How did the U.S. military rifle training compare to the Canadian, Brit, Aussie military,..i know the USMC placed alot of emphasis on using the 1907 sling on both the 03 Springfield, and M1, where as the Commonwealth forces , the web sling was never used on the rifle range.
U.S.Military Rifle training compared to British Commonwealth
- Thread starter x westie
- Start date
We were certainly taught how and why to use that Pattern 1908 sling, both for carry and on the range. Granted, it wasn't as spiffy and expensive as the American sling, but, once you knew how to use the thing, it was quick and easy to work with and it did the job just fine.
BIG difference between US and Commonwealth training is that in our military, the Rifles were FITTED to the men BEFORE any range training was even thought of. The Americans clung to the idea that "all men are created equal..... and that includes the Length of Butt required for good shooting".
And this is part of the reason that OUR guys reached an acceptable level of Service accuracy in less time and less rounds.
Another reason is that our troops always have been trained differently than the Americans. There is MUCH less hazing and yelling and screaming and general bull sh*t in our Army. OUR men are TRAINED as if they were INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEINGS. The Yanks drafted anything that could stand up and then screamed at it until it did what it was told. That arseh*le DI in "FMJ" would have been fragged if the men weren't more afraid of him than they were of Charlie. That is NOT the way to run a war.
ANOTHER reason why OUR guys got better, faster, was that we had a BETTER MANUAL. "Shoot To Live!" came out in 1944 or 1945 and there is STILL no better manual to teach you how to shoot with an iron-sight military rife with rear aperture sights. The book is hard to find and expensive, but you can download your own copy FREE over at milsurps dot com. See the Stickies at the head of this Forum, look for the Military Knowledge Library; one click will take you there. Be sure you have a stack of fresh DVDs handy.
Hope this helps.
.
BIG difference between US and Commonwealth training is that in our military, the Rifles were FITTED to the men BEFORE any range training was even thought of. The Americans clung to the idea that "all men are created equal..... and that includes the Length of Butt required for good shooting".
And this is part of the reason that OUR guys reached an acceptable level of Service accuracy in less time and less rounds.
Another reason is that our troops always have been trained differently than the Americans. There is MUCH less hazing and yelling and screaming and general bull sh*t in our Army. OUR men are TRAINED as if they were INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEINGS. The Yanks drafted anything that could stand up and then screamed at it until it did what it was told. That arseh*le DI in "FMJ" would have been fragged if the men weren't more afraid of him than they were of Charlie. That is NOT the way to run a war.
ANOTHER reason why OUR guys got better, faster, was that we had a BETTER MANUAL. "Shoot To Live!" came out in 1944 or 1945 and there is STILL no better manual to teach you how to shoot with an iron-sight military rife with rear aperture sights. The book is hard to find and expensive, but you can download your own copy FREE over at milsurps dot com. See the Stickies at the head of this Forum, look for the Military Knowledge Library; one click will take you there. Be sure you have a stack of fresh DVDs handy.
Hope this helps.
.
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
If Haig had not killed off so many soldiers that you had to start using prople who were too short or too young to be accepted before the war, there would have been no need for different length buttstocks.
I would point out that FMJ was a MOVIE, not reality.
Old chinese saying: The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war.
I would point out that FMJ was a MOVIE, not reality.
Old chinese saying: The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war.
The end result of both US and Commonwealth marksmanship training was probably about the same. I did an exchange tour in the US and saw that the targets looked about the same as ours on annual range qualifications.
I would say that the USMC did put more time and emphasis on individual marksmanship during basic training. They are known for this as well as their high casualty rates which were often sustained as a result of "no other option" frontal assaults on prepared positions.
I would say that the USMC did put more time and emphasis on individual marksmanship during basic training. They are known for this as well as their high casualty rates which were often sustained as a result of "no other option" frontal assaults on prepared positions.
You are right in the wanton waste of men in WWI. When it came to WWII, the Canadians said "NO MORE." Even then, for political reasons, Canadian soldiers were sacrificed at Hong Kong and Dieppe.
At Hong Kong, the result of inept British leadership and Defence Plans was blamed on the Canadians, who, though they held their Defences, were ordered to Surrender because the "Leadership" did not occupy the high ground, but allowed the Japanese to do so.
The "on and off" Dieppe "Raid" should have been cancelled well before the troops hit the beaches due to several delays and postponements. Troops were not isolated between these postponements and were allowed to leave their Camps. The Invasion Force was discovered well out in the Channel by German Naval Units so the German Army was alert. The British Commander insisted that the Dieppe Raid go on, with the result that the Canadians suffered. Political deference to the Russians.
After WWII it seems that the standards of Marksmanship deteriorated, but have, with the numerous small Wars and "Actions", been given more emphasis. Unfortunately, many of us remember some of the television footage of Vietnam where American troops were simply holding up a M16 over a wall and letting the whole magazine go in the general direction of the enemy.
Some of our modern "politically correct" citizens in Canada in the past few years were agast that "our Canadian boys were being trained to kill people." This was a fairly common view of our anti-gun and gun control crowd.
I have had a bit of experience with both Canadian and American methods, but that was a while ago. I would say that the U.S. Marines and the average Canadian Infantryman were about equal, with the U.S. Army not as good.
In teaching PRACTICAL marksmaship to Units, we would have them fire for record. Then, one of us would take the worst shot (everyone in the Unit knew who that was,) and spend an afternoon with him on the range while the rest of the Unit attended lectures, etc. In most cases, some basic marksmanship training to him really improved his ability.
Then, next morning, we would set up five "man sized" targets at 100 yards and a sixth one about 20 yards away from the group. We would ask for five people to shoot one magazine each at thes 5 targets but leave the sixth one alone. In almost all cases, the 5 guys chosen would put the rifle on full auto, stand there, and blast the rounds downrange. Most of the time, there would be 7 or 8 holes in the group of 5 targets, out of 100 rounds fired.
Then, we would have the guy who everyone knew could not hit the broad side of a barn door fire one magazine of 20 rounds. He used the prone position, semi-automatic, and sometimes a sling if he preferred and shot better with it. The result was that he usually put 12-15 rounds into the target. We put the targets on display with the signs "100 rounds" and "20 rounds by the worst shot."
It was just a matter of proper training and methods.
.
Actually, you occasionally see rifle butt stocks marked "B" for just that purpose.
.
From an American point of view who served during the Viet Nam War our draft system inducted trash and bad attitudes into the military. This lowered the overall standard of personnel and effected training to a great deal. When the military expands during war time you have very few experienced personnel involved in your training and in many cases the training is sub standard. In the four years I was in the Air Force I shot the M16 twice, once in boot camp and once at my active duty station.
After getting out of the U.S. Air Force I went to work at a Military Depot overhauling Army fixed and rotary wing aircraft. The Canadian and Australian military personnel I met and worked with were better educated and trained than their American counter parts in our U.S. Military. From what I remember the Canadians and Australians had to sign up for longer periods of enlistments and their military training was much more extensive than in the U.S. Military.
After getting out of the U.S. Air Force I went to work at a Military Depot overhauling Army fixed and rotary wing aircraft. The Canadian and Australian military personnel I met and worked with were better educated and trained than their American counter parts in our U.S. Military. From what I remember the Canadians and Australians had to sign up for longer periods of enlistments and their military training was much more extensive than in the U.S. Military.
When it boils down to Pte Snuffy it is always a frontal attack. At Div/Bde/Bn, and sometimes Coy levels, you can often plan and execute a different approach/scheme of manuever in the attack (flanking, envelopment, turning action), but at Pl level it is ALWAYS frontal.
US Army and Cdn tactical doctrine involves a different concept of operations for recce. In our case we tend to employ "sneak and peak" tactics using highly mobile, lightly armed vehicles avoiding decisive engagements with quick reports back to higher HQs. US Army tactical doctrine is based more on the idea of fighting for information where you use heavier, more combat capable recce units to force the other side to deploy and to engage you which will disclose their locations and identities. The US Armored Cavalry Sqn is a bn sized unit with tanks, organic arty/mortars which provides a Div Comd with a very useful self-contained armored utility capability. This is nice to have both in the attack and the defence. A US Corps includes an Armored Cavalry Regt, which is basically a Bde sized unit heavy in tanks with organic arty, anti-armor, attack helicopters, engineers and logistics assets. I favor the US concept, but I am biased as a result of my experiences with the US Army.
Again, it does come down to "recce by death" for the leading vehicles, no matter what the tactical concept is.
Last edited:
i certainly appreciate the fact you can fit a Lee Enfield,..love my No.4 rifles, and my Aussie SMLE with long buttstock,..i have a M1 and a 03A3,..great rifles,..but do wish there was a choice with long buttstock,..also the FN c1 had , different lenght of buttstock to fit the individual soldier.
There was also a lot of preasure from both the Canadian Gov't and one of the high ranking Canadian Generals for the Dieppe raid to go on. I can't remember his name, I'll have to look back in the book that I am reading about II Canadian Corps
I think you've hit the nail on the head here regarding the reason for the WW2 American 'one rifle size fits all' training approach vs. the British & Commonwealth 'fit the rifle to the man' process.
I don't think the Americans ever truly believed 'all men are created equal, including in the length of pull on their rifles'. This training approach was just a wartime necessity resulting from the logistical constraints imposed by the American vs. the Commonwealth weapon design.
To be more precise: since the 1870s, all British and Commonwealth rifles have had two-piece stocks. To fit a Martini-Henry, Lee Enfield or FN FAL to an individual soldier, all an armourer needs to do is to unscrew the long screw holding the buttstock into its metal retaining collar and replace the buttstock with a longer or shorter one. It takes about 10 minutes (maybe 15 if the buttplate needs to be switched over to the new buttstock too). To equip a 1000-man battalion with properly fitted rifles, the issuing armoury needs 1000 standard-sized (M) rifles and some spare L and S buttstocks - about a steamer-trunk full of extra wood parts. And manufacturing different sized buttstocks is simply a question of changing the length of the socket end by an inch or two - no major re-tooling of the stock-turning lathe equipment is required. Even during the military expansion of a major war, providing the necessary spare buttstocks (mainly to basic training centres) is not going to be a serious logistical strain.
The Americans, by contrast, have issued main battle rifles with one-piece stocks since before the Civil War. The only efficient way to size these rifles to the soldiers would be to have the manufacturers provide rifles in 3 to 5 standard sizes of stock. And then you need to keep enough rifles on hand to be able to provide choice of sizes. Basically, to equip a 1000-man battalion, the armoury is going to have to have about 1200 rifles to choose from.
Again, if you are building up your armouries and equipping a long-service peacetime army, this may not be a problem. But when you've landed in WW2, you're expanding your military by 10,000%, you're giving contracts to sewing machine companies to build your rifles and demand is still far outstripping supply, trying to get 'choice of rifle size' into the supply stream too is going to be a logistical nightmare. Especially if choice means that at least 5% of your rifles (the L/XL sized ones) won't even be usable by at least half your soldiers.
You'll have noticed, I'm sure, that now that the concept of one-piece stocks with collapsible / multi-position buttstocks has been developed, the Americans have been busy sticking them on just about everything that shoots bullets.
the general i think you are refering to is General H Crerar, also bears some responsibilty in sending Canadian troops to Hong Kong, which was a military disaster
Wrong.
For the most part they had 4 differnet sized stocks already assembled onto finished rifles. IF, they were short of finished rifles of a particular lenght they would probably swap the stock out, but the armourers at training depots were busy enough with other tasks, (ie adjusting sights for the recruits), then to spend all their time swapping stocks around.
This is especially true when you get to the SMLE. You need to remove the forestock BEFORE you take the butt off. This is b/c the stock bolt has a squared end that fits into a recess on the forestock. If you turn the stock bolt without removing the forestock, it will split the forestock.
