The Dec. 2011 issue of the NRA rag had an article on snipers in Afghanistan…mostly about the US troops and allies, but there was some discussion of the other side.
As mentioned upthread, the Afghans mostly can’t seem to hit squat at any significant range, and the terrain is such that most of the engagements happen at several hundred yards. Also, the 7.62x39 AK most of them are using IS pretty inferior beyond 2-300 yards…not so much to the .223, but the US has pulled a bunch of M-14s (7.62x51, AKA .308 Winchester) out of storage and given them a facelift, and that is what gets used for long range shooting.
One specific factor mentioned for the lack of long range shooting skill is that there is an extremely high illiteracy rate. This creates issues that you don’t give a second thought to when you are educated and a surrounded by others who are also: The illiterate among the troops can’t memorize the ballistics tables that they can’t read, can’t learn anything about wind drift from books, and can only share information verbally. They can’t look at an exploded view of their rifle and request the correct part to fix it, much less read a description of the operation to determine what is failing. This also impacts their ability to estimate range…it takes basic arithmetic skill to work out that if you know what 100 meters looks like, then those guys way over there are about 500 meters off, because they are about 5 times the 100 meters. You aimed 10 feet to the left and saw your bullet hit 3 feet to the right of your target, so how many feet to the left should you aim your next shot? My magazine holds thirty rounds, and I fired 8 times, so now how many shots do I have left before I need to reload? Even really simple stuff like you are supposed to shoot at the enemy on the right…now which is right, and which is left again?
The article said that the Taliban are employing some foreign mercenaries that can shoot much better, and that these are causing some trouble. Also the Afghans seem to be pretty good at fieldcraft…staying hidden, using the terrain to escape, stuff like that.
No shit. Back before my accident [I used to ski cross country competitively, I broke my back in a skiing accident] I had just started training for biathlon. I figured I like to shoot, and am pretty decent. I like to ski, and am pretty decent. Combine them! Whee!
Shooting after skiing, the heart is pounding, the adrenalin is pumping … accuracy is down the shitter. :smack: As a decent shooter, I know that steadiness of hand is how you hit the target. Adrenalin gives you unsteady hands, and panting doesn’t help! Imagining onesself hiding, waiting for a conflict, unsure of whether or not you will get shot, sloppy training … I can not imagine most of the kids in the ambush being able to shoot for shit. It takes our forces time to properly train our kids to control themselves - my dad said that it wasn’t getting them to shoot on command, it was getting them to stop shooting on command, and pointing the gun in the right direction.
From what I understand, those ‘training camps’ like you see in all the Dan Ryan books and movies are not for the generic kids on the ground, they are for special training. Just how much training does the average Afghani kid actually get - I would surmise they get handed a gun and ammo when they get big enough to use one, and that is about it. They might get in a few rounds of shooting practice, and if they survive the ambush, they get in another. The day of the feared Afghan troops is well over - that was a Kipling thing. [and by that I mean back when the tribes actually trained, and they hunted for their food while in the field - pre WW2.]
Fascinating thread, thanks all. I had no idea that that was such a problem.
Really? I’m not trying to challenge you, it just seems astonishing to me that illiteracy would get in the way of learning left and right, or making rough corrections when aiming. You don’t have to know your ABCs to figure out that kind of thing.
Competitive and tactical shooting (which sniping and combat shooting are) are highly technical endeavors. In the day of ball and musket you could guestimate windage and elevation because both the fidelity of the aiming mechanism was not outstanding and the bullet was much heavier and travelling in a slower trajectory (which actually makes it more predictable–I’ve seen experienced but by no means world class shooters hitting man-sized targets at 600+ meters with a Sharps rifle firinb the .45-110), but with a modern high velocity rifle you have to have a substantial understanding of the basic physics, plus knowledge of mechanisms to properly service the weapon. The Kalashnikov family of assault and battle rifles are highly (perhaps uniquely) tolerant of harsh conditions and indifferent maintenance, but even they need to be cleaned and serviced once in a while to operate reliably and accurately.
When people think of the feared Afghans they are usually thinking of the First Anglo-Afghan War and Elphinstone’s retreat from Kabul to Jalalabad (where a wounded doctor was the sole survivor) which was in the 1840s. European armies of the 1840s were still organized along Napoleonic lines, meaning everyone wore brightly coloured, extravagant uniforms with bearskin caps and whatnot, formed up in tight ranks, blasted each other with a few musket volleys and then charged with bayonets. This worked a bit better in the plains of France than it did in the mountains of Afghanistan. The Aghans at the time were often armed with Jezails, which were more similar to the firearms used by hunters, in that were much longer and heavier than the muskets of the Europeans armies. They were no good for European style battles because their weight and length meant they were far slower to reload, but they outranged muskets considerably. So Afghans could perch from remote hilltops and snipe away at the British(Indians) without fear of return fire from anything short of artillery, which was difficult to transport through the mountains and in any case not very accurate. Also, remember the bit about brightly coloured uniforms and forming up in tight ranks? Yeah, not the best thing to do when the enemy can shoot at you and you can’t shoot back. In close combat, the Afghans usually wielded swords and shields, and were equally feared, but the better trained and disciplined British usually got the better of them if they managed to close to bayonet range.
The dynamic changed a bit in the late Victorian era when the Afghans were still running around with swords but British had khaki uniforms, Martini-Henry rifles and Gatling guns.
I think one has to remember that back then, the British seriously feared not only Russian influence, but an actual Afghan invasion of their Indian holdings, such as the power of the Afghan military at the time. Even during the Soviet backed communist era, Afghanistan had far better infrastructure and was generally a nicer place than it is now. I’m sure you and I know much more about the feared Afghans of Kipling’s day than the modern illiterate Afghan peasant who has known nothing but poverty and civil war amongst his own fellow Afghans his whole life.
No, I think we are similar. US Army Doctrine outlines the steps as:
“1. Near Ambush (Within Hand-Grenade Range).
a. Depending on the terrain, soldiers in the kill zone carry out one of the following two actions:
(1) Return fire immediately. If cover is not available, immediately, without order or signal, assume the prone position and throw concussion or fragmentation and smoke grenades.
(2) Return fire immediately. If cover is available, without order or signal, seek the nearest covered position, assume the prone position, and throw fragmentation or concussion and smoke grenades.
b. Immediately after the explosion of the concussion or fragmentation grenades, soldiers in the kill zone return fire and assault through the ambush position using fire and movement.
c. Soldiers not in the kill zone identify the enemy location, and then place accurate suppressive fire against the enemy’s position. Fire is shifted as the personnel in the kill zone begin to assault.
d. Soldiers in the kill zone continue the assault to eliminate the ambush or until contact is broken.
e. The platoon conducts consolidation and reorganization.
2. Far Ambush (Out of Hand-Grenade Range).
a. Soldiers receiving fire immediately return fire, take up covered positions, and suppress the enemy-
(1) By destroying or suppressing enemy crew-served weapons.
(2) By sustaining suppressive fires.
b. Soldiers (squads/teams) not receiving fire move by a covered and concealed route to a vulnerable flank of the enemy position and assault using fire and movement.
c. Soldiers in the kill zone continue suppressive fires and shift fires as the assaulting squad/team fights through the enemy position.
d. The platoon FO calls for and adjusts indirect fires as directed by the platoon leader. On order, he lifts or shifts fires to isolate the enemy position or to attack them with indirect fires as they retreat.
e. The platoon/squad leader reports, reorganizes as necessary, and continues the mission.”
From ARTEP 7-8, TASK 07-3-D9105
While I have no experience in Afghanistan, or with contemporary drills, my experience in Vietnam is illustrative:
I can state categorically, that in a properly set ambush, NOBODY who is caught in the kill zone walks away. Similarly NOBODY caught in the kill zone returns fire.
Every ambush we set resulted in 100% kill, with no friendly casualties, and no return fire. Follow up small arms fire was rarely needed.
For ambushing, the world’s greatest invention is the Claymore mine. After these were detonated, we rarely found more than the sandals of those caught in the zone.
Well yeah. But if you’re dead, you don’t have to worry about what to do. We train so that if/when we do survive the first seconds, we can continue to survive or at least react in such a manner as to aid the survival of our buddies.
Just because a properly executed ambush results in 100% casualties doesn’t mean we shouldn’t train for reacting to one in the case that it isn’t properly set up or properly executed.
And keep in mind that current military doctrine was written based off AARs from individuals and units who did survive and defeat ambushes in Vietnam. So just because your properly equipped, properly trained, American military unit was successful in all of its ambushes, doesn’t mean that other units have similar success rates. It isn’t hard to find articles on Vietnam vets who survived ambushes using the exact techniques I described–the ones currently taught throughout the US Army.
That’s what they trained me to do, and that was just college ROTC. I’ve never been in the army, but the army ROTC drummed “assault through” pretty much incessantly during instruction, so I assume the instructors for the actual troops stressed it that much harder. It makes sense, if you think about it. The only way to remain alive is to take the position from the enemy. Anything else is letting yourself be killed. You have to assume that retreating puts you in the kill zone for the ambush.
As an addendum. I’ve fired a Hungarian made AK that a friend of mine has about a year ago. It took me a bit to be able to even hit the paper target I was shooting at from 25 yards. AKs aren’t the most kind of weapons when you are trying for accuracy. It’s the heavy kick from the piston that throws your aim off.
I didn’t do that bad, but unless you are very familiar with the weapon, good luck hitting what you’re aiming at.
these statements are very hard to swallow. you don’t need arithmetics to shoot hoops, or cast a stone at a harlot. how dumb must you be to not be able to figure left and right? generic faceless enemy dumb i guess.
i understand that the aim of an untrained force would suffer greatly under pressure, there is no need for hyperbole.
When you’re shooting baskets, the ball travels slowly and for only a short range. Then you can see where your shot missed.
If you miss your target with a rifle, you usually have no idea where your shot went. Even if you think it went left… how far left? Adjusting your point of aim, or zeroing your sights is not as naturally intuitive as throwing a ball or tossing one into a hoop. One can be learned by a child from merely self practice. The other takes actual instruction, calculation, and training.
