Good riddance M-16

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

Horsesoldier RE:Shrek & Full Auto 10/18/2005 3:11:00 PM

>>"Double taps", are too clinical and slow.<< Perhaps for those who are not properly trained in combat marksmanship. But then those people are not going to be particularly productive with automatic weapons fire, either.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Shrek & Full Auto 10/18/2005 3:30:14 PM

So, do you put a double tap into each wardrobe and other furniture that could provide consealment, or on your lack of seeing the bad guy, do you just wander through?

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Shrek & Full Auto 10/18/2005 7:13:49 PM

>>So, do you put a double tap into each wardrobe and other furniture that could provide consealment, or on your lack of seeing the bad guy, do you just wander through?<< A) No, you don't just light up closets and wardrobes, since such can be occupied just as easily by non-combatants as bad guys. B) Furniture can, likewise, just as easily have a mother of four and her kids lurking behind it as it can bad guys. Depending on technique, you are already sending a man deep in the room precisely to turn the flank of any sofa lurking bad guys, etc., or you do so as soon as you've strong walled the room. There are some occasional hypothetical situations where there may not be non-combatants on the battlefield, but that is very much not the safe way to bet. Since "train how you fight" is the rule of thumb, you train to operate on a complex battlefield. Beyond that, the same rules apply -- like Shek said earlier, all CQB really is is a repetition of the same basic drills. You see a closet door, you treat it like any other door -- one man locks down on it, until your other assaulters have taken care of priorities of work in the room, and then you clear it, etc. You see red zones in the room -- be it a couch, or whatever else, you clear it while other assaulters stand by to engage targets, etc. The techniques and tactics employed are used because they work, and because they are extremely flexible and readily adapted to variable situations.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Shrek & Full Auto 10/18/2005 7:35:16 PM

I agree that your viws are largely suitable for work where their are countless civilians around. However, I hope for your soldiers sake, that you are not trained to carry out those drills when assaulting an enemy held village/town where civilians are not an issue. Luckily, these days, no doubt we would (and do) just use an airstrike in such circumstances, but we may not always have the ability.

Quote Reply

S-2 RE:Shrek & Full Auto 10/18/2005 7:54:22 PM

Yimmy, what's with your misplaced sense of superiority, when discussing the American Army? It's irritating, especially when clear that the most patient, well reasoned explanations by Shek, Horsesoldier, and AlbanyRifles appears repeatedly lost on you. I don't know why they bother...

Quote Reply

ChdNorm Yimmy & Shek 10/18/2005 11:28:30 PM

Yimmy, I see we're still hung up on the question of if/when full auto is desirable or needed on a standard infantryman's rifle. To me, this seems to stem from two very different schools of thought. It makes me wonder something ...... "I have been taught to clear a room, a grenade goes in, then the first two guys go in, one spraying automatic left-right low and one spraying automatic right-left low, then the next two go in and deal with the next room etc. Obviously this is highly ammunition intensive and not suitbale for a tower block, however it is far more likely to kill the enemy then trying to take in where they are and giving aimed shots." Yimmy What type of unit are you in? Is it a front line combat arms infantry company? No disrespect to the Brits, but this sounds like an approach I'd use for training second or third tier forces that are in all likelihood never going to receive the level of training (and therefor never master the skills) that is required to become proficient in the type of tactics and close quarter skills required to perform under stress. Shek, "Additionally, controlled pairs are different from double taps. Double tap is a terminology that is synonomous with war crime, while controlled pair is a proven CQM technique used by well trained and disciplined soldiers." I haven't heard this before. How is a double tap synonymous with a war crime? Maybe it's just semantics, as I'm sure I'm out of touch with all the current Army jargon. What I was always taught, and have always taught, is that a "controlled pair" consists of two aimed rounds each fired in rapid succession. A "double tap" is two rounds fired in quick succession with a flash sight picture for the first round only.

Quote Reply

Old Grunt RE:Double Tap 10/19/2005 9:11:43 AM

Generally, when getting our quarterly Law of Land Warfare briefs, "double-tapping" was described as putting an additional round into an otherwise non-threatining target as "insurance" that the target was down. It also applied to engaging targets on the objective after it had been cleared, e.g. the support force engages all bodies encountered as they move to link up with the assault force.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Double Tap 10/19/2005 9:21:01 AM

"Yimmy, what's with your misplaced sense of superiority, when discussing the American Army?" I'm not entirely sure. Probably simply through talking to too many ignorant, gung-ho, red-neck hill billies on internet forums, gibbering on about how "If not for us you'd all be speaking German", etc. Chdnorm, I am RLC. That said, I have been taught by 16th AA instructors in FIBUA briefly.

Quote Reply

shek RE:Yimmy & Shek 10/19/2005 10:01:06 AM

ChdNorm, Old Grunt pretty much nailed it, but double tap is a lexicon that I tried to eliminate from the guys. I'd have to look up the front sight post method of reflexive firing, but it has a specific name (I think quick fire, but I don't remember for sure). 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. Yimmy, The battle drill that you described is the old battle drill in the US Army. This has been discredited and out of practice since Somalia.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Yimmy & Shek 10/19/2005 10:27:17 AM

"Yimmy, The battle drill that you described is the old battle drill in the US Army. This has been discredited and out of practice since Somalia." Somalia was close to a Northern ireland type scenario than a war fighting scenario - the two call for different drills. The British army didnt go lobbing grenades into peoples houses in Northern Ireland. When assaulting an enemy bunker complex, they would.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT