A Rifleman's War

A few random thoughts from the guy who started this...

1. Language changes whether we like or not. Dope bag has evolved to Data on previous engagements, just as gay, queer and liberal all have entirely different meanings than those found in my great grandmother's 1880 dictionary [yes I have that]

2. Yes we would all like to kill our enemies with supporting arms and minimize the risk to our own Soldiers and Marines. The enemy has a vote however and fights in such a way that puts civilian populations at risk if we employ those same supporting arms. During my tour as an ETT in the Eastern Operating Zone of Afghanistan, we were very limited on machine gun fire as well for the same reason.

3. The laser target designator is a good idea but recalling that the enemy has a vote - our experience was that the Taliban had calculated how long it took us to get artillery/mortars/CAS on target and generally had vacated the area by then. The glaring exception was the four kilometer long ambush they set up east of Kamu at the end of May in 2007. They hunkered down and waited out the CAS and then fought on.

4.I am not suggesting that we substitute marksmanship for any of our other war fighting skills. It should be in addition.

5. Let us not forget that rifle fire is a combat multiplier. In the 2nd Boer War the Brits in more than one fight received accurate, effective rifle fire from the Boers - beginning at more than 2,000 meters. Obviously the Boers had a rifle [the Mauser] and a cartridge that would do that job and just as obviously we do not. The point is that if we use the tools we have [the M16A4] and tools we can get [a better long range optic for that rifle] and train SDMs as well as training regular Joes to shoot to 500, we will be better off.

6. Will this take time and cost money? Yes it will. And that is why we have leaders who should exercise leadership. And that is why we have Command Sergeants Major to advise those senior leaders. And that is why we have the Small Wars Journal. So we can in this way or others get important thoughts to those leaders and CSMs.

Good and well researched article by SSG Wall. As a Small Arms Instructor for the US Army Reserve and combat veteran of both OEF and OIF I agree with his assessment of the situation and in the lack of marksmanship training given to soldiers. Afghanistan is certainly a Riflemans war and the US Army is not prepared for it.
I am a graduate of several shooting programs both civilian and military, including Sniper School and the Squad Designated Marksman Program taught by the AMU. There is no secret trick to shooting, its primarily mastering the fundamentals. Once you master the fundamentals and learn a little bit of basic ballistics, target detection, and range estimation then you have a well rounded and very capable marksman. The problem is the Army sucks at teaching the fundamentals and gives soldiers little time to work on them and master them.
Of all the training I have received the best teaching and application of the fundamentals I have received was from Project Appleseed, which is mentioned above. I reconized the quality of the program immediately and have been involved with it for 3 years now. I am a Senior Instructor and Military Liaison for Project Appleseed, and due to the training shortfall on the military's behalf and our feeling that the Soldier's defending our freedoms deserve the best training and support available, we (Project Appleseed) provide our training FREE of charge to US military units. Currently to date we have provided 4 training courses for the military, 2 for the South Carolina National Guard, 1 for an active duty engineer battalion at White Sands Missile Range, and the most current one at FT Drum, NY for some soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division. Besides those four specific courses taught to date, all active serving members of the military(Active, Guard, and Reserve) and veterans shoot free of charge at any of our hundreds of weekend marksmanship and heritage clinics around the US. The link at the end of this is to a public AAR of the FT Drum shoot if you would like to check it out and see what was accomplished and what the soldiers learned.
http://appleseedinfo.org/smf/index.php?topic=16110.msg132729;topicseen#…

The RWVA.org course of fire varies in minor details, but there are essential elements that must be covered for it to be an Appleseed Project. Most of the instruction takes place at 25 yards on reduced targets with whatever rifles attendees bring with them. KD(known distance)is taught when there is room.
I am an SBIT (shoot boss in training). 1 1/2 years ago I was not a shooter. This week I hit an 18 x 24" target @ 1000 yards from a sitting position with my M1 Garand and ball ammo. 750 yard shots are common and repeatable.
The point? We have the rifles. We have good people. We have volunteer instructors. All we need is a place, some time, and a fair bit of ammo.
Why would we hesitate. The marksmanship instruction expense would likely be less than the cost of the reduced use of supporting fire.
And you would not have to explain to the parents of deceased troops that you saved money rather than prepare their kids for a Rifleman's War.
I volunteer to bring them along.
Al Smith 970-209-0346

I remember in the summer of 1967 when they took our M-14s away and replaced them with M-16s the shock I felt when I went to a range. I grew up in Michigan and wasn't half bad at 4-500 yards, but that was with a .270... The 16 had an unchromed barrel and felt like a starter .22 from my youth.

In Afghanistan, you have extreme terrain and it is ambush territory with the bad guys usually uphill. You need something better than a .223 imo.

I read with interest about the RWVA (Appleseed Project).

I note that on at least two occasions RWVA instructors have been involved in training / retraining serving soldiers prior to deployment.

Is there any non-restricted report on this training that can be shared? Particularly interested in what aspects needed attention and what the best approach to addressing retraining of trained soldiers who may not be open to having their limitations as marksmen being exposed.

I live in South Africa.

Hey that link should be RWVA.org, NOT RWVW.org.

I also am an RWVA (Appleseed Project) Instructor. As Al said provide the range and we will come. We already have experience with training military units and wish to volunteer our time to instruct in rifle marksmanship fundamentals. We are have instructors nation wide, so if the military wants training any where in the U.S. we can be there. I know many instructors will travel quite a ways to train our military.
Contact RWVW.org and they will get the ball rolling.

We also put on weekend marksmanship and heritage clinics for civilians, Check out Appleseed Project at the RWVA site. $70.00 for a weekend clinic, shooting up to 500 rds. What a bargain for three times the amount. Same as above...if we can get a range that will host an event, we will come. Again contact RWVA.org and they will put you in touch with the proper people for your state and you WILL have an Appleseed near you. More than likely we are already there.

The Appleseed Project has an instructor corps that is Volunteer and would arrange events for any military unit that would like to improve their shooting skills. The program is run by the Revolutionary War Veterans Association.
We teach folks to be iron sights shooters to 500 yards.

My name is Al Smith. I am an instructor. We have events all over the country. Military attend at no charge. I am based out of Gunnison Colorado. If you know of any unit that would like to improve their skills please send the contact info my way and I will follow up. I can be reached at sales@camp4coffee.com

Not everyone will be a great shooter. But we can have the best riflemen in world if we work at it.

OK I see where you are coming from. I will meet you at the point where if the body amour and shoulder straps make the use of the standard butt/stock difficult/impossible then a new design for the butt/stock should be produced and placed on general issue.

Am a great believer in allowing soldiers to develop ways of doing things better in combat but suggest that the line should be drawn at hot-dogging. Where that line runs now I can't say but its there, with every generation of soldiers its there.

SethB said: "The magazine lengths and amount of gear that we wear makes it impossible to adhere strictly to the prone positions of even twenty years ago. Fortunately we have better positions available now than we did then."

For a moment I thought you were still talking about lovemaking.

"Better positions"? I would like to see some photos of this. Then I question why there is a need for magazine lengths of the magnitude that one can't fire from the missionary... I mean prone position? Then the Brits had a helmet which did not allow one to lift ones head up to use the high mount optic sights. Then there is the height of the optic sight which if used does not allow for the butt/stock to fit into the shoulder properly even if it could given the amount of other stuff over the shoulder... one could go on.

So then I need to try to keep an open mind on these "better" firing positions but tend to think that they would merely be an adaption made necessary by other changes that had not been properly thought through.

Travis said: "We have taken many actions to mitigate the long distance engagement risk both with our training focus and our acquisition of weapons more suitable to the threat."

Yes I agree when the range of contacts exceed 300-400m then rather than focus on improving the individual rifleman's marksmanship skill get the proper tools to do the job. Field commanders need a selection of weapons to employ under varying operational circumstances, rather like a golfer selects his club for each shot.

I would suggest the best option is to issue a laser target designator to each patrol and ensure immediate gunship or fast-jet CAS. This I would suggest be done as a "bait and trap". What tactical response would you expect from the Taliban? They would fire on your troops from villages in close proximity to civilians (like a human shield) then once you have sorted out that one they will have other option but to try and grab you by the belt buckle (NVA style) which is what you would want, right?

As an officer in a big Army unit getting ready to deploy to Afghanistan I can say that not all the Army units are unaware of the long range engagement distances. We have taken many actions to mitigate the long distance engagement risk both with our training focus and our acquisition of weapons more suitable to the threat.

Good. These people you sought out for advice, how old were they and where had they gained this experience? I suggest that when serving soldiers start seeking you out for advice you may begin to consider that you have "arrived".

My comment on lovemaking was merely to illustrate a point. I could have another example or just reinforced the example of McBride. In summary then all military skill are works in progress.

The one uncertainty in warfare is how each individual will react when under fire, not just the odd stray round, but intense fire. As far as training goes you train on the basics and then allow the soldiers to adapt the basics to the particular theater they fins themselves in. By all means if you have the opportunity you try to train in different conditions and environments during war preparations (aka peacetime).

It is not the fault of today's soldiers that they think they know everything but rather that of the now retired who failed to ensure that the training reflected and maintained the past learning from different conflicts. Mere combat experience does not ensure competence. Have you seen any videos of the Somali shambles? You think they have learned any combat skills? But you go try to tell them that they are not the hottest soldiers on the planet. Same problem in western armies I'm afraid. No means of comparison.

One hopes the lessons of the past form the basis of what is taught today. How do you think the current training manuals were produced?

Getting armies to learn from their own history and experience is tough enough but to learn from others (i.e. the Soviet experience in Afghanistan) is near impossible. This is sad. If you were called into a room an given a pen and paper could you produce a list of lessons learned by the Soviets in Afghanistan? If not why not?

Why not try this. There are enough old soldiers out there, so find a few and sit with them and tell them about all this new stuff you do and see if you can surprise them?

Remember, there is nothing new under the sun.

SethB said:
"Perhaps it is my youth speaking, but I see nothing mystical about shooting."

Yes I do think it is. As I used to tell my trainees and soldiers that there is also nothing mystical about lovemaking. When you are 18 you think you got it licked and every few years thereafter looking back you realise that you have learned a lot along the way and probably have a lot more to learn as well.

There is another thread around here about teaching new dogs old tricks. Very applicable to this scenario as well. Sad to see the young soldiers of today sweeping the history and experience off the table with "that comes from a different time." (Seen it on other threads as well)

The news for the impatient youth is that there is nothing new under the sun. The only problem is that most young soldiers are too impatient to search out the knowledge and experience and seem only too willing to try to reinvent the wheel themselves. Now I would be all happy for this relearning process to be repeated every generation if it did not cost unnecessary lives each time around.

Perhaps it is an inability to compare themselves against the skills of others that is the result of this arrogance? Perhaps it is the individual units which keep indoctrinating themselves that they are the best (when maybe they are not, or at least have no way of measuring this). With all the war-fighting experience of the US and Brit armies over the centuries had this experience been passed from generation to generation there would for example not be such a big problem in Afghanistan right now in fact it would be a breeze.

Sun Tzu said: "If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles."

Well in Afghanistan we certainly don't know the enemy (even though some think they do) and I'm not sure we even know ourselves (other than everyone thinking they are the best). That is the real problem.

There is indeed nothing mystical. However, it is both a cognitive and a muscle skill and like most all those, the more practice one gets, the better one is likely to be at the task.

For shooting, that entails number of rounds fired reasonably successfully, not the number of years. McBride's era was indeed different -- and that difference in the case under discussion was as much a much less wealthy population with limited access to Ammo as it was anything else. They couldn't afford to burn through ammo at the rate we do today.

It's not the years of effort, though they can help one improve provided one learned proper habits initially -- bad habits, like bad news only get worse with age. It's simply the number of caps you pop (again, reasonably correctly...).

As an aside, the Better shooting by Marines is attributable to two factors. Command Emphasis is universal, I've seen many Army units, even good units, sluff a range period. Virtually no one in the USMC used to sluff their two week range period. That two weeks is the second factor; one whole week of 'snapping in,' dry-firing, the equivalent of the Army PMI (in the Marines at Boot Camp, that is run by full time shooting instructors, not which ever DS has his turn. That helps insure that the new guy is trained correctly..).

Oh, and USMC DIs do not have much to do with their Platoons at the range and the hassle factor is dropped way down to let the kid concentrate on being a good shooter. Those DIs absolutely do not touch their Troops Range Score Card. ;)

Unless there are sufficient skilled instructors able to teach (or rather coach) marksmanship there is little chance of making any improvement in the shooting ability of soldiers across an organisation as large as the US military. Captain Herbert W. McBride is correct in that being a really skilled marksman takes a lifetime of learning and practice (this is no different to so many other skills in life). The problem is to get the arrogant youth to accept that marksmanship is a journey and not a destination that can be reached after a set number of hours and firing a set number of rounds. That said I suggest that if time and care is taken to coach marksmanship early in a soldiers career then a "conversion" to theater specific shooting requirements - say jungle (Vietnam) or open ranges (Afghanistan) should in theory be a reasonably simple process (if a skilled instructor corps is available).

Should Afghanistan be a rifleman's war? Of course not. Supporting weapons and the use of CAS have largely reduced the need for the infantryman to physically close with and kill the enemy (why bayonets are not issued anymore other than perhaps for ceremonial drill parades).

I am not for a moment saying that there is not a problem with the individual rifleman's ability to hit a target (at any range) but rather saying that the departure from the doctrine where the infantry locate/fix the enemy (in Afghanistan) then call in fire support and then (as per the principle of the attack) keep as close to the supporting fire as possible as they close with and kill the enemy (finding on arrival that most have been killed by the supporting fire already). Surely we are not suggesting or advocating a "fair fight" here? Simply you find the enemy, you fix him then you kill him.

Now it appears to me the problem is that the infantry can't rely on supporting fire (from artillery and CAS) in Afghanistan because of political decisions.

No amount of marksmanship training is going to make up for the failure to make use of the formidable supporting fire available to the modern soldier.

The real problem I submit is not the lack of marksmanship of soldiers but rather one sitting on the shoulders of the US politicians and weak generals (too focussed on securing a pension than the lives of their soldiers or the conduct of the war.)

Former Army Sgt. tank commander here -PCS was '86. I keep up with various military information around the world that's out there, and SWJ is one of the best. As I am writing this, my son is midway through recruit training in San Diego, and after this intial 13 weeks he will enter the Marine Corps School of Infantry for an additional 9 weeks of training. Last year, I noticed he was bringing home from school a lot of Army paraphernalia from the recruiter visits. I did a stint as a recruiter, and I don't remember having so much cool stuff to hand out -but I digress. I asked my son, who at the time had been here 2.5 years as an immigrant from Ukraine, what he wanted to do if he joined the Army, and he said "Infantry". I said that's a great and honorable tradition to be a part of. I asked him about the Marines, and beyond the Army trash-talking of the Marines (I do understand this to a point), he said we could look into it. I knew the local Marine recruiter, so we paid the good Staff Sergeant a visit. The basic message from the Marines is that they will teach a young infantry minded man how to do his job, and do it well. It wasn't about the college funding as the primary focus, or ancillary things like that; it was about long, very hard training and learning your job as a member of one of the best fighting forces in the world -that's pretty much it, though they say it much better. As a parent who watches the military goings on in the world, I knew that for my son to have the best chance of staying alive, and mentally healthy, would be for him to join the Marines, and sadly not the Army. In other words, he would be going through a lot of very difficult training to be a warrior -not just appearing to be a warrior by being able to wear his camo about town. As you can tell, I don't like it when it's ok to wear your combat uniform around, as if ready for imminent battle -I'm sure there are many soldiers out there who feel the same. Now, there are many very fine infantry type units in the Army -Airborne, Rangers, Special Forces, etc., but they go through a lot more training to get to where they are. Other infantry units don't get as much, and God help the non-combat MOS's -they are totally screwed. "Ok, Bradley mechanic, go out there and knock down some doors will you -and good luck..."

Ok fine -how does this relate to the above marksmanship conversation? My son is in the middle of Marine Corps Boot Camp rifle training right now -several weeks worth, and was having a bit of trouble with the data card, but was getting remedial training from the primary instructor. After the prelim stuff, he is being taught and will qualify out to 500 yards, along with every other male and female recruit in the Marine Corps. The Marines have kept the long barreled M16 -what do you see most Soldiers carrying? The modern equivalent of the old M-1 Carbine; nice to carry and great for closer in action, but kinda hard to reach out and touch someone with, let alone out to 500-900 meters. Why is the Army seemingly run by accountant's, but accountant's who can't calculate the costs of a dead or wounded soldier becase his/her training and equipment is inadequate? I read that the Army has different training standards depending on where the post is located -or who's doing the training. How can this be allowed? We're spending a lot of money trying to re-hab or replace sadly broken or KIA soldiers; how many of these due to inadequate, or inconsistent training or equipment?

There are many other inadequacies out there I'm sure, as I'm also sure the Marines are not perfect, though my discussion could easily be considered one big hoo-rah for the Marines. I do know that the Army has made many changes, but some of this stuff isn't really rocket science; some of it is pretty basic stuff. Spend more money on the front end, and less on the back end -there will be fewer broken of ours, and more of theirs.

C'mon Army -more and better training, not just hitting the high spots, thinking: "That'll do -that's enough". Work harder, work smarter...

<b>John Simpson:</b>

Like Jeffrey Wall, I started out in the Marine Corps and late ended up in the Army. That gives one a different attitude toward Army marksmanship training. Don't know where he picked up the wrong definition on "Dope," Back in 1949, Marines were told that the term came from the bag used to carry shooting paraphenalia (Thus the <i>American Rifleman's</i> Dope Bag...) but that's of no real relevance.

What is only slightly more relevant is the basic capability of Marine riflemen in the 1950s and that of their Army counterparts. The Marines were fair, not nearly as good as the myths have it but they were better than the Army's. Having fired both service's courses numerous time during that decade, I agree with your comment that most -- not all; much depended on the quality of NCOs in one's unit -- Army folks had problems reading wind and 500 yard shots. Marines did a lot better but not an order of magnitude so. That too is sort of immaterial; it's history.

Trainfire did indeed call for 10 days of instruction; Benning might have done that, most other posts did not; they abbreviated it and the first thing to go was usually the Target Detection range -- because it was a lot of work for the instructors. The next thing to go was the Night Firing. There were variations from post to post and year to year -- a lot depended on the attitude of the leadership on post -- a lot more on the competence (or lack thereof) of the Drills...

No idea what today's STRAC allotment is but years ago, with Trainfire, troops averaged about 300 rounds -- and that theoretically (but rarely actually) every year. Some units ran a lot of live fire exercises, others none or very few. Command prerogative...

Still you're correct on this:<blockquote>"Expecting every infantryman to routinely engage folks surgically .. out to 600 or 700 meters given a reasonable amount of training is an unreasonable expectation."</blockquote>While you're correct on that for most circumstances, given the fact that ranges in the mountains of Afghanistan often call for 500 yard shots we probably do need to ramp up a bit. That should be achievable.<br><br>

OTOH, this:<blockquote>"Let's start by conducting the training doctrinally and see where that takes us."</blockquote>has not and likely will not happen for a variety of reasons and if it did I doubt it would take us far at all...

Not least because it treated smart kids like idiots. The fact that Training Companies used less than competent Drills to teach marksmanship didn't help -- shooter training does not lend itself to using the personnel pipeline for instructor selection. Fortunately, today there's a slightly better idea than Trainfire: <a href=http://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-14198.html><u>Weapons training and qualification overhauled</u></a>. I'm sure you're aware of it and you may or may not agree with it. I happen to think it's great -- these kids can do a lot more than we let them do. The problem even with OBTE will be instructor quality. Can't fix that with the current personnel system...

<b>Pete</b> is right. Short of an existential war -- and maybe not even then if WW II was an indicator -- we're not likely to get really serious about training nor will we likely change the flawed Personnel system..

First of all, let me say that I was kind of disappointed to read that he perpetuates the myth that "dope" in shooting is an acronym meaning Data On Previous Engagements.

The trouble is the rifle marksmanship program in the 1950's didn't produce the riflemen it was reputed to. Let's remember that the whole popup target range that was a centerpiece of the 1957 TRAINFIRE (found in FM 23-71) was advocated by WW2 and Korean War veterans who had been trained on KD ranges and found the experience wanting.

In fact if you actually research it TRAINFIRE I was 78 hours long and included substantial training in target detection.

Also the idea that in 1958 Joe knew how to read the wind and estimate range by eye out to 700 or even 500 yards is pretty much a pipe dream and not supported by facts.

Nowhere in current doctrine is it permissible or recommended that training only use 58 rounds. A look at the current STRAC manual shows that a bit more resources are supposed to be allocated.

And that's the real problem, we're quick to "Kick Teamboxes" and talk about how to fix Army marksmanship when so few people have actually read what's in the manual.

So McBride said that it takes 18 years to make a rifleman? Hmmmmmmmm OK, so Joe enters Basic as an 18 year old and with two years to retirement he's finally ready to deploy to Afghanistan as a 36 year old rifleman? Or am I missing something?

Do soldiers need marksmanship training? You bet they do. But in the same way that PT wonks expect everyone to join them running triathalons on the weekends, marksmanship wonks can't understand why everyone else in uniform isn't at the leg matches with them the same way combatives wonks wonder why you aren't at the dojo on weekends. But you get my drift.

Expecting every infantryman to routinely engage folks surgically (otherwise why preclude machineguns?) out to 600 or 700 meters given a reasonable amount of training is an unreasonable expectation.

Let's start by conducting the training doctrinally and see where that takes us.

<b>Pete:</b>

One interpretation of what you wrote is that the Army is held hostage to its own Personnel community. A community which <i>should</i> be supporting that Army and its needs...

Xenophon,
"...shooting a rifle with an optic, especially one with zoom capability, like the ACOG..."

Issue ACOGs are fixed power as are M68 CCO's.

"...is actually more difficult than shooting with iron sights."

How so?

I've done both (a fair amount) and don't really agree.

Glad to see you guys post this. It was originally posted at the BCKS Maneuver Net - Small Arms topic area and there is more like this there.
Maneuver Net:
https://forums.bcks.army.mil/secure/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=69839

<b>Pete:</b><blockquote>"If everyone had their way about what should be added to the Basic Training curriculum the school would probably be twice as long as it is now."</blockquote>If you're talking just Basic Training, it's now ten weeks and should be about 16. OSUT for the combat arms adds an additional four to six weeks which is totally inadequate, it should be another 16 -- so your double the time estimate is about right.

It's not a question of what everyone wants, the question is do we want to produce Soldiers who are competent or just marginally capable?

For those who say we cannot afford that, I suggest that we can if we are far more selective in recruiting and do a better job of training -- those two things entail fixing a broken personnel system as well.

Yup, Ditto above. Excellent article by SSG Hall. I especially liked his use of historical analogy up front to make his analytical points about marksmanship and the problems with it in the Army today.

I would also add that the many years we have been in Iraq has also shaped how the Army views marksmanship from the prism of the four man stack going in and clearing a room. Back in the hey-day or big train ups for combat outfits going to Iraq the ultimate small arms training was the shoot house, and not firing at extended distances. Of course there were practical reasons for this but it still has denigrated our overall competence at small arms competency.

I also think this problem that SSG Hall identifies is connected to tactical competence and maneuver as well.

gian

Excellent article that is far more important than most.

This quote from that article neatly summarizes the the subject problem as well as a host of related problems:<blockquote>"What am I saying? I am saying that the Army has its training priorities way out of alignment from reality."</blockquote>

I doubt anyone could say it better that that.