There are many, many reasons that the war in Afghanistan ended so
quickly. Some of them are obvious: B-52s, precision bombs and not so
precision Daisy Cutters have made the news. But a more subtle
difference is striking: The average Afghan turned out to be a very poor
marksman.
In a way it's a sad commentary on how the
mighty are fallen. The Afghans used to be noted for their marksmanship.
It was said they could hit a goat across a windy valley. Now they fire
magazines at the sky.
A person of my acquaintance was
commenting on the Afghan method of fire control, that is: None. Given
an AK-47, the common Afghan soldier, Taliban or United Front (as I
think they're being referred to this week) points it in the general
direction of the enemy and rips off the whole magazine.
My
friend was listening to a report, no video, of the firing, and heard
short, two and three round bursts. As he put it: "clearly
professionalSAmerican or British special operations." I couldn't resist
adding: "This was not the sand-people, this was the work of Imperial
Storm TroopersSonly they are so precise." There is a difference between
professional warriors and half-trained barbarians and it became evident
all over the Afghan war.
Being willing to choose one
aimed round over ripping off a magazine is called fire discipline and
fire discipline is hard to teach. There is a visceral thrill to ripping
off a whole magazine; if you ever want to get a person over guns, take
them to a range where they can let rip with an MP-5.
But
the "blast 'em all!" method has two HUGE problems. The first is that
there's virtually no chance of actually hitting anything; an assault
rifle on full auto is just about the safest "weapon" in the worldSto
the other side. The second problem is that ripping off whole magazines
requires massive ammunition resupply; there is some indication that
much of Tora Bora fell because the idiot Al Quaeda shot themselves dry.
Let's take a look at the first. When firing just about
any hand weapon, the muzzle tends to "climb" when you shoot. You've
seen this plenty of times on TV even if you've never fired a gun in
your life. With an automatic weapon, the problem is accelerated with
each shot so that even if the first shot is aimed, the second is
generally higher (and to one side) and the third is higher still.
Eventually the weapon is pointed in the air and more a danger to your
side than theirs. A Turkish friend of mine experienced this with a
relatively simple sub-machine gun and fired rounds from one side of a
range to the other, missing his own target entirely.
Fully
automatic fire is, therefore, almost inherently inaccurate. And you
can't kill the enemy by blasting the sky, whatever the Afghans think.
So why have it?
In certain circumstances, lots of lead
is a good thing. Room clearing is one example. Throw in a grenade and
fire off a magazine all over the room, working on keeping the muzzle
down. While you're reloading your team-mate enters. This is the "we
don't care who is inside" method of taking a building. And under
certain circumstances, two and three round burst fire is excellent. In
those cases the first goes where you are aiming (presumably) and the
second and third go in the general area. If your first hits the chest,
for example, the second and third go in the upper chest and bad-guy
fall-down-go-boom.
But over use of full-auto burns
through massive amounts of ammunition. And water, food and ammo (beans
and bullets)are, at base, the only things soldiers have to have
supplied. As such, getting the ammo there is a major factor in solving
any military problem. But blasting off full-auto just adds to it. Let's
do some math.
"If a train leaves AkronS" NO, not that! But closeS
One
case of 1000 rounds of 7.62x39 ammunition (the ammo of AK-47s) weighs
about 40 lbs. Let us say that one pack-donkey can carry 500 lbs of
materials. That means that one donkey can carry about 12,500 rounds.
There are thirty rounds in a magazine. Since we've already determined
that only the first round in the magazine is going to hit Johnny
Taliban, that means 30 rounds expended per Talibanista by Joe NLA.
Now,
let us assume that our unnamed Northern Alliance fighter is an Afghan
Davey Crockett, and can hit one Taliban for each round he fires, if he
fires semi-auto. That means if he fires one bullet at a time, he can
kill 12,500 Taliban (which ought to equate to at least a couple of
virgins unless we're really on the wrong side.) But if he goes on "rock
and roll" and only hits with the first shot, he can only kill 412
Taliban. And that means getting shouted at by a drill sergeant for at
least half of eternity.
Sure, in reality, nobody kills
one person per round. Even Alvin York missed from time to time. But the
"rock and roll" mentality is just one facet of the difference between
barbarian tribesmen playing games and real professionals out to do
their enemies and do them well. I suspect that those "real
professionals" were probably taking out five or six times as many Al
Quaeda as any of the NLA "warriors." And at a much lower logistical
cost. At least in beans and bullets.
We're going to be
facing more tribal barbarians in the near future. And I suspect we're
going to be in some situations, like the Rangers were in in Mogadishu ,
where every shot counts. And I suspect, like the Rangers in Mogadishu ,
while we may lose a few troopers, they are going to be taking one hell
of an honor guard of barbarians to Valhalla .
Because "this is not the work of Sand People."