efulsang@ads.com (Ejner Fulsang) (01/08/91)
From: efulsang@ads.com (Ejner Fulsang) Having fired both weapons extensively, I couldn't resist adding my own two cents' worth to the discussion. When I first joined the Army in 1967 we were issued the M14. It was described as having a maximum effective range of 460 meters and we used to fire regularly at that range while learning to shoot. When we fired for qualification, I seem to recall that there were several targets that were actually at 460 meters. I don't recall them being particularly difficult to hit SO LONG AS you practiced proper firing procedures, i.e., sight alignment, trigger squeeze, etc. Later on when I was a cadet at USMA, I joined the rifle team. A big treat for us was going to the outdoor range every spring to shoot match grade M14's. We used to regularly fire at and hit a basket ball sized bull's eye at 600 yards. This was from standing position, using match grade iron sights, leather shooting jackets and military slings. Once again, you had to practice proper firing procedures but, the inherent accuracy of the M14 was definitely proven. After being commissioned in the Infantry, my first assignment was as a training officer at Ft. Dix, NJ where we had to teach new recruits to fire the M16. The Army was really hung up on MacNamara-style scientific management at the time and really made a big deal out of getting all soldiers qualified in about a week. My personal view was that if you want somebody to remember something for a long time, you should spread the instruction out over a long period of time -- in this case two or three afternoons per week throughout boot camp -- but they weren't asking me for my opinions much in those days. Anyway, it should be noted that they were still teaching that the maximum effective range of the service rifle (in this the M16) was 460 meters. But, strangely, there were no longer any 460 meter targets at the firing range. I think the longest shot at record fire had degraded to a miopic 300 meters. The ballistics of the military 5.56 mm round are such that after a few hundred meters of flight, the round begins to tumble. This was rationalized to be `OK' because it was felt that the round would do more damage upon striking a fleshy target. Hence, I strongly dispute the long range accuracy claims of M16 fans. [mod.note: One must take care to distinguish from the original models of the M-16 and the newer M16A2, which has a tighter rifling twist and fires a heavier bullet; both factors should increase the round's stability at longer ranges. - Bill ] Some of the arguments voiced in favor of the M16 are that the ammunition is much more transportable since it is smaller than the M14. Frequent accounts of soldiers going into battle carrying 1000 rounds or more are cited. By contrast, an M14-equipped soldier would normally only carry 200 rounds or so. My own response to this is that the tendency of most M16 shooters is to use the weapon like a garden hose instead of a rifle. Hence, you will very likely need those 1000 rounds. This came about because of three reasons: 1) the Army stopped teaching marksmanship mastery and decided to settle for marksmanship qualification; 2) the M16 is inherently not as accurate as the M14 and; 3) the Viet Nam experience taught that most of the time you couldn't see the target anyway, so you used your rifle as an area fire weapon hosing down where you thought the source of enemy fire came from. [mod.note: 1000 rounds ? That's an awful lot of ammo; I be surprised if anyone could carry that much, along with other combat gear, on patrol, although I wouldn't be surprised if troops in static positions has such plentiful ammo. - Bill ] As for short range combat potential, the M14 offers no disadvantage so long as you are adept at snap-shooting. This is an instinctive method of firing which does not utilize the sights at all but instead uses the position of the barrel relative to the target. The Army, to my knowledge, has never taught snap-shooting. Then, of course, there is extreme close-in fighting with the bayonet as you might encounter in house-to-house or trench warfare. In my opinion, this is to avoided as much as possible but if it becomes unavoidable, the M14 is quite a bit superior to the M16 for bayonet fighting due to its greater size and stronger stock. Ejner Fulsang Senior Systems Engineer Advanced Decision Systems Mountain View, CA
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/10/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: efulsang@ads.com (Ejner Fulsang) >... By contrast, an M14-equipped soldier would >normally only carry 200 rounds or so. My own response to this is that >the tendency of most M16 shooters is to use the weapon like a garden >hose instead of a rifle... This is not necessarily a vice. The US Army has long had a fetish for ammunition conservation, and one can argue fairly persuasively that this has killed a lot of US soldiers. The question is not whether M16-armed troops use more ammunition, but whether they survive better and accomplish their missions better. There is substantial evidence that the ability to put *lots* of firepower onto a target in a big hurry when surprised is an important survival characteristic. >... 3) the Viet Nam experience taught that most of the time you >couldn't see the target anyway, so you used your rifle as an area fire >weapon hosing down where you thought the source of enemy fire came >from. My understanding is that studies of infantry combat from the Franco-Prussian war onward show very clearly that almost all rifle fire is mainly directed at keeping the other guy's head down. This is anathema to the "make every shot count" folks, but it is the way the world really works in combat. This actually points to a more general problem: part of the M14-vs-M16 war has been a battle between the traditional beliefs of the US Army and the results from studies of what really happens in combat. The Army has found it very difficult to accept that a good many of its cherished beliefs are myths, unrelated to the real world and harmful to its soldiers and its missions. (Lest I be thought prejudiced :-), the Navy and the Air Force have similar problems and have been going through similar battles.) >As for short range combat potential, the M14 offers no disadvantage so >long as you are adept at snap-shooting... What fraction of soldiers can be trained to become adept at snap-shooting in a reasonable amount of time, using average rather than exceptional instructors? Aesthetically displeasing though it may be, weapons that do *not* require adept users tend to win more wars. -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo) (01/12/91)
From: hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo) In article <1991Jan10.025901.4350@cbnews.att.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > This actually points to a more general problem: part of the M14-vs-M16 > war has been a battle between the traditional beliefs of the US Army and > the results from studies of what really happens in combat. The Army has > found it very difficult to accept that a good many of its cherished beliefs > are myths, unrelated to the real world and harmful to its soldiers and its > missions. I'll say amen to that one. An example which comes to mind is the idiotic old myth that restricting water intake by the troops hardens them. God knows how many thousands of soldiers have been put out of action by dehydration because of that. Amazingly, the army has discovered that soldiers drink water because they need it, and supplied them with an extra canteen. Larry
efrethei@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Erik J. Fretheim) (01/12/91)
From: efrethei@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Erik J. Fretheim) One of the reasons for going to the M-16 and its automatic fire capabilities that has not been discussed is the results of a number of surveys taken during and after WWII and Korea. These showed that the probability of a soldier having actually fired his weapon in combat was directly related to his proximity to an automatic weapon. At that time, the squad machine gun. The solution, of course, is to put an automatic weapon right in everybodies hand. Thereby you shorten the distance to the nearest automatic weapon and increase the probability he will fire the thing in combat. ejf -- -- Erik J Fretheim efrethei@afit.af.mil AFIT/ENA Box 4151 (ATTN: CPT FRETHEIM) (513)255-5276 AVN785-5276 WPAFB, OH 45431 USA
pt@dciem (Paul Tomblin) (01/14/91)
From: cognos!geovision!pt@dciem (Paul Tomblin) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >My understanding is that studies of infantry combat from the Franco-Prussian >war onward show very clearly that almost all rifle fire is mainly directed >at keeping the other guy's head down. This is anathema to the "make every >shot count" folks, but it is the way the world really works in combat. Our training in the reserves, (Lorne Scots (Peel, Dufferin and Halton) Regiment), was that the SMG and MG and arty was to keep thier heads down, the rifle was for killing. So if the rifle is to keep thier heads down, what does the killing? TAC-NUKES? -- Paul Tomblin, Department of Redundancy Department. ! My employer does The Romanian Orphans Support Group needs your help, ! not stand by my Ask me for details. ! opinions.... pt@geovision.gvc.com or {cognos,uunet}!geovision!pt ! Me neither.
xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (01/15/91)
From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) In article <1991Jan12.012923.25597@cbnews.att.com>, efrethei@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Erik J. Fretheim) writes... ^ ^ ^From: efrethei@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Erik J. Fretheim) ^ ^One of the reasons for going to the M-16 and its automatic fire ^capabilities that has not been discussed is the results of a number ^of surveys taken during and after WWII and Korea. These showed that ^the probability of a soldier having actually fired his weapon in ^combat was directly related to his proximity to an automatic weapon. At ^that time, the squad machine gun. The solution, of course, is to put an ^automatic weapon right in everybodies hand. Thereby you shorten the ^distance to the nearest automatic weapon and increase the probability ^he will fire the thing in combat. Eh? The few things I've seen about this seems to say that the closer you are to the reassuring bang of a MG the less likely that you are to stick you head up to fire your own rifle. I recall that this lead to the theory of placing the squad automatic weapons on the sides of your units and concentrating the riflemen in the center. With no one else making reassuring noise the riflemen are obligated to generate their own ;-). There was a post WWII study on which types of soldiers were more effective in their fire. It turned out that soldiers armed with BARs (or any other type of automatic weapons) fired more often and were more likely to aim than soldiers armed with rifles. This was because most figured out if they weren't doing their job the more likely it was that the whole squad would get axed. The incentive for someone with a normal rifle was a little less...after all the guy with the Browning is doing most of the killing anyway... Now that everyone can bang away (in bursts at least) these studies aren't quite as relevant anymore. One can postulate that guns that make lots of noise are more appreciated by the troops though ;-). It does seem to support the popular belief that most fire is used just to keep the other guys head down while the few people on your side willing to stick their head up to aim can hit them. ^ ^Erik J Fretheim ^efrethei@afit.af.mil AFIT/ENA Box 4151 (ATTN: CPT FRETHEIM) NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE/SMEX Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov or xrtnt@vx730.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.
det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) (01/21/91)
From: det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) cognos!geovision!pt@dciem (Paul Tomblin) writes: >Our training in the reserves, (Lorne Scots (Peel, Dufferin and Halton) >Regiment), was that the SMG and MG and arty was to keep thier heads down, >the rifle was for killing. So if the rifle is to keep thier heads down, >what does the killing? TAC-NUKES? By far and away the majority of casualties (at least in wwII) are caused by artillery. -- Derek "Tigger" Terveer det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG - MNFHA, NCS - UMN Women's Lax, MWD I am the way and the truth and the light, I know all the answers; don't need your advice. -- "I am the way and the truth and the light" -- The Legendary Pink Dots
det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) (01/21/91)
From: det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes: >In article <1991Jan8.005433.20692@cbnews.att.com> efulsang@ads.com (Ejner Fulsang) writes: >My understanding is that the M16A2 is not capable of full-auto fire, but >has only 3-round burst or single shot modes. The M16 is issued to most troops with a selector that allows selection of either 3 round burst or single shot modes, although the one i had had all three -- 3 round, single, full auto. In fact, it may be that all of the M16s are issued with the 3 position selector. However, the regular riflemen are only supposed to use either single or burst mode and the squad/platoon machine gunners are issued or are supposed to use the full auto M16s. -- Derek "Tigger" Terveer det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG - MNFHA, NCS - UMN Women's Lax, MWD I am the way and the truth and the light, I know all the answers; don't need your advice. -- "I am the way and the truth and the light" -- The Legendary Pink Dots