User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 8:47:12 PM EDT
What study was it that showed that most combat ranges were actually really short?
Anyone have a link or quote? Thanks 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 1:28:49 PM EDT
[#1]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 2:00:47 PM EDT
[#2]
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?????????? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 2:05:32 PM EDT
[#3]
"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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 2:07:29 PM EDT
[#4]
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 . . . . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 2:24:24 PM EDT
[#5]
From personal experience its about 100 yards and in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 2:43:08 PM EDT
[#6]
Forest is on it but, I don't want to buy it  Anyone have an online source that I can quote? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 3:08:27 PM EDT
[#7]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 3:15:34 PM EDT
[#8]
it all had to do with street house to house fighting and the use of armour(tanks) back in WWI, |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 3:27:00 PM EDT
[#9]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 3:30:42 PM EDT
[#10]
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....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 3:39:46 PM EDT
[#11]
probably under 200
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 3:51:47 PM EDT
[#12]
"On Infantry" explains the shifts in infantry doctrine that made long acquisition and engagement more difficult
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 4:27:38 PM EDT
[#13]
This flat wrong. In non-urban environments, most were under 100M. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 4:52:50 PM EDT
[#14]
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 |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 4:58:04 PM EDT
[#15]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 5:02:31 PM EDT
[#16]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 5:47:35 PM EDT
[#17]
Ive seen several AARs from Iraq stating the average engagement range is 30yds and under in most cases.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 5:50:05 PM EDT
[#18]
Linky? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 5:50:52 PM EDT
[#19]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 5:53:56 PM EDT
[#20]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 5:56:31 PM EDT
[#21]
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 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 5:58:37 PM EDT
[#22]
Maybe 3rd ID, but not for 1st MarDiv or TFs Tarawa or Tripoli. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:02:48 PM EDT
[#23]
tagged
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:04:41 PM EDT
[#24]
Originally posted by variabebinary
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....... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:05:47 PM EDT
[#25]
Should I disbelieve Gunnery Sergeant Jack Coughlin? According to his book, over half his shots exceeded 500 meters. Many by a large margin. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:16:08 PM EDT
[#26]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:17:51 PM EDT
[#27]
you might want to read this in regard to the The GySgt's book
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:18:39 PM EDT
[#28]
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. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:27:35 PM EDT
[#29]
last time I looked around, there were TA01s all over the place and Elcans as well.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:40:34 PM EDT
[#30]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:47:50 PM EDT
[#31]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:01:44 PM EDT
[#32]
I have no dog in this fight with him or against him. I want to know: is he lying or not? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:04:45 PM EDT
[#33]
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. 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:05:37 PM EDT
[#34]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:10:53 PM EDT
[#35]
That’s about when he it started. (Read his bio a few decades ago.)
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:13:39 PM EDT
[#36]
We have the capability, we just don't shoot M855 or Mk 262. Artillery, Apaches, JDAMS, AC-130s, it's all good. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:31:15 PM EDT
[#37]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:34:37 PM EDT
[#38]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:39:47 PM EDT
[#39]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:45:32 PM EDT
[#40]
yeah that seems logical. but if the stats have any truth to them, its pretty interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:46:44 PM EDT
[#41]
this is an interesting thread too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:47:29 PM EDT
[#42]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:49:16 PM EDT
[#43]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:52:31 PM EDT
[#44]
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) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:52:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Originally from variblebinary
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......... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:54:58 PM EDT
[#46]
Exactly STRLN, nobody can know because because there were far more uses for those rounds than just riflemen and squad level machinegunners. I suspect far more was burned in training than in combat ops.
Therefore, I reject that number as overly simplistic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:56:54 PM EDT
[#47]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 8:05:20 PM EDT
[#48]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 8:14:02 PM EDT
[#49]
I have spoken directly to a USMC Senior NCO who told me that in Fallujah a LONG shot was 35m. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2005 8:16:05 PM EDT
[#50]
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.” |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
