The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Fuchs]

This study was also the lever for much US Army foolishness in attempting to use technology to compensate for poor training, ...

To be honest, that became a hallmark as early as '42, then rooted in the lacking numbers of experienced leaders.

[Ken White]

To be honest, that became a hallmark as early as '42, then rooted in the lacking numbers of experienced leaders.

In itself indicative of a training shortfall. Training cannot substitute for experience in all cases -- but it does a better job than technology in most.

Particularly when emphasis on that technology leads to near total reliance upon it -- and it fails...

Firn:

Good question. A good deal has to do with weapon quality and with over-maintenance which in the US Army at least causes significant early wear with resulting mechanical looseness and even deformed parts. Heavily used combat weapons also develop microscopic and almost undetectable barrel droop from excessive heat buildup; that can only be ascertained by bore scoping and that's a depot operation (not always performed to save time and money...). There is also a US Army issue with what is an "expert" shooter. The nominal standard has always been rather low.

That's one flawed 'study.'