Interesting conversation on civilian vs military training.

Grossman's On Combat & On Killing(2009 ed)....

I would suggest LTC David Grossman's On Killing(2009) & his other book: On Combat.
He explains military structure, training, veteran issues, and the dynamics of the act of killing.
David Grossman retired from the US armed forces & started as a lower enlisted soldier. He also was jump & Ranger qualified.
His points about "personal kills" & how only approx 2% of all active duty troops can kill w/o remorse or be damaged by the combat is worth the read.
LTC Grossman also explains the fact that US Army doctrine/training does not want combat soldiers to kill, but to wound the enemy. This plan(in theory) will cause the enemy to direct troops to aid the wounded/lower morale.
Many people in the general public & some active duty soldiers(in all fields) do not clearly understand that point.

The end goal of the military is NOT to kill but to carry out missions or reach goals. Death is not always required or mandated.

Clyde
PS: He also writes in On Killing that approx 50,000 rounds were expended for EKIA(enemy killed) in the entire SE Asia conflict
 
PS: He also writes in On Killing that approx 50,000 rounds were expended for EKIA(enemy killed) in the entire SE Asia conflict
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges.

I didn't count the shots, but I don't dispute it. It had nothing to do with marksmanship.

In most firefights you never say the enemy. It was one side hidden in a wood line shooting at another side hidden in their wood line.

This was about firepower, not marksmanship.
 
The end goal of the military is NOT to kill but to carry out missions or reach goals. Death is not always required or mandated.
Click to expand...

Exactly

PS: He also writes in On Killing that approx 50,000 rounds were expended for EKIA(enemy killed) in the entire SE Asia conflict
Click to expand...

I agree with that factually, but as kraigwy pointed out, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

I'd venture to say that the rounds-to-boudy-count ratio is even higher in OEF/OIF (or if you really want an interesting figure, I'd like to know how much $$$ per kill we spent).

But often times it doesn't matter if you kill or wound the bad guy. If you're on a convoy to deliver supplies to somewhere and some dusche-bag with an AK opens up on you and you return fire and expend 200 rounds suppressing him without killing him, it's still a success, as you accomplished your mission. Stoping everything you're doing just to go kill some bad-guys often times makes no sense in the broader scheme of things.

Too often folks get obsessed with body counts, as they look good on paper, but just killing people doesn't equal a strategic victory and in fact may be your undoing. But that's a whole other topic we can spend all weekend arguing about.
 
On the handgun aspect

Different tool for different jobs in the military

MPs use them same as any LE

We use them as a secondary in the event that your primary goes down - hence the transitions (drop / and draw)

we use them for CQB in small rooms / aircraft takedowns / bus takedowns

and correct - you cant easily transition military tactics and immediate action drills to the civilian world except in a very small specialized set of missions like hostage rescue.
 
Rates of fire, Macnamera....

I agree with the forum members about the 50,000 round stat(which includes squad automatic weapons, aircraft systems, armor, etc). The book states that military snipers & sharpshooters had a EKIA rate of about 1.4 rounds per enemy dead. :cool:

Years ago, I saw & read how JFK's SECDEF; Robert Macnamera(check spelling) was angry over US armed forces in SE Asia not "killing enough" NVA & Viet Kong. He was a business exec for Ford & thought you could apply logistics(weapons troops ammunition) and expect results. Real combat(killing & dying) is not a business model. It's bloody, dangerous & stressful.

Clyde
 
I would suggest LTC David Grossman's On Killing(2009) & his other book: On Combat.
Click to expand...

Great books. A little off-topic, but great reads if you want to really understand the psychology of combat. Some good statistics (that I can't quote since I don't have the book in front of me) about how many soldiers across various wars never fired their weapons even when involved in a combat situation.
 
SLA Marshal...

Yes, that topic is covered by Grossman in the book; On Killing.
SLA Marshal a high ranking US Army officer did in depth research about combat troops & how they conduct missions.
It puts a lot of topics into perspective re: military training, legal issues(UCMJ, treaties, rule of land warfare etc).
In many cases, real front line troops fired guns or killed enemy troops because they did not want to be looked at as cowards or to viewed as unreliable.
It's worth noting too, that due to extended DoD/service member study-R&D, the rates of fire in combat went from approx 15-20% to approx 90-95%(combat units in SE Asia, 1962-1975 era) over many years.

Training & conditioning(mindset, motivation) assisted greatly with these service members.
Grossman's writings about the types of kills; mechanical, distance & personal makes a lot of sense. It's a Oprah "aaa-hah" moment ;). Personal kills seem the most stressful & the root cause of the most mental health issues for the obvious reasons. It was interesting to read how the USMC combat veteran(SE Asia conflict) described Marines who would cut or cause injury to their own hands, when doing a sentry elimination method in low light.
Blood, gore, injury, trama, etc are all a direct part of personal kills.
 
It's a very good observation that the mission and thus the appropriate training for civilians (which includes cops) and the military are very different. However, it seems that more and more police and sheriff's departments are forgetting that fact, and training as though they were going to war. I'd say the increasingly militarized nature of LEO's training is a rather significant problem.
 
factors, intimidation; show of force-use of force....

The last post has merit but many citizens in the general public need to understand the reasons or factors behind why sworn LE officers dress or carry the weapons-equipment that they do.
It's complex & would take a long, detailed post on the forum but in short, sworn LE officers want to deal with threats or de-escalate events(calls for service) in the safest, fastest way possible.
Sworn LE also has a show of force incident much, much more than a use of force event.
LE officers are trained to enforce the law and are sworn to make arrests or protect the general public. They must select the weapons or equipment that will expedite that w/o risk to them, the subject(s), or bystanders/citizens nearby.
There is merit in intimidation(camo uniforms, facemasks, laser aimers, white/strobe lights, etc but that is more in-depth & meant for sworn LE officers/first responders.
I strongly disagree with a few gun writers or homeland security authorities who say sworn LE officers do not need military type patrol rifles or high-tech weapons. These first responders may need to deal with threats in remote areas or need to face high-stress, difficult use-of-force incidents.
The recent FBI/HRT op in rural AL with the armed subject holding a small child hostage is a good example.
When the FBI first started the elite HRT(described in the non fiction books; No Heroes & Cold Zero) they made the unit motto; "To Save Lives".

This is what US law enforcement & first responders must do.
Clyde
 
Having been in the Army (though never in combat) and been a LEO, I have been alarmed for some time about the way military thinking and military training have become part of LE trainng. There is a lot of difference and some of today's police, trained by military veterans, seem not to understand that.

In combat (see above), a soldier would rarely worry about what is behind his target. His mission is to take an area, to control ground. In many cases, that means to kill the enemy (not to wound him, or shoot off a hangnail, to kill him). That also means that in many/most cases, the soldier cannot and does not care what is behind the enemy or what happens to the bullets that miss or penetrate the enemy's body. He will use full auto fire or fire from a belt-fed MG to lay down suppressive fire. He will do whatever it takes to accomplish the mission.

But a police officer can't do that, or at least shouldn't. Every time there is an emergency, I see TV coverage of what seems like hundreds of police with AR-15 selective fire weapons, high capacity shotguns, submachine guns, and even grenade launchers. I simply don't believe that the police carrying those weapons are fully trained and skilled in their use. In a combat zone, it doesn't matter who gets killed - the military calls it collateral damage, sees it as unavoidable (which it probably is), and the fault of someone who should not have been there in the first place.

But what happens when a hundred cops, armed with SMGs and AR-15's and grenades charge into a school to arrest a 10-year old who pointed his finger at another kid and said "pow". A nice peaceful situation, or a mass slaughter, with cops shooting at other cops and kids caught in the middle?

Yes, we do have crime in the U.S. And some of it is gun crime. But are the police arming to stop a stickup at the corner 7-11 with thousands of rounds of machinegun fire? Or are they buying all that expensive military hardware just to have fun on the range? Or are they planning for the day someone in power says he or she wants to disarm the American people and doesn't care what it takes to do it?

Jim
 
James K

I guessing it's been a while since you were in the military but the post "Hearts and Minds" ROE (Rules Of Engagement) had us doing a whole lot different than the Hollywood shoot em up picture you paint.
 
Grossman's books...

As LTC Grossman(who as stated was a Airborne Ranger & a PhD in mental health services) wrote, training doctrine, the military law/UCMJ & the education level/skill sets of combat troops changed dramatically from WWI(SLA Marshal's era) to today's OIF/OEF/SW Asia combat missions.
TRADOC or the US Army Training & Doctrine Command & the JAG(US Army Judge Advocate Generals office) must dictate how troops are conditioned/trained & what ROEs/SOPs work best.

The SE Asia Mai-Lai incident & the post-WWII Nurmberg court trials were a part of it too.
 
ClydeFrog: I strongly disagree that LEO's should be involved in intimidating and showing force to their fellow civilians. Serve and protect, not rule and intimidate. The introduction of military tactics into law enforcement is highly dangerous and generally uncalled for.
 
I disagree....

I understand your point but....
There are times & conditions when intimidation or as the US armed forces & intel agencies call them; "psy-ops" can be a good plan or be of value.

Years ago, the Chicago IL police would issue officers thick black leather jackets. They mandated the uniform item & encouraged it's use for several reasons; the leather material could keep the cops warm & toasty on long shifts in the Windy City but they also made officers look "bigger" or "tougher". Leather may also protect the officer from burns/flames, that is why WWII air crews wore them.
The use of lasers & some strobe light features get + results too. They allow LE officers to get compliance or to distort(distract) the subject(s).
Many sworn LE officers & narcotics detectives do warrant services or drug raids wearing Nomex hoods or masks. It conceals the identity, protects the face & head from fire/drug residue & may scare the bad guys.
The DEA's elite CLET unit wore masks/helmets.
CF
 
Are people who aren't LE actually telling LE how they should do their job? It sounds like you guys assume your average LEO terrorizes the public on a regular basis. Are you guys joking? You want LE to do their job with their handguns alone when in the field the criminals have AK-47's and Saiga shotguns? You're saying their shouldn't be "intimidation factor" involved to someone who is trying to kill you? Who's killed others? What kind of yellow bellied talk is that? Lets throw cupcakes with bright colored frosting while we're at it. And just purposely be at a disadvantage. Because apparently it makes the public feel better when officers are killed in the line of duty.

What do you think the purpose is? I can't believe someone on this forum. Let alone a fellow gun owner is actually the one to say this. I could have sworn this wasn't a pottery barn forum or basket weaving.

It's a preventative measure. Key to winning a gun fight besides proper training, being enough gun and back up. If the assailant(s) crap themselves, then surrender. That's a good day. Why should we cater to the feelings of criminals and people to cater to the criminals feelings? We'll see how liberal you are when you're under fire, not even. When you're so much as just faced with that danger.

Ridiculous.
 
Finish the fight....

Massad Ayoob wrote a great LE item in a gun magazine about 4/5 years ago where he makes the same point.
As a armed professional, you can't be risk adverse. Ayoob discussed a retired AK State Trooper who taught a sworn LE class called; Finish The Fight!
It's more & more common for some LE officers to be scared or more concerned about lawsuits than to do their jobs properly.
I think it's a selection/recruitment/supervision issue in 2013 but there are other factors.

ClydeFrog
 
My brother was a career SWAT cop in a large southern city. At the same time I was career military, and we used to compare notes quite a bit.

I have no issue with cops intimidating bad guys. Use of "command voice" or even pointing a weapon at a miscreant can serve that purpose. It makes little difference to me if they play dress-up with combat utilities and state-of-the-art weaponry if it helps them to achieve that aim, and improves their chances of coming home at the end of their shifts. If they want to get a really scary rubber vampire mask to frighten bad guys into quitting I guess that would be OK too.

At the same time I did have to jerk my brother's chain a bit when I found out his team had been practicing SPIE (special purpose insertion & extraction) rigging at a military base. (This is guys in a harness dangling on a line below a helicopter so that they can be inserted in a restricted area like a ridge line or some other place too tight for a helicopter to land. Think Peter Pan zipping overt the tree tops). I mean, why? I suspect it was just adventure training for them, and probably didn't cost their department much if the Army was footing the bill for the helo.

We're gonna be in trouble if the average cop on the corner is in full combat gear 24/7, as in other nations. Otherwise, let them use what they really feel they need when the time calls for it.
 
The military and police forces should have radically different mission profiles. One kills people and breaks things, the other is a public servant who keeps the peace. The huge overlap we're starting to see is deeply, deeply troubling. It's distressing how many folks seem comfortable with our nation turning into a militarized police state simply because they think they'll never be the target of those forces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top