| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Brent |
Posted - August 16 2007 : 11:51:24 AM
I always felt that the average 7th trooper was probably a pretty poor shot. Much like Crooks men.. firing thousands of rounds and hitting very little.
Plus I'm a Vietnam vet and saw horrible marksmanship among our soldiers there as well. But here's something interesting I recently came across:
During the battle for Peleliu in WW II, this is what it took to kill just ONE Japanese soldier:
1,331 rounds of .30 cal rifle fire
152 rounds of .45 cal
69 rounds of .50 cal
9 rounds of 60mm mortar
5 rounds of 81 mm mortar
1 rifle grenade
10 hand grenades
6 rounds of 75 mm artillery
5 rounds of 105 artillery
1 round of 155 artillery
1/2 round of 8 " artillery
And--this does not take into account ANY of the thousands of naval 16", 8" 5" and 40 MM shells fired from the fleet, nor ANY of the 250, 500, and thousand pound bombs dropped by Navy and Marine planes. Nor any of the napalm they dropped or the many thousands of rounds of .30 and .50 cal rounds the planes fired in straffing runs.
Now that's all a LOT of ammo!!
So--what does it all have to do with LBH? I guess not much. The terrain and situation are hardly compareable. But it does illustrate the fact that one shot hardly equals one kill--then or now. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 18 2011 : 9:27:56 PM
I sincerely apologize, now that you have thoughtfully explained your "motto" I understand the true meaning of what you are saying. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 18 2011 : 09:10:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
I guess I'm just a dunder head but, I can't help but fight the feeling that an officer's first duty should be to his men, toward the human element in combat. Oh well, it doesn't matter I guess. Everyone can't be as meticulous and stalwart toward animals (horses ) as you .
The closing comment on all my posts refers to a mounted peace officer and not to military officer. The horse depends on the officer for being prepared to preform the tasks of the job whether it is care or training. I suspect in the cavalry the officer's had someone to provide the care to their horse.
In my case I have 3 horses Custer who is the oldest and near retirement, smoke my current patrol horse, and Chesty Puller the youngster and next patrol horse.
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 13 2011 : 7:47:03 PM
I guess I'm just a dunder head but, I can't help but fight the feeling that an officer's first duty should be to his men, toward the human element in combat. Oh well, it doesn't matter I guess. Everyone can't be as meticulous and stalwart toward animals (horses) as you . |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 13 2011 : 12:09:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
In two fatal(not mine)occasions wherein I was forced to defend my self I was awarded two Silver Stars for each effort. More importantly, I survived unscathed retuning to my wife and children.
Interesting that your Department gave awards for officer involved shootings. We don't have such awards. Our officers are expected to survive gun fights and when they don't we have funerals and wear black bands on our badges.
Let me see, you are walking on patrol and six gang members jump out at you (all are armed) and fire. Your department expects you to survive this? A drug Cartel drops 300 members on your station and commence to fire everyone up but, your department expects you all to survive this.
Your department expects a lot don't it!
As a firearms instructor we never teach our officers that the are going to die if six gang bangers attack. What benefit would that serve? But you made my point marksmanship is only one of the skills needed to survive a gunfight. Not walking into an ambush would be another skill that could be useful. We teach shooting while moving to cover also.
Gee, the good thing is that both of our departments give us funerals when we die. See, were not that much different after all.
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 12 2011 : 8:31:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
In two fatal(not mine)occasions wherein I was forced to defend my self I was awarded two Silver Stars for each effort. More importantly, I survived unscathed retuning to my wife and children.
Interesting that your Department gave awards for officer involved shootings. We don't have such awards. Our officers are expected to survive gun fights and when they don't we have funerals and wear black bands on our badges.
Let me see, you are walking on patrol and six gang members jump out at you (all are armed) and fire. Your department expects you to survive this? A drug Cartel drops 300 members on your station and commence to fire everyone up but, your department expects you all to survive this.
Your department expects a lot don't it!
Gee, the good thing is that both of our departments give us funerals when we die. See, were not that much different after all. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 11 2011 : 9:51:19 PM
In two fatal(not mine)occasions wherein I was forced to defend my self I was awarded two Silver Stars for each effort. More importantly, I survived unscathed retuning to my wife and children.
Interesting that your Department gave awards for officer involved shootings. We don't have such awards. Our officers are expected to survive gun fights and when they don't we have funerals and wear black bands on our badges. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 11 2011 : 9:36:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Joe wigs
This conversation has reached, dramatically, the point of "zero" return. A marksman achieves the ability to instantaneously get "on target" (regardless of distance) through monotonous and often boring repetition of practice. If you do not agree with this point, fine! I have nothing further to elaborate on this particular issue.
I guess I lack the insistent stamina to engage in herculean "nit-picking" that my ex-wife relished and adored.
Here is something simple so that maybe even you can understand it. We have firearms training simulators that use a laser to record hits on a target. Under stress when the officers see a person with a gun they have tendency to shoot at the gun which is wrong. Even the very best marksman can be looking at the gun and hit or be near it instead of center mass.
I would be more than happy to share your " A marksman achieves the ability to instantaneously get "on target" (regardless of distance)" with precision rifle shooters that they don't need to take the time to calculate windage and elevation for a long range shot because Ole Joe says it can be done instantaneously regardless of distance.
Joe at best you describing handgun distances of 25 yards or less and I doubt from the holster it is any faster than a second whereas a person with a gun in hand can get a shot off in less than .5 seconds.
Your idea of instantaneous from a holster is what Joe?
AZ Ranger
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 04 2011 : 7:18:36 PM
This conversation has reached, dramatically, the point of "zero" return. A marksman achieves the ability to instantaneously get "on target" (regardless of distance) through monotonous and often boring repetition of practice. If you do not agree with this point, fine! I have nothing further to elaborate on this particular issue.
I guess I lack the insistent stamina to engage in herculean "nit-picking" that my ex-wife relished and adored. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 2:30:08 PM
Joe there is a lot that goes into shooting a person that is not related to marksmanship. Most police shootings occur at less than 7 yards which requires less marksmanship. Most officers shoot reasonably well to that range. Recognizing the threat and speed come into play which is not part of pure marksmanship which is accuracy only.
Does indexing, muzzle indexing, front sight and sight alignment with a front sight stare correlate to distance from a threat? Are they less marksmanship and more speed oriented the closer the distance? |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 11:33:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Joe as usual you just can't help yourself I appreciate your offer for contacting firearms instructors and know you can always learn something. Have them give me a call sometime.
I am an AZPOST tactical handgun, tactical shotgun, and patrol rife instructor.
I am a Colt M-16,M-4. AR-15, S&W AR 15, Remington 870 and Sig Sauer certified armorer
I can assure you that markmanship is skill that takes practice to be maintained but it only a component of being battle ready which is my point
I am very happy that you are all these very important things. These are skills to be very much admired. However the skill,marksmanship,that you relegate to a mere "only a component of" confuses me.
If you do not completely accomplish the ability to "hit" the target -no matter the stress- how do you avoid in coming fire from the opponent who is firing at you? Is it not true that the successful beginning of fire fight is predicated upon the ability to get on target without thinking about it but doing? Further isn't this ability the result of continuous, sometime monotonous, target practice -over and over again? I realize I'm at a disadvantage as I was only a Fire Arm Instructor for small arms on the Police Department so please bear with me. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 02:33:01 AM
"Intensive training is important when attempting to achieve a status of "Expert" on a firing range. Ripping dead center through paper targets does much to enhance the shooter's feeling of confidence and ability."
Please explain this? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 02:22:40 AM
Joe as usual you just can't help yourself I appreciate your offer for contacting firearms instructors and know you can always learn something. Have them give me a call sometime.
I am an AZPOST tactical handgun, tactical shotgun, and patrol rife instructor.
I am a Colt M-16,M-4. AR-15, S&W AR 15, Remington 870 and Sig Sauer certified armorer
I can assure you that markmanship is skill that takes practice to be maintained but it only a component of being battle ready which is my point
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 22 2011 : 11:20:10 AM
Unfortunately dear AZ, I do have a clue. As a police officer I was able to personally recognize the correlation between intensified training which comes to fruitfulness when pressed into sudden and unanticipated "hot" fire. The training I receive enabled me to return fire calmly, firmly, and on target thereby saving my life;verifying the old adage: "the best offense is a good defense".
In two fatal(not mine)occasions wherein I was forced to defend my self I was awarded two Silver Stars for each effort. More importantly, I survived unscathed retuning to my wife and children.
I believe that once again you have mis-read my post due to your blatant animosity. What you address as a "mere component" is extremely vital until one reaches the apogee of marksman training. Only then, can one reach the level of "expert" while retuning regularly to training to hone one's skills and to liquidate any negative "habits" that may have been picked up along the way.
In summation, my preference upon targeting practice matched to your blight regard of it should not denote that either one of us do not have a "clue" about what constitutes "highly trained."
Please have a nice day friend!
PS. If you would contact Firearm Instructors on any Police Department and the Military you will find that I'm not to far off base. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 17 2008 : 06:52:15 AM
Joe I don't believe you have a clue on what constitutes highly trained based upon you paper target comments. Marksmanship is merely a component of a highly trained person. Training also includes controlling your rate of fire among other things. You can't miss fast enough to win a gun fight. Navy Seals are highly in trained in the use and application of small arms. Sailors are not. Special forces are highly trained and the average soldier is not. Recon and snipers are highly trained and the average Marine is not.
Swat teams, entry teams, etc are highly trained in the application and use of firearms but the average street cop is not. There are many police officers that shoot competitively but that just makes them a good shot but not necessarily highly trained in the application of other skills needed to be considered highly trained.
One only needs to read how many rounds are fired by soldiers per hit and compare it to rate of a truly highly trained sniper. There are many soldiers that shoot expert that are not highly trained.
AZ Ranger
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - September 16 2008 : 9:19:31 PM
Not necessarily true. Intensive training is important when attempting to achieve a status of "Expert" on a firing range. Ripping dead center through paper targets does much to enhance the shooter's feeling of confidence and ability.
When the "paper targets" shoot back is when the dilemma occurs. I have seen "expert" shooters fall apart when fired upon. Sometimes leadership becomes a critical factor that may save the day. Lt. Godfrey utilized positive leadership to threaten, force, and encourage troops who were not great shooter to perform above their capabilities. In doing so, he saved his command.
the "highly trained" may sometimes fall apart when the conditions are horrific. A great leader often saves the day despite the horror. I prefer fighting under the banner of a "Leader" rather than an "expert" any day of the week. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 11 2008 : 09:35:32 AM
Ammunition is cheap but I will sell my life dearly.
Regaining one's own control of rounds fired and effectiveness is the difference between highly trained and those that just know how a firearm functions.
AZ Ranger |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 12 2007 : 5:43:07 PM
Brent, this story fits into the "Amazing but True" catagory of life. I'm glad that you were able to come back and share it with us. |
| Brent |
Posted - October 01 2007 : 12:56:24 PM
Was it the Civil War when one of the "political generals" was having his guns fire away, when someone pointed out that the shells weren't hitting anything and were having no effect. And he said something like "To hell with the effect--it's the SOUND we want".
Can recall one night on the bunker line at Chu Lai when I was awakened by a ton of shots from our guys. When I got to the line to see what was up, I was told that "VC" had been spotted crawling nearby and our boys were just simply giving them hell. Curiously, no shots appeared to be coming back--. It was dark then but an hour or so later it got light--and quiet. I led out a 5 man patrol to the wood line--where I found that our boys had been firing at a parachute!! It probably came from one of the flares that were dropped by helicopters continually all around Chu Lai each night. I would reckon that nearly 30 men had taken shots at the parachute for almost an hour and a half--several thousands of rounds easily. And the parachute was still in reasonable shape!!! |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 30 2007 : 6:32:06 PM
I would think the number of rounds fired at known threats in excess of those that inflicted casualties would be hard to calculate as compared to the total of rounds issued. We never had to account for them. I worked on a bridge one day in Viet Nam and we shot at anything in water that might be a person or conceal a person. I would guess I fired 100's of rounds without one known threat. Given a situation of close quarters and known threats I am sure I could do better.
AZ Ranger |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - August 31 2007 : 8:58:00 PM
Frank:
My perspective regarding posting on the forum is simple,sharing information and enjoying that sharing. No one should feel that he or she must "justify" anything. With one glaring exception, I have found every thread on this forum insightful, interesting, and appreciated. Even the one's that I don't agree with. I have yet to read a statement that was so bizarre, incredible, nor insane that i felt it had to be justified; again with one exception. Your posts are all ways thoughtful and appreciated. |
| Brent |
Posted - August 27 2007 : 06:40:56 AM
Frank:
Nothing for you to "justify". Numbers like how many Indians, how many arrows, etc etc are mostly guesswork--educated guesswork perhaps. People writing published books may have to provide some justification--but we don't.
And that's fine. Just look at the estimates (in "legitimate" books) for the # of Indians vs. Custer. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - August 26 2007 : 10:32:00 PM
Joe and Brent, I said in my post about Crook's men firing X number of rounds. I think I've seen the figure of 25,000 also, but didn't mention it because I didn't want to have to justify it. When I put things in posts, it's sometimes just estimates that I draw on because of something I have read in the past. How valid what I read is is open to speculation. I don't think I've ever made a statement. for instance, Red Cloud has 5000 warriors attacking the Wagon Box just to pull a number out of the air.
Now it's back to the Dodgers-Mets game. |
| Brent |
Posted - August 26 2007 : 1:45:22 PM
Joe: That estimate for Vietnam is reasonable enough--with the high rates of fire and the "lightness" of the weapons (especially the M-16), one soldier could use up his "basic load" (180 rounds in our outfit) in a matter of minutes. Without really aiming at anything and usually w/o hitting anything.
As for the Fetterman fight arrow totals--I would imagine that if there were really 2,000 Indians, a certain # never got close enough to Fetterman to even fire a shot. That's a large swarm of people around 80 men, and they could easily have gotten in each other's way. And certain # of others --while yelling and screaming--probably didn't shoot any arrows even if they could. Much like soldiers in modern times--a certain # in any battle never fire their weapon. But then there were undoubtedly a # of Indians who positively rained arrows at Fetterman.
So who knows???? |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - August 26 2007 : 11:52:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
. Seems like I read that at the Fetterman battle--notice I don't use the term "massacre"--the Indians were said to have used 25,000 arrows. They killed 81 or so soldiers. So go figure.
Frank, your point is well taken. we read so much of this battle during the course of many years that the informational sources become shelved in the back compartment of our consciousness. Imagine my surprise when i accidental ran across this paragraph this morning:
In Vietnam, it was estimated that some firefights had 50,000 bullets fired for each soldier killed. In the Battle of the Rosebud, eight days before the Little Big Horn fight, Gen. Cook's forces fired about 25,000 rounds and may have caused about 100 Indian casualties."
for a certainty the circumstances are different by the numbers are eerily similar. Like you, I don,t have the time or inclination to peruse all my sources for the last 25 years but, the above may be the premise of your re-collection.
The author then goes on to give further fantastic stories of tremendous amounts of weapon's fire with little effect. For example, 42,00 rounds were expended or lost. This rate translates into the soldiers hitting one Indian for about 840 rounds.
Now a demand could be made from the author where he obtained his data. Whether he will acquiesce is another story.
See www.Lonestarrifle.com/C.htmlustermd |
| Brent |
Posted - August 26 2007 : 05:30:20 AM
It's not like it will be a question on a history test--
'How many arrows were fired by the Indians during the Fetterman Fight":
A.2,000
B.80
c Six million
d: 25,000
I don't suppose anyone cares about the exact number--I sure don't. 25,000 seems a reasonable ESTIMATE. NO one really knows for sure.
Frank: Don't forget "Indian Fighting Army" by Fairfax Downey. |
