The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[JMA]

This post from the Rhodesian COIN thread indicates the history of my comments in relation to shooting and marksmanship.

It must be recognised that the majority of recruits into the modern British army have limited or no prior weapon handling and shooting expertise. Marksmanship training therefore should be carefully and throughly conducted and reinforced.

* Starting with basic weapon handling the recruits are taken through the drills by repetition until fully proficient in load, unload, ready and all stoppage drills.

* Concurrent with this the 4 Principles of Marksmanship are taught and coached (dry firing) until a clear understanding and application is demonstrated.

* The recruit is then introduced to live firing (many for the first time in their lives).

* The recruit must achieve the level that he is able to group 5 rounds within 4" from the prone position on the range at 100m consistently. With dedicated coaching this standard may be achieved with the majority of recruits over the period of their training.

* During recruit training the recruit will progress through the number of standard shooting exercises (laid down for recruits) on the range during which his basic marksmanship skills level can be measured.

Once this process has been completed the real training can begin.

This would entail what some armies term "Battle Shooting" and is carried out at various ranges and in various forms.

There is absolutely no evidence that a person who at recruit level is unable to meet Marksman or at least First Class Shot level will prove to be 'deadly' at battle shooting.

It is therefore a simple two step process. One, get the basic skills right, then two, apply them in battle simulated conditions.

[William F. Owen]

There is absolutely no evidence that a person who at recruit level is unable to meet Marksman or at least First Class Shot level will prove to be 'deadly' at battle shooting.

I think I agree, if you are saying that being a good shot on the range has almost nothing to do with shooting stressful operational conditions.

It is therefore a simple two step process. One, get the basic skills right, then two, apply them in battle simulated conditions.

Again, I think I agree, but the debate that I have been having for the last 7 years falls around the idea of "basics." The devil is in the detail of the two-steps approach

As concerns basics of step 1, and in no order, my conclusions thus far are:
a.) Be able to group well enough to zero his weapon - 10.1cm -"4 inches" at 100m. - 0.01% of range.
b.) Be able to perform effective magazine changes and clear stoppages.
c.) Be able to clean and maintain his weapon.
d.) Be "safe" under training and operational conditions.
e.) Be able to consistently hit a 1 x 0.5m target at 100m from the standing position (soles of both feet on the ground) - using single aimed shots.
Now, if someone can do that, within 3-4 range days, I'm happy.

[JMA]

I think I agree, if you are saying that being a good shot on the range has almost nothing to do with shooting stressful operational conditions.

Again, I think I agree, but the debate that I have been having for the last 7 years falls around the idea of "basics." The devil is in the detail of the two-steps approach

As concerns basics of step 1, and in no order, my conclusions thus far are:
a.) Be able to group well enough to zero his weapon - 10.1cm -"4 inches" at 100m. - 0.01% of range.
b.) Be able to perform effective magazine changes and clear stoppages.
c.) Be able to clean and maintain his weapon.
d.) Be "safe" under training and operational conditions.
e.) Be able to consistently hit a 1 x 0.5m target at 100m from the standing position (soles of both feet on the ground) - using single aimed shots.
Now, if someone can do that, within 3-4 range days, I'm happy.

Why the 3-4 range days? There is 3-4-5-6 months (depending on the army) of recruit training to coach the recruit up to the ideal standard.

Pace the training, use regular repetition and practice, allocate more time to it, if needed... a process that should continue throughout a soldiers whole career.

Set a standard, reach it, maintain it.

PS: a good way to 'teach' a recruit to handle a 'ready' weapon is to issue each with a blank round and make sure it is up the spout all the time. Works a treat.

[William F. Owen]

Why the 3-4 range days? There is 3-4-5-6 months (depending on the army) of recruit training to coach the recruit up to the ideal standard.

The 3-4 days on the range is just to get him ready to go and do field firing and actual applications of fire. He's safe, and he has a measurable standard on which to build.

Set a standard, reach it, maintain it.

...and the standard is? That's the issue. Standard versus cost versus operational relevance.

PS: a good way to 'teach' a recruit to handle a 'ready' weapon is to issue each with a blank round and make sure it is up the spout all the time. Works a treat.

True. We tried to teach/test all the AI's and Stoppage drills, with blanks. Told to stop because of cost - so we could fire blanks on exercise for almost zero training value.

[Kiwigrunt]

And here it is, Magpul's new quad mag.

The lack of design flexibility imposed by the M16 mag-well is apparent in this design, as it is a shame that not more 'quad-height' is available.

[Uboat509]

And here it is, Magpul's new quad mag.

The lack of design flexibility imposed by the M16 mag-well is apparent in this design, as it is a shame that not more 'quad-height' is available.

I will reserve judgement until I see this thing in action but I am always suspicous of things that are over complicated. I can see a lot of potential issues with this mag.

[JMA]

I will reserve judgement until I see this thing in action but I am always suspicous of things that are over complicated. I can see a lot of potential issues with this mag.

Yes indeed, I can't see the value in this especially when there are reliability issues with larger spring loaded magazines.

Count your rounds and change magazines in seconds that should remain the training. If I could do it so could just about anyone.

If there is ever a situation where that sort of volume of fire without the possibility of few seconds break to change mags is going to be required, tape two together for a quick change and hope to hell no dirt got into the second taped mag.

Then the increased weight. One minute that's a problem, the next its not.

[JMA]

The 3-4 days on the range is just to get him ready to go and do field firing and actual applications of fire. He's safe, and he has a measurable standard on which to build.

OK, but I would say that there should be some flexibility in the program to allow for more time to be allocated if needed. Shooting is coaching not merely instruction and the basic standard should be met by every recruit.

...and the standard is? That's the issue. Standard versus cost versus operational relevance.

Well its the old selection and maintenance of the aim thing. You guys think you are constrained by cost in todays environment you should have been in Rhodesia in the 70's. Its all about careful use of resources to the best effect. No just blasting off on the range, always needed a plan. Good troop sergeants noted who shot what, when, why and how many rounds and measured results.

Seems that platoon level soldiering is getting a little too 'academic' with the subsequent loss of time and priority for the basics like shooting and fieldcraft. I hope I am wrong.

True. We tried to teach/test all the AI's and Stoppage drills, with blanks. Told to stop because of cost - so we could fire blanks on exercise for almost zero training value.

Keeping one up the spout is not a drain one ammo, but may be an issue of health and safety in your modern army.

We didn't get too much blank ammo, maybe some clever procurement staff officer asked "why do we need blanks if we are fighting a war?" Live firing from early and then often.

[William F. Owen]

Well its the old selection and maintenance of the aim thing. You guys think you are constrained by cost in todays environment you should have been in Rhodesia in the 70's. Its all about careful use of resources to the best effect. No just blasting off on the range, always needed a plan. Good troop sergeants noted who shot what, when, why and how many rounds and measured results.

The problem is what to select. What standard do you want, that is relevant to operations?
IMO, and in my day -the British Army actually wasted a vast amount of money, doing range training that did not create more effective soldiers.

[JMA]

The problem is what to select. What standard do you want, that is relevant to operations?
IMO, and in my day -the British Army actually wasted a vast amount of money, doing range training that did not create more effective soldiers.

I believe we agree on the need for a standard to be reached and maintained.

What that particular standard would be (and that it would differ from existing exercises/tests is probably clear) is perhaps a new topic which would take some discussion to reach consensus.

[William F. Owen]

I believe we agree on the need for a standard to be reached and maintained.

I believe we do.

What that particular standard would be (and that it would differ from existing exercises/tests is probably clear) is perhaps a new topic which would take some discussion to reach consensus.

You may be right. The real issue is that standard really has to be the minimum acceptable, and the standard the equates to what can be achieved and maintained in terms of time and money.

[JMA]

I believe we do.


You may be right. The real issue is that standard really has to be the minimum acceptable, and the standard the equates to what can be achieved and maintained in terms of time and money.

How about a School of Infantry definition:

The marksmanship standard represents the minimum level of combat shooting competence as achieved through the most cost effective use of training time and resources.

This standard is measured by... (over to you all)

[William F. Owen]

How about a School of Infantry definition:

"The marksmanship standard represents the minimum level of combat shooting competence as achieved through the most cost effective use of training time and resources."

Well that's strangely similar to, "standard really has to be the minimum acceptable, and the standard the equates to what can be achieved and maintained in terms of time and money".

For Rifle or IW,
a.) Group 10cm at 100m so that he can sight his weapon to consistently hit a 0.5 x 1m tgt at 300m, from the prone supported position
b.) Hit a 0.5 x 1m tgt exposed for 5 seconds at 100m, from the standing position, using multiple shots if required and do it 75% of the time.

I would go on to give him a lot more training, but I would only TEST him to that standard.
I'd also make all platoon weapons part of a bi-annual test.

[Firn]

Not sure about a negative effect but I'm not sure how you train a soldier to shut out 80% or more of his vision by looking through an optic sight when in contact at ranges from 5m-50m (or even 100m if the fire is effective). It is not a natural thing to do in such a stressful situation. Peripheral vision is what you need to 'watch' the men on your left and right and keep in line (and know when a gook pops up unexpectedly to the flank). To shut that down (or restrict it) is unthinkable (to me at any rate).

I personally have little difficulty to shoot through a 6x scope with both eyes open, it is only a question of proper training, and the lower the magnification it is the easier and natural it comes. Closing one eye should be a very big no-no in most situations for the reasons you mentioned. It also strains the open eye, at least in my experience. With a 1x reflex sight keeping both eyes open and the rifle on target is as easy as it gets, more so than with the iron sights, but this is once again only in my humble opinion.


Firn

P.S: The massive spread of the European wild boar in the last decades has led through the many driven hunts not only to the wide-spread use of reflex hunting sights but also to a new class of rifle scopes. They offer mostly something between 1-4, 1-6 or 1.5-6 magnification in a light frame with a wide field of view and long eye relief. The reticle can often be illuminated. A quite affordable example is this one

[JMA]

I personally have little difficulty to shoot through a 6x scope with both eyes open, it is only a question of proper training, and the lower the magnification it is the easier and natural it comes. Closing one eye should be a very big no-no in most situations for the reasons you mentioned. It also strains the open eye, at least in my experience. With a 1x reflex sight keeping both eyes open and the rifle on target is as easy as it gets, more so than with the iron sights, but this is once again only in my humble opinion.


Firn

Thank you. I would just ask if the level and detail in the training manuals covers what you say... or is it a bit like everyman for himself as he explores his way through using these sights?

Then I am interested in how this all applies to the range at which the contact takes place. Is there a personal perspective on this or has some clear data taken shape?

Again with this eyesight issue in mind some time ago I asked whether the latest night vision goggles have reached the stage where soldiers can feel comfortable rolling from day into night. For example in my day when night fell everything changed and always contact was broken off and the gooks got away (perhaps because they had local knowledge of the area and knew they had to put some distance between the contact scene and them before first light). Our tactical options were severely limited and also subject to the moon phase (which if it benefited us it also benefited them).

Now all that said about eyesight in contact situations I also note that the modern soldier also has one ear effectively closed off. Maybe this is why they are having such a problem locating the enemy firing positions?

[William F. Owen]

Maybe this is why they are having such a problem locating the enemy firing positions?

Not sure I understand.
Locating the enemy "battle Drill 3" in the old days has always been about the single most challenging aspect of dismounted operations. Once you've located him, 50-80% of your problems are over.
I cannot see how the guys in Helmand are finding this any more difficult than the boys in 1943 or 44. In fact give then amount of TI kit and optics, they are almost certainly finding less of a problem.

[jcustis]

I have witnessed firsthand, as well as viewed on a lot of video of recent OIF and OEF contacts, that the problem isn't so much knowing where the fire is coming from as the rounds crack overhead, but a two-fold issue.

These days, there are a lot of folks, and especially the leaders who are supposed to be directing traffic, wearing personal radios. Contact is made and the net crackles to life, in turn reducing situational awareness because everyone is listening to someone submit a contact report, or a casualty report, or call-for-fire. It complicates auditory sensing of the crack-thump that they should be listening for to assist with orientation.

The second issue stems from the return fire that results, amidst a lot of yelling and attempts to at least direct the focus of the fire, which totally overwhelms one's senses and often allows for withdrawal. With all that going on, the opponent has often fired off his magazine for Allah and boogied out of the area. It reminds me of some of the field problems when I was a student at the Infantry Officer Course. The enlisted instructors loved to hit us during movements to contact, and on good ground that allowed for withdrawal. This was in the woods of Quantico to boo, so we are talking about limited visibility down to about maybe 200m at most. By the time student platoon or squad got oriented to the direction of attack and started to suppress/maneuver, the EIs were falling back to the next ambush position. We'd chase and chase, but never got effects.

This is a slight tangent to my point about thermal optics and such. There are tons of whizz bang devices out there, but they come at a premium of weight that some grunts don't want to lug around (despite being a matter of ounces), or are new enough that the proper amount of training has not occured for anyone to feel comfortable with the device's use. We have the stuff Wilf, but it's use is sadly not as prevalent as it should be. When it is used, I've seen the equipment resigned to static work, and that is a good place for it too.

[Fuchs]

Not sure I understand.
Locating the enemy "battle Drill 3" in the old days has always been about the single most challenging aspect of dismounted operations. Once you've located him, 50-80% of your problems are over.
I cannot see how the guys in Helmand are finding this any more difficult than the boys in 1943 or 44. In fact give then amount of TI kit and optics, they are almost certainly finding less of a problem.

Actually, a WW2 sniper in camouflage or flanking WW2 machine gun positions with tripod, periscopic sight, a bush in the back and a cleared periphery (no dust) should be an order of magnitude tougher enemies than almost all Taliban.


It's sometimes terrifying to learn that modern soldiers consider contacts with Taliban to be problematic. The Taliban are likely less of a problem than Soviet soldiers during the collapse of their pocket in '41.

[82redleg]

Actually, a WW2 sniper in camouflage or flanking WW2 machine gun positions with tripod, periscopic sight, a bush in the back and a cleared periphery (no dust) should be an order of magnitude tougher enemies than almost all Taliban.


It's sometimes terrifying to learn that modern soldiers consider contacts with Taliban to be problematic. The Taliban are likely less of a problem than Soviet soldiers during the collapse of their pocket in '41.

Have you been to OEF? Or were you in WW2? Then you have no room to compare the two.

The Taliban are NOT superman, but the ones that are still alive are pretty good fighters. Some of the older ones fought the Soviets (and survived), fought for 10+ years after the Soviets left (and survived), and have now fought us for almost 10 years. They are NOT stupid, but they are tough, dedicated warriors fighting on their home turf.

[RJ]

Ditto what Red Leg said. Plus, the Afgan fighter is on is home ground, and is carrying a hundred to two hundred larger caliber, longer distance rifles. .303 Enfields older than their owners are still found in Afganistan.

The average grunt from the West is humping anywhere from 60 to 100 pounds of ordinace, and a third of the weight is bullet armor.

The Afgani can pick his spot, Rip off a couple of dozen rounds and maybe even trigger a IED. Then he scoots away, over a planned withdrawal route.

If the man knows how to shoot and has been shooting that old family gun for a decade or three, he can score from ranges beyond an M-16 accurate fire distance.