04-22-2022, 01:00 PM
Double Naught Spy Wrote:I read a very optimistic piece suggesting that the fancy, range and environmentals calculating automatic crosshair adjusting optics had the potential to make every soldier a "sniper" (in the sense of being an expert shooter). No doubt they could improve the average shooters ability to hit at distance, but what you say about the ability to actually find the target rings very true. Also, military tactics seem to have a strong basis in being the ones who put the most lead in the air, make the most noise possible to suppress the enemy. It has been a tried and true tactic for decades and I sincerely doubt that will change anytime soon.
In Afghanistan, it supposedly took an average of 250k small arms ammo fired for enemy killed. No doubt the number is somewhat lower for the number of enemy wounded, but that sort of paints a picture of how much firing is going on that isn't directed, well aimed fire.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=2003
When a group of US soldiers come under effective fire or in an ambush, it has not been a practice to stop, assess the threat, identify specific targets and make well aimed shots at those targets. No. Instead they tend to pour large amounts of ammo into the area or areas where the shots are believed to be coming from in hopes of causing a cessation of incoming fire. Then, if and when that doesn't work, they call in mortars, artillery, or air power.
Don't get me wrong. I think the new optics are a move in the right direction, but I am not thinking that a change in optics will being saving us very many 10s of thousands of rounds of ammo per enemy killed, at least not until we have a major change in applied tactics.
"In Afghanistan, it supposedly took an average of 250k small arms ammo fired for enemy killed. No doubt the number is somewhat lower for the number of enemy wounded, but that sort of paints a picture of how much firing is going on that isn't directed, well aimed fire."
DNS:
Hmmmm..... Where have I heard that number given before? Go back fifty years and the same number was given for the Vietnam war.
Bottom line is no one knows how many rounds someone with a rifle or carbine shot to get a kill or wound or anything else because a lot more systems are involved in a fight than Joe with his carbine.
And the days of the Vietnam tactics of 'gain fire superiority' via blasting magazines of ammo at suspected enemy locations disappeared from doctrine when I was a Infantry Platoon Leader carrying a M-16A1.
Well aimed and controlled fire has been doctrine for the last 45 years or more.
I have not been involved with the Army for about twelve years now but during the previous thirty plus years I witnessed over and over again Infantrymen and SO guys proving to themselves that semi auto fire was far more effective than auto or three round burst. And that aimed fire was more effective than 'Quick Kill' or hip shooting. Dot sights have done a lot to shift the tactics towards aimed sustained fire.
So, surely I witnessed the change but understand that one man's 'aimed and controlled fire' very well could be another man's 'blast more faster and who ever makes the most noise wins'.
I think LRRP52 mentioned this before but there are a lot more weapons systems put into play when contact is made than a guy with his carbine or M-240 / 249. The Infantryman using his carbine tends to be more of a stop gap until better weapons systems can be brought into play and or after machineguns, indirect fire, and CAS.
LR55