Infantry rifle combat distances unchanged since World War I
During the recent Iraq campaign, US Marine riflemen were interviewed about their experiences by after-action interviewers.

Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only.

Believe it or not, those ranges were almost exactly the same as in World War I, according to General of the Army Omar Bradley, reported in his autobiography, A General's Life. As commanding general of the 82d Infantry Division early in World War II, Bradley invited Medal of Honor recipient Alvin York to visit his troops. (The 82d was not yet an airborne division at that point.) York was a legendary Tennessee marksman who had earned the only Medal of Honor awarded to an 82d Division soldier in the Great War. Bradley hosted York in his own quarters.

I queried him closely on his experiences in France. One important fact emerged from these talks: most of his effective shooting had been done at a very short range - twenty-five to fifty yards.

In World War II, long-range rifle fire in combat was unusual in either Europe or the Pacific. Why so little change in infantry engagement ranges over the last 85 years? I would say it is because the factor limiting actual engagement ranges is visibility, not the capability of the rifle itself. After all, Sgt. York's Springfield '03, Willie and Joe's M1 Garand and the modern M16A2 rifle can all be accurately fired out to 500 meters or so. But it is extremely rare for a grunt to see an enemy soldier, much less see one long enough and clearly enough to aim and fire. Smoke, dust, rain and blowing sand obscure enemy troops and positions at long ranges, and the enemy camouflages himself and his positions to boot. Troops in combat obviously don't want the enemy to see them!

Most infantry firefights start as movements to contact. Even if the advancing infantrymen know that the enemy is, say, down this street, they don't know exactly where. They go forward until they are fired upon. Think about the opening of the last battle in the movie, Saving Private Ryan, when the Germans moved into the town defended by the Americans. They knew they would be shot at, they just didn't know when. Such is battle.

Our enemies know they must let our infantry get close before they open fire. From only a few hundred meters, American combat vehicles such as Army Bradleys or Marine LAVs will bring heavy weapons to bear for which the Iraqis and our potential future enemies have no equivalent. American infantry fired upon by an enemy only a few hundred meters away reach for the really big stick: American artillery. There breathes not one infantryman who has been in a close-range firefight who would not be delighted to let the artillery do the work every time. But if the enemy lets our men get within 100 meters before shooting, artillery fire is not a good option for the Americans, and the Bradleys or LAVs can be taken under accurate RPG fire. It is not smart for the US infantry to withdraw to a safe distance, then call in fire support, because withdrawal under fire is both very dangerous and very demoralizing.

(Actually, RPG gunners can hit Bradleys reasonably reliably at about 300 meters, and would take American dismounted infantry under machine-gun fire as well. American Bradleys and machine gunners would return fire, of course. But experience shows that riflemen do not. Rifle combat is a close-in thing.)

Omar Bradley took York's lesson to heart and devised training courses for his soldiers to move through. Torso-sized targets would be suddenly, partially revealed for a short time. The soldiers had to detect them and shoot them before the targets disappeared from view.

Alone among the services, the US Marine Corps requires its recruits to qualify using 500-meter targets. The Army's greatest qualification distance is 300 meters. High marksmanship at long range is part of the Marine mythos, but the fact is that riflemen in combat don't shoot at that range. In fact, individual rifle-qualification firing in either the Army or the Marines is pretty much unrelated to combat shooting for a number of reasons, chief among them that it is individual. Combat, however, is a team effort.

The kind of training infantrymen need for modern rifle combat is best done in units, using fire and movement techniques and incorporating machine guns and pistols. Qualification-range firing is needed to teach basic rifle marksmanship, but it does not prepare a soldier or Marine for the realities of combat.

Update: It bears recognizing also that the rules of engagement in Iraq were very restrictive and tended to suppress one of the principal uses of machine guns in previous conflicts: to conduct recon by fire. When units located a terrain feature that seemed useful for enemy defenders, they would hose it down with MG fire. If return fire came back, the battle was on (more likely, they would call for artillery and blow it away). Historian T. R. Fehrenbach documented how this practice was the norm in the first year of the Korean War, resulting often in the wholesale destruction of entire villages. Protests by the South's government and allied powers at this wantonly destructive practice caused it finally to be ended, but in open areas it continued.

But infantry couldn't do recon by fire in Iraq, at least very much, because the potential for civilian deaths was too great. So Iraqi defenders retained the initiative of when to begin the firefight. As far as I can tell from my readings, firefights began at close range. That meant that half the advantage of machine guns, their longer accurate range, was usually obviated.

Still, though, I find it pretty interesting that whether the rules of engagement were restrictive or permissive, the typical engagement ranges for rifle fire in combat have remained virtually unchanged since World War I.

by Donald Sensing, 6/3/2003 07:06:26 AM. Permalink |