# Draft Revision of C7/C8 PWT System (2-3-4).



## SeanNewman (24 Apr 2010)

Hello everyone,

Some peers and I at the Infantry School have identified what we perceive to be a fault with the way the PWT system teaches and trains progressive shooting.  Primarily in that it really isn't progressive; PWT3 (intermediate marksmanship) is progressive from PWT2 (basic marksmanship), but then PWT4 is a completely different skill set (intermediate CQB).  This is how it is laid out in the CF Operational Shooting Package.  In case you're wondering, PWT1 is just the basic group/zero-types of applications.

While I won't cover every single serial, generally what it is includes:

PWT2 - Group/zero at 100m, and then mostly some scored prone shoots at 200m.  No different positions, no movement, no close up shooting.

PWT3 - Different applications at intermediate ranges, then a rundown from 400.  No shots are actually taken from the 400 point though, and close up there are a couple auto bursts.  

PWT4 - Basic and intermediate CQB shooting, snap shooting, etc.  All close up.  

The core problem is that due to the way it is numbered, one would perceive that PWT4 must automatically be the highest level shooting and thus a high readiness unit should only focus on that.  However, as noted the way it is now it is a completely different skill set, and the potential exists to focus on that too much thus losing the ability to shoot out to 300-400m.  The opposite holds true for non-infantry units that only do PWT2, because they will never shoot close up.

What we are in the process of doing is not completely re-inventing the wheel so much as pulling parts of the current PWT4 into 2 and 3, and then making PWT4 truly advanced shooting.

The draft looks like:

PWT2 - Basic CQB incl fixed snap shooting and basic marksmanship from stances other than the prone, potentially out to 300m.

PWT3 - Intermediate CQB incl turning and shooting and improvised positions, as well as intermediate marksmanship out to *400m*.  There will also be some induced stoppages by injecting dummy rounds.

PWT4 - Advanced CQB to include shooting on the move (possibly running, we'll see) and shooting after being shot (one handed [both hands] and off the back), and advanced marksmanship out to *600m*.  Lots of induced stoppages (for confidence sake it will be stressed that it's to work on the drill, not that the C7 actually fails that much).  There will also be a template of a large plywood cut-out that will simulate shooting over/under a car, through a door slit, etc.

Note - Colours above don't mean anything other than to show that now it will truly be progressive.

This path has the blessing of the Cells involved who have a stake in it, the CoC, and the Small Arms Working Group we held last month with reps from LFDTS/DAT.

However, as this is still in the draft stage I would love to have your input on how to make this the best possible if any of you have any good ideas.  Thank you for your interest, I genuinely feel like this will make training better and more realistic for everyone.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Apr 2010)

It would be great to get back to a properly progressive method of training marksmanship, but I've got one simple question for you to consider as you work through this proposal:

_Where are you creating the additional resources (time, ammunition, and also training funds for Reserve units) to add more complexity to marksmanship training?_

Without those resources, it simply creates a burden on units already pressured to complete all mandated training events, IBTS and other.


----------



## SeanNewman (24 Apr 2010)

Mr O'Leary,

The Reservists have been in mind throughout this process.  We will still have one range be on one day.

As for the ammunition, overall it will still be generally close to neutral because now PWT2 and PWT3 use relatively little ammo and then PWT uses tens of thousands of rounds.

Pulling some of those PWT4 shoots forward will lessen the cost of running a PWT4, which has two extra benefits:
1 - The CF as a whole gets a higher skill set; and
2 - People doing the PWT4 don't have a large jump from 3 to 4.

Your stake in this personally is fully understood.  We are punching the numbers to see specifically how many rounds should be at every level to keep things as close to possible budget-wise as they are now.  It is understood that not everyone does the PWT4, but those who do use an obscene amount of ammo (not knocking shooting, just the imbalance).

So to summarize, PWT4 becomes far cheaper to shoot, PWT2 and PWT3 become a tad more each.


----------



## stealthylizard (24 Apr 2010)

Isn't 600m beyond the effective range of a C-7?  That's one of the reasons why the actual shooting on the PWT 3 doesn't start until the 300m mark.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 Apr 2010)

Funny this.  I was delving through CSOP yesterday looking for some advanced shooting.  I noted the obstacle that I face about conducting PWT Level 4 for my Sqn.  My infantrymen conducted PWT 3 last week, but my crewmen conducted PWT 2.  By the book the crewmen must complete PWT 3 first.  I have done PWT 3 before as a armoured guy and I may just go ahead and take the crewmen out for a PWT 3 in June, but I am not sure that PWT 3 is a good return on the time/ammo investment for crewmen.  I did the Reflexive Shooting package five years ago(which morphed more or less into PWT 4), and I do think that that is a good return on the investment for crewmen (crewmen bailing out of a vehicle and needing to engage close-in hostiles etc).  As such I do agree with you that there are some things to be looked at in CSOP.

As a dumb-ass tanker, the easy solution in my mind is to de-link PWT 3 from PWT 4 for non-infanteers.  This way we still have to do the shoots from the 200m as part of IBTS mandated PWT 2, but then we do the short range stuff as a PWT 4 time and ammo permitting.  I don't have the book in front of me, but perhaps have a basic PWT 4 module for non-infanteers?

Looking at your suggested changes to PWT 2, I'm not convinced that we need mandated PWT shoots from the 300m for crewmen and non-infantrymen.  Have you walked down the hall to the other Schools?

If PWT 2 is made more complex with CQB shoots, will CQB instructors be needed to conduct the training and shoots?  If so, this will be a huge obstacle, and this would be something that would need to be looked at in the Training Needs Analysis for any fundamental changes pan-Army changes.  Right now any army sub-unit can conduct PWT 1 or 2 with the people that it has.  Changing that would be a huge decision.


----------



## SeanNewman (24 Apr 2010)

600m in the PAM as effective section-level fire.  400m is the distance given in the PAM for individual, with 300m given at rapid rate.  Confusingly, DSSPM lists 550m.

The 600m shoots on the PWT4 may become a supplement used for the upcoming Sharpshooter (different than Marksman) rifle/testing.


----------



## SeanNewman (24 Apr 2010)

T2B,

300m shoots in PWT2 would not be scored, but it would be the opposite it is now.  Instead of shooting unscored at the 100m and then moving to 200m, it would be firing some rounds at the 300m and then moving to 200 so everything would be easier (aim small, shoot small).

Your concern about PWT2 becoming advanced is due to the confusion caused by the weapons drills, which is an entirely different matter and is my main effort at work.  You should not handle the C7 any differently at 15m than you do at 300m and that is being resolved.

When you suggest having a basic PWT4 module for non-infantry I'm not sure what you mean.  If everything is progressive, the bar would be set at 2 or 3.  Or did you mean the PWT4 bits like shooting after being wounded (?)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Apr 2010)

As a Reservist, I typically, get one weekend a year to complete the mandated range practices for my unit. A relay for PWT 3 including zeroing takes roughly an hour. If you move outside this timing, for what I need to do to qualify yearly, you are stealing my time for the other stuff I need to get everyone qualified on.


I'll add that given our facilities here, if anything needs to be shot from past 300m, we won't be able to complete.


----------



## SeanNewman (24 Apr 2010)

I have been promised by some Reserve peers that as long as nothing drastically changes, more shooting and training is always better.

Using your example, if a 60 minute shoot turns into 90 (max) minutes then that is worth it, but don't do anything stupid like making it 4 hours, etc.

What you are getting back for that trade off is better riflemen if you never do any other training, and a much lower resource burden if you ever do PWT4 because the requirement to get to the next level is lower.

Added - I have also heard the 300-400m argument (Range and Trg Safety was also at the working group).  That's a hurdle I will cross.  I will not lower the overall skillset of the force as a whole to accommodate those who do not have a 400m point.  If anything it will stipulate that shots that would have been done at 400m can be done at 300m if no 400m exists.

That being said, how is it that you can do PWT3 now?  You have to start off at 400m and wait for the first exposure, so anyone who doesn't have a 400m point is already not going by the book.  Do you jog on the spot at the 300m?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> T2B,
> 
> 300m shoots in PWT2 would not be scored, but it would be the opposite it is now.  Instead of shooting unscored at the 100m and then moving to 200m, it would be firing some rounds at the 300m and then moving to 200 so everything would be easier (aim small, shoot small).
> 
> ...



Right now, I can choose to do a scored shoot at the 100m by doing the PWT Level 1 first.  

The CSOP talks about the need for CQB instructors for the PWT 4.  If you take those shoots into the PWT 2, will you still need those instructors?  

Regarding new drills, have you thought about the training bill for the army and the CF?

My question about the PWT 4 is regarding the scope for having infantry and non-infantry PWT 4 components.  Is you seeing one-size as fitting all for the Army in terms of shooting?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I have been promised by some Reserve peers that as long as nothing drastically changes, more shooting and training is always better.
> 
> Using your example, if a 60 minute shoot turns into 90 (max) minutes then that is worth it, but don't do anything stupid like making it 4 hours, etc.
> 
> What you are getting back for that trade off is better riflemen if you never do any other training, and a much lower resource burden if you ever do PWT4 because the requirement to get to the next level is lower.



More shooting and training _is_ better, but you are now adding extra trg into my calender that I don't have. Adding .5 hr to the actual practice is one thing, but when do I retrain everyone for the new practice and CQB shooting techniques? If people don't have the skills, and proficiency, PRIOR to going on the live range, you are creating a dangerous situation I'm not prepared to accept just so someone can get their 'Leading Change' bubble filled.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> That being said, how is it that you can do PWT3 now?  You have to start off at 400m and wait for the first exposure, so anyone who doesn't have a 400m point is already not going by the book.  Do you jog on the spot at the 300m?



The 400m point that we start our rundown at, is not sufficient to shoot from but is suitable to run from.


----------



## SeanNewman (24 Apr 2010)

T2B and RG,

You are both talking about a much bigger problem in that you are confusing the drills part of the shoots with the shoots.

The CF must de-link CQB shooting from the drills that have been taught by Urban Ops / DHTC, as they are separate issues.  The C7 is not to be handled any differently at any different ranges.

*Shooting from CQB ranges requires no special training whatsoever*.

You are both demonstrating the fault with how it is being interpreted that you need magic tap-rack-go skills to operate the rifle close up, and that is completely false.

As I stated, the drills aspect is my main effort at work now and it is being fixed even before this PWT issue.  There will be one way that drills are taught from basic all the way through.  The first set of trials have been conducted in the last month, and we are moving from there.

T2B, yes we are all over the implementation plan.

RG, ack and I appreciate your input.  I will be sure to include a stipulation that if suitable 400m firing points do not exist those applications may be done from 300m (which is much better than just not having 400m shoots for anyone).


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> T2B and RG,
> 
> You are both talking about a much bigger problem in that you are confusing the drills part of the shoots with the shoots.
> 
> ...



I am not talking about weapon handling drills.  I am talking about the CSOP stating that PWT 4 needs to have CQB instructors (I think that they use the word "should").  I don't think that the issue is entirely the IA drills, but also about shooting techniques at that range.  Perhaps no special instruction is needed to teach turns etc, but where did the MCpl/Sgt in charge on the range learn that?

Are you planning to apply the same standard to all arms?  What arms have you spoken with?


----------



## SeanNewman (24 Apr 2010)

T2B,

PM coming soon.

Others,

Please don't worry about the drills/UOI part of it.  For this thread, please separate yourself from the current way PWT4 does the drills and just look at the distances and what types of shooting is happening and that way your opinions will focus on what I can change on this topic (the drills are being changed elsewhere).


----------



## downinOZ (26 Apr 2010)

Have you looked at the marksmanship training and advanced shoots developed by other countries?


----------



## SeanNewman (26 Apr 2010)

downinOZ said:
			
		

> Have you looked at the marksmanship training and advanced shoots developed by other countries?



A lot of them, yes...most of it the UK.  Can't remember off hand what they call theirs at the moment, something "___OSP" just like us.

We've also delved into the police and security books to get ideas.

It's funny (not really), but a lot of the civilian-type range practices are more combat-focussed that what ours are now, particularly for the 9mm.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Apr 2010)

While these progressions represent steps forward for the Cbt Arms, do they meet the needs of CSS soldiers?

While there must be some crawl-walk-run progression, we must also remember that the typical engagement scenarios for an MSE Op (for example) are different from those of an Infantryman; the training should be tailored for both.

Just my Monday morning 2c, (prior to any coffee).


----------



## SeanNewman (26 Apr 2010)

Mr Patterson,

You are exactly right, and getting the CSS more useful training was one of my goals.

As it is now, a Combat Arms soldier is the only one who would ever fire close up, which in my opinion is absurd.

Don't worry, unless you're in a "high speed" trade you won't be doing the PWT4 (unless you wanted to improve your skillset), but as things are now, if you shoot the PWT2 all you do is shoot from mostly the prone at 100m and 200m.

CSS types if anything need to fire close up and from the standing if they are ever ambushed close up and need to dismount.

If your unit is still only required to do PWT2 and that's what you will fire, PWT2 will still be basic shooting and nothing crazy, it will just involve basic shooting from close range as well.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Apr 2010)

I've always thought that the PWT, and the British equivalent (in my day it was called the APWT), were pretty much irrelevant for the modern battlefield. 

If you think about it, the PWT has been designed to fit into a range template that has been in place since the 19th century, when many of our 'gallery' ranges were built to train troops for tactics abandoned decades ago. The relays launch forward based on a timed practise which, it seems to me, was designed to train infantry to dash forward as the artillery barrage lifted the next 100 metres a la WW1. The majority of the shooting is done between 3 and 100 metres, while huffing and puffing, from some positions that you would be unlikely to adopt on a regular basis in combat. In his book, 'Goodbye Darkness', for example, William Manchester describes spending hours on the range in USMC bootcamp practising shooting from the sitting position, yet he admits he never saw anyone shoot anyone else using that position through 3 years of war in the Pacific. At no time is the soldier required to be able to hit a target at ranges beyond 300 metres, which is quite bizarre as we have been equipped with an excellent sight that allows us to do just that.

In my personal experience, I never really learned proper 'battle shooting' until I was let loose on a field firing range, preferably one that's located in a thrid world country where 'normal' range control practises do not apply. There's a reason why many of the best WW1 air aces (or Sgt York) were excellent shots, and it had alot to do with their development of instinctive shooting skills while bagging birds and varmints etc on the farm back home. 

I would say that trying to rewrite a desperately and dangerously obsolete shooting package (e.g., PWT 1-3) is like trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need a root and branch revision of our 'Shoot to Kill' (Death to 'Shoot to Live!')training to meet the needs of the modern military in the COE - or even the FOE for that matter - along with a complete overhaul of all our ranges and our overly controlling range management rules, to support that new shooting regime.

But hey, that's just me...


----------



## SeanNewman (28 Apr 2010)

Shoot to live and Shoot to kill are both obsolete and have already been replaced by CFOSP, which is generally not too bad.

The problem is that the PWTs themselves are only a few rounds, but between 3 and 4 there is a massive expenditure of ammo required at CQB range in order to conduct the PWT4, because for very wrong (arguably stupid) reasons, the rifle gets handled differently.

Trust me, this is far from the Titanic.

When my revisions come out, the PWT will include everything from shooting over and under cars to shooting on the move and shooting and doing stoppages after being shot in one arm.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2010)

For daftandbarmy
Combat experience has shown throughout the past 100 years or so that gallery shooting is the foundation upon which to build battlefield marskmanship.  Whether it was the "Kindermord" of 1914 or Gulf War Two: The Return of Bush, marksmanship training has been shown to be essential.

Now, the problem is, as Petamocto has pointed out, that our current PWT isn't progressive.  It's a matter of re-arranging the existing tests and shoots to make it more logical and progressive in sequence.

As for the tests not being relevant, I disagree, vehemently.  Remember, the PWT is about individual marksmanship.  It tests one's ability to hold, aim and fire the weapons at various ranges and from various stances.  And also remember that it is a test, or "Level 3" in the shooting continuum (Elementary Application of Fire, Advanced Application of Fire, PWT, Individual Field Firing, Collective Field Firing, as I recall).  So, doing the final PWT does not set one up for the battlefield, it is but the gateway to be completed prior to heading out to field ranges as an individual ("Jungle Lanes") and then onto to collective (Pairs, Group, Section, Platoon, Company, Combat Team, etc).

So, all the PWT has to do is assess whether or not the individual can fire accurately from a variety of ranges and in a variety of positions (sitting, standing, prone, etc.)

To test accurately, and across the field force to one standard, the test must be measurable and conducted in a controlled setting.  Also remember that it is only the gateway to field firing.  

With that in mind, please carry on!  ;D


----------



## SeanNewman (28 Apr 2010)

One thing commonly missed nowadays seems to be the lower-level initiative ranges that and company can design and set up (as long as they have followed the steps).

The best ranges are usually the little pairs and group ones made with old fashioned ropes and pulleys on a trail designed and templated by a new Lt and put into practice by the crafty WO.


----------



## Arsenal (28 Apr 2010)

In my short lived military career, I would have to say that all the "check in the box" useless PWT shoots I've done have taught me nothing about shooting. The ranges I've done in the last 6 months here in afgarbagecan have improved my markmanship exponentially, the guys and I given boxes of ammo and given the chance to just blast caps without retarded rundowns or scored serials. My c7, c9 , c6 drills and shooting improved drastically over this tour and it showed on the occasional suprise two way ranges the muj threw our way.

Shooting coach + ammo = crackshots


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2010)

Arsenal said:
			
		

> In my short lived military career, I would have to say that all the "check in the box" useless PWT shoots I've done have taught me nothing about shooting. The ranges I've done in the last 6 months here in afgarbagecan have improved my markmanship exponentially, the guys and I given boxes of ammo and given the chance to just blast caps without retarded rundowns or scored serials. My c7, c9 , c6 drills and shooting improved drastically over this tour and it showed on the occasional suprise two way ranges the muj threw our way.


The PWT has no place to teach you how to shoot.  It assesses that which you've been taught.  Given that I highly doubt that you have progressed through a proper training program (I mean, who has?), the PWTs then would in fact be useless.  It is akin to doing your final exam in math without having done any lessons prior to.  

So, you cannot slam the PWT unless it's implemented and used properly: eg: to assess and not to teach.

If all you are doing is "blasting caps", then you are wasting Her Majesty's money.  If you are being coached according to your level of proficiency, then it would indeed help.  If you just go out and "shoot shit", you are probably just developing and reinforcing bad habits.


----------



## Arsenal (28 Apr 2010)

I never said there wasnt anyone coaching us, but the skills we already know as infantry soldiers we actually were able to practice by "BLASTING CAPS". Dont worry though her majestys money wasnt wasted, her hard earned cash made sure when we had to "BLAST CAPS" they hit their intended targets.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2010)

Arsenal said:
			
		

> I never said there wasnt anyone coaching us, but the skills we already know as infantry soldiers we actually were able to practice by "BLASTING CAPS".


But you also never said that someone was coaching you.  Even trained soldiers can benefit from coaching.


			
				Arsenal said:
			
		

> Dont worry though her majestys money wasnt wasted, her hard earned cash made sure when we had to "BLAST CAPS" they hit their intended targets.


Not to sound off, but the marksmanship I've seen by our lads over there could stand some improvement via à vis the application of fire.  But, that's not intended as a slight, because I know that you, and your comrades, are doing outstanding work in difficult and sometimes impossible situations.


----------



## SeanNewman (28 Apr 2010)

Arsenal,

This thread is your chance to improve things, and I am completely open to advice/suggestions.

That being said, a method needs to exist to validate the shooting of soldiers that doesn't involve dropping a crate of C77 off at the range gate for International Cowboy Day.

Instead of having the attitude of "that was junk" or "this sucks", please post your ideas on how to make it better and if they make sense they will get implemented, simple as that.


----------



## Task (28 Apr 2010)

Just a thought,

I am not clear on why a test has to be progressive. Training should be progressive but shouldn't the test be finite?

If it can be finite then...
As the PWT(s) are a test why not design it in a manner like our ROEs. You have a list of PWT(s) with core skill testing requirement, where the Commander can pick which apply to a given situation.

 Ie PWTs  a, b, c, f, m. Where 'a' is the min safe handling and marksmanship, 'b' is intermediate ranges, 'c' long, 'f' snap and rundowns, 'm' jungle lanes etc... 

Further, for a tour in Afghanistan a member must complete a - f and m, every infantry soldier must complete a - g and a member going to Cyprus must complete a 

That way they can also be tailored for theatre specific or training situations.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2010)

Task said:
			
		

> Just a thought,
> 
> I am not clear on why a test has to be progressive. Training should be progressive but shouldn't the test be finite?
> 
> ...


Tests are progressive such that they evaluate training at specific benchmarks and at specific skill sets.  Think of it this way: imagine going through DP 1 Infantryman, learning all you learn about the C7, and getting no tests (including handling) until grad week.
The core skill testing questions are conducted in the classroom, and all they do is enable you to progress to the next level: practical handling.  That's what we mean by progressive.
As for jungle lanes, those are considered field firing (individual), and it is already there in the "system".  Remember, PWT only assesses marksmanship (with handling thrown in, that's why the mags are filled as they are, so that you WILL have a stoppage during the test).  Also remember that prior to going on field firing, soldiers must demonstrate the minimum requirement for marksmanship and handling before heading off down the lane.

EVERY deployment that is armed MUST have the same standard.  If you're armed, you may have to use that weapon, and we (the Royal We) would be failing to set up soldiers for success if we say shit like "it's just Cyprus".  Tell that to the guys who went in 1974, how much fun they had.


----------



## Haligonian (8 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> 600m in the PAM as effective section-level fire.  400m is the distance given in the PAM for individual, with 300m given at rapid rate.  Confusingly, DSSPM lists 550m.
> 
> The 600m shoots on the PWT4 may become a supplement used for the upcoming Sharpshooter (different than Marksman) rifle/testing.



Could you comment a bit on the Sharpshooter rifle/testing.  Is the Inf School looking at proposing to implement a similar program to the Americans squad designated marksmen?


----------



## McG (8 May 2010)

There was a marksman proposal in the Army Journal a few years ago:  http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_09/iss_1/CAJ_vol9.1_12_e.pdf


----------



## Fabius (27 Jun 2010)

Petamocto:
Although not the theme of the thread I would be very interested in seeing the direction in which the army plans to go in terms of weapons drills for the C7. 
In my opinion the current system being taught when a recruit gets issued their rifle is a good start for understanding the weapon but falls short in terms of teaching actual effective weapons manipulation in combat.  The weapons manipulation drills for the C7/M16/M4/AR15 family taught and practiced by various SOF units throughout NATO as well as the civilian shooting community paticularly in the United States are better suited for combat from 0 to 600m in my experiance .

I am curious what aspects of the weapons handling drills from DHTC and the UOI Crse you disagree with.

Steve


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Jun 2010)

"Steve"
I can see from your profile that you are a 25-year-old untrained infantry officer ("23U").  Other than just offering your opinion of what SOF does with their weapons, offer up objective reasons why "x" does or does not work, please.
As for handling drills from "DHTC" and "UOI", there is only one reference: the C7 pam.  Petamocto isn't doing anything because he thinks something is junk or whatever: he's been tasked to examine it.  And we have a slew of highly experienced non-commissioned officers and warrant officers "checking this out".  So, yeah, thanks for your opinion, but we'll consider the source.


Thank you


----------



## Fabius (27 Jun 2010)

Techonoviking,
Apologies for not updating my profile, it is now accurate and better reflects who is asking the question. 
Of course the CF only has one standard for C7 drills the C7 Pam as you mentioned, however please correct me if I am wrong but it does not say anything about the tap rack bang drills that Petamocto alluded to.
I did not mean to imply that Petamocto thought that all the drills were junk but I did receive the impression that he believed that some drills taught by UOI and DHTC were not helpful overall.

Steve


----------



## Fabius (27 Jun 2010)

After some thought I suppose the C7 pam could be considered to include the tap rack bang drill merely termed the Bolt fully forward IA. 

Lets see if I can communicate a bit better,

My question stems from this:


			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> You are both talking about a much bigger problem in that you are confusing the drills part of the shoots with the shoots.
> 
> The CF must de-link CQB shooting from the drills that have been taught by Urban Ops / DHTC, as they are separate issues.  The C7 is not to be handled any differently at any different ranges.
> 
> ...



I am wondering what is meant by needing to de-link the drills taught by DHTC and UOI from CQB shooting ( by drills do we mean weapons handling drills or the drill of how to actually engage the target, Failure Drills etc. )

What is changing about the C7 weapons handling drills? How are the new ones different from the old ones?


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Jun 2010)

Hello Fabius
Neither drill is being called "junk".  The fact that there are two drills being taught (one sanctioned, one not) leads to confusion.   So, "new" drills are being looked at.  By "new" I only mean that Petamocto and his crew of small arms experts are taking a fresh look at the drills and will present just ONE set.  It's not to say that DHTC or the Field Force is junk.  It's just to eliminate the "idea" that there are two sets of drills.  

As a final note, the "Tap, Rack, Go" drill could very well being the Immediate Action Drill; however, it will not be referred to as such in the pam.  Instructors may refer to it as such, or even as "Tom, Dick, Harry", but if it were adapted, it would be rather descriptive almost as such:

"Check that the magazine is seated properly blah blah"
"Cock the weapon"
"Fire"


PS: Are you with PPCLI or with 10th Mountain Division?  Or are you just a member of their fan club?  

Techno


----------



## Fabius (28 Jun 2010)

Okay easy enough.

Still PPCLI although now working with 10th Mtn Div for the next year and a bit.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Jun 2010)

Fabius said:
			
		

> Still PPCLI although now working with 10th Mtn Div for the next year and a bit.


Cheers!  Enjoy it!


----------



## SeanNewman (28 Jun 2010)

It is not a matter of one set of drills working and the other not working; they both remedy stoppages and aim to get you ready to firing again.  So they both work, but we owe it to soldiers to find the "best" way.

And as mentioned, the testing we are doing is not just a matter of "and in this corner...", but a comprehensive review of how many steps each drill really needs to be.

At first glance, the perception is that the PAM drills are more range-geared and the DHTC/UOI method is more combat-geared, but it's not that simple as both have their pros and cons.

For example: Can they both be done easily at night with no light?  Will certain steps of one actually _cause _more stoppages?

Expect to see the changes completed this summer and then implemented this fall starting with CFLRS.  That issue has its own thread though so I can kill that here.

As for the PWTs, they're a bit on the back-burner now until fall because I am tasked elsewhere, but on a good note the designated sharpshooter baton has been passed to someone else so now once the drills are sorted out I can make the PWTs my main (and only) effort after the summer.


----------



## TCBF (28 Jun 2010)

Task said:
			
		

> ...   You have a list of PWT(s) with core skill testing requirement, where the Commander can pick which apply to a given situation. ...
> That way they can also be tailored for theatre specific or training situations.



- Bingo.

- As for C7 effectiveness at ranges over 300m, I think many civ 'service rifle' hobbyists would wonder why their 
third-world built AR15 clone can wax woodchucks at 400 plus (yes, with 55 grain bullets), but we can't (or more to the point, are not expected to) hit 
a Figure 11 at that range with 62 grains.  Heck, I fired a worn-out FN C1A1 in competitions where we ran down from 600 and started shooting from 500, and they weren't as 'tight' as our C7s.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Jun 2010)

TCBF said:
			
		

> > ...   You have a list of PWT(s) with core skill testing requirement, where the Commander can pick which apply to a given situation. ...
> > That way they can also be tailored for theatre specific or training situations.
> 
> 
> - Bingo.


Disagree.  Let us not forget that the C7 family (C7, C7A1, C7A2) is used by the Canadian Forces, not just the infantry.  The tests are"general" enough to apply to the Bos'un on HMCS (insert city name or tribe name here) as well as the private in (insert regiment name here).  They have known scores, are universally applicable, and let us not forget that they are just the gateway to level four shooting: individual field firing.  It is a gallery range shoot "to confirm that the firer is an effective daylight battle shot."  In other words, to confirm, with live ammunition in a controlled, standard setting, CF wide, that the soldier, sailor or airman can apply all that he or she has been taught.  Once he or she passes PWT 3, then he or she can then progress into individual and then collective field firing.  This should be done annually by all in the CF.  Now, I know it isn't, but that's another argument.  As for TMST, I'm fairly certain that individual shooting in Afghanistan applies the same principles, positions, etc as it would in the high arctic and in the deepest jungles.  Yes, rifle maintenance will vary, but that's not the point, and this is where the argument should be heading into collective training.  Remember, the PWT is just an individual training confirmation.


			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> - As for C7 effectiveness at ranges over 300m, I think many civ 'service rifle' hobbyists would wonder why their
> third-world built AR15 clone can wax woodchucks at 400 plus (yes, with 55 grain bullets), but we can't (or more to the point, are not expected to) hit
> a Figure 11 at that range with 62 grains.  Heck, I fired a worn-out FN C1A1 in competitions where we ran down from 600 and started shooting from 500, and they weren't as 'tight' as our C7s.


It has nothing to do with the rifle hobbyist who can shoot stuff that isn't firing back.  It is about the Canadian Forces' standard to hit stuff at various ranges, and it has everything to do with grouping standards.  Remembering that the CF standard for grouping is 150mm at 100 m, and remembering the theory of a group, and also assuming that the width of an average sized man is 450mm, then a person who can hit 150mm at 100 m consistently will hit 450mm at 300 m.  That's where it came from.  And that's prone position.  In the standing, the grouping standard is 450mm.  Therefore, we expect all Canadian Forces members to consistently hit a man sized target out to 300m when that firer is prone, and out to 100m when that firer is standing.


----------



## TCBF (28 Jun 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> - Bingo.
> 
> Disagree.  Let us not forget that the C7 family (C7, C7A1, C7A2) is used by the Canadian Forces, not just the infantry.  The tests are"general" enough to apply to the Bos'un on HMCS (insert city name or tribe name here) as well as the private in (insert regiment name here).  They have known scores, are universally applicable, and let us not forget that they are just the gateway to level four shooting: individual field firing.  It is a gallery range shoot "to confirm that the firer is an effective daylight battle shot."  In other words, to confirm, with live ammunition in a controlled, standard setting, CF wide, that the soldier, sailor or airman can apply all that he or she has been taught.  Once he or she passes PWT 3, then he or she can then progress into individual and then collective field firing.  This should be done annually by all in the CF.  Now, I know it isn't, but that's another argument.  As for TMST, I'm fairly certain that individual shooting in Afghanistan applies the same principles, positions, etc as it would in the high arctic and in the deepest jungles.  Yes, rifle maintenance will vary, but that's not the point, and this is where the argument should be heading into collective training.  Remember, the PWT is just an individual training confirmation.It has nothing to do with the rifle hobbyist who can shoot stuff that isn't firing back.  It is about the Canadian Forces' standard to hit stuff at various ranges, and it has everything to do with grouping standards.  Remembering that the CF standard for grouping is 150mm at 100 m, and remembering the theory of a group, and also assuming that the width of an average sized man is 450mm, then a person who can hit 150mm at 100 m consistently will hit 450mm at 300 m.  That's where it came from.  And that's prone position.  In the standing, the grouping standard is 450mm.  Therefore, we expect all Canadian Forces members to consistently hit a man sized target out to 300m when that firer is prone, and out to 100m when that firer is standing.



- For the 'menu' approach, then, I would specify to what level PWT (by trade or position) the soldier should qualify, then to what Serials in the Program he would be firing next. They may differ from sub-unit to sub-unit. Perhaps those whose grouping ability 'gets more from the rifle' would be allowed/expected to fire from longer ranges.

- I do think the present system is fairly reasonable - the chokepoint is more range time and ammunition than doctrine.  Something else we once did... uhhh... Coaching, yeah, thats it: Coaching.

- When we traded our SMG 9mm C1s for Carbine C8s in 1988, the new shoots dictated we would only fire to  PWT 2, but automatic fire was only tested at PWT3.  Ironically, we were tested firing auto with the SMG, but not with the weapon that replaced it.  That is when I began to think about the way we assign ammunition. Even though we may only fire to PWT2, a comd should have the ability to add "Unit x will also fire Serials 203, 204 and 207."  Natch, that would be an authority for the allotment of ammunition as well.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Jun 2010)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - For the 'menu' approach, then, I would specify to what level PWT (by trade or position) the soldier should qualify, then to what Serials in the Program he would be firing next. They may differ from sub-unit to sub-unit. Perhaps those whose grouping ability 'gets more from the rifle' would be allowed/expected to fire from longer ranges.


That is entirely reasonable.



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> - I do think the present system is fairly reasonable - the chokepoint is more range time and ammunition than doctrine.  Something else we once did... uhhh... Coaching, yeah, thats it: Coaching.


I couldn't agree with you more on this.


			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> - When we traded our SMG 9mm C1s for Carbine C8s in 1988, the new shoots dictated we would only fire to  PWT 2, but automatic fire was only tested at PWT3.  Ironically, we were tested firing auto with the SMG, but not with the weapon that replaced it.  That is when I began to think about the way we assign ammunition. Even though we may only fire to PWT2, a comd should have the ability to add "Unit x will also fire Serials 203, 204 and 207."  Natch, that would be an authority for the allotment of ammunition as well.


I'll have to re-dig the reference for C8 PWTs for what they do.  Having said that, rememember the SMG was pretty well spray-and-pray, so autofire was about it. LOL.  At least with the carbine (1988 model even) you could hit out further.  And we infantry didn't get it: all got rifles.


----------



## TCBF (28 Jun 2010)

- My reply is slow, as my search for historical documents necessitated me donning a bike helmet and safety line and descending into my man-cave in the basement.  Anyway..

CFP 317(1) WEAPONS VOLUME 1 SUB-MACHINE GUN, 9MM, C1
30 Apr 76, Ch 3 - 1983-03-09

Range Courses:8 (Introductory Course, Grouping Practice, Zeroing, Preliminary Course, Intermediate Course, 9mm SMG All Arms PWT, Daylight Prep for Night Firing, Night Firing)
Total rounds 9mm ball:  446
Rounds fired auto: 82
Grouping Standard: 4" at 30m.
Ranges fired at: 15m to 100m.

CFP 317(18) WEAPONS VOLUME 18 THE RIFLE 5.56mm C7 AND CARBINE 5.56mm C8
21 Feb 86, Ch 1 - 30 Jun 86

This is where my memory failed me:  Turns out in 1986, they wrote only ONE PWT, it was for the C7 and C8 both, but C8 did NOT shoot at the 300.
C7 and C8 had ten range practices before the PWT.  Practice 7 was bursts (60 rounds).  Needless to say, we probably grouped, zeroed, then straight to the PWT.  The separate PWTs with the auto fire only on PWT3 must have been introduced at a later date.


----------



## SeanNewman (29 Jun 2010)

I agree that coaching is incredibly important and not given to troops as much as it should be.

However, the PWTs themselves are still very ineffective in their current order and the way they are presented (which will all get fixed).


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jun 2010)

To amplify on Petamocto's remark:
PWT 1-3 tests the battle shot at varying ranges and complexities in shooting.  PWT 4 then starts at the basics and then progresses, in one shoot.  The aim is to take elements of PWT 4 and "seed them" from 1-3 as required in order to make the system truly progressive at *all * ranges.  Then PWT 4 will indeed be a truly advanced application shoot at all ranges from xxx metres to "in your face" ranges.


----------



## Fusaki (29 Jun 2010)

A related idea...

I'm starting to think that if I was King of The Army, the PWT3 would be conducted immediately after the Battle Fitness Test:  A 13km march to the range, then drop your rucks and head to the firing point, then after the shoot you do your casualty drag.

I think it can be done fairly easily.  Just divide the sub-unit into relays back at base, and then release the relays at intervals to take a 13km route to the range.  The intervals should be far enough apart that the previous relay will have finished shooting by the time the next one arrives.

I think there are a lot of guys who would be able to do the ruck but not the shoot.  Likewise, there are guys who would be able to do the shoot, but not after a ruck.  The reality of the situation, though, is that one skill without the other is sort of pointless.  We need to weed out those who can make it through the BFT on intestinal fortitude but are pretty much useless afterword, and those who can shoot well when fresh, but not under combat conditions.

Thoughts?


----------



## Haggis (29 Jun 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> A related idea...
> 
> I'm starting to think that if I was King of The Army, the PWT3 would be conducted immediately after the Battle Fitness Test:  A 13km march to the range, then drop your rucks and head to the firing point, then after the shoot you do your casualty drag.
> 
> ...



This sounds an awful lot like the old "March & Shoot" competitions of yore.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jun 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Thoughts?


Very good idea in theory.  Application may suck; however, with some tweaking, it could very well be achievable.  Remembering that the BFT is just to get you to the line of departure, doing "something" at the end could reinforce that though you pass or fail as an individual, those who wish to "rock that time" in 90 minutes, fail to realise that at such a pace, they may not be capable of performing to peak standard.  So, for leaders, start as a platoon, finish as a platoon, fire as a platoon.  Of course, the big headache would be conducting the BFT for reserve units away from bases.  The shoot (PWT) may not be realistic.  But "something else" may be.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jun 2010)

And then we can get Gold, Silver and Bronze badges, depending on the level we achieve!  And wear them on our Garrison Dress jackets that look suspicously like rejected Canadian Tire hunting clothes, that we wear with our thigh-high spit-shone boots.


And wear an onion on our belts, which was the style at the time.


----------



## SeanNewman (30 Jun 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And then we can get Gold, Silver and Bronze badges...



Ha!  What a crazy idea.  Something like that would _never_ happen.    What kind of warriors do you think we are?

I agree that having the march and shoot portions separate is kind of silly, and in fact that brigades still can have those sorts of competitions occasionally but obviously it's not standardized.

I am certainly not King of the Army, either, but for the 2 mils (out of 6,400) that I do have control over, I do have King-like powers for those paper-thin arcs (changing the PWTs, changing the drills, etc).  Technically LFDTS is the owner of the books, but that's what SME Cells are for.  For example, what Navy dude in LFDTS is going to tell OIC Sniper that he's wrong on sniper matters and needs to amend his doctrine suggestion?  Likewise, I am surrounded by people who know everything there is to know about shooting (certainly a hell of a lot more than I do) so any of these changes go though the filter of all of their expertise before it leaves the office.

Anything I change has to go through TechnoViking's office (he's not my direct CoC boss but he is my quasi SME boss for doctrine), so if you can convince him to add his signature block to my suggested changes maybe I can slip in "The BFT is mandatory immediately preceding the conduct of the PWT3" in 3 point typeface.


----------



## PanaEng (30 Jun 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And then we can get Gold, Silver and Bronze badges, depending on the level we achieve!  And wear them on our Garrison Dress jackets that look suspicously like rejected Canadian Tire hunting clothes, that we wear with our thigh-high spit-shone boots.
> 
> And wear an onion on our belts, which was the style at the time.


I want my jump smock back...

[on topic] coupling them is a great idea in principle but hard to implement and more so with the reserves. [/on topic]


----------

