carebear
Member
They had Chesty right where he wanted them. 
Army Changes Basic Training To Include More Firearms Instruction !!!
- Thread starter David
- Start date
- Status
LoneStranger
Member
What needs to be remembered about the USMC is that until fairly recently they did not give weapons training to their female marines. Something about being in the rear and not needing it!
Fortunately, wiser and more liberal minded people realized that the rear areas can become the front line at the most inopportune time and the Marines started training their female marines with weapons.
As to why lessons like this have to be relearned. You always have people with too much schooling and not enough education being put in charge of things after a conflict and it is just so much easier to only worry about combat training those actually in combat arms and with limited educations they have no trouble flaunting their superior schooling.
Fortunately, wiser and more liberal minded people realized that the rear areas can become the front line at the most inopportune time and the Marines started training their female marines with weapons.
As to why lessons like this have to be relearned. You always have people with too much schooling and not enough education being put in charge of things after a conflict and it is just so much easier to only worry about combat training those actually in combat arms and with limited educations they have no trouble flaunting their superior schooling.
jdkelly
Member
I might cost more then it would to train the entire Corps
The Marine Corps and the Army are two very different animals, with different missions.
It might possibly cost more (perhaps much more) to make the "non-combat" side of the Army proficient in combat arms then it would to train the whole Marine Corps.
* I think "soldier" might offend some Marines.
Respectfully,
jdkelly
The Marine Corps and the Army are two very different animals, with different missions.
It might possibly cost more (perhaps much more) to make the "non-combat" side of the Army proficient in combat arms then it would to train the whole Marine Corps.
* I think "soldier" might offend some Marines.
Respectfully,
jdkelly
Anyone in uniform, regardless of which uniform or what job title, could end up holding a rifle. War is like that. The least a military can do is give its members a chance at survival. Langenator, I thank you for doing what others cannot or will not. Now if in addition to weapons training perhaps a little small unit tactics could be snuck in...
LoneStranger
Member
As an analogy, the Navy use to have a policy that only those people directly involved in fighting fires on ships were trained in fighting fires. Something about needlessly expensive training for people who don't need it.
Then they burned up the USS Forestal(aka Forestfire) and it was shown that only by pure dumb luck, after the trained firefighters were killed, that those who had no training were able to save their very, very expensive ship.
Firefighting became an across the board training requirement.
Since you can never predict the future you never know who will save your sorry backside.
Then they burned up the USS Forestal(aka Forestfire) and it was shown that only by pure dumb luck, after the trained firefighters were killed, that those who had no training were able to save their very, very expensive ship.
Firefighting became an across the board training requirement.
Since you can never predict the future you never know who will save your sorry backside.
The firearms training I received in Basic & AIT was pathetic. I thought it was d@mn near criminal to "train" boys and send them to their units to receive their real training.
The USMC has the right idea, WRT rifle marksmanship, though they ain't perfect either.
When I got to my unit, the training was quite good. Then again, we had a much larger training budget than most units & spent an awful lot of it at the range.
The USMC has the right idea, WRT rifle marksmanship, though they ain't perfect either.
When I got to my unit, the training was quite good. Then again, we had a much larger training budget than most units & spent an awful lot of it at the range.
jdkelly
Member
What do you think?
How much more training do you think they'd need?
How would the cost square with the result?
Respectfully,
jdkelly
How much more training do you think they'd need?
How would the cost square with the result?
Respectfully,
jdkelly
Langenator
Member
We try to add more training on the basic (very, very basic) react to contact battle drill at squad level. The biggest contraints are time available in the training calendar-you can only stuff so much into 9 weeks-and availalbe drill sergeants (12 per company of up to 240 privates). We could have longer training days and train seven days a week, but the drill sergeants will burn out rather quick doing that.
If I could do anything I wanted to better train marksmanship and basic weapons handling, I'd add a week to the training cycle, and fill most of it with range time. To save money, I'd use the .22LR magazine and bolt assembly adapters that are available for the M-16/M-4. You get target feedback, something that makes a decent bang, and experience using the rifle, for lower cost that firing 5.56, once you've paid for the adapter kits.
Proposals have been sent to Dept. of the Army (I wish we could change that name back to the War Department) on upgrading the POI. Decisions should come down by the end of the year.
If I could do anything I wanted to better train marksmanship and basic weapons handling, I'd add a week to the training cycle, and fill most of it with range time. To save money, I'd use the .22LR magazine and bolt assembly adapters that are available for the M-16/M-4. You get target feedback, something that makes a decent bang, and experience using the rifle, for lower cost that firing 5.56, once you've paid for the adapter kits.
Proposals have been sent to Dept. of the Army (I wish we could change that name back to the War Department) on upgrading the POI. Decisions should come down by the end of the year.
jdkelly:
Good questions to ask, since every dollar spent on marksmanship is a dollar taken from the taxpayer by force (or threat of force).
In general terms, I want what I'm paying for: a military that is good at killing the enemy & breaking his stuff. I am not particularly interested in properly filled-out forms, sensitivity training, AIDS awareness, or if SPC Snuffy is in 100% compliance with AR pickyouanumber-whatever.
To that end, I want every member capable of killing the enemy, and not just by drowning him in regulations. With a weapon. All other jobs are secondary.
*****
How much weapons training is necessary?
Enough so that any soldier (be he infantryman, cook, IT support, or arty) can shoot at--and hit--an enemy combatant at reasonable distances with a reasonable chance of success. Also, enough training so that weapons-handling is second nature and the incidents of NDs & other similar safety violations are at least as low as those found in the CCW-ing and/or IDPA/IPSC-ing public.
I don't think that is too much to ask. Remember, IDPA-ers & IPSC-ers generally have to pay their own way...and rich most ain't. Given a bit more budget for ammunition, range time, and qualified instructors; this is quite do-able.
You can debate what is "reasonable." Range? 300-500m with a rifle/carbine. Probability of hit at the extreme end of "reasonable" range? Phit of .25 to .5 for man-sized stationary target is not unreasonable, IMO, with current equipment. Phit of ~.1 for moving/smaller-than-man-sized might be pushing it, but should be considered do-able.
How would the cost square with the result?
Well, I suspect that irregular troops would be less successful when ambushing service & support troops on convoy. More of our boys go home alive, more of THEM take a dirt nap, and perhaps dissuade others from trying the same.
I would not restrict this new training regimen to only support troops. Line troops get more QUALITY trigger time. The boys on the sharp end of the spear become more effective, with predictable results.
Oh, & fewer embarassing NDs.
Looking back to when I was in Army Basic as a draftee in 1966 for eight weeks, IMHO, we spent too much time on useless stuff like Drill & Cermonies, bayonet drill, KP, all day details and a lot of useless hiking around. In fact, the last week was spent scraping and painting the Company buildings because an inspection was coming. I managed to duck out that detail.
What, I am going to fight the VC and NVA with a paint brush!
I do not consider that serious war fighting training considering duty in Vietnam often meant there was no rear area. Fortunately, I ended up in Germany with a real cushy job any civilian could have done. Pure luck.
And this was at the height of the big build up in Vietnam were they were drafting 50,000 guys a month.
I hope the Army mentality has changed a lot since then.
What, I am going to fight the VC and NVA with a paint brush!
I do not consider that serious war fighting training considering duty in Vietnam often meant there was no rear area. Fortunately, I ended up in Germany with a real cushy job any civilian could have done. Pure luck.
And this was at the height of the big build up in Vietnam were they were drafting 50,000 guys a month.
I hope the Army mentality has changed a lot since then.
Langenator:
I was cognizant enough of what was going on around me to notice that the Drill Sergeants were some hard-working muldoons, for the most part. I lucked out, especially in comparison to some other platoons. One had spent time in the Rangers and was a veteran of Gulf1, the other was a veteran of Panama. Both very squared away & knowledgeable...and willing to train beyond the Basic & AIT curriculum. And considering the regs, paperwork, and other choice burdens they had to put up with...
That being said, there was so much time wasted in Basic & AIT on Bravo Sierra tasks that did nothing to make better soldiers. The fifth or sixth time cleaning a toilet so thoroughly I would not hesitate to crack open a tin of Kool-Aid, pour it in, and take a long, satisfying swig...I think I got THAT particular skill nailed. Instead of cleaning it the 7th-56th time, how 'bout we go on out to the moving target range or maybe McKenna MOUT?
Perhaps if our Army trained warriors, rather than snappily-dressed janitors, we might see better performance.
I was cognizant enough of what was going on around me to notice that the Drill Sergeants were some hard-working muldoons, for the most part. I lucked out, especially in comparison to some other platoons. One had spent time in the Rangers and was a veteran of Gulf1, the other was a veteran of Panama. Both very squared away & knowledgeable...and willing to train beyond the Basic & AIT curriculum. And considering the regs, paperwork, and other choice burdens they had to put up with...
That being said, there was so much time wasted in Basic & AIT on Bravo Sierra tasks that did nothing to make better soldiers. The fifth or sixth time cleaning a toilet so thoroughly I would not hesitate to crack open a tin of Kool-Aid, pour it in, and take a long, satisfying swig...I think I got THAT particular skill nailed. Instead of cleaning it the 7th-56th time, how 'bout we go on out to the moving target range or maybe McKenna MOUT?
Perhaps if our Army trained warriors, rather than snappily-dressed janitors, we might see better performance.
jdkelly
Member
Sounds good so far!
I think what we have is:
1) Increase the amount of weapons training by increasing the duratuion of basic training and cutting out the bs details.
2) Increase the max. distance (from 300 m to 500m) required in weapons training and the minimum score to pass weapons training in basic.
I don't think that's enough.
When I was active, just after Vietnam (in the safe years) many troops had a very difficult time meeting the minimun weapons requirements. I remember being made to shoot "Night Fire" for guys who needed do well to pass.
What about keeping their skills after basic, how much time during the year would a desk jockey need to keep his skills up?
By "How would the cost square with the result", I meant with a fixed budget, like what would you give up to get what you want.
Another thought is, what would this new filter (higher standards) do to
the staffing process? What condition is the recruiting process now?
Respectfully,
jdkelly
I think what we have is:
1) Increase the amount of weapons training by increasing the duratuion of basic training and cutting out the bs details.
2) Increase the max. distance (from 300 m to 500m) required in weapons training and the minimum score to pass weapons training in basic.
I don't think that's enough.
When I was active, just after Vietnam (in the safe years) many troops had a very difficult time meeting the minimun weapons requirements. I remember being made to shoot "Night Fire" for guys who needed do well to pass.
What about keeping their skills after basic, how much time during the year would a desk jockey need to keep his skills up?
By "How would the cost square with the result", I meant with a fixed budget, like what would you give up to get what you want.
Another thought is, what would this new filter (higher standards) do to
the staffing process? What condition is the recruiting process now?
Respectfully,
jdkelly
ARGarrison
Member
It truely respect the Marine Idea, "Every Marine is a Marine rifleman." But the army needs to look long and hard at changes being made. Bacic Rilfe Marksmanship is just a drop in a very empty bucket. One of the main failings is to run 'tac lanes' with equipment. Meaning the average Infantryman goes through tac lanes on foot, but those same skills need to be parcticed and worked out in a vehicle, convoy and so forth. One of the failings of the 507th maintaince was once a vehicle was hit they stopped. They then tried to defend a stopped convoy in the kill zone, instead of withdrawing, adavncing through or attacking, they sat and defended.
Another over looked area of training is the hands on with crew served weapons. The Marines have a 3 week after Boot to train on such weapon systems. Female Marines actually have a week longer boot than men and thay get an abriviated version of the mens 3 week program in that week. I'm not saying every soilder need to be able to drive tank and fire a howitzer, but they should be able to man a fifty if the machinegunner gets hit.
Another over looked area of training is the hands on with crew served weapons. The Marines have a 3 week after Boot to train on such weapon systems. Female Marines actually have a week longer boot than men and thay get an abriviated version of the mens 3 week program in that week. I'm not saying every soilder need to be able to drive tank and fire a howitzer, but they should be able to man a fifty if the machinegunner gets hit.
Langenator
Member
I don't think you need to increase the max engagement range on rifle qualification. Longer range firefights are still somewhat frequent in Afghanistan, but the fights in Iraq are mostly at 200m or less-usually a lot less-inside 100m. That's why we added the 15m and 25m quickfire.
I've got no objection to increasing the minimum qualifying score (currently 23 of 40 targets on the 50-300m pop-up range.) I'd also love to see more training on firing from the kneeling and standing positions, at opo-up targets in an urban setting (instead of the woods we now use.) Kind of like a Hogans Alley, except the shooter doesn't walk down the lane. This allows a multi-lane range without worry about shooters hitting each other.
As for perishability, if I were the HMFIC, I'd make rifle qual at least a semi-annual requirement for every soldier, if not quarterly. Currently, the infantry quals every 6 months, everyone else annually.
I've got no objection to increasing the minimum qualifying score (currently 23 of 40 targets on the 50-300m pop-up range.) I'd also love to see more training on firing from the kneeling and standing positions, at opo-up targets in an urban setting (instead of the woods we now use.) Kind of like a Hogans Alley, except the shooter doesn't walk down the lane. This allows a multi-lane range without worry about shooters hitting each other.
As for perishability, if I were the HMFIC, I'd make rifle qual at least a semi-annual requirement for every soldier, if not quarterly. Currently, the infantry quals every 6 months, everyone else annually.
You guys think the army has it bad?
Take training times for the army and divide by two!
I only 'have' to qualify every two years. And that translates to me shooting only every two years or so (sooner if I'm deploying, later if I'm not) at the military range.
Makes me want to buy an AR-15 to practice on my own, but I want all the evil features that drive the price up. And I'd want it to be in a more powerful caliber, such as the 6.5/6.8 maybe. That and they tend to strike my cheap self as expensive, seeing as how I tend to spend less than $400 for my long arms.
Take training times for the army and divide by two!
I only 'have' to qualify every two years. And that translates to me shooting only every two years or so (sooner if I'm deploying, later if I'm not) at the military range.
Makes me want to buy an AR-15 to practice on my own, but I want all the evil features that drive the price up. And I'd want it to be in a more powerful caliber, such as the 6.5/6.8 maybe. That and they tend to strike my cheap self as expensive, seeing as how I tend to spend less than $400 for my long arms.
13A
Member
More sustainment training is also important and the Army is doing that. Soldiers in tactical units qualify once a year. They only fire about 50 rounds. Soldiers who are not in tactical units may never see a weapon until they leave the unit.
Fort Sill, OK has created a fairly realistic range where soldiers fire at targets from moving vehicles. Dry run, blanks, then real ammo.
Realistic sustainment training is happening and will help.
Why it takes a war to make this happen is beyond me.
Fort Sill, OK has created a fairly realistic range where soldiers fire at targets from moving vehicles. Dry run, blanks, then real ammo.
Realistic sustainment training is happening and will help.
Why it takes a war to make this happen is beyond me.
carebear
Member
A "drive-by shooting" range?
Need to get one of them set up here in town. You'd make millions of the wanna-be gangsta's alone!
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Actually, it IS a CLIP in the same way that a dog is a dog in the common language and a canine only amongst erudite highfalutin folks.
Were you aware that the makers of Marlin Firearms have been calling their removable magazines 'clips' for decades?
UnknownSailor
Member
In my just-over-10 years in the Navy, I haven't ever have to qualify with a firearm. I have shot on the government's dime, but I can count the number of times I have done that on one hand.
And I've been to the Gulf three times.
And I've been to the Gulf three times.
.....and Marlin has been wrong for decades, along with a slew of others....
Which brings me to a point. People complain a bunch about what they see as relatively unimportant issues and training points - I think a couple have mentioned drill as an example. I beg to differ - drill teaches subordination of the individual to the group, immediate compliance with directions, teamwork, motor skills, physical discipline, esprit, and on and on. Cultural training is a reflection of the current society here and abroad. Paperwork and regs? A bureaucracy like the US military needs it in order to survive. Somebody doesnt fill out the correct form correctly and units dont eat, or get tampons like the ones at a drugstore instead of tampons like for a field artillery piece. Maybe we need to increase the training on the UCMJ and Articles of War, given our performance at Abu Ghraib. Scraping paint is no fun? Absolutely not, but discipline in small areas like apearance translates into discipline in larger areas, like combat. It is complacency, lack of precision and lack of attention to detail that gets LEOs killed, which is exactly what picking up every leaf on the parade ground drills out of people, I'd guess it would translate the same to the military.
It is easy to want more training. What is less easy is prioritizing resources so that everybody gets what they need, versus a few getting what they want. I also wont speak for the Army or Marines, but good courses of fire and qualifications are statistically validated as being representative of the most likely skill that the average person would need to perform on an average basis. Setting high standards is good, but they can be set too high. Expecting everyone to meet AMU standards is unrealistic, that's why specialized units are small and just that-special. Another problem is what is to be done with the remedials or failures? Attrition is expected and failure can be an exellent teaching tool, but if a unit goes from 90% qualified to 50% or even 80%, it can represent a huge problem in readiness and retraining. Now you have to take bullets and instructors from somebody else to perform remedial training and soon cycles and evolutions grind to a halt.
Which brings me to a point. People complain a bunch about what they see as relatively unimportant issues and training points - I think a couple have mentioned drill as an example. I beg to differ - drill teaches subordination of the individual to the group, immediate compliance with directions, teamwork, motor skills, physical discipline, esprit, and on and on. Cultural training is a reflection of the current society here and abroad. Paperwork and regs? A bureaucracy like the US military needs it in order to survive. Somebody doesnt fill out the correct form correctly and units dont eat, or get tampons like the ones at a drugstore instead of tampons like for a field artillery piece. Maybe we need to increase the training on the UCMJ and Articles of War, given our performance at Abu Ghraib. Scraping paint is no fun? Absolutely not, but discipline in small areas like apearance translates into discipline in larger areas, like combat. It is complacency, lack of precision and lack of attention to detail that gets LEOs killed, which is exactly what picking up every leaf on the parade ground drills out of people, I'd guess it would translate the same to the military.
It is easy to want more training. What is less easy is prioritizing resources so that everybody gets what they need, versus a few getting what they want. I also wont speak for the Army or Marines, but good courses of fire and qualifications are statistically validated as being representative of the most likely skill that the average person would need to perform on an average basis. Setting high standards is good, but they can be set too high. Expecting everyone to meet AMU standards is unrealistic, that's why specialized units are small and just that-special. Another problem is what is to be done with the remedials or failures? Attrition is expected and failure can be an exellent teaching tool, but if a unit goes from 90% qualified to 50% or even 80%, it can represent a huge problem in readiness and retraining. Now you have to take bullets and instructors from somebody else to perform remedial training and soon cycles and evolutions grind to a halt.
jdkelly
Member
Sendec, good post!
sendec,
Good post! I think what you are saying is that what was perceived a BS is indeed important. The Military is already training it's troops to the extent to which they need to be trained given their function, and "Every Solider a Rifle Man" is not an efficient use of funds.
Please, shape my thoughts if I'm wrong.
Three questions:
1) What is a tampon for a field artillery piece?
2) What are AMU standards.
3) Is the Army moving in the wrong direction with it's new training. or is it the people of this thread that is wrong?
Respectfully,
jdkelly
sendec,
Good post! I think what you are saying is that what was perceived a BS is indeed important. The Military is already training it's troops to the extent to which they need to be trained given their function, and "Every Solider a Rifle Man" is not an efficient use of funds.
Please, shape my thoughts if I'm wrong.
Three questions:
1) What is a tampon for a field artillery piece?
2) What are AMU standards.
3) Is the Army moving in the wrong direction with it's new training. or is it the people of this thread that is wrong?
Respectfully,
jdkelly
Sorry,
A tampon is literally a muzzle cover to keep foreign objects out of the bore of the piece. Technically, that little orange thingamabob that S&W ships in the chamber of their autopistols is a tampon also.
AMU standards was a reference to the Army Marksmanship (Training) Unit. As I understand their mission they are responsible for competitive shooting and the refining of marksmanship training methods. They are for all intents and purposes professional shooters and gunsmiths and are the Army's best. I believe they have a webpage, but I cannot find the URL. I am not certain, but I'll bet some of them will be in Athens supporting the US shooting team (if not on it), and maybe doing other things that wont be on TV
I would'nt begin to think I could say that the Army or other posters were wrong. I believe that everyone who posted to this thread is well intentioned, but there are a lot of complexities that sometimes are'nt always visible.
Please note that I am not a member of the Armed Forces and will gratefully acknowledge any corrections from people better placed than I.
A tampon is literally a muzzle cover to keep foreign objects out of the bore of the piece. Technically, that little orange thingamabob that S&W ships in the chamber of their autopistols is a tampon also.
AMU standards was a reference to the Army Marksmanship (Training) Unit. As I understand their mission they are responsible for competitive shooting and the refining of marksmanship training methods. They are for all intents and purposes professional shooters and gunsmiths and are the Army's best. I believe they have a webpage, but I cannot find the URL. I am not certain, but I'll bet some of them will be in Athens supporting the US shooting team (if not on it), and maybe doing other things that wont be on TV
I would'nt begin to think I could say that the Army or other posters were wrong. I believe that everyone who posted to this thread is well intentioned, but there are a lot of complexities that sometimes are'nt always visible.
Please note that I am not a member of the Armed Forces and will gratefully acknowledge any corrections from people better placed than I.
daniel (australia)
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 338
Tampon is a French word meaning "plug". Stops stuff getting in, or out
Rob62
Member
I wonder what classes were removed from the POI so that these expanded firearms and tactics classes could be taught? (Customs and Courtesies, AER, Army history, and the list goes on and on)
No need to worry. In a few years all these "new" classes will once again removed for the current out of vouge lessons.......and the circle will once again be complete.
Rob
No need to worry. In a few years all these "new" classes will once again removed for the current out of vouge lessons.......and the circle will once again be complete.
Rob
- Status
