Marksmanship

2 things:

I agree that tactically it is quite unwise to engage at 300m.

But I disagree that we shouldn't train for it if the weapon and the soldier is capable of doing it.

pendragon said:

Actual marksmanship beyond 200 metres makes litlle sense for the average soldier.
Ever have tried to identify anyone at his distance???
What kind of clothing is (s)he wearing? Civilian or military. If It's miltary, what outfit? Is that a shovel or a gun (s)he's holding...

Click to expand...

Ever heard of binoculars? There's usually a few of those in every platoon.

And most armies these days have rifles for the "average" soldier that comes with a scope. For a 5.56mm rifle with a barrel of around 20-inches, 300m is a well-acceptable engagement distance.

Whether you choose to engage at 300m or not, is a tactical decision to be made in the field according to the situation.

It shouldn't be a decision you make during peacetime training to completely rule out rifle training at 300m.

pendragon said:

If someone fires on you from that distance and misses (since you can tell) he either is a bad marksman or a blody fool in giving away his position! Anyway you just give his position to the section's MG man or the mortar squad and you're off the hook.

Click to expand...

Just because soldiers are trained to shoot at 300m at the range doesn't mean they MUST ENGAGE at 300m during battle. Training to shoot at this distance is only a small part of marksmanship training, not the end all.

That a soldier knows how to shoot at 300m gives him further confidence and overall understanding in his weapon's performance, trajectory etc. Training at 300m may help a soldier shoot even better at 200m. For example, when you are able to shoot at 300m, then shooting at 200m and below becomes a walk in the park.

The opposite cannot be said. If you only train to shoot at 200m, you will be quite incapable when suddenly asked to shoot at 300m.

pendragon said:

True marksmanship is (should be) reserved for designated marksman at platoonlevel or snipers operating in 2-man teams. Giving 'simple' soldiers a false idea about their marksman capabilities, only leads to filled bodybags on your side!

Click to expand...

Why?

Why is it that if your soldiers are all properly trained shooter that they should end up in body bags? This is a ridiculous statement.

pendragon said:

For standard soldiers of any branch, rapid and correct response (identification and possible armed response) at distances from 5 (inside buildings) to 100-150m (open space), is the key elment to their survival and the succes of the operation they're engaged in.

Click to expand...

You make it sound like training soldiers to shoot at 300m is very difficult.

No. It is really nowhere near as difficult as you make it out to be.

If city-bred conscripts like us whom have never touched a firearm our entire lives can be taught to shoot at 300m, I don't see why any other armies should have any problems.

You underestimate people.

All due respects, sir.

chino said:

2 things:

I agree that tactically it is quite unwise to engage at 300m.

But I disagree that we shouldn't train for it if the weapon and the soldier is capable of doing it.

[]

And most armies these days have rifles for the "average" soldier that comes with a scope. For a 5.56mm rifle with a barrel of around 20-inches, 300m is a well-acceptable engagement distance.

Whether you choose to engage at 300m or not, is a tactical decision to be made in the field according to the situation.

It shouldn't be a decision you make during peacetime training to completely rule out rifle training at 300m.

Just because soldiers are trained to shoot at 300m at the range doesn't mean they MUST ENGAGE at 300m during battle. Training to shoot at this distance is only a small part of marksmanship training, not the end all.

That a soldier knows how to shoot at 300m gives him further confidence and overall understanding in his weapon's performance, trajectory etc. Training at 300m may help a soldier shoot even better at 200m. For example, when you are able to shoot at 300m, then shooting at 200m and below becomes a walk in the park.

The opposite cannot be said. If you only train to shoot at 200m, you will be quite incapable when suddenly asked to shoot at 300m.

[]

Why is it that if your soldiers are all properly trained shooter that they should end up in body bags? This is a ridiculous statement.

You make it sound like training soldiers to shoot at 300m is very difficult.

No. It is really nowhere near as difficult as you make it out to be.

If city-bred conscripts like us whom have never touched a firearm our entire lives can be taught to shoot at 300m, I don't see why any other armies should have any problems.

You underestimate people.

All due respects, sir.

Click to expand...

Excellent points Chino. Infantry need to be trained to shoot out to 300 m, and I believe that even 400 m is proper; you may never need to shoot out to those ranges, but if you ever do need to do so, you can do it. And often it is not wise to use your machine-guns for targets out to 600 or 800 m, as that just gives their position away to the enemy, and its your support weapons that the enemy wants to take out most of all, because that's where most of your ability to hurt him lies.

Sections are (or where they aren't, should be) trained to lay down massed fires with their rifles out to 800 m, thus achieving both a reasonable "beaten zone" while keeping your machine guns hidden until you really need them and they can do the enemy the most damage with the least risk. "Designated Marksmen", or Riflemen writ large, are trained for distances out to 700-800 m, but due to the length of their weapons, they are unsuited for Close Quarter Battle, and are probably best normally held at Platoon level, and attached out to Sections only when terrain and visibility mask their fires. Being held at Platoon level also spares them from having to deal with the enemy directly to the front, whom the Sections are tasked with anyway with their carbines/assault rifles, LMGs, and grenade-launchers; the Riflemen/Designated Marksmen can then concentrate better on dealing with enemy support weapons crews and targets further out.

pendragon said:

Actual marksmanship beyond 200 metres makes litlle sense for the average soldier.
Ever have tried to identify anyone at his distance???
What kind of clothing is (s)he wearing? Civilian or military. If It's miltary, what outfit? Is that a shovel or a gun (s)he's holding...

If someone fires on you from that distance and misses (since you can tell) he either is a bad marksman or a blody fool in giving away his position! Anyway you just give his position to the section's MG man or the mortar squad and you're off the hook.

True marksmanship is (should be) reserved for designated marksman at platoonlevel or snipers operating in 2-man teams. Giving 'simple' soldiers a false idea about their marksman capabilities, only leads to filled bodybags on your side! A firing range is nothing like a true firefight!
For standard soldiers of any branch, rapid and correct response (identification and possible armed response) at distances from 5 (inside buildings) to 100-150m (open space), is the key elment to their survival and the succes of the operation they're engaged in.

Click to expand...

As far as I know scince WWI infantry commanders use binoculars to identify posible enemy threats (I bet binoculars can identify targets at 300mt with no problems) making posible engagements at distances of 300mt (maybe more than that should be situable for snipers) they work in pairs of two and one of them is the spoter using a binocular just as an regular infantry commander, im kindda agree with you when you say about practicing with targets and shoot human beings... is not nearly the same, ussually dummy targets just pop in and out but they dont really move, so is kindda unefective if you compare them as enemy soldiers, besides you dont feel any regret if you shoot a dummy, you dont hesitate to do so either, human being are harder to hit besides it doesn't feel good or glorious to do so like the movie heros no matter how bad you think they are.

Norfolk said:

Excellent points Chino. Infantry need to be trained to shoot out to 300 m, and I believe that even 400 m is proper; you may never need to shoot out to those ranges, but if you ever do need to do so, you can do it. And often it is not wise to use your machine-guns for targets out to 600 or 800 m, as that just gives their position away to the enemy, and its your support weapons that the enemy wants to take out most of all, because that's where most of your ability to hurt him lies.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your comments.

Again, I guess when to use what weapons depends on the situation. For example, in one live firing exercise simulating a seaborne assault by enemy infantry in fast small assault boats, our beach entrenched GPMGs started firing at around 800m.

(Of course, I am simplifying things by not mentioning all the other stuff we would've thrown at said enemy before they reach the effective range of the shore entrenched infantry battalions and their support companies.)

In such a situation, the enemy is advancing rapidly and in overwhelming numbers. You have to engage them at the earliest possible moment.

Still, our 5.56mm weapons including SAW and AR were not to fire till enemy crossed the 300m mark. SAF probably feels that shooting 5.56mm beyond 300m is a waste of ammo.

But then again this is just the SAF.

chino said:

Thank you for your comments.

Again, I guess when to use what weapons depends on the situation. For example, in one live firing exercise simulating a seaborne assault by enemy infantry in fast small assault boats, our beach entrenched GPMGs started firing at around 800m.

(Of course, I am simplifying things by not mentioning all the other stuff we would've thrown at said enemy before they reach the effective range of the shore entrenched infantry battalions and their support companies.)

In such a situation, the enemy is advancing rapidly and in overwhelming numbers. You have to engage them at the earliest possible moment.

Still, our 5.56mm weapons including SAW and AR were not to fire till enemy crossed the 300m mark. SAF probably feels that shooting 5.56mm beyond 300m is a waste of ammo.

But then again this is just the SAF.

Click to expand...

I don't really know if a machine dun have more range than a riffle but even like that don't sound smart to me to use a Machine gun with iron sights at distances like that... you just waste ammo... they are not as acurate as riffles