"Maximum Effective Ranges" Topic

I think weapon skill and training is of paramount importance, probably even more than weapon accuracy but there is a point of diminishing returns. An Expert Sniper with an M1 Carbine cannot be expected to out shoot a fresh boot camp graduate with an M1 at 500 yards.

A close range (up to 50 yards) reaction shot at a target exposed for 1-2 seconds is reaction fire based on the shooter expertise and weapon accuracy would not come into play.

I'm trying to get info to build a model to determine the chance of a volume of fire dispersed into a defined area around the target has a chance of hitting a target of a defined area.

Example: The base accuracy of the weapon being fired is 5 mil (inherent accuracy + aiming error) but various modifiers kick that up to 10 mil. At 200 meters that's an average dispersion 2-3 meters from the aim point. That would give an area of about 20 square meters around the target. If the target exposure area is 1 meter each round has about a 5% chance to hit. If there are 5 rounds fired at the target use the binomial table with one die roll for 5% with 5 chances or roll dice 5 times to determine how many rounds hit.

This level of detail may be fine for squad level 1-1 games games for some people but I'm looking at using it as a base for exchanges between teams/sections using the accuracy of a volume of fire during a 5-10 second turn against a target exposure area. So using the above example 20 rounds fired at a team of 5 targets would have an average of 4 rounds each with each round having a 5% chance to hit.

Ideally I come up with a simple chart that abstracts the mechanics (playability is most important).

So far this paper has a lot of what I'm looking for: link

However, it does not cover data for specific weapons.

I like defining accuracy in mils because it scales to any range better than die roll modifiers. My opinion of course.

I'm already testing a version similar to the above examples but I'm looking for some hard data rather than my guesses.

Thanks for the input from everyone.

Wolfhag

For most ww2 riflemen the weapon was almost irrelevant.
Their effective range was based on their motivation ( including the close presence of an efffective leader ), skill and fatigue.
Most riflemen would not hit anyone beyond 100 yards or so and their effective range was around 50 yards.

In several armies the mg was the main weapon. Riflemen weren't supposed to fire to hit people unless at short range or ordered to.

One writer described being shot at by German "snipers". These probably weren't what you'd usually consider snipers.
Anyhow, several times he was shot at from ranges in the order of 100 yards and estimated the nearest shot was about 9 feet off.
I could do better with my air rifle.
Maybe not if I was shooting at a person and I'd had hardly any sleep for a few days though.
Whether this is reluctance to kill or whatever is largely irrelevant.
Riflemen were pretty rubbish until they got to 30 or 40 yards.
Where they could presumably see the whites of their enemy's eyes.

And within that 30-40 yards, you start being able to hurl grenades at the bad guys too, which may have accounted for plenty of casualties in a "firefight".

30-40 yards my be a bit far. But some of your more skilled troopers may be able to do that. If they can stand up and give it a real good throw/toss, etc. Generally, you hurl a grenade, over a piece of cover or thru a window or vision slit, etc., … If you are prone or kneeling you really can't get too much distance on the grenade.

Something to remember and we were taught this. That if you throw a grenade into a tent or bamboo/wooden hut, etc. … You may frag yourself, if you are thinking the canvas or thin wood, etc. is going to effectively stop all the fragmentation, blast, etc. … Sounds like a simple thing, but in the heat of a firefight, things may get confusing, etc. As we were instructed by our NCOs who saw combat in SE Asia, etc.

Andy O'Neill,
I'm not one to argue with 1st person accounts of combat as I was not there. However, if you are going to use results of historical accounts to design a game you really need to understand what is behind the historical results and the how and why.

Research from the VN war states it took about 60,000 rounds of small arms fire to generate one causality but 1.75 rounds for snipers. I've read accounts of WWII tanks missing their target at 25m so how could they ever get a hit at 1500m?

I've been through sniper training and have extensive competition experience with a scope. If the scope gets knocked off center (a common occurrence in the field) without your knowledge and you cannot spot your rounds (no spotter with a scope) you could fire at targets at any range all day and never hit anything.

In WWI Marines were getting hits at 600 yards on individual Germans with their Springfield. Why? Mainly because they were probably expert shots before entering service and knew the range they were firing at (probably by observing misses) and were not under return fire. Ideal conditions all around. I get the same results with my M1 Garand using the same cartridge as the Springfield – under ideal conditions knowing the exact range. I understand ideal conditions rarely if ever exist under combat conditions but they can be used as a benchmark.

Firing my M1 from the slinged prone position has an accuracy of about 1.5 MOA (I think most WWII bolt action rifles were 1.5 – 3.0 MOA accuracy) delivering about an 18 inch grouping at 600 yards IF I've done everything right. Modern sniper rifles a <1.0 MOA delivering about a 10 inch group at 1000 yards. You could use these as a benchmark.

If the target is not clearly defined (as in most combat situations) the weapon accuracy is not effected but the aiming error is putting that 18 inch grouping somewhere around the target with barely a hit. Being shot at and suppressed will increase my aiming error making the results poor but the rifle's "accuracy" is not effected.

If I am unsure of the range then the ranging error will put the 18 inch group high or low of the target most likely missing unless I can observe the results. Being shot at and suppressed will make it harder to observe.

These are the hows and whys and are the modifiers you'd use with ideal conditions as the base (that's one way of looking at it but not the only way). From my reading and experience misses at extremely short range are because of snap shots, shooting from the hip, etc. In that type of shooting I agree the weapon accuracy characteristics do not enter into the equation. Yes, motivation (or lack of it) can effect the results too.

Wolfhag

I think everyone's trying to talk you out of making an empirical valuation of infantry based outside their own preconceived notions. Seems most want to use training as the major determining factor and then their own prejudices of which units had the best training.

If morale was the determining factor then suicide attacks should always carry the day. Maybe Japanese Marines should always win a battle.

No, I'm not trying to say that morale will carry the day (morale doesn't stop bullets!). Though morale does really matter in the assault, you still need enough bodies surviving to get there, which is where the Japanese Marines usually lost in WW2.

If unit training wasn't a critical factor in combat effectiveness, then why do we train soldiers? Why are veteran soldiers better than equally-trained but unblooded soldiers? Defining better as "better shots, more likely to win firefights".

I'm not entirely sure how well a per-weapon empirical shooting model works for units shooting at each other, but I'm sure someone has done it before.

Let's run through the variables in longer-range shooting:
Weapon Error. This is usually fixed, and is honestly pretty close to identical across the various rifles of WW2 anyway. It's also why every soldier had their own weapon issued to them.
Range estimation error. This is less critical at short ranges with a WW2 rifle, as the shot will be within about 4" of point of aim out to nearly 300m. It becomes more critical with black powder weapons, which have a much slower projectile which arcs more.
Wind estimation error. This is also less critical at short ranges, as even a strong wind will only push a .30cal bullet about 4-6" off point of aim within 300m.
Operator error. This is the hardest to quantify, but someone who doesn't even use the sights won't hit anything.

I'm sure the long-range shooters can come up with more variables. Like elevation and Coriolis Effect.

Lion,
Yes, that kind of the direction I'm going. Operator error is the biggest factor with things like the environment, training, leadership and incoming fire increasing the ideal dispersion of the weapon.

One choice would be empirical valuation using fixed and variable modifiers against some historical results or a formula from one of the "research" departments. Modify and abstract the results until they are playable and something the players can relate to.

The other would be a subjective evaluation using a variety of dice mechanics and cards based on how many dice and # of pips on each one to come up with a basic hit # + die roll modifiers. Modify and abstract to get the right "feel" and deadly enough to satisfy the players blood lust.

There are so many variables and the full spectrum of historical results can be found that either way could claim to be historically accurate. That's why simpler is normally better.

It's a game, there is no right or wrong way to do it and like Mobius and others have said, designers are always going to bring in their prejudices and preconceived ideas. I'm guilty too.

Personally I can't improve on the dice mechanics currently in play with most popular games. My goal is to come up with a formula based system (abstracted to be playable with a minimum of calculations) where small arms fire results are more about suppression rather than attrition. Rather than a "to hit #" I'm measuring accuracy as a dispersion value with the volume of fire making more or less deadly. Less dispersion means better accuracy and more suppression with greater chances of causalities. Less target exposure and more suppression means less causalities for the defender. My starting point is empirical, not the number of dice and pips.

My prejudices and preconceived ideas are probably different than others but I am trying to overcome those limitations using some hard data and advice from people that may be more knowledgeable then me.

Wolfhag

I have to agree with Lion's and Wolfhag's posts. Morale, training, experience, weapons, leadership, etc., all play a part in unit effectiveness, etc., …

One choice would be empirical valuation using fixed and variable modifiers against some historical results or a formula from one of the "research" departments. Modify and abstract the results until they are playable and something the players can relate to.

The other would be a subjective evaluation using a variety of dice mechanics and cards based on how many dice and # of pips on each one to come up with a basic hit # + die roll modifiers. Modify and abstract to get the right "feel" and deadly enough to satisfy the players blood lust.

There are so many variables and the full spectrum of historical results can be found that either way could claim to be historically accurate.

Wolfhag:

Uh, no. Only the first method could claim to be "historically accurate." Accuracy is picking a target and determining how close you got to the bullseye. Only the first method actually has a 'historical target.' The other has a 'Feeling' and player bloodlust as the target.

There is nothing wrong with either approach, but regardless of the many variables and prejudices that might be involved, only the first approach could possibly claim to be historically accurate. Whether it is a functional model of the historical data used

Because there are always prejudices and preconceived notions, 'accuracy' can only be judged by comparing a well-defined target and where the designer attempted to hit it. Whether there are variables not addressed or other historians that disagree is not the point.

My prejudices and preconceived ideas are probably different than others but I am trying to overcome those limitations using some hard data and advice from people that may be more knowledgeable then me.

The best you can do is:

1. Be clear about what data you are using.
2. Be clear about what is not data-based mechanics
3. Be clear HOW your game system models the data you are using,
4. And finally, test your model against the real thing--historical events.

Determining what accuracy is remains simple: Target, attempt to hit it, measuring how close you came. Achieving accuracy is difficult.

It is far simpler to just put a game together and say it
'feels' right. No measure of accuracy can determine or test that.

"My goal is to come up with a formula based system (abstracted to be playable with a minimum of calculations) where small arms fire results are more about suppression rather than attrition. Rather than a "to hit #" I'm measuring accuracy as a dispersion value with the volume of fire making more or less deadly. Less dispersion means better accuracy and more suppression with greater chances of causalities. Less target exposure and more suppression means less causalities for the defender. My starting point is empirical, not the number of dice and pips."

John D Salt wrote a series of articles in the Wargames Development Journal around the effectiveness (or otherwise) of small arms fire, which included models for the calculation of dispersion and suppressive effects vs actual casualties. There was a fair bit about WW1 massed rifle fire at various ranges, partly as a critique of Zuber.

He gets paid to do this stuff for a living, so well worth a read. Naturally I can't recall which issues, but maybe one day WD will get the issue index up on the website.

Martin,
That is the Nugget Journals: link

Issue #224 and #253 have the info you are indicating.

Wolfhag

Despite a good deal of top-notch training and wasted ammunition, I'm confident that any target is safe from rifle-armed me at anything more than 100 yards at the very most. Not an issue with eyesight or training….I just can't shoot straight.

Well … you could work in the Mess …

uglyfatbloke,
Well … you could work in the Mess … or be an officer.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

Check out issues 253 and 255 as well.

Well … you could work in the Mess … or be an officer.

Or both ! If the COL's bacon is too crispy … You'll learn the range of an excuse is 0 meters !

What do you call a guy that hangs around with soldiers? An officer.

@Uglyfatbloke: or the unit clerk. (says an old unit clerk)

I do great with a rested weapon, but please don't ask me to shoot off-hand at anything outside about 50m. Just can't hit

MG or rifle on a bipod, however… you'd better pray the ship takes a bad roll for me/good roll for you.

=====
Back to the discussion about weapons accuracy and simulations:

One of the things that I really like about Flames of War (and seems to be unique to it in my experience) is that your to-hit numbers are based on the TARGET's skill at using cover, not the shooter's skill with the weapon(s). You see, if you base your to-hit numbers on shooter's skill, a unit of veterans shooting at another unit of veterans will quickly wound the target, which just isn't the case historically. Veterans shooting at veterans should be a long firefight with very few casualties.

What do you call a guy that hangs around with soldiers? An officer.

I've never fired with a bipod…I fear it might not make much difference.

It might ?

One of the things that I really like about Flames of War (and seems to be unique to it in my experience) is that your to-hit numbers are based on the TARGET's skill at using cover, not the shooter's skill with the weapon(s).

Lion:

Do you know where the designers of FOW got such data… or is that one of those 'it feels right' kind of hit probabilities?

US range estimation study found that to qualify for sharpshooter a soldier had to identify ranges for 5 consecutive targets at ranges 500-1000 yds to an error within 10%. For marksman this was 15%, first class and second class shooters at 20% and 25%.

(and seems to be unique to it in my experience) is that your to-hit numbers are based on the TARGET's skill at using cover, not the shooter's skill with the weapon(s).

Opposed die roll systems incorporate this behaviour.

a unit of veterans shooting at another unit of veterans will quickly wound the target, which just isn't the case historically. Veterans shooting at veterans should be a long firefight with very few casualties.

In a opposed die roll system, you also incorporate the skill of the shooter. So, in addition to veterans vs veterans, a unit of green troops going after that veteran unit would take even longer to take them out (assuming they weren't taken out first).

US range estimation study found that to qualify for sharpshooter a soldier had to identify ranges for 5 consecutive targets at ranges 500-1000 yds to an error within 10%. For marksman this was 15%, first class and second class shooters at 20% and 25%.

What is the date of that report ?
There is a range in the US ARMY the "Known Distance" Range. Where troop ID Targets at various ranges. But no shooting in involved, IIRC.

Now on Rifle Qual Ranges. The most distant target is at 300m. It is pretty tiny. It is an outline of the front aspect of a human. From about the waist up. And targets vary from ranges at 25m – 300m. The target(s) pop-up at various intervals, and the trooper has one round to engage each target. Again the target is front aspect of a human, etc., …

identify ranges for 5 consecutive targets at ranges 500-1000 yds to an error within 10%. For marksman this was 15%, first class and second class shooters at 20% and 25%.

So I don't understand the ratings of Marksman etc. ? At those long ranges ? Range estimation training in one thing. But to engage human sized targets at those ranges, 500-1000 yds., with a standard rifle of most any type. Without a scope is pretty slim. Unless this is a WWII study ?

In WWII they shot at those big roundel targets. But as things proved out with studies after the WWII. And probably Korea. The method to train soldiers to hit roundel targets does not make an effective "killer".

And eventually the human outline became the standard target. The studies pointed out. That the ARMY should train soldiers to be "killers" not marksmen.
And in Vietnam this concept was proven.

It's about range estimation not target practice.
link

BTW July 1982

I see … Thanks !

@McLaddie: don't know, but you read a lot of unit histories about green troops getting shot to crap while a veteran unit doesn't.

@etotheipi: Good point.

Range estimation is important but don't forget about battle sight settings on your rifle.

My rule of thumb with the M16A1 (VN era with the long/short range pop-up rear sight) I'd put the elevation setting (front sight) for 200 yards and short range rear sight. If target was < 200 yards I'd hold a little low. If up to 300 yards hold a little high. If over 300 yards flip the rear sight to the long range setting and aim center mass. Give me 3-4 seconds of aim time and a good unobstructed sight picture and I could almost guarantee a first round hit on a human torso target out to 500 yards (40" x 20") – pretty much ideal conditions of course.

At the range on the 200 yard rapid fire sitting (10 rounds in 60 seconds with two 5 round mags to reload) with the M14 I shot a 10 round group of 4 inches. I was lucky as I never again achieved that result but it is an example of how accurate .30cal rifles really are – under ideal conditions. The British SMLE is more accurate than an M14. I was surprised how well the 5.56mm round performed IF you knew the range to the target

On qual day at boot camp in the rapid fire prone and sitting at 200 yards almost every guy put at least 50% of his rounds into a "head and shoulders" (26" x 19") bulls eye with the M14 (consider an M1 Garand equivalent). Over 50% of them had never fired a weapon before. I think you could consider those results as a baseline under ideal conditions for trained troops.

The Marines now use the same pop-up target range like Legion described. My son said most people get 100% score.

As far as a baseline accuracy under combat conditions, something harder to quantify (weapon accuracy, shooter skill, semi-obscured/concealed target and range error) for aimed fire I'm looking at 5 mil accuracy (from research and trials). That would put the rounds into a 5-6 foot diameter grouping at 200 yards or an area of about 25-30 sq feet. That would be about a 3%-5% chance to hit a target 1 sq foot and about a 40%-50% chance to hit a human sized target depending on what he's doing and how much he is exposed. Someone correct me if my math is wrong.

However, under ideal conditions (like a deliberate ambush, known range) with a rifle sighted for 200 yards and the target at 180-220 yards I'd say you have a 50% chance of getting a head shot and 75%-90% chance to hit a standing/crouching target. I think that would be about 2 mil accuracy which is about the standard for US WWII rifles coming off the assembly line. I've shot in many CMP matches with an M1 Garand at 200 yards and those results would be easy to achieve.

Another variable when considering the volume of firepower on a target is the supervision from the team/squad leader. Ideally they do not fire their weapon as they are observing the threats and ensuring that the target area is covered and ROF is correct. A combat proven squad leader increases the effectiveness of his entire squad. Individual undisciplined fire can be very ineffective. It's not just about the individuals skill with the weapon.

This is all well and fine but you also need to take into account the effects of suppression on the target when considering attrition rate. I can't recall the exact paper but it stated as target suppression increased causality rates decreased. This makes sense if increased suppression means spending less time exposed and shooting back.

One way to simulate that in a game would be to have a saving throw based on the suppression level. A 50% suppression would give a 50% chance for a round that normally would have hit to miss because the target ducked.

Just to clarify, the examples I used were static shooters and targets with available cover, of course there are many more variables and situations.

Wolfhag

@McLaddie: don't know, but you read a lot of unit histories about green troops getting shot to crap while a veteran unit doesn't.

Lion:
Yep. I have that *impression* too. Still, how many of those histories repeat the same incidents? How many incidents like that are recorded? How many where that doesn't happen? What are the odds of green troops getting shot to crap compared to a veteran unit?

For a game representing the operations and skills of both crap and veteran units, those are the type of questions that have to be answered.

Yep. I have that *impression* too. Still, how many of those histories repeat the same incidents? How many incidents like that are recorded? How many where that doesn't happen? What are the odds of green troops getting shot to crap compared to a veteran unit?

I do wonder about this…was this told from the POV of the veteran unit or the green unit? Or did the unit / historian assume that the luckless troops were green because they go shot up.

I'm just reading "Draftee Division" (a history of the US 88th Infantry Division) and that seems to have been a very good unit, despite its "greeness". How should that be reflected?

In ww2 German units commonly adopted a procedure for a surprise ambush.
Assuming they weren't spotted etc.
They held fire until the enemy were at short range.
40 metres or so.
This was so the riflemen could be expected to hit, smg would be within effective range and the enemy options would be limited.

Back in 2006 or so in Afghanistan there were frequent firefights and documentaries about unit experience.
A common scenario involved encounters at 100 yards or so.
These could go on for hours.
Several of these I recall involved the highly trained western forces shooting and shooting, running short of ammo and withdrawing after 7 hours of combat.
They had no casualties and had no confidence they inflicted any on the enemy.
Several of these firefights I watched footage of were royal marine commandoes.
On the range they can group at 1 inch reliably at 100 yards.
In combat they don't seem to be able to reliably hit afghans.

Say you had two ruleset designs 1) and 2).
1)
Riflemen can only suppress beyond 50 yards unless specialists.

2)
Riflemen shoot people in the head at 200 yards.

1) would be more historically accurate.

Famously the 88th Div was rated by Dupuy as the single most effective US Division in the Italian Theatre, based on combat outcomes, not theoretical ratings of greenish.

And about twice as good as the luckless British 56th (?) Div.

Not a typical unit, but one which demonsrated very high degrees of cohesiveness.

Casualty rates were generally inversely proportional to the square of the differential of the combat effectiveness values in WW2. So if e.g. Division A had a CEV of 2.0 and Division B a CEV of 1.0, Division B would suffer four times the loss rate of (relative to posture, terrain etc).

Probably enough to justify a -1 when shot at;)

The Marines now use the same pop-up target range like Legion described. My son said most people get 100% score.

Me too way back in the day ! Usually …

Andy,
Your examples are valid, I do not question them.

However, I'm again asking the question as to what were the conditions that brought about those outcomes? Just like why did it take 60,000 rounds of US small arms fire to kill one NVA in VN or is that even a valid question to consider in designing a war game?

Were the Germans holding fire because their guys could not hit an exposed man sized target over 40 yards or because tactically it was the right thing to do? I'd guess it was a tactical decision. If you had any training at all you'd need to be totally FUBAR to not hit over 40 yards in an ambush but it could and did happen. Ask any hunter that has had "Buck Fever".

I too have seen video and read about firefights in A'stan taking 4 hours with no causalities. Did it happen because everyone involved is a terrible marksman and cannot hit anything over 40 yards? Maybe it was because the bad guys were popping up in random locations and firing a burst and ducking back again? Maybe the US guys could not spot the shooter or the flash. If they are spending less than 2 seconds exposed and the TOF of the enemy (US) bullet at 500-600 yards is about 1 second a smart bad guy in good cover terrain could pop up and snap rounds all day at an outpost (until the air support arrives). The US guys in the outpost would not be able to get a good sight picture to fire an accurate round for a head/neck shot. Even if they knew the exact range it would be extremely hard to get a hit, probably < .1%. The US fire if accurate enough would probably have a suppressive effect that might slow the enemy ROF but not much more than that. Any hit would be a lucky about 1 in a 1000 shot. Would the bad guys expect to hit anyone in the outpost? No, but if his objective is to show the locals that they still control the territory by popping off hundreds of rounds at the US outpost all day it's a Psy Op mission accomplished but not a scenario to war game.

Were the British Marines using aimed fire at a static target or taking quick snap shots at Afghans popping up and down exposing themselves for only a second? Why were they missing? What conditions caused they accuracy to degrade?

Contrast the 4 hour firefight with hundreds of rounds causing no causalities with Marine Designated Marksman accomplishing 5 head shots in 8 seconds at 400 yards:
link

My thinking is that it's all about the skills, conditions and how much the target is willing to cooperate. Surprise and tactical advantage helps. Others have a different approach. No hard feelings.

I've been in the target butts pulling and marking targets for guys firing an accurized AR-15 shooting a consistent 6" group at 600 yards with iron sights under ideal conditions. Now, what conditions are going to force him to shoot a 10", 15" or 60+" group? How much cooperation is he going to get from the target regarding the amount and time of exposure? I'm attempting to model all extremes. Once I get a valid model I'll start trying to make it playable. I don't have any deadlines to meet.

You asked which of 2 designs would be more historically accurate. My opinion is "more" is immaterial regarding what I'm trying to do. Both could be historically accurate and most likely happened hundreds (thousands?) of times in WWII under the right CONDITIONS.

I'm simply trying to build a physical model of the conditions (like people have stated) that would increase the dispersion (decrease the accuracy) from the ideal conditions (which rarely exist in combat but are a starting point) to get a causality "rate" from a volume of fire (not the results of each individual shot) against targets with different exposed areas. That rate would be from 1% to 99%. I'm hoping that the values of the conditions (measured in mils because it scales to all ranges and I'm not using die roll modifiers) would generate results in both examples you stated because of the conditions (similar to die roll modifiers) where anything can happen. It's a WIP.

Wolfhag

I've spent hundreds of hours on the range firing military rifles out to 600 yards (iron and scope) so I'm considering my personal experiences and prejudices slant my findings. I can't help that. Going from a civilian target shooter with ideal conditions to a Marine Rifleman training under combat conditions was very enlightening. I still clearly remember during AIT my team being told to take a tree line under fire. I hit the deck and started looking for a target (war game with blanks). My Squad Leader came by and told me to fire my weapon. My response was "Sarge, I don't see a target". He promptly kicked me in the ass and said, "Fire your f-ing weapon into the treeline like everyone else you stupid s---head".

In another exercise during a hot summer we ran to a position to take the Opfor guys under fire. I hit the deck and my pack rode up pushing my helmet over my eyes. I was out of breath and the sweat and dust was burning my eyes and it was almost impossible to look through that M-16 peep sight to hit guys 40 yards in front of me. My only though was if this was in combat all I could effectively do is look over my front sight and pop off a couple of rounds and hope for the best. I could have easily missed the guy by 5-6 feet despite qualifying Expert on the range. It was a real reality check for me. However, I was still capable of hitting a static man sized target at 500 yards with the same weapon on the first shot under ideal conditions. Also if we were had been waiting in a planned ambush (ideal conditions) I feel I could have popped 2-3 guys at 40 yards before they could hit the deck. For me it's all about the conditions/modifiers and how you quantify them in the dispersion model. There is no magic to hit #.

Eventually the big picture dawned on me (I'm a slow learner). In most cases a small unit firefight is about the VOLUME of fire that is accurate enough (firing a 5-6 round burst from an M-16 is not exactly accurate fire) to win the firefight by suppressing, killing or forcing the enemy to withdraw. You don't even have to see a target and under some conditions like jungle warfare you may never see the enemy. You need to obtain FIREPOWER SUPERIORITY as soon as possible, that's how we trained. That can allow you to maneuver or disengage. If the enemy has firepower superiority over you it's a negative modifier for your morale check and he'll maneuver to outflank you. In VN there would rarely be ideal conditions like I had on the civilian range. I'd say volume is more important than accuracy because it will also have a psychological effect on the enemy. You can control volume even if you can't see the enemy. Studies have shown firing your weapon improves your morale too.

Wolfhag

You need to obtain FIREPOWER SUPERIORITY as soon as possible, that's how we trained. That can allow you to maneuver or disengage.

Agreed … that is the bottom line …

As I have said on other threads, the 1977 US Army Tank Gunnery manual in the intro section stated that in 1944 a stationary Sherman firing at a target only 500 yards away had to fire 13 rounds in order to reach a mere 50% chance to hit.

The optics changed the effective kill range a lot after the war. In 1977, I had three M551 recon vehicles/ tanks which used the old WW2 style V sighting system. It took a lot of training for a gunner to get good.
Effective range has more to sights and training than it does the capability of the gun.

Effective range has more to sights and training than it does the capability of the gun.
Ah ha!

Of course it does, it's part of the Error Budget. I doubt if anyone could disagree.

I think I've gotten us off onto another subject. My original question was how did the manuals and publications arrive at the "Maximum Effective Range" for small arms weapons. Was it trial firing, formula, estimation, etc? The conditions that can effect that figure are a different discussion and I appreciate all of the suggestions that would effect the accuracy.

With more checking this is about the best I can find: link

Thanks,
Wolfhag

The manuals were based on firing trials.
The results might then be massaged based on battlefield experience but they're usually optimistic because the people firing the weapons would be under way less stress during a trial, rested, fed, nobody shooting at them, nobody depending on the result for their lives and they're not killing anyone.

Exactly to what extent each of those factors kicks in on the battlefield will vary from individual to individual.
For example, you can convince a soldier he's fighting sub humans who deserve killing and brutalise him through training to the point he's less bothered about killing. Or you could train him against human shaped pop up targets rather than paper circles so he's a bit more used to shooting people.

If you're hoping for a a2-b2 +r3 = chance of hit kind of formula then I've never seen anything like that.

Effective range has more to sights and training than it does the capability of the gun.

Yes that is something that some may not take into consideration.

E.g. the Max range of an M16's 5.56mm round is @ 2500m.

The M14's 7.62mm FMJ round is @ 3750m.

Max Range is where the round will run out of energy, etc., and ground itself out.

But both have the same Max Effective Range of 460m. And obviously that has more to do with the standard "open iron" sights on both of them. I've used and qual'd with both. And as I said the farthest target on the qual range is 300m. And obviously using either the M16 or M14, that 300m target was very tiny.

And as Rudy noted, training is a very important factor as well.

L4 to Wolfhag … Contact me on TMP Talk TMP link … Thanks !

I think that the firing trials determined average rifle accuracy, and then it's basic math to say a 4MOA group limits your effective range to never miss a 16" diameter round target to 400 yards.