"Weapons immersion"

spittle8 · 08-27-2006, 09:45 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060826/...ns_immersion_2
Thoughts? It sounds ridiculous to suggest that our soldiers are "inexperienced" with weapons.

Anon · 08-27-2006, 13:58 PM

The REMFs certainly are.

-{SpoonmaN}- · 08-28-2006, 00:29 AM

I don't see how they could ever get 'too experienced' either. Could make the difference between life and death for your support troops when their convoys get ambushed.

SnowLeopard · 08-28-2006, 08:35 AM

I remember, back in the Cold War, when I was trying to range time for the ASF and had to argue past the people who thought just familarization firing would be sufficient. Or of the Rangemaster telling me of a time in Viet Nam when the enemy was coming over the wire and soldiers were going up to their armourer asking how to clear their guns because they had jammed. All they had ever received was fam fire training and then, if the gun jammed, an instructor came over and cleared it for them.

The attitudes that weapons immersion is not necessary goes all up and down the chain. Different situation. The roving security watch on ship was found not to be qualified for that watch. Worst, he didn't even know the manual of arms for the .45 he carried. What had happened? The assigned rover had switched watches with the man in question and somehow, perhaps because he was in the division that rovers were pulled from, it was just assumed that he had all the necessary quals. He received his .45 from the previous watch. Chilling thought when you think about it, no?

I know it doesn't seem to make sense that members of the military are not proficient in using small arms, at least it doesn't make sense to me, but there are minds out there all over the place where it makes perfect sense to them.
-----------------------------------------------------
("Sgt. Enright, if each policeman practiced with only 51 rounds instead of 52 rounds each quarter, do you know how much money we would save?"--Commissioner McMillian, (wtte), "McMillian & Wife")

Anon · 08-28-2006, 13:40 PM

I have thrown plenty of soldiers off "my" firing line during range details cause of exactly the same kind of crap you're talking about.

08-27-2006, 09:45 AM	#1 (permalink)
spittle8 Banished Join Date: 08-10-06 Location: Detroit, Michigan Posts: 112	"Weapons immersion" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060826/...ns_immersion_2 Thoughts? It sounds ridiculous to suggest that our soldiers are "inexperienced" with weapons.

08-28-2006, 00:29 AM	#3 (permalink)
-{SpoonmaN}- Death, the Destroyer of Worlds... *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-08-04 Location: The badlands of West London. Posts: 1,455 Country:	I don't see how they could ever get 'too experienced' either. Could make the difference between life and death for your support troops when their convoys get ambushed. __________________ "I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-27-2006, 13:58 PM	#2 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	The REMFs certainly are.

08-28-2006, 08:35 AM	#4 (permalink)
SnowLeopard *Military Professional* Join Date: 07-18-06 Location: Texas Posts: 727	I remember, back in the Cold War, when I was trying to range time for the ASF and had to argue past the people who thought just familarization firing would be sufficient. Or of the Rangemaster telling me of a time in Viet Nam when the enemy was coming over the wire and soldiers were going up to their armourer asking how to clear their guns because they had jammed. All they had ever received was fam fire training and then, if the gun jammed, an instructor came over and cleared it for them. The attitudes that weapons immersion is not necessary goes all up and down the chain. Different situation. The roving security watch on ship was found not to be qualified for that watch. Worst, he didn't even know the manual of arms for the .45 he carried. What had happened? The assigned rover had switched watches with the man in question and somehow, perhaps because he was in the division that rovers were pulled from, it was just assumed that he had all the necessary quals. He received his .45 from the previous watch. Chilling thought when you think about it, no? I know it doesn't seem to make sense that members of the military are not proficient in using small arms, at least it doesn't make sense to me, but there are minds out there all over the place where it makes perfect sense to them. ----------------------------------------------------- ("Sgt. Enright, if each policeman practiced with only 51 rounds instead of 52 rounds each quarter, do you know how much money we would save?"--Commissioner McMillian, (wtte), "McMillian & Wife")

08-28-2006, 13:40 PM	#5 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	I have thrown plenty of soldiers off "my" firing line during range details cause of exactly the same kind of crap you're talking about.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)