ARMY testing new BRM/QUAL Course

[Sniper3142]

While I believe this could help the ARMY shooting program, it is still far behind what the Marine Corps teaches.



And the phrase One Shot, One Kill is attributed to Carlos Hatchcock, the famous Marine Sniper.



Basic Marksmanship is just that... basic.

Trigger control... natural point of aim... sight alignment... breathing control... building a bone bridge. These are some of the fundamental aspects of good marksmanship.

[Matt C]

We NEED to return to the KD range and big bullseye targets.

Negative! The reason we switched to the current targets is it was found that less than half of soldiers actually fired their weapons at the enemy during combat, the resistance to killing another human being was to strong to overcome for most people, even soldiers under fire. Shooting at the "realistic targets improved this ratio a great deal. It does not matter how good of a shot you are if you won't shoot the enemy. Switching back would be a horrible idea and will not happen. IMHO Marines are....different.

[Maton]

sounds like the cover course we run the trainee's through.

trainee(while shooting behind wheel well for cover at steel): Sir, I hit it, you saw me hit it right? (target still up)

me: HE'S ON DOPE!!! HIT HIM AGAIN TILL HE GOES DOWN!!!! NOT EVERYONE IS GONNA GO DOWN WITH ONE SHOT!!!(not yelling at him....raising my voice because it is hard to hear through that double ear protection)

trainee: YES SIR!!!

good times goin on here boys and girls, anyone wanna join the BP? Lemme know im also a recruiter, you get to shoot fully automatic m-4's!!! The full auto mode is used in every m4 qualification as well!!!

[resistor]

If nothing else, the Army ought to train BRM like the USMC does.

[Crazed_SS]

If nothing else, the Army ought to train BRM like the USMC does.

They ought to, but there's a reason the Marines are the Marines

[Army]

Negative! The reason we switched to the current targets is it was found that less than half of soldiers actually fired their weapons at the enemy during combat, the resistance to killing another human being was to strong to overcome for most people, even soldiers under fire. Shooting at the "realistic targets improved this ratio a great deal. It does not matter how good of a shot you are if you won't shoot the enemy. Switching back would be a horrible idea and will not happen. IMHO Marines are....different.

I can only conclude that you did not read my entire post. If the Soldier cannot hit at any distance, what is the use of shooting at all?

The KD range teaches the PRINCIPLES of basic marksmanship. If the shooter cannot dope the wind, has no idea what hold-over or under is, is not skilled in adjusting his sights for various distance, has never heard of Kentucky or its attendant windage, what good are cute little plastic Ivans popping into view?

Had you read my post, you would see that I do not condemn combat action training, I actually encourage it considering our latest combat climate. But I do advocate, and will continue to encourage command to revamp BRM back to the KD range and BASIC MARKSMANSHIP SKILLS....without which, a rifle is just a noise maker.

To imply that the Army won't kill because of the perceived reality difference between a bullseye and a plastic Ivan, and generations of Marines are all wrong because they are "different", is assinine at best.

You stated it, so please bring forth any official statement why we went to pop-ups due to the reluctance of Soldiers to kill, because they trained on the KD range. And I will give you millions of GI's....and gawd-dam Marines.... from two world wars, Korea, and Vietnam, that had no trouble killing the enemy, despite learning how to shoot correctly at the KD range.

Man, I never realized FUD could reach this far.

[Suvorov]

You stated it, so please bring forth any official statement why we went to pop-ups due to the reluctance of Soldiers to kill, because they trained on the KD range. And I will give you millions of GI's....and gawd-dam Marines.... from two world wars, Korea, and Vietnam, that had no trouble killing the enemy, despite learning how to shoot correctly at the KD range.

Man, I never realized FUD could reach this far.

OK, why don't you check out the book "On Killing" by Lt. Col. David Grossman before crying FUD. Col. Grossman was one of my instructors and is one of the most dynamic officers I have ever served under. In his book, he DETAILS the studies that the Army made following WWII which stated primarily what has been said on this thread, that only about 25% of soldiers had a "killer" mentality and placed well aimed fire at enemy soldiers. "Quick Kill" and human silhouette targets were adopted primarily for the reason to train soldiers to fire their weapons reactively. Follow on studies were also done during Korea and Vietnam and what these studies show is that the number of soldiers who fired their weapons at enemy soldiers increased to almost 100% in Vietnam. The weapons trainer is now a extension of this philosophy. The mindset being that accuracy takes a back seat to a killer mentality. The will (or trained reaction) to shoot an enemy is more important than the ability to judge wind and distance and hit a bullseye at 600 meters. One only has to look at the success rate of untrained criminals against trained police officers to see that this concept has some merit.

Now, I WONT DISAGREE with you one bit that in the ideal world, all soldiers would become competent on the KD range before moved over the the reactive targets. Accuracy would improve as would the soldiers ability to qualify successfully on the pop up targets. But as you are a soldier you know that training time and resources are limited an the Army is always looking for the cheapest way to mark a soldier as a go. I could go on for hours and days about the number of times I put together an in depth marksmanship program for my units only to be told to get the soldiers qualified as quick as possible and on to their next task. The current BRM doctrine was put together when the war of the future was to be fought Tank to Tank and not house to house. Individual rifle accuracy was deemed less important that soldiers ability to operate their primary weapons system. Now, this attitude is shifting in response to the current war on terror.

When I get home, I'll be happy to give you all the references you need to support what you are arguing against. As a soldier (and I assume leader) in today's Army, you are a product of this and it would be interesting reading for you.

[Army]

And the rate of rounds fired per kill went UP expotentially, from a few thousand per in WWII, to over 100,000 per in Vietnam. Reason? Soldiers weren't hitting what they were "killer trained" to. "Quick Kill/Fire, or "Flash fire" did not produce marksman, only bullet shooters with their muzzles in the general direction of the enemy.

Example: My BRM at Ft Dix was on the KD range for a week before we qual'd on the pop-ups. Not surprising, the majority of my platoon (A-2/26INF) hit expert or very high marksman. The platoon from another Company that did NOT go to the KD range, rated not one expert, and many had to remedial shoot.

I'm not bagging on the COL., but his study failed to take into account that only 25% of HUMANS have the "killer instinct". The Army study simply reflected that. I'll bet you could only find 25% of Marines, or Cops, or even criminals that have the mental ability to kill without remorse or question.

The facts boil down to: Soldiers, Sailer, Marines, and Airmen are not hitting becasue they do not know the dynamics of their weapon, nor their own true ability. The KD range teaches and supports shooting skills, inherent marksmanship, and confidence. All else is situational combat training.

I think we are talking about the same thing, but while I emphasize marksmanship, you tout bullets downrange.

[Suvorov]

I think we are talking about the same thing, but while I emphasize marksmanship, you tout bullets downrange.

You are totally misunderstanding me here! Frankly I did everything in my power and more to improve the marksmanship of the guys in my unit! I spent many years associated with my states marksmanship teams. But the realities are that given the METL of a Armor battalion, there just isn't enough time nor resource to turn everyone one of my tankers into a Gunny Hathcock. On top of that, most senior officers and NCOs don't see the need. I didn't make the study nor was I the one who had the Army give up the KD range (not that old dude), I'm just pointing out to you the rational for it. You called FUD and demanded evidence, as promised here it is: the report (a big AAR if you will) was done by General S.L.A Marshal and his findings were also published in the book "Men Against Fire."

The war against terror has hopefully woken the Army up to the fact that well trained Marksmen are still needed and the development of the DSM is proof. Any increased emphasis on marksmanship training is certainly going to be welcome.

Pick up the Colonel's book and read it, it would be good professional development and help you mold your soldier.

[Matt C]

I can only conclude that you did not read my entire post. If the Soldier cannot hit at any distance, what is the use of shooting at all?

I could say the same, what is the use of a soldier that can hit at any distance but will not fire? I think pop-up targets work for teaching soldiers how to be accurate, probably not as accurate as with a bullseye target, but overall they will score more hits due to better reaction.

The KD range teaches the PRINCIPLES of basic marksmanship. If the shooter cannot dope the wind, has no idea what hold-over or under is, is not skilled in adjusting his sights for various distance, has never heard of Kentucky or its attendant windage, what good are cute little plastic Ivans popping into view?

Are you saying it's impossible to teach soldiers these skills unless you are using a bullseye target? BS. If that was true how did you learn? How did I? My DSs and NCOs did just fine. My skills have improved greatly from private training, and I agree that the army could improve it's training by taking a look at what places like front sight teach, but I knew how to shoot before I was ever deployed.

Had you read my post, you would see that I do not condemn combat action training, I actually encourage it considering our latest combat climate. But I do advocate, and will continue to encourage command to revamp BRM back to the KD range and BASIC MARKSMANSHIP SKILLS....without which, a rifle is just a noise maker.

I think most of the guys in my BCT(OSUT) unit could shoot after BRM. To say that they could not because of BRM not teaching basic marksmanship skills is just BS and offensive.

To imply that the Army won't kill because of the perceived reality difference between a bullseye and a plastic Ivan, and generations of Marines are all wrong because they are "different", is assinine at best.

It's also true. Marines undergo a mental conditioning which is simply different from what a soldier goes through in basic. And as Suvorov already pointed out, there is a large difference is soldiers being willing to kill after training with am Ivan vs. a bullseye target. Fact.

You stated it, so please bring forth any official statement why we went to pop-ups due to the reluctance of Soldiers to kill, because they trained on the KD range. And I will give you millions of GI's....and gawd-dam Marines.... from two world wars, Korea, and Vietnam, that had no trouble killing the enemy, despite learning how to shoot correctly at the KD range.

Man, I never realized FUD could reach this far.

Ironically you are the one spreading the FUD.

[Matt C]

And the rate of rounds fired per kill went UP expotentially, from a few thousand per in WWII, to over 100,000 per in Vietnam. Reason? Soldiers weren't hitting what they were "killer trained" to. "Quick Kill/Fire, or "Flash fire" did not produce marksman, only bullet shooters with their muzzles in the general direction of the enemy.

I'm sure that jump had nothing to do with switching from the Garand to the M16....

[Uxi]

There's a difference between marksmanship and combat training. The former is essential to be well trained in the latter IMO.

[Army]

I'm sure that jump had nothing to do with switching from the Garand to the M16....

It had all to do with the level of marksmanship training. Soldiers were NOT taught to use full auto for dire reasons only, instead they were allowed and encouraged to spray and pray. "Quick Fire" was the new shooting technique for the futuristic M16.....quick fire doesn't even use the sights.

Many WWII Soldiers loved the fact that they could pump out 8 rounds as quick as they could whack the trigger, and wasted a lot of ammo that way. BUT, every WWII Soldier was trained on the KD range to know what his rifle will do at known combat ranges. There was minimum combat style training developed other than fire and manuever, so every Soldier first learned to shoot and learned the mechanics of his rifle. My Dad can still break down a Garand, 65 years after the last time he ever held one (took him to the range for his 90th Birthday). I've got new Soldiers in my Company, that are clueless in field stripping their M16's....but they know all about sexual harassment.

When was the last time you witnessed actual machine gun quals done by the book? Use of T&E? Beaten zone explained? Defilade fire? Plunging fire? Sweeping fire? Nope, it's put holes in that paper and you are now a machinegunner. When was the last time a true PMI was attended by all shooters? Did it take a full day of training? I bet no. How about zeroing, did anybody fully explain the fundementals of mechanical and battle zeros? I bet no. Or did command simply pile everyone in trucks to the range, line them up to zero, expected them to know without training them to do so to set their rear sight one click forward, then waited and waited for those 3-5 guys that just can't hit the circle to finally shoot enough rounds to finally put enough bullets into the circle...by chance, not design. Then all trundle off to the pop-up range to wonder where their rounds are going and why the targets are not falling.

Lack of training? Absolutely. Due to lack of time? BS. I make my people have time, and none lack for basic weapons skills.

Once more: Combat skills training is needed, no doubt about it, and I encourage all the Soldier can get. But BRM at the KD range, with the attendant training on the mechanics of their rifle, is more sorely needed now than ever. To say the KD range is not needed today because now we shoot over walls, is foolish.

BTW SLA Marshall never liked a study he didn't do.

[Uxi]

IIRC there was a study that many shooters in WW2 missed on purpose when faced with the dillema of killing another human being. It's why our modern training stresses the pop-up, shoot, reflex... so it becomes a reflex action-reaction.

Machine guns. Mmm... count your tracers for that good killing burst. Course, in general the army guys just don't get enough time or discipline in either basic or their MOS schooling and too much is dependent on the soldier making it up in his unit, according to their SOP.

A Marine Tanker will do 39-40 weeks of training (13 week basic at SD or PI, 3 week small arms/hand to hand at Lejeune or Pendleton, and a 13 week tank school at Knox). Army Tanker gets his 8 week basic and 5 week AIT... There's no way he's half as well trained by the end of that... There are similar disparities for Infantry.

[11Z50]

[/QUOTE]A Marine Tanker will do 39-40 weeks of training (13 week basic at SD or PI, 3 week small arms/hand to hand at Lejeune or Pendleton, and a 13 week tank school at Knox). Army Tanker gets his 8 week basic and 5 week AIT... There's no way he's half as well trained by the end of that... There are similar disparities for Infantry.[/QUOTE]

The idea in Army training doctrine is not that you attend XX-weeks in training to become a Marine and you are done. As a former Army trainer, I helped plan and execute training at the unit (Platoon/Company/Battalion) level for many years. Basic and AIT just get a soldier to his unit. Especially in Armor, Artillery and Infantry. Once the soldier arrives, he is continually trained until he leaves the Army. In each branch of the combat arms, there are different types of units. While one may graduate AIT as an Infantryman, he may be assigned to airborne, Ranger, light, Bradley, or Stryker unit. He will be trained continuously on his weapon systems and tactics as long as he is in that unit. If he transfered, he will train on the weapons and equipment in the new unit. Training even continues in combat. My last gig with the Army was tranining mech infantry on the Kuwait/Iraq border as they went into combat. You see, in the Army, training and combat are both types of operations.

So, what I'm saying here is that yes, it is not true that a soldier fresh out of AIT is a fully-trained soldier. He is much like a kid out of high school that goes on to college. Even Marines are not fully trained when they arrive at their unit. Training continues there as well. The difference is Army Infantry is way more diverse and has much more and different weapons and equipment. This requires more specialized training at the unit level. An Army Infantryman with the same 40 weeks in the Army is at a very similar proficiency level as his Marine Comrade.