Afghanistan Troop Training Needs Updated Weapons and Tactics

This short synopsis of a much longer article on the need for better weapons and training for our troops to fight the war in Afghanistan. The war is different as the landscape dictates different tactics and different weapons which we do not have at this time for this war. Maj. Thomas P. Ehrhart wrote this paper : Increasing Small Arms Lethality: Taking Back The Infantry Half-Kilometer is long but very rewarding for it complete analysis.

This following review is from my brother that I believe is well informed and constantly updating his knowledge on such matters.

Increasing Small Arms Lethality.htm

"Yesterday I mailed most, but not all of you, a link to an excellent and informative discussion on problems with the rifles and training that our troops in Afghanistan have received. Unfortunately as I was rushing to get sent before I had to leave for an appointment, I did not use the proper attachment, and did not include everyone I wanted to receive it on the mailing list. So, here it is again, with my short review of its content. I highly recommend reading it.I just finished reading the whole paper, and it is perhaps the best short (relatively) semi-technical discussion I have ever read on the subject of the development of US infantry rifles and training from WWI forward.

"The authors key point is that in Afghanistan our soldiers are at a significant disadvantage because most fights take place at ranges beyond 300 meters, and the 5.56 mm cartridge, and the current M-4 rifle has inadequate killing power (or accuracy) at anything over 200 yards. The author recommends that the military purchase new uppers for the M-4, with either the 6.5 Grendel or the 6.8 SPC cartridge. For the squad designated marksmen, the author recommends 2, M110 sniper rifles rather than the M-16A2, and the same marksmanship training found in the first part of the US Army sniper training program.

"In the process of the discussion the author evaluates our current marksmanship training (sadly lacking or non-existent) the need for optical sights suited for a variety of missions and new, realistic mission doctrine. All-in-all, a thorough discussion of a controversial topic.

I have read several comments concerning this paper on military blogs, and the controversy comes from a lowly Army Major putting foot-prints all over the turf of both high level DOD bureaucrats and Army brass. This guy () is either going to receive rapid promotion, or be totally screwed depending upon which camp wins the fight over weapons and doctrine."