What Is Wrong With This Picture?

Before the return to marksmanship philosophy by the army, most casualties were from stray rounds. Actual aimed fire and marksmanship were the province of the Marine Corps. This guy is just as capable of accidentally killing you using area fire. It doesn't take marksmanship to get killed.
If all you know is AK hose, anything you pick up might as well be an AK.
 
A shooting buddy of mine trained Iraqi police, and most of them used the inshallah shooting technique; if God willed it, the bullet would strike the target, so aiming, trigger control, etc. were unimportant. If someone came on the forum and said shooting technique made no difference whatsoever, "we" might think them crazy, even though that person may have seen lots of action, and actually hit something.
 
Armies and police departments are not full of the most highly trained individuals on earth.
Click to expand...
But the organizations they work for rely on them being confident. As such, they are regularly told that they are the most highly trained professionals in the world, and why wouldn't they believe what their superiors are telling them?
Look at the studies on how many soldiers simply WILL NOT under ANY circumstances shoot another person. They will purposely aim close to the enemy in order to suppress them, but intentionally miss. I have seen numbers in the 80%+ range for any situation except "someone is an immediate threat to me personally." Why would you train someone to shoot well when this is the case? Any of you with experience in normal combat units disagree? Part of "special forces" is just gathering the 10-20% who actually shoot to kill together.
 
So called special forces have been around since WWII. This is not to be confused with what were called "elite troops," and even that had two definitions. One was socially elite, like units called guards, the other militarily elite, like most paratroopers or marines. That's not quite what special forces are (not to be confused with "special services").

Not everyone is a believer in special forces, as the term is usually used. They consume a high proportion of resources, although they may accomplish a lot. They sometimes have a way of becoming private armies, too. And they can only do so much. A negative aspect of such organizations, if in fact they do result in the concentration of the better soldiers, is decreasing the average overall quality or all the other units.

However, you are correct in that only a relatively small percentage of soldiers cause casualties to the enemy, or supposedly so. That's true whether they are riflemen or fighter pilots. I doubt training enters into the matter. I'd say it was a combination of two other things. First, willingness to do harm to the enemy, and second, natural ability. You have to face the fact that people have different abilities. There's no way to train people to see better, be taller (or shorter) and so on. I have poor eyesight. No amount of training will change that. Others are gifted with better than average eyesight and that's an advantage for flyers and it usually helps when you're shooting.

And speaking of Middle Easterners, there was a photo of a Syrian family on the front page of yesterday's Washington Post. The kids had red hair.
 
For several years leading up to Desert Shield/Storm i was the senior firing range advisor to the Saudis. We had a marksmanship program for the Saudis. The program had its growing pains because of the indifference to marksmanship shown by Saudi officers. Those troops with good eyesight could become good marksman. However, its not manly to wear glasses in that society and those numerous troops with eye problems did not do well.

We used to joke about the Saudis poor marksmanship. i was very proud when the 82nd Airborne came to our ranges and bragged them up to my Saudi counterparts. To make a long story short, i was dismayed and humilated by their performance. 82nd Airborne troops made the Saudis look like resolute marksmen.
 
I doubt training enters into the matter. I'd say it was a combination of two other things.
Click to expand...


Actually training was the biggest factor leading to get more troops to fire in combat. Read Dave Grossman's book "On Killing". It is a great read and tackles this question. It has to do (at least in part) with the targets the soldiers are trained on. The army went from training soldiers from bullseye targets, which produced low shooting probability, to man shaped targets which resulted in a higher firing probability. The numbers went from 20% of soldiers firing in WWII to I believe upwards of 90% in Vietnam due to changing the marksmanship training.

Also from what I understand, some of the untrained middle eastern fighters believe that the distance on the rear sights make the bullet more powerful to reach the longer distance. Instead they have their sights at 800m while firing at 300m. Shots go high. At least that's what friends that have been to Afghanastan say
 
Interesting theory about Middle Easterners. I doubt it would hold true for Afgans, who have a history of being good shots. They may believe providence plays a role but more likely, they are just well practiced. It is said they would shoot at anything, just to see if they could hit it. That may explain a lot of the holes in a lot of road signs I've seen here.
 
Last edited:
Agree with Blue Train. They may have their idiosyncrasies (like a respect/fear of the soldier who carries a pistol in hand, which is a sign of authority in many regions) but the majority of Middle Eastern fighters....are not as misguided as many believe.
 
"special forces" have been around in some form since long before the firearm.

90% may be shooting, but I have never seen the claim that 90% are shooting at human targets.
 
As was posted above, the pic is from Lebanon, not "Palestine", whatever that is. However Palestinian "police" have been supplied by the US with ARs. Just another instance where we ignorantly support terrorism.
Many of you would be surprised at the ethnic diversity in the Eastern Mediterranean area. Thousands of years of invasions by Persians, Turks, Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Kurds, Circassians, French, Brits, etc., have really muddied the gene pool.
 
Palestine was the name used until recently. I think it came from the Romans. Most other names there are old, very old, although they sometimes change a little over the years. As you know, Lebanon is an old country. In fact, when my neighbors in West Virginia sixty years ago said "the old country," they either meant Lebanon or Italy. That's where some were from. My neighbor's daughter married a Lebanonese.

Even before the Romans, before the Macedonians, there were two kingdoms. I still haven't figured out the "land flowing with milk and honey," although I've pretty much got down pat the wilderness of Sin.
 
I meant there is no modern definition of what Palestine is. I'm pretty well versed in the old terminology, however. Palestine is the Anglicized spelling/pronunciation of what the Romans named Phillistina. They renamed the Roman province after the long-gone pre-Hebrew tenants of the land partly in punishment for the numerous anti-Roman revolts carried out by the Hebrews.
But that's another story.
 
Palestine?

1,500 BC, part of New Eqypt.
900 BC, Levantine States.
560 BC, Judah in the New Babylonian Empire.
550-330 BC, Persian Transeuphrates.
324 AD, Roman Oriens Prefecture
570 AD, Sasanian Conquest
850 AD, Abbasid Empire
1096-1194, Kingdom of Jerusalem
1516, Ottoman Empire
 
Far as the photo goes...........well, you do what you gotta do when you do it. Obviously the fat boy is dumping a bunch of rounds full auto, apparently he is observing the impact point of those rounds......probably at somebody in an adjacent building and wants to make sure the stuff is going where he wants it to.

Style, poise, and proper cheek weld go to **** when you are or have just been under fire........I'dunno, but till I was there and saw precisely what the "why" of what that fella's doing I wouldn't necessarily call it wrong or "unprofessional".

Hellsfire, I can recall taking down a bank robber once, immediately following a car crash that was ANYTHING but textbook...........but it worked, and it if works it AIN'T dumb!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top