Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
It means that insurgents - who use 7.62mm ammunition for their AK47 rifles - back off and shoot at British troops from longer distances. Half the
battles in Helmand province, where British troops are based, are fought at between 300 and 900yards
Well then, they need to maneuver and close on the enemy to destroy them. I'm sorry, but the maximum
range of an AK-47 may be around 900
meters, but the effective
range of that weapon is somewhere between 300 and 400 meters depending on the marksman.
Unless some solid improvements have been made to the AK-47 (which I'm sure there has, but not likely that insurgents are using newer ones) that is
not a very accurate weapon. It's too loose.
I think the person writing the article may be mis-using the word 'insurgent'. To me, insurgent denotes militia. Poorly trained, poorly disciplined,
and dedicated only to the point that they have nothing else to do. And fanatic. If the writer really means to say that the enemy they're facing is a
well trained, well disciplined fighting unit, who can actually shoot, that's different.
Furthermore, you have to be a crack shot to hit a man-sized target from more than 350 meters away. I'm sure that parachute regiment (battalion) is
pretty well trained, but come on, they're not all snipers, and they don't have spotters calculating BP and wind for them. They just need to fix and
destroy tactically rather than relying on a heavier round that they might
be able to hit their targets with. 'One shot, one kill' goes right
out the window. Waste of ammo.
Overall, the cost of 7.62 rounds, and the weight is going to take its toll, and the benefit of more range isn't nearly going to cover it.
I see this as a stupid way of trying to keep the friendly casualty rate down for politicians, rather than a real strategy for destroying the enemy.
[edit on 10-3-2010 by DeltaChaos]