Effective Range

[Fusaki]

In my defense I'm used to zeroing at 25m, and with an EOTech. Not that that is in any way an excuse not to know this.

For a 200m Zero on a 25m range your first post was actually partially correct: at 25m with a C7 your CZP is 30mm below your POA.

For the C8 a 200m zero on a 100m range is acquired with a CZP 70mm above the POA, and on a 25m range a 200m zero is aquired with a CZP 35mm below the POA.

From http://www.scribd.com/doc/3617434/canadian-bgl382003pt001-2002 Pg 104

Here's a few questions for those in the know:

- The numbers I pulled for the C8 above are noted as for the iron sight.  Is it correct to assume that the CZP would not change when using a C79?

- Given that a C8 fires on a different trajectory then a C7, how far off zero will a C8's C79 be at 300 meters? I know that different model ACOGs will use a different bullet drop compensator depending on whether it was designed for an M16 or an M4.  It stands to reason that while the range dial on a C79 is accurate for a full sized C7, it must not be on a lower velocity C8.

- What is the correct CZP for a 200m zero on a C8FTHB on a 100m range?

- How close is the actual trajectory of a C8FTHB to the range dial on a C79?

 

[SteveB]

I wouldn't put much faith in the C79's BDC.  In my experience, the 400 and 500 meter settings were off.
I think that 400 meters is about the max effective range for most trained infanteers.  I would say that on a known distance range most guys would achieve around 50% chance of a hit on a fig11 with a two round engagement.

Now that's not a study but, a pretty good guess.  I suppose that one must define effectiveness more    precisely.  Also effective against point or area targets. (more for MGs but someone brought up volley fire).  Also the difference between effective and harassing fire. 

Ballistically, there will be no round fragmentation at these ranges but, at 300 plus meters rapid incapacitation isn't as important, a good festering wound is propably enough.


Steve

 

[ExSarge]

I’ve been following this thread with some interest and I would like to offer the following observations.

First, how impressed I’m with the level of arcane technical knowledge being discussed by some relatively junior members of our military. It speaks to the over all level of professionalism of our armed forces.

Secondly, if I may, although the discussion is interesting on a technical level it misses the obvious. Maximum range and even maximum effective range are for the most part irrelevant to all put a very few specialist shooters. Most combat engagements (infantry versus infantry) will take place at ranges of 350 meters or less. Most troops, regardless of there level of proficiency with their weapons when engaging those (“pop up – shoot back”) targets have a hard time making hits at ranges greater then 150 meters. Take it from someone that’s been there, when those first rounds start to come inbound you have a massive adrenalin dump, your out of breath from running (it’s rule I’m sure, troops have to be tired, out of breath, sweaty and uncomfortable before they can engage in combat) Your trying to get closer to the ground or under cover and at the same time get rounds off at a target that you have not fixed or perhaps yet identified. All these things contribute to a lot hit to expended round rate. I remember seeing somewhere that a study was done during the Viet Nam war that calculated it took an expenditure of 5000 for each kill. I don’t vouch for the veracity of the study, indeed if there even was one done. I would not however argue with the numbers, I suspect that’s about right.

 

[brihard]

I’ve been following this thread with some interest and I would like to offer the following observations.

First, how impressed I’m with the level of arcane technical knowledge being discussed by some relatively junior members of our military. It speaks to the over all level of professionalism of our armed forces.

Secondly, if I may, although the discussion is interesting on a technical level it misses the obvious. Maximum range and even maximum effective range are for the most part irrelevant to all put a very few specialist shooters. Most combat engagements (infantry versus infantry) will take place at ranges of 350 meters or less. Most troops, regardless of there level of proficiency with their weapons when engaging those (“pop up – shoot back”) targets have a hard time making hits at ranges greater then 150 meters. Take it from someone that’s been there, when those first rounds start to come inbound you have a massive adrenalin dump, your out of breath from running (it’s rule I’m sure, troops have to be tired, out of breath, sweaty and uncomfortable before they can engage in combat) Your trying to get closer to the ground or under cover and at the same time get rounds off at a target that you have not fixed or perhaps yet identified. All these things contribute to a lot hit to expended round rate. I remember seeing somewhere that a study was done during the Viet Nam war that calculated it took an expenditure of 5000 for each kill. I don’t vouch for the veracity of the study, indeed if there even was one done. I would not however argue with the numbers, I suspect that’s about right.

I certainly won't argue the merit of your figures. God knows how they were derived, but they certainly have the ring of truth and plausibility to them.

One caveat that I'll add, though, is that a significant amount of fire downrange will be employed simply for suppression to allow another element to maneuver. During the prototypical dismounted platoon attack, for instance, how many rounds are being fired simply into the general area of the enemy to keep their heads down, particular by the C6 and the LMGs, while the assault element hooks in?

I don't think that combat marksmanship can be assessed simply by contrasting shots fired / kills ratios, since that belies the effectiveness of suppression fire in seizing and maintaining the initiative. Fire can be 'effective' without physically striking the enemy, if it allows you to win the firefight and either close with them to take them out, or achieve other short term tactical goals, be it the repositioning of elements, disengagement, or what have you. Quantity can have a quality all of its own, under the right circumstances. And indeed, coming full circle, I think this sort of massed suppression fire at the section level or above is where we'll ultimately find that the figure of 400m for 'effective range' was derived- tactically effective, if not necessarily lethal.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Hmmmm, tactical considerations, who could have imagined that through the smokescreen of "arcane technical knowledge".

 

[helpup]

Hmmmm, tactical considerations, who could have imagined that through the smokescreen of "arcane technical knowledge".

Arcane?!  More like amusing, and most definately ASININE!!  I was reading through it and Kudos to those who called him on his "wordy" Drivel. 

To add little to the orriginal question that has, through the mushrooms been answered. 

Yes with experience the C7 with ALCAN or Iron sight can as an individual provide accurate fire out to 500 and even 600.  However that is not the normal abilities of our soldiers.  At 400m it is easy to be accurate on a Fig 11 but you need  the Trg for it.  But even for experienced competitive shooters 500 - 600m is not a walk in the park and wind, light level, position will cause major effect. Add to that the angle your barrel is now pointing causes certain condtions to your prone position and adjustments of kit ( i.e helmet).

I did a pop up Tgt demo range last year.  The range was laid out stradling a dirt road and had 4-6 pop up "lockheed" Tgt's at 100m intervals out to 600.  The ground was clear and the Firing point on top of a hill.  Beyond 400m we had strips of mine tape on the Tgt to help identify the Tgt's when they came up.  The troops knew where the Tgt's were as they built the range.  The conduct was in phases.  1st phase was Tgt's up at 100 and they shot them, tgt's down when hit.  This went on out to 300m.  ( note we re-zeroed anyone who needed it at the range but most were already zeroed from PWT a week earlier)  100m was not too bad but there were still some multiple engagements to make the Tgt go down.  At 200m we doubled the # of multiple engagements of a Tgt to make it fall.  300m most had trouble making the Tgt go down consitantly.  Next phase was on to Sect Fire 400 - 600.  Successfull engagements even with Sect Fire was difficult for the troops to succeed in.  They were also having trouble identifying Tgt's.  At 500m it was worse and 50% of Tgts were not brought down ( after 28rds per man 4 man relay, Yah I know not a sect but I had all 4 fire on same Tgt ) 600m only 1 Tgt hit and most had to be full Tgt indication to get them to see the Tgt.

Phase one and two had me calling out the range.  The Third phase was pop up advancing troops from the 600 - 100, individual soldiers giving out Tgt indications to a 4 man Det. The result, nothing was seen at 600,  finally seen at 500 but nothing hit.  1 Tgt hit at 400.  2 Tgt's hit at 300.  and the rest went ok. 

The final phase had individual competition ( after I briefed the troops on conduct so far)
All Tgts were to pop up from 400 to 100 and would go down when hit,  They had 22 Tgts to shoot at and one full Mag (those who listened only loaded 28 Rds )to engage it with.  I made them a bet I would be suprised if more then 2 would be able to do it ( out of 30 shooters. )

end result.  Large percentage got most of the Trgts before running out of ammo, small percentage only got 50% of Tgt's.  One person got all the Tgt's with 4 Rds left. I added to that number by shootting myself and having 5 rds left. 

I will add that the troops I was putting through had only a couple of years in the army and not that much range time or experience.  But they did learn from it. 

(P.S) spell checking is not working. 

 

[Fusaki]

Hmmmm, tactical considerations, who could have imagined that through the smokescreen of "arcane technical knowledge".

Not to imply that technical knowledge has no bearing on tactical considerations, though. While technical capabilities of the equipment is only one piece of the tactical puzzle, it is still a piece.

I don't think anyone is saying ballistics is the "be all and end all". Well, I didn't mean that anyways...

 

[helpup]

Not to imply that technical knowledge has no bearing on tactical considerations, though. While technical capabilities of the equipment is only one piece of the tactical puzzle, it is still a piece.

I don't think anyone is saying ballistics is the "be all and end all". Well, I didn't mean that anyways...

I am pretty sure no one was refering to you wonderbread

 

[Michael OLeary]

Not to imply that technical knowledge has no bearing on tactical considerations, though. While technical capabilities of the equipment is only one piece of the tactical puzzle, it is still a piece.

I don't think anyone is saying ballistics is the "be all and end all". Well, I didn't mean that anyways...

Yes, the technical characteristics of a weapon system are a factor in determining its possible "effective range", but nowhere near the extent that this thread attempted to explore in relation to the original question while completely ignoring, for the most part, the fact that the "effective range" being asked about is a tactical measure.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I did a pop up Tgt demo range last year.  The range was laid out stradling a dirt road and had 4-6 pop up "lockheed" Tgt's at 100m intervals out to 600.  The ground was clear and the Firing point on top of a hill.  Beyond 400m we had strips of mine tape on the Tgt to help identify the Tgt's when they came up.  The troops knew where the Tgt's were as they built the range.  The conduct was in phases. 

end result.  Large percentage got most of the Trgts before running out of ammo, small percentage only got 50% of Tgt's.  One person got all the Tgt's with 4 Rds left. I added to that number by shootting myself and having 5 rds left. 

I will add that the troops I was putting through had only a couple of years in the army and not that much range time or experience.  But they did learn from it. 

Great post! If nothing else, this thread has given me an excellent example of an interesting range that can run at a fairly low level.

Cheers

p.s. As a complete aside I asked my US Army classmates on a course down south about the maximum effective range on their 120mm cannon. I was surprised that they couldn't instantly regurgitate a number in the fashion that I was drilled on my gunnery courses. When I asked about that they added that they had found that they could hit targets beyond the range they could positively identify them. Since the identification range was so variable (for any number of tactical reasons) they had no hard and fast number.

 

[helpup]

There are all kinds of interesting ranges that can be set up to improve marksmanship skills.

To tie into this thead something the CF has gotten away from is basic shooting skills.  We use to do Gun Camps for a couple of weeks prior to PWT. We would start doing Dry Fire ( I am a big proponent of this as it builds muscle memory) Then at the ranges usually utilizing Rifle Team troops as coaches, we would go through various shooting drills in differant positions and ranges.  ( 50m to 500+)  Then fire PWT prior to doing more advanced ranges. 

But we have gotten away from that.  Your average soldier is lucky to get more than 200 live rounds during a year that does not involve work up Trg for a tour and a Large chunck of that ammo is for the actual qualification.  I am fully familiar with the shoot to live package and what it calls for.  However units with thier scheduals and in some cases budgets can not come near being able to do this. 

Sure we have the FATS trg ( or Simm ) and simunition but by and large we do not use it enough.  (And yes I have been pushing for it most of my Career) There is an added problem.  The Urban Ops Crse focuses on close quarter shooting (and rightly so) But due to that we have steped back even further from basic marksman ship skills.  ( I am having NCO's trying to tell Pte's that this is the new position and they must use it, refering to a Posn that is intended for close quarter shooting not anything beyond 50m)

With the emphasis on Close quarter even less is done on conventional shooting skills. And this quite frankly is WRONG!  If you understand and are able to apply the basics, you also must build up the muscle memory for it or you can not do it instinctivley. You can only do this through repitition at all ranges.  Once you are up to speed on that you can shoot anything at any range including the Close Quarter ones.  However being a good shot at close range does not mean you can shoot well on conventional.

I am going to avoid getting into the debate about the most common ranges Tgt's are engaged in.  However I will state my preferance that all members of the Cbt Arms need to be highly skilled at engaging a Tgt at 400m down to 100m.  (if they are not consistant at 400m fine that is what Sect fire is for) I am a firm believer of Trg beyond what you expect as when it doesnt get that bad you will be that much better.

As for setting up non conventional ranges, my earlier example is just a simple one that I picked up before we had Lockheed Tgts,  Another eye opener range for me as using balloons tied to Fig 11 placed on a skid and towed (at 5-10kph) towards the firing point from 300m.  A full Sect was firing and the first ballon was hit at 200m, the last one hit at 100m.  By experienced troops, That range btw was used as a Demo prior to gun camp to show the troops they were not as good as they thought.  After Gun camp same range, all the balloons shot in first round of Sect Fire at 300m.   

 

[helpup]

To add;
To the orriginal poster, if I recall correctly you are about to join.  My advice ignore the facts and figures given out here.  Kudo's for being interested in them though. Regardless of your current knowledge go there thinking you know nothing.  Learn the marksmanship principals and fully understand what they mean physically.  If you can practice your positions, Aim, and firing.  Do not get burried in the technical details (outside of what you must know)  After St. Jean then get into the books as needed. Take every opportunity to improve your skills, ( you would be surprised how much you may have to take the initiative for on this)
Shooting is a basic skill, shooting well is a learned skill that only comes with practice, understanding and the application of the basics.