View Full Version : Miliary vs Civilian training.
Two days ago I took delivery of Magdul's Dynamic Handgun and carbine DVD's. I've watched the first two discs of each and I have to say being in the military and watching these DVD's, I feel the Army has cheated me on some very essential and basic training in the interest of getting IET soldiers on the line. The brass need to get their heads out of their collective fourth point of contact and give us what we need to fight an effective war and more importantly watch the backs of my fellow soldiers and make sure we all go home.
I shouldn't have to wait to "get on line" or spend my own money to learn these essentials. Is there any hope that the military can do this?
NCPatrolAR
04-29-10, 18:15
Two days ago I took delivery of Magdul's Dynamic Handgun and carbine DVD's. I've watched the first two discs of each and I have to say being in the military and watching these DVD's, I feel the Army has cheated me on some very essential and basic training in the interest of getting IET soldiers on the line. The brass need to get their heads out of their collective fourth point of contact and give us what we need to fight an effective war and more importantly watch the backs of my fellow soldiers and make sure we all go home.
I shouldn't have to wait to "get on line" or spend my own money to learn these essentials. Is there any hope that the military can do this?
I'm willing to bet the training you receive now is better than what I got when I was in (96-03)
ETA:
You can never count on your employer to train you to the point you want to be at (hopefully the best). At some point you have to go outside your unit/service/agency and seek outside training in order to achieve the best results possible.
Complication
04-29-10, 18:49
You can never count on your employer to train you to the point you want to be at (hopefully the best). At some point you have to go outside your unit/service/agency and seek outside training in order to achieve the best results possible.
Along the same lines, you might want to seek out someone who has had that sort of training and asking for pointers or, better yet, get the training yourself and bring it back to your unit/service/agency. At the minimum, you gain a few buddies to keep those tactics fresh. And in the best circumstances, what you share with them might save their lives.
RogerinTPA
04-29-10, 20:06
Two days ago I took delivery of Magdul's Dynamic Handgun and carbine DVD's. I've watched the first two discs of each and I have to say being in the military and watching these DVD's, I feel the Army has cheated me on some very essential and basic training in the interest of getting IET soldiers on the line. The brass need to get their heads out of their collective fourth point of contact and give us what we need to fight an effective war and more importantly watch the backs of my fellow soldiers and make sure we all go home.
I shouldn't have to wait to "get on line" or spend my own money to learn these essentials. Is there any hope that the military can do this?
Agreed wholeheartedly. Being an early 80's era 11B, I felt the same way after my first carbine course, pre-Magpul DVDs. I continue to feel that way, with every subsequent Pistol, or carbine course. The Big Army will do what's most expedient, period. The list of failures from uniforms to weapon systems are long and distinguished.
Maybe we as Vets and Patriotic Citizens, and Magpul, should just start buying these DVDs, and mailing them to units down range. That would have a more immediate impact than current training and resources could ever provide.
telecustom
04-29-10, 20:19
The main reason the Army as a hole doesn't get the proper weapons training is very simple.....time, money, and resources.
Time: how can we expect our Soldiers to be proficient with their primary weapon system if they are constantly being put on Taskings that are 'more important' than scheduled training.
Money: Ammunition is expensive. We are constantly having to beg, barrow, and steal to get the ammo for the training we are trying to accomplish now. We have a difficult enough time having enough rounds to even do a standard qualification range (and this is not because of crappy shooters that waste ammo). With 2 'Wars' going on, there are Soldiers that need that ammo overseas.
Resources: There is limited range space and time available to train. Also, again ranges are run by civilians and their time is also money.
I think it would be great if every Soldier received quality weapons training in AIT. But the truth is there is a level of maturity required for this high speed training that just has not been developed in a Soldier until they have been in their active unit for a certain amount of time. And even then, some people just never reach that level of maturity.
230therapy
04-29-10, 21:54
Two days ago I took delivery of Magdul's Dynamic Handgun and carbine DVD's. I've watched the first two discs of each and I have to say being in the military and watching these DVD's, I feel the Army has cheated me on some very essential and basic training in the interest of getting IET soldiers on the line. The brass need to get their heads out of their collective fourth point of contact and give us what we need to fight an effective war and more importantly watch the backs of my fellow soldiers and make sure we all go home.
I shouldn't have to wait to "get on line" or spend my own money to learn these essentials. Is there any hope that the military can do this?
So did it never occur to you to seek additional training at your own expense from other sources? If you think your training is inadequate, and there's the possibility of needing to actually fight, then I'd find that to be quite motivating to seek alternative resources.
It just seems to me that some many military guys I meet WON'T train on their dime (I try to get them to go and hand them pamphlets). There are a few who will and I sometimes see them in classes.
So did it never occur to you to seek additional training at your own expense from other sources? If you think your training is inadequate, and there's the possibility of needing to actually fight, then I'd find that to be quite motivating to seek alternative resources.
It just seems to me that some many military guys I meet WON'T train on their dime (I try to get them to go and hand them pamphlets). There are a few who will and I sometimes see them in classes.
Now that I've seen the training that is offered, when I get back stateside I will be taking part in these classes.
The extent of my "training" is sitting in the dugout, prone and shooting at 300m targets. I've never done reflexive fire, never done any kind of drills.
Now that I've seen the training that is offered, when I get back stateside I will be taking part in these classes.
The extent of my "training" is sitting in the dugout, prone and shooting at 300m targets. I've never done reflexive fire, never done any kind of drills.
yep.. if you get with a higher speed infantry unit, you might get some actual tactics training, but for the most part, tactics are left to the soldier, who may or may not get pointers from fellow squad members. and IET training is a joke... prone supported and prone un-supported- period. shoot while standing?? WTF are you talking about? and dont even ask about shooting while moving... if you have live rounds in your weapon, you sure as shit better not be "moving" anywhere.
yep.. if you get with a higher speed infantry unit, you might get some actual tactics training, but for the most part, tactics are left to the soldier, who may or may not get pointers from fellow squad members. and IET training is a joke... prone supported and prone un-supported- period. shoot while standing?? WTF are you talking about? and dont even ask about shooting while moving... if you have live rounds in your weapon, you sure as shit better not be "moving" anywhere.
The worst part is I'm going on 3 years this May.
xrayoneone
04-29-10, 23:52
More live fire training would be nice in the military but one has to remember that being a rifleman is more than just pulling a trigger.
Many of the weapon manipulation skills can be practiced dry, not as much fun but it's better than nothing. Our machine gunners and mortarmen were always practicing gun drills during down time. They were pretty damn good at getting the guns up, when they got ammo they were so good at the gun drills they had more time to shoot. I would practice rifle manipulations and magazine changes during down time. I got pretty good at reloading and presenting my weapon from different positions. I also practiced manipulating my weapon with my weak side so that when I did get live ammunition I could shoot off hand more naturally. A lot of riflemen would lounge around and screw off because they felt if they weren't putting lead down range they weren't "really" training. You would see these guys fumbling with mag pouches, reloads, clearing drills what have you when we did do live fire. These are the things they could have been working on before they started shooting and had they worked on them they could have learned more and had more fun shooting. If I only got 10, 20 or 30 rounds to run a range with I would space them out in different magazines so I got to run reloads, a lot of guys would cram it all in one magazine because they didn't want to bother reloading.
I guess what I'm trying to say is get good with what you got. Don't diss your training, try to take everything from it you can. If you think it sucks and go into it with a "this is shit" attitude you won't learn what there is to learn. Many of the shooting classes are geared towards civilian shooters and a civilian does not need to know how to read a map, call for fire, set a defensive position, work a radio, clear an LZ, write an operations order, link up with another unit, etc. Stay motivated, take shooting classes when you can but don't neglect the other aspects of your job. Take what you can from your training now, both good and bad, and learn from it and what you learn you can pass on to others.
thopkins22
04-30-10, 00:01
I suggest you read this thread by RetreatHell.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=38540
Every golf course on all military bases should be turned into shooting ranges (KD, steel, movers, pop-ups, shoot houses, FX/FOF sim houses, etc...) with 24 hr/7 day access for any service member to practice on...
Every golf course on all military bases should be turned into shooting ranges (KD, steel, movers, pop-ups, shoot houses, FX/FOF sim houses, etc...) with 24 hr/7 day access for any service member to practice on...
That kind of radical change would be difficult to pull off if we had a pro gun King or Dictator.
Every golf course on all military bases should be turned into shooting ranges (KD, steel, movers, pop-ups, shoot houses, FX/FOF sim houses, etc...) with 24 hr/7 day access for any service member to practice on...
at benning, home of the Infantry, probably more than half the ranges are closed most of the time.
Every golf course on all military bases should be turned into shooting ranges (KD, steel, movers, pop-ups, shoot houses, FX/FOF sim houses, etc...) with 24 hr/7 day access for any service member to practice on...
Come on now... Where would one go to drink beer and flirt with the BAMs and dependants???
B
And random golfers of the ranks of O-6 and E-8 and above would be publicly executed, weekly.
Seriously. The problem isn't the lack of training; the problem is the arrogance and complete bullshit that especially combat arms soldiers live, eat and breathe that somehow convinces them they know anything of value about shooting or about their weapons systems.
I was one. It is, frankly, just easier to keep soldiers ignorant about their own limitations than it is to train them.
LE has that in common with the military in that unless you are SWAT, SRT, ERT, BORTAC, etc. you won't get much more than square range training either.
Being in the USMCR, I didn't know what was going in the Corps as a whole, especially on the active side, but I personally experienced a change from loop slings, "approved" shooting position qualifications to receiving MOUT training, EMP (enhanced marksmanship program) where you shoot and move, look and ID "threats" and then turn and shoot, them telling us to square up to the target to maximize armor usage versus pre-determined positions, and hearing about a new qual where a Marine was allowed to lay, sit, kneel, and stand in a fashion that bests enables the individual to put rounds on target while activated.
Surprising, since you don't have to be a 25 yr active Marine to know that any change in the USMC(R) is extremely difficult. :eek:
And random golfers of the ranks of O-6 and E-8 and above would be publicly executed, weekly.
Seriously. The problem isn't the lack of training; the problem is the arrogance and complete bullshit that especially combat arms soldiers live, eat and breathe that somehow convinces them they know anything of value about shooting or about their weapons systems.
I was one. It is, frankly, just easier to keep soldiers ignorant about their own limitations than it is to train them.
With that train of thought we're the best military in the world simply because we keep getting lucky.
I believe that every commercial carbine course I've ever been in had at least one military guy, former or active, who was shocked at what they didn't know before the class and exclaimed "THIS is what the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines should have been teaching us!" sometime during TD2 or so.
I hear a lot of people say "well why don't you seek out your own training?", but by all accounts that sounds to be a pretty tough prospect for military folks. You may or may not be deployed, you may or may not be able to get the time off, finances are probably pretty tough (tougher if you have a family), and most importantly you probably don't know what you don't know. And, for that 20 year old corporal or specialist, it can be a tough pill to swallow after you've been pretty well indoctrinated into "if you need to know it, we'll tell it to you. if you need to have it, we'll issue it to you."
Cops face similar issues but to a lesser extent. There's usually less institutional dogma to overcome but the social dogma can be pretty extreme. Most cops I know that seek outside training get at least teased about it at work by the donut-eaters if they don't wind up with career problems from further up the food chain. They do, however, have the advantage of typically being older, in most cases better paid, and have more free time.
Interesting side bar, I have applied all of the above to non-shooting and non-mil/LE training in my job. I asked for training and equipment to do my job better and was denied, and I'm seeking it out for myself. This is not a life or death situation, but you can bet your ass that if my company didn't get me safety training and/or issue me a hardhat or a fall protection harness I'd be out getting my own training and buying my own equipment.
Two days ago I took delivery of Magdul's Dynamic Handgun and carbine DVD's. I've watched the first two discs of each and I have to say being in the military and watching these DVD's, I feel the Army has cheated me on some very essential and basic training in the interest of getting IET soldiers on the line. The brass need to get their heads out of their collective fourth point of contact and give us what we need to fight an effective war and more importantly watch the backs of my fellow soldiers and make sure we all go home.
I shouldn't have to wait to "get on line" or spend my own money to learn these essentials. Is there any hope that the military can do this?
Right. Remember that when the Military comes up with a training program, it has to be to the lowest level.
Just like their manuals and such (8th grade reading level).
It is normal to see SEAL's, SF, Force Recon in Civy classes. Why? Because they are trying to get as much info and training as possible.
What is somewhat funny is that some here believe that being in the Military means you get BETTER weapons training than a a Civy can get. To quote on of them; "All you have ever dones is gone to civy shooting schools."
Correct and because of it, I have been trained by the BEST on how to use and fight with a firearm. At the end of the day, he who puts the bullet in the other guy FIRST wins. ;)
C4
rifleman2000
04-30-10, 08:44
The main reason the Army as a hole doesn't get the proper weapons training is very simple.....time, money, and resources.
Time: how can we expect our Soldiers to be proficient with their primary weapon system if they are constantly being put on Taskings that are 'more important' than scheduled training.
Money: Ammunition is expensive. We are constantly having to beg, barrow, and steal to get the ammo for the training we are trying to accomplish now. We have a difficult enough time having enough rounds to even do a standard qualification range (and this is not because of crappy shooters that waste ammo). With 2 'Wars' going on, there are Soldiers that need that ammo overseas.
Resources: There is limited range space and time available to train. Also, again ranges are run by civilians and their time is also money.
I think it would be great if every Soldier received quality weapons training in AIT. But the truth is there is a level of maturity required for this high speed training that just has not been developed in a Soldier until they have been in their active unit for a certain amount of time. And even then, some people just never reach that level of maturity.
This is the most accurate statement in the thread. I work in the Army TRADOC range management program. The biggest factor is range space and time; AND the balance of training. Remember, the average new trainee has no experience with firearms. You have ten weeks to teach them to be basic trained soldiers. Firearms training is important, but there are a lot of other skills the soldiers also have to train on. There is no way possible that the Army can justify spending the time and money to get every soldier an M4C/Magpul "expert" with their weapons.
The level of proficiency achieved is enough to safely handle their weapons and engage the enemy during tactical maneuvers. Tactics at the basic level is simple move and fire with a buddy, and that is the building block for everything else.
Most of my more advance firearm skills and knowledge were acquired on my own outside of the Army. But having said that, I have seen how effective baseline firearm skills are when applied with the proper tactics. As in, tactics equate getting the shooter and weapon system in a position of advantage to engage the enemy, and have nothing to do with actual firearm handling/shooting.
rifleman2000
04-30-10, 09:09
I think some people also forget about all the training that we, specifically Infantry, get that civilians can't even touch.
1st, there is a distinct difference between firearms training and tactical training, as in training tactics. Military tactics involve working as a team.
Most civilian shooting situations involve a lone shooter, as in a CCW self defense shot or home defense. In these situations, you have nobody to maneuver with. Your "tactics" are very much different and your situation will very likely boil down to good gun handling, i.e. who shoots faster accurately...
Military tactics maneuver, supporting fire/elements, etc. Actual firearm handling is far less important than the proper use of tactics. Firearms skills will not save you if you walk into a well set ambush, nor will they save you if your opponent out maneuvers you.
Summary:
Military firearm skills support tactics.
Civilian tactics are based on firearm skills.
I think I make sense.
I think some people also forget about all the training that we, specifically Infantry, get that civilians can't even touch.
1st, there is a distinct difference between firearms training and tactical training, as in training tactics. Military tactics involve working as a team.
Most civilian shooting situations involve a lone shooter, as in a CCW self defense shot or home defense. In these situations, you have nobody to maneuver with. Your "tactics" are very much different and your situation will very likely boil down to good gun handling, i.e. who shoots faster accurately...
Military tactics maneuver, supporting fire/elements, etc. Actual firearm handling is far less important than the proper use of tactics. Firearms skills will not save you if you walk into a well set ambush, nor will they save you if your opponent out maneuvers you.
Summary:
Military firearm skills support tactics.
Civilian tactics are based on firearm skills.
I think I make sense.
Right. If you are operating in a team and are engaging multiple enemies, the tactics that the Military are going to be VERY IMPORTANT. Remember though that Civy's CAN and DO tactics training. At least once a year, I do 2 man and 4 man CQB low light/no light training. This level of training is most likely superior to what the majority of the Military receives.
A good balance of training for .Mil trigger pullers is most likely the best way to ensure that they are getting what they need. Tactics training via the Military, gun handling, accuracy, CQB/low light via the private sector.
C4
With that train of thought we're the best military in the world simply because we keep getting lucky.
Actually, we are not necessarily the best military in the world. We think we are the best, because we WIN. We WIN because our system rocks. Our system rocks, because we have tremendous resources.
Where we fail, is that we neglect basic soldier skills because of all of the above. Which occasionally bites us in the ass when exposed. Soldier for soldier we are nowhere as good as "we" think we are.
rifleman2000
04-30-10, 10:04
Right. If you are operating in a team and are engaging multiple enemies, the tactics that the Military are going to be VERY IMPORTANT. Remember though that Civy's CAN and DO tactics training. At least once a year, I do 2 man and 4 man CQB low light/no light training. This level of training is most likely superior to what the majority of the Military receives.
A good balance of training for .Mil trigger pullers is most likely the best way to ensure that they are getting what they need. Tactics training via the Military, gun handling, accuracy, CQB/low light via the private sector.
C4
The two/four man training you have, correct me if I am wrong, is still focused on specific tasks. I agree with your assessment, but my experience is that lots of good trianing goes on with the right people, depending on the unit and mission. Some of it is generated by civilian training. I learned a lot outside of the Army that I subsequently brought back into the Army when training my people.
The hard part is conducting collective task training. For example;
Task: Conduct two man movement while engaging targets. Involves a few subtasks, such as engage targets, move with a weapon, and move as part of a team.
A collective event might be like this (for military);
Task: Conduct ambush as named location no later than...
Subtasks-
Perform security, patrol base activities- subtasks, emplace fighting positions, emplace machine guns.
Perform planning- subtasks, route recon, resupply, brief plan (OPORD), rehearsals, etc.
Perform movement- subtasks, move as platoon/squad (not easy, way harder at night), land navigation, security, possible react to contact, set up objective rally point
Recon objective- subtasks, brief contigency plan, move as team, recon objective, emplace security, perform link up with friendly forces (very hard)
Emplace ambush- subtasks, emplace machine gun
Execute ambush- subtasks, employ weapon (day/night), assault as team, clear objective (EPW sweep), form perimeter (difficult at night), movement as platoon to ORP
etc........
The point is, for military, a lot of work goes into a mission before anybody even thinks about putting their finger on a trigger. That requires a lot of training. For a civilian, you can be Joe Blow asleep in your bed, and a guy breaks in your house. Now you are seconds away from employing a firearm...
Part of the issue the Army faces now is that they are trying to do to much in the way of firearms training with raw recruits, and they are not getting the basics down before they are exposed to the more advanced shooting.
The two/four man training you have, correct me if I am wrong, is still focused on specific tasks. I agree with your assessment, but my experience is that lots of good trianing goes on with the right people, depending on the unit and mission. Some of it is generated by civilian training. I learned a lot outside of the Army that I subsequently brought back into the Army when training my people.
Yes, tasks. Like clearing the room. There is a flow to it though and what your doing or the position you are in could change with each and every room.
I have never been in the Army so will take your word for it.
The hard part is conducting collective task training. For example;
Task: Conduct two man movement while engaging targets. Involves a few subtasks, such as engage targets, move with a weapon, and move as part of a team.
A collective event might be like this (for military);
Task: Conduct ambush as named location no later than...
Subtasks-
Perform security, patrol base activities- subtasks, emplace fighting positions, emplace machine guns.
Perform planning- subtasks, route recon, resupply, brief plan (OPORD), rehearsals, etc.
Perform movement- subtasks, move as platoon/squad (not easy, way harder at night), land navigation, security, possible react to contact, set up objective rally point
Recon objective- subtasks, brief contigency plan, move as team, recon objective, emplace security, perform link up with friendly forces (very hard)
Emplace ambush- subtasks, emplace machine gun
Execute ambush- subtasks, employ weapon (day/night), assault as team, clear objective (EPW sweep), form perimeter (difficult at night), movement as platoon to ORP
etc........
The point is, for military, a lot of work goes into a mission before anybody even thinks about putting their finger on a trigger. That requires a lot of training.
Part of the issue the Army faces now is that they are trying to do to much in the way of firearms training with raw recruits, and they are not getting the basics down before they are exposed to the more advanced shooting.
100% agree.
C4
RogerinTPA
04-30-10, 10:31
The two/four man training you have, correct me if I am wrong, is still focused on specific tasks. I agree with your assessment, but my experience is that lots of good trianing goes on with the right people, depending on the unit and mission. Some of it is generated by civilian training. I learned a lot outside of the Army that I subsequently brought back into the Army when training my people.
The hard part is conducting collective task training. For example;
Task: Conduct two man movement while engaging targets. Involves a few subtasks, such as engage targets, move with a weapon, and move as part of a team.
A collective event might be like this (for military);
Task: Conduct ambush as named location no later than...
Subtasks-
Perform security, patrol base activities- subtasks, emplace fighting positions, emplace machine guns.
Perform planning- subtasks, route recon, resupply, brief plan (OPORD), rehearsals, etc.
Perform movement- subtasks, move as platoon/squad (not easy, way harder at night), land navigation, security, possible react to contact, set up objective rally point
Recon objective- subtasks, brief contigency plan, move as team, recon objective, emplace security, perform link up with friendly forces (very hard)
Emplace ambush- subtasks, emplace machine gun
Execute ambush- subtasks, employ weapon (day/night), assault as team, clear objective (EPW sweep), form perimeter (difficult at night), movement as platoon to ORP
etc........
The point is, for military, a lot of work goes into a mission before anybody even thinks about putting their finger on a trigger. That requires a lot of training. For a civilian, you can be Joe Blow asleep in your bed, and a guy breaks in your house. Now you are seconds away from employing a firearm...
Part of the issue the Army faces now is that they are trying to do to much in the way of firearms training with raw recruits, and they are not getting the basics down before they are exposed to the more advanced shooting.
Agreed, however, I still hold the senior NCOs/Officers responsible for developing necessary individual war fighting skills in their troops. Like several folks have stated in the pass, there are plenty of active duty resources to tap into, but don't. Manly because of pig headed commanders from above worrying about exceeding their annual training budget or ignorance. They can request more money prior to predeployment training for live fire range seminars through the USAMU (who has gone into Theater to conduct training with Infantry units) and Army SOCOM, SFCOM, etc...but don't know they can, or think that the reinforcement of "basic" marksmanship is enough. That said, you can still train them in dry fire exercises, weapons manipulations, etc...that wouldn't exceed the annual budget, and still give the troops an edge.
rifleman2000
04-30-10, 11:06
Agreed, however, I still hold the senior NCOs/Officers responsible for developing necessary individual war fighting skills in their troops. Like several folks have stated in the pass, there are plenty of active duty resources to tap into, but don't. Manly because of pig headed commanders from above worrying about exceeding their annual training budget or ignorance. They can request more money prior to predeployment training for live fire range seminars through the USAMU (who has gone into Theater to conduct training with Infantry units) and Army SOCOM, SFCOM, etc...but don't know they can, or think that the reinforcement of "basic" marksmanship is enough. That said, you can still train them in dry fire exercises, weapons manipulations, etc...that wouldn't exceed the annual budget, and still give the troops an edge.
A lot of commanders do in fact pull out the stops to get the training they can. And the best training takes place below the training budget level, platoon and squad level. We did lots of innovative marksmanship training not Army approved in 2003 prior to deployment to Kuwait. But at the same time, advanced marksmanship training for even Infantry units is not always the highest priority, nor should it always be the highest priority.
But I agree it is a leadership issue on all training, some leaders are good at training and some aren't. That has nothing to do with the issue of civilian marksmanship training versus military.
rifleman2000
04-30-10, 11:13
To get to the heart of the original post.
An average Infantry platoon put through a carbine shooting match, 3 gun style (but with just their assigned weapon) will most likely lose badly to your average group of 3 gun shooters.
Conversely, you average group of 3 gun shooters will have probably zero efficiency on the battlefield and will be completely incapable of employing their weapons effectively. The level of training required to operate as a unit and employ even basic infantry tactics is much higher than I think some people imagine. Especially if you are under fire. Imagine/remember how difficult it is to perform in a stress shoot if you are not completely proficient at your task. Now imagine doing the countless tasks surrounding unit maneuver under fire.
Civilian marksmanship versus military marksmanship is a matter of priority and purpose. Military marksmanship only comes into play at the sharp end of endless other tasks.
Littlelebowski
04-30-10, 11:14
Every golf course on all military bases should be turned into shooting ranges (KD, steel, movers, pop-ups, shoot houses, FX/FOF sim houses, etc...) with 24 hr/7 day access for any service member to practice on...
Truer words have never been spoken.
Littlelebowski
04-30-10, 11:15
To get to the heart of the original post.
An average Infantry platoon put through a carbine shooting match, 3 gun style (but with just their assigned weapon) will most likely lose badly to your average group of 3 gun shooters.
Conversely, you average group of 3 gun shooters will have probably zero efficiency on the battlefield and will be completely incapable of employing their weapons effectively. The level of training required to operate as a unit and employ even basic infantry tactics is much higher than I think some people imagine. Especially if you are under fire. Imagine/remember how difficult it is to perform in a stress shoot if you are not completely proficient at your task. Now imagine doing the countless tasks surrounding unit maneuver under fire.
Civilian marksmanship versus military marksmanship is a matter of priority and purpose. Military marksmanship only comes into play at the sharp end of endless other tasks.
Exactly right. Maintaining dispersion, getting to the objective on time, just staying in shape, etc....
That being said, we do need more gunfighting training in the armed forces.
RogerinTPA
04-30-10, 12:53
A lot of commanders do in fact pull out the stops to get the training they can. And the best training takes place below the training budget level, platoon and squad level. We did lots of innovative marksmanship training not Army approved in 2003 prior to deployment to Kuwait. But at the same time, advanced marksmanship training for even Infantry units is not always the highest priority, nor should it always be the highest priority.
But I agree it is a leadership issue on all training, some leaders are good at training and some aren't. That has nothing to do with the issue of civilian marksmanship training versus military.
Correct. I addressed the military side of the thread. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to address one side of the discussion, without addressing the other. :rolleyes:
rifleman2000
04-30-10, 13:07
Correct. I addressed the military side of the thread. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to address one side of the discussion, without addressing the other. :rolleyes:
I was just clarifying, based on the original posts intent. No need to get bent out of shape.
Von Rheydt
04-30-10, 19:22
I was British Army, around 11 years regular and some reserve stuff afterwards.........I was also a British Bobby, yes, yes one of those funny Cops that don't carry a gun and wears a silly hat.
Basic training for infantry appears to be longer in the UK than in the USA, someone above mentioned 10 weeks. I think ours runs at around 14 weeks for cooks and bottle washers at the moment and infantry is nearly 6 months. I know that the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines have to do 6 months before they get sent to a unit.
There is initially training in use of the personal weapon which lays the foundations of shooting and marksmanship. The fundamentals of shooting are then built on to include moving pairs, moving sections and moving platoons in full on platoon attacks.
Nowadays, and I have this from people who do the job now, the black arts of room clearance are taught to infantry personnel. Remember that around 9 or 10 years back this was an SF only skill and very few got to see, let alone, use stun grenades.
I remember back in the 80's when I arrived at the Close Protection Unit to do their EOD. I was a sport IPSC shooter and had been shooting one thing or another for 20 years by that time. The unit had three training days a week that you attended if you were not working or on a job. I rolled up at my first one thinking these guys must all be gods able to handle weapons like experts. Within an hour they were around me asking where I had learned to shoot and what were these mag changes and other moves I was doing ......... all basic IPSC stuff. For the next 3'ish years I ran a weekly class for them and used to take the unit firearms coach and a couple of others to IPSC matches in Belgium so that they could learn more.
I also know that UKSF (Tier One) receive their specialist pistol training from outside the box, enuff said. I further know that the Magpul DVD's were well received by certain members of a particular SF Troop when they got a set of them for christmas ........... I played Santa.
variablebinary
04-30-10, 20:21
More live fire training would be nice in the military but one has to remember that being a rifleman is more than just pulling a trigger.
Truth. It's very different to run and gun when you have to lug around a bunch of gear, with armor, an ACH, and you have other soldiers to think about. Add to that the fact that you are sweating to death or freezing, and your constipated from MRE's, and you've only had sex by yourself for a long time.
It's just different. Though, there is something to be learned in carbine class, because your typical soldier has very limited trigger time every year. My last qual still had combat vets who flinched when they fired their weapon. They just dont shoot enough to get comfortable.
LE has that in common with the military in that unless you are SWAT, SRT, ERT, BORTAC, etc. you won't get much more than square range training either.
This is true for larger agencies' teams primarily. For the most part, part time teams, by far the majority of teams in the U.S., also don't get the training that they need.
I would add that a lot of what SWAT does at training is sometimes perceived as "high speed" by others at my agency, should be regular training across the board.
I remember back in the bad old days of the '80s, when we faced off against the Soviets, and were told how bad their soldiers sucked, because they were alloted XX ridiculous small number of rounds a year to train.
I remember feeling damned superior to them, forgetting, in my arrogance that we were alloted 14 rounds to zero and 40 rounds to fire for record, once a year. And we were a forward deployed CAV unit, right on the border.
Back to training, though. Civilians can do something military usually cannot do; they can develop a taxonomy of their day to day lives (what they do, where they go, how they get there) and develop training scenarios for the most likely places they will need to use their firearms skills or possibly even most places they might need their firearms skills and then approximate those conditions on the range and train for them by developing drills and working on each step of the process. They can also do repetitive iterations until they get it right.
I think its sad when we can use a multi-million dollar piece of ordnance to take out a pickup truck with a few insurgents, but can't come up with enough money to train soldiers how to shoot properly.
We are the best military in the world because of technology. We certainly aren't on basic soldiering skills. That could very easily come back to haunt us one day.
I agree that marksmanship is not the be all and end all of soldiering skills by any means, but the level I see is often flat out sad. I've passed along as much as I can from classes I have taken and most soldiers are hungry for that information. But as has already been said, most don't know what they have been missing and a Private with a wife and couple of kids cannot even consider coughing up the money for a class and ammo.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.