Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
I think that you phrased that well: "an accurate simulation" and whether it "provides it or not." That is a shortcoming that journalists are poorly positioned to evaluate because of their striking unfamiliarity with the military. When I was still a platoon leader, the Army starting dumping a lot of money into computer simulations that were fielded for routine use by squads and teams. These were giant screens that entire squads could fire at, using a variety of weapons that had been modified for use in the simulator. In my opinion (and in the opinion of my BDE CSM who had nearly two decades in the SOF world), it was a collosal waste of time and money. It was a good, sincere effort to provide a more cost effective and less administratively burdensome means to get Soldiers behind weapons and let team leaders and squad leaders train their men and practice fire control measures. It was significantly more "realistic" than the simulation in that video, but it was not realistic enough in terms of the feel and response of the weapons, the environmental simulation, the mental stress and confusion, or variables that occur outside of the 60 degree angle that the screen focuses you on, in front of you. It was a deceptively bad waste of time and money; ineffective for individual and collective training of any kind. If anything, it was counterproductive. It was a method of unlearning good habits. I cannot say enough bad things about it and if I were more eloquent then I could better explain those shortcomings.



I think there are too many variables to say with any significant degree of certainty that there was a causal relationship. An all-volunteer force, a reduction in drug use and other major discipline problems, and better training, in my opinion, have more to do with the likeliness of firing weapons than the design of our targetry. I know that Grossman et al have lots of data and theories to back up their assertions. So did the investment bankers. It just doesn't compute after spending a few years in combat with teens and early twentysomethings who, on a daily basis, were switching back and forth between dispensing scunion and dispensing candy, as the situation dictated. These guys are much smarter than Grossman et al give them credit for.
Huh. I kind of liked the EST 2000. And felt it went a long way toward allowing soldiers to expend a large amount of photons to train on something more than 40 rounds a year on a KD or pop-up range. Personally, I'd train on the EST every day for an hour, if I could.

I bought an air pistol and air rifle for my office and home, just to stay fresh on fundamentals.

As far as children having to learn how to kill is concerned, the concept that violence is somehow foreign to children is wrong; for most kids, it's teaching them NOT to use violence that requires work.