Old way and New way in basic training

[Buzzcook]

Old way: New soldiers wouldn't be fully trusted with their own weapon until week three or four of basic training's 14 weeks. They learned to shoot by crouching in foxholes and firing straight ahead while a drill sergeant yelled instructions. They couldn't leave until a drill sergeant had "rodded" their weapon, pushing a rod down the barrel to make sure it had been cleared.

New way: Privates get their weapon on day three and are taught basic marksmanship right away. They are expected to clear their own weapons, under supervision, assuming responsibility themselves rather than letting that responsibility fall on the drill sergeant. By week seven they are maneuvering on the rifle range, reacting as targets appear – and quickly discerning whether the target is another U.S. soldier, a civilian, or a bad guy.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/12/mindless-basic-training-gets-some-smarts/

Interesting article. Soldiers in basic are getting much more hands on training and getting it earlier than previously. Part of this has to do with the lack of time that the peace time army had to train it's soldiers and part of it is the natural evolution of training to face the realities of the battle field.

I do admit to being a bit shocked that it took several years before new training techniques were implemented. I suppose that the post WWII army was so large that innovation faced a bureaucracy that was just as large and generated lots of inertia.

My favorite quote from the article.

"Hey – how about we play a little game," a drill sergeant roared at them. "It's called keep the muzzle off your frickin' foot!''

 

[MosinM38]

Excellent idea.

 

[DWARREN123]

The ARMY has always needed to update their Basic Markmanship program to meet the needs of the day. Seems like they were always a war behind.

 

[BlueTrain]

I joined the army in 1965 and I didn't have 14 weeks of basic training and neither did my son when he joined about five years ago. And the army has rarely had years to get in more training. The "more training" usually amounts to exercises to give soldiers experience in operating in larger units, which, way back when such things were rare because of budget restrictions (sound familiar?), often disclosed serious organizational faults.

But on the other hand, larger units actually taking part in operations sometimes set up what could be called battle schools to teach or pass on knowledge that had been gained that was more specific to that unit at that time and place. All armies generally did something like this, if possible. And, yes, it was sometimes contrary to what was taught in basic.

At the same time, it goes without saying that not everyone in the army (or any army) agrees with what the right thing to do is.

 

[Hellbilly5000]

When I went through basic training 10 years ago my basic and ait were 16 weeks combined and we were taught marksmenship starting about week three. At week 7 we finished basic and were in ait and learned handgun marksmanship on week 2 of ait (I went through osut in alabama for mp school)

 

[SIGSHR]

I joined the Army in June 1967, BCT was 8 weeks, we didn't receive our rifles until the 3rd week or so, first we got the mechanical training then we learned to drill with them, then BRMC. I am a little leery of a recruit receiving his rifle after only 3 days, I think the first three weeks of BCT or Basic is to
get recruits used to being the Army, to obey, to listen, to acquire new habits.
Also we first learned to shoot on the 1000 inch range,learned to zero our weapons, then went to the pop up targets.
The criticism I have usually heard of Army marksmanship training vis a vis the Marines was the Army's abandonment of Known Distance shooting and taking recruits from the 1000 inch range straight to the pop ups.

 

[OldShooter]

Basic

I was in Basic in 1969. We were one of the first classes to train with the M-16. The army hadn't figure out how to drill with that weapon. We just slung it over our right shoulder and carried it around. Marksmanship was simply shooting down range from a foxhole. We were issued our "own" rifles, but only on range days. You might not shoot your own rifle at the range as the drill sargeants would have a whole line of us shoot the same weapon. We had almost no simulated situation training. I hope the advanced combat traing was better than that. A lot of these guys were fodder for the Nam machine. I went on to other things.

 

[BlueTrain]

I'm starting to think that whoever wrote the article took a few liberties with the facts. However, that isn't to say the army always does everything perfectly right the first time. While I never saw an M16 while I was in the army, I was issued with one when I was in the National Guard. I never got to fire it. I'm not at all sure how much regular known distance bullseye shooting helps combat marksmanship but it certainly doesn't hurt.

The experiences the army--any army--goes through over the years tend to be so varied and the wars so varied as well that the army often has to learn things all over again, many things being thought of as unnecessary, unsoldierly, unbecoming and perhaps even illegal. Yet when the next war comes along, all sorts of things are rediscovered, dug out of the collective memory, old books and warehouses and sometimes updated a little. Among those forgotten arts are things like sniping and marksmanship. One wonders what else has been laid aside with the thought that it had become obsolete. It happens to the other services, too. For a while Air Force fighters didn't even have guns, only rockets.

 

[vranasaurus]

The criticism I have usually heard of Army marksmanship training vis a vis the Marines was the Army's abandonment of Known Distance shooting and taking recruits from the 1000 inch range straight to the pop ups.

With modern tactics known distance shooting as a skill is not all that useful in combat outside of specialized Soldiers (designated marksman, sniper, etc..)

In combat you aren't shooting at known distances.

Modern tactics just don't place a high value on a one shot one kill ability of each Soldier.

 

[pendennis]

Even with changes in modern tactics, such as more urban shooting, basic marksmanship is just as important as ever. The Marines still think so.

While known-distance target shooting may not occupy as much importance as earlier, it helps establish range estimation, which is critical.

The military is now finding out that fighting in Afghanistan is not nearly so much urban, as it is longer distances. Hence, there is a growing concern over the standard 5.56mm NATO round being as effective. Since Vietnam, the ranges have been closer than in WWII and Korea. However, those target distances are now opening up again.

M14's are again popular.

 

[5whiskey]

With modern tactics known distance shooting as a skill is not all that useful in combat outside of specialized Soldiers (designated marksman, sniper, etc..)

In combat you aren't shooting at known distances.

Modern tactics just don't place a high value on a one shot one kill ability of each Soldier.

I can give a (kinda former) Marines perspective.

For the life of me, I can't fathom why honing basic marksmanship skills on a KD range of fire is not useful. Yes, There are very few instances in a true combat situation where you will know the distance for sure. That doesn't negate the fact that fundamentals of shooting still apply.

The usefulness of KD ranges are to show each shooter his abilities so he can rely on them. If you just shoot at a bunch of pop ups, but don't REALLY know how to adjust your sights/POA to walk on target, then all you are doing is slinging lead with no real meaning behind it. You wind up adjusting POA all over the place until you get lucky if you don't know what you're doing. However, if you've learned how to manipulate your sights through training such as KD rifle range training, you not only learn basics such as trigger control, breath control, sight picture, sight alignment, clear front sight post, etc... through the experience and firing those rounds you also get a feel for how the environmental conditions affect the bullet. When you get to see how far the wind blew that bullet off of POA @ 300 yards, and you get to play with the sights until you get it right, then you get a better feel for how external conditions influence a bullet during it's flight. You learn tricks that you apply later on in combat, such as it's easier to err on the side of shooting under as opposed to over the target. You stand a much greater chance of reading POI and adjusting POA if the round lands in front of the target.

KD ranges are useful, but I agree it doesn't teach "combat shooting". What it does teach are the basic principles in which effective combat marksmanship is based upon. Modern tactics are great, but cover fire and support by fire is still performed by crew served weapons. Rifles are point fire. Firepower is important, but accurate firepower is many times better. Thank God we still live by the Rifleman's Creed.

My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...

 

[BlueTrain]

Here's another quote: "It is with artillery that war is made." Josef Stalin.

But he's dead. Let's move on. I agree that marksmanship skills are important and that "regular" shooting should still be retained, if possible. But here are some of the issues.

There is only a limited amount of time to train soldiers and it won't be possible to teach everyone to consistently hit targets at, say, 600 meters. It is likely that most do not have the ability, so most won't benefit from the equipment, whatever that might be (Marines excepted). And the infantry unit will probably have things other than an ordinary rifle to bring to bear on the enemy. The answer is to have the right equipment there for the appropriate use and also to put the square pegs in the square holes, something the army has always had a problem with. By that I mean make the best shot the designated marksman. The 600-yard targets that everyone worries about is his problem. His and the medium machine gunner.

But the army perhaps is more progressive than we realize. Optical sighting equipment is widely available and used now, making longer shots easier to make for the average soldier (we hope), even though I doubt they are introduced in basic training. And perhaps the training doesn't stop there.

I am informed that further training is done "in theater" on advance marksmanship for those who are expected to receive additional equipment and furthermore that such equipment has been liberally distributed. Those receiving such training are presumably specially selected individuals but I only have personally related war stories as a source. In any event, none of this is revolutionary. Other armies at other times in other places have faced the same problem, more or less, and some actually managed to respond in nearly the same way, as much as resources and the level of development of the technology and weapons allowed.

I also should probably mention that none of this rises to the level of sniping, should you get the wrong idea. I should also mention that, supposedly, a basic problem encountered in WWII and in Korea was a basic reluctance of the typical infantryman to actually fire his weapon at the enemy. I find that claim to be difficult to believe unless there was an equal reluctance on the other side.

 

[5whiskey]

"It is with artillery that war is made." Josef Stalin.

And it's infantry that finds targets for that artillery

I should also mention that, supposedly, a basic problem encountered in WWII and in Korea was a basic reluctance of the typical infantryman to actually fire his weapon at the enemy. I find that claim to be difficult to believe unless there was an equal reluctance on the other side.

I think there is a degree of truth to that statement, though I believe it is a little more sporadic than calling it a basic problem of the typical infantryman. I would agree that probably half take a second or two to understand the gravity of the situation the first time you get in a fire-fight, but the Army and Marine Corps both must attach out infantrymen to S shops to serve chow, drive ammo, be the company clerk, or do whatever menial chore. Every unit I've been in usually has the uncanny knack of shipping off the worst of the non-hackers to these S shops. I agree with you, and can vouch first hand, that there isn't a wholesale problem of men who are reluctant to return fire when fired upon.

There is only a limited amount of time to train soldiers and it won't be possible to teach everyone to consistently hit targets at, say, 600 meters. It is likely that most do not have the ability, so most won't benefit from the equipment, whatever that might be (Marines excepted). And the infantry unit will probably have things other than an ordinary rifle to bring to bear on the enemy. The answer is to have the right equipment there for the appropriate use and also to put the square pegs in the square holes, something the army has always had a problem with. By that I mean make the best shot the designated marksman. The 600-yard targets that everyone worries about is his problem. His and the medium machine gunner.

I couldn't have defined it any better, other than I wouldn't give Marines that big of an exception. We train to it, but even with that training I would say maybe 60% really take that marksmanship training and use it to become what I believe is an adequate marksman. You're also correct in having more tools than an ordinary rifle, but they are all pieces of the puzzle. Combined arms wouldn't exist without the rifle.

 

[SIGSHR]

Actually it was Napoleon I-an artilleryman-who is the author of that quote, not Stalin.
Ed McGivern, whose handgun feats are legendary, emphasized that acquiring a good sight picture and trigger control are just as important in
"Fast and Fancy" handgun shooting as they are in slow fire and the late great
Carlos Hathcock was a champion rifle shooter before he went into battle. I also note that when I went through BCT we got bayonet training-"WHAT'S THE SPIRIT OF THE BAYONET?!!.." and I think bayonet training was pushed to install a spirit of aggresiveness-combat is fought for very high stakes.
Also when I was in the Army in Vietnam the non-hackers were usually the first sent to the infantry battalions.
And the more confidence a soldier has in his skills and his weapon, the better off he will be. One of the things I like about the M-14 was its solid construction and its heft, along with the bayonet we trained with the various
buttstrokes-"VERTICAL BUTTSTROKE-MOVE!" It empahsized that as long as you have your rifle in your hands you can deal with anything from 3 to 300 feet and the real weapon is the mind, the firearm is mainly a tool.

 

[vranasaurus]

KD ranges are useful, but I agree it doesn't teach "combat shooting". What it does teach are the basic principles in which effective combat marksmanship is based upon. Modern tactics are great, but cover fire and support by fire is still performed by crew served weapons. Rifles are point fire. Firepower is important, but accurate firepower is many times better. Thank God we still live by the Rifleman's Creed.

The reason the Army doesn't use it is just as you stated, it doesn't teach combat shooting.

 

[5whiskey]

Also when I was in the Army in Vietnam the non-hackers were usually the first sent to the infantry battalions.

I was referring more to the non-hackers already in an Infantry Battalion. Not sure if it was common practice during 'Nam but now you can choose your own MOS before you go in. I'm talking about how to "lose" the Gomer Pyles that inevitably fall into infantry units. Prior to deployment, there were a number of "special billets" that need to be filled. Every Victor unit that deploys to Iraq has to give up men for other roles. The "wagon train" that supplied all of the platoon and company bases needed personel, so alot of the idiots get sent to do duties such as that. There are others, such gaurd personel, slop slappers, etc. Most units find a way to shed the worst liabilities upon deployment. At least from my observation.

The reason the Army doesn't use it is just as you stated, it doesn't teach combat shooting.

But everything it does teach makes you better at "combat shooting".

 

[SIGSHR]

In the Vietnam Era if you enlisted-were an "RA" in the terminology of the times-you got the training your recruiter promised you and you had signed up for though if you washed out or were kicked out of it for other reasons you were reassigned as the Army saw fit, a "US"-a draftee-was at the mercy of the system. However there was no guarantee you would work in the MOS you trained for and when I left AD in 1971 the MOS mismatch rate was running at about 50%. There were a lot of problems thanks to commanders who liked to fill the ranks of the infantry battalions with whoever was available with the inevitable loss of combat efficiency and drop in morale.
Getting back to the topic, I think KD shooting is as important as trigger and breath control, sight alignment, etc. I distinctly recall the different sight pictures we had to use depending on the range that were dictated by the trajectory of the standard round of the time.
One bit of 1967 BCT trivia-if, on the 1000 inch range you fired a "Ballantine
group"-all 3 rounds touching-your name was announced on the PA system. A good way to enourage diligence.
And I recall an article I read in American Handgunner years ago, it was an interview with the head firearms instructor of the Alabama State Police (forget his name)-he was also a champion shooter in his own right. He emphasized the importance of mastering marksmanship before going on to combat shooting, Bill Jordan said "Speed's fine but accuracy's final." Charlie Askins was also a master at Bullseye shooting. Alvin York was a skilled hunter.
In the late 1960s the Army tried something called "Quick Kill" in an effort to speed up rifle marksmanship training, teaching point shooting rather than aimed fire. Didn't work that well IIRC.

 

[BlueTrain]

I don't think the concept behind "Quick Kill" should be dismissed, though it may not be so easy to teach, which is naturally a basic problem. But in hunting circles basically the same thing is called "snap shooting."

I went into the army as an RA and took tube artillery training. But the army, in its wisdom, never assigned me to an artillery unit. Instead I wound up in an infantry division headquarters. But then no one enlists to be in a division headquarters either. However, referring to those draftees that constituted much of the army at the time, I'm of the opinion that they were just as good at being soldiers as someone who had enlisted. Just like all of those soldiers of the greatest generation in WWII, most of who got drafted (and all were draftees in the last year of the war--none were enlistees), they went and did their duty just the same. Perhaps in another 20 or 30 years they'll be a great generation, just like the "boys of '61."