Current Inadequacy of Small Arms Training for All MOSs in the Conventional Army

[sgmgrumpy]

CURRENT INADEQUACY OF SMALL ARMS TRAINING FOR ALL MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALTIES IN THE CONVENTIONAL ARMY, by MAJ Issac W. Ellison IV

This thesis examines the current inadequacy of small arms training for all military occupational specialties (MOSs) in the conventional Army and the lack of focus on weapons training for the dynamic nonlinear/noncontiguous (NL/NC), asymmetrical battlefield that today’s soldier encounters. Small arms weapons training and qualification in the United States Army is largely based on the defense and is woefully inadequate in the area of dynamic offensive operations. The NL/NC battlefield operating conditions increase the requirement for all soldiers, including combat support (CS) and combat service support (CSS), to be able to fight and defeat or suppress and escape (based on the size of the threat) an adversary and requires more offensive vice defensive training. The Army is going through a revolutionary change to meet the needs of current and future battle in an asymmetrical environment. This change is evident by the development of Units of Action and Employment, Network Centric Warfare, new vehicles and communication systems, new Warrior Ethos and a Joint and Expeditionary Mindset. Unfortunately, the Army’s marksmanship program is not moving at the same speed that the rest of the Army is advancing. The Army’s marksmanship program is inadequate for properly training soldiers for the type of combat that they are currently facing and will likely face in the future.

SUBJECT TERMS
Close Quarter Combat, Marksmanship, Combat Marksmanship, Soldier Training, Military Marksmanship
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

DOWNLOAD HERE


And another good read on similar subject

Skill At Arms Training
In Non-combat Units
Captain C. m. Leckie Australian Army

As unconventional forces shift their eff orts to attacking ‘soft er’ targets—such as supply
convoys, logistics bases and headquarters—to avoid the lethal fi repower of combat units,
soldiers that have traditionally not needed ‘skill at arms’ come under fi re. Th e author argues
that non-arms corps troops require a higher level of marksmanship training to cope with
an increasing likelihood of engaging in close combat.

DOWNLOAD