Concur. Reducing hand held dispersion is the basis of all else. If he can hit a Fig-11 5-second exposure, at 150m, from standing, firing as many rounds as it takes to get 1 hit, I'm happy as well.Originally Posted by JMA
B'Ezrat Ha Shem! Yes, we agree.But yes... I think I can see where you are coming from. More kills are propably made by weapons other than rifles and so concentrate on where the difference will be made.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
There was at one time a raging debate in Rhodesia over the "one aimed shot" school of thought and the "double tap" school. In the end I just said to my guys to do what works for them.
What about a Fig 11 moving zig-zag at 50m?
What about jungle-lane shooting?
My experience on Jungle Lanes is that one aimed shot does not work. If the one aimed shot misses, you are going to need to do another very quickly.
Rapid multiple shots seems to work much better. "FFF" "Fire till the F**ker Falls.
Another issue I have with "jungle lanes" is that what you are doing in them, has to work within the Contact Drill SOP you are using.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
"Rapid multiple shots" equals... a series of single shots... or a series of double taps?
My biggest worry with jungle lanes was that they were one at a time per instructor. Too time consuming.
We tried to get 'stick' jungle-lanes going but found location, safety and that they were pretty quickly 'shot out' almost insurmountable problems.
Maybe just settle for one objective and that is the shooting training with the appropriate post engagement response as in "take cover" with the instructor acting as the stick or section commander.
Last edited by JMA; 04-07-2010 at 01:30 PM.
Wilf, did you mean ""Fire (aimed shots) till the F**ker Falls"?
I want to add this video to my last post.
http://www.vikingtactics.com/pop-instr_video13.html
Afghan Marksmanship: Pointing, Not Aiming
Another piece on (Afghan) Marksmanship, Ken White might not approve, but it offers in any case a good springboard for an discussion, just as the last one did.
This week, the same trainer said that the problems remain, and that after years of working with Afghan soldiers, and an extraordinary investment of American money and soldiers’ time, “two fundamentals are missing from that army. The first is discipline. There really is none. And the second is accountability.”
Regards
Firn
What's not to approve, Firn. He tells what he's seen.
And we've all seen the same thing on TV -- and in our own services. It's nice to think that we, particularly us gun happy Merkuns, are all great shooters but the reality is most services don't train it very well nowadays and the 'spray and pray' syndrome can strike western units as well.
Like Chivers, apparently, I'm a big fan of really thorough weapons training and aimed fire. The Afghans are not alone in trying to save money and time by doing an inadequate job of training not only marksmanship but the even more important subject of fire control and distribution.
Automatic weapons are a part of the problem; the automatic capability is significantly undertrained and overused for very little if any real benefit...
Merely, if you don't hit, keep shooting and once you hit, keep hitting! The more you shoot, the more you should aim.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I agree but would just add this.
There was a tendency (for soldiers) to develop single target fixation where they ignored other likely positions the enemy may be positioned and kept firing into the known location. This I believe was made worse if the individual soldier did not have confidence in his own shooting ability. Meaning that if he did not have the confidence that by firing 2 or 3 rounds into that piece of likely cover he would kill a person positioned there he was likely to fire more and more and neglect other likely cover. The Drake/Cover shoot if done regularly would deal with this to a certain extent but could not deal with a man's inability to shoot straight. It is a legitimate expectation that a soldier should clear his arc of fire of enemy by firing into likely cover... if he can't do that...
Last edited by JMA; 04-25-2010 at 05:17 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks