Then as now

[RAENORTH]

In October 2009, we saw a survey of more than 50 servicemen who had fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. It concluded that the 5.56mm calibre rounds used by British soldiers "tailed off" after 300 metres yet half of all Helmand firefights are fought between 300 and 900 metres. We were told that the British soldier couldn't attack the Taliban "with any certainty that if he hits the enemy he will kill or incapacitate him." The study thus claimed that, for want of a rifle with a longer range, Javelin anti-tank missiles, costing £100,000 each, were often fired at lone gunmen.

View full article here

[jedpc]

Also apparently our short barreled (para-variant) 5.56mm Minimi LMG's are also useless because of "drop off" - while other studies show that the average, infantryman, under stressful conditions (like a battle !) is going to hit diddly squat with deliberate aimed fire even with 7.62mm and optical sights at ranges over 300m.

So, more 'designated marksmen' with SCAR-H and more Snipers instead of more Javelin's ? How about 6 round MGL grenade launchers with medium velocity 40mm grenades (effective to 800m) - everyone can carry a little FN P90 for self defence and compound clearing, and carry extra 7.62mm for the machine gunners and extra 40mm grenades for the grenadiers ?? As we apparently ditched the 58mm mortar to get all trendy with under-barrel grenade launchers, do we at least have the medium velocity grenades in use which can reach that far if fired from a HK under-barrel launcher ?

Also FN now as a 7.62mm version of the Minimi, and at the other end of the scales a lightened version of the venerable 7.62mm GPMG in production for the U.S. forces. Check out the RUSI site for some interesting PDF articles on suppressive fire and how much kit our overburdened infantry are lugging around on their bodies.

[jamesd]

Oh god not the 5.56 vs 7.62 debate...again
The issue here I believe is that the totally risk averse approach prevalent in the army, in order to avoid casualties at all costs mainly due to political diktat, meaning that the expedient of closing with the enemy to bring him within effective range of your available firepower is simply not possible. Both sides are laying down what is actually harassing fire but no one on our side wants to test that hypothesis plus there is always the risk that amongst the enemy taking pot shots with knackered AKs is the odd guy who knows what he is doing and might even has a more effective weapon (a Dragunov maybe). Furthermore the enemy simply melts away before you can get to him, to go do something else until the next time. Snipers, Javelin, more heavy fire support - all very well or not, but the real winning tactic is to interdict the enemy before he is in position to take shots at us or as other threads allude, find a soft way to dissuade him.

But for the soldiers on the ground it seems like stalemate - can't kill them most of the time as the heavy weapons will never be avialable or indeed appropriate and can't get close to them. Saying that there is ample evidence that a lot of the fighting has been at closer range, right down to bayone tip where the ability to carry more rounds and a lighter rifle/machine gun seems far mroe advantageous. Ok there is the neverending debate about the lethality of 5.56 but most ammunition is expended to keep the enemy under cover and unable to prevent you from exposing yourself while you get to a position where you can guarantee to eliminate him regardless of the calibre of your weapon, or withdraw. As for fighting from fixed positions, there is ample visual evidence that snipers using 7.62 sniper rifles (and possibly even .50 calibre examples) , GPMG and the venerable .50 calibre machine gun (dug out of mothballs once more) have been well used, and these would outrange almost anything the enemy could field.

[oldrightie]

The military tactics are dictated by the MoD and their political masters. Cheaper ammo equals cheaper capability.

[JohnFSK]

The 5.56mm round is doing exactly what is expected of it. It is designed to be effective out to 300m, because various studies showed that almost all infantry fighting takes place within 300m, certainly in Europe. Britain did not adopt the 5.56mm SA80 until the late 80's, and even during the first Gulf War most troops still had the 7.62mm SLR. I doubt any of the old SLRs would be availble to issue now. Most will have been destroyed, some were distributed in Sierra Leone. The Americans had the sense to keep their 7.62mm M14s in reserve when they went over to 5.56mm, and you still see lots of them in the front line, issued to sharpshooters. Obviously the idea of storing our SLRs will not have occurred to our government, which never saw a gun it didn't want to melt down.

[Ex-Infantryman]

Perhaps I could refer readers to Jane's Defence Weekly, 11 November 2009, pages 20-21, where there is a very useful article entitled 'Time to bite the bullet over under-fire ammo' by Anthony Williams and Nicholas Drummond, who are ammunition consultants and advisers to Jane's Ammunition Handbook. They make a number of points I have summarised below:

More than 50% of Taliban small arms attacks take place at 300-900m range, using the Russian 7.62 mm x 54 rimmed round in rifles (Dragunov) and MGs.

5.56 mm is just not powerful enough to counter this. It has only 30% of 7.62 mm energy at 1000m and is very vulnerable to wind drift (common in mountains).

In practice the SA-80A2 is effective to 300m (the NATO European theatre battle range), the L86 Light Support Weapon to 400m and the Minimi LMG to just 200m. The US M-4 carbine with its short barrel is even less effective.

The 5.56 mm round terminal effect is unpredictable and depends on the round yawing, which it often fails to do. Combatants sometimes get back up after having been shot several times.

The suppressive effect of 5.56 mm is inadequate, not least because it makes far less noise than 7.62 mm and does not encourage the enemy to keep their heads down. The round will not penetrate barriers such mud walls or timber, even though trials show it is effective on thin steel plates (the enemy do not wear helmets).

Troops are being forced to use very expensive countermeasures like Javelin missiles (£60k each - 1500 more were ordered yesterday) that would at one time have employed long range rifle fire. The enemy can often be seen but not reached.

The British Army has responded by redeploying 7.62mm L96 (Accuracy International) bolt action sniper rifles into rifle platoons and giving the L7 GPMG back to rifle sections (as in the 1960s-80s). MOD is now seeking to buy a new lightweight 7.62 mm MG to match the Taliban's PKM (I understand a version of the M-60E is being trialled).

Studies are now underway in NATO about the next generation of rifle and what calibre round it should fire. While it is still assumed that the 5.56 mm round is the most likely contender, the possibility has opened up of using a new round somewhere between 6.5 mm and 7 mm. Various rounds are discussed, with the British 7 mm round of the late 1940s recommended as the starting point (Quote: 'The 7 mm would have been a far better rifle and machine gun cartridge than anything NATO has used since').

Comment: The 5.56 mm is a carbine or very powerful sub-machine gun round, not a real rifle or machine gun cartridge. It made a degree of sense to use this in jungle (Vietnam) or built up European areas because the battle range at which a soldier could see the enemy was typically 10-300 m and not much more. It has proven inadequate in open spaces like desert and in arctic and mountainous areas where the enemy can be seen at a distance. It cannot be assumed that heavy weapons like mortars or .50 calibre HMGs are readily available. These are useful (and one wonders whether the recoilless gun should be re-introduced to replace Javelin in the 1000-2500m suppression role), but the time has surely come to accept that 5.56 mm has run out of steam. Incidentally, some of the powerful new cartridges like the 6.5 mm Grendel and the 6.8 mm Winchester are designed to be retrofitted into existing weapons and have much less recoil than the old 7.62 mm NATO. Although the Treasury will have a view on this, I have little doubt that if the Army were to decide to make a change it would be accepted (it could be phased in). The real block is trying to achieve agreement with NATO on standardising such a cartridge and I would expect no short term moves towards a new one.

[brian williams]

The British Army of the victorian period always sought to close the gap between its lines and that of its native foes relying on aggression rather than firepower. The bayonet was a key feature of its campaigns in india far more so than its campaigns in the crimea or its forebearers against the French.

What is the view of how the new "large" regiments like the Rifles have fared in Afghanistan?

[Guest]

The Dragunov is an excellent rifle, which outranges and outclasses the SA80 when used in a standoff fight. That said, the SA80A2 is handy at >300 m range.

The point here has to be that the Taliban are playing to their strengths by engaging at longer ranges, pinning down line infantry and necessitating heavy MG use (more often than not vehicle mounted with all the mobility constraints that imposes) and wasteful use of expensive standoff missiles, again heavy and not very mobile, when compared to a Taliban with a fairly portable Dragunov which is tactically very nimble.

It is easy to imagine a scenario where the Taliban can observe UK troops, react, set up an ambush, get a shoot, and then can bugger off while friendly forces waste time bringing up the bigger weapons, tactical air support etc and dealing with sniper casualties. When the friendly troops then advance to closely engage the firing point they are drawn onto concealed IEDs resulting in more casualties. Result: Taliban 2, Tommy 0.

One problem could be that not enough training rounds are going down the range: If Tommy Atkins had more range practice and had more ammo to practice with then he might start hitting things in the 300m+ firefights. I have been present on range days where the weapons have been little more than zeroed in and then cleaned and handed back to the armoury resulting in minimal improvement in skill at arms. Practice makes perfect, 5.56 is cheap(ish) and could reduce the need to use that expensive Javelin?

[Demetrius]

General Pollock may have been the appointed head, but it was General Sir William Nott that did the business and rescue things.

[RAENORTH]

General Pollock may have been the appointed head, but it was General Sir William Nott that did the business and rescue things.

Yes, but the boss always gets the gongs and the plaudits.

[Guest]

As we apparently ditched the 58mm mortar to get all trendy with under-barrel grenade launchers, do we at least have the medium velocity grenades in use which can reach that far if fired from a HK under-barrel launcher ?

There never was a 58mm mortar, we previously used the 51mm which has now been replaced by the 60mm. 51 was phased out because the only production line producing the bombs has closed down years before, and it would have been uneconomical to restart it, hence moving to a 60mm mortar which is common with the US and other NATO countries.

[JohnFSK]

MOD is now seeking to buy a new lightweight 7.62 mm MG to match the Taliban's PKM (I understand a version of the M-60E is being trialled).

I don't suppose anyone thought to keep the 7.62mm Bren guns in reserve did they? No, thought not. They would have been just what the doctor ordered. So many of life's little problems can be solved by judicious use of the Bren.

[Old School Esq]

Far flung distant relative of mine was an ensign with the 60th Regiment of Native Infantry in '42 (at 'Cabool'). He retired in '79. That's about 40 years by my reckoning. As said on another post, what these gents didn't know about the tribes and terrain of the area probably wasn't worth knowing.

[Trevorsden]

How many hits were inflicted by Lee Enfields in WW2? (or WW1 for that matter).

The rifle is a personal weapon. It has never been intended as something to pick off a body 500m away. The issue is whether we have enough LMGs and HMGs and mortars.

I WW1 the rifle section was built up around the Lewis gun and in WW2 the Bren. The German army used the MG42.

What has always mystified me is that if RPGs are so clever (and cheap) - why don't we have them?

As ever the question to be asked is not why is our equipment not suited (that must always be a likely outcome), but why it takes so long to adapt.

[RAENORTH]

How many hits were inflicted by Lee Enfields in WW2? (or WW1 for that matter).

The rifle is a personal weapon. It has never been intended as something to pick off a body 500m away. The issue is whether we have enough LMGs and HMGs and mortars.

I WW1 the rifle section was built up around the Lewis gun and in WW2 the Bren. The German army used the MG42.

Irregular war against small numbers of fighters is not comparable with the war of mass manoeuvre practised in the European theatre. In the former, it is much more "individual" and often carried out at longer ranges.

What has always mystified me is that if RPGs are so clever (and cheap) - why don't we have them?

We do. I have seen a number of clips showing British troops firing RPGs. However, we also have the UGL and tube-launched projectiles.

As ever the question to be asked is not why is our equipment not suited (that must always be a likely outcome), but why it takes so long to adapt.

I suspect the answer to that is because we are still an Army trained for manoeuvre warfare on a European model, with drills then adapted for the theatre. Some of the adaptation is undoubtedly effective, but I suspect there is no ab initio thinking, based on devising doctrines and weapons/weapon mixes specifically for the theatre.