Interesting look at Marja firefights and analysis by former Marine

[Bartholomew Roberts]

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...s-in-marja/?hp

Former Marine C. J. Chivers takes a look at the firefights in Marja to evaluate just how well the enemy is doing on the "gunfighting" part of the war. His analysis suggests that despite our constant worrying on this issue, NATO forces in Afghanistan have overwhelming dominance when it comes to a gunfight.

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't doubt the Marines are better shooters and can dominate gunfights. The problem is, of course, that the Taliban are so much more willing to die.

Strange how the Marines are in a firefight, and yet several are seen to be walking around in the open without concern initially.

So the Taliban has a singular decent shooter and the Marines get a bit freaked out. That looked to mean that it was no longer appropriate to walk around in the open during the firefight.

It's got to be a sniper!

So based on the professional assessment of a Marine who has been in battle and is in battle at the time of the statement, if the opposition shoots well at you, then the opposition is a sniper.

Here though, I am not sure about the domination of the fight. The ground to ground missile missed by several hundred yards and killed 12 of the wrong people. In the video, the Marines don't appear to be dominating at all, but pretty well pinned down by a "sniper." In fact, they seemed to be running out of ammo in their attempt to get the sniper and apparently failed to do so in the fight.

I don't doubt the domination factor, but the video isn't a good example.

[rc601962]

I love the main guy shooting from offhand. His gun was pretty much just a noisemaker. I had better tactics playing paintball. Geesh.

[gunmoney]

I am not sure they had much choice. They were not certain where the fire was coming from, there was no more cover between them and the shooter, so they could not safely advance. War or not no NCO is going to order there Plt./squad into oncoming "accurate" fire where they do not know where they should advance to. If they had no Snipers or DMR themselves, especially at that range, I would think they had no choice but to call in air support or in direct fire on the target, or simply wait for darkness. We would all like to think that all of our Soldiers and Marines are one shot one kill type people but 9.9 times out of 10 the situation does not allow for that.

[Bart Noir]

Anybody know what "ground-to-ground" missile that was? I know the Army uses the MLRS rocket & missile launchers, but have not heard that the USMC does.

Of course, it might not have been launched by Marines.

Make your guesses.....

Bart Noir

[HKFan9]

My only question was I saw carbines, and support guns, why didn't they have a long gun with their squad? I thought that was pretty standard. They say the fire is "a couple hundred yards away" when a Marine sniper can easily shoot that. From the book I read, Shooter (not the movie) which is an autobiography of Jack Coughlin one of our most decorated Marine snipers, he would zero his .308 at 1000 yards. This might be off topic but the book is a great read for anyone interested.

I thought it was common practice for there to be a long gun with a squad like that. I am not in the military but fully support their cause.

[Crosshair]

Anybody on this board who second guesses combat troops is an a55wipe. If you've been there (and I have not), you have the right to judge them. Otherwise, stick to paintball.

Such talk is said only by people who wish to stifle open discussion. Few of us have served in the House and Senate in Washington DC, does that mean we can't criticize the politicians?

It's kinda embarrassing to hear our troops calling anyone who can shoot straight a "sniper".

Also, I don't think that was an Enfield. I thought I heard semi-auto fire whizzing overhead.

Anybody know what "ground-to-ground" missile that was?

The Javelin is the only one I know of. It gets used quite a bit for buildings from what I have read.

[SPEMack618]

I will assure you of the fact that anytime any rounds come whizzing over head it seems as if a Camp Perry champion has a bead squarely on your helmet. Seems to me like a pretty common fire fight to me, it happens, all this nonsense about well aimed accurate rifle fire under duress takes a back seat when it may be you that has to A) fill that body bag or B) write a letter home saying how Johnny was a hero.

Combat ain't the range gentlemen, it behooves us all to remember that.

[Double Naught Spy]

Combat ain't the range gentlemen, it behooves us all to remember that.

You are right and judging by the way several of the Marines in the video were wandering about in the open, you have to wonder if they had forgotten where they were.

From the article...

First, what exactly is meant by “sniper”? Like many terms used to discuss war fighting, this is a slippery word. In the context of Afghan fighting, American troops tend to talk about a sniper when they encounter an insurgent rifleman who is obviously more skilled and disciplined than the norm, someone who fires with reasonable accuracy at medium and longish ranges, usually using a rifle-and-ammunition combination that can be effective out to 400 or 500 meters or more.

Last I checked, Marines qualified yearly out to 600 yards with open sights. By the classification of "accurate" fire and "very effective" fire they were receiving from an opponent or opponents that had to be sniper, then by comparison that sniper was up against 2 platoons of snipers.

From the article...

In Kilo Company, the Marines present in several engagements also felt that at least one of the Taliban gunmen shooting at them in this particular area might have had a telescopic sight.

Um, okay. Looking at the video, it seems that nearly all of the Marines had telescopic sights as well. They seemed to all have ACOGs. Even the machinegunner had an ACOG.

[Homerboy]

[QUOTE][Such talk is said only by people who wish to stifle open discussion. Few of us have served in the House and Senate in Washington DC, does that mean we can't criticize the politicians?/QUOTE]

Open discussion is fine. That's why we are on this site. But questioning tactics of trained combat Marines is ludicrous. Especially since we have a piece of edited tape. One person even wrote "I had better tactics while playing paintball". Is he for real? While not a combat vet, I am a retired police officer. I HAVE heard shots whizz over my head. I can assure you, I felt differently about them than I did a paintball whizzing over my head. And how many of us would be so calm with those shots flying over our heads? The one wounded Marine slapped on a bandage and got back into the fight. Would you give advice to your heart surgeon because you watch "ER"?

[Morgoroth]

I am probably the last person here to offer an opinion as I am the least experienced, but it seems to me like they did not at first know where the "sniper" was, and therefore it would be hard to return fire with out exposing themselves.

(I realize some of them where doing that anyway by walking around in plain sight.)

[Art Eatman]

Folks posting in the Rifle forum are calm, cool, collected, polite and courteous.

Or else.

If not, I will reach out through your monitor and do Bad Things to your keyboard...

[Crosshair]

The biggest screwup, Other than the one guy wasting ammo, is the whoever fired that missile and had it hit the wrong building. Not gonna win any friends doing that.

That part alone should have had more elaboration as to what went wrong.

[DanThaMan1776]

I like to think that if there was ever an invasion on American soil.. everyone on TFL would be MAJOR thorns in the emeny's a$$

[SPEMack618]

Gentlemen, a term to remember is suppressive fire. Ammo is cheap, atleast when Uncle Sugar supplies it, life ain't. The United States military embraces fire and maneuver for a reason, at the expense of more rounds fired, less lives are lost.

That squad sergeant was doing his job well and effectively, there is no reason to needlessly expose lives when indirect fire is available.

[Crosshair]

Gentlemen, a term to remember is suppressive fire. Ammo is cheap, atleast when Uncle Sugar supplies it, life ain't

Ammo may be cheap, but running out of ammo is very expensive. You hear in the video later on calls to conserve ammo.

What probably happened is that they planned on pushing through quickly, but when they had to stop and hold their position they realized that this might go on for a bit longer than planned, thus the need to conserve.

The United States military embraces fire and maneuver for a reason, at the expense of more rounds fired, less lives are lost.

If that was true, then the Taliban would have a much more impressive kill ratio.

The problem with that theory is that there is a difference between suppressive fire and EFFECTIVE suppressive fire. Such a theory works with the latter, but not the former. If you're shots are landing nowhere close, all you're doing is making lots of noise. Firing at an enemy like that who is hundreds of yards away from an unsupported position is probably not the most effective use of ammunition. If you were shooting at someone across the street, then sure. Who knows, they might have had a couple of guys who were much closer that they had to take down.

That squad sergeant was doing his job well and effectively, there is no reason to needlessly expose lives when indirect fire is available.

Most certainly. The only problem is when that indirect fire doesn't hit what it is supposed to and ends up causing more harm than good, as it did in this case. Not a fault of the infantry behind the walls.

[Crosshair]

I should probably add that we should be glad that the Taliban aren't using SP ammo or else that shoulder wound would have been much worse.

[thesheepdog]

I like to think that if there was ever an invasion on American soil.. everyone on TFL would be MAJOR thorns in the emeny's a$$

Heck yeah, brotha in arms!

The Taliban would have no chance against American rifleman. End of story.

[austinjking]

Last I checked, Marines qualified yearly out to 600 yards with open sights

Marines qualify out to 500 yards, and the iron sights have been replaced with the Trijicon ACOG for the most part. Its a 4x32 scope designed for close quarters and long range using the "Bindon Aiming Concept" where both eyes are open for closer ranges. It is not a Leupold Mk 4 or anything designed for precision shooting beyond 400 yards.
May I suggest that the Taliban gunmen were likewise moving about and seeking cover, making shots from several hundred yards away extremely difficult? If the enemy were concealed in the bushes, it would making sighting in almost impossible. I am not infantry myself, but it seemed to me that the Platoon Sergeant's strategy was to create suppressive fire, mark the target, and call in air support. With the distance and lack of cover, maneuvering closer to the enemy would have been ridiculous.

[austinjking]

Anybody know what "ground-to-ground" missile that was? I know the Army uses the MLRS rocket & missile launchers, but have not heard that the USMC does

It was probably an AT-4. The Javelin requires a crew and would be uncommon for a patrol like that. AT-4s use iron sights and are not precision weapons. The embedded journalist said it was "guided missile launcher" or something to the effect but that's coming from a journalist, not a military man. His information is likely wrong.

[Double Naught Spy]

Marines qualify out to 500 yards, and the iron sights have been replaced with the Trijicon ACOG for the most part.

Okay, well with a 4x ACOG, shooting 500 yards has the magnification to give you a 125 yard sight picture. Even with the ACOGs, I would expect that the Marines would still qualify as "snipers" as per the definition in the video/article. They should be able to make "accurate" and "effective" fire at 500 yards or meters and with the drop scales in the ACOGs, still be effective well beyond.

The embedded journalist said it was "guided missile launcher" or something to the effect but that's coming from a journalist, not a military man. His information is likely wrong.

Yeah, what would a graduate from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and Pulitzer Prize winning NY Times journalist know about anything in the military? It wasn't like he graduated Cornell in 1987, joined the USMC and was an infantry officer until 1994 and along the way graduated the Army's Ranger School and was in the first Gulf War or left the military as a captain. Oh wait, yes he did. He might know something about that which he speaks.

[Homerboy]

Why would a Marine graduate from Army Ranger school?

[Italian_Marksman94]

From what I know ranger school is open to cross training inbetween most of the branches.

[austinjking]

Yeah, what would a graduate from the Columbia Traduate School of Journalism and Pulitzer Prize winning NY Times journalist know about anything in the military? It wasn't like he graduated Cornell in 1987, joined the USMC and was an infantry officer until 1994 and along the way graduated the Army's Ranger School and was in the first Gulf War or left the military as a captain. Oh wait, yes he did. He might know something about that which he speaks.

The AT-4 is not a guided weapon, and I very much doubt that a routine patrol would have a Javelin. And as if all embedded journalists are prior military.

[Rob228]

Could have been a SMAW.

For those that haven't seen it, when a whole bunch of Marines start shooting, they shoot at everything they see until someone tells them not to. It is very, very comforting.

The annual qual's have changed, used to be if you were issued an M-4, you'd go to the armory and check out an M-16 for your annual qual (annual qual is more of a pain in the ass for those of us with an 03 in front of our MOS) and shoot that. Now, we use our T/O weapon with whatever optic we have on it. The shoot is out to 500, then the last two days of the week are in close for "Enhanced Marksmanship" which is 100 and in in kind of a weak CQB shoot that gets the desk drivers some time to feel like a warrior.