The SA80 replacement thread has thrown up some of the often-repeated concerns/opinions about musketry and training.
The line from the British Army for many years - certainly through the 70s and 80s when some equipment was seen as lacking - was that training and skill-at-arms overcame the deficiencies.
Inevitably, a new personal weapon thread is always going to pull in the kit tarts, and the Top Trumps and Google merchants.
But, I'll borrow this from @napier in reference to one of the officers he knew:
Most of the clothing I was issued with in the mid-80s would have been readily recognisable to those from the mid-40s. Body armour was scarce, iron sights the norm, Personal Role Radio was science fiction.
In some respects, we're forced to step up to the plate equipment-wise. The modern battlefield needs better 24-hour awareness, sight systems and power sources have been miniaturised and come down in cost to a point where distribution is near-universal - and should be. Clothing has come on leaps and bounds, to the point that suffering personally in extreme weather almost requires a positive will.
All positive stuff and I think to not do it would be a dereliction in and of itself.
On the one hand, we have continuing comments from some on here about the under-utilisation of ranges, and poor marksmanship. On the other, we have the counter-assertions that the British Army post-Afghanistan had honed small-unit tactics to a fine point, and that we have a senior NCO cadre with solid first-hand experience of What Works.
So: the crux of it: are we trapped in an ARRSE echo chamber? Are we over-compensating or even over-emphasising equipment to the detriment of, or because of the shortcomings of, the (wo)man? Are lesson learned - once again - being wilfully discarded once 'proper’ peacetime soldiering comes around? Is it as bad as we think it is? Or are some of us, with the comfort of the distance of years, being rather too smug and dismissing the continued (comparative) excellence of the individual?
Discuss...
The line from the British Army for many years - certainly through the 70s and 80s when some equipment was seen as lacking - was that training and skill-at-arms overcame the deficiencies.
Inevitably, a new personal weapon thread is always going to pull in the kit tarts, and the Top Trumps and Google merchants.
But, I'll borrow this from @napier in reference to one of the officers he knew:
...which set me thinking.I worked with said officer on the FIST trials, where he proved comprehensively - through coaching junior commanders - that applying appropriate fire control and marksmanship principles had a greater impact on fire effect than gucci sights, LRFs, etc.
Most of the clothing I was issued with in the mid-80s would have been readily recognisable to those from the mid-40s. Body armour was scarce, iron sights the norm, Personal Role Radio was science fiction.
In some respects, we're forced to step up to the plate equipment-wise. The modern battlefield needs better 24-hour awareness, sight systems and power sources have been miniaturised and come down in cost to a point where distribution is near-universal - and should be. Clothing has come on leaps and bounds, to the point that suffering personally in extreme weather almost requires a positive will.
All positive stuff and I think to not do it would be a dereliction in and of itself.
On the one hand, we have continuing comments from some on here about the under-utilisation of ranges, and poor marksmanship. On the other, we have the counter-assertions that the British Army post-Afghanistan had honed small-unit tactics to a fine point, and that we have a senior NCO cadre with solid first-hand experience of What Works.
So: the crux of it: are we trapped in an ARRSE echo chamber? Are we over-compensating or even over-emphasising equipment to the detriment of, or because of the shortcomings of, the (wo)man? Are lesson learned - once again - being wilfully discarded once 'proper’ peacetime soldiering comes around? Is it as bad as we think it is? Or are some of us, with the comfort of the distance of years, being rather too smug and dismissing the continued (comparative) excellence of the individual?
Discuss...
Last edited: