What's new

US Rifles not Suited to Warfare in Afghan Hills

fawwaxs

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
2,125
Reaction score
-2
Country
Pakistan
Location
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan.jpg

KABUL, Afghanistan – The U.S. military’s workhorse rifle — used in battle for the last 40 years — is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban’s more primitive but longer range weapons.

As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the performance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round largely discarded in the 1960s.

The M-4 is an updated version of the M-16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. It worked well in Iraq, where much of the fighting was in cities such as Baghdad, Ramadi and Fallujah.

But a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

Afghans have a tradition of long-range ambushes against foreign forces. During the 1832-1842 British-Afghan war, the British found that their Brown Bess muskets could not reach insurgent sharpshooters firing higher-caliber Jezzail flintlocks.

Soviet soldiers in the 1980s found that their AK-47 rifles could not match the World War II-era bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Mauser rifles used by mujahedeen rebels.

“These are important considerations in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are frequently attacked by insurgents using … sharpshooter’s rifles, which are all chambered for a full-powered cartridge which dates back to the 1890s,” said Paul Cornish, curator of firearms at the Imperial War Museum in London.

The heavier bullets enable Taliban militants to shoot at U.S. and NATO soldiers from positions well beyond the effective range of the coalition’s rifles.

To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. They are equipped with the new M-110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62 mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet (800 meters).

At the heart of the debate is whether a soldier is better off with the more-rapid firepower of the 5.56mm bullets or with the longer range of the 7.62 mm bullets.

“The reason we employ the M-4 is because it’s a close-in weapon, since we anticipate house-to-house fighting in many situations,” said Lt. Col. Denis J. Riel, a NATO spokesman.

He added that each squad also has light machine guns and automatic grenade launchers for the long-range engagements common in Afghanistan.

In the early years of the Vietnam War, the Army’s standard rifle was the M-14, which fired a 7.62 mm bullet. The gun had too much recoil to be controllable during automatic firing and was considered too unwieldily for close-quarter jungle warfare. The M-16 replaced it in the mid-1960s.

Lighter bullets also meant soldiers could carry more ammunition on lengthy jungle patrols.

The M-16 started a general trend toward smaller cartridges. Other weapons such as the French FAMAS and the British L85A1 adopted them, and the round became standardized as the “5.56mm NATO.”

The Soviet Union, whose AK-47 already used a shorter 7.62 mm bullet that was less powerful but more controllable, created a smaller 5.45mm round for its replacement AK-74s.

“The 5.56 mm caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target,” said Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. “But at 500-600 meters (1,600-2,000 feet), the round doesn’t have stopping power, since the weapon system was never designed for that.”

The arsenal, which is the Army’s center for small-arms development, is trying to find a solution.
A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges, Tamilio said.

The challenge is compounded by the fact that in flat areas of Afghanistan, most firefights take place at shorter ranges of up to 1,000 feet (300 meters), where the M-4 performs well.

U.S. soldiers in militant-infested Zhari district in southern Afghanistan’s Kandahar province said they haven’t experienced problems with the range of their M-4 rifles.

Lt. Scott Doyle, a platoon commander in Zhari, said his troops are usually facing Taliban AK-47s.

“When the Taliban get past 300 meters (1,000 feet) with an AK-47, they are just spraying and praying,” he said.
Martin Fackler, a ballistics expert, also defended the 5.56 mm round, blaming the M-4s inadequate performance on its short barrel, which makes it easier for soldiers to scramble out of modern armored vehicles.

“Unfortunately weapon engineers shortened the M-16’s barrel to irrational lengths,” Fackler said. “It was meant for a 20-inch barrel. What they’ve done by cutting the barrel to 14.5 inches is that they’ve lost a lot of velocity.”
 
Nice Post!I dont understand that why the US are still failed... The best way is to get success is love. If US show their love and they teat with gentleness then i think they can won this war..

You can won every battle with love, Not with weapons..

If you will provide the equal rights to every one then this world will become the symbol of peace!
 
Nice Post!I dont understand that why the US are still failed... The best way is to get success is love. If US show their love and they teat with gentleness then i think they can won this war..

You can won every battle with love, Not with weapons..

If you will provide the equal rights to every one then this world will become the symbol of peace!
Unfortunately, this is an area where America is not very good at...Quite poor at if you ask me...I've always had the impression that, to them firing guns, shells, dropping bombs, blowing things up etc is way more "cool" to do so than say, go up to a family in the middle of nowhere & say with a smile: 'Alright there? How are you? Need any help?'.

Of cource, not all Americans think with a gung-ho personality.
 
Last edited:
@jackal.......ur doing the same wat the americans r doin.
This subcontinent(india,Pakistan,afghanistan etc) was civilised we arent or were like africans or others.......u came to this region as traders and due to the f..ed up moonarchy and corrupt systems siezed power.....till u were thrown like tiolet paper after efforts by GREAT PEOPLE like Bhagat Singh,Jinnah,Azad,Ahmed Khan,Iqbal etc.
And now ur being hipocrites by callin americans not knowin anythin about kindness while u urself are like the same as them........people still Remember wat hapened in Punjab Jalian wala Bagh,Balouchistan still remembers bastards like robert sandamen , Monroe etc.
 
What about the history when muslims were in power? We can be hypocrites and say we were given the chance to conquer and rule and we said live and let live. But unfortunately that did not happen. Just to jog your memory we were thrown out of Spain. Selective memory is not done us any good in the short run. We did things that were in our best interest and they do things that are in their's. Thats human nature.
 
What about the history when muslims were in power? We can be hypocrites and say we were given the chance to conquer and rule and we said live and let live. But unfortunately that did not happen. Just to jog your memory we were thrown out of Spain. Selective memory is not done us any good in the short run. We did things that were in our best interest and they do things that are in their's. Thats human nature.

Dude muslims also have in past did their share of loot, murder and rape...don't forget Mughals, Gehjez Khan and other Persian kings...also the famous Nadir Shah who used to attack India, loot and take with him Indian hindu women!! it's just when you have power you become blind and act like whatever you want!!
 
Last edited:
This article just a lil is wrong........Talib fighters dont use ww2 era guns or others.
There tactic is fire a shot,let the rival fire burst make em low on ammo....then attack with full swing.....with heavy weapons like DSHK 12.7MM anti aircraft gun and AK-47.
They dont just fire a single AK bullet like snipers they ambush u and then all hell breaks lose....indiscriminate fire of all weapons available.......and stop when a rescue party come.......and when they r busy pickin up wounded or dead again attack with full swing.
 
Dude muslims also have in past did their share of loot, murder and rape...don't forget Mughals, Gehjez Khan and other Persian kings...also the famous Nadir Shah who used to attack India, loot and take with him Indian hindu women!! it's just when you have power you become blind and act like whatever you want!!

Was I saying something different? anyway lets not derail a thread about an effective weapon within 300m. It does its job, thats why they need to add units that will take care of 600-700m targets.
 
Guys why dont we talk like very constructive and good! I think world should have to change and they should bring love to create peace!
 
@forcetrip I agree with you.. I think Muslims should make themselves very strong and that is the way of getting good education.. I know according to the new research the education rate in pakistan is rising. If we are well educated then we can make our country strong and can spread a real message of love and peace, where every religion has equal rights!​

The another issues is the getting good jobs in pakistan. So guys if we are learning the better job interviewing tips then we can land a job easily and then we can live a happy and peaceful life!
 
Dude muslims also have in past did their share of loot, murder and rape...don't forget Mughals, Gehjez Khan and other Persian kings...also the famous Nadir Shah who used to attack India, loot and take with him Indian hindu women!! it's just when you have power you become blind and act like whatever you want!!

Gehjez Khan was a muslim ???
 
Why are we talking about this here. Back to M4 issue. This article should have said that slippers are not working in a marathon.
 
I hope the Americans and fellow allies on the field do something about inducting the 6.8 mm ammo rather than the 5.56 mm that is not being effective in the region. I'd like to add that Russians are somewhat far-sighted when they considered taking the 7.62 mm that is much more effective than the NATO 5.56 mm.

While the latter has served NATO and has become a standard for many country, Afghanistan is proving it wrong.
 
5.56 served the Americans well in Iraq, in Afg the engagement ranges are much more longer. 5.56 was adopted by NATO counteries with the Soviet Threat in mind and for MOUT in the Europian theater. I dont think Americans will change caliber, in terms of logistics they can organise and bear the costs of using both 5.56*45 and 7.62*51.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom