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

[SeanNewman]

Shoot to live and Shoot to kill are both obsolete and have already been replaced by CFOSP, which is generally not too bad.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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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:

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.

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]

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]

Okay easy enough.

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

 

[vonGarvin]

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

Cheers!  Enjoy it!

 

[SeanNewman]

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.