I would like to propose a method of classifying marksmanship qualification standards. The four very broad categories seem to cover everything I want to discuss.
Untrained Marksman, someone who is not proficient in using a battlesight zero.
Trained Marksman, someone who is proficient with a battlesight zero.
Skilled Marksman, someone who is proficient to the maximum effective range of their weapon.
Sniper, a Skilled Marksman who possesses the other skills necessary to serve as a sniper.
Please note that the worst guy at a High Power Match who scores "Marksman" is still going to have a better training base than the guy who never shot beyond 300 meters on an Army pop up qualification range. That is the difference between a Trained Marksman and a Skilled Marksman. Also note that a Skilled Marksman and a Sniper can be firing at targets at the same ranges, and the effective difference is one of "value added" skills that a trained Sniper brings to the fight.
But getting back to training focus. Training for CQB is easy. You can do it with a rifle, pistol, bb gun, paintball marker, or airsoft setup. This is not where you should focus your training. CQB falls well inside a weapon systems battlesight zero. A "Trained Marksman" should be proficient at CQB, but a "Trained Marksman" should be working to become a "Skilled Marksman" instead of a CQB expert.
So you ask, "Where should you focus your training?" Traditional long range marksmanship. Standing, kneeling, sitting, prone unsupported. Why should you do this instead of working on CQB techniques?
Skill. CQB is a single direction skill gain, it gives you nothing but CQB. Traditional marksmanship training on the other hand improves everything else. The skills you learn practicing traditional rifle marksmanship translate into faster target acquisition once you do need to fight at CQB distances. CQB training can destroy your long range accuracy, mainly because of trigger control and precise sight alignment. When you train to rush a shot to get fire off before an enemy can fire back you are training your muscles and brain to rush the shot.
Logistics, mainly money. To get truly good at CQB techniques you have to shoot a lot. Hence the preference for using something cheap like a 22 long rifle analog of your main weapon system, paintball markers, or airsoft gear. You can burn out a barrel of a rifle before you ever get truly proficient at CQB. In peacetime one of the Rangers I went through SFAS with had burned out 2 M4 barrels in 18 months with the Regiment. That is the type of training you need to be truly proficient. The rest of us are constrained by budget and get "good enough" to be better than the guys we are going up against.
Tactics. If you are the underdog in a fight CQB should be part of your "escape and evade" skill set, not a part of your "attack and destroy" skill set. If you close with a larger and better equipped force the odds are already stacked against you. No matter how good you are at slicing the pie around corners the other side will win in the end. Using an M4 for CQB is fine, but I want to shoot the bad guys from as long away as I can get and still put steel on target.
There are a lot of venues to train. High Power, F-Class, Palma, and "outlaw" sniper matches are great for long range marksmanship training. If you don't know how to get started go to an Appleseed and learn all you can there. On the other end of the spectrum USPSA, 3-Gun, IPPC matches are all great for CQB style training. Yes the folks who focus solely on short range CQB style stuff will be faster than the folks who focus solely on High Power. So be familiar with CQB techniques, but focus your training on accuracy, because only accurate fire is lethal.
In both Iraq and Afghanistan the vast majority of insurgents fall into the "untrained marksman" standard and the heavy reliance on things that blow up shows this.
Below are some articles discussing insurgent marksmanship.
Afghan/Taliban marksmanship, which really explains why they rely so heavily on IEDs.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/afghan-marksmen-forget-the-fables/
Taliban Sniper fire put into context
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/putting-taliban-sniper-fire-in-context/
The sniper war in Iraq, American view.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/winning-sniper-war/
The sniper war in Iraq, Insurgent view.
http://www.rense.com/general63/shrp.htm
A good post about gear not making up for a lack of skill, Army SDM training.
http://www.soldiergeek.com/milblog/2012/4/26/army-interested-in-new-designated-marksman-rifle-poor-invest.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Excellent article, thanks for writing it.
The only folks who really shoot enough are probably those in Ranger Regiment, Group or big name sponsored (S&W team, AMU, etc all) competitive shooters. Everybody else is limited by money and or time. We the best we can or are willing.
As to CQB vs marksmenship I think they relate but are sort of different. CQB is a sort of sub skill like drawing from a holster and reloading are to pistol shooting.
There is certainly a point of diminishing returns for CQB and very arguably one for traditional marksmenship training. Working a bit more on your weak points makes sense.
In addition, CQB between determined adversaries will result in horrific casualties for both sides.
FREEFOR cannot accept horrific casualties. Not enough numbers and no medical system.
I like very much your doctrinal comment:
If you are the underdog in a fight, CQB should be part of your "escape and evade" skill set - not a part of your "attack and destroy" skill set.
Well done. Thanks for all you do.
Stay safe.
-- ca
westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com
Spent a nice windy Saturday 2 weeks ago putting small holes in a 48" target at 600y. Lets just say that 70gr bullets drift nicely in 10-15mph cross winds, but I never once missed, and none went outside of 36". We're taking 147gr bullets up next time, see if we do any better.
I wouldn't say that I disagree with the overall premise of your post. We, both as an armed citizenry, and the Army, need to focus more on intermediate distance engagements with individual small-arms. The 200-600M gap (because we've all seen 11-series guys who "qualify" without ever even trying to hit the 300M e-types...) is one we've seen leveraged by AQ in the 'Stan.
I don't know that ignoring, or devaluing the importance of CQM is the answer however, whether you're talking Big Green, or irregular forces. I take the Pareto's Principle approach to it. Whether I like it or not, reality says 80% of my fights are going to be inside 300M, if for no other reason than the avoidance of indirect-fire weapons (never mind the reality of fighting in low-light conditions, the use of camouflage and concealment, terrain masking movement, etc...the list goes on). So, 80% of my training needs to focus on that. I can spend the other 20% focusing on intermediate-distance marksmanship.
CQM is easy to teach, and relatively easy to learn. IDM is significantly harder to teach, mostly because it's more intellectually demanding than CQM (CQM=get the gun into the fight, and then put the pretty red dot approximately where you want the bullet to impact. IDM=know the external ballistics of your round, understand the mathematics of windage and elevation, master range estimation, and the fundamentals of marksmanship). CQM is more popular with most training cadre because it's the more critical skill for most people, and it makes them more money, because they get more people to take their classes. CQM is more popular with most Snuffies and rifle-owners, because it's easier intellectually (albeit not physically), and it's a shit-pot more fun from their POV (woohoo! I went to the Direct-Action Shoot-A-Lot Academy last weekend, and blew through 1500 rounds of 5.56! It was AWESOME!).
I don't disagree that we need to focus more training on intermediate-distance rifle musketry. I do disagree with the notion that ignoring CQM for anything less than "escape-and-evade" is the right path.
John, that is a valid point. Tactically you can initiate an ambush from any range, trading standoff for accuracy or vice versa.
The point that I was really trying to make is that getting good at longer ranges is going to make you better inside your point blank zero (battlesight zero) where the inverse is not true.
You have pointed out that American Infantrymen are proficient out to 200. I don't disagree. That proficiency keeps the Insurgents in Afghanistan from effectively engaging with small arms. How much that would change if Infantrymen were proficient to 600 is not knowable.
If you can put a bullet into a 2 MOA bull at 600, and you have good data on every 50 yards from 100 to 600, then at 200 you are able to make that head/neck shot against an opponent wearing body armor and a helmet. This is something that the Afghan insurgents haven't been able to pick up, hence relying on "spray and pray" and IEDs. When you train at long range the short range targets get "stupid easy" to hit precisely.
As far as countering IDF assets, that is going to have to be another post. But the lessons learned in Grozny are instructive on that point.
Post a Comment