Quote Originally Posted by raymondh3201 View Post
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 .
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.