Ammo Budgets and Training Expenses

[vonGarvin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

More like 500 a month.

 

[Big Red]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

- 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]

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