# Ammo Budgets and Training Expenses



## vonGarvin (16 Jun 2006)

I sure hope as sure as poo that this method gets the WIDEST teaching out to the troopies.  I've talked to a WO  of the PPCLI at the infantry school.  He's an urban ops guy and he's all about this method and the teaching methods, especially for close quarter shooting.

As for the PWT 3 from the shoot to live, I "imagine" that it works for basic marksmanship and longer range engagements, but in all my years, (other than when I was on the small arms instructor's course) I've never gone through the entire programme.  And I'm in the bloody infantry!  WE NEED BULLETS!  THEY ARE CHEAPER THAN DEATH BENEFITS FOR OUR MEMBERS!

(That's in case any staff officers are concerned about the bottom line)
/sarcasm off/


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jun 2006)

Well vonGarvin I see that your in the Officer Corp, a postion of change and leadership.  Perhaps you could use that postion to institue some change esp. when it comes to range time.  The CDS is more likely to listen to you then me.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Well vonGarvin I see that your in the Officer Corp, a postion of change and leadership.  Perhaps you could use that postion to institue some change esp. when it comes to range time.  The CDS is more likely to listen to you then me.


LOL.  Well, if only it were true.  Unfortunately, we captains are a dime a dozen, and unless your a SME for something.  Having said that I know the SME for small arms, but he has been carping this up the chain of command.  As have had many.  I don't know where the disconnect is.

But, one thing I CAN do is this: I have to write a service paper prior to going on to my Army Operations Course in Kingston.  I could write a paper on this subject "The Importance of Musketry Training in Counter Insurgency Operations".  I believe that it would be rather easy to get statistics on the levels of marksmanship for those taught PWT (only) vs PWT and "Gunfighter", and point out how while the PWT (Shoot to Live programme) is very good for long range shooting, it does nothing for the close in fight, which goes against one of the Infantry's tasks of "Destroy the Enemy in Close Combat".

Any one be able to help point me out in the right direction on this one?  I-6?  Anyone?  Bueller?  

As an aside, did you ever note that the graticule in the LAV III for the 7.62mm goes to the right as the range gets longer?  Well, this is due to drift, something that naturally occurs to projectiles fired from a barrel with a right hand twist.  My question: why does the 800 to 1800 metre scale on the GPMG not have this?  Same weapon, same ballistics!  Heck at 1800 I'm certain that the beaten zone would be up to 20 metres to the right of the target (assuming no cross winds).  

Just an aside is all....


----------



## Journeyman (16 Jun 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> As an aside, did you ever note that the graticule in the LAV III for the 7.62mm goes to the right as the range gets longer?  Well, this is due to drift, something that naturally occurs to projectiles fired from a barrel with a right hand twist.  My question: why does the 800 to 1800 metre scale on the GPMG not have this?  Same weapon, same ballistics!  Heck at 1800 I'm certain that the beaten zone would be up to 20 metres to the right of the target (assuming no cross winds).


Save _that_ for the Tech Staff Course...write the musketry paper for AOC


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jun 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Save _that_ for the Tech Staff Course...write the musketry paper for AOC


Actually, I'm going to do up the "drift" thingy for the Tech Adjt at the Infantry School.  When I explained drift to him, his eyes glazed over and he lost consciousness


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jun 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm going to do up the "drift" thingy for the Tech Adjt at the Infantry School.  When I explained drift to him, his eyes glazed over and he lost consciousness



VG, he was "sympathetically drifting"...  ;D


----------



## Fusaki (22 Jun 2006)

> As an aside, did you ever note that the graticule in the LAV III for the 7.62mm goes to the right as the range gets longer?  Well, this is due to drift, something that naturally occurs to projectiles fired from a barrel with a right hand twist.  My question: why does the 800 to 1800 metre scale on the GPMG not have this?  Same weapon, same ballistics!  Heck at 1800 I'm certain that the beaten zone would be up to 20 metres to the right of the target (assuming no cross winds).



Here's the explanation I was given...

The deflection lines are like that because COAX C6 is canted to the left when mounted in the turret. The C6 in the light or SF Role should be level. This explanation doesn't really make sense to me and is quite possibly (or even probably) RTFOTL. But then again I don't understand why having a C7 canted to the left or right will mess up your accuracy, I just shoot level because that's what I've been taught.

This very question was asked on my gunner course, and that was the answer given. We didn't go into depth about the physics of it, so I'm going to take that bit of info with a grain of salt.


----------



## Centurian1985 (22 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Should be something like this.



Thanks, now I know what you are talking about.  In 2001 observed that USMC were using this same method for firing while advancing.  It is similiar but different from the technique taught in the CF years ago.  No idea if it started with them and came to us or vice-versa.  Back in 1986 had some of our SSF/Airborne vets teach us a similiar method for a 'shoot to live' program, the difference being that elbows were open or closed based on shooter preference, and the weapon was in the shoulder but looking over the iron sights, not through them.  Of note, no other unit I worked at afterwards even attempted to teach this type of shooting, all they were concerned about was just getting the soldiers to pass their PWTs.  

Not a criticism but a clarification: are they actually looking through the sights as they are advancing?  Dont they lose periferal vision? 

Anyway, I know that the US guys preferred it, too bad it took so long for our guys to get taught it.


----------



## Big Red (22 Jun 2006)

Both eyes are open so you're not losing any peripheral vision.  With iron sights at close range all you have to worry about is the front site, with a Short Dot/Eotech/Aimpoint just keep your eyes open.

Kev, isn't Chuck advocating thumbs forward on the VFG as well?    I've made the switch.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (22 Jun 2006)

I'm no shooter, but I went through a version of the "Gunfighter/ Reflexive" shooting program back in November.  I'm a  believer and have been preaching to all.  In addition to some reports on the matter I briefed two Generals in March on the merits of the program.  I was happy to hear that it is being adopted army-wide.  I'm not sure in what form, but its a good thing.

I might be straying out of my lane here, but I want to bring up one little thing.  Not all combat is close range (under 100m).  Each theatre is a little bit different, and there will still be combat in the 100 to 600m band.  There is still a time and place for shooting from the prone supported. Not all shooting will be done by close protection parties or SWAT-style teams.  In addition, you might also find yourself in the 300m to 600m range band against an insurgent who has some heavy-calibre weapons.  If you have your LAVs with you that's a good range band.  If you don't, you're at a bit of a disadvantage.

I'd like to see every soldier shoot about 500 rounds a year of 5.56mm with at least one week of actual shooting.   Shoot PWT 1,2,3 and then a reflexive shooting program.  More would be better, but I think that 500 is at least achievable.  Deploying soldies would shoot more.  I'd also like to see us practice shooting from moving vehicles and from roof hatches etc.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Jun 2006)

More like 500 a month.


----------



## Big Red (22 Jun 2006)

500 rounds a year? Ideally troops would hit the range once per week and go through a basic load minimum.  Shooting skills are perishable and 1.5 rounds a day isn't going to keep them up.

Ammo is cheap in the scheme of things especially if you buy from someone other than IVI.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Jun 2006)

Big Red you know that unless we are gearing up for tour we shot about 120 rounds a year on the range.  That's a front line unit.


----------



## Big Red (22 Jun 2006)

I know the current situation is horrible, but someone in a leadership position needs to push for larger ammo budgets. 120 or 500 rds per year is unacceptable.  Like Infidel said, if you want an army you have to pay for it.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (22 Jun 2006)

500 rounds per soldier as a baseline would be roughly 15 million rounds per year.  500 per month would be 150 million (based on a ten month training year).  I managed ammo for a few years, and I don't see the second number as achievable.    

Please note that I'm talking about 500 rounds per soldier, and by that I mean every soldier regardless of trade (some 30,000 reg and res).  We're currently shooting about 50 rounds a year as a baseline (not all units, I know that the infantry fire more), so I'm proposing a rather dramatic increase as it is.

Soldiers going into high-readiness should shoot more and do so in a "live fire" setting.  People whom we expect to be in contact should also shoot more.

With 500 rounds you can do up to PWT 3, some pairs fire and movement and a couple days of reflexive shooting (one week total).  This would be your baseline.  Some trades and units would certainly fire more for their baseline (maybe another 500), and everyone should come back to the range at least once a quarter to fire a couple of mags in a variety of positions/ranges.  

Time is another constraint.  The bag can hold five pounds, but we always want to put seven or eight pounds of training in it.  Please note that I agree wholeheartedly that more shooting is better.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Jun 2006)

Knew a vet from the RRR, a former officer, LT Grayson, he took out a huge bunker of Germans with barely firing a shot ( a huge ammount surrendered), and hence in Normandy there is a pub called Grayson's Pub, or there was in '84 anyways.

So what about Grayson? Later on during the battle, he was 'raked' by a Boxhead MG 42, copping a good burst in the legs and thys. Thats 7.92 x 57mm BTW. He survived, and even all through out his remaining days on earth, his legs had circulation problems, more so in his latter years. He's gone now, but what a character!

So, its not just the smaller projectiles (5.56mm) which give you this effect. In more ways than one, a larger 'ball' projectile say .303 or 7.62mm leave less damage on a human body than the 5.56mm range.

Since January, I have been out twice to the ranges (day and night firing NVG, NAD etc),  F88 Steyr, Minimi, MAG 58 (flex and coax), 12.7mm M2 QCB, and Browning pistol. Plus the M242 25mm CG too. We don't get enough, or so we think, but what we have done is more than other units.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (23 Jun 2006)

Here's my cut at an annual baseline training program using 500 rds per shooter (one week)

a.  Day 1/2 - zeroing, PWT 1,2 and 3 (200 rds)
b.  Day 3/4 - Reflexive Shooting (240 rds)
c.  Day 5 - "variety of targets" using pop-ups at all ranges and incorporating movement (60 rds)

Two more mags a month (six months worth) for each shooter after that?


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Jun 2006)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Here's the explanation I was given...
> 
> The deflection lines are like that because COAX C6 is canted to the left when mounted in the turret. The C6 in the light or SF Role should be level. This explanation doesn't really make sense to me and is quite possibly (or even probably) RTFOTL. But then again I don't understand why having a C7 canted to the left or right will mess up your accuracy, I just shoot level because that's what I've been taught.
> 
> This very question was asked on my gunner course, and that was the answer given. We didn't go into depth about the physics of it, so I'm going to take that bit of info with a grain of salt.


Good idea to take it with salt 
The line goes progressively to the right as the range increases, and this is for both HEI-T and Coax.  Both are spin-stablised, both "drift" to the right as the range increases.  That is the reason.


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2006)

- Wonderbread - VG is correct -- if you had the C6 canted and where using the sights you who have problems related the offset abd the increase in it at rnage due to the cant.  - However in this respect is is entirely due to the rifling -- When doing LONG range shooting you have to correct for this (IIRC it is still taught on the .50 sniper portion)

B2 -- I find that number horribly small.  When I mismanaged 1VP's Rifle team I managed to get us a good 4-5k each to shoot -- that would be my BARE minumim for INF C/S.  500rds is IMHO not worth even bothering.  

  Not wanting to blow my own horn more than I usually do - but I will give an example -- myself and another wiped out a Pl from 1VP in Sim training -- simply due to our much better small arms skills.  Even while rusting in 1VP I still shot typically more than 500rds a week (one to two days on the garrison rnage and a weekend at a civy range).

I can hit a person at ~400 with a 10.5" barrel M4 under combat conditions (I've head shot under KD range conditions) The reason why the CF sees a capability gap is due to the abismal fire arms proficiency - not just shooting - but weapon handling etc.  


BR - yeah - not sure which side he is playing on that - I run thumb forward with the pistol grip hand, but I still finger point with my offhand (way back to when some old Rhodesian folk showed me a thing or two in the late 80's)


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (23 Jun 2006)

Hey, don't get me wrong, 5K of 5.56mm per year would be great.  How big was the rifle team?  I'm trying to train a 30,000 man rifle team.

We might be able to focus that amount of time/ammo into one unit per year, which is kind of what we do now.  As a result, other units get 50 to 120 rounds.  I just don't seen it happenning for the Army at large.

If you had the ammo budget, would you rather have an 84mm round for a soldier or about 800 x 5.56mm rounds?  It isn't as simple as "trading" one nature for another, but if you had the choice what would you do?

Cheers,

2B


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2006)

I would prefer small arms ammo - over 84 - IF given the choice.

I understand the point about the scale of the Army - but given the fact CTS squandered millions on the wet weather boot sole fiasco -- then replacing the perfectly serviceable OD Gortex with CADPAT  :  - someone needs to seriously smash some heads to make SOLDIER SKILLS the number ONE priority.

I remember the prices the CF pays for ammo -- now I can go out in Fla and source 5.56mm (SS109/M855/C77 type ammo) for $150 /1000 -- so that tells me another thigns about how screwed up the CF acquisition process is.  

The fact of the matter is that in counter insurgency warfare that the *LIGHT Infantryman * is KING -- fast air and artillery are not as usefull as some of the talking heads make beleive.  Troops with proper marksmanship training will be a force multiplier - as one they will prolong their lives with accurate and timely shooting --- and unlike uncontroleld CAS and Artillery doesnot increase the size of an insurgency due to "collatoral" damage of civilians.

If it where up to me -- I'd scrap LAV funding (ammo etc.) for the Inf -- and concentrate on the basic soldier skills that are needed to survive and triumph in the GWOT


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2006)

So 2B wants to keep all 30,000 up to a reasonable level of proficiency.  He thinks he can do that with 500 rounds per year - about a 5 to 9-fold increase over the amounts that some others are reporting they are currently allocated. 15,000,000 rounds

Infidel is calling for 5000 (per year?) to maintain the proficiency of riflemen in the CF - 9 Coys x 150 troops = 1350 troops total, let's say 1500 max to allow for recce troops and armoured GIBs.  5000 times 1500 = 7,500,000 rounds.

Combined total 22,500,000 rounds.  Is there room for compromise?

EDIT: Note the above numbers were ICNs (Insufficiently Caffeinated Numbers).  The number of Coys obviously should be 27 not 9 so now we are talking 4000 to 5000 troops.  At 5000 troops and 5000 rounds per, that equals 25,000,000 on top of the 15,000,000 for a total of 40,000,000.   :-[ Je suis embarraseed.  Still the principle stands.  Any chance of a compromise?


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2006)

9 BN's with aprox 650 PY's 

roughly 5850 
caveat: CSOR and JTF will do their own thing (I doubt that the CF will allow a 031 to fire 50k + rounds a year)

As well that ammo (5k) I beleive is required is for range (both KD and CQB) training -- not for field ex's - which will add to the amounts.

Say another 2,000 Cbt arms trades that need to shoot (Engineers, FOO's and Recce Sqn etc.) @ min 1500 rds

So 5850x5000 + 2000x1500

so 29,250,000 + 3,000,000 rounds for them 

or 32,250,000  plus all the other Arms @500/PY

Then add in field training, warstock and operational usage


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2006)

Ah I see you fixed your numbers  

FWIW - on a course in TN while I was back CONUS I fired over 5k in ONE week.  I try to shoot a min of 30-40K a year - balanced between CQB and KD stuff.


IMHO 5k/PY is a very low ball number to stay proficient.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jun 2006)

Well since I can't write the CDS or CLS and the CO can't get those kinds of rounds even if he wanted to who do suggest I write?


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2006)

Dude -- I tried...

BGen Grant basically told use when he was the Bde Comd that he saw no value added in more musketry training.   :blotto:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jun 2006)

Well I'll pick up the gauntlet.  I'll be in touch for specifics (keep in mind laymen terms).


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2006)

Infidel, what's the going rate for 1000 rounds of 5.56mm Ball when bought in contractor quantities?


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2006)

Depends -- We get our ammo from DoS for work (no cost to us)

In Fla. I pay about $ 160/1k (USD) from a buddy at a Gunshop.  

IIRC his cost is about $140'ish  -- I know you could find it pre 9'11 for about $100/thou.

Some of the current staff officers could offer an idea what the CF pays (unit budget - but IIRC it was close to .80/rd and over a dollar for bandoliered ammo)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jun 2006)

An ammo tech told me that is was about $0.30 a round of 5.56 ball.  I'll have to confirm that though.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2006)

Do I read you right Infidel?

Market price $0.10 to $0.16 per round.
CF Staff price $0.80 to $1.00 per round?

Even at Quagmire's $0.30 per round there seems to be an interesting "handling charge" somewhere in the system.


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill - that is the price I was quoted while running the unit rifle team -- if it is accurate or not I know not...

Worse case market may be .25 USD (M855 new Lake City production) - which seems ridiculous that the CF would pay more than retail


----------



## Enzo (23 Jun 2006)

What I'm getting out of this is that I can expect to continue augmenting my marksmanship skills on the weekends at the civi range then eh? Essentially subsidized training as I'll be paying for my bulk ammunition with my CF paycheque. My life's worth that to me, so I'll have fun with it.

Before I went abroad for some training last time I went to my local range and put 2K through my Norinco NP-34 (Sig P228 clone, I know I6, I'm helping China's GDP, but as I don't have a prohib licence, this was the only way I could aquire a P228, sucks eh) and 2K+ through my Olympic Arms carbine. My out of pocket costs were worth it as I was more than sufficient to the tasks at hand due to the time I spent at the range.

IIRC, worked out to something like $0.25/5.56mm & $0.20/9mm rd. I'm not 100% as this was last year and my memory isn't what it once was.

Just random thoughts, we're all on the same page here. Infantryman's primary tool is his rifle, so...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jun 2006)

Not just the Infantry but all arms.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2006)

Infidel - any chance that this:



> The CF actually pays extra money to IVI to keep it open (well SNC as IIRC they own IVI now).  The draw is so low that is uneconomical for SNC to operate it.



is related to this?



> Market price $0.10 to $0.16 per round.
> CF Staff price $0.80 to $1.00 per round?
> 
> Even at Quagmire's $0.30 per round there seems to be an interesting "handling charge" somewhere in the system.



SNC would be SNC-Lavalin would it not?

Given the range in prices quoted, your 40,000,000 rounds would cost anything from $4,000,000 pre 9/11 to $40,000,000 in SNC bandoliers.  Quite a spread.

PS $40,000,000 is 1/300th of a $12,000,000,000 budget or 0.33%.  $4,000,000 is 1/3000th of a $12,000,000,000 budget or 0.033%


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2006)

Could be--- related

SNC- yup

I know that IVI has been operating at a Loss - and somewhat like how Diemaco was operating the CF was basically giving it money to stay open


----------



## couchcommander (23 Jun 2006)

I'm sorry, I'm really confused. Dumb question time. 

Lets say we go with Infidel's numbers, 5000 rounds. If my math is correct (which it may not be), even 30,000 people x 5000 rounds = 150,000,000 rounds per year.

At Kev's rate for purchase, being $150/1000, or $.15... that's still only 22 and a half million dollars worth of ammo... even if go for a rather expensive $250/1000 that's only 38 million dollars. Add an extra 20 million for distribution and shipping costs, running a huge bureaucracy for what should be something fairly simple, permits, etc. Still only about 60 million. 

Thus I suppose in the end my question becomes, WTF is the Army balking about 60 million dollars worth of ammo when, last I checked, being able to actually hit the enemy is a vital component of any hostile engagement? How much did they blow on that useless satelite system again?

And I really don't think it would be that hard to distribute (though i can't say I have a lot of experience with ammo... I have been sending electronics all over the western half of the country though). I mean even if you used half pallets, at a minimum, you are looking at what, 50,000 rounds you can put on one half pallet? That means you'd only need to move like 3000 pallets of ammo extra, if you're packing it REALLY lightly. I have four monkeys in a very small warehouse that move that volume of product with little to no problems (in fact if we just had to send it out, it would makes things much easier - we have shit going back and forth and in and out, etc.)

Actually, better idea. If there are any NDHQ people looking on, PM me, and I'm sure we can work something out where I can supply training only ammo for the CF. I'll even get it wherever you want it in the main 10 provinces, whenever you need it. You won't need to worry about distribution, there will be a 1-800 number the various ranges can call a week before they need it, and it'll just show up.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jun 2006)

Spell out acronyms please.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2006)

couchcommander: we are in the same place.  Confused.

As far as distribution is concerned, it would seem that the average unit Trg Offr might be better off calling up Infidel's or Enzo's gun shop and having them DHL rounds to them.  Might even be able to get a pizza delivered at the same time.

Alternatively - make arrangements with the local shooting range for CF members to be given memberships and try and "acquire" rounds and range time on "the economy".


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2006)

> Because ammunition purchases aren't as much fun to brag about at parties when you're trying to get laid


 LOL.

Here's another dumb question?  Given the use of optical sights on small arms these days it would seem that the sight picture of the rifleman is starting to look a lot like the sight picture of other more complex weapons systems.  Any reason to believe that a well trained rifleman, trained on $0.25 rounds to hit targets while under stress, might be more likely to hit a tank with a $100,000 round when under stress?


----------



## Enzo (23 Jun 2006)

I go to my local shop and they once had 5.56mm ammo (65gr. ball, nothing fancy, just basic stuff) for $250 (after taxes) for a 1000 round crate, that works out to ~$0.25/per rd.

Here's a quick bit of research:

http://www.marstar.ca/ammo/556x45mm.htm

Winchester 55gr. ball - 1200rds @ $315CAD + shipping and taxes works offhand to ~$0.30-35/pre rd.

And as with anything, the more you order, the more you can negotiate a happier price. This was just after a minute of looking, I'm sure some time invested would reveal better deals than this, etc.

Kirk - Live training is always money well invested as you're certain to get a good return eventually. I hate to put it in those terms but it seems to be the language spoken by those who make such decisions unfortunately.


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2006)

Some units have tried to use local ranges -- but they are not approved for DND usage - so then you cannot use DND weapons -- and you cannot use non DND supplied ammo in DND weapons, and vice versa - no DND ammo in non DND weapons


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2006)

There you go with those "rules things" again Infidel.


----------



## couchcommander (23 Jun 2006)

There you go, we need a nice juicey contract to supply "approved" rounds (i.e. ATK m855) to DND ranges across the country, from one happy distributor. 

I'd make it real easy. Just sign.  ;D


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2006)

Well those rules things are one reason I am now in the public sector...  I played fast and loose with a lot of rules (DND ammo in civy vehicle for a out of province shoot..., DND weapons in a civy vehicle [albiet that one was authorised by a LCOL] etc).  
  

The MAIN problem that I identified in my service was the problems with the SENIOR part of the CoC not understanding small unit combat or shooting.

Look at the watered down PWT's as an example -- we now put more people in harms way with less of a standard


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> someone needs to seriously smash some heads to make SOLDIER SKILLS the number ONE priority.


*Agree 100%!!!*


			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is that in counter insurgency warfare that the *LIGHT Infantryman * is KING -- fast air and artillery are not as usefull as some of the talking heads make beleive.  Troops with proper marksmanship training will be a force multiplier - as one they will prolong their lives with accurate and timely shooting --- and unlike uncontroleld CAS and Artillery doesnot increase the size of an insurgency due to "collatoral" damage of civilians.


Again, agree, but maybe 85%.  There are uses for infantry protected by armour, be it LAV, RG-31, Millenium Falcon, whatever


			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> If it where up to me -- I'd scrap LAV funding (ammo etc.) for the Inf -- and concentrate on the basic soldier skills that are needed to survive and triumph in the GWOT


Here I would disagree.  I wouldn't scrap an ounce of LAV funding NEITHER WOULD I keep the ammo allotments for basic soldier skills at their current pathetic levels.  If given a choice, I would say "start at the basics, and then work up from there".  Having said that, one Canadian Soldier's life saved is worth all the bazillion dollars for bullets and realistic training.


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2006)

I'd give the LAV over to the Armd -- run all INF as Light -- any moron can disembark from a LAV is they are required for operations the Armd can run them.  Concenrtation of the INF has to be on the CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY.  To me that means bullets from rifle/carbine/LMG - and pistol to an extent.

*With this being my 4k post - I really must get out more


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I'd give the LAV over to the Armd -- run all INF as Light -- any moron can disembark from a LAV is they are required for operations the Armd can run them.  Concenrtation of the INF has to be on the CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY.  To me that means bullets from rifle/carbine/LMG - and pistol to an extent.


Again, I agree with your point that the concentration of the INF is to CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY.  "IF" that were all we did, then LAVs would be everywhere.  However, as you said earlier, in COIN, one word: dismounted, dismounted, dismounted.  (Ok, that's three words, or one word three times) 
As for mech inf ops, the armd is the last I'd give the LAV too (and you can see from my profile where I work).  This is NOT a slag on them (they have their jobs and they do it well).  Just as the infantry cannot tie itself to one weapon as a defining characteristic, neither can it tie itself to one vehicle as a defining characteristic (black caddys, LAVs, LukeSkywalker "landspeeders", whatever).  There are times for mech ops, times for light ops, and both have advantages and disadvantages (protection, collateral damage, etc etc).


			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> *With this being my 4k post - I really must get out more


From your latter post, I guess the lack of night life there must be socially harming you 
:cheers:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jun 2006)

What I don't get (amounts many things) is why CSS are allowed to score less then me even though we shoot the same amount a year.
I think we also need to change how ranges are run and make them as realistic as possible.  Convoy runs, ambushes 360, ambushes with IED's etc.  There must be more play in how we run ranges, more sim training, more paint ball, more laser tag (although in an environment as most similar to A Stan, say California.)


----------



## KevinB (24 Jun 2006)

The standard for Infantry should always be higher than non Infantry -- since it is th 031's bread and butter, and the 031 have much more access to shooting than other trades.

I can find no use for paintball training - due to its design it teach faults - faults that can be deadly -- much better off to stick to live fire training, Sims for use of force and training prior to live CQB, and for open field engagements using MILES2000 systems.


The training year must be streamlined to allow for this.  And unit budgets and focus adjusted accordingly


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Jun 2006)

Paintball (like any other sport or pseudo-sport) is good for team building, etc.  Having said that, do NOT replace a C7A2 (or whatever) with a Nelspot 007.
Potato guns?  Now THAT's trainin'!  ;D


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 Jun 2006)

Its been a few years since I dealt with ammo budgets, but I seem to recall that LFCAs budget was in the 20 million dollar mark for Reg and Reserve.  We did "pay" something on the order of $ .80 for a 5.56mm round.  Bear in mind that the cost to the unit was notional, we didn't deal in cash.  I believe that ammo budgets are now dealt with in "natures."  We can argue the cost of a bullet, but the fact of the matter is that it costs that much for us.  

Based on some quick calculations, if we turned our entire ammo bugdet over to 5.56mm ball we could approach offering 5,000 rounds for all soldiers.  That would mean no blank, no 7.62mm 4B1T, no 5.56mm 4B1T, no pyro, no arty ammo, no 25mm, no arty ammo etc.  Training budgets are a bit like economics in that you have to balance your choices.  You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you get what you need.   

I would offer that if we had to work inside the current envelope, we could make some reallocations over time from things like 84mm to 5.56mm ball.  I would also offer up some TOW rounds, AD missiles and heck, even 105mm tank.  We spend a lot of money on arty ammo.   Cutting their ammo looks attractive, but I like the idea of the gunners being well trained.

With the "Levels of Capability" we now have a huge number of soldiers firing only PWT 1 for a whopping 30 rounds.  When organizing training during my last tour at the Regiment I was restricted to ordering enough ammo to achieve the required standard.  Soldiers deploying do Level 2 and maybe 3.  The problem with leaving the extra shooting for people going on tour is that there is so much other stuff going on.  I'd rather we have a better standard across the board, allowing for personnel deploying to get into some more advanced shooting during TMST instead of having to start at square one.

Assuming for a moment that we had 5,000 rounds per soldier, what would the program look like?

Cheers,

2B

As an aside, CAS has a tendency to end TICs around here.  25mm and 7.62mm are also quite important.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jun 2006)

> You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you get what you need.



As long as you can paint it black?


----------



## starlight_cdn (26 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Infidel, what's the going rate for 1000 rounds of 5.56mm Ball when bought in contractor quantities?



I'm buying 1600 rd cases of the cheap Chinese non-corrosive 5.56mm (55 gr) for around $400 CDN. Not great for KD...good for running CQB drills. $0.25 CDN a round.

Good name brand 5.56 (62 gr) for around $300 CDN for 1000 rounds. $0.30 CDN a round. These are standard case prices in Canada.

I go through a lot of 5.56mm and 9mm every year. Got a new supplier prices may drop.


----------

