No wonder we can't win. We can't shoot...

[TomInTib]

I was watching some file footage on Cooper and these guys were firing from a roof at a window that was, at the least, 5'X5'.

Maybe about 150 yards.

They weren't getting anywhere close.

And the other guys are counting their rounds.

They will make 'em count.

We're just counting down the days.

They have been waiting for one thousand years.

And they will wait for that much longer, if not more.

The time has come for us to cease to be targets.

Bring 'em home and let Allah figure it out.

[cboy4]

1. Are you talking about U.S. troops? If so, that's really a cruel remark

considering nearly 3,000 of these people who "can't shoot" have died there.

We can't win because we have an idiot as commander in chief.

[TomInTib]

2. I am talking about poorly trained combat troops

Simple...

I have spent a lot of time in combat and those guys' lack of marksmanship was appalling.

It was like accountants with guns.

Give me guys who can kill people.

[cboy4]

3. Oh please, it's hardly simple. Even if every last one of them were

expert shots, they'd still have no chance in guerrilla conditions like that where they're being picked off by snipers and blown up by roadside bombs.

It's a civil war and it's hopeless.

If you've "spent a lot of time in combat," you should understand this better.

[TomInTib]

6. I was beimg facetious

I suppose that if I had included the "sarcasm" thing...

But I don't know how to do it.

But I do know how to fight.

And I spent 39 months in a losing effort ('69-'72).

That is what keeps me burning.

Sorry for the misunderstanding..

[treestar]

13. Oh please, why are some people so quick to pull that line?

The OP clearly could have been referring to the situation, the training, and the commander in chief.

Do you really think OP meant to be cruel, even to individuals who just plain aren't very good at what they do? (Which, cruel as it may be to point out, could exist, even among those whose fellows have died. No endeavor is without risks or the possibility of mistakes. Even getting killed yourself doesn't mean you had nothing whatsoever to do with it, as the debates about James Kim show).

Are you a better and more compassionate person than the OP? We don't really care. That was not the point.

[cboy4]

14. Do you have anyone you love fighting over there? What a smug

response asking me if I'm better or more compassionate than the OP.

He said no wonder we're losing, we can't shoot. Now didn't he?

He did not say a thing about "the situation" or the "commander in chief."

And furthermore, it turns out the OP said he was being facetious and should have made it more clear he was being sarcastic.

You might want to get your act together before you jump all over me with your idiotic comments. :eyes:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

15. after reading other OPs by Tom, I can assure everyone that treestar is correct...

Tom is consistently sensitive to the plight of our troops and returning veterans. Let's move on with some bigger fish to fry. If you made gigantic profits from selling the government M-16 rounds would you want them to be used sparingly or is corporate philosophy the more sold the merrier?

In boot-camp, though I would likely never use it in the Navy as Tom did on several swift-boat occasions, I trained on the M-16. After boot-camp, I discovered that anyone hiding behind a cinder-block wall was in a world of hurt, if a soldier with an M-16 drew a bead on that wall. It rips walls of concrete and cinder-block apart in seconds. Stone and brick are quite another matter, regardless of the rounds you use. Even soldiers with no reasonable training in marksmanship, will certainly gain shooting skills after deployment in combat for the FOUR TOURS OF DUTY many of our finest are currently conscripted to in IRAQ. I strongly suspect what dulls their shooting skills is the massive doses of prescribed benziods they take, which fends off combat-fatigue that such lengthy stints in country induce. With reduced responses and perceptions, our troops are literally dying for political reasons because this highly profitable war for a few, will end after the draft begins.

[cboy4]

17. You are missing my point completely. The reason we are losing

in Iraq has NOTHING to do with shooting accuracy of our troops.

And THAT's the point to which I was responding.

He said the reason we are losing is because they can't shoot.

What other message am I supposed to draw from that?

Since DU is a large community with thousands and thousands of members, the OP shouldn't assume that everyone is familiar with how sensitive he is to the plight of the troops.

You may know him, but I don't.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

19. fair enough cboy4...

Now that you know him as a "Nam vet" with massive expirience on a swift-boat, which essentially made him nothing more than a target on the water from banks teeming with snipers; where is YOUR compassion for our troops? Casualties appear as a number in your first post. To some, those deaths are without measure. He lost a lot of good friends in Nam. Sometimes old Nam vets have a bad day. Be sure and kick one if you see that happening here at DU, okay? For many who did the type duty Tom did for our country EVERY night is a bad night. Anyone can wade in with strong convictions, when OP is ambiguous but now that you are here, tread lightly.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

20. btw, both he and I LOVE everyone fighing over there for the US...

as surely as if they were in a squadron with me today.

[cboy4]

23. Jefferson. How can you question my compassion in this thread?

I said I thought it was "cruel" (the specific word I used) that someone was, in my mind, criticizing the troops.

That's a pretty compassionate action in my book.

I also mentioned, albeit not directly, that I have a loved one who's fighting over there.

It's good to know Tom is a veteran and cares about the well being of our troops.

But that was not clarified in the OP, which prompted my response.

I'm satisfied with letting it rest.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

24. well your anti-war and care about our FIGHTING troops, so that's good enough for me....

I see no reason to hammer an obviously decent person in public forum anymore but check your PM please and walk a mile or two in some old worn-out combat boots.

[intaglio]

4. according to squaddies(UK troops) I know

Modern rounds are designed to go through house walls, so you do not aim at an empty window but into the area where your attackers are taking cover.

[TomInTib]

5. Really? Carbine rounds?

Right through brick and stone?

Damn.

Things have sure changed.

[krispos42]

8. The M-16 is not known for penetrationg power, but

it will eventually chew through walls and such. I'm assuming the walls were brick and stone like you mentioned. Brick is crumbly, so the .223 bullet should rip out a chunk of material on impact.

I do not know the details of typical Iraqi domestic construction, though. They may tend towards cinder-block walls with a layer of concrete or stucco on the outside. Cement is tougher than brick, but, again, multiple impacts will eventually tear it apart.

They might have been using armor-piercing ammo, which offers limited penetration.

I just saw the video clip. It is difficult to determine the range in the video, but 150 yards did not seem to be an unreasonable estimate. Somewhere between 100 and 300 yards. The shooting did look pretty shabby. Bullets hitting above and below the big window as well as far to the left and right. The solder that was closest to the camera seemted to be taking deliberate, aimed shots at the window area. There was no return fire present that I could see.

Now I've personally managed to regulary hit a 4x8' piece of plywood on a fairly regular basis with my little .22 pistol with a 3" barrel, and that was at about 120 yards or so. Pop, pause, thunk. Seems to me the Army could do a little better.

Of course, with several people firing, each individual soldier might have had a hard time telling which impact what his, and therefore being unable to know how to correct.

[Squatch]

38. The 5.56 NATO round is very good at penetrating

which is it's main problem. High MV coupled with an FMJ bullet means great penetration, but little energy transfer.

Now, that same cartridge with a soft (either lead or ballistic tip) or hollow pointed bullet would be much more effective.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

44. would any of you ballistics experts care to respond to this?...

Now, admittedly, I'm out of touch with modern armament but back in Nam there were these cute little gizmos attached to many M-16s that fired rocket-powered grenades. Are RPG's out of style? It seems if they wanted to take down any kind of wall, that would be a logical choice. What's up with all the debate over how to take out a sniper through a stone-encased window, using only small arms fire, anyway? Radios work okay in that scenario. I hear the Air Force has really refined target acquisition these days with everything from windows to city blocks. For that matter, with draft-dodging idiots in control of the most incredible military machine the world has ever seen, we can talk in planetary terms when it comes to destruction from above.

Even soldiers with no reasonable training in marksmanship, will certainly gain shooting skills after deployment in combat for the FOUR TOURS OF DUTY many of our finest are currently conscripted to in IRAQ. I strongly suspect what dulls their shooting skills is the massive doses of prescribed benziods they take, which fends off combat-fatigue that such lengthy stints in country induce. With reduced responses and perceptions, our troops are literally dying for political reasons because this highly profitable war for a few, will end after the draft begins.

[Squatch]

37. "Carbine rounds"...

are they any different than the plain ol' 5.56mm NATO Ball rounds I put through my M-16A2?

[benEzra]

34. That's true of any rifle round,

Modern rounds are designed to go through house walls

That's true of any rifle round, but less true of 5.56x45mm/.223 than just about any other rifle caliber, since 5.56mm is considerably downsized from the older standard issue rounds, in the interest of lighter weight and less recoil. Kinetic energy is only about half that of the WW1/WW2 vintage .30-06 or .303 Enfield, with only about one third the bullet mass as the older rounds.

You are correct that bullets will penetrate interior walls, but brick/stone/concrete exterior walls will stop individual 5.56mm rounds (or 7.62mm rounds, for that matter). However, if you are using a machinegun, you can keep cratering the same spot until the wall is finally breached, but successive bullets have to impact in the same location for that to work.

[Squatch]

39. Well, no...that's not entirely true.

All rifle bullets are not "designed to" shoot through walls, unless you're talking bullets in the 50BMG AP class. Rifle bullets are "designed to" fly with accuracy and deliver terminal ballistic effects commensurate with the manner in which they are used.

For example, the Berger VLD is "designed to" be fired with accuracy, that is, very little deviation from one round to the next. It is not "designed to" deliver any appreciable terminal ballistic effects other than to punch a hole in a paper target.

Now, the Barnes Solid is designed the other way: in designing that bullet, Barnes was concerned with delivering maximum bullet energy into the body cavity of large animals.

[benEzra]

42. You are quite right..."designed to" wouldn't be true of 5.56mm either...

poor choice of words on my part. I should have said that all non-frangible rifle rounds (and all non-frangible pistol rounds) will go through interior walls, but all pistol rounds and most rifle rounds would be stopped by a hard exterior wall, and that 5.56mm/.223 has less wall penetrating ability than the older calibers. And as you state, wall penetrating ability just isn't really a design criterion for small- and intermediate-caliber rifles.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

7. LOL, "let Allah figure it out" K&R...

A little training goes a long way but teaching them to shoot, reduces profits, i guess... How's the old web browsen these days bro?

[rman]

9. I think 'winning' in Iraq takes more than killing people over there.

Don't you?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

12. you sure hit that target top dead center rman...

"Winning in Iraq" actually took place back when the FIRST Bush was president... It wasn't hard or time consuming. When Jr. invaded "winning" was neither feasible nor the ultimate plan. Not to say that Jr. failed, though, because his plan was to create a long protracted engagement that would spark war and problems in the Mid-East for generations to come. To a small group of international financiers, Iraq is a resounding success and they "win" big every day we remain in the country.

[maine_raptor]

10. Firepower

Put enough rounds in the target area and one of them will hit.

That's been the standard American military tactic since the Civil War.

[hootinholler]

11. It's called fire superiority...

It was developed in Vietnam as a doctrine. There was an interesting thing on the History Channel that showed the rounds fired per kill and the growth was phenomenal.

Marksmanship is no longer valued for the general troops.

-Hoot

[Jeffersons Ghost]

32. Yeah, history is fun isn't it? Let's start in that OTHER Civil War...

Back then, mobile artillery was ALL the rage in combat situations. Since then, explosive firepower has become FAR more mobile. Now, admittedly, I'm out of touch with modern armament but back in Nam there were these cute little gizmos attached to many M-16s that fired rocket-powered grenades. Are RPG's out of style? It seems if they wanted to take down any kind of wall, that would be a logical choice. What's up with all the debate over how to take out a sniper through a stone-encased window, using only small arms fire, anyway? Radios work okay in that scenario. I hear the Air Force has really refined target acquisition these days with everything from windows to city blocks. For that matter, with draft-dodging idiots in control of the most incredible military machine the world has ever seen, we can talk in planetary terms when it comes to destruction from above.

[htuttle]

16. I've read that US troops in Iraq fire an average of 275,000 small arms rounds per day

That doesn't seem to say a lot for marksmanship...

[Jeffersons Ghost]

21. it speaks volumes about profits though and even more about...

OVER-EXTENDED TROOPS PUMPED UP WITH PRESCRIPTION DRUGS!

[stanwyck]

18. I can assure you that my son CAN shoot

(he's qualified as an expert with the Marines). He's had two tours in Iraq with one more coming up in January.
The problem? Who is he supposed to be shooting? How do you know WHO the enemy is? There aren't even the distinctions the Viet Cong had. No organized army. No generals. No uniforms.
You think the Viet Nam era soldiers, often with only a few rushed weeks of training, were superior soldiers?
Their training is not the problem.
This "war" and the reasons we went to war are the problem.
Not the troops.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

22. In the Marines, I read a few months back that LACK OF PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT was a problem...

Cher was an angel for Marines lacking protective head-gear, wasn't she?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

25. and I'm VERY curious about modern training in URBAN COMBAT....

I know for sure that none of our many National Guard units activated for Iraq got comprehensive training in URBAN COMBAT. I am also sure that at Paris Island, Marines are trained in a way that meets or surpasses the rigerous physical training discribed in the next passage but are our Marines, which are AT LEAST as important as ANY SWAT-TEAM member - as well trained as what these next paragraphs discribe?

To be considered, you'll need three years on the Detroit Police Force, and you'll have to pass a rigorous physical fitness test-a 3-mile run in less than 25 minutes, followed immediately by 30-50 consecutive push-ups, 60-80 consecutive sit-ups, and 5-20 consecutive pull-ups. Fail to meet the minimum standard on any single test, and you are immediately disqualified. If you survive the physical tests, you'll move on to an oral interview conducted by several team members, who will assess your suitability.

After these tryouts are completed, SRT makes a list of their preferred applicants. When the police department approves new members, names are drawn, and the officers selected will be told to report for duty-but it isn't over yet.

Those officers who report become FNGs and they undergo a minimum of 640 hours of training on everything from weapons systems (5 of them) to tactics (barricaded gunmen, building entries, raid entries, etc.), executive protection, tactical rappelling, land navigation, hostage negotiation, counter-terrorism, convoying and defensive driving, and a basic sniper course. The training culminates in a four-day test of the FNGs ability to apply their training under high stress circumstances.

[slackmaster]

26. The M16 rifle isn't accurate past 50 yards

And the DC snipers were just patsies.

Or so says this guy:

http://www.randycrow.com/dc-sniper.asp

:hide:

[Redstone]

28. What a fucking lunatic!

Redstone

[slackmaster]

29. Oh, so YOU'RE part of the zioni$t communi$t conspiracy

I never would have guessed it.

[Redstone]

30. 'Fraid so. You caught me.

Redstone

[benEzra]

35. What an idiot.

The M16 rifle isn't accurate past 50 yards

And the DC snipers were just patsies.

Or so says this guy:

http://www.randycrow.com/dc-sniper.asp

What an idiot.

The AR-15 platform isn't one of the most popular civilian target rifles in the United States for nothing. A number of manufacturers guarantee 1 arcminute precision out of the box, even from the short-barreled carbines.

You can certainly make a strong argument that .223/5.56mm is too underpowered for all-around military use (which is the rationale behind 6.8mm SPC), but the idea that the AR-15 is only a 50-yard rifle is silly.

And the D.C. shooters didn't shoot anybody at 300 yards, contra Mr. Genius in the linked article. The longest shot was under 100 yards, and some were in the 25-30 yard range, IIRC.

[slackmaster]

41. et tu, benEzra?

[benEzra]

43. Yeah, I just got back from my local Illuminati meeting...

where we discussed our secret plot in a teleconference with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. I saw JFK, Jimmy Hoffa, and Elvis at the meeting, too.

Oh, darn, I wasn't supposed to say that. It's a secret, k?

[slackmaster]

47. One thing I MUST know about those Illuminati meetings

Do you serve ham sandwiches, or tuna?

[Redstone]

27. "Bring 'em home and let Allah figure it out." I like that. I like it a lot.

Redstone

[Kelly Rupert]

31. The problem with Iraq is not that we are inefficient at killing.

The US military is quite capable of that, sir. Rather, it is our reliance on combat prowess to the neglect of all else that has led to the dismal state of Iraq.

[Redstone]

33. I know the OP, and I can tell you that he knows that intimately.

Up close and personal, as they say.

Redstone

[slampoet]

36. All this talk has a lot of people taking "Can't Shoot" personally.

Accuracy has been dropping in US warfare for decades. Almost a century.


Back in medieval times I bet there were folkes talking about the musket and how it wasn't accurate as a trained longbowman. They were right too. But it took a few weeks to train someone to use a musket. It took years and even maybe a decade to train a good archer.

Same as now. It takes so much skill to train someone to hit a running figure at 150 yards with a WWI-era Lee-Endfield bolt action, that no one even tries to train at it anymore and leaves the job to sniper specialists. It takes longer to train a good sniper than it does for a normal troop. Rifles these days are not a huge amount more accurate at 150 yards.

As sick as it is the strategy on most battle fields is still to get as much flying metal in the air.
This strategy has been around since before battles took place on civilian turf, and the world has paid for it.

Oddly enough, per shot accuracy peaked about the same time as we started fighting on civilian ground. Around the time of the Spanish-American War.

[spoony]

45. Somehow I doubt

that anyone in 'medieval times' was talking about a weapon that wouldn't exist for many years.

[entanglement]

40. This was a lost cause from the start - an unjust war of aggression

to advance the interests of a wealthy few. I'm not sure what I'd call 'victory' in such an enterprise.

[spoony]

46. Paper doesn't shoot back n/t