Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 65 of 65

Thread: Zero-Defects Mentality

  1. #61
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    I was fortunate to have received my first marksmanship instruction in Boy Scouts in 1964. Our Scoutmaster taught it the way he'd been taught M1 rifle marksmanship, which was really a recycling of the old M1903 POI. That was back when the loop sling, hasty sling, and sitting position were still taught. The Army gave us weekly access to a 50-foot indoor range at Fort Belvoir and it also lent us a half-dozen Springfield .22-caliber rifles, either M1922A1 or M2, with Lyman rear peep sights. My Army marksmanship instruction in 1977 consisted of a 50-minute lecture on the "Eight Steady Hold Factors" before we zeroed. I believe the abbreviated approach was mainly to save time.

  2. #62
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default It was. It was not a major mistake but it was predicated

    on the factors discussed at this LINK. The major mistake was in cutting the initial Trainfire time allotment to devote that time to other 'important' topics like COO (LINK), Rape Prevention and Army Values. It is being corrected. Hopefully...

    Everything goes in cycles...

  3. #63
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Clicked on the COO link, not knowing what that TLA stood for. You sir, owe me a new keyboard.
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  4. #64
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    David Liwanag, previously the commander of the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit at Fort Benning, published an article on improving Army marksmanship in the July 2006 Infantry Magazine. Among the things he said were the following.

    Extensive training center tests at Fort Jackson and Fort Carson showed that on the 112-shot/112-target qualification course then in place, over 12,000 Trainfire Soldiers hit 5 more targets, on average, than did KD-trained counterparts. The bottom line: KD [Known Distance] produced fewer first-time qualified Soldiers but more experts; Trainfire produced more first-time "Go" riflemen faster and cheaper, but fewer expert shots.

    General Wyman [Willard G. Wyman, CONARC commander in 1958] pointed out, however, that there would always be a need for extended-range precision rifle fire and a cadre of expert riflemen to give quality marksmanship instruction. The objectives of the Army marksmanship system, he explained, were to quickly and cheaply train large numbers of basic, effective combat marksmen, with units developing precision riflemen for combat and competition. Unit and Soldier mobility and dispersion dictated there would always be a need to cover gaps and terrain using designated squad riflemen (distinct from snipers) who could effectively shoot and kill targets at extended distances to 500 meters.
    The main thing I disliked about Trainfire was that with the exception of the zero target, one was unable to evaluate shot groups on a paper target. Other than hit or miss, go or no-go, there is no feedback.

    The entire article can be read using the link below. Close to the end of the article the text appears to have been intermingled during the scanning process with that of an accompanying text box.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n16884008/
    Last edited by Pete; 01-20-2010 at 08:38 PM. Reason: Fix typos

  5. #65
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default From your quote:

    The objectives of the Army marksmanship system, he explained, were to quickly and cheaply train large numbers of basic, effective combat marksmen...
    This is true with the emphasis on 'cheap' unfortunately. Reminds me of the old saw "You can have it cheap, quick or good -- you can have any two but cannot have all three."
    ...with units developing precision riflemen for combat and competition.
    Peacetime thinking. Willard Wyman was a reasonably smart if mediocre General (all Generals are sort of mediocre; the really sharp guys get killed off by their contemporaries on the way up as unfairly over competitive). In 40 years of service, he had a little over two years of 'combat' experience (all high level, thus the quotes).

    Importantly, if the units do it, the good units will do a decent job, the poor ones will not. if it's worth training, it's worth training properly and thoroughly. Tabbing difficult and expensive training tasks out to units is a cop out
    ... Unfortunately Unit and Soldier mobility and dispersion dictated there would always be a need to cover gaps and terrain using designated squad riflemen (distinct from snipers) who could effectively shoot and kill targets at extended distances to 500 meters.(emphasis added /kw)
    That says it all -- Wyman took the wrong approach. He had and has a lot of company...

Similar Threads

  1. The Kill Company
    By drewconway in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 07-21-2009, 03:50 PM
  2. A (Slightly) Better War: A Narrative and Its Defects
    By SWJED in forum Catch-All, Military Art & Science
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-07-2008, 04:10 PM
  3. Civil UAV Capability Assessment
    By sgmgrumpy in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-22-2007, 06:59 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •