23 May 2012

Military Ammo, training

In a perfect world we would have all the time to train on the skills we need to go to war, with all the resources needed to conduct world class training, and no training distractions to pull people from training.  Here in reality that isn't the case.  And then there are "nebulous" training requirements that mean all things to all people.  One of those nebulous requirements is that of the Squad Designated Marksman.

Every manual out there says you should train them, every manual out there says this is what they should be able to do, but in the end it is a unit responsibility to ensure that SDM's can actually put steel on target at the ranges they need to.  I have yet to see a live fire training exercise where the SDM was actually given a target to engage at distance.  I'm sure someone somewhere has done it, but it was probably an afterthought as the ranges set up by the Army to support the Army never had to play with an SDM when they were being built back in WWII.

So training SDMs is a problem, but we can adapt our current facilities to meet the training needs, it just takes a bit of flexible thinking.  The other side of the house is equipping our SDMs.  The answer to that has been debated for a damn long time.

The best answer in the current inventory is an M16A4 with an ACOG, or barring that an M4 with an ACOG.  Why?  Because in the hands of a trained marksman even with M855 it isn't difficult to make hits out to 600 meters.  On the other hand everyone wants M14s or M110s so that they have a 7.62 caliber rifle at the squad.  There is nothing wrong with that except now your ammo is incompatible with everyone elses and you increased your SDM soldier load by 15 pounds at the lightest.

The solution to the problem really falls down into one of training.  We can't get enough experienced NCOs to actually be competent marksmen that they can turn SPC Joe Snuffy into a competent marksman in order to have a cadre of competent SDM's who aren't immediately promoted to Team Leader or pulled away by the Snipers.

If you'll notice, the SDM issue is an Army issue.  The Marine Corps maintained their tradition of "Every Marine a Rifleman" and so they don't have SDMs. This is why I'm convinced it is a training problem.  Even with crappy M855 the Marines train to shoot 500.

Anyways, what proceeded before is a long backstory to the debates over what is better, M855A1, Mk262, Mk318 SOST, or the various 7.62 solutions for equipping SDMs.  The Army tests ammo for suitability by "mean radius" which uses some statistical manipulations to calculate where bullets fall within a given shot group.  The Navy tests by Extreme Spread.  Both of these methods require shots to be put on paper, and the both require every shot to be plotted to provide the calculations for accepting a lot of ammunition into the inventory.

Extreme spread is a good way to get a quick look at your maximum effective range for a one shot hit on target.  As long as your rounds always land between the extreme spread you can easily calculate your max distance for a head shot or torso shot.  On the other hand "Mean Radius" is useful for describing the cone of fire that a properly stabilized machine gun will put on target.  The Army doctrinally likes machine guns more than snipers (dating back to our doctrine of fire and maneuver relying on machine guns to fix an enemy while a maneuver element flanks to close with and destroy the enemy) so the Army accepts ammunition tested by "mean radius".

The navy on the other hand puts hard and fast MOA limits at distance on ammunition.  Both Mk262 and Mk318 are in spec only if they are 2 minutes or less at 300 meters.  At that distance you can expect a similar sized group of M855 to be around 12 to 14 inches.  By the time you get to 600 meters M855 falls all over the place, usually around a 28 inch circle. 

Time and time again Army units have noted that the Navy spec'd ammunition produces tighter groups (the AMU used Mk262 ammo when I went through SDM training) and recommend that SDMs be issued Mk262 ammunition.  The biggest problem for me is that I can't get any for SDMs to actually do any sort of training on match grade ammo since I'm tied to the Army supply system right now.

Now the Army has accepted M855A1 as the new "green round" and it is supposedly more accurate than M855 even though it has the exact same accuracy standards for acceptance (machine gun level accuracy).  Supposedly this stuff will shoot under 2 MOA at 600, which I really hope is true.  If it is the case I will be able to train SDMs on ammunition that doesn't suck balls for accuracy at distance.  The debate on lethality of M855A1, Mk318 and Mk262 don't really bother me, at this point I just want PVT Snuffy to be able to hit the target with 90% chance of making contact with the first shot.

6 comments:

MauserMedic said...

Having served in numerous training roles for annual quals for Army Guard, good luck getting a significant percentage of Snuffies to hit at 600. It's a rare ability, and trainers who can teach it are, sadly, rarer still.

TinCan Assassin said...

And then there's the fact of (at least in the Guard) limited ammo supply. Seems like all you get are 58 rounds per Soldier, enough to Zero and Qual, and that's it.

AM said...

And yet the Guard usually fields a state rifle team that is fairly competitive.

I checked ATRRS and the active duty LRM course is offering no MTTs this fiscal year, but the NG SDM course is being offered by a bunch of states.

58 shots is plenty to train an SDM on if he already has his rifle zeroed. One shot at 200, clean your rifle and write your dope. wash rinse repeat until the SDM has data in his book for all 58 shots on a KD range. You can make 58 shots last a long time, especially if you are making them fill out their data book to standard.

John Mosby said...

Ultimately, it really does come down to the training cadre. I've seen 18Bs show up on their first team, unable to qualify expert with an M4. I imagine it's even worse on the Big Green side. If your NCOs don't KNOW the science of marksmanship, they're never going to be able to teach Snuffy how to do it. I can make consistent hits on e-types and on 18-inch steel out to 600 with a decent 1-4X variable optic. Granted, I took the idea of being a Bravo to mean I better be a genuine expert with my weapon, but even my wife can make 75-80% first round hits at 400, with irons, no less.
I agree with AM (good thing, on his blog!), that the lack of massive supplies of ammunition is a poor excuse for NCOs to shortchange the training of their Joes.
There is no reason at all that you couldn't get the MAJORITY of 11B privates making consistent hits to 500-600 yards, given the motivation by the NCO corps. I guarantee you, especially in a time of war, Private Snuffy WANTS to know how to run his weapon the RIGHT way. He just wants his leaders to teach him, instead of hiding their own ignorance of the subject matter behind smoking him with push-ups and flutter kicks.
Of course, the reality is that TRADOC needs to step the fuck up and publish a genuine SDM course, and get a train-the-trainer program going. After that stop-gap measure is completed, maybe, just maybe, they need to look at revamping BRM/ARM at Sand Hill one more time. 100-300 can be taught in a day or two (Hell, I've taught it to decent sized groups in a couple of hours!). So, maybe they should be focusing more attention on the hard shit...CQM and intermediate distance musketry instead.
ND,
JM

Ryan said...

So much ground to cover. Most of it is probably already hit better than I can.

As to soldiers having the potential or ability to shoot at longer distances. A significant reason we are not meeting these (worthwhile) objectives is that they are not goals set at a high enough level to make folks pay attention and act. If the organization has a clearly published standard that folks are held to most people will meet them.

Additional time/ ammo/ energy will likely not be put out unless there is a forcing function. Lets say 400-500 meter targets were added to qualification in some way; folks would train to meet those standards.

Right now the whole SDM concept seriously lacks standardization. If you say somebody is Sniper qualified you know what it means. If you say they are an SDM you don't. Sometimes it is just another few letters on a battle roster and other times it means the guy was chosen and received special training and maybe different gear.

Think of it as a greasy spoon restaurant in the middle of nowhere, it may be great, could be decent and may be terrible. If you are 500 miles from home the only way to know is to step in and order a meal. On the other hand courses with published standards from Doctrine are more like a chain restaurant. It may be a tolerable casual dining establishment or a nice steak joint but you know what you are getting.

As to SDM's at a more practical not Infantry Center/ DA level. Units get out of it what they put into it. Lets say that higher (DIV/BDE/BN) decides on some reasonable and thought out way to train SDM's and resources the people/land/ammo/time it is really a good thing. I have seen a sort of tapered down program modeled after Sniper School (the shooting part) that worked pretty well.

Companies and Platoons have the choice to send quality people to the course and then the choice to keep them in the positions. If they send window lickers they will get window licker performance. If they send good folks they will learn stuff. However if they move them the knowledge leaves the position.

As to gear and such. I don't think this is really the main issue. Personally I would like SDM's to be equipped with M16A4 rifles with magnified optics. More barrel but the same caliber of ammo. Match ammo would be desirable.

Thanks for the interesting conversation!

Anonymous said...

As those above are current serving or recent service, I defer to their expertise on how it is. As someone who was trained in marksmanship by both Army NCOs at Fort Knox, and Marine Corps PMIs at Camp Pendleton, and based on no demonstrable changes since the 80s, I will opine that doctrinally and practically, Army "marksmanship" training (outside of special ops - SF and Ranger) blows whale weiner.
It isn't because the weapon, ammunition, or the dopes behind the rifle are lacking. Army recruits start with the same teenage eyes and reflexes Marine recruits do.
There's simply no institutional impetus for training or fielding soldiers who can shoot, or providing them with NCO cadre who can teach them actual marksmanship.
Army training spent more time on mess duty basics than shooting skills. The Marines train EVERY recruit, regardless of MOS, for 3 WEEKS on fundamentals. Longer, if they screw it up, and they don't graduate if they can't qualify.
Consequently, the average 11B shoots worse than the average Marine cook.
I never shot less than Expert during my time in, and never failed to hit 10 out of 10 at the 500 yd line every year, including 55gr rounds out of a well-nigh worn out M16A1. 150 yards beyond what anyone in the Army outside of sniper training even practiced for, unless it was with an MG or main tank round.

You get what you pay for.
The Marines train rifleman, the Army supports machinegunners. EVERY Marine considers himself - with a certain justification - an SDM.
For the Army to hand out the term to anyone not carrying a weapon in .30cal topped with a magnified optic beyond what the average grunt is toting is cause for some amusement.
It's as silly as handing out Ranger berets to everyone who joins, and making everyone wear cammies that only blend in with granny's floral sofa.
Please, get them to stop. And convince them y'all deserve the chance to hit targets BEYOND effective AKM range, if only to spare the expense on bodybags.
Best regards,
-Aesop