SA80 Replacement on the distant horizon ?

gafkiwi

War Hero
Couple of T&P Vids for you, first one goes more into the new Optics

With a these various aiming, ranging and marking lasers getting issued down to the lowest level and sights communicating with each other I wonder how long before laser/transmission detection systems (if not already) are integrated in to individual soldier systems to allow the origin of the laser or transmission to be targeted.
 

itchy300

Old-Salt
With a these various aiming, ranging and marking lasers getting issued down to the lowest level and sights communicating with each other I wonder how long before laser/transmission detection systems (if not already) are integrated in to individual soldier systems to allow the origin of the laser or transmission to be targeted.
Ive been saying this since PRR came out.

PRR, LLM, laser range finders, bowman in every fireteam might aswell wear a tracking device and walk round with white light on.

Plus it all needs (different) batteries and if we're honest it's all mostly useless or unnecessary.
 
if we're honest it's all mostly useless or unnecessary.
If soldiers can't shoot straight on a flat, one-way range it's useless.

If they can be trained to shoot competently under fire* (given all the other factors that would degrade accuracy in that case) it's unnecessary.

It's the bit about "if we're honest" that is in most need of fixing.

Peeple who don't know how to shoot are trying to find ways to make other peeple who don't know how to shoot, shoot better than peeple who do know how to shoot, 'cos they learned the hard way, for a fraction of the cost.

Mind boggles at the sophisticated hi-tech stupidity of the thinking . . . . .

= = =
* Stonkernote: FFS, we know that they can be trained that well, but infantry officers generally don't understand that a pencil pass on an annual basic shooting test is NOT the standard to which the BEF of 1914 were trained.
 
Last edited:
If soldiers can't shoot straight on a flat, one-way range it's useless.

If they can be trained shoot competently under fire (given all the other factors that would degrade accuracy in that case) it's unnecessary.

It's the bit about "if we're honest" that is in most need of fixing.

Peeple who don't know how to shoot are trying to find ways to make other peeple who don't know how to shoot, shoot better than peeple who do know how to shoot, 'cos they learned the hard way, for a fraction of the cost.

Mind boggles at the sophisticated hi-tech stupidity of the thinking . . . . .


I suspect someone has worked out the cost of training and retraining and retraining over and over again the average soldier to shot well at various ranges. Then calculated the difference imparted by, say, using a bigger round. From that they may have decided the repeated cost of higher levels of training to achieve constant greater performance at range is greater overall than buying a new weapon system with a bigger round.

Or it may be just a shiny new toy moment ;-)
 
someone has worked out the cost of training and retraining and retraining over and over again the average soldier to shot well at various ranges. Then calculated the difference
Snipped.

If you genuinely think that might be the case, there's a bridge over the Thames in London I could let you have for a bargain price.

PM me :thumleft:
 

TamH70

MIA
Snipped.

If you genuinely think that might be the case, there's a bridge over the Thames in London I could let you have for a bargain price.

PM me :thumleft:

Bugger off! I've already got him on the line for a squinty bridge across the Clyde. Get yer ain pigeon.
 
If soldiers can't shoot straight on a flat, one-way range it's useless.

If they can be trained to shoot competently under fire* (given all the other factors that would degrade accuracy in that case) it's unnecessary.

It's the bit about "if we're honest" that is in most need of fixing.

Peeple who don't know how to shoot are trying to find ways to make other peeple who don't know how to shoot, shoot better than peeple who do know how to shoot, 'cos they learned the hard way, for a fraction of the cost.

Mind boggles at the sophisticated hi-tech stupidity of the thinking . . . . .

= = =
* Stonkernote: FFS, we know that they can be trained that well, but infantry officers generally don't understand that a pencil pass on an annual basic shooting test is NOT the standard to which the BEF of 1914 were trained.

Ooh, this is one of my (and @Stonker 's) pet hobby horses.

The overall standard of shooting in the British army peaked in 1914, and that was almost exclusively dry training and flat, square range training, with off the top of my head 15 rounds or so per year in field firing. And proved to be extremely effective on the battlefield for the simple reason that the average standard of marksmanship was quite good. See also: that anecdote about a section with a number of Battalion shooting team members in it acquitting itself really rather well in a contact in Iraq.

I've got something else to say but that'll be in a PM to Stonker :)
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Ooh, this is one of my (and @Stonker 's) pet hobby horses.

The overall standard of shooting in the British army peaked in 1914, and that was almost exclusively dry training and flat, square range training, with off the top of my head 15 rounds or so per year in field firing. And proved to be extremely effective on the battlefield for the simple reason that the average standard of marksmanship was quite good. See also: that anecdote about a section with a number of Battalion shooting team members in it acquitting itself really rather well in a contact in Iraq.

I've got something else to say but that'll be in a PM to Stonker :)
Can you please expand on this a bit? Genuine question, genuine interest.

General perceived wisdom is that marksmanship requires practice and lots of rounds. Numerous commentators'/posters' collective opinion is that the training we give needs to be more 'realistic' (poorly defined targets, not just prone supported, etc.)... and yet what you've described is entirely at odds with that.

What worked so well then that is failing us so badly now?
 
Ooh, this is one of my (and @Stonker 's) pet hobby horses.

The overall standard of shooting in the British army peaked in 1914, and that was almost exclusively dry training and flat, square range training, with off the top of my head 15 rounds or so per year in field firing. And proved to be extremely effective on the battlefield for the simple reason that the average standard of marksmanship was quite good. See also: that anecdote about a section with a number of Battalion shooting team members in it acquitting itself really rather well in a contact in Iraq.

I've got something else to say but that'll be in a PM to Stonker :)
15 rounds was the minimum number of rounds a rifleman had to land on target at 300 yards in 1 minute as part of the test. Not the total number of rounds, which was 260 rounds.

The record was something like 38 rounds on target within the 24" ring.

The target was a 4' square with a 23" ring and a 36" ring.

That was with iron sights.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Can you please expand on this a bit? Genuine question, genuine interest.

General perceived wisdom is that marksmanship requires practice and lots of rounds. Numerous commentators'/posters' collective opinion is that the training we give needs to be more 'realistic' (poorly defined targets, not just prone supported, etc.)... and yet what you've described is entirely at odds with that.

What worked so well then that is failing us so badly now?

I'll offer a suggestion, based on my long-ago pistol shooting days.

Improving your ability to get rounds on target, comes in stages. The absolute basic is to be able to shoot safely, such that at least all your rounds go into the backstop and you're not putting yourself or other range users at risk. (Covered during the 'probationary' phase of your club membership, where until the safety officer's content, you're limited to firing .22LR with someone directly supervising).

After that, you're shooting at paper targets, without any time or other pressures, and trying to get your groupings down from "barely all on the paper" to something a bit more respectable.

Third stage, once you're judged to be safe to do so, is to start shooting Practical Pistol: once you're safe, and reasonably accurate in slow time, you're doing a timed course of fire involving movement, obstacles, reloads and so on.

Importantly, because the skills are a bit perishable, you need to be doing this fairly often: I was typically averaging one or two range nights a week (Monday or Tuesday were gallery sessions, Wednesday was Practical night) and expending 100 rounds per session.


I'd suggest - based on commentary here over some time - that for much of the Army, the reality is that only that first, most basic stage - that of coaxing everyone through a WHT and APWT - is actually covered.

With plenty of practice, even if it's "standing position, 25m range" for pistols, you can work on your accuracy, improve your speed (coming up from rest to aimed shot more rapidly), and generally improve your ability to have the bullets go nearer to where you were aiming them while being a confident, safe shot. Feedback, coaching and advice really help.

That's not as good as the next step of "start sitting at this desk, engage the two targets to your front, move to the doorway, open it and engage the target on the other side, reload whether you need to or not..." of a basic IPSC shoot - but it's still much better than "group and zero, fire APWT, put weapon back in armoury until next year".

And since it's not even the case that the British Army spends too long shooting from static positions, on predictable lanes... we might get a significant improvement in marksmanship just by more basic practice, building the foundation for more realistic field firing (which would, I respectfully suggest, be very retention-positive if executed with any skill)

Spending a lot of time and calories on an exercise bike in your living room isn't as good for competitive cycling as doing some proper road riding... but it'll still help you perform rather better in a race, than someone who only gets allowed to ride their bike once or twice a year.
 
15 rounds was the minimum number of rounds a rifleman had to land on target at 300 yards in 1 minute as part of the test. Not the total number of rounds, which was 260 rounds.
No it wasn't. Read Appendix 1 of the Musketry Regulations Part I 1909 again.
 
I wonder how an average infantryman with a pass on whatever the APWT is called these days would have fared at what this range monkey was playing at last weekend, compared to us range monkeys?

1635346292588.png


(I came 25th out of 103 non-DQ'd competitors, and came 4th in one stage as one of only 8 people to make all the hits, which I'm rather proud of.)

249985462_913436242916448_193920212858081463_n.jpg
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I wonder how an average infantryman with a pass on whatever the APWT is called these days would have fared at what this range monkey was playing at last weekend, compared to us range monkeys?

View attachment 612200

(I came 25th out of 103 non-DQ'd competitors, and came 4th in one stage as one of only 8 people to make all the hits, which I'm rather proud of.)

249985462_913436242916448_193920212858081463_n.jpg
I imagine he was aiming rather high in the lower picture... :-D
 
building the foundation for more realistic field firing
I've been on company level LFTT roughly once a year in my battalion and every time it takes at least a week's worth of ranges to get up to that one attack. Static - pairs - fire team - section - platoon and it always struck me that all that really shouldn't be necessary. Maybe one static range then a section attack then platoon but really shouldn't need to go back to square one every time I think
 
Seen a few practical shooting videos from the US with blokes wearing a helmet, is this the new ally ?
In Finland it's common to wear a helmet when shooting TST division cos it's counted in the 12kg weight you've got to carry to meet the division requirements.

I'm likely over the 12kg without it (I'm not sure how much the borrowed plates weigh), but it doesn't hurt to have a bit of a margin for error, and it does give you protection in case you run into a tree, stage prop, or hit your head getting out of a vehicle.

No regrets with people calling it LARPing. H8rz are missing out! :D
 
What worked so well then that is failing us so badly now?
They spent a lot of time, ammunition and effort teaching basic marksmanship to a high standard, and rewarded soldiers financially for shooting to standards higher than mere competence.

The training was delivered by instructors who were themselves good shooters, and shooting was supplemented by education and practice in the associated ancillary skills required in a firefight (e.g. finding the enemy; estimating range proficiently; target indication und so weiter) basic lessons in these are taught (barely aequately for the most part) in recruit training, and seldom revisited subsequently in the modern army, would be my take on it.

The 1906 1909 Musketry Regulations are (I'm pretty sure) available for free download as a PDF file these days* - well worth a look.

=====
* I think I spotted a copy on one of my hard drives t'other day. If you're interest and tinterweb can't deliver for you, let me know and I'll have another look at the weekend
 
Last edited:

WhiskeyTango

Old-Salt
I've been on company level LFTT roughly once a year in my battalion and every time it takes at least a week's worth of ranges to get up to that one attack. Static - pairs - fire team - section - platoon and it always struck me that all that really shouldn't be necessary. Maybe one static range then a section attack then platoon but really shouldn't need to go back to square one every time I think


You can jump back in at any point of LFTT provided you're still in date (12 months) from your last range. However, if even one bloke in the platoon missed last years LFTT, you'll end up having to do it aagain. That's the policy constraint.

Having RCOd a lot of ranges, I also feel more comfortable getting the troops to start at the basics.

The answer I feel, is more routine ranges and LFTT to prevent the inevitable skill fade.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top