Good riddance M-16

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

ChdNorm RE:Double Tap 10/19/2005 9:23:55 PM

"Chdnorm, I am RLC. That said, I have been taught by 16th AA instructors in FIBUA briefly." I'm not all that up on the British Army. What's the RLC? The 16th AA is yall's Air Assualt Brigade (or is it Division?) though, right?

Quote Reply

ChdNorm RE:Yimmy & Shek 10/19/2005 9:28:32 PM

"As far as double tap, the context that I've always heard it used is when assaulting across an OBJ, and some will teach "put two rounds into them before you pass them, because it's against the rules to do it when you come back." This isn't necessarily wrong, but the target does need to pose a threat, which is a decision that belongs to the shooter. Therefore, the reason I tried to eliminate it is because I felt that it created a sense that it was always okay to "double tap," which isn't the case. My wording came off too strong in this case." Shek I see the difference now. I think our different usage of the same term just comes from different times and places (ie, I'm out of date). I had no idea you probably thought I was a war criminal when I've mentioned double taps in previous posts!

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Yimmy & Shek 10/19/2005 9:30:01 PM

RLC = Royal Logistics Corps

Quote Reply

shek RE:Yimmy & Shek 10/19/2005 9:37:59 PM

Yimmy, I wasn't clear on my phrasing earlier - the two man hi/lo entry technique was still the US Army standard during Somalia, although units quickly transitioned to the current battle drill when they were taught it by the Ranger units that were conducting ops there. Leading with a fragmentation grenade was the Army standard at the time if there weren't combatants, but the frail walls and blast effects into the hallway soon limited this practice. However, I take issue with your attempts to distinguish room clearing techniques in different areas. The battle drill should be the same wherever you use it; what will be different is the level of force required, and that is based off of the presence of combatants and non-combatants, which will affect your decisions for entry point and entry technique, but won't affect the actually clearing battle drill. Once in the room, the decision to use lethal force is based on individual soldiers making decisions whether a person presents a lethal threat, at which point controlled pairs are used until the target no longer presents a threat. A combatant in a house in Northern Ireland can kill a clearing team member just as easily as a combatant can kill in Fallujah, etc.

Quote Reply

dobrodan RE:Double Tap 10/22/2005 10:36:37 AM

Towgunner: 2x50% gives 75% chance of scoring a kill 2x75% gives 93.75% chance of scoring a kill 3x75% gives 98.44% chance of scoring a kill. You can never be more than 100% sure...

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Double Tap 10/22/2005 11:22:48 AM

"A combatant in a house in Northern Ireland can kill a clearing team member just as easily as a combatant can kill in Fallujah, etc." Not really, the likely scenarios are too different. In Fallujah, the likelyhood is that the enemy will be entrenched in a house, using it as a fighting position - where grenades and automatic etc are useable. In Northern Ireland, a house is more likely to be where a gunmen snipes from or fleas to - where simply going in hard and fast is more suitable.

Quote Reply

shek RE:Double Tap 10/22/2005 1:47:00 PM

Yimmy, Your mindset is wrong. When you enter a building to clear it, you must be in the mindset that any combatant present is ready, willing, and able to kill you. Thus, you must be on your game and ready to conduct target discrimination and then eliminate threats. A mindset that an IRA operative will flee a house, while a very important consideration for the platoon or company, so it can isolate the house/block as necessary, is not relevant to the clearing team while it is clearing the building. To do so would create an expectation that there will be no threat and can lead to dangerous mistakes that can cost lives. Be polite, be profession, but be prepared to kill. Now, once the house has been cleared and secured, then the clearing team can transition to searching for signs that the building was where an attack was staged from and likely avenues of escape can be determined to better focus the isolation force. This is where American battle drill is so on target. It's fundamental building block is the accurate delivery of fire - close quarters marskmanship. Knowing that you can successfully employ lethal force gives you the confidence to react instinctively to threats and to minimize unessential and unnecessary fire - instead of thinking "can I kill a threat?" you focus on "is this person a non-combatant or a combatant that I must eliminate?" The confidence created from CQM training allows a soldier to enter and clear rooms with the proper mindset and minimize to eliminate non-combatant casualties without compromising the safety of the clearing team.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Double Tap 10/22/2005 7:24:53 PM

Shek, I do not mean to say that your argument is wrong, but I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. Using examples, say in Falluja, a platoon has been tasked to take a two story building, constructed of solid concrete, strategically placed overlooking a cross-roads - intelligence reports indicate the building to be in enemy hands, of section strength, with no civillians in the area. An air-strike can not be called upon because their is a school across the road. In the above situation, I would suggest usage of grenades and full automatic sweeping would be appropriate. However your method may work just as well, although I do not agree. In Northen Ireland however, a platoon has been designated to patrol a town, in the format of the three sections moving individually down parallel roads. The most Southernly patrol is engaged by sniper fire, origionating from the passenger seat of a parked car, sitting in a side street to the South. The shooter misses, and the driver attempts to evacuate the area, but stalls the car. The two terrorists flea on foot, together, and run into an open door-way. Now, the section comander has a choice to make, given that the other two patrols are too far to the North to be able to quickly assist - are the terrorists leading them to an ambush, or not? Assuming the section commander chooses to pursue the terrorists - obviously a different drill is required (you see my point? They can't use grenades and automatic fire in a civillian house with thin walls, while I think this is the best option for assaulting an enemy structure in total war). In this scenario, the section would likely storm the house hard and fast, before the the terrorists have time to entrench themselves or escape - and so clearing rooms quickly, without fireing, until the terrorists are obtained. I am not saying your wrong, only that I think "my way", is better, while a different drill is required in different scenarios.

Quote Reply

shek RE:Double Tap 10/22/2005 10:47:24 PM

Yimmy, JDAM the building with the section of enemy. Between the proper fuze and the concrete construction, blast effects will be contained with minimal damage, if any, to the school across the street. However, for the sake of the scenario you are trying to create, for whatever reason, the air isn't available. The battle drill that the clearing teams will execute is the exact same that would happen in Northern Ireland with the exception that a fragmentation grenade will be used instead of a flash bang. The wall construction will prevent fragments from harming any soldiers that may be near the walls. However, the concrete walls will create ricochets that can be fatal to friendly soldiers. Thus, your technique of spraying a room can cause fratricide and isn't necessarily any more effective. It will still take bullets to the chest and/or head to kill the enemy combatants. Next, I'm not sure of the lapse of time that you are suggesting in your N. Ireland scenario, but your idea of rushing the house will create unnecessary casualties unless it is literally a foot race separated by feet and is a matter of a final spurt to tackle the terrorists. As you stated, is it a baited ambush? Finally, what is the British program of fire for close quarters marksmanship? What is the standard for automatic fire vs. semiautomatic fire in the CQM qualification table(s)? Your argument is shaped around the volume of fire and I haven't heard you talk about the accuracy of fire. How many rounds do you fire per year on full automatic with the L85? Thanks.

Quote Reply

ChdNorm RE:Good riddance M-16 10/22/2005 10:54:36 PM

Shek, I for one thought your you post was put as well as I've ever seen it. As well as being spot on. You have to actually hit your target. Unless of course, all that spraying literally scares them to death.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Good riddance M-16 10/23/2005 9:07:23 AM

"Finally, what is the British program of fire for close quarters marksmanship? What is the standard for automatic fire vs. semiautomatic fire in the CQM qualification table(s)? Your argument is shaped around the volume of fire and I haven't heard you talk about the accuracy of fire. How many rounds do you fire per year on full automatic with the L85? Thanks." I don't really understand your terminology, however my current unit hardly ever gives opportunities for shooting on automatic, but then you have to realise that as Logistics, out training is mostly round vehicles, infantry training will be more in-depth. Automatic is fired on basic recruit courses, and with blanks on exercise, for isntance FIBUA training. It is not a part of the yearly rifle qualification, which does not have a CQB shoot as part of it (shortest distance is 100m's). From what you said in your last post, your opinion really isn't much different to mine, other than using semi-automatic rather than automatic. Concerning the NI scenario, going in hard and fast would only be used if it was a foot chase, keeping the guy mostly in sight.

Quote Reply

shek RE:Good riddance M-16 10/23/2005 10:22:12 AM

Yimmy, 1. If you don't train like you fight, then something is wrong. If the plan is to use automatic fire when clearing rooms, then that has to be trained, unless the plan is to do it poorly. 2. Blanks aren't marksmanship training. In fact, blanks can often introduce poor habits in junior soldiers because noise = suppression is an equation that is tough to correct. Accuracy = suppression. As I've stated before, I had automatic fire from an AK fired in my direction in Iraq. The bullets might as well been a mile high because they didn't suppress me (although the heart does get pumpin'!). 3. The US Army has jettisoned the different standards for loggies vs. combat arms. Loggies train CQM now just like the combat arms; the difference is that they use it for close quarters convoy live fires and not urban ops training. I'm surprised that the UK hasn't done the same.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Good riddance M-16 10/23/2005 12:22:04 PM

Don't get me wrong Shek, Logistics do have opportunities for infantry training. As a lowly private in Logistics, I have undertaken limited FIBUA, fire and maneuver, section attack - company attack, Northern Ireland training, ambush drills, convoy ambush drills etc. We do train how we fight, although I doubt we do as much live fire shoot-house stuff as the Americans. My side of the argument, drill wise, likely isn't holding as much water as yours due to our experiences in the command structure. A Captain has more credability than a Private, I can only say as I have been taught, however I think the British army has proven itself a competent force, and this is how it is taught.

Quote Reply

shek RE:Good riddance M-16 10/23/2005 2:24:11 PM

Yimmy, I am not trying to denigrate the British Army, and hope that's not the tone being heard. However, having done the combat thing, you literally do fight as you trained, and bad habits or untrained tasks don't magically come together under pressure. That's why I ask the question about whether there are automatic fire tables. If that's what's coming out of your schoolhouse, then there should be a corresponding training standard. If not, then it's just bad practice. However, even if trained, I still don't see the benefit of automatic fire is close quarters when controlled pairs can provide the required lethality while limiting the potential of fratricide through ricochets/shooting through walls. As far as the CPT vs. PVT thing, I don't take too much stock in giving credence to the higher ranking individual automatically. I've seen plenty of my peers who aren't too bright - I think it's important for people to always question the logic of doctrine - doing so gives you insight to when doctrine makes sense and when a situation calls for a unique solution. I've learned plenty from my PVTs and NCOs; after all, this is a team sport. Finally, I still wouldn't call the training our CSS elements conduct sufficient; however, it is moving in the right direction thanks to Iraq and the recognition by the Chief of Staff of the Army that it needed to be increased (and providing the ammo allocation necessary).

Quote Reply

boredman RE:Good riddance M-16 10/29/2005 4:55:07 PM

yimmy shrek, what do you both qualify as fully automatic fire? Are you both talking about the same thing? i mean using automtic fire doesnt neccisarly mean firing off an entire clip in one go! Although its better to use semi auto and burst as they deliver a better volume of fire anywya, even if you wanted to spray and pray so to speak.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

	News As History - November 21, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us