Canadian Army Journal Sharpshooter Article

D

diamondcutter13

CGN Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
currently downrange
OK this pains me.:bangHead: some of you know why.;)

I have a few difficulties with some of the points made, they are internal to the CF. BUT. This is an article worth sharing with Service Rifle shooters. It is of high academic quality and it intelligently addresses many of the points some of us have .50 cal fingered at CFSAC over beers, but with less F-Bombs. It may bore the pants off some of you.

It addresses (lack of) marksmanship training from the same systemic view I see it from and makes some decent recommendations to fix. Nothing revolutionary if you already know you've had this conversation on the deck at Connaught but importantly it speaks the language the non-trigger pullers understand. You know? The guys who control the money.

www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_13/iss_1/CAJ_vol13.1_07_e.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not bad.There are a few issues I see as well but pretty good for what it is.
I'd like to see the DM designation be availiable to ALL combat units not only infantry, like the Brits do, as I feel there is a need for precise shooting in many different situations.
 
Longshot said:
Not bad.There are a few issues I see as well but pretty good for what it is.
I'd like to see the DM designation be availiable to ALL combat units not only infantry, like the Brits do, as I feel there is a need for precise shooting in many different situations.
Click to expand...

Longshot, we have had this same conversation before my friend. I do agree with you but it will be hard to get it passed the TO&E system. On my tours, we did have "secondary" duties as DM's at the Coy level. Just remember, If ya ain't cheating, ya ain't trying. :sniper:w:h:
 
Who on this board wrote this?

Sounds like the same old story:
- Markmanship is not a priority it should be (at or damned near at the top).
- Basic marksmanship is not enough in a gun fight.

Employing DMs is good (even if it is a stop gap). Increasing shooting skills (and imparting that importance) across the board is better.
Maybe a DM rifle in 7.62 is a good thing (I suppose it certainly can't hurt), but imho forget building a better mousetrap - build a better soldier.
 
Ok, skills do fade, the message is simple, train for the fight that you are going to fight, not for the last doctrine riddled training pamphlet. All soldiers in a COIN battle need to have above average infantry skills if they are to survive and defeat the enemy. During my time in 1LI we had some very good shooting training but it was the individual commanders that made sure we were good battle shots. I spent 3 years in Recce pln and my shooting was very good then. I suspect had I stayed on afterwards it would have fallen back to passing the APWT and nothing more.
 
A DM rifle is a good idea regardless of the marksmanship of the average guy.To be able to put precise fire on a targets with more stopping power,more range,more penetration yet still look pretty much the same as the rest of the section, it would be silly NOT to.
Now if we can just get the paper readers and doctrine makers to realize that the C7 A1 and A2 are quite capable of smacking targets out to 600m with a minimal amount of training in the average guys hands.As for the wounding/killing capability of the ammo...well switching to 77 grains would be fine BUT I still say any hit is better than not even bothering to try.And fancy ammo ain't going to help if the shooter can't make a hit.Even if it doesn't drop the guy,with a little time the enemy will learn that if he wants to engage our patrols he better bloody well be at least 5-600m back or more because he is going to have effective fire from riflemen at anything under those distances.

As for training for the current conflict, sure.HOWEVER marksmanship skills are exactly the same whether you are at 50m or 500m.You just have to be quicker on the trigger at 50m.
If we train folks to be able to put down accurate fire at 5-600m,those skills will be carried over at any distance.Supplemental training of gunfighter type style can be had before deployment if needed.
That's my 2cents anyways.
 
This article does not say anything new but it says it well :). They CF already has 5.56mm and 7.62mm DM guns in several different formats and we already run courses to train them. No one in the field waits for an academic soldier writing articles to tell them what's needed. Years ago, my platoon also had marksmen employed within the platoon/sections in Croatia 1993 and we got the idea from training with the Americans back then who were defining the term Designated Marksman within their new (at the time) MOUT instructor cadres. The problem with being at war for almost a decade is it takes doctrine and training time to catch up with they way things are getting done in the field. We also do not rewrite the books every time we go to a new theater. What works in Afghanistan may not be appropriate for our next bound.

More marksmanship training is always good but it needs to be incorporated formally into the CF training system (the Land Forces Systems Approach to Training (LFSAT) for those doing most of the shooting and fighting), not approached in an ad hoc manner through competitions etc.
 
Trigger time at KD 500m and 600m flatrange is only 40% of the solution.

The main issue with range beyond 300m is range, wind and ground. Realisticly, unless someone spots for the firer, first round hit for regular infantry out in the field with the issue C79 is a bit hopeless. Proficiency in spotting and correcting fire within a fire team is the other 60% of the solution, IMHO.

The 400m effective range for the C7 is quite reasonable - my guess is that typical 3A soft armour needs about 2000 fps to be penetrated.......7.62 leadball is not going to do any better other than intermediate medium penetration. However, a AP 7.62 will be much more effective at longer range than a 5.56 AP because of the amount of energy it retains. If we want a weapon to deal with 400 to 600m for the future, 7.62 is the way to go along with AP acquisition in case there is a big army fight.
 
the whole article sounds like a conversation the writer and I had at connaught last summer while shooting with the Navy team. It also sounds like what DC13 said, most of us have had this conversation over some cool and tasties on the front deck.

As far as DM with in the section I can remember back, way back, to my infantry days when if a section had a good shooter within the section he was jokingly called the section sharpshooter. The 2nd battalion Patricia's even ran a sharpshooter course that was loosely based around training new spotters and guys that could maybe fill in for snipers while they went on leave. DC13 correct me if I am wrong.

The weapons platform; the C7 with a C79 optic is well capable of reaching out and touching targets at 500 plus meters. The knock down power of the round at that distance though is questionable. I have not seen the new weapons system that the author talks about, (SARP) II. While in Afghanistan the coy that I was attached to had the AR-10 and a C7 CT to compliment their snipers who had the .338 and the .50 the problem was they only had one of each!! So one guy trains and zeros the weapon system to him and then goes on leave thus loosing the asset.

Training, training, training!!! we need to train more and more, skill fade is huge!! Everyone regardless of rank and or trade requires more trigger time!! Really let's face it ammo is not that expensive, we spend more on ammo because we don't train enough. If you keep a soldier's shooting skill level up to a higher standard there will be no need for reshoots and grouping and zeroing will be brought to a minimum. also regardless of trade soldiers should have personal weapons!! How many times have people gone to the range only to shoot a rifle they have never shot before that day? It happens here on a regular basis. Laziness and workload dictate that we only have time to clean so many weapons. So everyone shoots the same 10-15 rifles that day and does the bare min. Complete BS if you ask this guy.

all in all a good article and DC 13 I know why you are pounding your head!!!
 
I think putting people on a scored range can be humbling and there are people in leadership roles who avoid it. A minimum standard is good enough for those people and those around them.
 
Great discussion. As some one told me who was formerly in the ranks, as long that their is an Army that "shows" some force it doesn't matter if they could actually apply it. From what I understand from this is if someone wanted to invade us on a whim we would be left with our pants down.
 
ton45-II said:
Great discussion. As some one told me who was formerly in the ranks, as long that their is an Army that "shows" some force it doesn't matter if they could actually apply it. From what I understand from this is if someone wanted to invade us on a whim we would be left with our pants down.
Click to expand...

Not sure you should put much faith in your friend's military wisdom. Do you really think the rest of the world's armies are that much better than the Canadians fighting overseas these days? Our guys are doing just fine but marksmanship can always improve. This conversation is about currently serving soldiers wanting to change the way they train marksmanship for the better. Not an suggestion we can't fight.
 
Jay T said:
As far as DM with in the section I can remember back, way back, to my infantry days when if a section had a good shooter within the section he was jokingly called the section sharpshooter. The 2nd battalion Patricia's even ran a sharpshooter course that was loosely based around training new spotters and guys that could maybe fill in for snipers while they went on leave. DC13 correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

We did do a sharpshooter course but it was after 93 as far as I remember. Can't remember when scopes first appeared but the dates would probably be close. It also was just local training as you say, not a proper DM or Sniper qual.

DM courses are now conducted as needed but are not yet formally established in the big army.
 
It was common at one time for most young men to have had some actual shooting experience prior to cadet or Military basic training. Many Canadians hunted, or were target shooters. Today the only prior shooting experience young people get, is on Nintendo Wii game systems. To maintain good shooting skills, training, and frequent range time is important. The argument over which calibre is best (5,56 or 7.62 Nato calibre) is summed up in one expression, "never do your enemy a minor injury".
 
DATAM said:
It was common at one time for most young men to have had some actual shooting experience prior to cadet or Military basic training. Many Canadians hunted, or were target shooters. Today the only prior shooting experience young people get, is on Nintendo Wii game systems. To maintain good shooting skills, training, and frequent range time is important. The argument over which calibre is best (5,56 or 7.62 Nato calibre) is summed up in one expression, "never do your enemy a minor injury".
Click to expand...

The caliber question is a red herring. The doctrine of how we fight, thus how we train is the question at hand. The caliber question will come once we determine what we want the DM to do. Something which even the infantry regiments can't agree on. This examination and thread as brought forward by Diamondcutter is not based on failures in combat but rather a desire to improve the system.

Also, we are not talking about sending soldiers cold overseas will little or no range prep. The road to high readiness and unit level preps give the troops lots of ammo and time on the range. What we are talking about is skill set sustainment so that we can move to a more advance level of marksmanship during the deployment readiness training. How do we make the training more effective, more relevant and ideally, more efficient.
 
greentips said:
Realisticly, unless someone spots for the firer, first round hit for regular infantry out in the field with the issue C79 is a bit hopeless.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
So...you've never had a first round hit at 500m in a service rifle match without a spotter?Maybe it's just me but pretty much every shot I've ever taken at 500m has been a first round hit.Might not have been a V but it was a hit.All I'm really asking here is that people realize it can be done with a minimum of training and can easily be done by regular infantry or anyone else for that matter.
 
Longshot said:
I disagree.
So...you've never had a first round hit at 500m in a service rifle match without a spotter?Maybe it's just me but pretty much every shot I've ever taken at 500m has been a first round hit.Might not have been a V but it was a hit.All I'm really asking here is that people realize it can be done with a minimum of training and can easily be done by regular infantry or anyone else for that matter.
Click to expand...

Service rifle match is a KD range on a flat ground which takes range estimation and target elevation out of the equation. I am not so sure everyone is capable of field firing at that range if distance is not exactly known - someone will have to spot and adjust fire.

Shooting is easy - range estimation and calling wind are much more difficult beyond 300m, especially with the C79. we shoot at the perfect 400m and 500m, but what if the targets is at 470m? There is more than 3ft drop in between -

We should figure out how many of those Lockheed Martin targets at about 400m remained standing in the last CFSAC defensive firing match. it was not that people could not hit 400m if they knew the targets were at 400m away, it was that they did not know they were 400m away.

That's why we need DM - the optics of a DMR ( like a mildot scope) would allow finer firing solution beyond the 300m point and shoot range.
 
greentips said:
Service rifle match is a KD range on a flat ground which takes range estimation and target elevation out of the equation. .
Click to expand...
Not totally out of the question,, even when everyone knows they are on the 500 meter mound,, under some stress, some guys still have sights and brain set at 300 and wonder why they missed that big 4 foot screen.
Being on a known distance range is an aid, just like a good range card is an aid for when firing from a trench. You still have to have the SA to make use of it.
Maybe that should be part of the defensive fire match next time?,, the section get's some time to christen the ground, and write up some quick range cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom