Use of assault rifles in CQB

[Travis Arnold]

We always see SEALs raiding boats (okay so we hardly ever SEE it) with MP5N's, but I hear that rifle rounds have better ballistics in a CQB situation. . . so why don't SEALs switch over? Is it gun manuverability, ability for a follow up shot, reliability, or what?

[kalashnikov]

Officially I believe most of JSOC has switched to the M4A1 for CQB. What you've seen is either old video, or considering that lots of MP5s are still around, they're using them just because that's what's readily available.

[Nissan]

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening...

[Daredevil]

I was under the impression that the 9mm was preferred in CQB (at least in hostage situations) because the round was less likely to go through a bad guy and into a hostage.

[Nissan]

DareDevil...its actually the exact opposite..the 9mm is a very powerful round and was OVER penetrating alot and causing problems...it would go through walls and the such...the .223 while has better velocities ballistics "knock down power" and all doesn't penetrate as much as the 9mm was and wouldn't bounce around as much...

[Mac679]

in addition to what Nissan said, you're also severely outgunned against Kalashnikov's if you've got an MP5, meaning you've got a range of 100m with yours, they can get you at 300m-so the M4A1 levels it out by giving you range to 600m as well as better terminal ballistics and less danger of overpenetration and ricochets. This string really belongs on the Weapons Forum, where it's already been discussed. That discussion can be found here: http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/Forum37/HTML/000006.html
Mac

[Daredevil]

That's true Mac but I wouldn't think that ranges of over 100m would be a factor in CQB. At least, not in a hostage room clearing situation where you're going to be certain you're doing the fighting inside of a building. I'm not talking about a general urban setting.

Plus, going back to the over penetration thing, I've seen a silenced MP5 shooting and it didn't seem like it had all that much power behind the round. I know that could be attributable to the silencer but I figured that would be the weapon of choice in that instance. Then again, it's all speculation on my part.

[Nissan]

Jims...if your talking a .22 long rifle then your dealing with a bullet going alot slower then that of a .223 even tho they are basically the same size the .223 the military uses has such higher velocities the wound channels would be very much different

As for the debilitating...I personally perfer to think of bullet placement over caliber or velocities or whatever...I personally believe that the .223 would cause more damage and make life a little more difficult for a surgeon then a 9mm but then again I havn't seen any X rays or anything of these 2 different wounds close up so my analysis might be off some...

DareDevil...you gotta remember all CQB starts with the approach and if you have to appraoch from a distance then the M4 can protect you better then a MP5 if your spotted out there at a longer range...and when you compare the fact that the M4 really isn't alot bigger then the MP5 the size factor doesn't play a role much either

Again with the Silenced weapons...any bullet will do the job regardless of power behind it..if you wanna stay secret and are doing a silent entry then you want your weapon to be silent...if your doing a dynamic entry then it really doesn't matter if the weapon is silenced or not because your gonna be bustin in the door and throwin flash bangs so the sound of your weapon firing won't make much difference

[Mac679]

to tack on to what Nis said ( although this really should be taken to WEPSNet where it belongs ), .223Remington and 5.56x45mmNATO are centerfire high velocity rifle rounds and are a far cry from .22LR rimfire rounds. as for being agains 9mm--far more powder behind a .223 and it has a lot more room to expand; trust me, the ballistic performance ( all areas ) of .223 & 5.56 are far beyond 9mm; there's far more to it that bullet size ( rate of twist in the barrel, bullet weight, powder weight, etc. )
as for 100m not being important, let's take a CQB mission that actually happened, how about the Son Tay raid? MP5's in the middle of North Vietnam surrounded by a lot of AK47's, still think superior range of engagement isn't important? even inside the compounds where the prisoners were kept the superior range would be needed so that one wouldn't have to start compensating for bullet drop when trying to nail someone on the other side of the compound. as for surpressed 9mm, I remember reading in Plaster's "The Ultimate Sniper" about a guy he shot with a burst of 9mm from a surpressed Swedish K center mass-no weapon and a blood trail leading away, that was in his argument against surpressors BTW. and it's not always possible to fast rope in on top of the objective, sometimes you gotta fight your way in, meaning the longer range of the M4A1 comes into play. and like I said earlier, lower ricochet chances are nice for hostages and your teammates alike. just check out the URL I posted earlier and if you've got more questions for god's sakes put them on WEPSNet, that's what it's there for ( this board gets enough off topic posts as it is )
Mac

[LRSC Grunt]

Remember..when a 5.56 hits flesh it yaws which can leave an exit wound the size of a soft ball and sometimes bigger. Plus it can follow the direction of tissue and sometimes even ricoche of bone. It can do much more damage than a 9mm and not very many balistics vests can stop it(plus its already been pointed out that it has distance,M4 carbine max effective range of 400m point target and 800m area target). Ive used an M4 for clearing rooms and never had a problem with it.

[JSOCMarine]

I may be able to lend some perspective here. I have not observed any 9mm wounds to a human body. I have however, seen many 5.56 and 7.62 wounds and the damage that they do.

Suffice it to say that 7.62 and 5.56 at very close ranges typically go through and through a person. At longer ranges I have seen 7.62 leave gaping holes on the way out of a body, usually directly opposite the entry wound. 7.62 jacketed ammo apparently does not become deformed upon hitting a body as much as 5.56 and as such does not seem to yaw as much during it's path.

5.56 on the other hand, often hits something hard (bone,etc.,) and veers wildly, many times exiting the body at a wierd angle to the entry wound. In other words, I have seen wounds where the bullet entered the guy's front left shoulder and exited from his right lower back (this guy died fast). This is typical from my experience, the 5.56 round is so fast and light that once it hits the body, it's path is rather unpredictable. The bullet swimming around the body obviously does a great deal of damage.

I am not a ballistics expert by any means. I am not qualified to quote studies,etc., that have been done concerning stopping power for CQB, overpenetration,etc. What I have shared here are my own personal observations, which may or may not align with those of others or the results of gelatin tests,etc. Semper Fi.

[Daredevil]

I remember reading in Blackhawk Down how that the Delta guy Howe was complaining that his 5.56 was going right through Somalis and not knocking them down. I think part of that problem was because they were using armor peircing rounds though. Howe was saying that a lot of the time the only way he could tell that he'd hit someone was the way their shirt would move.

Now speaking again from a hostage rescue perspective I would think that would be bad. I know rounds have been developed for 9mm that are designed to fragment inside the body to prevent them from going through the other side. Wouldn't that be preferable than an unpredictable 5.56 round? Is there a 5.56 round that does that also?

Again, I'm not disputing anyone, I'm just curious.

I know all of this belongs on the Weapons net section but I'm way out of my league talking firearms with some of the ballistics experts over there.

Also, has anyone compared the 5.45 (or is it 5.15?) round that newer Russian Kalishnikovs use to the 5.56? How do they compare?

[RAT]

DareDevil,
You have look at the BIG picture in CQB. This is not a SWAT team. When a team enters or is going to conduct IHR/CQB it is the final option...People are dead or dying...It comes down to the amount of acceptiable losses... You need the fire power. Most of the IHR's don't work...If one does work such as in Peru it takes months to plan... If you look into this hit you will see that the shape charge killed most of the T's up on entry... It could have well been H's... If your going into the Militery for CQB your going into it for the wrong reason's....
MY .02
RAT OUT!!!

[Nissan]

Dare Devil...Yes the .223s were going right through them because of the special bullets...but if you take a normal .223 round that some private is gonna fire during basic training if you don't take it and use the round will not go straight through like described in Black Hawk Down...however in the same book they said that either Gordon or Shughart (I can't remember which) loved to carry the M14 because when he hit someone with the 7.62 they stayed down...and if you read JY's post on weps net you'll also wonder about that part of the book too...

Yes in a hostage situation overpenetration would be bad...thats why they are using teh standard .223 ammo because it doesn't have as much penetration as the 9mm and can do more damage..and the .223 isn't as unpredictable as you think it is...the way it was said to be unpredictable was inside the body so you took that statement totally out of context..

Yes but the ballistics experts over there can still answer your question fully just like here...

Rat, Hooyah on that statement

[recce_o]

The fearsome wound ballistics of the 5.56 round are due, in part, to the fact that the bullet fragments in soft tissue. Upon striking soft issue the bullet begins to yaw. At some point, the forces on the bullet exceed its breaking strength causing it to break at the cannelure into two or more pieces. Each piece will create it's own separate wound track. Hence, the increased lethality of the 5.56 round.

I haven't read Black Hawk Down, but there are two possible explanations to what was happening. Either the bullets were armour piercing, with a strengthened jacket/core, such that they did not fracture. In Canada and Sweden the cannelure has been removed to DECREASE the lethality of the round (Go figure!). An additional explanation is that that the 1 turn in 7 inch rifling as found on the M16A2/M4 over stabilzes the bullet, such that insufficient yaw occurs and the bullet overpenetrates and exits the body.

[Mac679]

recce, it was the new 62gr M855 round that's designed to offer enhanced penetration against body armor, problem was the Somalis weren't wearing any ( the armor piercing rounds you mentioned-which is the new issue ball ammo ;-).
Daredevil the best answer you're gonna get is from JY over at WEPSNet. Granted he might go over your head but he's pretty patient to explain things. You can always go ahead and revive the MP5 string, just be careful-might be a Pandora's Box.
Mac

[PathfinderJr3325]

I have a copy of Emergency War Surgery, has comparisons in flesh and geletin (I think) of common NATO/WARPAC ammo. Will look in my aidbag tomorrow and post my results

[reconsweden]

Wouldn´t the ideal be to have mixed mag´s with AP/FMJ since most soldiers double tap?
Just curious.

recce_o,

My mail is FUBAR right now, but I´ll get back to you when its up again.



------------------
Videre Non Videri

[RAT]

No such thing as a double tap.
RAT OUT!!!

[Mac679]

reconsweden,
the M855 is the new standard issue ammo if I remember correctly. the rate of twist in the M16A2, M4, & M4A1 barrels are all set up for max accuracy from the 62gr ammo, not the old M193 ( 55gr ) ammo. so basically the M855 is FMJ, it's just designed to offer better performance against body armor ( small steel core towards the tip, lead behind that and a copper jacket )
Mac

[kalashnikov]

"No such thing as a double tap."
What are you talking about?

[This message has been edited by kalashnikov (edited 05-19-2000).]

[RAT]

If you have been through a package you would know. Just helping some of the youg buck with some terms....It is the wording that is wrong. Double taps are against the ROE's and Genniva Convention.
RAT OUT!!!

[Nissan]

What he's saying is basically you shouldn't practice double tapping (pulling the trigger twice rapidly) but use 1 shot then take a 2nd if nessacery...If you hit where you aimed the first time you don't need a 2nd shot..and if its needed make a 2nd shot.

Mac...I wonder if they realized that not all countries have body armor and need those types of rounds all the time...guess its just 1 more lesson the government is gonna learn late...again

[PathfinderJr3325]

Admittedly I am not yet in the service,
but I have always practiced "anything worth
shooting is worth shooting twice" in close
quarters or defensive shooting with a pistol
or rifle.

[RAT]

You made my point. That is not a double tap but a controlled pair of grouped shots. The diff in self defense or murder. On the stand you say double tap the lawyers will make it look like you don't know what you are doing... Controlled pair I saw my target I enguaged and made 2 percise hits to nuturlize the threat for both combatents and non-combatents.

I KNOW MY SPELLING AND GRAMMER SUCK!!!!!!!!!
But that is they it is when your in a rush.
RAT OUT!!!

[Nissan]

hey RAT sounds like you got that all planned out just in case...and it sounds like a great explanation to me...

Pathfinder...Yeah then again someone once said anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty...both are good sayings

[Ted]

Nissan, I am not quite following your statements about the 9mm "overpenetrating" when compared to a .223 (5.56) round. The 5.56 round will penetrate further and faster than any 9mm round.
My practical experience with gun shot wounds is almost the opposite of JSOCMarines; that is, most of the wounds I have seen were caused by 9mm rather than 5.56 or 7.62. He is right about the characteristics of the 5.56 round, when it hits something hard, it will go anywhere. I have only seen pictures of people shot with 7.62 rounds, and yes, there were goodly-sized chunks missing from them at the site of exit.
When one is talking about "knock-down power", typically he is talking about the kinetic energy of the projectile. As we all know KE=(1/2)Mass times Velocity (squared). Hence, the trend is toward lighter and faster bullets as it is better to have more velocity, because velocity is squared in this equation. Also of consideration with bullet design is to design the bullet with characteristics that cause it to come to a complete stop in the body, thereby departing all of it's kinetic energy into human flesh.

By the way, I'm not a ballistics expert, but I am a medical student at the military's medical school (Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences), so I will quote studies, textbooks, chapter, paragraph, and verse, if need be.

[Mac679]

Ted,
the 9mm overpenetration was shown in testing that was done, something to do with that at CQB ranges the .223/5.56 round hasn't stabilized and so it can easily be redirected by the objects it hits, whereas the 9mm is stable and will tend to punch clean through.
I don't have all the details, best bet would be to ask JY over at WEPSNet
Hope it helps,
Mac

[Nissan]

Ted...When you look at tests that were done by the military for CQB the results were that the .223/5.56 didn't overpenetrate as much as the 9mm did...like Mac said the 9mm would punch clean through and the .223 would be redirected...which could be good or bad...I mean if its redirected and hits the hostage standing next to the guy it isn't good but you don't have to worry about it going through a wall and hitting hostages on the other side or anything like that...The .223 while going very fast when it comes into contact loses its energy very quickly...that is where the velocity squared comes in...with teh velocity so high and when it hits it gives off its energy (newtons law..object will remain in motion till acted upon by a equal or greater force) to the target then it loses most of its power and while it still may penetrate the body you won't have to worry about the bullet going much further or through walls or obstructions at all because it just doesn't have enough energy...However with the 9mm it is still going at a pretty good speed and is more stable..thus it will penetrate better and go clean through the body and will still have enough energy to continue on through more people or walls or any other obstruction...Does this clear it up some more? If not I'll try to think of another way of saying it.

[reconsweden]

Rat, Nissan,

The way you describe double tap(two rapid trigger pulls) is the way all Swedish soldiers are thaught how to fire. I practise the controlled pair of grouped shots but officers have often told me to fire the shots more rapidly. During basic weapons training we are being told to aim at center mass and pull the trigger twice rapidly.

RAT,

Selfdefence and murder doesn´t apply in war and thats what we are being trained for.



------------------
Videre Non Videri

[RECON5]

I wanted to put my .02 worth in about the over penetration of 9mm topic. I am NOT a ballistics expert, NOT a Navy Seal, and NOT in the military. I am in Law Enforcement.

Our Team leader wanted to carry his AR-15 (.223) on Dynamic Entries. One of our Sgt. had a problem with this siting the over penetration of the round through walls ect. He argued different, and thus we had a rep from Federal Ammo come out to our firing range, and conduct a Gelatin test. We found the .223 to have the least amount of penetration. The Gelatin test basically demonstrated Nissan's last post. After this test was documented, The AR-15 ("Shorty") is now being carried on entries as a result.

REMEMBER 1*

[RAT]

Nissan,
That was not planed out.. Just what I was told to say if I was on that stand... You know how the some of the people in the US are. Aligations, Aligations, Aligations...It better not sound like murder to ACLU....

RAT OUT!!!

[Tracy]

Speaking as a former Assault Troop Commander, here's my play on the whole shebang:

It not WHAT you hit them with, it's WHERE you hit them. We had four principles of marksmanship "Front Sight, Front Sight, Front Sight and Front Sight".

The concept of Quick Aimed Pair evolved into delivering multiple shots until the threat is neutralized. Your aim point is Center of AVAILABLE MASS; whatever you see, aim for the middle of it. We trained using the 'Mozambique' Drill: Two to the Chest and One to the Head. I had a tough time doing that in real life; those heads are small and moving all the time.

Most Iron Sight Engagements occur at ranges below 200 meters, and the M4 is NOT a 600 meter weapon. The shorter barrel makes it easier in CQB to manuever; but beyond that range it's harder to engage targets than the M-16A2.

I was an XO in Somalia and didn't see as much action as I liked; but the Somalis I shot following those principles STAYED down.

That's my two-bits worth.

tracy.**********@60mdg.travis.af.mil

[Razor]

I admit up front to never having formal school training in precision shooting--everything I got came from internal team training from some pretty well qual'd folks. I guess its all semantics, but "double tap" has many meanings. I first learned it to mean "finishing" a wounded enemy, even if he presented no obvious threat. A BIG no-no in terms of the law of land warfare, and where the term probably got its negative connotation, such as what RAT was saying. More recently, it seems that the term has come to relate to a trigger squeeze technique in advanced marksmanship. A particular student text for a course on this type of marksmanship defines "double tap" as "two aimed shots fired in very rapid succession at a target. The intent is to ensure two fatal shots are delivered to each target as quickly as possible." It defines "controlled pair" as "two well aimed shots that apply all the fundamentals of shooting." So, I guess this is to say that the definition of double tap really depends on how you use it.

Tracy, I'm curious about the etymology of the term "Mozambique Drill". Does it refer to where the drill originated, or to a particular op, or something else? My first team daddy called something similar to that the El Presidente, and it consisted of the two plus one you mention on three e-types lined in a row, from one end to the other and back.

[This message has been edited by Razor (edited 05-22-2000).]

[RAT]

"double tap" - two aimed shots

"controlled pair" - two well aimed shots

In the eye of the court it better be "well aimed". That is just from my experence. A JAG laywer who wants your ass in a sling will use every angle he can. The english language can be a bitch. I was just giving some of these hard chargers some insight.

ReconSweed,
In the US we are governed by some civilians who would look at any means to say we are baby killers again. Yes, in war you do kill but we are talking CQB. 2 different objectives. War is to kill...CQB to rescue. Wording better be right in front of the Sub committee if some H's go down in the fight.
RAT OUT!!!

[This message has been edited by RAT (edited 05-22-2000).]

[Mike]

To Tracy, Razor, RAT,
do you consider CQB combat? A British guy told he he doesn't think of counterterrorism as combat.

[Tracy]

Razor Said: "I guess its all semantics, but "double tap" has many meanings. I first learned it to mean "finishing" a wounded enemy, even if he presented no obvious threat. A BIG no-no in terms of the law of land warfare..."

Re-read that section on 'finishing'. During the assault phase an raid or an ambush, you can pump as many rounds into someone as you like, threatening or not; it's not illegal. What's illegal, is to deliberately round up the survivors and kill them sometime during the post-assault phase. Besides, if you have survivors, you had a poorply executed operation anyway. We trained ourselves, and our indigenous forces, to shoot any legitimate target during the assault phase they came across. So, many of our guys would kill the same enemy two or three times over as they pass by.

The concept of double-tap came from research that showed no firearm is capable of a one-shot stop. However, two or more shots put some rounds over the threshold of a "hard kill": the effects are immediate and fatal. A lot of rounds used in single-shot engagments gave, at best, a "soft kill": the effects are still fatal, but the enemy can fight back before finally dying.

I have no idea where the term "Mozambique Drill" came from. It's an extension of the quick-aimed-pair; whereas the target is still functioning after hitting at center of available mass. It requires hitting somewhere else with additional rounds because where you're hitting now isn't working. The conventional wisdom is to aim at the head; even though it's a low-percentage shot. Most head shots are hard kills; which works for me. In Rhodesia they called it triple-tapping.


Rat Said: "War is to kill...CQB to rescue..." True, to an extent. CQB is the most over-used acronym in military parlance. It's original intent was to distinguish between typical engagement ranges between infantrymen in rural areas and urban areas. Urban combat is much closer and personal that the rural variety. Nowadays people who study CQB from a book think they're HRT Gods.

CQB is a CONDITON OF COMBAT, not a type of operation. It can apply to rural as well as urban operations. There are rescue ops in the bush, as well as the buildings.

Mike Said: "...do you consider CQB combat? A British guy told he he doesn't think of counterterrorism as combat..." Tell your British Guy what I just described for CQB: It's a condition of combat in which people are trying to kill each at ranges less than 20 meters (hand grenade range). CQB is not counterterrorism. Politicians make noises about what's combat and what's not; soldiers couldn't care less. Dead is Dead.

[recce_o]

I think the term Mozambique arose from mercenaries working therein who used the drill.

[RAT]

Tracy,
I could not agree with you more.
I am just talking from my experence and what happened with us on a training take down with the DOE.
RAT OUT!!!

[Tracy]

RAT:

Personally, I'd like to pimp-slap a lot of those other organizations for butchering our military terms; because they mutate the terms into something it's not and completely confuse the outsider. That includes voters and politicians who get us money to train with.

I'll PLF off the soapbox now...

[Tracy]

Addendum:

Counter-Terrorism:
Actions taken in RESPONSE to a specific Terrorist act or actions. E.G. Rescue, EOD, Police call for body parts, Chemical Decontamination.

Anti-Terrorism:
Actions taken by an organization to PREVENT or REDUCE THE EFFECT of Terrorism used against it. E.G. Heightened Personnel Security, Parcel Screening, Barriers, Target Hardening, etc.

Ciao

[Razor]

Tracy,

You are, of course, completely correct. I failed to properly convey my intent in my post. An example I should have used is following, say, a raid, you take the time to police the objective and pop all the incapacitated (must stress that term; unable to currently fight back, and presenting no threat to you) survivors in the head, 'cuz they're the bad guys. During the assault phase, you certainly need to ensure those who are put down stay down, but upon withdrawl, if they can't chase you, shoot you, blow you up, bite your toes, etc then do they still qualify as a combatant? They certainly were at one point in time, but due to a loss in capability, are no longer. This is, of course, the clean, perfect world, legal-ese solution, and is not always reality.

[reconsweden]

I totally agree with what Tracy says.
Here they teach us to do all we can to take out the enemy but also to help the surviving ones at the best of our ability. Lets just say that if my squad ever find ourselfes in a war, we would make damn sure the enemy doesn´t need any medical attention.

BTW: Tracy, our urban warfare units use the HKG3, doesn´t the 7.62x51 have one-shot stop capability, I mean in CQB you have a great chance to but the round where it counts that I have noticed. But then again I have no live experience so I only know what works in training. The urban warfare units double tap if anyone wonders.

Also, how often do you use grenades in CQB situations in the US, because recent studies here have found that they are a little bit to effective indoors, in some tests they moved walls, so now we have to make sure we´ve got a loadbearing(is that the correct term?) wall between us and the enemy.



------------------
Videre Non Videri

[Mike]

To Tracy, some European countries's SWAT and SOFs use anti-counterrorist to describe counter-terrorism like we use counter here. Language similarity can create confusion sometimes.

[Tracy]

Razor: If your operation includes a planned withdrawal off the objective, you're still in the assault phase of an operation. Depending on Weather, Enemy and Terrain; you could be doing a planned FIGHTING withdrawal. That means you lay down a heavy base of fire to cover your withdrawal and pursuit; the killing continues. Post-assault in this case begins after you depart the objective rally point.

If your operation is to seize and hold an objective, then your post-assault procedures begin as soon as you consoldiate your position: Establish Security, Account for Personnel (Enemy and Friendly), Re-establish the Chain of Command and Make Plans for Follow-On Operations. In this case, rounding up and killing prisoners who aren't resisting is illegal. If the operation is done properly, what few survivors there are will not want any more guns pointing at them; and will do whatever it takes to stay alive.

ReconSweden:
Tell your squad to use the ENEMY'S medical supplies to treat the enemy. Don't deplete your personal medical kits to help them.

The 7.62 NATO is a one-shot stop round, if you aim for the enemy's medulla oblongotta (the base of the head, where it meets the neck). In general, no round can do a one-shot hard kill. That's why it's so important to AIM; to increase the effectiveness of your round fired. I guarantee that head-shots during CQB is damn hard to do. Your urban units are doing the right thing with double-tapping.

Hand grenades in CQB (rural or urban) are used to regain tactical initiative or to break the enemy's initiative. During room combat, often a squad (8-14 pers) has to clear an entire floor; room by room. While you're clearing rooms at one end of the building, the enemy could be preparing hasty defenses at the other end. As the squad works its way through the floor, it can use hand grenades to regain tactical initiative; especially if one room takes a real long time to clear.

There are two basic types of hand grenades: Offensive and Defensive. Offensive Hand Grenades do NOT produce shrapnel; they use the noise and light to produce the shock effect needed to disorient the enemy. Offensive grenades can be thrown with friendlies in the same room; because there's no shrapnel.

Defensive Hand Grenades use blast to propel shrapnel; and produce a killing radius of 3-5 meters. Defensive grenades have limited use in room combat; because most internal walls will pass shrapnel right through and possibly injure friendlies. The blast has a side effect of damaging load-bearing walls; but if you're not planning on occupying the building following the assault, who cares? Having a load-bearing wall is no guarantee you'll have fewer problems with shrapnel or collapse.

Study the areas you're fighting in and determine what type of grenade works best for room combat and weigh that against the situtation you face. I wouldn't rule out Offensive or Defensive grenades, but I would alter the mix I carried based on the situation and structure of the operation. In Mogadishu, Somalia, defensive grenades were used ALL the time with no ill effects.

tracy.**********@60mdg.travis.af.mil

[nose]

we've only recently started regularly using body armour during CQB training over here, does anyone know about the effects on the person wearing it after he's been hit in the torso with a rifle bullet?

Reconsweden,

we were told to limit ourselves to three grenades per floor.


Cheers,

Nose

[Tracy]

Nose:

It depends on whether or not your body armor is rated to stop the round fired at you. U.S. DOJ standards are a Level III-AK will stop a 7.62 Soviet round (AK-47), whereas a Level IV will stop 7.62 NATO and .30-06 Armor Piercing.

If the Armor is rated to stop the round, the next criterion is the Back-Face Deformation the armor allows: How big of a 'dent' does it put into you. US DOJ allows only 44mm, or less, of back-face deformation. Many Armor Vests stop the rounds fired at them but still fail because the dent is greater than 44mm.

Speaking from personal experience, you WANT armor that stops the round and has a small dent allowance. I've been hit twice while wearing armor and it wasn't pleasant: I had bruises where I was hit. The good news was I was still in the fight. Excessive back-face deformation can KILL you outright because of the blunt trauma delivered into the body cavity.

Rule of thumb: ALWAYS use body armor equal to the most powerful round in the room; whether friendly or enemy. E.g. if you go in with 7.62 NATO and the enemy has 9mm parabellum, wear armor to stop the 7.62 NATO. You never know when a stray round from one of your teammates may come screaming through your position.

[reconsweden]

Tracy,

Now you´re talking my language, the phrases "Weather, Enemy and Terrain"(my favorite) and "regain tactical initiative" almost brought tears of nostalgia in my eyes, got flashbacks from the early days of classroom tactics study. *sniffle*
I appriciate that you used baby language btw, helps because english is my second language.
Of course we use the enemy´s medical supplies to treat them, just meant that we(my squad) would make sure(during combat, not after) that none of the enemy would need medical attention.
We seem to use handgrenades in the same way(you sound like one of my instructors) and I do know how they are used but we have only recently been issued a defensive grenade, most of the grenades are the old explosive grenade m/56(direct translation) and they definitly knocks people out by overpressure in confined areas(indoors) but because some inner walls here are made of...don´t know the word but you can punch thru them...so if you don´t check before you clear the next room you might get a wall over you, this has also happened with concrete walls when using the m/56. One test actually managed to move basement walls, quite impressive. We mostly don´t have a choice of what grenades to bring but almost always get the m/56 because we´ve got plenty of them.
Is offensive grenades what is sometimes referred to as flashbangs?

Also, do you make our own "doors" with explosives and clear from upper floors and down when it is high risk of enemy presence?

I think that one of the most interresting sounds is that of your buddies bullet passing REAL close to your head, usually makes for good conversion(translation: me screaming at the sloppy soldier)...

BTW: You REALLY sound like one of my urban warfare instructors.



------------------
Videre Non Videri

[Bruce]

I do not quite know the definate etymology of the "Mozambique" drill but I have heard of that method of exicution being used in Southern Africa

[RAT]

Did not mean to hit a nerve.
RAT OUT!!!

[Tracy]

ReconSweden:

1. Flash-Bangs are classed as Offensive Hand Grenades.

2. Regarding making your door into a building, yes we used explosives quite often. Breaching is the term used to define methods of forcing an entrance through prepared positions. There are three types of breaching: Mechanical, Ballistic and Explosive.

Mechanical Breaching involves using tools to cut, break, ram or go over obstacles; mechanical leverage with human power. Your boots on a door or window is a mechanical breach. Wire/Bolt cutters, door rams, pry bars, gasoline quickie-saws, ropes and ladders are a part of this group.

Ballistic Breaching involves using firearms to go through an obstacle. Machine guns, rocket launchers, grenade launchers and shot guns are a few of the types. One of the most effective, and least used, ballistic breaching tool is the tank. An extremely effective technique is to drive the tank right up to the door and ram the main gun muzzle through a door or window and squeeze the trigger. If the building is still standing, it creates a breach and clears the room all in one shot.

Explosive Breaching uses explosives custom made for breaching; or using existing materials to create a breaching charge. This is the most time-consuming type of breach to do. The training is extensive and time is needed to create the right charge for the situation and structure. There is no generic charge that works for all situations. When done properly by trained personnel, an explosive breach will create your hole and drop the debris at the base of the breach; instead of throwing it around the room.

There are also custom-made explosives for internal breaching of doors. They are used on locked doors once inside the building.

The nice thing about explosive breaching is that you can create your own entrance better suited to your tactical plan; or, use it to clear a entrance you suspect may be booby-trapped (window or door).

Regarding risk and clearing procedures:
There are two types of situations in urban combat: High Risk and Unknown Risk. I treat everything as a high-risk operation. There are pros and cons regarding clearing Top-to-Bottom, or Bottom-to-Top:

Top-to-Bottom:
Pros: Gravity works in your favor; especially with grenades.
Pros: It's unexpected.
Cons: You need equipment to get on top safely before clearing. That means training and time to do the breaches.
Cons: Over half of your body is exposed during descent (stairs or abseillng) before you can bring a weapon to bear on a threat. This means developing procedures to reduce the threat until your weapon is free to engage.

Bottom-to-Top:
Pro: Most entrances are on the bottom.
Pro: Less breaching equipment is needed.
Pro: During ascent (stairs or ladders) your weapon can engage targets before the rest of your body is exposed.
Cons: Most entrances are defended.

Regarding equipment any Urban Warfare Unit needs, at a minimum:
Ropes and Grappling Hooks,
Ladders (1 meter wide),
Flashlights (bolted on the rifles),
Prybars,
Light Machineguns,
AT Launchers (man-portable),
Sniper Rifles,
Elbow and Knee Pads,
Crash Helmets,
Personal Radios,
Gas Masks that fit with the helmets,
Ear Plugs.

Thank you for the compliment, I've been teaching military tactics for 20 years; and Urban Warfare since 1990.

If Sweden continues to do UN peacekeeping duties, you guys will definitely need the Urban Warfare training in HUGE doses. One of these days the UN or the EU will realize that the only way to maintain peace is to pound on the troublemakers until the survivors quit.

If you perform your first combat operations with massive force and precise execution; the survivors will think twice before screwing with you a second time.

Don't leave your Mechanized and Tank forces out of your urban operations. Use Light Infantry and Special Ops for Assault Elements; Mech and Panzers for the Security Elements.


Rat: What nerve are you talking about? Certainly none of mine. Just to be safe, are your rabies shots up to date??


[This message has been edited by Tracy (edited 05-25-2000).]

[VENOM]

Wow, I have been reading on UBB for a long time and this "Use of assault rifle in CBQ" message board is where I learn the most about urban warfare technicals terms. Thanks to Tracy and others.

VENOM

Ducimus

[PTFreak]

Screw the 9mm and .223 M-4 carbine crap. If you want them to stay down after you shot them then use an M-60 to hose them down. Or fire a couple hand held rockets with anti-personnel fragmentation charges directly into the crowd of Somalis. Hide behind a rock and shoot them in the back when they aint looking. Hehehe fight dirty.

I will tell you why the .223 bullets were not knocking down the Somalis. Cause they dont use old fashioned lead bullets anymore. They use those steel jacketed bullets...been doing that since Vietnam. Lead bullets are against the Geneva convention I believe. But good ole fashioned pure lead bullets are the best bullets there is.

Or just call in a jet to napalm the whole city block. You guys make CQB too complicated.

[Mac679]

PTFreak/Eric/Deepsand/WeaponsGuy(?),
correction-the M855 is *not* steel jacketed, it's *steel core* ammunition, and as so many people have said, it's not what you hit them with, it's where you hit them.
the ammunition, lets say 5.56 ( BTW it's not interchangeable with 5.56 *all* the time, some weapons yes, some no ), from Vietnam, the M193 round was 55gr lead core, copper jacketed round, Full Metal Jacket-meaning the round is not designed to expand or otherwise change shape, the M855/SS109 was only recently added to the US arsenal ( within the past 15 years or so ).
Mac

[RAT]

Tracy,

Doc say's all shots up to date!!!

Now lets get to the nitty gritty of CQB...R&S
Do you feel that R&S should help with the determination of entry, type of entry, type of weapons that should be used.

RAT OUT!!!

[This message has been edited by RAT (edited 05-25-2000).]

[This message has been edited by RAT (edited 05-25-2000).]

[PTFreak]

Originally posted by Mac679:
PTFreak/Eric/Deepsand/WeaponsGuy(?),
correction-the M855 is *not* steel jacketed, it's *steel core* ammunition, and as so many people have said, it's not what you hit them with, it's where you hit them.
the ammunition, lets say 5.56 ( BTW it's not interchangeable with 5.56 *all* the time, some weapons yes, some no ), from Vietnam, the M193 round was 55gr lead core, copper jacketed round, Full Metal Jacket-meaning the round is not designed to expand or otherwise change shape, the M855/SS109 was only recently added to the US arsenal ( within the past 15 years or so ).
Mac

Dont insult me by calling me weapons guy. The bottom line is that if the military would just go back to basics and use old fashioned lead bullets for rifles, carbines and sub machine guns a lot of these conversations would not matter anymore. Cause lead bullets expand and cause the most damage hands down. Lead bullets are the answer if you are shooting people.

Of course, we go by the wussy Geneva convention and take orders from the UN. So, WTF does it matter? Cause our military has shitty leadership to begin with. Cause if we had good military leadership they would not tolerate anything but the best, which in this case means pure lead bullets and old fashioned, hard core PT standards.
Call me old school, call me old, call me crazy. I just know if you shoot someone with a lead bullet they go down and stay down.

I think the old military was best. WW2 and Korean era. Hard PT standards, old style lead bullets and olive drab fatigues rather than these mickey mouse Woodland camo BDUs they use now. Only thing that is better now is the boots, they have better boots nowadays.

If we ever have to fight the Chinese in a ground war we should seriously consider switching back to pure lead projectile ammunition for rifles and most other small arms. Cause if you were fighting that many Chicoms youd want every bit of bang for your buck and that would mean lead bullets.

Lead is best if you wanna kill the motherfucker dead. Shootem in the head, shootem in the back. Why be a nice guy and fight fair? The idea is to hide behind a rock and shoot them where they never had a chance. Remember the Revolutionary war and the Minutemen and the British? Well sometimes I wonder if we have become the British what with our regimented, control freak style military and our rigid ways of doing things and fight fair attitudes. Its almost like war is no longer war but a sport or something.

[Bad_Karma]

FYI. Details on the origin of the "Mozambique Drill" are contained in these two articles.

1. http://www.kuci.org/~dany/firearms/jeff1_1.html
Jeff Cooper's Commentaries Vol. 1, No. 1, June 1994

2. http://www.thehalogroup.com/thehalogroup/newsltr/2000/pg2.html#continued
The Tactical Operator, Vol. 1, No.1 1998 Gabriel Suarez Enterprises

For those who want the scoop now, the full text of the Cooper article is below. The Tactical Operator commentary is more in-depth on the 'Failure to Stop' topic.

--------------------------------------------

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries
Vol. 1, No. 1 June 1994

"As time passes we discover that there are a good many readers who have not been to school and who are puzzled by our reference to "The Mozambique Drill." I added The Mozambique Drill to the modern doctrine after hearing of an experience of a student of mine up in Mozambique when that country was abandoned. My friend was involved in the fighting that took place around the airport of Laurenco Marquez. At one point, Mike turned a corner was confronted by a terrorist carrying an AK47. The man was advancing toward him at a walk at a range of perhaps 10 paces. Mike, who was a good shot, came up with his P35 and planted two satisfactory hits, one on each side of the wishbone. He expected his adversary to drop, but nothing happened, and the man continued to close the range. At this point, our boy quite sensibly opted to go for the head and tried to do so, but he was a little bit upset by this time and mashed slightly on the trigger, catching the terrorist precisely between the collar bones and severing his spinal cord. This stopped the fight."

BK

[Mac679]

well let's see, all you've posted are *your* ill informed opinions, wanna go back to lead bullets-let's talk fouling, feel like scrubbing the hell out of your barrel to get all the lead build up; course we all know you won't be the one doing that. Lead bullets ain't the answer, hittin em where it matters is. In case you didn't notice, or bother to find out, solid lead bullets went out a long time ago, now they're jacketed in copper to reduce fouling and allow them to better form to the rifling. BTW WW2 equipment, LOL!! You know the only reason we took back the camo uniforms we issued during WW2 was because they looked similar to Nazi issue uniforms. BTW the uniforms were light Olive Khaki, not OD Green. "Cause if you were fighting that many Chicoms youd want every bit of bang for your buck and that would mean lead bullets"-actually that'd mean frangible ammunition ( also outlawed by the Hague Conventions for use on a nations military forces, perfectly legal for terrorists ), ie Glaser safety rounds, which have their downsides, ie body armor, and the Chinese have been known to use human wave assaults, I'd definitely want my rounds going through three guys instead of one. Shoot em in the head? Yeah, no shit, shoot em in the back, I'll shoot em in the toes if that's all I see. Give it a break. You bitch alot but I don't see you making any suggestions. Remind me of the kinda guy that's got something to prove. Thank god you won't be in the field with me, I don't need to die because you've got an inferiority complex.

[This message has been edited by Mac679 (edited 05-26-2000).]

[reconsweden]

Tracy,

Here I go again, have been called curious before, wonder why? http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/smile.gif

First of all I have to apologise for using layman(?) terms but I don´t know what most of them are called in English and I assume you don´t know Swedish(No, its doesn´t sound like The Swedish Chef...).

Weapons questions: Why light MG´s? I assume that means 5.56 but is it because of the greater manouverbility of the Minimi vs the FN MAG/M60? Would´nt it be useful to have a 7.62 weapon capable of sustained fire to use as a covering weapon when advancing? I think that FN MAG crew and a sharpshooter/sniper (w. sniper rifle) is a very effective combination when it comes to cover fire.

When you say "AT Launchers (man-portable)" I assume you´re talking about the AT4 when it comes to US forces and I wonder if you´re considering the AT4 CS(no backblast) for your urban/peacekeeping forces?

Would´nt the XM995 round be useful in urban operations because of its great penetrating ability and since shot placement is all that counts overpenetration will not be a problem.

I´m in a Mech unit and since I´m recon I prefer the woods but we know how to operate in urban enviroment and the tank method of clearing rooms/floors is definitly availible for us but I gotta ask: Have you ever been around a tank when it fires a live 120mm(the Abraham uses the same main gun as our Leopard 2´s)round? It will definitly clear a room no matter how big and most probobly the entire floor but it could also make the building(or parts of it) fall on the tank. The tank commanders I´ve met are often overconfident but most don´t like the idea of several tons of concrete landing on their beloved tank and knocking the crew around and crushing prism´s, sensors, external MG and smokelaunchers plus fouling up the barrel(no picknick cleaning it).
So while it is effective I´ll rather let the tank(s) fire exlosive rounds from a distance since they still can hit a individual window from quite some distance. Also, tanks are very exposed when in close to buildings and a molotov on top seriously makes it hard to see thru thermal/LI and prism´s.
All in all, let mech inf in instead of MBT´s, the mech forces have 40mm autocannons on their vehicles and they work great for room clearing to.

Regarding house clearing, when it is High Risk(excellent policy you use BTW, I also assume the worst) we sometimes clear Top-to-Bottom and the con of exposing your lover body is eliminated by breaching thru the floor and dropping a grenade before you send someone down and this has the advantage of suprise as the enemy never can tell where you will appear and so never can make coordinated defence plans such as defending a stairwell/door and fall back a preplanned distance upon enemy contact because you might drop down behind them.
It is very easy to defend in urban operations so if you do not send well trained well equipped units you´ll have a LOT of losses without acomplishing much. Didn´t need to tell you(Tracy) that but there are a number of non military/mil interested here so don´t think I´m insulting your knowledge/intelligence/skills.

We do have a force capable of peace...don´t know the term again...forcing(direct translation) in addition to peacekeeping duties, its called SwedRap(Swedish Rapid Deployment Force) and its Mechanized.

I totally agree with what you said about the UN/EU, they´re letting everyone walk all over them, by restricting the peacekeeping forces to much, making them feel completely helpless/useless. They are there as soldiers but are used as symbols of UN presence and are not allowed to help or interfere against massive human rights violations. How can they help if they´ve got their hands tied behind their backs?
The UN has to make a stand and say they wont be pushed around anymore but I doubt it will happend in the near future. They need to make an example, although not in the way PTFreak thinks...

Hmmm...must learn how to make short posts, I always end up writing a book...



------------------
Videre Non Videri

[Snake]

An Eagle Fireball will cause hostiles to vacate a building with haste, heh. Mk.19's are a godsend for suppressing the bad guys. Just start firing them in through windows..(caution, may splatter innocent civvies!!).
Bradleys have their uses in MOUT, but keep em as a ready reserve to provide fire-support to needy squads. Infantry to locate and close with, Armor to crush. Or bring in the Sappers and torch the place. BTW, one of the Brigades Engineer Officer's was disciplined last week for suggesting the use of flamethrowers to suppress mobs (i.e. Mogadishu-like situations, only with fewer RPG's). Now, -that- would be crowd control...

Also, Light Infantry Div.'s might be getting more Dragons in their TO&E. We'll know more about that in the next month or so.

Does anyone remember which FM discusses construction of tunnel systems?

Snake
25th ID(L)

[Snow]

Reconsweden:

Might interest you: http://www.mil.fi/reservilainen/index.html

På svenska: Reservistschefens handbok; pä sidan 211: Använding av tillfälliga redskap och rök vid pansarvärn

Check also the manuals in Finnish, there might be interesting pictures.

[recce_o]

In a CQB environment where collateral damage and civilian casualties are verbotten, I can understand why sniper rifles would be employed. Would sniper rifles still be employed in a full scale urban combat scenario? If I needed support I would prefer the greater weight of fire from a GPMG than that from a sniper rifle. Or, are there other applications for the sniper rifle?

[reconsweden]

Snow,

Very interesting reading, nice to how your army teaches things.
I really like the colorful descriptions in the squad combat section, they seem like taken right out of a novel or something.

For the non Finnish/Swedish speaking out there let me translate a section from the squad combat section.

"The squads annihilate the onrushing enemy with forcefull fire. The nests machineguns fires at enemies that are attacking in the rear part of the fire area in all the fire areas width. An enemy that charges in to the foxholes is annihilated in closecombat(H2H)."

It keeps the same style all the way, fun reading AND educational http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/smile.gif

BTW: Snow, jag skulle inte vilja ligga vid vägkanten och vänta på en stridsvagn med värmesikte som kan se ens kroppsvärme på km avstånd och sen spränga skiten några meter ifrån och hoppas att det inte blir ammunitions brand och att man får tornet i skallen...
Du är inte militär va?
Det var intressant läsning faktist, ska ge den till några andra gruppchefer.

recce_o,

Snipers are very useful but they are not used as offensivly as GPMG´s. A sniper in overwatch is never wrong especially in urban warfare where there is a lot of places to hide. Always make sure someone is in overwatch when moving and I prefer sniper rifles in that role but a GPMG works to.
This is not Swedish doctrin, just my opinion.

------------------
Videre Non Videri

[This message has been edited by reconsweden (edited 05-26-2000).]

[Mike]

to PTFreak,
then maybe you can stay in the military and until you become a general, you can start by implementing your ideas.
The Geneva Convention saved many POWs worldwide. It is "enforced" by the International Red Cross Society, not the UN.
The only way we can go as peacekeepers is through the UN or at the invitation of the messed-up country.
<<our military has shitty leadership to begin with. Cause if we had good military leadership they would not tolerate anything but the best, which in this case means pure lead bullets and old fashioned, hard core PT standards.>> Which military leaders are you referring to? The ones with the Ranger tab or the SF tab or the infantry experiences from the Vietnam War?
<<The idea is to hide behind a rock and shoot them where they never had a chance.>>
Ever been in an urban area where there are rock to hide behind? Name one city with that many big rocks.

[PTFreak]

Bring back the flame thrower for urban warfare. It was a great weapon in WW2. It is very politically incorrect I suspect but...it works great.

[Tracy]

PTFreak:

Why aren't you in the military right now, making those changes? I think you're just another outsider who lacks the intestinal fortitude to make a difference.

I never fought fair; and I never had to worry about the composition of my rounds when it was real.

They made a movie about you 30 years ago: "Hot Lead and Cold Feet".

tracy.**********@60mdg.travis.af.mil

p.s. Don't let that e-mail address fool you.

[Tracy]

OK, on to more pleasant things:

Got quite a conversation going on with the equipment for Urban Warfare, so I'll try to elaborate:

1. Urban Warfare is three dimensional; we have to look UP and DOWN as well as all around. While we clear, we need 'angels' looking over us to watch our backs.

2. Urban Warfare is more like a continuous series of raids on prepared positions (buildings) than a movement-to-contact in a rural environment. Time is always lacking, so we can't prepare for raids the way we used to: plan one at a time and rehearse one at a time.

3. Urban Warfare is manpower intensive: a small three-story building that's 20m long and 20m wide can suck in an entire platoon for clearing. We haven't got the manpower.

4. Our intelligence system is not configured for Urban Warfare. Some new technology designed for Urban Warfare would really be nice; failing that, we have to fall back on providing our own intelligence as we go through the area.

Here’s Tracy’s Theories and Rambling’s on Urban Warfare:

1. Make DAMN sure you have to go in to an Urban Area and clear it; it should be the LAST OPTION, not the first.

2. Task Organize and train for Urban Warfare: Split the force into two equal elements: Recon/Security and HQ/Assault. Always commit 50% (or more) of your force to R/S; believe me, you’ll need it.

3. The R/S Element has the MGs, AT Launchers, Snipers, Tanks, Mortars, etc. H/A has the Infantry, APCs, Breaching Equipment.

4. As goes the Recon, so goes the Assault. If your Recon Element screws up, the Assault Element will die; and the survivors will want to get even. Recon will find the ways to get in; and provide the cover needed for the Assault Teams to get into position. One of the most vulnerable times for the Assault Element is the Breach into the building. All buildings have a natural kill zone all the way around it’s perimeter, and the Assault has to go through that kill zone to get in and do their job.

5. The R/S element also prevents reinforcement AND escape. In general terms, the Urban Force moves like an inch-worm: R/S moves up, H/A catches up. First, R/S performs reconnaissance tasks; Second, they establish a cordon around the site; Third, they cover the approach of the H/A element; Fourth, the R/S element makes sure no one interferes with the H/A element while they’re working. During the assault, the R/S element will have to detach a sub-element to begin the reconnaissance of the next building; and start the process all over again. Communication with Higher and Adjacent Units is the R/S responsibility.

6. The R/S element should have more experienced urban fighters than the H/A. The reason is two-fold: First, they will have a better idea of what to look for. Second, they may have to go in and recover the H/A element if things go really bad.

7. The H/A element is the one that makes direct physical contact with enemy. They have fewer tasks to perform; but have a greater opportunity to die. They follow the R/S element into the area. When they’re moving, they also act as the mule train and bring the additional supplies: The supplies taken are: “35MM”; Class 3 (Fuel), Class 5 (Ammo) Medical and Maintenance. This is also called the Combat Trains. H/A also provides and controls communications inside the Urban Warfare Unit, controls the overall operation and uses the R/S Element to relay information outside the unit.

8. The H/A element starts their work by dropping off the Combat Trains in a secure area marked by the R/S element. Then they begin their pre-combat checks and receive the intelligence from R/S. Standing Operating Procedures (SOPs) will be critical for successful Urban Operations. Because there are so many buildings to clear in so little time, SOPs will help speed up and smooth out the process. Urban Fighters will not have the luxury of planning and rehearsing separate operations for every building.

9. Once they get all the information possible from R/S, the H/A will do their own leaders’ reconnaissance to fill in any gaps and visualize the area. Oral operations orders are next, followed by movement to the Last Covered and Concealed Position (LCC). On the Go Signal, the H/A begins their Approach and Breach. R/S will have the heavy stuff with them, so it stands to reason that they can blow a breach for the H/A every once in a while. After the breach, the H/A enters and begins clearing the building. The HQ sub-element will position themselves where they can best control the operation. During the clearing, the HQ sub-element will call forward a small piece of the R/S to begin looking over the next building and provide a little extra security. Once the building is secured, H/A sends back for the Combat Train and brings the R/S element up to consolidate their position.

10. Then the fun starts all over again…

Stay tuned for the next post....

[Tracy]

Here's the second post----

Organizational Ramblings:

Let’s look at an Infantry Platoon as an Urban Warfare Unit. Remember, this is my fantasy!

First, here’s the personnel to work with:
Platoon Leader
Platoon Sergeant
2 x Radio Operators
3 x Rifle Squads ( 1 Squad Leader, 2 x Fire Teams of 3 personnel each team (Rifle-Grenadier-SAW) )
1 x Weapons Squad (1 Squad Leader, 2 x two-man MG Teams, 1 x two-man AT team)
Attachments: 1 x Medic, 2 x Marksmen/Snipers, 1 x Forward Observer, 1 x Truck Driver (maybe!)

37 personnel total.

Extra Equipment:
3 x One-Meter-Wide Ladders; 4-5m long.
6 x 40m Abseiling Ropes.
3 x Grappling Hooks.
Flashlight per man for attachment to the rifle.
Knee and Elbow Pads for everyone.
Breaching Charges.
Sledge Hammers and Pry Bars.
Construction Material (plywood, poles, hammers, saws, nails, lashings, etc.)
Extra Hand Grenades (one per room to clear).
Extra Light AT Weapons (one per man).
Extra Explosive Demolition Material.
1 x Truck of some sort.


TASK ORGANIZATION FOR URBAN WARFARE:

Headquarters and Assault Element--

HQ Sub-Element:
Platoon Leader
Radio Operator
Medic
Truck Driver

1st Assault Squad
Squad Leader
4 x Riflemen
1 x Grenadier
1 x SAW Gunner

2d Assault Squad
Squad Leader
4 x Riflemen
1 x Grenadier
1 x SAW Gunner

18 Personnel total in H/A


Reconnaissance and Security Element

R/S HQ and Commo Team:
Platoon Sergeant
Radio Operator
Forward Observer

1st R/S Squad:
Squad Leader
1 x Sniper
2 x Grenadiers
2 x SAW Gunners
1 x MG Gunner
1 x AT Gunner

2d R/S Squad:
Squad Leader
1 x Sniper
2 x Grenadiers
2 x SAW Gunners
1 x MG Gunner
1 x AT Gunner

19 personnel total in R/S

The biggest changes you can see are the two assault squads each exchanged a Grenadier and SAW gunner for two riflemen (the extra rifles came from the other rifle squad and the assistants to the Machine Gunners). Grenade Launchers have limited applicability inside a building because they have a minimum arming distance of about 14 meters. SAWs are not the preferred weapons of choice in room clearing. But a SAW can cover dangerous areas like hallways and stairwells.

Each Assault Squad clears one room at a time while providing its own local security.

The remaining rifle squad and weapons squad were split evenly to provide a recon and security capability. Actually, under the right conditions, one of those R/S squads could stop an enemy platoon dead in its tracks. Remember R/S has to prevent reinforcement also.


Now, If an Infantry Squad ( 9 personnel) is the Basic Urban Warfare Unit, I'd split it into a Light Fire Team of all rifles; and a Heavy Fire Team of Grenadiers and SAWs. I'd breach with the Heavy Team and roll the Light Team into the building.

Instead of keeping the Heavy on cordon security; I'd have the Heavy Team follow the Light Team as roving security inside the building. That way the Squad Leader isn't splitting his meager force. The Heavy Team can take point on the clearing when there's extra resistance.

Well, that's enough for now...

[Snow]

Reconsweden:

BTW:Nej, jag skulle inte vilja också...

Jag studerar i universitet, men jag är en fänrik.
Mera:
(det är fint i urban) http://www.mil.fi/kalustoesittely/00044.html
http://www.mil.fi/kalustoesittely/index.html
http://www-lexikon.nada.kth.se/skolverket/sve-fin.html http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Snow (edited 05-26-2000).]

[Nissan]

Hey PTFreak...do everyone a favor and don't post stupid shit like you just did..what you said is completly and througohly dumb..if you have nothing good to contribute to the thread don't post anything at all...Complete genious..use a M60 to cut down all resistance...now tell me are those poor hostages gonna enjoy you kicking in the door and spraying teh room with 7.62 bullets? probably not..."Fire some hand held rockets into a crowd" Pure genious...they did..they fired LAAWs into the crowd...the lead in bullets doesn't have any of the good qualities you said...it will foul the barrel and bolt quicker causing jamming and when you got a guy with a gun pointed at you you'll want your weapon to go 'bang' not 'click'...napalm a block huh...guess all those hostages will enjoy that also...then maybe we can have the assult group move up and have a bbq with the ashes of the hostage takers and hostages since you won't be able to tell the difference....Geeze pitiful leadership huh...Why don't you walk up to the CO or PL of a SEAL Team or Ranger Company...I'm sure they'll agree with you 100% on that one..."Call me old school, call me old, call me crazy. I just know if you shoot someone with a lead bullet they go down and stay down." You obviously don't know much cause any bullet will do the job not just lead...Go back to WW2 huh..well how bout this...you get the M1 and I'll take a M4 w/SOPMOD and we'll go off into the woods you with your WW2 OD stuff and me with the Mickey Mouse stuff and we'll see who'll win...so don't post stupid shit anymore...why don't you go do some PT or something but stop posting stupid shit

[PTFreak]

Originally posted by Nissan:
Hey PTFreak...do everyone a favor and don't post stupid shit like you just did..what you said is completly and througohly dumb..if you have nothing good to contribute to the thread don't post anything at all...Complete genious..use a M60 to cut down all resistance...now tell me are those poor hostages gonna enjoy you kicking in the door and spraying teh room with 7.62 bullets? probably not..."Fire some hand held rockets into a crowd" Pure genious...they did..they fired LAAWs into the crowd...the lead in bullets doesn't have any of the good qualities you said...it will foul the barrel and bolt quicker causing jamming and when you got a guy with a gun pointed at you you'll want your weapon to go 'bang' not 'click'...napalm a block huh...guess all those hostages will enjoy that also...then maybe we can have the assult group move up and have a bbq with the ashes of the hostage takers and hostages since you won't be able to tell the difference....Geeze pitiful leadership huh...Why don't you walk up to the CO or PL of a SEAL Team or Ranger Company...I'm sure they'll agree with you 100% on that one..."Call me old school, call me old, call me crazy. I just know if you shoot someone with a lead bullet they go down and stay down." You obviously don't know much cause any bullet will do the job not just lead...Go back to WW2 huh..well how bout this...you get the M1 and I'll take a M4 w/SOPMOD and we'll go off into the woods you with your WW2 OD stuff and me with the Mickey Mouse stuff and we'll see who'll win...so don't post stupid shit anymore...why don't you go do some PT or something but stop posting stupid shit


Nissan, I cant help it that I am insane, evil and anti-social. I totally admit I am nuts but trust me, if you knew anything about bullets you would realize lead bullets like police units use are MUCH superior for knockdown power. Lead bullets simply cause more damage. That is a certifiable fact. There are downsides to using lead bullets. One is the danger of breathing lead fumes and slow cumulative lead poisoning. Another is that after a large battle you have all these lead bullets left in the soil long after the war is over and that can be an environmental problem. And of course there is the problem you mentioned about causing increased maintenance of the weapon. That is all true BUT...lead bullets will fuck up the enemy much better than the bullets used by the military now or since Vietnam era.

Police use lead bullets. The military used to use lead bullets back in the olden days when the military still used weapons that were actually accurate and had real range and knockdown power(M-14, M-1 Garand, M-1 Carbine, etc.). There is still something to be said for old style lead bullets. They expand and just cause much more damage than the jacketed ammo that has been in use since Vietnam.

The conversion from lead to steel and brass jacketed ammo during the Vietnam era was a marxist/communist plot to weaken our military from the inside. In other words, the spies from the east convinced our communist sympathetic leadership to do various things which weakened our military abilities. Converting from lead ammo was a subtle change that made our military not quite as effective. That was a classic example of Sun Tzu's The Art of War "winning without fighting" philosophy. Hehehe...the Viet Cong and NVA did not need to worry about that lead bullet expanding in their bodies, instead that steel or brass bullet would go right through them.

Finally, when I was complaining of the military leadership accepting lower standards for ammunition type I was not talking about platoon leaders or company commanders. I was complaining of the higher level leadership. Generals and admirals who go along with anything. I dont think all are like that just too many are. Also, I find hostage rescue a boring subject and overrated. I think the offensive missions where the terrorists or narco guys are waxed in their camps is a more interesting type of mission. I could care less about rescuing hostages.

Now I shall go back to my evil underground compound and fall asleep.

[Snake]

Tom,
can we please be relieved of PTFreaks rambling posts of obvious dog-snot? It's Dr. Evil and Deepsand in mufti....


Snake
25th ID(L)

[Nissan]

I second snakes post...

And cops don't use full lead bullets anymore they use the same jacketed stuff everyone else does and if you knew anything about ammo you'd know that

[Jack Lutz]

I just deleted PTfreak, PTfreak I have nothing against you letting your opinion be known, but your just spreading filth that any 8 year old reading a book could know is false. Pretty odvious that your conversations will not contribute to the board but rather detract from topics like this that are great, flame throwers, lead bullets, napalm on hostages? Come on.

[VENOM]

I just can't wait to benefit from Tracy's knowledge once again http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/wink.gifI wouldn't want to push it to much but how your Recon squads would react in case of reinforcements (Tacticaly and communication wise)? The role would be exchanged? I like to put things in a "scenario" so that I can understand more the dynamics! Thanks

------------------
VENOM

[3000 FPS]

No one even bothered to tell PTfreak that we Never used lead bullets in recent history. Always FMJ. Main reason being that Lead deforms after 2000 FPS. Pretty useless in most rifles Eh. Also benchrest an M1 against an M-16A4 at 600 yds. The M-16 would CRUSH it.

[Tracy]

Venom:

The R/S squad would react as well, or as bad, as the leadership makes them. There are two classic, real-world examples of the Security Element doing their job of preventing reinforcement:

Operation Just Cause, Panama, 1989: 7th SF Group received tasking to block a bridge leading into downtown Panama City. Reason: to prevent the PDF Battalion 2000 (a Motorized Infantry unit) from coming to the aid of the Comandancia. The Task Force comprised 2 SF A-Teams task-organized for demolition and vehicular ambush. Due to a schedule change, the TF did not pull pitch until AFTER the invasion started. It became a race between BN-2000 and the TF.

The Blackhawks flying the force in arrived 3-5 minutes before BN-2000 reached the bridge. Two soldiers quickly raced up the hill to the roadway, stood in the middle with AT-4s and shot the lead vehicle of the battalion. Their actions slowed up the PDF unit enough for the rest of the TF to deploy and begin calling in Spectre to smash the rest of the PDF force.

In this case, good troops, a good forward observer (calling Spectre) and terrain made the difference. They found a choke point to prevent a motorized infantry bn from getting into an urban area. That PDF Bn had about 300 troops; and there were 20 people and an AC-130 to stop them.

Second example: TF Ranger, Mogadishu, Somalia, October 1993. The mission called for a raid in the middle of an urban area. Purpose: Prisoner Snatch of key leadership of the Somali National Alliance. The Security Element consisted of one Ranger Rifle Platoon, Aerial Snipers and Attack Helicopters (Little Birds). The Assault Element consisted of a personnel from SFOD-D. As per SOP, the Security Element deployed slightly ahead of the Assault Element. The Assault Element did their job and got the prisoners they were looking for.

Security Element prevented reinforcement as they were supposed to. Then two of the transport aircraft went down. The Security Element made a decision to attempt a rescue of the downed aircrew. They rest of story is well known. When the fighting finally ended, 19 US personnel were dead. Over half of the KIA came from the Security Element. While it's always sad that any friendlies die, the kill ratio was decidedly in favor of TF Ranger (20-30 to 1).

Despite what Mark Bowden has to say about the Rangers and TF 2-14INF (the force that punched through to rescue TF Ranger); they did an outstanding job of holding the enemy at bay while the assault element did their job.

Another unique feature of TF Ranger was they did NOT have all the equipment they needed; and they couldn't pick the time or the terrain to fight in. They went into an urban area heavily outnumbered (1,000 to 1) and where the enemy had detailed terrain knowdledge versus a photograph the Rangers had. And yet they accomplished the mission.

Do those two examples give you an idea or two?

Going to the movies, the last 40 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" is another good example of a security element preventing German reinforcement of the beachhead by using a small group of paratroopers at a bridge in an urban area. While 'Ryan' is fictional, small-unit actions like that occured almost daily during the Normandy Invasion. Many units just barely hung on until relieved by heavier units.

It's a matter of taking what you have and doing the best you can. Being in the Security Element doesn't sound glamorous; but they receive the brunt of the enemy's wrath when things go wrong.

That's why my 'doctrine' (or dogma!) demands that 50% of the available force be dedicated to Security. Sometimes I plus it up to 75% if it's one of those days...

All the known information concerning a raid is usually about the target. So your Assault Element goes into the site with prior knowledge. The Security Element deals almost exclusively with unknown factors: Weather, Enemy and Terrain; and the Raid Commander doesn't want to hear excuses about how the Security Element can't do their job.

If you want medals and be a HERO, get a slot in the Security Element when things go wrong during a Raid.

[VENOM]

Originally posted by Tracy:


Do those two examples give you an idea or two?



Yes, those example that you gave me. Give me plenty of good ideas. Even if it sound simple and not very glamorous but now I understand how important the security element is in closing all the choke points (bridge, main streets, etc.) especialy in urban warfare. I imagine that it become even more important when the extraction has to be made trought a clear path. But tracy, you have to agree with me... gotta love the gunship support. http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/biggrin.gif

Thanks for all this this great information.
Take Care !



------------------
VENOM

[Tracy]

Cheese Post to bring this topic back to the top.

Some folks are asking questions in the Army Forum.

[OCD]

While I can't personally answer your question, a quick search provided several interesting things of who knows what value:
http://www.lepsa.org/223%20for%20CQB.htm
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINTRO.html
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/llb/gunshot.htm
http://www.fen.baynet.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html
(I'm gonna apoligize in advance for the terrible music on this site)
http://www.vnh.org/EWSurg/ch02/02MissileCausedWounds.html
(see the interesting discussion section) http://www.vnh.org/EWSurg/EWSTOC.html
(the top page of the above, more info)

[Paintman]

Wow Tracy, this combined with the MP5/M4A1 thread I will never look at security elements and urban assault the same way again... awesome thread!

Chris

[Paintman]

At the risk of reviving this beast of a thread with a new question:
When you are going downstairs, you expose your body before you are able to engage, as mentioned earlier in this thread.
I have two questions concerning this:
1. What can you do to minimalize this disadvantage (assuming you have to go down the stairs, not through the floor or a wall)?
2. Same question as above, but when you are limited in explosives and diversionary devices and are trying to be quiet.

Thanks
Chris

[ANACONDA]

THIS SOUNDS LIKE A DEJA-VU FROM MY POST ON WEPSNET.
ON DOUBLE-TAP- I WAS TAUGHT BY MY UNCLE AS A LITTLE NARD THAT IF YOUR GONNA SHOOT SOMEONE YOU BETTER MAKE SURE YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THE THING AND SHOOT HIM DEAD, DEADER, AND DEADEST. HE WAS A MARINE IN VIETNAM AND SERVED AS A GUNNY BEFORE THE WAR IN PARRIS.
HE DOESNT TALK MUCH ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCES AND I REALLY DON'T PRESS HIM ABOUT IT. THIS GUY RAISED ME CAUSE MY DAD WAS AN ASSHOLE / DRUNK. ANYHOW HE HATED THE M-16 WHEN IT FIRST CAME OUT CAUSE THEY JAMMED ALOT AND LOVED THE HELL OUT OF THE M-14. HE SHOOTS SHARP FOR AN OLD GUY NOW AND IS A STUBBORN .45 GUY AND WON'T EVEN TOUCH MY 92FS. I'VE SHOT QUITE A BIT AND I'M A LE-IN TRAINING. MY OPINION IS THAT WHETHER ITS THE 9 THE .223 OR THE 7.62, YOU NEED TO KNOW YOUR WEAPON......WELL. AND KEEP YOUR BACKGROUND IN MIND WHEN YOU DECIDE TO SHOOT.
WORSE COMES TO WORSE, IN A FIREFIGHT MY GOAL IS TO COME OUT ALIVE AS WELL AS GETTIN THE JOB DONE.
I KNOW MY WORDS ARE THAT OF 0% EXPERIENCE AS A COP, BUT AS A MEDIC I CAN SAY THAT IN ALL THE CALLS I HAVE GONE TO WHEN THESE GANGSTA-GUYS DO THEIR SHOOTING, ITS REALLY NOT MUCH TO WORRY ABOUT. THEIR HEADSHOTS SOMEHOW END UP HITTING THEIR TARGETS LEGS.
I'M GLAD TOO, MAKES ME FEEL SAFER !

[Paintman]

Anaconda, I appreciate your postings in the PT net and your own observations here, but please... kill the caps lock button. It's an eyesore to the postings. http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/smile.gif

Chris

[Snake]

Bringing this back to the top, cause it's a helluva post...

Snake
25th ID(L)


http://sill-www.army.mil/Graphics/crests/25id.jpg

[Paintman]

Damn straight! Great reading...

[tryxter]

.

[Sharky]

Good bump......and good info.

[ktek01]

This should end all debate about 9mm V 5.56mm for entry weapons though...

[Sneaky SF Dude]

LOL

[Narcosis]

Originally posted by ktek01
This should end all debate about 9mm V 5.56mm for entry weapons though...

That's one hell of a noisy flame thrower!:D

[Snowball]

This is a good discussion. For those of you who want primary source infomration on wound ballistics, try these:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm; and the Terminal effects forum at www.tacticalforums.com These contain very good factual information by Fackler, Roberts, et al.

respectfully submitted.

ps
I know my profile is a litle thin (my appologies to (CAPTUSARET). Any admin who wishes to contact me for particulars, please feel free to do so.

[GackMan]

1st item... you guys want to move this to Gen Mil and leave the SEALs alone?

and B... if you are really interested in wound characteristics and balistics then read of these:


1) "Theodore Kocher and the Scientific Foundation of Wound Ballistics" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/theodore_kocher.pdf) (1.3M)

2) "Ordnance Gelatin for Ballistic Studies" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/ordnance_gelatin.pdf) (170K)

3) "Bullet Fragmentation: A Major Cause of Tissue Disruption" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/bullet_fragmentation.pdf) (1.6M)

4) "Effects of Small Arms on the Human Body" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/effects_of_small_arms.pdf) (608K)

5) "Wounding Mechanism of Projectiles Striking at More than 1.5km/sec" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/wounding_mechanism.pdf) (1.5M)

6) "A reconsideration of the Wounding Mechanism of Very High Velocity Projectiles - Importance of Projectile Shape" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/wounding_mechanism_projectile_shape.pdf) (1.4M)

7) "Wounding patterns of military rifle bullets" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/wounding_patterns_military_rifles.pdf) (4.9M)

8) "Wounding Potential of the Russian AK-74 Assault Rifle" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/ak74_wounding_potential.pdf) (606K)

9) "Ballistic Injury" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/ballistic_injury.pdf) (390K)

10) "The ideal police bullet" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/ideal_police_bullet.pdf) (376K)

11) "Applied Wound Ballistics: What's New and What's True" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/applied_wound_ballistics.pdf) (436K)

13) "Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 Grain Subsonic Jacketed Hollow Point Bullet in Human Tissue and Tissue Simulant" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/winchester_9mm.pdf) (2.9M)

14) "The Shockwave Myth" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/shock_wave_myth.pdf) (1.4M)

15) "ACR candidates: assessing their wounding potential" (http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/ACR_Candidates.pdf) (358K)