Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Mess with the bull ...
Posted by: McQ on Friday, November 28, 2008

You sometimes get the horn.

Hint for the Taliban. If the ratio isn't better than 8:1, you may want to consider retreat as first option:
In the city of Shewan, approximately 250 insurgents ambushed 30 Marines and paid a heavy price for it.

Shewan has historically been a safe haven for insurgents, who used to plan and stage attacks against Coalition Forces in the Bala Baluk district.

The city is home to several major insurgent leaders. Reports indicate that more than 250 full time fighters reside in the city and in the surrounding villages.
So when a Marine platoon wandered by, they thought they'd show off a little. Big mistake:
After calling for close-air support, the small group of Marines pushed forward and broke the enemies’ spirit as many of them dropped their weapons and fled the battlefield. At the end of the battle, the Marines had reduced an enemy stronghold, killed more than 50 insurgents and wounded several more.

“I didn’t realize how many bad guys there were until we had broken through the enemies’ lines and forced them to retreat. It was roughly 250 insurgents against 30 of us,” the corporal said. “It was a good day for the Marine Corps. We killed a lot of bad guys, and none of our guys were seriously injured.”
The "designated marksman", aka sniper, did almost half the damage:
During the battle, the designated marksman single handedly thwarted a company-sized enemy RPG and machinegun ambush by reportedly killing 20 enemy fighters with his devastatingly accurate precision fire.
While this is going to be a long war because of the tremendous amount of work to be done to get the necessary level of governance in place and functioning, not to mention the difficulty of protecting the population while the Afghan army is built from the ground up, it is probably safe to assume the Taliban are beginning to figure out that they're not fighting dispirited conscripted Russians this go-round.
“The biggest thing to take from that day is what Marines can accomplish when they’re given the opportunity to fight,” the sniper said. “A small group of Marines met a numerically superior force and embarrassed them in their own backyard. The insurgents told the townspeople that they were stronger than the Americans, and that day we showed them they were wrong.”
On this day, bragging rights went to the Marines, 50 to 0.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
OOHRAH!
 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
Good show.

Do Marine designated marksmen currently use an M-14 or M-16 based system?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don, if he’s a "Designated Marksman" he’s probably using an M-16, that’s been accurized. You can "Kiki" it...I think it’s the Squad Marksman Rifle" or some such.

So on to the "meat" of the story...why are you all SO happy at this story. Because you dense right-wing nuts can’t see the abject failure of military power? Think of the dead and wonded Taliban and their PTSD...the toll of broken lives and limbs, the orphaned children and lost wives at home of these Taliban! Nothing good can or will come of this....I know because I study this stuff.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I might add, on the basis of TWO "Ifs", IF he was a designated marksman", not a sniper which is a deifferent "career path" if you will, and IF he was using the accurized M-16, can we see this as end to the "The M-16 SUX" ’cuz it’s round is too small argument?

On another board a poster, with 10 years of experience in SOCom-he claims, not as a shooter but a support weenie-points out the problem is NOT the bullet, but the bullet firer. The M-16 is NOT lethal, IF YOU DON’T HIT THE TARGET. His point is much of the claim of non-lethality is just as easily countered by suggesting, "Dude, you didn’t hit him. That’s why he didn’t fall down, not that you hit two times and he ’just won’t drop.’" 20 rounds, 20 kills....from, more than likely an M-16...seems fairly lethal to me...hit what you aim at, the round will do the rest...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Unfortunately the Taliban are probably smart enough to learn from their mistakes. It’s evolution, where even one-celled animals can increase their survival rate by changing their behavior. I wouldn’t count on lopsided engagements like this to continue indefinitely.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Why Tim...the Taliban have no IBA and have no soldier mentality...they seem to be "tribal warriors". Warriors are NOT soldiers...I’ve always felt the US Army was being a little silly in calling its troops "warriors." Generally they’re not...warriors generally don’t view war as a profession, soldiers do and consequently behave PROFESSIONALLY. They train, they subordinate, they perform maintenance...warrriors don’t generally like any of those things. It’s the difference between between my Celtic forebears at Alesia and the Roman Legionaries besieging them...warriors fight hard, but not necesarily smart.

That having been said, sure, if you mean that as word gets around the Taliban will decide that even platoon-sized elemants of the USMC are not worth the damage they’ll inflict, I’m sure you’re right. But what counter will they be able to develop? I don’t see the Taliban as the Viet Minh and I don’t think they’ve got a Vo Nguyen Giap on their side either.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
As a Designated Marksman he would be utilizing a highly modified M14. DM’s are not true snipers. They are trained in a completely different manner and have a much different mission. Dm’s are a tactical tool used at the tactical level while snipers are tactical tools used at the strategic or very high tactical level. Here is the link to the Marine Corps DM M14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Marine_Corps_Designated_Marksman_Rifle

R. Lee Ermey just did a segment on it on The History Channel’s new Lock n’ Load. Very nice weapon.

They main problem with the 5.56mm as it is used in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the bullet as fired from the new shorter barrels on M4’s doesn’t perform as well as it was intended to when it was developed for the longer barrels of the M16 through the M16A4.

Also "Every Marine a Rifleman!" still rings true.

Semper Fi’ Devil Dogs.
 
Written By: James
URL: http://
tim, I see you point, but this is 2008, nearly 2009. The war didn’t start last month, you know. Making mistakes like that, what, five years in, doesn’t say much for their learning ability.

I suspect it’s a problem of believing their own propaganda. There’s hardly a worse mistake an organization can make.
 
Written By: Jeremy Bowers
URL: http://www.jerf.org/iri
I might add, on the basis of TWO "Ifs", IF he was a designated marksman", not a sniper which is a deifferent "career path" if you will, and IF he was using the accurized M-16, can we see this as end to the "The M-16 SUX" ’cuz it’s round is too small argument?
No. 22LR can be perfectly deadly if you hit the right place. Doesn’t make it an appropriate military cartridge.

Something between 6.00 to 6.80mm is called for.

Until we’re fighting an enemy that wears lots of armor, and then we need a Kelchworth in 0.40.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

PS. I’m wondering who’ll get that reference...
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Tom didn’t catch the reference, BUT from How TO Make War Discussions...the 6.8 mm SPC HAS been to Afghanistan. SOCom took it...they discovred it wasn’t worth the bother. Not worth the extra weight and logistics hassle, that the 6.8mm offered in increased performance.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
As to the M-14 and operations....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Marine_Corps_Squad_Advanced_Marksman_Rifle

This has the Squad Markman issued with a 5.56mm weapon. From what I have read,the M-14 HAS NOT performed well in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is too prone to jamming. Much of its reputation is just that REPUTATION, not battlefield performance.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
WOW! Joe, you da man

Nothing good can or will come of this....I know because I study this stuff.

Lotsa "good" comes from this: 1) 50 less wackos to worry about actually becoming trained and thus more dangerous! 2) who knows how many wouded dragging down the effectiveness of the remaining "warriors"! 3) significantly lower morale among the remainder; its one thing to beat an immobile platoon of dispirited Russkis, a whole nother thing to effectively take on the D-Dog—-that sort of foolishness severely depletes the ranks of the recruits in the Arab world—-as Osama himself said, they’re big on support of the strong horse!

Back to the right sort of books for your "study" Joe! erf ! erf! erf!
 
Written By: Earl T
URL: http://
Thank you Earl T. for your emotional argumentum ad hominem attack...yo dense righties can’t really advance a REAL argument to support your twiested and evil Imperial policies, so you can only use unreasonable attacks and emotion-based arguments. I see it all the time, in how you lambaste the Great-Souled One, Jim-muh and how you attacked the Viet Nam hero Kerry, with your lying Swift Boat Veterans! But finally your day has come, as America slides into the abyss of the Great Depression II now we have a leader, a shining hope, He shall redeem us and save us all...though all the POTUS’ past he gets referred to are war-time Presidents, Lincoln, FDR, and the like...never mind. No More War! I decree it! I have a blog, and classes and soon a book, and many many poly-syllabic words...I can NOT be wrong!

So Earl T let me close with two points, You Sir are an idjit! and Two, you are the victim of a failure to detect sarcasm....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Don, if he’s a "Designated Marksman" he’s probably using an M-16, that’s been accurized. You can "Kiki" it...I think it’s the Squad Marksman Rifle" or some such.
Joe,

Marine snipers use the M40, a bolt action .308 based upon the Remington 700. However, the designated marksman may be using either an accurized M14 or M16.

The only significant advantage the ’14 has over the ’16 is that the 7.62 round can better defeat cover.
This has the Squad Markman issued with a 5.56mm weapon. From what I have read,the M-14 HAS NOT performed well in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is too prone to jamming. Much of its reputation is just that REPUTATION, not battlefield performance.
I shoot competition (0ut to 800 yards), and frankly few use the ’14 (or rather, the civilian M1A) for competition anymore.

The AR15 can do 0.5 MOA fine, the M1A can’t do better than about 1.0 MOA. When the USMC used the ’14 as their competition rifle, they would rebed it after 800 rounds and fully rebuild after the second 800; they would basically shoot themselves apart. With the AR15, you shoot until the barrel wears out. Then you replace the barrel and do it again . . .

It is also reported by the military teams that many fewer spare parts are required to keep the shooting teams running, since they switched to the AR.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Tom didn’t catch the reference, BUT from How TO Make War Discussions...the 6.8 mm SPC HAS been to Afghanistan. SOCom took it...they discovred it wasn’t worth the bother. Not worth the extra weight and logistics hassle, that the 6.8mm offered in increased performance.
If we were starting from a clean slate, 6.8 would probably be the way to go, but with our current investment in 5.56 a switch can’t be justified IMO.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider