Is personal marksmanship a limiting factor in combat effectiveness?

[Dennis Lam]

I was reading through the Virginia Tech shooting thread in the FFZ and it made me wonder. Would the troops of well-trained, industrialized nations be more effective in combat if their shooting accuracy increased? In Iraq, for example, were there situations where improved marksmanship could have changed the outcome of a combat engagement? I have always assumed that between the fire support available to U.S. troops, saturation of small-arms fire, and poor training of the opposing forces, individual firearms proficiency is no longer as important as it was in, say, WWII. But if there's room for improvement...

[EchoFiveMike]

I was reading through the Virginia Tech shooting thread in the FFZ and it made me wonder. Would the troops of well-trained, industrialized nations be more effective in combat if their shooting accuracy increased? In Iraq, for example, were there situations where improved marksmanship could have changed the outcome of a combat engagement? I have always assumed that between the fire support available to U.S. troops, saturation of small-arms fire, and poor training of the opposing forces, individual firearms proficiency is no longer as important as it was in, say, WWII. But if there's room for improvement...

 

You should not assume. Given the fact that killing civvies needlessly is counterproductive, marksmanship is more important now than it has ever been.

 

BTW, your comments that I bolded made me want to yell at the monitor. S/F....Ken M

[Colin]

In every war modern western armies are actually getting better firing less rounds with more hits.

[Guest pfcem]

Absolutely good marksmanship will increase your combat effectiveness.

 

It is even more important when relying on the unreliable/inconsistant 5.56mm. Too often just hitting the bad guy is not enough. You have to hit him multiple times & at least 1 or 2 of those hits had better be in a spot to actually do some killing/incapacitating damage.

 

One of the reasons why we have taken such comparatively little losses ourselves is because of the poor marksmanship of the enemy.

 

And Ken is correct about Fire Support. Too often Fire Support in Iraq has been TOW or Javelin & they ain't been used against tanks.

[Sardaukar]

In every war modern western armies are actually getting better firing less rounds with more hits.

 

Most likely because of advanced and widespread optics than better training, I think. I have heard "old school" people in UK to say that personal marksmanship went downhill with SA80... At start people got better because they were taught with SLR before. Donno if that was true ?

[Sardaukar]

Absolutely good marksmanship will increase your combat effectiveness.

 

It is even more important when relying on the unreliable/inconsistant 5.56mm. Too often just hitting the bad guy is not enough. You have to hit him multiple times & at least 1 or 2 of those hits had better be in a spot to actually do some killing/incapacitating damage.

 

One of the reasons why we have taken such comparatively little losses ourselves is because of the poor marksmanship of the enemy.

 

And Ken is correct about Fire Support. Too often Fire Support in Iraq has been TOW or Javelin & they ain't been used against tanks.

 

Soviets found out about importance of good marksmanship in Afghanistan because their riflemen were not taught to be very proficient marksmen.

[Chris Werb]

In every war modern western armies are actually getting better firing less rounds with more hits.

 

Depends where 'modern' starts. Have a look at the diagram on page 10 of this document:

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/l...bs/00318644.pdf

[Matt L.]

Yes it counts, but keep in mind that combat marksmanship is not the same as firing range marksmanship. Firing quickly, both in terms of the first shot and follow up shots is very important. If I am 20% accurate per bullet and you are 50% accurate, but I fire 20 times and you shoot only twice in the same time, I have more than twice your firepower. More than twice because those 16 shots that missed have far more suppressive effect than the one bullet you shot that missed. There's 16 chances I might hit someone else with you, and 16 chances I might get close enough to scare them into putting their head down.

 

Of course, running into the middle of the street and firing in the general direction of the enemy is a waste of ammo, and will get you a trip to your heaven of choice sooner rather than later.

 

Admittedly, things are more complicated with the policing type roles that we fight in. In my scenario there's also 16 extra chances to hit the neighbor's kid while he's playing in the house.

 

Matt

[Sardaukar]

Indeed. Supressive effect of rounds that are coming even close is often overlooked. And that's not in praise of "spray & pray"...

Edited May 3, 2007 by Sardaukar

[superfractal]

Most likely because of advanced and widespread optics than better training, I think. I have heard "old school" people in UK to say that personal marksmanship went downhill with SA80... At start people got better because they were taught with SLR before. Donno if that was true ?

 

Realy? the SA80 beat the SLR in the British army markmanship score's, apparently they had to raise the standard because of it!

x

A friend of mine's grandad used the enfield and then the SLR and thought the SLR was to use a qoute "total rubbish!" baring in mind i dont know anyone that has used a SA80a1/a2 and a SLR so its hard to say how much of it is i prefer what i used!.

[Paul in Qatar]

Training for marksmanship is critical, difficult and time-consuming task. There is simply a lot to it.

 

First off is familiarization. WWII lessons learned included the importance of every soldier being able to fire every weapon in the company. We (the US Army) have forgotten that (at least at the Basic Combat Training level) and focused only on the service rifle. Then we come to the ability to hit targets of any sort (mechanical and BMT). After that the targets ought to be farther (and closer too) and more fleeting. Musketry (as massed fire of a unit was once called) is another skill that we hardly teach at all.

 

The US Army does not(or at least when I was in did not) teach weak-hand firing, non-supported firing or firing from a vehicle. All of these are important skills, and even more importantly, increase self-confidence.

 

We need training that breaks some of the bad habits rifle-range shooting instills. Soldiers must be trained to shoot quickly and well at multiple targets. Delay in getting a perfect shot can be deadly. Of course since we are now neck-deep in a counterinsurgency, we ought to include some sort of training in not shooting non-targets. Perhaps those city-street ranges the police use could be a model.

 

While perhaps the only important thing, marksmanship is a very important thing.

[Sardaukar]

Realy? the SA80 beat the SLR in the British army markmanship score's, apparently they had to raise the standard because of it!

x

A friend of mine's grandad used the enfield and then the SLR and thought the SLR was to use a qoute "total rubbish!" baring in mind i dont know anyone that has used a SA80a1/a2 and a SLR so its hard to say how much of it is i prefer what i used!.

 

Claim was that while SA80 increased the proficiency for troops trained with "old school shooting/SLR", later when troops started their training with "only SA80", scores started to decline. Might just be grumpy old guys... :lol

[konev]

Comparing modern weaponry, it would be interesting to see what the grand-dad of all assault rifles does compared to the weapons of today, both in range marksmenship and combat marksmenship.

 

The grand-dad....the Sturmgewehr 44.

 

konev

[Yama]

Comparing modern weaponry, it would be interesting to see what the grand-dad of all assault rifles does compared to the weapons of today, both in range marksmenship and combat marksmenship.

 

The grand-dad....the Sturmgewehr 44.

 

I recall one guy claiming that he once used one in an IPSC match. Apparently it has recoil than AK-47 making shooting doubles easier, though the ammo is also weaker.

[Enrage]

The US Army does not(or at least when I was in did not) teach weak-hand firing, non-supported firing or firing from a vehicle. All of these are important skills, and even more importantly, increase self-confidence.

 

Convoy live-fire is not a required part of Basic Training.

 

The new Rifle qualification consists of 20 rounds prone-supported, 10 rounds prone-unsupported, 10 rounds kneeling.

 

As to weak-hand firing, I was never taught that, but my friend who went to the Infantry School last Summer was. That seems to be new since I went to OSUT, or something that may be taught at some places, but not at others.

[A2Keltainen]

Army Direct Fire Accuracy: Precision and Its Effects on the Battlefield

Christopher J. Kidd, Major, U.S. Army

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College

2005

 

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD...oc=GetTRDoc.pdf

[Yooklid]

Realy? the SA80 beat the SLR in the British army markmanship score's, apparently they had to raise the standard because of it!

x

A friend of mine's grandad used the enfield and then the SLR and thought the SLR was to use a qoute "total rubbish!" baring in mind i dont know anyone that has used a SA80a1/a2 and a SLR so its hard to say how much of it is i prefer what i used!.

 

Isn't this just part of the soldiers lot of "hating change" and "old school being better"?

 

My brother went through Enfield -> SLR(FN) -> Steyr AUG with the Irish RDF. I'll have to ask his opinion.

 

Wow, I just realized he's been in the reserves now for 27 years! (17-44, I don't think he'll mind me mentioning his age...)

[Briganza]

The main difference between the SLR and SA80 was that the each soldier had the equivalent of a set of binos and could acquire and identify targets that they may not have seen before.

 

This is highlighted at the top of page 54 of A2Keltainen’s link.

 

Having been taught to shoot on an .22 No 8 and SMLE then SLR (shooting at Bisley) and SA80 I think the optics have improved target acquisition and firer accuracy for the majority. In the old days of WW1 all they had was the rifle, Lewis gun and grenade so could spend time on the range. Now the infantry soldier must be proficient in many weapons as well and radios, vehicle maintenance and a multitude of other items they use.

 

The answer to the initial question would be to compare rounds fired in WW2 to rounds fired now and hit made.

[Wobbly Head]

Well being one of the last to go through with SLR then SA80(A1) and having to fix optics the big difference is the SA80 is more forgiving little errors in shooting which might not make a complete miss. Not firing the SLR right will make you miss and give you a serious shoulder bruise but will make targets fall when hit. The SLR did have an optical sight which was better quality than the SUSAT (less said about the quality of that the better) called the SUIT or Sight Unit Infantry Trained if I remember only issued in Norther Ireland.

[Simon Tan]

Big Army /Corps marksmanship was dominated by the Camp Perry crowd and the restrictions of a KD range. In part, this has to do with the insufficient training provided to many soldiers, particualrly those NOT of the 11-series MOS. All this has come to the fore in the OIF/OEF deployments.

 

This is not just marksmanship but weapons handling. That's why you have retard SOPs like the butt stock mag pouch and clearing drums everywhere. A trained rifleman does not need a clearing drum and if you're carrying a rifle, you have a mag in the well and spare ammo on your 1st line if you're not wearing 2nd line.

 

Many of the weaknesses are being patched in pre-deployment work ups rather than changing the basic marksmanship programme which is fucked up IMO.

 

The long tall and short of it is that good training is expensive and it doesn't generate very much administrative bloat. Not many GO slots, just lots and lots of E-5 and up. No good at all and certain frikkin useless as far as golden parachutes go.

 

I shoot more rounds in 3 days of carbine class than an average Malaysian sholdier in 1 year.

 

Simon

[Paul in Qatar]

No doubt, the AMTU is a waste of time. Camp Perry and the Olympics. I have no time for that.

 

You know, to do the job right would take a vastly extended basic training. I was noodleing over this last night. Basic training (in the US Army) is centered around rifle marksmanship. The idea is that if a person and learn to shoot he can go on to advanced training and learn over skills.

 

But, as I mentioned, it is important that we do with marksmanship and that each soldier at least familiarize themselves with each weapon in the generic company. They do not get that when the go to the Cooks and Bakers' Course or whatever.

 

So figure:

M-16 BRM 4 weeks*

Rocket and grenade launchers and hand grenades 1 week*

LMG and Saw 1 week*

Pistol folded into ARM

M-16 Advanced Rifle Marksmanship 2 weeks*

but we need more than guns:

Combat lifesaver 2 weeks*

D&C 1 week*

 

*With the critical Savings Bond class and other stuff folded into these weeks.

 

That is up to 11 weeks and does not include a bunch of stuff we would all like to include (vehicle familiarization for example).

[rmgill]

Big Army /Corps marksmanship was dominated by the Camp Perry crowd and the restrictions of a KD range. In part, this has to do with the insufficient training provided to many soldiers, particualrly those NOT of the 11-series MOS. All this has come to the fore in the OIF/OEF deployments.

 

I do believe the US Army has changed basic to include constant handling of the basic rifle from a very early part of the program with blank rounds handed out as the nominally safe exclamation points to any AD's that may occur.

 

One other issue is that the constant clearing and loading can eventually cause a light primer strike at least in the AR's because of the floating firing pin. Repeated loading of the same round eventually wears the primer, though what report I've seen of this indicates that it's VERY unusual (1-2 instances).

[Chris Werb]

The SLR did have an optical sight which was better quality than the SUSAT (less said about the quality of that the better) called the SUIT or Sight Unit Infantry Trained if I remember only issued in Norther Ireland.

 

The T stands for Trilux which, as you'll know, is a radioactive light source. There were mixed feelings about the SUIT sight which achieved a reasonable scale of issue - I think NI and the need to discriminate targets there was a big part of the motivation for its introduction. The main criticism seems to have been that the mounts were prone to falling to bits.

[shep854]

Back in the mid-90s I worked for a wholesaler, and we saw a lot of the SUITs come through-minus the tritium, due to import restrictions. They were advertised as "Trilux" sights. Interesting items, now I regret not getting an SLR and a Trilux sight when I could have gotten a good price. I DID pick up an M1 Garand, M1A, and traded for a decent carbine, though.

[rmgill]

Back in the mid-90s I worked for a wholesaler, and we saw a lot of the SUITs come through-minus the tritium, due to import restrictions. They were advertised as "Trilux" sights. Interesting items, now I regret not getting an SLR and a Trilux sight when I could have gotten a good price. I DID pick up an M1 Garand, M1A, and traded for a decent carbine, though.

 

Stupid bloody NRC regs. You can get tritium domestically for gun sites. But just not imported. I have to use some slightly dodgy LED illuminator for my SUIT sight for my civilian SLR Clone (L1A1 parts but a domestic receiver).