Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/4/2005 8:47:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 8:47:12 PM EDT by Troy]
What study was it that showed that most combat ranges were actually really short?

Anyone have a link or quote?

Thanks
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 1:28:49 PM EDT
Try the "ammo-oracle" ; you can find the hot link in the Ammunition forum under Ammo Review,
IIRC . . . . .

I believe the WWII study found that most ranges were between 80 to 150yds.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 2:00:47 PM EDT
The link is dead in the ammo oracle.

In the link to the 5.56 timeline, it did have some information but not what I was looking for.

I wanted to know exactly what the average is and where I can cite it.

Anybody??????????
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 2:05:32 PM EDT
"Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon" by Norman Hitchman (aka Hitchman Report). Call number UD 390.H5 1952

is one of the studies you are looking for.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 2:07:29 PM EDT
Q. What is the history behind the development of the .223/5.56mm round?
Studies of the fighting in WWII determined that most of the infantry fighting took place at distances under 200 yards, and those figures have not changed much in modern conflicts.(1) This was a revelation at the time and a controversial one, as ever since the development of smokeless powder, the long distance capabilities of military rifles had been stressed. It was common for rifles designed in the 1890s through the 1940s to have sights adjustable out to 1,000 or even 2,000 yards, and often not having an adjustment below 200 or 300 yards. Obviously, there was a discrepancy between the design of these rifles and how they were most often used



Fact: The national average engagement range for police 'snipers' has, for the past 20 years, been 78 yards. The FBI Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) snipers are limited to engagement ranges of 200 yards. The longest recorded shot taken by a police marksman in the US is 97 yards. (There are some reports that indicate some longer shots, including one alleged 300 yard shot in 1982 by the U.S. Park Police in response to a bombing threat at the Washington Monument- but these are very rare and not confirmed). The FBI's uniform crime report indicates that the average engagement range in a handgun incident is between 7 and 10 feet.

www.ammo-oracle.com


That's as much as I can get at the moment . . . . . .
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 2:24:24 PM EDT
From personal experience its about 100 yards and in.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 2:43:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:
"Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon" by Norman Hitchman (aka Hitchman Report). Call number UD 390.H5 1952

is one of the studies you are looking for.



Forest is on it but, I don't want to buy it

Anyone have an online source that I can quote?
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 3:08:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hispeedal2:
What study was it that showed that most combat ranges were actually really short?

Anyone have a link or quote?

Thanks



When I was in school one of my professors explained Combat ranges have been shrinking since WWI because the caliber of army we've been fighting is getting less well trained, less organized, and equipped with limited range/limited accuracy weapons

Think of Iraq/Somalia/Vietnam/Korea which featured small arm exchanges at 25 - 75 yards, compared to WII at 50 -150 yards

Now lets say we managed to go to war somewhere in western europe again, expect ranges to open up, especially with magnified optics becoming more common for army regulars
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 3:15:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By hispeedal2:
What study was it that showed that most combat ranges were actually really short?

Anyone have a link or quote?

Thanks



When I was in school one of my professors explained Combat ranges have been shrinking since WWI because the caliber of army we've been fighting is getting less well trained, less organized, and equipped with limited range/limited accuracy weapons

Think of Iraq/Somalia/Vietnam/Korea which featured small arm exchanges at 25 - 75 yards, compared to WII at 50 -150 yards

Now lets say we managed to go to war somewhere in western europe again, expect ranges to open up, especially with magnified optics becoming more common for army regulars




it all had to do with street house to house fighting and the use of armour(tanks) back in WWI,
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 3:27:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By hispeedal2:
What study was it that showed that most combat ranges were actually really short?

Anyone have a link or quote?

Thanks



When I was in school one of my professors explained Combat ranges have been shrinking since WWI because the caliber of army we've been fighting is getting less well trained, less organized, and equipped with limited range/limited accuracy weapons

Think of Iraq/Somalia/Vietnam/Korea which featured small arm exchanges at 25 - 75 yards, compared to WII at 50 -150 yards

Now lets say we managed to go to war somewhere in western europe again, expect ranges to open up, especially with magnified optics becoming more common for army regulars



That makes since on the enemy side but, we (Americans) prefer stand off distances- so it still does not explain why we are not shooting at distant targets when we have the capability.

Thoughts to ponder.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 3:30:42 PM EDT
when I was in basic the combat arms folks told me that most exchanges with the m16 in Vietnam were 300-500 yds and exchanges in urban areas of 25-50 yds....
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 3:39:46 PM EDT
probably under 200
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 3:51:47 PM EDT
"On Infantry" explains the shifts in infantry doctrine that made long acquisition and engagement more difficult
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 4:27:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fdawg:
when I was in basic the combat arms folks told me that most exchanges with the m16 in Vietnam were 300-500 yds and exchanges in urban areas of 25-50 yds....


This flat wrong. In non-urban environments, most were under 100M.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 4:52:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 4:53:41 PM EDT by Variablebinary]

Originally Posted By hispeedal2:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By hispeedal2:
What study was it that showed that most combat ranges were actually really short?

Anyone have a link or quote?

Thanks



When I was in school one of my professors explained Combat ranges have been shrinking since WWI because the caliber of army we've been fighting is getting less well trained, less organized, and equipped with limited range/limited accuracy weapons

Think of Iraq/Somalia/Vietnam/Korea which featured small arm exchanges at 25 - 75 yards, compared to WII at 50 -150 yards

Now lets say we managed to go to war somewhere in western europe again, expect ranges to open up, especially with magnified optics becoming more common for army regulars



That makes since on the enemy side but, we (Americans) prefer stand off distances- so it still does not explain why we are not shooting at distant targets when we have the capability.

Thoughts to ponder.



We do actually. We pick off the enemy as fast as we can at impressive ranges, but our enemies do their best work on the inside so they are determined to slip into their most effective range even while taking heavy losses to highly proficient American shooters.

Then there is the issue of visibility in an urban environment. If you live an a decent sized city go outside and see what's the farthest you can see without something that can act as an obstruction or cover source for an enemy to hide or advance his position

Yeah the bad guys manage to get close, but how many people died to get there, only to die in CQB. As it turns out, our soldiers kick ass at all ranges so it really is a grim prospect to go up against us

Iraq has all types as well; zealots that stand out in the open only to get mowed down from 1000 yards away, and pricks that hide inside structures till we go in and kill them.

Also, let’s not forget our current enemy isn’t distinguishable from a civilian unless he has a weapon since there are no uniforms. That presents lots of chances to close the gap and engage in evil deeds

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 4:58:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hispeedal2:
[That makes since on the enemy side but, we (Americans) prefer stand off distances- so it still does not explain why we are not shooting at distant targets when we have the capability.

Thoughts to ponder.



That might 'Make sense' but the reality is the distances have not changed this century. It boils down to Soldiers will not shoot at that which they do not expect to hit at. Remember the enemy is using cover and moving like we are. That makes hitting targets at extended ranges very difficult - it's not like you're on a highpower range shooting at full size targets that are standing still and a very obvious color.

Putting scopes on more of our rifles may open up the range a bit, but the fact is most soldiers with optics have M68s not TA01s. And the reality of micro terrain features and enemy soldiers that refuse to stand in the open to get shot will keep small arms ranges at 300M and under. Anything at longer ranges - call in arty or airstrikes.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:02:31 PM EDT
I beleive tha statistic is since WW2 that 95% of combat infantry engagements take place at under 100 yds and of that 70% well under 50 yds.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:47:35 PM EDT
Ive seen several AARs from Iraq stating the average engagement range is 30yds and under in most cases.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:50:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Ive seen several AARs from Iraq stating the average engagement range is 30yds and under in most cases.



Linky?
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:50:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By hispeedal2:
[That makes since on the enemy side but, we (Americans) prefer stand off distances- so it still does not explain why we are not shooting at distant targets when we have the capability.

Thoughts to ponder.



That might 'Make sense' but the reality is the distances have not changed this century. It boils down to Soldiers will not shoot at that which they do not expect to hit at. Remember the enemy is using cover and moving like we are. That makes hitting targets at extended ranges very difficult - it's not like you're on a highpower range shooting at full size targets that are standing still and a very obvious color.

Putting scopes on more of our rifles may open up the range a bit, but the fact is most soldiers with optics have M68s not TA01s. And the reality of micro terrain features and enemy soldiers that refuse to stand in the open to get shot will keep small arms ranges at 300M and under. Anything at longer ranges - call in arty or airstrikes let the snipers deal with it.

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:53:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 5:55:02 PM EDT by GETSUM]
The range depends on the terrain.

Early fighting in Iraq took place out 200 - 300 even out to 500 or so w/ m-16

Snipers can punch out to 1000 - but once in urban environmetn it all changes............

Then once in the cities it was/is closer... 50 m or so........

Not to mention when you clear/sweep buildings and it is in your face.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:56:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Ive seen several AARs from Iraq stating the average engagement range is 30yds and under in most cases.



Linky?



Field Report Marine Corps Systems Command Liaison Team Central Iraq 20 April to 25 April 2003

Enemy Engagements ~ Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:58:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GETSUM:
The range depends on the terrain.

Early fighting in Iraq took place out 200 - 300 even out to 500 or so w/ m-16

Snipers can punch out to 1000 - but once in urban environmetn it all changes............

Then once in the cities it was/is closer... 50 m or so........

Not to mention when you clear/sweep buildings and it is in your face.



Maybe 3rd ID, but not for 1st MarDiv or TFs Tarawa or Tripoli.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:02:48 PM EDT
tagged
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:04:41 PM EDT
Originally posted by variabebinary


When I was in school one of my professors explained Combat ranges have been shrinking since WWI because the caliber of army we've been fighting is getting less well trained, less organized, and equipped with limited range/limited accuracy weapons




There is just something basically wrong with referencing anything a College professor has to say about the Military....

Truth is the ranges have not changed much in the past Century.
03 springfields with graduated sights out to 1200 ydsa and M1 garands with graduated sights out to 800 yds were just pure fantasy from the guys who designed and built them. Infantry work is and always has been an upclose and personnel business. Why do you think one of their primary Missions is to "Close with and destroy the enemy" as opposed to "lets shoot them as far away as we can"

Doctrine then and Now calls for Massed indirect and Direct fire used as much as possible at distance untill they close with and have to "close" with the Bad Guys.

Again your Proffessor is dead wrong wth hisassumption that their less trained, less organized and less equipted.
never Underestimate the bad guys. During GW-1 their are many accounts of reb Guard units fighting with great tenacity.
Look at what the Muhajden did to the Soviets. The VC in Vietnam and the Insurrgents in Fallujah. read some of the AAR's coming out of that and you will see we are fighting Motivated and highly aggressive enemies who are not affraid to close with and do what it takes.......

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:05:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Ive seen several AARs from Iraq stating the average engagement range is 30yds and under in most cases.



Linky?



Field Report Marine Corps Systems Command Liaison Team Central Iraq 20 April to 25 April 2003

Enemy Engagements ~ Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only



Should I disbelieve Gunnery Sergeant Jack Coughlin? According to his book, over half his shots exceeded 500 meters. Many by a large margin.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:16:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Harv24:
Originally posted by variabebinary


When I was in school one of my professors explained Combat ranges have been shrinking since WWI because the caliber of army we've been fighting is getting less well trained, less organized, and equipped with limited range/limited accuracy weapons




There is just something basically wrong with referencing anything a College professor has to say about the Military....

Truth is the ranges have not changed much in the past Century.
03 springfields with graduated sights out to 1200 ydsa and M1 garands with graduated sights out to 800 yds were just pure fantasy from the guys who designed and built them. Infantry work is and always has been an upclose and personnel business. Why do you think one of their primary Missions is to "Close with and destroy the enemy" as opposed to "lets shoot them as far away as we can"

Doctrine then and Now calls for Massed indirect and Direct fire used as much as possible at distance untill they close with and have to "close" with the Bad Guys.

Again your Proffessor is dead wrong wth hisassumption that their less trained, less organized and less equipted.
never Underestimate the bad guys. During GW-1 their are many accounts of reb Guard units fighting with great tenacity.
Look at what the Muhajden did to the Soviets. The VC in Vietnam and the Insurrgents in Fallujah. read some of the AAR's coming out of that and you will see we are fighting Motivated and highly aggressive enemies who are not affraid to close with and do what it takes.......




The professor is partially right. Although in Vietnam terrain was a factor. Compared to the WWI and WWII Heer the VC and iraqi insugents are a joke. They are zealots but it really boils doen to casualties when looking at their effectiveness. Vietnam and Iraq do not at all compare to the casualties we took against the Germans.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:17:51 PM EDT
you might want to read this in regard to the The GySgt's book
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:18:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 6:25:27 PM EDT by hispeedal2]

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Ive seen several AARs from Iraq stating the average engagement range is 30yds and under in most cases.



Linky?



Field Report Marine Corps Systems Command Liaison Team Central Iraq 20 April to 25 April 2003

Enemy Engagements ~ Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only



Should I disbelieve Gunnery Sergeant Jack Coughlin? According to his book, over half his shots exceeded 500 meters. Many by a large margin.



Coughlin was a sniper in Vietnam. Vietnam is a little more open than Bahgdad.

Edited: STLRN, that is very interesting stuff. I may have to pay attention to where that goes.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:27:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 6:30:08 PM EDT by hispeedal2]

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By hispeedal2:
[That makes since on the enemy side but, we (Americans) prefer stand off distances- so it still does not explain why we are not shooting at distant targets when we have the capability.

Thoughts to ponder.



That might 'Make sense' but the reality is the distances have not changed this century. It boils down to Soldiers will not shoot at that which they do not expect to hit at. Remember the enemy is using cover and moving like we are. That makes hitting targets at extended ranges very difficult - it's not like you're on a highpower range shooting at full size targets that are standing still and a very obvious color.

Putting scopes on more of our rifles may open up the range a bit, but the fact is most soldiers with optics have M68s not TA01s. And the reality of micro terrain features and enemy soldiers that refuse to stand in the open to get shot will keep small arms ranges at 300M and under. Anything at longer ranges - call in arty or airstrikes.



last time I looked around, there were TA01s all over the place and Elcans as well.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:40:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 6:48:03 PM EDT by Variablebinary]

Originally Posted By Harv24:
Originally posted by variabebinary


When I was in school one of my professors explained Combat ranges have been shrinking since WWI because the caliber of army we've been fighting is getting less well trained, less organized, and equipped with limited range/limited accuracy weapons




There is just something basically wrong with referencing anything a College professor has to say about the Military....

Truth is the ranges have not changed much in the past Century.
03 springfields with graduated sights out to 1200 ydsa and M1 garands with graduated sights out to 800 yds were just pure fantasy from the guys who designed and built them. Infantry work is and always has been an upclose and personnel business. Why do you think one of their primary Missions is to "Close with and destroy the enemy" as opposed to "lets shoot them as far away as we can"

Doctrine then and Now calls for Massed indirect and Direct fire used as much as possible at distance untill they close with and have to "close" with the Bad Guys.

Again your Proffessor is dead wrong wth hisassumption that their less trained, less organized and less equipted.
never Underestimate the bad guys. During GW-1 their are many accounts of reb Guard units fighting with great tenacity.
Look at what the Muhajden did to the Soviets. The VC in Vietnam and the Insurrgents in Fallujah. read some of the AAR's coming out of that and you will see we are fighting Motivated and highly aggressive enemies who are not affraid to close with and do what it takes.......




My professor was a graduate of west point, vietnam veteran, fluent in 3 languages and worked in a diplomatic capacity for our goverment for for over a decade before getting an easy tenured gig at the university I attended in NY. Woe to the world when internet couch commandos take the place of professors as our teachers. Even funnier when you dont even know the class taught or the type of instition, but nevermind.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:47:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
My professor was a graduate of west point, vietnam veteran, fluent in 3 languages and worked in a diplomatic capacity for our goverment for for over a decade before getting an easy tenured gig at the university I attended in NY. Woe to the world when internet couch commandos take the place of professors as our teachers



Being a USMA grad in itself doesn't really mean you know anything about warfighting, if that were the case OBC would not exist. Also allot of USMA guys end in up in CSS roles meaning they probably know less about warfighting than the many OCS/ROTC grads who end up in the Combat arms. The same thing with being Veteran, most military men know little outside of their "lane." The ability to speak 3 languages, doesn't mean a whole lot either, the same with working in a diplomatic capacity.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:01:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STLRN:
you might want to read this in regard to the The GySgt's book



I have no dog in this fight with him or against him. I want to know: is he lying or not?
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:04:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hispeedal2:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By hispeedal2:
What study was it that showed that most combat ranges were actually really short?

Anyone have a link or quote?

Thanks



When I was in school one of my professors explained Combat ranges have been shrinking since WWI because the caliber of army we've been fighting is getting less well trained, less organized, and equipped with limited range/limited accuracy weapons

Think of Iraq/Somalia/Vietnam/Korea which featured small arm exchanges at 25 - 75 yards, compared to WII at 50 -150 yards

Now lets say we managed to go to war somewhere in western europe again, expect ranges to open up, especially with magnified optics becoming more common for army regulars



That makes since on the enemy side but, we (Americans) prefer stand off distances- so it still does not explain why we are not shooting at distant targets when we have the capability.

Thoughts to ponder.



Not really considering the amount of ordinance our military has at its disposal. If you figure that the US armed forces can bomb the crap out of the target area from a distance then send in the troops to clean up the leftovers at close range. Also remember that the world has built up since WWII and that there arent as many OPEN long disntant areas anymore.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:05:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 7:08:04 PM EDT by STLRN]
I wasn't in his Battalion and the subject of the GySgt and his claims has never came up with any of the officers I know from the Battalion, so I cannot say for sure, But from what I have been able to gather the consensus in the Marine Corps and its Scout Scout Sniper community is that he made much of it up.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:10:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By model927:
I beleive tha statistic is since WW2 that 95% of combat infantry engagements take place at under 100 yds and of that 70% well under 50 yds.

During World War II General Gavin of the 82nd noted that most combat happened at around 25 yards.

That’s about when he it started.

(Read his bio a few decades ago.)
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:13:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hispeedal2:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By hispeedal2:
What study was it that showed that most combat ranges were actually really short?

Anyone have a link or quote?

Thanks



When I was in school one of my professors explained Combat ranges have been shrinking since WWI because the caliber of army we've been fighting is getting less well trained, less organized, and equipped with limited range/limited accuracy weapons

Think of Iraq/Somalia/Vietnam/Korea which featured small arm exchanges at 25 - 75 yards, compared to WII at 50 -150 yards

Now lets say we managed to go to war somewhere in western europe again, expect ranges to open up, especially with magnified optics becoming more common for army regulars





That makes since on the enemy side but, we (Americans) prefer stand off distances- so it still does not explain why we are not shooting at distant targets when we have the capability.

Thoughts to ponder.



We have the capability, we just don't shoot M855 or Mk 262. Artillery, Apaches, JDAMS, AC-130s, it's all good.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:31:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 7:34:10 PM EDT by DaveM4P99]
Some interesting facts...

In World War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per enemy soldier killed; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier.

In contrast, United States Army and Marine Corps snipers in the Vietnam War expended 1.3 rounds of ammunition for each claimed and verified kill, at an average range of six hundred yards, or almost twice the fifty meters to three hundred meters for combat engagements by the average soldier. But some verified kills were at ranges in excess of 1000 yards.

I heard this first on the history channel, then i checked the facts with 2 or 3 sources online. who knows if it's still true, but it seems to make sense. but i am no expert.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:34:37 PM EDT
I am seeing a lot of posts that talk about indierct fires.

You could call me an insider- we don't really use that much arty or airstrikes in today's conflicts.

The reason is simple- the time it takes to get steel on target is pretty slow.

Fire missions have to be passed from the PLT/Co to the fire support base/aircraft who must contact BDE where the S2, S3, and FS Coordinator must check the target to be sure we are clear. After that the FSB/aircraft is given permission to engage.

That is life in limited war. Most fire support MOSs are disappearing and becoming MPs.

-Hispeedal
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:39:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:
Some interesting facts...

In World War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier.

In contrast, United States Army and Marine Corps snipers in the Vietnam War expended 1.3 rounds of ammunition for each claimed and verified kill, at an average range of six hundred yards, or almost twice the three hundred meters cited above for combat engagements by the average soldier. Some verified kills were at ranges in excess of 1000 yards.

I heard this first on the history channel, then i checked the facts with 2 or 3 sources online. who knows if it's still true, but it seems to make sense. but i am no expert.



These stats often cited, while at the FA school I attempted to find the source of these statistics.

Well it turns out they are SWAGs, the first problem with the statistics is most numbers of dead are rough estimates, than what caused most of them is again an estimate. Also no one is really sure how many rounds were actually expended.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:45:32 PM EDT
yeah that seems logical. but if the stats have any truth to them, its pretty interesting.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:46:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 7:47:24 PM EDT by DaveM4P99]
this is an interesting thread too.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:47:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hispeedal2:
I am seeing a lot of posts that talk about indierct fires.

You could call me an insider- we don't really use that much arty or airstrikes in today's conflicts.

The reason is simple- the time it takes to get steel on target is pretty slow.

Fire missions have to be passed from the PLT/Co to the fire support base/aircraft who must contact BDE where the S2, S3, and FS Coordinator must check the target to be sure we are clear. After that the FSB/aircraft is given permission to engage.

That is life in limited war. Most fire support MOSs are disappearing and becoming MPs.

-Hispeedal



Yes allot of FA and 08s are being used as provisional MPs/riflemen. However, the Btry I commanded shot over 2000 rounds, the 11th Marines shot something like 25,000 rounds, the Btrys that took part in Fallujah shot over 4000 rounds a piece. Don't forget all the 60, 81 and 120mm that was shot, And of course throw in all the JDAMs, AGM-114s and CIFS that has been used you come to realize that allot supporting arms have been used.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:49:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:52:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
For Vietnam: Number of rounds shipped in theatre divided by number of kills=rounds expended per kill............except for the fact that gunships and helicopters shot up the bulk of that number. That number is not applicable to infantry for this reason.



But no one actually knows that number, or for that matter the number to subtract from the original number (number given to friendly VN forces, numbers lost through enemy action, number just lost, number used in country for training)
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:52:38 PM EDT
Originally from variblebinary


My professor was a graduate of west point, vietnam veteran, fluent in 3 languages and worked in a diplomatic capacity for our goverment for for over a decade before getting an easy tenured gig at the university I attended in NY. Woe to the world when internet couch commandos take the place of professors as our teachers. Even funnier when you dont even know the class taught or the type of instition, but nevermind.



Yea, I figured he was gonna be West Pointer..... Feel free to live vicariously thru your Professor. I guess that makes him an expert in all things Military. That whole three launguage thing always helps understand Combat ranges thru history, and I can't tell you how usefull that diplomatic capacity has enriched this topic 110%.....

Please feel free to enlighten us on the class and Instituion. After all, those of you with a call for higher learning owe it to society to enlighten us couch commando's.........
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:54:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:56:54 PM EDT
I ain't no combat expert, but wouldn't it be logical to accept that fighting with a rifle would be limited to distances the average dude could actually see and decern the enemy...?
Nothing to do with the rifle/ammo being used... more to do with how far a guy can see...
'I figure if you can see it you could shoot it.....?
So... 100-200 yards max does seem fair.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:05:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:14:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Ive seen several AARs from Iraq stating the average engagement range is 30yds and under in most cases.



I have spoken directly to a USMC Senior NCO who told me that in Fallujah a LONG shot was 35m.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:16:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Those 1200 yard sights on old rifles were for the purpose of 'volley fire' back in the days of horse drawn arty and no air support and few if any mobile mortars. It was ment to be used against massive formations of enemy armies, not small, highly maneurable dispersed opponents or used when the indiscriminate killing of civillians in built up urban areas is frowned upon.



Yep, read the book "On Infantry" it does a good job of detailing the shift in infantry tactics from closed ordered to open order and the corresponding change in maximum range targets could be engaged.

It is not very hard to believe that tactics impact on equipment may not be realized for several generations, just look at the US civil war, the tactics hadn’t caught up with weapons and those same tactics were tried almost 50 years later in the Great War because the European leaders didn’t see the shift necessary to deal with new equipment, the end of the war saw a shift in tactics to deal with the new weapons. And that tactics lead to a shift in the requirement for weapons to keep up with that change in tactics, but that didn’t occur until the “assault rifle.”
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top