What should be our #1 defense budget priority?

Enough training to make them fine snapshooters with the M4, from either shoulder. This would take a month of a few hours per day at the range, so it will never happen. they just don't care about the few troops this would save.

Click to expand...

+1
I hate to make judgements based on a small sample, but out of the group of current/recent military guys I know, very few can shoot well. They seem to know tactics, cover, and how to fight, but actual accurate shooting is not really that wide spread. I do know an actual former marine sniper (left the military about 10yrs ago), and he can REALLY, REALLY, REALLY shoot. His opinion of the average soldiers marksmanship would be inappropriate for a forum called the Highroad.

My very uninformed opinion would be to make good M4 .22lr clones for military use so that they could economically increase the amount of trigger time that our guys get to help improve their accuracy.

[Off-topic bit removed by Moderator]

This is not a general military forum. Posts should be around firearms. I've already deleted nearly the entire thread to try to keep it on topic.

Enough training to make them fine snapshooters with the M4, from either shoulder. This would take a month of a few hours per day at the range, so it will never happen. they just don't care about the few troops this would save.

Click to expand...

it wouldn't be practical at all, when you look at the big picture, the lives of individual soldiers don't mean much at all, might be harsh, but that's just the way it is. it's not that they don't care about the few troops it would save, but it would cost too much to do that

I hate to make judgements based on a small sample, but out of the group of current/recent military guys I know, very few can shoot well. They seem to know tactics, cover, and how to fight, but actual accurate shooting is not really that wide spread.

Click to expand...

Of course not. Being a soldier (or a cop) depends on more than just shooting skills--being able to read people, sneak up on a target, notice ambushes or boobytraps can all be just as lifesaving as shooting.
All an individual soldier needs to be able to do is shoot well enough to hit and suppress an enemy soldier or vehicle in range--not instantly kill them with a headshot at 300 yards.
As the scale of a conflict increases the individual shooting skill of an individual soldier matters less and less--a platoon leader worries about the overall marksmanship of his squads, and uses his troops grenade launchers, machine guns, missiles and so on--and fire support from other units to defeat the enemy.

Different wars require different methods. Something that I feel has been lacking in the military planers repertoire for centuries. The old saying that the military is always equipping and trying to fight the last war does have some truth. Think they have gotten better now with the hi-tec weapons but for our troops it is still "transportation and supplies". Navy nearly crucified General Doolittle when he showed aircraft could sink a battleship. They changed their minds after Pear Harbor.

Many of our troops are hurt by IEDs.

We used to do Eagle flights where one helicopter would land broadside in front of a string of cars and another would land behind to stop anyone from turning around and escaping. Troops would deploy and check IDs and see if any military supplies were being transported. Villages were checked out with the same Eagle Flight type operation if the village was on a priority list. Birds land, deploy troops, then orbit and function as C&C or even provide fire support in some cases if needed.

With the sand box and open areas IMO they use to much ground transportation placing out troops in danger from IEDs and local dudes with RPGs, mortars and small arms.

In a jungle setting the amount of return fire due to enemy cover can be the difference between surviving or not. I have not been in a combat roll to the sand box but IMO lack of cover for the bad guys and the ranges of some engagements mean, what worked before may not be the best option for today's battlefield. Jungle concealment is softer than rocks or a cave so I can see going to 3 round burst but am not convinced the 5.56 is the best round for the mission. Again this is said from the comfort of my key board. It has always been a problem with troops saying they need certain weapons or supplies but the supplies or not in the supply chain or have not been purchased.

I remember stories of motor pools welding metal plates on their Hummers because they did not have armor. It took a while but they finally got retro fitted or armored Hummers.

Due to open fields of fire I would think our troops would be better marksman when returning?? Again probably less than 20% ever fire a round in anger; regardless of war stories.

Listening to troops in the field is always wise and as long as we have been in the Mideast (due to the high rate of deployments) I would think some of the troops have been promoted into positions of being heard.

War sucks but I have always felt if it is worth doing then every effort should be made to destroy the enemy with minimal loss of friendlies. We are not there to die for our country but make our enemies die for theirs. Sorry George.

Looking at the evolution of armed conflict some things change and somethings never do.

Of course not. Being a soldier (or a cop) depends on more than just shooting skills--being able to read people, sneak up on a target, notice ambushes or boobytraps can all be just as lifesaving as shooting.
All an individual soldier needs to be able to do is shoot well enough to hit and suppress an enemy soldier or vehicle in range--not instantly kill them with a headshot at 300 yards.
As the scale of a conflict increases the individual shooting skill of an individual soldier matters less and less--a platoon leader worries about the overall marksmanship of his squads, and uses his troops grenade launchers, machine guns, missiles and so on--and fire support from other units to defeat the enemy.

Click to expand...

Of course in the big picture the individual skills matter less and less, except to the individual soldier who is getting shot at. Or if the overall level of skill increases then it gives officers more options of being able to plan for defense and offense, or at least it would appear to.

I don't believe that every soldier needs to be a sniper, but the more prof each soldier gets the more efficient a fighting force they become. Further more bullets are cheaper, smaller, and easier to pack than are heavy weapons. The less often grenades, and missiles are needed the better for the individual soldier/squad, fiscally, and from a collateral damage standpoint.

There are reasons that small groups of highly trained individuals have been able to defeat much larger forces throughout history.

It's pretty limited what we can talk about. So, I guess we're left to say better guns. Yup, they need better guns. And they need to shoot better. And better body armor. What else can we say?

I say Cyber defense/offense is the first priority. Our general technical superiority buys us a cushion on that front.
I would then offer special educational opportunities to those who pursued an appropriate degree and require a year of active duty per year of education utilizing those educational opportunities, plus 1 year additional active duty.

Mike

I have a different opinion......our #1 priority for the military........is a President....a House...and a Senate..that understands the value of the military and does NOT squander......Americas most valuable asset........the PEOPLE...who are the military!!

Too much off-topic stuff, sorry.