http://www.military.com/news/article/army-paper-prompts-look-at-combat-gear.html?col=1186032325324

Army Paper Prompts Look at Combat Gear
March 03, 2010
Military.com|by Christian Lowe

An obscure graduate school paper by an Army major that took the service to task over poorly training and equipping Soldiers for the fight in Afghanistan is causing quite a stir amid key service officials.

Special Operations Command has been picking the paper's conclusions apart with a fine-tooth comb. It is now required reading for Army weapons experts, and the service's top gear buyer has read it cover-to-cover.

But the paper's conclusions are causing some heartburn.

"I've read it. It's a very good paper. But he did take things out of context in a couple of places," said Col. Doug Tamilio, program manager for Soldier weapons. "He makes some conclusions that aren't substantiated with the documents he's got."

In a monograph titled "Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half Kilometer," Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, an infantry officer attending the elite Army School for Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, wrote that the Army undertrained and underequipped its front-line units to battle insurgent forces over long ranges in mountainous terrain.

Read Maj. Ehrhart's Paper Here:  http://www.scribd.com/full/27765477?access_key=key-25o3hl0i8xdi4f5zo2tb

Debate over the study comes amid a series of major reviews within the service over improvements to the M4 rifle, a possible replacement for the Soldier's basic carbine, and radical changes to the equipment used by troops in Afghanistan, including a new camouflage combat uniform that better matches that country's varied terrain.

"We want to provide that squad a more modular capability specific to that theater," said Brig. Gen. Mark Fuller, the Army's top weapons buyer. "But do we want to do that across the whole Army? Maybe not."

Ehrhart wrote that despite the fact that 50 percent of Army engagements in Afghanistan occur with the enemy attacking at 300 meters or beyond, the majority of Soldiers are trained to fire their M4 carbines accurately to 200 meters, and more than 80 percent of Joes in an infantry company are equipped with weapons that can't touch the enemy beyond that range.

The enemy in Afghanistan, Ehrhart writes, "engages United States forces from high ground with medium and heavy weapons, often including mortars, knowing that we are restricted by our equipment limitations and the inability of our overburdened soldiers to maneuver at elevations exceeding 6000 feet."

The weapon systems that can engage the enemy in Afghanistan effectively beyond 200 meters "represent 19 percent of the company's firepower," he adds. "This is unacceptable."

Military.com contacted Ehrhart, who is now deployed to Iraq, via e-mail, but he was unable to respond to questions about the report by post time.

Army officials say they read the critique loud and clear and claim efforts are ongoing to re-evaluate basic rifle training and other tactics to better meet the Afghan threat. The service's weapons experts are also quick to point out that efforts are being made to arm Soldiers with more firepower that can reach out and touch insurgents in the Afghan hills.

Tamilio noted that the Army is in the midst of equipping each infantry squad with two EBR-14 systems ––- modified M14 7.62mm rifles ––- so more Soldiers will have the range and stopping power to engage the enemy with direct fire. Officials are also scouring the weapons lockers of special operations units to see if some of their firepower could be fielded to general purpose units to boost their capabilities.

But officials are reluctant to equip units with too many weapons that meet long-range needs at the expense of the close-range capability. Tamilio said the 5.56mm M4 worked well in the close-range urban fights of Iraq, but Afghanistan is proving the need for more options with heavier rounds.

Fuller added that his team has offered three Army brigades deploying to Afghanistan as part of the "surge" additional firepower for their operations, including the special operations M4A1 that can fire in full-auto mode and new long-range scopes.

"I can't give it to the whole Army," he explained.  "But I can field an increased capability so you can have a little more kit in your kit bag to adapt to that environment."

© Copyright 2008 Military.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Thanks for keeping us updated on this Doc. I feel so bad for our guys on the front lines that have to deal with the army additude of "its not us its you" and "this is how is going to be reguardless weather or not its a good idea"

As a Veteren of Operation Iraqie Freedom and actually sling quite a few rounds at vehicals and personel. The problem stems back to the same issue that evaveled from Kennedy's Golden Boys back in Vietnam. With the M14 you had a heavy rifle and the amunition that was also heavier. With the M-16 the weapon is lighter and a soildier can carry more ammo. The problem is knock down power! Yes after 7 round on a standard 11" cider block wall an M-14 will punch a hole in the bad guy with that 7th round. With the 5.56 it going to take a bit more. The other reason for the military staying with the 5.56 is it will tumble once it hitsa bone a glances off if hit at an angle. The question isn't about Marksmanship in the soldiers out there do the job. It's about the Knock down power. Plain and simple the bigger the hole the faster they bleed out. Geneva Convention Laws State we can't use any thing outside of FMJ's in was. But Our enemy didn't sign on with Geneva Convention so why are we carring! Cuase the US will always be the up standing side. So that only leave the military to relize that hey lets bump up the size of the round. The 6.8 SPC is a good contender in balstics and range. The reason the Army hasnt changed it big bisness has it's hand in the pentgons pockets along with captial hills pockets. Aslo it has to do with treadies we signed with NATO hence why our dumb a$$ are carring 9mm Beretta's instead of the 45's. Our Special Forces are carring 1911 varriations. An Iwo Jima Vet told me fist hand  acounts of the 1911 and what it effects had on the human body. So it's no wonder why I wasn't suprised to see the Spec Op's carring 45's. I saw first hand effects of 9mm, 5.56mm, 7.62, 40mm, and .50 in Iraq on buildings, cars and poeple. Hands down40mm, 7.62, & .50 were 1 shot kills. So again we are back to Knock down power. Same issue since 1964!

In a perfect world a soldier should be supplied with the best weapon for the given mission.  Most of us have different weapons for different shooting situations and make that choice before heading out.  In a perfect world this would be the case for the soldier as well.  While special ops units have this luxury, it is not practical for the whole of our armed forces, thus, the military tries to choose the weapon that spans the widest spectrum and covers the most common areas of need.  Over the years they have compared the controlled fire of bolt action and semi auto rifles to the effects of automatic and burst fire.  They have also considered the hard hitting effectiveness of larger caliber rounds to the higher portability of smaller rounds. While there are pros and cons of all these considerations, they must ultimately choose the option that provides the best mix of all the good points with the fewest of the bad points.  Personally, I find the 5.56 round to be very effective and I love the ability it allows for carrying lots of ammo (hell, I would hire a Sherpa to haul more if I could), but I also recognize the increased effectiveness of the 7.62 cal. rounds.  So, what is the answer?  I am not sure.  I keep going back to the Sherpa thought and the ability to pack multiple weapons and lots of ammo for each, which is sort of what the military has done.  They try to outfit units with a mix of weapons to address all situations.  Again, I personally feel the M855 is effective with body hits when all is considered, but there is plenty to be said for larger cal. rounds too.

Doc

Overall a great post and good analysis, but there are a few things to point out.  First off, the Geneva convention does not limit or even address weapons of war; that is actually the Hague Convention.  Second, the United States is not a signer of the Hague Convention, thus they are not bound by it in any way.  While the U.S. voluntarily chooses to follow it for the most part, it is in no way bound to.  As such, the U.S. can use whatever weapons it chooses.  As for their decision to use the 9mm, that was made in part as a result of their affiliation with NATO, who adapted the round as their standardized handgun round, but there again, NATO does not require its members to use a specific round, it merely established the NATO system in an attempt to establish ammunition compatibility between member forces that will be fighting together (i.e. so forces can share ammo).  The other point regarding the Hague Convention is that it only applies when all parties involved in the conflict are signers of the convention.  If any of the combatants are not signers of the convention, then none of the combatants are bound to follow the convention.  So, in either case, the U.S. can use whatever it wishes.

Doc

"Knock down power."   There's a term that is abused quite often.  I stopped reading after I saw that.

Knock down power might be overused, but I do know a few WW2 and korea/ early  Vietnam vet. None ever complained about the ability of their M1 or M14 rifles to put a guy down.

Many did and do actually.

None of the ones I know.

IIRC The other day someone posted troops in WW2 complaining about the 30-06. Unless I'm mistaken in the same thread there was a post of an article where the Johnson rifle was touted as being better than the garand- someone made a joke that it seemed a lot like those pro-H&K articles we see now  

I'm not going to rely on what someone says on the internet. Being 52 years old and growing up with friends who's parents (including my own )  and relatives who fought in WW2 and Korea. And being in hte service myself with people  who used the M14 in Vietnam,I'll go with their accounts of how their weapons performed.

Yes, this is awesome...I am up to the part where he gives a "shout-out" to PMAG.

Thanks Doc for Correcting me on the Haig vs. Geneva laws. But unfortantly the US still sides with it even though the enemy we are fight now hasn't. As for MajorAR I will refrain from riping on you for being an officer but when I mention Knock Down Power. It goes back to physics the more kinetic force stricking an object the amount the damage it will do. If you shoot a 5.56 at 2750 fps you won't get the same effect on balistic gel block as you would shooting a .30 cal fmj at the same fps. The ablity for something to transfer the kenetic force better or over a larger are to cuase mass trauma the better results the round will have for the so so shooters. I also sure you know that comabt statisics from WWII on how soldiers accurcy and ablities change from the rifle rane to combat. Sorry to say not all soldiers maybe like you or I and actually acount for each round impact that we fire. But the discussion is the best round for the great good of the whole. And the 5.56 is not stacking up for the last 40 years in haveing the ablity to have what the ground soldier actually needs. With all the rounds out there something better can be found for the AR platform to give sldiers what they need.

While it may be semantics, there is no such thing as "Knock Down Power"; you may wish to review basic wound ballistic concepts:  http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714.

Dr. Martin Fackler debunked the myth of "kinetic energy deposit" as a mechanism of wounding, decades ago.



WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS LITERATURE, AND WHY

by M.L. Fackler, M.D.
Letterman Army Institute of Research
Division of Military Trauma Research
Presidio of San Francisco, California 94219
Institute Report No. 239

Exactly.

My father was a Green Beret with 4 tours in Vietnam and was twice the soldier I'll ever be.  He enlisted in 1958 and left in 1970 due to a medical discharge as an O3.  He carried the M1/M2 Carbines early on and then the M16. Never once has he ever complained about either round even though both are "known" to be infective in "legend".  He did however complain about the worn out magazines for the M1 carbines and the noise the M16 hand guards made when rubbing against brush.  Something he mentions every time he picks up my A1 clone. That's it.  

I have only used the M855 in combat and it always did what it was supposed to do as long as I did my job- which isn't as easy on a two way range as some here may think.

There's some good LaRue love in there too.  That is an EXCELLENT paper on both the history and systems in small arms in the 20th Century.  Ought to be required reading here on arfcom.