killed by it could rise and voice their opinion.

Wasn't the topic, and the discussion to be regarding "Is the US going to replace the M-4?"

Holly smoke!

I spent 21 1/2 years wearing Army Greens. Most of that time i carried some variant of the M16. While I am personally not a fan of the M16/AR platform, I do believe it to be a great combat rifle. It does have its pro's and con's to be sure. But you have to look at all the aspects at what a combat rifle has to be. The list of requirements is very long - but here are a few of them.

accuracy
cost
parts interchangability
rate of fire
reliability
accessory versatility
ease of maintainence
sight systems
ammo capacity
weight
size
mission adaptation
and the list goes on....

There are many battle rifles out there that blow the m16 out of the water in one or more of those areas - but there are not many that can function as well as the m16 does in all of them. I packed M16 variants in some pretty nasty situations and it always served me well. I always kept my rifle properly cleaned and lubed and did not have any of the problems I often hear others complain about. Almost every malfunction i witnessed was due to improper maintainence. My soldiers thought I was an ass for how often I pounded them about maintainence and ensured they were meeting the standards. But they never had a malfunction either so I guess it paid off.

A battle rifle is a trade off on many of the requirements and it is a challenge to pull together a package that does it all. The M16/AR is not perfect but it gets the job done pretty well. There are very few platforms out there that are as versatile or adaptable as the m16. I think it is here to stay for the forseable future.

FYI - my favorite battle rifle is the M14. it is not nearly as versatile as the m16 platform but I will take it any day over anything else out there.

The M4 isn't going anywhere and neither is 5.56mm. It's more effective than most have heard. Oddly enough with few exceptions I find that the closer someone has been to the action the more they like the rifle. It is ideally suited to the way the US makes war-with combined arms and at night.

I am sure the M4 - 5.56mm is popular with the Pentagon since both are cheap. Imagine ammo at 3 times the cost for a larger round. At the rate they burn ammo they only half armed. One could carry ammo for the one that is armed. Hmm I wonder what 6 SAWs per squad would be like.

I think a lot of you are ignoring the advantages of achieving fire superiority. It requires expending large quantities of ammo. Which in the field means soldiers must be able to carry large amounts of ammo. The enemy can't shoot when they are busy ducking. The more an individual round weighs the less can be carried.
M-4's could be retro fitted to piston operation without replacing the entire weapon. There are gunsmiths doing it now.

quote:

Originally posted by swampshooter:
I think a lot of you are ignoring the advantages of achieving fire superiority. It requires expending large quantities of ammo. Which in the field means soldiers must be able to carry large amounts of ammo. The enemy can't shoot when they are busy ducking. The more an individual round weighs the less can be carried.
M-4's could be retro fitted to piston operation without replacing the entire weapon. There are gunsmiths doing it now.

The piston is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The internet media is only making you think you need a piston on an AR. Look at how many years it has gone without one. Colt made a piston system for the Army at their request in the early 70's, but then the Army decided they didn't need it. Just more parts to cause other problems.

Smokinj, I agree, I think there are some who are just trying to create a market for financial gain, but even if some believe it, they can go to a piston system without scrapping the entire weapon.

quote:

Originally posted by swampshooter:
Smokinj, I agree, I think there are some who are just trying to create a market for financial gain, but even if some believe it, they can go to a piston system without scrapping the entire weapon.

For the cost of it they might as well go for one designed from the ground up for a piston. One of the bigger problems is carrier tilt wearing the upper receiver. The piston rod striking the nub that use to be the gaskey tilts the rear of the carrier. Another is getting a workable piston rod that won't break or bend. Then you lose accuracy as compared to the DI system. That's why AR's are inherently accurete..free float barrel and not piston/pistonrod atop it to ruin the harmonics. Stoner never designed the AR to be piston operated and it's hard to get a perfect piston system on it. If I had to pick one it would be from LWRC.

I almost bought a LWRC in 6.8 but decided on an Armalite AR-10 in 338 fed instead; I already had a 6.8 stag. Since the AR-10, I've picked up a SCAR in 308.

We hunt with ARs, have for 20 years; reason being they are so great with 2 point slings on snowmachines & 4 wheelers here in Alaska.

Started out with several preban 223's; had a few caribou run off to feed the wolves. Finally got the 6.8 and between me and my kids have shot a bunch of bou (even out to 500 yards), bear, and a few wolves with the same little gun that only weighs 7 lbs. I reload 29 grains H322 with 110 ttsx's.

Got the AR-10 338 fed two years back, have shot 3 moose and a few caribou using 210 noslers. The gun weighs a ton, like an M-14 and has become a trk gun for road hunting. Both the 6.8 & 338 fed chronoed over 2700.

The Scar is almost too nice to beat around, but that 308 is my nx years hunting rifle. It weighs 8 lbs but fits the body better than the 6.8 stag.

Of the 223, 6.8, 338 fed, and 308; my go to gun is the 6.8 for accuracy, weight, and overall trust from experience knowing it will kill what I hit with her, no joke.

The piston question is a non issue to me, keep them clean.

I've wondered for years why they haven't considered the 6.8 as a more acceptable cartridge.

Proof is my 6.8 hangs on hooks above door and my five 223's haven't been out of my gun safe in 3 years; wish I could trade up, ha ha.

quote:

Originally posted by Zhurh:
I almost bought a LWRC in 6.8 but decided on an Armalite AR-10 in 338 fed instead; I already had a 6.8 stag. Since the AR-10, I've picked up a SCAR in 308.

We hunt with ARs, have for 20 years; reason being they are so great with 2 point slings on snowmachines & 4 wheelers here in Alaska.

Started out with several preban 223's; had a few caribou run off to feed the wolves. Finally got the 6.8 and between me and my kids have shot a bunch of bou (even out to 500 yards), bear, and a few wolves with the same little gun that only weighs 7 lbs. I reload 29 grains H322 with 110 ttsx's.

Got the AR-10 338 fed two years back, have shot 3 moose and a few caribou using 210 noslers. The gun weighs a ton, like an M-14 and has become a trk gun for road hunting. Both the 6.8 & 338 fed chronoed over 2700.

The Scar is almost too nice to beat around, but that 308 is my nx years hunting rifle. It weighs 8 lbs but fits the body better than the 6.8 stag.

Of the 223, 6.8, 338 fed, and 308; my go to gun is the 6.8 for accuracy, weight, and overall trust from experience knowing it will kill what I hit with her, no joke.

The piston question is a non issue to me, keep them clean.

I've wondered for years why they haven't considered the 6.8 as a more acceptable cartridge.

Proof is my 6.8 hangs on hooks above door and my five 223's haven't been out of my gun safe in 3 years; wish I could trade up, ha ha.

I built all my AR's except for my Colt HBAR preban. I haven't tried the 6.8 but I had the 6.5 Grendel,223's, 7.62x39, 6x45, and the 308. They are all scary accurate.

I thought the easier swap for the military would be the 6x45. That would give them a little more then the 5.56 and only requires a barrel change. The 6.8 require barrel change, bolt change, and magazine change, although it is a pretty good round. I don't think the bolt life is high enough on the 6.8 though for the military.