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.
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.
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.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 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
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."The objectives of the Army marksmanship system, he explained, were to quickly and cheaply train large numbers of basic, effective combat marksmen...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)....with units developing precision riflemen for combat and competition.
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 outThat says it all -- Wyman took the wrong approach. He had and has a lot of company...... 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)
Bookmarks