Are troops this ill-prepared?

[mutt]

So I'm reading this article on American Rifleman entitled 'Marksmanship Matters'. These highlights from the Army standards and training manual really stood out for me:
Regular Army light infantryman should fire about 1,200 rounds a year.
Guard and Reserve colleague should expend 660 rounds.
“plain vanilla” soldiers shoot 490 rounds for active and 294 for Guard/Reserve.Really? That's all Army troops shoot in live fire practice per year? I probably shoot about 300 rounds every month (not counting .22lr) and I know other members here go through way more. Yet regular Army troops shoot an average of only 100 rounds a month??

This also kinda shocked me: 'According to First Army standards we are to—ideally—train a rifleman going to war with 58 rounds of ammunition— 18 to zero and 40 to qualify on the ‘pop-up target range’.'

Seriously? We've been at war for 10 years and we are sending people into the sandbox that ill prepared? I was in the Chair Force during peace time and I shot more than 58 rounds during yearly qualifications. I just assumed the Army, due to its primary mission, would be doing tons of live fire training and burning through ammo. What the hell? Maybe we should have used all that bailout money to buy training ammo for our troops rather than bailing out Wall Street bankers...

Here's the article: http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/marksmanship-matters/

Kinda sad.

[Scanker19]

It comes out to more like 116 rounds. 18 x2 for optic and BUIS 40 for qual, 20 for NBC, 20 for Night. For one qualification. Most commanders will want their guys to qual at least once a month. Then you have Team, Squad and Platoon live fires that they do Every other month or so, and you get about 100-120 rounds (if lucky) for that.

The problem you run into is FORSCOM only allots X number of rounds for the standard of 2 quals a year 2 live fire events a year so on and so on. We do way more than that in a given year. So we have to find the ammo by either using other units or asking FORSCOM to "give us" more.

My problem is that I never understood the "training" you get doing a "live fire" with all of the range-isms i.e. muzzle up range, keep on line etc.....

Pop ups are good, when you don't know where they are popping up from. Its not hard to watch a 10m wide lane for targets.

The entire system is flawed but they try to do the best they can with what they have.

[KevDen2005]

14 hours on the range and 20 minutes of shooting, that's the army way

[Elhuero]

it'll be interesting if the old SHTF scenario happens and they're put up against american gun owners that have had waaaaay more practice than them~

[2ndChildhood]

And here's that same article with highlights and comments by an Iraq war vet...
Just for the record, let's hope American soldiers never find themselves ordered into American streets.


The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned into “rifle fights,” tactical situations for which many of America’s troops have been ill-prepared.
….
Until recently the infantryman’s primary weapon was a radio connected to an artillery battery, a helicopter gunship or an A-10 Warthog. But in today’s asymmetric warfare, traditional American advantages, such as artillery and air power, have largely been negated. The majority of combat-related casualties are caused by explosives rather than small arms, but in direct combat, riflery matters as never before.
[GardenSERF: I'm tired of the repeated inaccuracy of the "today's asymmetric warfare" phrase. Other than a few battles when Western Europeans squared off on open fields, warfare was rarely symmetric.]
….
The Army’s default setting is high-volume firepower from infantry arms. Yet most combat-experienced marksmen disapprove of the three-shot burst option, let alone full-automatic fire. Jim Coxen, a Vietnam rifleman and cofounder of Oregon IPSC said, “I would have done at least as well with a scout rifle. You can never train everybody well enough to handle full auto, and you won’t always have enough training time or ammo anyway. It’s a really bad idea.”
Even with competent riflemen, long-range engagements very seldom equal the sniper’s “one shot, one kill” mantra. Clint Smith, proprietor of Thunder Ranch, has trained special operations personnel for decades. He said, “Even with good riflemen, first round hits beyond 400 yards probably drop off about 50 percent for each hundred yards.” That figure tracks with observations from other highly experienced instructors such as John Pepper. A Korean War infantry veteran and inventor of the Pepper Popper target, he said, “In combat, maybe one soldier in 10 will look at his sights and control the trigger.”
[GardenSERF: that 1 in 10 figure has been debated (some estimate it's much higher). The key there isn't lack or quality of marksmanship training, but other psychological factors which have greater bearing once in combat. I don't have the time to detail that here today. I agree with Clint's figure about the major drop off in hits as distance increases, but I would drop the initial distance to 300 yards. He is probably getting the cream of the crop to begin with.]
The American military usually does an adequate job of teaching marksmanship to large numbers of people. It does less well in teaching large numbers to fight with rifles. Consider no less an authority than Maj. Gen. Merritt Edson, USMC, a Distinguished Rifleman who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions on Guadalcanal. He later became executive director of NRA, and during the Korean War he said that the military could not be expected to teach lifesaving marksmanship skills to every soldier or Marine. His advice: If parents wanted their son to have the best chance to survive combat, see that he learns to shoot a rifle as a boy.
[GardenSERF: The general is right. But, try countering years of anti-gun propaganda taught in school and the MSM. Add that to an urban/suburban population which has never hunted or even possesses basic fieldcraft skills. The first hurdle in training is just getting people comfortable with pooping outdoors so they're not immediately going from constipated to suddenly relieved and squishy as the shooting begins.]
History was on Edson’s side. Many of America’s infantry heroes grew up shooting: Alvin York, Sam Woodfill and Audie Murphy to name a few. But in 1940, 43 percent of Americans lived in rural areas. Today it’s about half as much, with attendant diminished civilian marksmanship skills. We no longer have large numbers of recruits arriving with gun handling skills or a basic knowledge of ballistics, let alone marksmanship.
[GardenSERF: There was a reason why I mentioned York in my pistol review (http://gardenserf.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/from-wonder-nine-to-the-45-gauntlet/) recently --it's not always about distance and it's good to be skilled across a wide range. Literally.]
….
The problem is systemic, as noted by Maj. Thomas Ehrhart’s 2009 study, “Taking Back the Infantry’s Half Kilometer.” Ehrhart wrote that the U.S. Army dropped long-range riflery as a primary skill in 1958, deep into the Cold War. Engagement out to 600 meters was replaced by “trainfire,” which emphasized 50 to 300 meters. Ehrhart argued, “While the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine, and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate.”
In 2010, California National Guard S/Sgt. Jeffrey Wall wrote an influential paper for Small Wars Journal. “A Rifleman’s War” immediately caught the attention of marksmen everywhere. A Distinguished pistol shot and former Marine officer, Wall is intimately involved in Army marksmanship training. He notes that 52 percent of Afghan firefights begin at 500 meters or more, placing a premium on skilled riflemen—especially when supporting arms are limited by rules of engagement.
[GardenSERF: Again, I could go into a long aside here on ROE since I was around for the change of that becoming more restrictive in Iraq.]
Wall writes of pre-deployment training, “We are most frequently given one day to present Preliminary Marksmanship Instruction and four or five days on the ranges for all weapons, with one day on the rifle range. According to First Army standards we are to—ideally—train a rifleman going to war with 58 rounds of ammunition— 18 to zero and 40 to qualify on the ‘pop-up target range’.”
[GardenSERF: I can vouch that the pre-d training I attended only involved approximately 60 rounds. Yes, we had X00 people deploy to a combat zone with that as their total trigger time. We spent more time using compasses.]
The problem is only aggravated by a shortage of facilities or ammunition. In 2005 at Fort Sill, Okla., a deploying helicopter company was unable to qualify with most arms. Said former Warrant Officer Dave Long, “We didn’t have enough pistol ammunition, so we ran around with our Berettas, going ‘bang-bang.’ Although we’re an aviation unit, we had to train for convoy escort but there was no training ammo for the .50 calibers or Mark 19 grenade launchers. So we did like Sgt. Rock, going ‘budda-budda.’ It was laughable and pointless.”
[GardenSERF: Yes, I also did the empty bang-bang training as part of my "live-fire" convoy training. Sometimes the attitude of Big Army is "they're aviator, medical, etc so they won't do any convoys outside the wire and don't really need the ammo to train for the real thing." What happens when the helicopter goes down or the medical guy like me only travels by ground convoy outside the wire?]
….
Military personnel sometimes attend club events just so they can shoot military-type arms. In 2005 an Arizona police instructor provided three days of pro-bono small-arms training to a Marine helicopter pilot bound for combat. The aviator had not fired a hand-held small arm in two years.
[GardenSERF: I received a pro-bono tactical small arms course.]
Seth Nadel is an NRA Patron member, retired federal agent and competitive shooter. He recalled, “At one of our club’s machine gun events, two Army guys showed up to shoot a privately owned M60. Seems they could not get enough time to shoot on duty. They got more trigger time in that one day than they had in the previous few years.”
[GardenSERF: I also had to pay for my own trigger time on privately owned Class 3 weapons.]
….
Therefore, thirdly: let the shooters shoot. Allow unit commanders to devote extra range time to soldiers with the desire to become as proficient as possible. In combat, they can take the time to hold, aim and squeeze while their friends lay down area fire or at least make noise. The two concepts are not necessarily contradictory.
To summarize: The overall standard of Army marksmanship can be raised by quality, not quantity. The army recruits about 80,000 people a year, so let a few hundred with the interest and ability do most of the shooting. In some remote, desolate battlefield, a few good riflemen can mean the difference between life and death.

[SA Friday]

That second article is a good one and I agree with the material and inserted comments. For me, I guess I was a little more fortunate than others as my military shooting was more than stated by previouis posters. My wartime job was counterintel for the Air Force. We had to relearn a lot of what was needed for our job as my org hadn't seen this scale of work since viet nam. We quickly learned we needed a specilized school before deployment and training requirements were developed based on experienced agent's input. Shooting was the number one concern. They have drastically increased our shooting training and scenario training. Our annual shooting still sucked, but at least we were getting rounds and training before deploying now. I've shot way more rounds of my own than the military ever issued to me.

The ultimate problem to this issue is the impression that shooting is an easy skill to learn. Hollywood round rarely miss, and shooting is depicted in a manner completely unrealistic in comparison to just how hard it really is. I have yet to meet an average placed officer (non-SOF) that realizes just how difficult it is to hit a target at 300 yds with the standard issued weapon, nor do they realize just how hard it is to effectively track a pistol front sight during high speed multiple target engagements or move and shoot drills. They don't know where the true bar of acceptable shooting skill should be set at. Additionally, they are rewarded forsaving units money and not graded on shooting skills of themselves or their troops. The marines are the only branch that shooting score are part of their annual evals. All other branches don't even allow this info to be documented on the eval. Change this and allot more ammo and make the bar higher, then the theology will shift.

[gcrookston]

When my brother was in the Teams he pointed out their training ammo budget for one SEAL Team exceeded that of the entire USMC (a few hundred guys vs 10's of thousands).

[CapLock]

They train on the same simple ranges guys with 03a3 did. That's why whats his face came up with Blackwater. Originally Blackwater was just a modern training facility. Ahh could you imagine a gun range designed and ran by ex special forces guys and the navy seal in charge is mega rich. After Columbine they even built a to scale high school for police to train.
Only in my dreams will I ever have that kind of fun.

[Scanker19]

Me personally think its a weapons handling problem. Recoil, the noise, and the after effects of the above. We have a machine called the EST 2000. A virtual trainer that has pneumatic rifles, pistols, machine guns. Now although never a replacement to the real thing, I believe that it is a valuable tool to train the muscle memory of target RE-acquitsion, how to "handle" recoil, and a numerous other ways to better prepare soldiers to use live ammo, so you don't spend all day teaching some POG (or Infantry) to zero all day using tons of ammo that could other wise be used to do good training.

Virtual and sim training are good to use to get rid of the range-isms that will affect the value of live fire training.

Of course I also believe that shooting a bunch to get comfortable is also good for every soldier.

[KevDen2005]

I think I should point out that if it's an average of all army than there are those that seem to never shoot, like cooks and clerks. I shot lots of rounds in the infantry, then in the reserves I never shot.

[Pancho Villa]

It should be noted that army marksmanship practices (specifically the qual course) were made when the US Army was expecting to need to train hundreds of thousands if not millions of draftees to barely adequete standards and ship them off.

The test is designed to be passed with a couple hours of training and 80 rounds of ammo, because thats all the time/ammo that could reasonably be afforded in that situation.

Of course, the US Army no longer depends on draftees, but the legacy remains. Until the army changes institutionally (ie never) thats just how it will be.

[KevDen2005]

It should be noted that army marksmanship practices (specifically the qual course) were made when the US Army was expecting to need to train hundreds of thousands if not millions of draftees to barely adequete standards and ship them off.

The test is designed to be passed with a couple hours of training and 80 rounds of ammo, because thats all the time/ammo that could reasonably be afforded in that situation.

Of course, the US Army no longer depends on draftees, but the legacy remains. Until the army changes institutionally (ie never) thats just how it will be.

I agree, but there are also lots of units that spend lots of time on the range. The qualification itself is never an issue for them, but they also shoot well in other situations because of the training they received. I agree that the qualification course is ridiculous (I know it's changed in recent years but I don't know exactly to what). I also agree that not every soldier or unit is trained to this level. Some units are and some are not, depending on type and how much a CO wants them to train, and how much money a CO has at his disposal for training, and I would say finally the time constraints for other duties the unit is required to do

[TrapperJohn]

I was in the Army pre-911. I worked on COLT(Forward Observers) teams. I used to get to shoot a LOT of crew served weapons [M2] just because nobody else wanted to clean them afterword. I just wanted to shoot so I didn't mind the cleaning part. As far as Rifle qualification goes it was not much more then was stated in the article. We did do a lot of training with blanks doing SUT but never really any live fires.

For every round fired through our rifles we would put at least 50 artillery rounds on target.

I shoot way more as a civi then I ever did in the Army.

[OneGuy67]

I'd have to agree with the article. I enlisted in 1985 as an Infantryman, but we didn't see much live fire qualifications. Usually twice a year when I was stationed in Germany (once a year at Fort Carson). We would go to Graf and start with individual weapon quals, then move to squad/platoon/company live fire engagements, then a large multi-unit engagement. Everything was done safely. Lots and lots of field training with MILES equipment though!

When I joined the Reserves (Infantry), we didn't see a qualification at all until we deployed to Desert Storm and that was really a "check the box" type deal.

When I joined the National Guard in 2006, now as an MP, we fight for a yearly allocation of ammunition and fight for range time at Fort Carson or Guernsey, WY. During the pre-deployment training, there was again the "check the box" training in firearms and only change I thought was a start point to getting better. There was a range we did that required moving and firing, a thing I did and do regularly as a cop at our monthly training, but it was unheard of in the Army. During the M9 qualifications last year, the people who shot expert (40/40) were all cops. Go figure.

The training I do as a cop at the range monthly far exceeds that training done by the Army. I didn't shoot well when I entered the Army as I didn't get enough practice. I shoot much better now, due to the range time I get as a cop.

[Inconel710]

Read that article too and it described exactly the training I got before the Navy sent me to the Middle East in 2006. We had two weeks training by the Army at Fort Jackson and pronounced "good to go".[ROFL1]

Of course, that experience did start my love affair with guns. So, it wasn't a complete waste. [Tooth]

[cebeu]

From mid 86' to early 88' when I ETS'd I was never even issued a weapon, none. I was issued a brief-case though, black, plastic & aluminum, 1 each, I was fucking deadly with it.

[Scanker19]

This thread is the exact reason that such organizations such as the DCM, CMP, (I know one "became" the other). To promote shooting so people would be familiar with shooting for when they were drafted. Support them all you can.

CMP has a contest where you send them $517.95 and you win a Garand. I win every time[Tooth].

That money will go to keep shooting sports and training alive in this country.

[275RLTW]

This article has been slammed by many for its misleading information:

1) The statistics he quotes are averaged out across the entire service. Not all infantrymen are in an infantry position and therefore do not go into "combat." They are in the S-3, arms room, etc... Not all soldiers are there to shoot either. PL's & PSG's are there to lead & manage, RTO's work the radio, FO's direect other fire support assets, Anti-Tank teams run the AT weapons, Medics...well, you get the point. Don't even get me started on mechanized infantry or officers....

2) Not all units get deployed, even if overseas. There is a rough ratio of 7 support personnel to actual troops in "combat." This means, back at the base (CONUS or OCONUS) there are a countless number of pay clerks, supply, logistics, truck drivers, cameramen, air defense, mechanics, cooks, more Medics, and so on that do nothing that requires shooting, let alone a weapon. To them, an M4 or M9 is just an accessory that they have to take with them to the DFAC, and without a magazine in it.

3) The article neglects to account for any SOF units that consume most of the ammo alotted for the military. Yes, a single team will go through more rounds in 1 week in a shoothouse than the entire Marine Corps combined. There is a reason for these guys having most of the ammo....they are the ones who will use their shooting skills the most. While in Special Operations, I've burned up an average of 35K during each 3 week train up before the next deployment (usually 5-6 times per year).

4) Servicemen/women have more than shooting to learn: There is medical skills, physical phitness, job training, professional development, inventories & inspections, drill & ceremony, force protection, etc... Just as LE has a multitide of skills to hone, so does the soldier. Not all units can dedicate themselves only a few core skills. Shooting is not as much of a priority as getting logistical needs met, or taking care of patients.

5) Ammo costs money: as large as DoD's budget is, it is not infinite. Ammo cost money and billions of rounds costs billions of dollars. Lets not forget that the equipment isn't top of the line either. While every soldier may have a nice Colt M16, that weapon has probally seen more rounds through it that all the guns in your safe. The standard is a 3 MOA gun from the start. After 200-500K rounds through it, they are lucky to hit any target with it, let alone 300m and beyond. Most units cannot justify new equipment, let alone wasting ammunition on training someone to be accureate with inadequate gear.

6) Not all servicemen/women WANT to get better at shooting: as mentioned before, there are some who will never carry a loaded weapon after basic training. They realize that and have no desire to train. Also consider that most solders are only in for a 3-4 year commitment. The DoD is not going to invest that much in time and money into someone who will not commit more back. This is why most of the shooting based schools (SFARTIC, SFAUIC, AMT) are reserved for NCO's with 6-8 years already done and several more committed.

[mutt]

It's good to know then things aren't as dire as the article seems to suggest. I myself assumed that the article's definition of 'infantryman' meant actual combat troops and not their support personnel.

[porfiriozg]

do they count practice munitions like this

http://utmworldwide.com/Products.aspx

[275RLTW]

do they count practice munitions like this

http://utmworldwide.com/Products.aspx (http://utmworldwide.com/Products.aspx)

Unfourtanately not. Most units will never see UTM or Simunition rounds. Force on force (with the MMR rounds) is unlikely in non combat units although the word is spreading.

[ldmaster]

We, as a culture, re-emphasize shooting sports as a valid sport.

As many people point out, by the time someone joins the Army he's 18, if he/she hasn't shot a gun in their entire life, it's a LONG journey to competence.

The CMP wasn't formed to let us collectors hoard weapons, it was created to encourage the civilian population to train.

Training facilities for hundreds of thousands of military members? How many could train/shoot a day? How many positions are at the range? 100 max? If there were an army training fac in every state that trained 2 shifts of shooters a day on a fixed range, that would be 200x50 a day, or 10,000 riflemen a day. If that happened, it would mean roughly (very roughly) 2 training days a year.

Facilities are limited. I qualify regularly, but qualifying is ridiculous when it comes down to tactics - inservice helps, but in a good 4 hour training session if I put 200 rounds downrange then I'm about maxed out in the sense of making each shot count and not just putting holes in paper.

We need to change the way we train our troops, they need to be issued one rifle that is always in their possesion, not laagered away in an armory. They need to be allowed to shoot the rifle outside of the military, like at local competitions, without all kinds of paperwork. When they get out of the service, they need to keep their rifle. In this way we can create a better rifleman's culture - but we don't... Gee, the Swiss do though...

Ammunition should be ENTIRELY tax exempt. Ammunition manufacturers need to get 1/100th of the amount we subsidize farmers to NOT PLANT A DAMN THING.

I do think non-gun training (like airsoft) has definite value. Wasn't it a Japanese guy who won the Steel Challenge a few years back, he's ONLY shot airsoft his entire life, until he came to the USA to compete in the steel challenge, where he touched a real pistol for the first time in his life. He beat all the big boys. Airsoft COUNTS. But hey, we can't let kids run around wearing goggles and airsofting themselves, gee - oh wait, that IS a crime in every city I can name - "unlawful discharge of a firearm" because a firearm is defined as any device meant to propel a projectile. So even if you wanted to play around as a kid, your parents would be hauled into court for you shooting at paper targets with your plastic beads in your own backyard.

Argh...

[Colorado Pete]

If you want to see how the Army used to train infantry to shoot, Google "Rifle Marksmanship with the M1 Rifle", Parts 1 & 2. Training films from 1943. Sit through those for a couple of hours and see if compares to what you received in the Army the last 10-20 years. Very good stuff, and is almost exactly what today's Appleseed Project teaches at our shoots.

[Byte Stryke]

Judging from last nights news... though unequal by department, I would say that our Military is getting enough training.