They are interesting and he's correct. However,
the situation is unlikely to change much. It is changing slightly due to Outcome Based Training being introduced to the Army as a result of AWGs efforts but it's unlikely to improve significantly due to time and cost factors -- and lack of necessity (benefit, yes; necessity, no. Sad but true...).
The introduction of Designated Marksmen and relearning the value of Snipers have been two of the benefits of these wars. The interesting thing will be to see how long both last after we draw back from the ME and South Asia...
The Congress is willing to fund improved competence in war time. In peace time, it gets reluctant to fund that -- in part due to fear of training people to do things that most civilians would rather not give thought to. Like efficient killing...
When budgets and personnel accessions get tight planners at DA DCSOPS probably also have a role in killing off special-purpose programs that siphon off funds and personnel, seeing them as being nice to have but not absolutely essential. For decades Special Forces had to fight against that mindset.
Having tutored recently quite a few people for our hunting exam, the greatest aids to decent shooting in training were:Originally Posted by Pete
a) proper technique&training
b) low recoil (caliber, soft pad, weapon weight, shape of the stock, proper gunfit)
c) low blast (thick ear protection, barrel lenght, caliber)
d) good trigger
Stress and adrenalin do mitigate b) and c), but make it hard to do a) well. Some people tolerate blast and recoil much better then others, just as some have a lot more talent for shooting. Note that this exam is take by old ladies as well as by young men. Generally the level of shooting experience is rather low to nonexistent.
Interestingly in Sweden almost every hunter uses now a sound suppressor, as I have seen recently during a hunting trip. It helps with b) and c) a lot.
Last edited by Firn; 11-13-2010 at 10:50 AM.
One of the reasons why few bothered to develop rifles in the 16th to 18th century was most likely the adverse effects of blackpowder guns on the shooter. At that time (flintstone and similar principles), a small blackpowder explosion (with much white smoke) moved upwards in front of your nose when you shot and the bullet left the barrel with noticeable delay!
Even people with a rifled barrel and with sights had huge difficulties to aim steadily under such conditions. In fact, that was likely the main reason why rifles didn't have their breakthrough until the percussion cap was used.
I personally don't understand how anything short of a .50BMG could impress the shooter much with recoil or noise unless it's a badly designed weapon (way too short barrel, for example). I was very disappointed when I shot 7.62NATO (G3) for the very first time.
The last part is a bit of a myth. With a properly constructed flintlock, there is no humanly discernible time between the pulling of the trigger and the breaking of the shot. And with a bit of training, the explosion is not much an issue either. In fact, consistent hits at human-sized targets out to 200 meters were not too difficult to archieve with ie. a Jägerbüchse or a Kentucky rifle, whereas engaging an individual target beyond maybe 50-60 meters was a waste of ammunition with a contemporary musket.
Ultimately, economical factors as well as training considerations likely played a far more prominent role in retarding the general adaptation of rifles than anything else from early modern times through the Napoleonic period.
Cheers.
Last edited by Stupendous Man; 11-13-2010 at 02:40 PM.
"First, decide who you will be. Then, what you must do."
The King's Royal Rifle Corps was formed from remnants of the Royal Americans, a unit that fought in the French and Indian War and was partly armed with Pennsylvania rifles made by German immigrants there. The Royal Americans were commanded by Colonel Henri Bouquet, a German-speaking Swiss who may have gotten the idea from jaeger units in Germany. There is some debate about whether the Royal Americans wore Rifle Green or if that color was introduced later. KRRC was later amalgamated with Rifle Brigade to form the Royal Greenjackets (Wilf's regiment), which was recently amalgamated with a light infantry regiment to form the Rifles.
The main reason 18th-century officers didn't want to arm with rifles was they were slow to load and had a low rate of fire. Their bullet-to-bore fit was tight and bullets were often wrapped in leather patches when they were rammed. However, the fire rifles produced was aimed. The 19th-century Minie ball with the cupped expanding bottom and bullets like it solved that problem.
Just as a bit of trivia, the first all-rifle armed unit I am aware of was the Hesse-Kassel Jägercorps; they are first archivally mentioned in 1630 but are probably older.
To raise their rate of fire in emergencies, riflemen in the Germanies carried subcaliber balls in paper cartridges very much like their comrades in the line infantry. I suspect the same was done in the Americas ?The main reason 18th-century officers didn't want to arm with rifles was they were slow to load and had a low rate of fire. Their bullet-to-bore fit was tight and bullets were often wrapped in leather patches when they were rammed.
Cheers
"First, decide who you will be. Then, what you must do."
Ich war stationert in Giessen fur drei Jahren in '78-'81. Ein gross-g-g Mutter war von Wetzlar (1830) und mein Vater war da mit U.S. Army in 1945.
Giessen...ohjemine.
Probably the ugliest city in Germany, after the RAF was done with it.
But with such a history you can at least lay a claim to honorary Hessiandom, and that is, as everybody knows, the jackpot in the lottery of life.
"First, decide who you will be. Then, what you must do."
I had half expected that one of our British friends would cry bloody murder when I suggested that the rifle regiments in the British Army may have been founded in emulation of a German precedent. The British imperialists must have all died and gone to heaven, from where they now look down in amazement when they see us stumbling around in Mesopotamia and Afghanistan.
Cost of training, yes, but "real limits to what you can train people to do when it comes to skills" is rubbish. Can we say that of the Marines who were engaging the Germans in WW 1 at 800 yds with open sights? Yes, different wars and different times. But marksmanship has to be taught as does fire discipline and this takes time and money-that I believe and that .
But to say you cannot train a human is simply not true. Culture makes a difference but this can be overcome. Yes there are those who are more suited to warfare but anyone can be trained. Training is the core issue whether you use a musket or a M107. Weapon Fundamentals are the same for whatever war you fight until the plasma rifle comes in and I think this is what the Army is waiting for. However until that day comes proper marksmanship with a good rifle can save the day. The tactics are what will have to change to deal with the threat.
I agree that the killers on the battlefield are the crew served weapons but a rifleman at the right place and time can alter the battle and he needs a good rifle to do it. There will be times when you will not have priority on supporting arms. Then all you may have is what is organic to your unit. The M16 series has and will be with us for awhile and the 5.56 can and has been improved upon. Is it optional? No. But it is what we are stuck with. I believe as other studies have suggested that the optimal round is in the 6 to 7 mm range. However I doubt the rifleman will see it until an advance in body armor forces the change.
You can say what you will about cost, but with time anyone can be trained. The Will just has to be there to do it.
Death Sanctions All Mistakes
Sorry, it's not rubbish. For example, why can only some men be military helicopter pilots? Why can only some men be EOD Operators?
Yes training costs money. There is a very finite budget as to how much you can fund individual marksmanship training, and IMO most of the money is wasted aiming for a standard to reaps almost nothing in the context of how it is taught. Most marksmanship training is mostly about process, and feeding the "skills monkey."
Marines in WW1 were most likely volley firing. Volley fire (Section Fire) does create casualties. A British Platoon of 1914 could deliver about 600 rounds per minute into beaten zone at about 800 yards. The grouping requirement in 1921 was 4 inches at 100 yards, so individual fire against standing targets was 300 yards - and is today!
There is a vast difference between what you can do on the range and what counts in combat. Extensive testing by the UK and Canada has shown that they do not read across. Under even very small amounts of stress, marksmanship drops off dramatically. We could make far better use of time and funds by rationalising marksmanship training in line with that knowledge.
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
Take a "loud" sergeant, go on the range with some troops in full kit (including vest and frag protection goggles), let them spend a magazine, log their results.
Then separate them and surprise one after another with the sergeant stressing them with very loud and aggressive as well as sudden talk and let him force the soldier to take cover, aim, interrupt with take cover, aim... - observe how the dispersion increases and changing magazines becomes an issue!
I myself are cold-blooded enough to crawl out of a car wreck, stay calm and go to work after delivering the wreck to a workshop - but I still don't know how much influence combat stress could have on me!
All been done and very scientifically. There is just an emotional and organisational need to ignore the data.
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
Marksmanship techniques learned during training reassert themselves once the adrenalin rush of "buck fever" has passed.
http://kitup.military.com/2010/11/im...ing-ak-47.html
Is this widespread trend there?
No, it isn't. He may be a member of a coalition special operations unit who has Afghans integrated into it.
jcustis, why this kind of choice?
How would you propose to do that?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks