Does experience trump training?
- Thread starter SecurityMike
- Start date
hangglider
Moderator
the other advantage the gangbangers have--they generally have no concern for legal consequences of trigger pulling--which is a huge concern for the law-abiding CCW.
shootniron
New member
What else could it be?
It is considered to be training in every other thing, why would this be any different...
That has as much or more to do with the way the US fights (with complete air superiority, massive artillery support, the most extensive logistical support known to man, and a willingness to spend millions of $$$ on precision guided weapons to kill a couple of guys with $50 AK-47s)....) and who we fight ...... armies/countries/movements with none of those. As in Viet Nam, body count is meaningless, unless you kill ALL of the enemy, before the $$$ and/or the willingness of the American taxpayer to spend it, runs out.
Training is great and trumps experience, but neither will kill an idea, if it has hearts to live in.
Hangglider, as I read your comments 2 questions come to mind;
#1, why don't you move out of there?
#2 why are you not as well armed as the enemy?
An AK 47 is an excellent weapon and not very expensive. Put a B-square scope mount on it and a low powered scope and it's outstanding as a general purpose military weapon.
YES!!!!!! Get some training. Get training from a MILITARY standpoint! Not a police standpoint. Why?
You can't arrest anyone and you have no jail to take them to.
Secondly, it's got to be admitted that is the gangs have taken over your local government favored them, not you, which is WHY they have been successful in taking over in the first place. I'd have to assume that if you shot and killed a few of them, YOU would be arrested and go to jail. Correct?
That's because of "liberalism" in your government. There is no way around that argument, which leads me back to my 1st question
Why don't you move?
If your government is against you at the foundational level, and for the gangs at a foundational level, you CANNON ever 'win" the war. You may win a fight only to be targeted by both the gangs and the cops later.
Arms yourself and get training Yes yes yes.
But get the heck out of there as soon as you can.
#1, why don't you move out of there?
#2 why are you not as well armed as the enemy?
An AK 47 is an excellent weapon and not very expensive. Put a B-square scope mount on it and a low powered scope and it's outstanding as a general purpose military weapon.
YES!!!!!! Get some training. Get training from a MILITARY standpoint! Not a police standpoint. Why?
You can't arrest anyone and you have no jail to take them to.
Secondly, it's got to be admitted that is the gangs have taken over your local government favored them, not you, which is WHY they have been successful in taking over in the first place. I'd have to assume that if you shot and killed a few of them, YOU would be arrested and go to jail. Correct?
That's because of "liberalism" in your government. There is no way around that argument, which leads me back to my 1st question
Why don't you move?
If your government is against you at the foundational level, and for the gangs at a foundational level, you CANNON ever 'win" the war. You may win a fight only to be targeted by both the gangs and the cops later.
Arms yourself and get training Yes yes yes.
But get the heck out of there as soon as you can.
hangglider
Moderator
Excellent questions WyoSmith.
I'm required contractually to remain in my residence for 6 years as a full-time resident--otherwise the city's housing authority will lower the boom on me financially. But that term is up in December. I paid 137 K for the place--in this economy and given the neighborhood, I'll be lucky to walk away with 30 or 40 K. That's a big hunk of money to take a huge loss on--but I will be gone one way or another by this time next year.
I don't need an AK--I already have an AR with M855 if I need it--but that's not the problem. I have to be sure of where each and every round goes when I pull the trigger--not an easy thing to deal with when a car pulls up with thugs who don't give a hoot about the law when they open up on your residence with an AK. I'm surrounded by homes and apartments. If you watch that video I posted above--the 7.62 was the superior penetrating round in an urban construction environment compared to 5.56 from M4/16.
I agree with your conclusions and courses of action otherwise.
I'm required contractually to remain in my residence for 6 years as a full-time resident--otherwise the city's housing authority will lower the boom on me financially. But that term is up in December. I paid 137 K for the place--in this economy and given the neighborhood, I'll be lucky to walk away with 30 or 40 K. That's a big hunk of money to take a huge loss on--but I will be gone one way or another by this time next year.
I don't need an AK--I already have an AR with M855 if I need it--but that's not the problem. I have to be sure of where each and every round goes when I pull the trigger--not an easy thing to deal with when a car pulls up with thugs who don't give a hoot about the law when they open up on your residence with an AK. I'm surrounded by homes and apartments. If you watch that video I posted above--the 7.62 was the superior penetrating round in an urban construction environment compared to 5.56 from M4/16.
I agree with your conclusions and courses of action otherwise.
Mindset (for lack of a better term) can offset training and experience.
Lets take paratroopers (which have been mentioned a couple times in this discussion).
During WWII American Paratroopers were involved in some of the most fierce combat in the war, yet, they had a much less rate of PTSD.
Why?
The army asked that question. Except for airborne school, airborne infantry go through the same training and any other American infantry troops so what is the difference.
The army went to Benning to study this and concentrated on the 34 ft tower. Any one who's been to jump school can attest that the 34ft tower is more frightening then actual jumping from a plane.
They found those who were slow to jump from the tower were twice as likely to fail or drop out then those who were quick to jump. So what you end up with when you talk about paratroopers is a higher percentages of "fast jumpers".
An example, someone mentioned we, America, fights different, and technology, air power, etc, makes the difference when comparing American Soldiers and others. This is true to a point, but then again the paratrooper example proves that's not always the case.
Look at Bastonge. You had one understrength light infantry division (paratrooper) holding off three heavy armor divisions. Weather prevented air support and re-supply, but paratrooper mentality allowed them to prevail.
Another factor that comes in to play that skips "training and experience" is control. If you feel you are in control of your fate, you are in a much better position to work through the problem, where if you aren't in control, fear interferes.
Take bomber crews in WWII. Percentage wise they had a pretty high causality rate. When under attack pilots faired better then turret gunners. They had the feeling they had control of their destiny where the turret gunner could do nothing but set there, leaving his fate to someone else.
If I may interject a "war story" it would help explain the "control of ones fate" theory.
In March 1968 I was involved in one of the worse firefights of my tour in SE Asia. I did fine, meaning I could set aside fear because at the time I was carrying a M-60, and I had control of what was happening around me. That is until I burned up the gun. Now I'm helpless, I had nothing but a 1911a1 and could Basicly just set there. That's when the worse fear of my life kicked in causing me to sort of freeze up. The only way I could control my fear was when a M16 from a fallen comrade became available and I could get back in the fight, I then felt I was back in control of my fate and again could work through my fears.
Experience may or may not help. I had experience of setting there with the 1911 which would help nothing. I had experience with the '60 and later the M16, which did help.
Where training comes in, is with training you are given the tools where you can gain control of your fate.
Experience is good if you can "after action" your conduct, meaning you have to evaluate your actions. Your failing in your experience means you have to train to prevent the failings in the future. You success in your experience needs to be studied to determine what you did right, and if possible expand on it.
In my "war story" mentioned above, if evaluated correctly I would had determined the time between the M60 and M16 should have been spent in a more aggressive roll. I did the evaluation and I think it helped me a lot in the rest of my tour.
In continuing my military and LE career in my future life I took the lessens learned (good and bad) and incorporated it in my personal training and the training I provided to others.
Lets take paratroopers (which have been mentioned a couple times in this discussion).
During WWII American Paratroopers were involved in some of the most fierce combat in the war, yet, they had a much less rate of PTSD.
Why?
The army asked that question. Except for airborne school, airborne infantry go through the same training and any other American infantry troops so what is the difference.
The army went to Benning to study this and concentrated on the 34 ft tower. Any one who's been to jump school can attest that the 34ft tower is more frightening then actual jumping from a plane.
They found those who were slow to jump from the tower were twice as likely to fail or drop out then those who were quick to jump. So what you end up with when you talk about paratroopers is a higher percentages of "fast jumpers".
An example, someone mentioned we, America, fights different, and technology, air power, etc, makes the difference when comparing American Soldiers and others. This is true to a point, but then again the paratrooper example proves that's not always the case.
Look at Bastonge. You had one understrength light infantry division (paratrooper) holding off three heavy armor divisions. Weather prevented air support and re-supply, but paratrooper mentality allowed them to prevail.
Another factor that comes in to play that skips "training and experience" is control. If you feel you are in control of your fate, you are in a much better position to work through the problem, where if you aren't in control, fear interferes.
Take bomber crews in WWII. Percentage wise they had a pretty high causality rate. When under attack pilots faired better then turret gunners. They had the feeling they had control of their destiny where the turret gunner could do nothing but set there, leaving his fate to someone else.
If I may interject a "war story" it would help explain the "control of ones fate" theory.
In March 1968 I was involved in one of the worse firefights of my tour in SE Asia. I did fine, meaning I could set aside fear because at the time I was carrying a M-60, and I had control of what was happening around me. That is until I burned up the gun. Now I'm helpless, I had nothing but a 1911a1 and could Basicly just set there. That's when the worse fear of my life kicked in causing me to sort of freeze up. The only way I could control my fear was when a M16 from a fallen comrade became available and I could get back in the fight, I then felt I was back in control of my fate and again could work through my fears.
Experience may or may not help. I had experience of setting there with the 1911 which would help nothing. I had experience with the '60 and later the M16, which did help.
Where training comes in, is with training you are given the tools where you can gain control of your fate.
Experience is good if you can "after action" your conduct, meaning you have to evaluate your actions. Your failing in your experience means you have to train to prevent the failings in the future. You success in your experience needs to be studied to determine what you did right, and if possible expand on it.
In my "war story" mentioned above, if evaluated correctly I would had determined the time between the M60 and M16 should have been spent in a more aggressive roll. I did the evaluation and I think it helped me a lot in the rest of my tour.
In continuing my military and LE career in my future life I took the lessens learned (good and bad) and incorporated it in my personal training and the training I provided to others.
Double Naught Spy
New member
The only difference is not that our guys have the training, LOL. It certainly helps, but in each of the conflicts you listd, we have had tremendous superiority in technology, munitions, transportation, and medical care. In the recent engagements, our guys have also had the benefit of wearing very good ballistic armor. We have the ability to strike our opposition from altitudes they can't reach or from locations hundreds or even thousands of miles distant. Injured soldiers can be evacuated extremely quickly from many areas of combat, usually after receiving first aid on the ground, then getting further aid back at base and/or then transported to a hospital. After being stabilized, soldiers can be in Germany or back in the US for additional treatments within a couple of days of being injured.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/10/airforce_powers_071022/
American soldiers may be better trained than their opposition and that does help, but American soldiers also have many other very significant advantages. If a group gets pinned down, they can call in for and often get air support or artillary support.
Even when not on their home soil, the American military often has numerous advantages over its opposition
As far as the cops vs bad guys thing goes, bear in mind that the BG often starts the ball rolling, and the aggressor has a certain advantage. Also, cops don't generally shoot people from ambush, or just walk up and start shooting.
Hit percentages tend to be higher before the other guy starts shooting back.
Go figure.
Hit percentages tend to be higher before the other guy starts shooting back.
Go figure.
Adamantium
New member
I'll be honest I didn't read all the responses so someone might have already made this point.
Training without experience teaches the fundamentals but doesn't always help you apply them in a stressful situation, more so if it is time sensitive. Experience without any training will almost always lead to gaps in fundamentals. Experience followed by training usually involves unlearning bad habits. Training followed by experience allows one to put details in their proper context because of the knowledge one can draw upon.
I went to school in the Army for 8 months to become EOD (Navy school though). When I hit the ground in Iraq I was a little behind the curve compared to people who did other jobs but had been in country for the better part of the year. But after I had gotten some experience under my belt those same people often got confused on the way our team did things because they had no deeper understanding of it than pure experience. Don't get me wrong they did their jobs very well but when it came to bombs and bullets it didn't matter how many they had seen they never developed a broader understanding of them.
The concept of Training -> Experience is the best one out there in my mind. So I guess if I had to chose one or the other I would take the training and figure things out after that.
Training without experience teaches the fundamentals but doesn't always help you apply them in a stressful situation, more so if it is time sensitive. Experience without any training will almost always lead to gaps in fundamentals. Experience followed by training usually involves unlearning bad habits. Training followed by experience allows one to put details in their proper context because of the knowledge one can draw upon.
I went to school in the Army for 8 months to become EOD (Navy school though). When I hit the ground in Iraq I was a little behind the curve compared to people who did other jobs but had been in country for the better part of the year. But after I had gotten some experience under my belt those same people often got confused on the way our team did things because they had no deeper understanding of it than pure experience. Don't get me wrong they did their jobs very well but when it came to bombs and bullets it didn't matter how many they had seen they never developed a broader understanding of them.
The concept of Training -> Experience is the best one out there in my mind. So I guess if I had to chose one or the other I would take the training and figure things out after that.
L_Killkenny
New member
Well let's face it not all training is equal and not all experience is equal. In a fight I'll take the guy with 100 street fights over someone with 5 years of tae kwon do training. But then I'd more than likely take someone with U.S. military training over any gang banger on the street. It doesn't just apply to fighting either. You can and do learn more from experience than you do from a classroom environment.
Basically though I have little respect for the ability of the average gang banger walking the street. They shoot a lot more than they hit and they run or duck a lot more than they stand up and fight. If they were really very good there'd be a lot more bodies on the street. Not necessarily a bad thing if they're shooting at each other IMO. Maybe we should sign em up for some hardcore training. On second thought, not such a good idea.
No one knows what they're gonna do in a fight. But from all I've seen I'll take my 25 years of shooting over some 1, 2 or 7 day class in a heartbeat.
LK
Basically though I have little respect for the ability of the average gang banger walking the street. They shoot a lot more than they hit and they run or duck a lot more than they stand up and fight. If they were really very good there'd be a lot more bodies on the street. Not necessarily a bad thing if they're shooting at each other IMO. Maybe we should sign em up for some hardcore training. On second thought, not such a good idea.
No one knows what they're gonna do in a fight. But from all I've seen I'll take my 25 years of shooting over some 1, 2 or 7 day class in a heartbeat.
LK
hangglider
Moderator
It looks like the city may be FINALLY coming to it's senses: http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/jan/24/chattanooga-tougher-laws-sought-to-deal-with-gangs/?local It's interesting to see that rural areas are likely to resist law reform regarding gangs.
Combat experience IS training.
Interesting question, however.
Experienced soldiers who've seen combat vs. a well trained Seal or Delta Force team on their first mission? I'll take the Special Ops, since their training is so extensive, and the quality of the soldier is simply superb.
On the other hand, it takes a lot of training to overcome the experience of soldiers who've seen extensive combat. Some things aren't learned anywhere except the real thing.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Police training is supposed to take into account handling aggressive people including those that start the aggression. Even if you don't consider ambush shootings, cops still have a rough time.
Even when the cops are the aggressors they don't always win despite that advantage and their training advantage.
As has been stated by others, experience is training. The ideal situation involves the highest level of simulation and then the actual experience which tends to sharpen the skill tremendously. I like to think about our special forces warriors when thinking about the ideal situation. When experience happens under life threatening circumstances, you have stress innoculation which prepares you even more the next time an event happens. You program the "mid-brain" for the next time.
What is interesting about experience is that by winning actual confrontations, you are more likely to continue winning. It is called the "Ace factor." A simple analogy for me is the phenom in which the same NFL quarterbacks tend to lead their teams to championship football games year after year. This year was no exception. These guys are Aces because they've been there and they stay cool under pressure (think Joe Montana). The same thing happens in gunfighting, whether on the ground or in the air.
As far as gangbangers who may have a lot of experience but no training, the continuous quest for survival coupled with their predatory nature, sharpens their abilities. Surviving conflict makes them stronger and harder to defeat. It is the law of nature: only the strongest survive.
What is interesting about experience is that by winning actual confrontations, you are more likely to continue winning. It is called the "Ace factor." A simple analogy for me is the phenom in which the same NFL quarterbacks tend to lead their teams to championship football games year after year. This year was no exception. These guys are Aces because they've been there and they stay cool under pressure (think Joe Montana). The same thing happens in gunfighting, whether on the ground or in the air.
As far as gangbangers who may have a lot of experience but no training, the continuous quest for survival coupled with their predatory nature, sharpens their abilities. Surviving conflict makes them stronger and harder to defeat. It is the law of nature: only the strongest survive.
The thing is, once again, that there are some things for which most people cannot reasonably expect to acquire "experience."
Getting into shootouts with handguns is one of those things. Most infantrymen, should they end up in a battle, will use a rifle (or heavy weapon); few will use a pistol; and most infantrymen do not end up in a battle.
Most cops will never fire their gun in the line of duty, outside of training.
And a lot of people who do fire their gun in self-defense, or LE work, won't do it a second time - so it's difficult to say what difference their initial experience made, compared to any effects their training may have had.
In other endeavors, training can trump experience. Flying is a good example. A lot of pilots amass a lot of time flying the line, but don't train for emergencies all that often. They are often very smooth at flying the plane in normal conditions, but may not be as good at handling emergencies in the aircraft as a pilot whose training more intensively and extensively focused on in-flight emergencies.
The more experienced pilot will probably have smoother landings and a better touch on the controls than the pilot with less experience, but more emergency training.
The guy who put in lots of hours and repetitions of training for engine failures or fires during takeoff will probably do better with the emergency in that environment.
Getting into shootouts with handguns is one of those things. Most infantrymen, should they end up in a battle, will use a rifle (or heavy weapon); few will use a pistol; and most infantrymen do not end up in a battle.
Most cops will never fire their gun in the line of duty, outside of training.
And a lot of people who do fire their gun in self-defense, or LE work, won't do it a second time - so it's difficult to say what difference their initial experience made, compared to any effects their training may have had.
In other endeavors, training can trump experience. Flying is a good example. A lot of pilots amass a lot of time flying the line, but don't train for emergencies all that often. They are often very smooth at flying the plane in normal conditions, but may not be as good at handling emergencies in the aircraft as a pilot whose training more intensively and extensively focused on in-flight emergencies.
The more experienced pilot will probably have smoother landings and a better touch on the controls than the pilot with less experience, but more emergency training.
The guy who put in lots of hours and repetitions of training for engine failures or fires during takeoff will probably do better with the emergency in that environment.
hangglider
Moderator
I think the paratrooper off the jump tower points out to an aspect of all this that is neither experience or training--it is the mental mind set (warning, this is all purely my subjective opinions). This is probably the hardest thing to quantify and define. I have a bar buddy who is an ex-Seal, and you wouldn't know it unless you knew him. Despite being older than me and retired, it's a marvel to watch him confidently "wade into battle" when hitting on the women. 
I don't think experience trumps training, but it depends on the experience gained and the training recieved.
Take what happened in Mogudishu in '93 between American forces and Somali militias. Throughout the fight, even though they did have air support (especially at night), the Rangers & Delta guys were outshooting their opponents consistently. This is pretty well documented by eyewitnesses from both sides.
However, what is often overlooked is that the Somali militiamen, by and large, would have had much more actual combat experience, or experience with gun violence in general, than any of the American soldiers. They grew up surrounded by etreme violence their whole lives. Gunplay, and gun violence is second nature to them, and still is, yet they recieve no real training and paid for it severely in that encounter.
If you don't train to properly use your weapon, your experience will mean little against someone who is properly trained.
Take what happened in Mogudishu in '93 between American forces and Somali militias. Throughout the fight, even though they did have air support (especially at night), the Rangers & Delta guys were outshooting their opponents consistently. This is pretty well documented by eyewitnesses from both sides.
However, what is often overlooked is that the Somali militiamen, by and large, would have had much more actual combat experience, or experience with gun violence in general, than any of the American soldiers. They grew up surrounded by etreme violence their whole lives. Gunplay, and gun violence is second nature to them, and still is, yet they recieve no real training and paid for it severely in that encounter.
If you don't train to properly use your weapon, your experience will mean little against someone who is properly trained.