I don't know what those acronyms are, but even though they are around and we aren't facing anyone at near-peer competitor level, I think we'd be ignorant to discard the techniques.NI and TI sights
Don't forget how long the Ma Deuce has been in service.
Acronyms = Night and Thermal imagery. I wouldn't bet on not facing peer competitors at the tactical level, or at least those who can compensate for tactical shortcomings in other ways, eg: The Chechens in Fallujah.Originally Posted by jcustis
I am not saying discard the the techniques. I am saying that there has to be a judgement made as to the cost and training debt, versus their actual operational applications, which seems to be very rare.
I don't have a syllabus to hand but my guess is that Pre-registered and map predicted fire accounts for 60-70% of the time taken to complete a full Sustained Fire Machine Gun course. - or Manoeuvre Support Gun Controllers Course
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
That may be correct.
However, I've long noted the ability of armed forces all over the world to cram two weeks of instruction into six weeks...
Syllabi exist all to often simply to justify the number of instructors and administrators; what needs to be taught anf how much of it is seldom a major issue.
A decent course for gunners should be about two weeks, a MG Leaders course one week. In both cases, more than four hours each on pre registered and indirect fires, to include firing, is wasted time.
YES! - exactly. This is something I have never understood, and it points to process over end state.
To engage over open/optic sights out to 2,000m, I can't see needing more than 2 days and that's with live firing. If the guys already know the M240 from the light role, then 1 day is all it would take.
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
2000 meters in 2 days? With standard platoon/squad equipment?
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
M240/GPMG, plus tripod and buffer mount. Plus you'll need a pair of binoculars to spot the fall of shot. At night this drops off to tracer burn out. Thermal Imager may help, but I've never done it with TI.
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
Yup.
Ain't hard...
Don't forget to teach them how to dig a proper MG trench either (that's worth the better part of a day). And for those not using the old Browning .30 cal tripod (the US still does) but the full 6400-mil traverse tripod and gun cradle that comes with a Tritium lamp (Canadian have that) for the aiming stakes, all the joys that come with using the Mortar sight for registering targets and laying the gun.
That's a good point. I don't know about machine gun leadership courses but I thought we could have done jump school in about a week, two at the most.
Of course, it depends on the nature of the subject being taught.
Shortened sniper courses? Maybe, but I tend to think not. You can teach someone the principals of wind and range estimation fairly fast but it requires a lot of practice to really get good at things like that. And that practice is probably best done under an experienced long range shooting instructor. Passing some basic tests on the formulas at school and taking it back to your home unit to hone.....I'm not sure that would be the best approach for something like sniping.
I've gone off topic, I know, but I just wanted to point out that we probably spend too much time on some things but not enough on others.
Last edited by Rifleman; 05-05-2008 at 03:40 PM.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
We often expand a course or two due to course-critiques from the students, or round-tables where the operating forces address the training shortfalls of the troops in their charge.
In the current Marine Corps, I think we may be more disposed towards cutting the curriculum down, but that is more a function of our push to get to 202K. Many Marines are geting backed up in the tranining/transient elbow of the pipeline.
Last edited by jcustis; 05-05-2008 at 04:26 PM.
Agree -- But...
A week is almost certainly overkill for the training, three weeks is barely adequate for the 'self selection' and culling of the less than dedicated to see who can cope -- that could be better, cheaper and less expensively done about as well with a a good psych battery.Agreed. We do better now than ever but still have too many old habits that won't die. Training needs to be outcome based, everyone above the grade of Corporal need to know they are trainers and they need to work at it -- to include while in the combat zone. Everything is training is everything...Shortened sniper courses? Maybe, but I tend to think not...I'm not sure that would be the best approach for something like sniping.
I've gone off topic, I know, but I just wanted to point out that we probably spend too much time on some things but not enough on others.
JCustis said:The Army does the same thing. In my experience at a TRADOC post there were some flies in the ointment. First, critiques were often based on poor performance by an instructor and rather than just fire the incompetent, they tried to fix the symptom. Second, a lot of critiques were whines at 'too tough standards' or simply too much work and those should have been ignored, they too often were not.We often expand a course or two due to course-critiques from the students, or round-tables where the operating forces address the training shortfalls of the troops in their charge.
The Schools tend to select tasks to train wherein they can get a high instructor count and / or a good looking pass/fail rate rather than selecting the tasks that need institutional training -- that's what causes the operating force to complain about poor training.
The entire system is too bureaucratic and needs a long hard look IMO -- and we need to get to outcome based training across the force.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks