Category: Gear/Equipment

One of the most crucial parts of any weapon is the sighting system.  Without an ability to align the weapon with the intended target, the deployment of that weapon can be disappointingly fruitless.  Examining the various systems available can help you select the most appropriate one for your application and needs.

Hand-Eye

Although early thrown or hurled weapons had no mechanical sighting system, there was a system that is still in use today with modern weapons.  Simple hand eye coordination is used to launch a weapon at its intended target.  The downside to this primitive method is the training and practice required to become effective enough.  But once learned, it is a proven reliable system.  There is nothing mechanically to fail or lose, unless the human body itself is damaged.

This method is still applicable to modern firearms.  Holding the fore grip of a rifle with the index finger extended along the bore of the rifle is an expedient alignment method for night time engagements.  Simply establish the four points of contact with the rifle as normal and “point” to your intended target.

Self-defense marksmanship, typically with a pistol, employs this method.  Unless your profession affords you the ability to practice with tens of thousands of rounds a year for many years, most people will default to simply pointing their pistol at the threat and squeezing the trigger, even if they have taken a few pistol classes.  The more “primitive” brain takes over.  No front-sight focus, no ball in a cup, no 3 dots aligned – simply point and shoot.

Iron Sights

By nature of the design of firearms, there has always been somewhat of a built in sighting system – the barrel itself.   Notch and post type iron sights added to the barrel allow a greater fidelity of alignment, especially with longer barrels.

Sight radius is an important consideration when using iron sights.  Any perceived offset between the front sight and the rear sight becomes more difficult to predict the closer the two are.  Conversely, a longer sight radius affords the user the ability to detect small deviations in alignment.  This basic principle holds true regardless of the style or shape of the front and rear sights.

There are a few considerations when choosing the style of iron sights.  Fixed vs. folding, rear sight shape and front post width, and even self-illuminating sights.

Fixed sights rarely “break” or fall off and seldom jostled out of alignment.  Folding sights on the other hand, are not typically integral to the structure of the weapon.  They have a greater chance of falling off or shifting relative to the bore due to impacts or thermal expansion and contraction of the various components.  They do however provide a low profile and therefore less chance of snagging on your gear or the environment around you.  This makes them suitable as a backup to a primary optic system.

Rear sight selection basically comes down to a grove or a hole.  Grooved rear sights are lower profile and generally work better in low light.  One downside is that the top surface that the top of the front sight post is to align to, tends to gets indistinctively blurry.  It’s hard to decisively tell where the top of the rear sight is, especially when it’s intended to be blurry in relation to the front sight.  This is due to the difference in what is known as the umbra and penumbra – the primary and secondary shadows that form.

Circular or diamond shaped rear sights, allow the eye to more naturally find center of the intentionally blurry rear aperture.  However, because of the nature of an aperture, it limits the amount of light from the target area that can enter the eye.  These systems often remedy this by including a daytime (smaller) and a nighttime (larger) aperture that is flipped or rotated in exchange for the other.

The front post width is also important.  Too wide and you lose the ability to determine the exact center of the post, and therefore where the round will impact.  Too narrow and it becomes difficult to quickly pick up in a “must shoot right now” situation.  As a general rules of thumb, the longer the expected target, the narrower the front sight post.

Wider than ideal front sight posts can be sighted-in in such a way that the left or right corners of the front post become the impact point at longer ranges.  This method still makes the system accurate at close ranges as the adjustment necessary is of negligible effect.

Optical Sights

Optical sights, magnified or not, allow the focal plane of the eye to be on the target rather than the front sight post.  This makes target acquisition and weapon alignment more natural as the eye does not have to rapidly change focal planes.  A reticle or other shapes are used to align the optic, and therefore weapon, with the target.

Non-magnified optics, allow for a natural transition from iron sights.  It should be noted that optics do not necessarily make the shooter more inherently accurate.  Much like the misconception with visible lasers, without proper fundamentals, they just allow the shooter to watch their point of impact shift suddenly off target the instant just before the shot breaks.

With proper fundamentals, non-magnified optics like red dots or rings allow for fast engagement, particularly of targets within 300 meters.  Dot size can become an issue as larger dots may cover the entire target at ranges beyond 200 meters resulting in an ambiguous impact point.  As such these are more typically used for relatively close engagements.  Also, as these are often battery powered, reliability becomes an issue.  Batteries die, lenses crack or fog.

Magnified optics allow for target detection at longer rangers.  Usually 300-400 meters and beyond.  As such, they are typically mounted to weapons capable of effective fire at those ranges.  They can be passive, or have battery powered or other self-illuminating features.  Usually, because of their bulk and relative sensitivity, they are typically associated with special purpose weapons that maximize their benefit.  As such this limits the speed at which they can be employed at shorter ranges.  This can be mitigated by using them in conjunction with offset red-dots or iron sights, but at the cost of weight and bulk.

Electro-Optical

Electro-Optical sights amplify ambient light and/or convert an invisible band of the electromagnetic spectrum into a visible.  They typically convert the infrared (heat) spectrum.  These systems both gather light from the target using lenses, and focus it to a receiver that amplifies or converts that signal onto a display that is then sent through lenses towards the user’s eye.  They can be magnified or not.

The most common and familiar is night vision.  The familiar green image is the output of an image intensifier.  The human eye is able to distinguish the most variance amongst shades of green, and as such green was chosen as the output.  Night vision systems amplify ambient light as well as detect infrared light.  These systems are either passive or active by means shining an infrared light not visible to the naked eye, towards the target.  The IR light effectively “paints” the target allowing the image intensifier to further enhance the image.

This technology has undergone many generations and advancements that are much too technical for the scope of this article.  In general the system can be face mounted or weapon mounted.  Face mounted solutions allow for target detection whereas weapon mounted solutions afford target engagement.

Although there are “auto-gated” features available for use in changing light conditions, these sights are limited to night time use.  Additionally because of their limited service life, expense, and sensitivity, they are often restricted to special purpose weapons and forces.  They are removed for daylight operations.

Thermal sights operate in a similar manner except they amplify and convert heat signatures into a visual representation, typically black and white.  “White hot” or “black hot” settings are available, allowing the temperature gradient to be displayed per the user’s preference.  These systems rely on contrasting heat signatures between a warm target and its cooler background.

Unlike night vision systems though, they allow for rapid target acquisition as warm targets are practically highlighted for the user.  These systems are highly sensitive and extremely cost prohibitive.  There are even systems that combine night vision and thermal imagery.  Be prepared to drop as much as a decent new car on these systems.

Conclusion

Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages.  Each should be carefully weighted to the environment you will be operating in.  Just because elite forces have expensive sighting systems, that doesn’t necessarily mean you will see a benefit if you start using it too.  Weight your needs and desires against factors of cost and reliability and the benefit you perceive.

If I could, I’d have one of each.

It is said that since the days of Christ, the foot soldier has fought with 60 pounds of battle gear. Let’s talk “battle rattle” by looking at it in various forms, keeping in mind that each variation is designed to aid the modern warrior carrying and using a range of battlefield operating systems.

First we need to dispel with the myth that there will be a one-size-fits-all solution for battle gear. That’s simply not practical. Warriors carry a variety of weapons, from rifles to carbines to crew served machineguns, rockets and mortars. They carry various radios, night vision devices, medical equipment, plus breaching tools and explosives. This equipment requires specialized carrying gear.

Furthermore we have to consider the battle environment as well as how the warrior entered the battlespace. Mechanized and motorized infantry battle gear may look very different from airborne and air assault forces. And mountain warfare battle gear may look significantly different than urban warfare or jungle warfare equipment.

That being said, the US military has for the past 100 years projected itself across the globe in every conceivable battle environment. As such, there is an understandable effort to develop a system that effectively manages various demands on our Armed Forces.

This requirement for flexible, modular battle gear is not necessarily a requirement for all forces. Troops who are dedicated to a given geographic and environmental fight – such as the Alabama Home Guard or the Israeli Army – may not agree that battle gear needs to be so flexible. That is understandable.

So again, let’s be careful to avoid a “silver bullet” solution when we think about battle rattle.

Soviet BCP

In it’s simplest form, a warrior needs to carry his weapon, ammunition, and water. Two hands and a bandolier manage most of this.

An advancement over this hodge-podge system was the Bandolier Chest Pouch (BCP), first introduced by Soviet forces toward the end of the Second World War to accommodate for various weapons using “box” or “stick” detachable magazines. And since virtually all modern weapons use detachable magazines today, the BCP is still a relevant form of battle rattle.

The advantages of the BCP are its simplicity and affordability. It is used extensively by communist militaries throughout the world, and more recently has been introduced to the United States as viable battle gear. The BCP does what it was intended to do – carry ammunition.

Of course the limit of the BCP is also its disadvantage. It does not carry much else. And when beefed up versions of the BCP came out, they were so hopelessly front heavy and bulky that these variations were useless to everyone except those motorized troops who’s mission dictated that they would remain seated until the very moment before engagement, and even then it was only really suited for urban warfare. Troops certainly couldn’t crawl around in the dirt or comfortably hike up mountains with this large, unevenly distributed BCP.

Another disadvantage of the BCP is that it is not particularly easy to get in or out of this equipment. Straps go over the head, cross at the back of the shoulders, and another strap circles completely around the midsection. That can prove disastrous in the event a troop fell into deep water, or a wounded casualty had to be stripped to get to the wound.

The very recent introduction of PALS webbing, heavy duty nylon strips sewn onto various strap and pouch surfaces, attempts to address the shortcoming of modularity for the BCP. While small additions are appreciated on the shoulder straps and front of magazine pouches, as previously noted the weakness of the design rests with the unevenly distributed weight of the BCP.

Further recent additions of quickly detachable buckles make the BCP easier to get on and off. However, with between three and six buckles to hit in sequence, the warrior could still drown or bleed to death before the BCP was removed!

These shortcomings recognized, the BCP is still a decent choice for battle gear. It is affordable, simple, and with recent advancements it is a comfortable piece of gear. Coupled with a modern hydration bladder, the BCP is a streamlined, lightweight, minimal approach to battle rattle.

Commonwealth Army Kit

The British Army introduced what may be the first modern effort to modularity for various warriors and their weapon systems by the Second World War. This effort sees considerable improvement in the now-famous 1958 Pattern webbing, called “kit” and “web gear” by warriors literally around the world. It was copied by various militaries throughout NATO, as well as carried by common wealth armies in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa. Influence of the ’58 Pattern webbing can still be seen today in the militaries of North Africa, the Mideast, and the Indian subcontinent.

Sturdy and comfortable, the British kit could carry various types of equipment. Yet it also had a significant disadvantage in that trying to be all things to everyone, British kit “fit everything, but fit nothing well.”

Since then the British have upgraded their kit multiple times, including the current Personal Load Carrying Equipment (PLCE) webbing introduced in 1988. PLCE is heavy duty nylon webbing rather than the old canvas webbing. Notably it includes pouches, scabbards and holsters tailored to specific gear while maintaining its modularity and a reasonable distribution of weight.

The downside is that as British kit advanced in its capabilities, it became more expensive and harder to find! When you can find British PLCE outside of the UK, you will pay a kidney for it. Yet it is incredibly formidable battle gear.

ALICE LBE

About that same time the Americans also enter the fray in earnest with the canvas M1956 and subsequent nylon M1967 All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment (ALICE), a.k.a. Load Bearing Equipment (LBE). The LBE is a modular approach to battle rattle.

Like the British counterparts’ kit, the LBE pistol waist belt and shoulder straps are adjustable to fit a wide range of warrior sizes and heights. Unlike the British kit, though, the American LBE was suited to specific equipment and weapon systems from its very start.

LBE has the advantage of being an open system, that is, the straps make it a rather cool system for carrying equipment. When on parade LBE straps are tightened and the pistol belt fastened, lending to a very sharp uniformed appearance in the tradition of Roman Legionnaires. When going into battle, the LBE straps are lengthened and the pistol belt is often left unfastened or significantly extended. This lowers the ammunition pouches to below the hips, giving the LBE a bit of a “gunfighter” appearance. The modularity becomes a personalized to fit each warrior, and the entire rifle company takes on the look of helmeted cowboys.

Here in the United States, anyway, the LBE is readily available in both generations and is incredibly affordable. It never fit well around body armor, however, and because of this many US Soldiers and Marines found it somewhat uncomfortable to use with body armor.

LBV-88

Now there are those who insist senior US leaders couldn’t stand the “wild cowboy” image of US troops with unfastened pistol belts and low slung pouches. Individuality is an affront to the sensibilities of such armchair warriors.

Still others insist it was simply the LBE’s lack of design considerations for body armor, and the prevalent use of body armor that sent the designers back to the drawing boards 30 years later.zWhatever the case, the result was the M1988 Load Bearing Vest (LBV). The LBV-88 departed from the modularity concept of ALICE, though to be certain LBV used the ALICE pistol belt and many of the pouches, notably 1-quart canteens continued to be used with the LBV-88.

From the onset the LBV was a welcome piece of gear. It maintained its fit of a wide variety of troop sizes and wore more comfortably over body armor, as designed. Furthermore, with the magazine pouches up higher on the chest, the LBV harkened back to the BCP concept – but with a much nicer distribution of load weight, some modularity, and the ability to get the LBV on and off with the click of just two front buckles. Not a bad design at all.

Still, the LBV-88 was a dedicated vest. It didn’t suit machine gunners, grenadiers, radiomen, mortar men or medics very well. It needed greater modularity. It saw only 12 years of service.

Tactical Vest & Camelbak

Recognizing this shortcoming, Eagle Industries in the United States championed the TAC-V1 series vests – though clearly there are far too many competing manufacturers to note in this space. The TAC-V1 series vest attempted to do for every warrior what the LBV-88 had done for the rifleman. TAC vests tailor a specific, dedicated piece of battle gear to each warrior’s needs.

The idea was pretty sound. And certainly the uniform (non-modular) appearance of the TAC vests would get a nod of approval from those leaders concerned with a stylishly clean look on the parade grounds. However the expense and logistics of the TAC vests very quickly became a major headache!

TAC vests aren’t as adjustable as their earlier predecessors. There is a separate vest issued for warriors of tall, regular and short heights. This is true as well for large and small girthed warriors such as one might expect in the difference between a 40-year-old, 220-pound male warrior and a 18-year-old, 115-pound female warrior. And for those warriors who were in the middle range of sizes, they might very well need two TAC vests – one worn with body armor, one worn without.

And what if a machine gunner in the platoon was reassigned as a grenadier? There is no guarantee that they’d fit the same vests. So the idea of simply swapping battle rattle wasn’t going to work. Obviously a new vest must be issued for the new job. There is little modularity with the TAC vests because the pouch configuration is sewn permanently into each vest.

Additionally, the troops complain that TAC vests are too hot and that any serious physical exertion quickly causes overheating. Though comfortable and sturdy, TAC vests simply don’t ventilate well in hot climates.

Understandably the US Army, Marine Corps and Air Force adopted the TAC-V1 only on a very limited basis, almost exclusively issued to special purpose military police and security police. The TAC vest has seen greater success with civilian police departments, in particular with SWAT because specialization is precisely their requirement.

Yet an interesting and wildly successful development did come from the TAC-V1 series battle gear, and that was the introduction of the back-mounted hydration bladder, tube and valve. This item is commercially recognized by the name Camelbak, though again today there are numerous manufacturers of this fantastic yet simple evolution in canteen technology.

MOLLE

Modular Lightweight Load-carrying Equipment (MOLLE), pronounced “Molly”, replaces the older generation of “Alice”. American troops have a history of naming their equipment after women, and understandable fascination for healthy young males. Commonwealth forces are also using a variation of MOLLE called the Osprey modular system.

The MOLLE system incorporates an ample use of PALS webbing throughout, making this battle gear extremely modular and flexible for a variety of warrior missions as well as warrior sizes. Even the body armor and rucksack employ PALS so that pouches and equipment can be directly attached.

The Marines call this MOLLE system the Improved Load Bearing Equipment (ILBE) while Soldiers simply call it MOLLE. Though different names, both the US Army and Marine Corps use two-piece vest panels, known commercially as the Modular Assault Vest (MAV).

The MAV also comes in a one-piece panel configuration that offers more room for equipment, but this variation is less popular because it suffers the same design flaws as the BCP. Namely that would be a somewhat unequal distribution of the load weight to the front, and difficulty in getting the battle gear on and off quickly.

Still, the two-piece MOLLE MAV gear has been in service for a decade now and appears well liked by troops of various nationalities who’ve used MOLLE in the deserts and cities of Iraq, and the mountains of Afghanistan. It is robust, modular, allows for excellent distribution of weight and specialization to each warriors role in the mission. And the MOLLE MAV fits a wide range of warrior sizes, both with and without body armor.

The single criticism of the MOLLE MAV so far is that it is apparently designed for use with body armor, and some complain that it is difficult to lower the warrior’s profile and crawl on the ground. Still, the MOLLE MAV is modular enough to handle this by simply adjusting more equipment to the sides of the vest panels and back of the hydration bladder pouch. And MOLLE gear is considerably less hot than the earlier TAC vest variations!

Does it look good on the parade ground? No, not surprisingly. Wearing the MOLLE MAV the warrior assumes something akin to a potato shape. It is relatively comfortable, but the tradeoff is that because the modularity allows each warrior to custom fit their ammunition and equipment management, no two MOLLE MAV set ups are identical.

Surely as combat patrols fade in frequency, more an more senior officers and NCOs will insist that the MOLLE MAV stop doing what it does best – being fantastically modular.

---

This article was originally published on odjournal.com (Olive Drab: the journal of tactics) and has been transferred here with permission.

---

 

For the record, Night Observation Device (NOD) is the more encompassing term, as compared to Night Vision Goggles (NVG) and Night Vision Devices (NVD), which generically refer to both passive and active light amplifying equipment. This distinction may seemed nuanced, but when we think in terms of NOD we must avoid thinking of only NVG.

As we’ll discuss, NVG represent some of the most significant advances in NOD and therefore in night fighting. Regrettably then the tendency for many tactical units is to lean on the crutch of NVG technology rather than employing NVG as a means to enhance already sound night fighting Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP).

This article will not address night fighting TTP, per se. They are ably covered elsewhere. However, we will look at the larger spectrum of NOD and define how each system helps us conduct the business of warfighting in periods of darkness.

First and foremost we must define the function of all NOD under the umbrella of three applications – visibility, detection and targeting.

Visibility has the broadest function and includes everything from driving and piloting vehicles, to navigating terrain on foot, to reading maps or text documents, to medical care. Visibility is the catch-all application for tasks that are not enemy-oriented, yet still must be achieved in periods of darkness.

Detection is the function of discovery. In this application NOD not only help us find the enemy, they may also help us determine friend from foe.

Targeting is a slightly different function from detection then in that targeting means we need to make ready a specific weapon system to engage an enemy or suspected enemy. Of course, we don’t actually engage the target until we determine whether it is friend or foe. Typically detection comes first, then targeting. But this is not always the case.

Forward Looking Infra-Red

Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) is used primarily for detection and targeting. FLIR devices represent the most advanced break through in NOD. These devices include the older tripod-mounted AN/TAS-6 NODLR, as large as a microwave oven and whirring noisily, to the newer AN/PVS-22 and T-14 that are small and light enough to fit comfortably onto an M4 carbine and still offer the same picture clarity as the older models.

FLIR turns night into day, and sees even through vegetation and smoke during daylight operation. When looking for a sniper team in late spring, a search team walked more than a kilometer of dense tree line visibly looking at the ground for the hidden team in broad daylight. Back at the sniper team’s target, the same search team then turned on their T-14 FLIR and could instantly, clearly detect and target the two-man sniper team in spite of their being hidden with ghillie suits under heavy vegetation more than 300 meters away. The sniper team might as well have had a neon sign lit overhead. Through FLIR they were hopelessly exposed to counter fire.

FLIR may be used for navigation but only on expensive, extremely specialized vehicle platforms. Those rare instances aside, FLIR in its current form is not useful for map reading, walking over the mountain while avoiding cliff drop-offs, or administering aid to casualties during hours of limited visibility – yet.

For the time being, FLIR is most advantageous when used for targeting and detection. We’ll continue to see advances in this very promising NOD technology.

Passive Light Devices

Passive light devices amplify ambient light in an optical tube so that an image is created for the viewer during conditions of darkness. Because no form of light is projected, other forces using similar passive light systems cannot detect the use of a passive light optic.

There have been a series of developments and advances in passive light devices since the late 1960s beginning with the first generation AN/PVS-2 rifle scope. Second generation AN/PVS-4 scope and AN/PVS-5 night vision goggles were considerable steps forward in clarity of the tubes and image. And third generation AN/PVS-7 goggle and the versatile AN/PVS-14 monocular goggle/scope permit light gain even when used in conjunction with other intense light sources. This allows the user see into dark shadows and corners with other light sources present.

Passive light devices are used for the widest range of function including the full spectrum of visibility, detection and targeting. Some devices are, however, dedicated to a specific function. Scopes for example are often used exclusively for targeting, while the more common goggles are used to scan the battlespace to navigate as well as detect and target the enemy.

Active Light Devices

A precursor to the passive light system, active light collecting tubes gain projected infra-red (IR) light – invisible to the human eye. Used for detecting and targeting purposes, an enemy force without similar technology would be completely unaware that they were being illuminated at night. However, forces with other active or passive light systems would see another active light system clearly due to the projected IR light.

Active light systems still exist today, though active light systems are less commonly used for detection these days due to the fairly common access to commercial active and passive light NOD. Currently, active light systems are often dedicated to targeting, such as the IR laser pointer in the AN/PEQ series targeting devices.

Additionally there are specific active light systems for medical support and combat service support functions.

White Lens Weapon Light

One of the most recent additions to NOD is actually one of the oldest. The flashlight. However weapon lights offer significantly more power, putting out 65, 120 and even 220 lumens compared to the old camp flashlights dim 5 to 10 lumens. It puts a spotlight in the hands of each warrior!

The blinding power of the popular SureFire and Blackhawk Gladius series lights can temporarily disorient a foe without inflicting any harm. This gives the weapon light a definite advantage in targeting, and also for the confirmation of targets prior to engaging with deadly force. This makes the weapon light ideal for nighttime raids and ambushes.

Regrettably, many warriors carry the weapon light on their weapon, switch ready, while patrolling. This is a recipe for disaster as the warriors carrying their weapon light in such a manner tend to experience an alarming number of negligent discharges of brilliant white light, visible to even the naked eye. This makes the entire patrol vulnerable to enemy detection.

Weapons lights are not suitable for detection, as a general rule of thumb. The white lens may give the user a feeling of confidence due to the spotlight effect, but it also makes the user an easy target for enemy gunners! Scanning the battlespace for enemy can only be achieved safely in very specific instances. When used in this mode, weapon lights are commonly coupled with an IR lens covers so that the weapon light becomes a powerful part of an active light system.

Color Lens Flashlight

Flashlights have been around for quite some time now. Of course white light renders the flashlight a tactical liability in the battlespace. However with red, blue, green or diffused lens covers such flashlights become viable NOD for use in visibility applications.

Patrols can signal each other, vehicle drivers can guide on different colored lens, leaders can read maps, medics can tend wounds, radio operators can read documents and vehicle crews can pull maintenance all with colored lens flashlights.

And since colored lens put out considerably lower levels of visible light, they are more difficult to detect with the human eye than white light. Indeed, recent advances in light division technology has seen several new lens introduced that are surprisingly difficult to detect even with passive and active light systems.

Pyrotechnic Flare

For centuries field artillery has employed the pyrotechnic flare. This NOD is used primarily for detection, though with a few techniques riflemen and artillery gunners can employ their weapons for targeting purposes.

Most effective for detection are aerial parachute flares which when fired in sequence can provide sustained light for extended periods of time. Of course, the problem is that regardless of the type of flare, such pyrotechnics work both ways. Flares allow the enemy to see just as well, and are a clear indicator to the enemy that they have come upon an enemy force.

But when used cleverly, pyrotechnic flares illuminate the enemy as they’re moving through open terrain for friendly forces that are already in camouflaged, defendable fighting positions.

Strobe & Chemical Cyalume Light

Various colored chemlights (Cyalume) and strobe lights, including those with IR coverings are NOD used for a variety of visibility applications. In addition to the nearly identical applications of colored lens flashlights, strobe and chemlights are commonly used to guide patrols plus airborne and land-borne vehicles by marking targets, paths, boundary limits, and even landing zones.

In rare instances chemlights and strobes have been used for targeting and detection. Employed as field expedient backlighting, particularly in urban operations, these relatively low-light NOD can create enough light to detect and even target enemy movement.

Guy Lines

Didn’t see that one coming, did you? Yes, almost as old as fire is the use of twine or gut as a guide for warriors moving at night – making guy lines one of the oldest NOD in our inventory. Of course more recently it has been communication field phone wire, a dying relic on the battlefield.

Nonetheless, guy lines are still a valid form of NOD used for visibility applications to mark paths, boundaries, assault positions, and targets. Guy lines are employed almost exclusively for navigation, yet when used in conjunction with chemlights can become quite a sophisticated system for moving troops at night. Guy lines do require plenty of advanced planning and placement during daylight scouting missions.

Of course, the guy line works both ways if found by the enemy. But again, depending on the level of sophistication even this fact might work in our favor.

The important take-away from this article is that NVG such as the superbly efficient PVS-7 becomes all the more effective when used in tandem with other forms of NOD and their unique capabilities. Furthermore, when used with existing TTP for the various other forms of NOD, we have backup systems upon backup systems. And that makes us better night fighters.

---

This article was originally published on odjournal.com (Olive Drab: the journal of tactics) and has been transferred here with permission.

---

 

Let me tell you a story you already know. Some 500 years ago the Europeans re-discovered the North American continent and colonized it. English, French, Spanish, German, Dutch and even Russian people populated colonies, all mixed within the “Thousand Nations” of native peoples here in what is today the United States. But of course, we only became a nation in 1776, just a scant 235 years ago.

What we tend to forget is that America was not a superpower with overnight success. Depending on which historian you ask and how we define the term “superpower”, America evolved into this status somewhere between the end of the First World War in 1919 or at the end of the Second World War in 1945.

So America has been a superpower for 92 years or 66 years depending on who’s counting. What this means is that for less than a century the US Armed Forces have been projected to the farthest corners of the earth, fighting in every conceivable terrain and weather condition.

Incredibly, for the past 46 years of that short reign as a superpower, the American warfighter has reached for the AR15 to conduct the dangerous and deadly business of waging battle.

In other words, it is not the beloved Springfield M1903 that holds this record, though it served for an impressive 32 years as a main battle rifle. It is not the venerable M1 Garand that holds this record, having served 20 years as the main battle rifle. Nor is it the magnificently accurate M14 that served a mere 8 years as our main battle rifle. Though to be certain, each of these designs is brilliant in their own rite.

No. The longest serving main battle rifle is the “mouse gun”, the “Mattel toy”, the weapon that everyone loves to hate, the AR15. It has now surpassed even the service record of the Brown Bess musket in the US military.

How did it come to this? The improbable success of the AR15 in its many variant generations – M16, A1, A2, A3, A4 rifles and the equally numerous carbine generations from the XM177E to the current M4A1 serving across the globe – likely stems from the AR15’s incredibly flexible platform.

It might be argued that the AR15 consistently wins “second best”. It cannot outshoot long range .30 caliber battle rifles. It lacks the penetration and energy-to-target ratio of that weapon class. It is not as agile as the bullpup series of rifles and carbines. Nor is it a particularly cheap weapon to manufacture. And it certainly doesn’t have the reputation of reliability such as the Kalashnikov! Don’t kid yourself, perception is a critical factor in gaining the confidence of warriors.

What it does do successfully is rank as a suitable alternative for each of these considerations – accuracy, lethality, agility, reliability, and cost. And that status earns the AR15 a reputation as a remarkably adaptable weapon to various battle environments, from the beaches to the jungle, from the cities to the mountains, from the arctic to the desert plains.

This consideration, coupled with the modularity of the AR15 platform and its ability to switch the same weapon from a rifle, to light machinegun, to sub-machinegun, and back to a carbine gives the US Armed Forces exactly what it needs. Flexibility.

The AR15 has not been a beloved weapon. Exactly the opposite! It was despised in the months and years after it was introduced. America was embroiled in the jungle warfare of Vietnam. The hard-hitting and accurate M14 quickly became of victim of its own success – unnecessarily accurate in the confined close quarter fight of the jungle.

The AR15 was introduced to the US Army in 1965 as the M16 rifle, and was erroneously touted as a “self cleaning” wonderment of modern weapon technology. Nothing could be further from the truth. The unbelievably tight working spaces, necessary for a piston-free direct impingent gas system, required disciplined maintenance by the troops. Add to that frustration the fact that the US Army Ordinance had allowed a more corrosive powder to be used in the early ammunition than was called for by the AR15 weapon specifications, and disaster soon followed.

It seemed that the AR15 had failed. But dutifully, US Army Ordinance began insisting on the cleaner powder in the ammunition, and took the design back to the drawing board. Changes were made, most notably the protruding forward assist press lever and raised box rim around the magazine release button. These were small changes, but very significant.

The M16A1 saw proliferated service among all four branches of the US military by 1967. It was a much better design, but it was still hated. It seemed the AR15 could not shake the stigma from its earlier failures. And to this very day, the Canadian Army speciously insists that the forward assist must be tapped each and every time a round is chambered in their AR15 variant, the C7.

The fact that the AR15 was adopted by so many allied militaries is something of a miracle in and of itself. Our NATO allies viewed the 5.56mm round as a underpowered runt, undeserving of a main battle rifle. Yet admittedly several Asian militaries were quick to embrace the weapon due to its manageable size, light weight and very low felt recoil.

By the 1970s high speed cameras and the use of gelatin molds were used for a more scientific approach to in-flight ballistics and terminal ballistics. A remarkable thing was discovered.

It turns out that the 5.56mm round had not only a much flatter in-flight trajectory than most other battle rifle cartridges of the day (already known), but the terminal ballistics of the 5.56mm round were terribly lethal and downright nasty! What this meant was that the AR15 could be aimed at the target with little regard for bullet drop all the way out to 300 meters. And when the bullet struck even the soft tissue of its intended target, the bullet would very quickly yaw (turn sideways) and fragment from its full-metal jacket. Even the lead core would often fly apart. And it maintained this deadly yaw and fragmentation effect out to just over 200 meters.

Suddenly, the AR15 didn’t look quite so puny.

After almost two decades of service, it became clear to NATO armies that America wasn’t going to dismiss the AR15 anytime soon. France chambered its new FAMAS bullpup in the American 5.56mm cartridge and the rest of the NATO partners took note. Soon the Belgians began work on the small bullet to see if they could somehow beef it up for their FNH Minimi (US M249) light machinegun. They did just that. And the US Marines fell in love with the new round.

In 1982 the newest generation of AR15, the M16A2, was introduced to the US military. This rifle sported a heavier barrel with significantly tighter rifling to stabilize the newly developed Belgian SS109 round (US M855) at 62 grain weight, up from the US Army’s M193 bullet at 55 grains. The M16A2 also included a better rear sight with a mechanical bullet drop compensator for quick adjustment for firing ranges beyond 300 meters.

Anecdotally, US infantrymen took the new M16A2 to known distance (KD) ranges and quite literally were giggling like school girls! The advancements to the AR15 were enough to make a good rifle into an excellent rifle. It was now possible to aim directly at the target at 500 meters with little regard for bullet drop and hit time after time, even in rapid fire conditions.

In a period of less than ten years, National Rifle Association (NRA) 600-yard competitions saw the AR15 platform increase from just 10 percent of rifles used at these events, to 95 percent use. With just a bit of tweaking, this rifle could regularly manage sub-minute of angle (MOA) shot groupings. By the early 1990s, the AR15 had finally come into its own.

It has since served another 20 years as the main battle rifle of US forces. We’ve seen the 3rd and 4th generations of the AR15, making it all the more modular and specialized to just about every warrior mission and task. In the mid-1990s the stunted carbine, a favorite among US Special Operational Forces, was accepted as the issued weapon. With all of the recent upgrades, this carbine was dubbed the M4.

Virtually every allied military uses a variation of the AR15 weapon, and/or has developed their own rifle and carbine in the same 5.56mm cartridge – France, South Korea, Germany, England, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Italy, Swiss, Austria, the list goes on and even includes Russia.

There are now numerous contenders to the AR15, many claiming to be superior for one reason or another. But those claims have yet to pan out. Even inside the US there have been new weapon platforms introduced that were supposedly going to outperform the AR15.

The promising XM8 project, a joint US and German effort looked to improve on the two perceived weaknesses of the AR15, the direct impingent gas system and the underpowered bullet. Soon after the XM8’s rejection by the Pentagon, Bushmaster released another attempt to overcome these two weaknesses with the short-piston Adaptive Combat Rifle (ACR). While both the XM8 and ACR look impressive on paper and in initial field performances, the US military is understandably reluctant to give up a known success, the AR15.

Is the AR15 perfect? Of course not! Such a claim would be ridiculous. And certainly something in the near future will replace the AR15 and our love-hate relationship with this improbable but successful weapon system.

Still, love it or hate it, the AR15 weapon platform has been the go-to solution for the US military and numerous allied militaries around the world for an incredible 46 years of service. Whatever replaces the AR15, it has big expectations to fill. It turns out it is not so easy to be “second best” at everything. Who knew?

---

This article was originally published on odjournal.com (Olive Drab: the journal of tactics) and has been transferred here with permission.

---

 

Let me be clear, I am not an aficionado of the Kalashnikov, better known as the AK-47, or more properly the Automat Kalashnikov Modernizirovannyj (AKM). Yet there are countless millions who have been singing the praises of the AKM for the past half-century. It did not become a beloved weapon by accident or mere happenstance. And so it’s time to give this weapon its due.

The Soviet AKM chambered in caliber 7.62x39mm cartridge reached its pinnacle in 1956 for several good reasons. Since its inception in 1947 the AK-47 saw a series of setbacks, poor quality steel on the stamped version, which was corrected with a slow, expensive, and heavy milled version. However, in 1956 the latest version dubbed the AKM once again was using much improved stamped steel, making it lighter as well as cheaper and faster to produce.

Consider that at that same time the US Army was still using the venerable M1 Garand and the British Army carried the bolt-action Lee-Enfield. Albeit two fine weapons, they were unwieldy at close quarters and held just 8 rounds (Garand) and 10 rounds (Lee-Enfield) compared to the detachable “box” magazine of the AKM holding 30 rounds of ammunition. Furthermore, the AKM had a select-fire capability of fully automatic fire.

While their NATO counterpart’s weapons were certainly more accurate and fired more capably at longer ranges than the AKM, once within its maximum effective range the AKM simply outgunned all others with suppressive fire. This was a decidedly tactical edge in 1956.

The AKM was also smaller and lighter than its contemporaries, giving it further tactical advantage.

At an operational logistics perspective, the AKM was designed to require the minimum in regards to maintenance. And at a strategic perspective the AKM was quick and cheap to manufacture, and simply to learn for even the least disciplined militia.

Now, my personal experiences with the AKM stem from my schooling on the topic at the US Army’s Threat Weapons Course in Ft. Campbell, KY, as well as having carried it in one combat theater and having fought against it in yet another combat theater. I have fairly extensive experience with the AKM on various ranges including close quarter distances and 300-meter KD ranges over medium distances. Arguably my most considerable experience with the AKM has been in tactical training with One Shepherd, as the AKM was adopted in 1992 as our OPFOR weapon for force-on-force training.

So I’ve carried, shot, trained and fought with numerous AKM variants – manufactured by Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Egypt, Iraq, China and the United States. I have my favorites and I certainly won’t make the case that all AKM are created equal. They are not.

Yet there are certain expectations that the AKM will satisfy, and some that the AKM is simply not designed to satisfy. Let’s get specific and dispel some of the myths surrounding this very capable weapon, though I will warn you that I must talk in general terms since obviously there are so many variations of the AKM. I cannot and will not address each and every variant of this 60-year-old firearm.

“The AKM will never fail you.”

Well, it fails to function as an effective table saw, so already this statement is too broad to be true. Furthermore the notion that an AKM will not jam in adverse conditions is laughable. Even the best-made AKM will fail to feed, fail to eject, or even experience a catastrophic failure under the worst conditions. It’s a machine. And eventually all machines fail. Especially those not manufactured to an exacting standard or quality.

However, the flip side of that same coin is that in comparison to many other military firearms, the AKM is extremely rugged. It may not go “bang” every single time you pull the trigger, but it can take a beating and with minimal maintenance it will deliver in the fight. They last for multiple lifetimes when cared for even under some of the most rudimentary conditions.

“The AKM bullet is powerful.”

Powerful, yes. The 7.62x39mm round is relatively large and relatively slow, making it well suited for the close confines of battle in dense vegetation and urban streets. Range and accuracy suffer however.

The Kalashnikov round, like the firearm, is plagued with a lack of standardization and quality control measures. The bullet itself is known to have a Measure of Angle (MOA) of 5 inches at 100 meters, which is a bit dismal for modern military weapons.

Yet even in light of this shortcoming, the practical impact is fairly negligible. At 300 meters I maintained 66 percent hits on a standard military silhouette target during rapid fire of 20 rounds per 1 minute. Now I’m no slouch, but neither am I sniper trained nor an NRA master marksman.

This means that even with the considerable bullet drop of 30 inches and a 15-inch grouping (5MOA) at 300 meters, a well-trained marksman could be expected to obtain 50 percent hits at 300, 350, and 400 meters under duress. That’s impressive by any military standard.

Fortunately for our military and our allies, our enemies over the past half-century of conflict have rarely produced such trained marksmen. And never have they achieved such capability as a standard among their warriors.

Indeed, using the 50 percent hit probability as a measure, most militaries armed with the AKM train no farther than 200 meters. This is the furthest range the weapon can be aimed with little regard to bullet drop, and sharpshooters can maintain groupings under 10 inches with well-maintained AKM.

If 200 meters sounds rather paltry, consider that conventional wisdom states 70 percent of all small arms injuries in battle take place at 100 meters or less. In this light, a practical range of 200 meters is very capable, which lends further credence as to why the AKM is so well suited for the close-in fight.

“The AKM is easy to use.”

Frankly no. This has not been my experience at all and such a statement demands a qualifier. The AKM is easy to learn, however it’s difficult to use.

The brilliance of Mikhail Kalashnikov’s design is its simplicity. The AKM uses a gas piston system with large moving parts that are simple to maintain. Both the magazine and weapon load easily enough. There isn’t much to learn in the way of “buttonology” on this weapon.

Yet to describe the AKM as ergonomic is a bit pretentious. Not for nothing, but the Kalashnikov weapon predates the modern coinage of the term “ergonomic” by British psychologist Hywel Murrell in 1949.

Case in point, the AKM fire selector is horribly misplaced, forcing the shooter to disengage his firing hand at precisely the moment he should not. The only alternative is to walk around with the weapon on “fire” putting the members of the patrol at considerable risk of fratricide.

The iron sights are nearly impossible to adjust for MOA. The rotating magazine almost invariably requires two hands instead of one to replace. The fore stock is too short causing countless burns from heated barrels. The comb of the butt stock is angled so that the recoil is pronounced and virtually impossible to control the barrel climb on full-auto fire. And parts of the AKM are inexplicably known to fly off in the heat of battle, though in most cases the weapon continues to fire – raising the question as to whether or not such parts are even necessary.

Bloody knuckles and all, the AKM is a formidable battle-axe of a weapon. It’s endeared itself to millions of warriors across the globe.

So there it is. What the AKM lacks in accuracy, range and ergonomics it compensates in power, ruggedness and affordability. Like it, love it, or hate it, you have to respect the Kalashnikov weapon and its 60+ years reign in battle.

---

This article was originally published on odjournal.com (Olive Drab: the journal of tactics) and has been transferred here with permission.

---