AUG, FNC, G36, L85, SCAR, F2000 etc.

That's horrible. So why does the USMC want both M855A1 and the M27 if that's what you get when you combine them?

Because the Army developed M855A1 and the USMC wanted the M27.  If they just put a small feed angle around the chamber like the M4 and M16 have they wouldn't experience the gouge issues.

Marines didn't want 855A1 but DoD didn't want two standard issue DODICs for ammo.  and marines HAD to have HK and HK must be proprietary so you have to spend even more for their shit.

If the myth of Army hand me downs was actually fucking true, we wouldn't have this problem.

Yet again, fuck HK.

It was units that did a lot of mag dumps doing Immediate Action Drills instead of controlled bursts.

I'm reading through my SOG book by Plaster, and even then, they practiced 3-5rd controlled bursts on AUTO for their IADs.

ETA:  Looks like Sinister has more input on this from people within SOCOM who were running round counts in excess of what they should be doing CQM as well.

I believe this was happening in both the Army and Navy.

I'm not sure that data is even out there. I'm sure somebody has ran it through the L85 but since its pretty much more of an American round than a NATO round at this point, I think testing on most of these is probably minimal.

If its out there I haven't seen it anyways

Yeah, whoever did it, are dumb fucks. CAG, Rangers and SF all very rarley train with long full auto bursts on their Carbines. Paul Howe is a Full Auto "hater" and many others in that famous unit are.

I was "lucky" enough to work alot of SF through 2003, and having talked about their training cycles with them. They clearly stated they only used FA on their guns, very rarely. To the point of it being just familiarization, or a "spend X" at the end of the range day.

I still think it was the retarded SEALs......

Funny thing is most of the SEALs I knew or worked with were actually pretty smart guys.

They never wrote any books though, and kept quiet about what they did.

Do you think it's impossible to damage a gun without using full auto?
Do you think the guys damaging guns were only using full auto?
Do you think it's possible that they just shot enough to damage guns on semi?

Yeah, I'm not going to go into depth. But I wasn't impressed.

One time they had a OP over Route Michigan, looking for IED planters. They actually found a guy planting an IED. They went an investigated, yup, it was an IED, they cut the wires that were connected to it. And they observed a group of 3 or 4 males a couple blocks down, with a device in their hand that they surmised from looking through binos were trying to detonate the bomb they were standing by and had just disarmed. They didn't open fire, they called up on Comms to get cleared by higher to engage these guys. No initiative was taken at all by them, to smoke check those assholes insurgents.

If you are like IV8888, just standing at a range and mag dumping magazine after magazine.

But real life combat ain't like that. There is alot more to soldiering, and being a Team Member, than shooting mag after mag after mag. Alot of my time was spent communicating, moving around, and waiting for Targets of opportunity.

Ok.

LOL.

You might not get the irony of your quote but many here do.

Just Sayin.

There is a difference on how a good unit works in training and battle, versus how what a stupid unit does in training and battle

Feeling pretty good that me and the guys I was around, weren't part of any famous military disasters, put into movies, and getting confused as being heroic by the masses.

The URG not using the Warcomp would hardly be the first time a promising technology was not adopted by the military. The LMT enhanced BCG, for example, has been on the market since at least 2007.

Roughly 50% of the total recoil impulse from the 5.56 is from the High Pressure Gas produced from the cartridge. Subsequently, a muzzle device is the single most effective component that can be added to a 5.56 rifle to reduce recoil and prevent muzzle climb.

The WARCOMP reduces recoil by 35%:


With flash suppression essentially identical to the best flash hiders on the market:


Why the WARCOMP was not chosen is an open question - but I doubt "lack of performance" is the answer.

You missed my point.

You quoted and summarily dismissed an opinion from someone whose opinion is very relevant to the subject matter at hand.

Short answer: Wag Bag might know more than just a bit about burning up guns in training and "shoot, move and communicate".

Again:

Just Sayin.

But it could easily be the answer as well.

Don't always get so caught up in the new and shiny like I did.

Even still, the issue SOCOM had was firing extensively past what the .gov profile was designed for. Sinister covered it pretty well.

Show me a barrel that's bursted or is inoperable from combat load amounts of semi auto only fire or even reasonable full auto fire and I'll believe it.

war_bag is a great guy, and I greatly respect his experience and knowledge.

We'll just have to disagree.

*IV8888 used full-auto to burn up his guns. In case people forgot, he wasn't doing it in semi auto. Is it possible to blow a barrel on a semi auto M4? I suppose.....? But you need ALOT more rounds than a typical combat load, and you'll have stand there for like more than a couple minutes, just blasting away as fast as your trigger finger can move. Not allowing a single moment for the gun to cool.

So now we're wanting to use belt fed so we can miss faster, noisier, and more expensively in terms of basic load consumed, weight, and resupply?

Picture this:



You took fire from somewhere down this street, that much you know. You're the team leader charged with locking down this street/pulling security, as part of a larger platoon operation. Now tell me, with your fully manned fireteam, how you'd order it suppressed using the organic weapons in your fireteam based off current MTOE. Explain to me exactly how an M249 is superior to sustained fire on semi with an M4, or short burst firing with an M4A1 or IAR, when you're engaging known, likely, or suspected enemy positions.

Yes I know.

In training many "combat load"s might be shot in a short time, full or semi.

In training when you run out of bullets it's a pretty short walk back to the line to pick up another 210 rounds.

Training is much harder on guns for many units than combat.

This sounds like a pretty nice rifle that could probably do the DM role and auto rifle role too. So no need for HK nastiness, just build this and have the Army and Marine Corps buy it.

"Cyclic. Somewhere over there. Civilians? They aren't civilians when they're dead, they just call em bodies after that." am I doing it right?

A rifle shouldn't be expected to perform like a machine gun. Why have everyone carry a rifle with a barrel that's 1/2 a pound heavier than it needs to be because people are abusing them in training?  That's not a hardware issue.

Forget COIN. Most times  our guys are going to be in "Watch and shoot" mode, only shooting at those that fulfill ROE hostile intent/hostile action criteria, or when officers allow the units to use a little bit of suppressing fire.

I mean think clearing this city as part of a major MCO. So let's use this picture instead:



All the civilians are either gone or its their own fault they still there. Everyone is deemed hostile. Why we don't have the authorization to lay total waste to the city with supporting fires we are still allowed to engage all known, likely, suspected targets.

Your squad is assigned to cover this street intersection as the rest of the main body of the platoon passes. Alpha team has the left side, you're bravo team leader on the right side. You hear two snaps of incoming fire from down this street, so now you and you're men know they are being shot at. As a rifle squad team leader, your job is to control fires. So how are you doing it with your three M4/M68, your one M320 attached to the bottom of a M4, and the one M249? If you're just the SAW gunner, what are you going cyclic on?

As a TL? Honestly, M4 guys shoot at windows or other likely/suspected positions. No 320 rounds unless I see something through my ACOG, SAW gunner rip out a quick burst (20rd) traversing, then use your MGO to scan for targets, open up rapid on the first thing you see. The right answer might be to just death blossom everything on cyclic, but without knowing what resupply or other support looks like, I'd exercise discretion. Anything else is just a show of force or a psych game to puff your teams chest out/or make the enemy realize you aren't an easy target.

As a SAW gunner? Go cyclic for about 25rds to make my trigger happy TL happy then scan for targets between bursts of rapid (at various windows, etc in a traversing manner) Optics are making the difference there, I can pick things out better than the other guys with CCOs. TL should be using the ACOG to spot and direct me when he sees anything but who knows.

Spraying an M249 on cyclic, unless the very long burst manages to transverse the length of a rooftoop, is going to do nothing but ruin a building's exterior paint job and little else. The only actual benefit is the psychological boost that comes from hearing your own side shoot back with overwhelming fire volume, but that's a training and discipline issue easy to fix. Historically proven, the only fire any sort of MG, which doesn't have the penetrative ability to punch through the typical reinforced cinderblock or mud brick (beyond 50 BMG) seen in the environment of that picture, is to accurately engage the exact same point targets that rifleman and DMs are going to be shooting at too. So that SAW gunner needs to fire an accurate and controllable burst inside the same doorways his team's riflemen are also shooting at, or fire a burst inside the same windows, bursts aimed at the same possible loopholes in rubbled or holed walls, burst fired just off to the side of the corner of the same buildings, bursts just over the roof wall, etc. Big part, we're talking controllable short bursts, well under standard 6-9 round bipod supported, especially since in MOUT most times the SAW gunner wont be prone bipod supported. So in all you're looking at any machine gunner, be it a platoon gunner with an M240 or a team's LMG in the form of an M249, having to hit a target out to 500 meters that is usually not bigger than ~3-4 feet circle that every bullet needs to land within to be considered effective fire and not completely wasted ammo that is going to be a bitch to get resupplied.

To do this, one doesn't even need optics, in between scanning for known targets with their peripheral vision they can engage any one of a thousand and one good likely and suspected targets inside that same picture that the SAW gunner, or any other gunner, can see and target with the naked eye and iron sights or a RDS. With a magified optic, they'll see even more, be able to shoot more accurately with semi or auto.

And the crazy shit is that besides a few random enlightened individuals, NOBODY is even teaching this. Nobody is taking a blown up picture like this and giving Private Smuckatelli or Joe Sixpack a cleaning rod and telling him to point our where he'd shoot and then correct him when he gives the wrong answer. SLs aren't grilling TLs to control their team's fire in the same way PLs and PSGs aren't grilling the SLs either. This would be an easy fix. Do ANY SORT of fire control and suppressive fire training and you're doing more than what's commonly being done now by everyone else. So since most Soldiers and Marines get exactly zero hours, add two hours per month and now you're 200% more effective at suppressive fire and don't need to go cyclic with belt fed weapons to make up for not knowing how to engage.

And this isn't a bust on anyone for being dumb or ignorant, we're all a product of what we've been taught and this subject is just something Americans as a whole have sucked at since before WW2, we have no clue really how to do suppressive fire properly. "Just shoot" has always been the basis of our suppressive fire TTPs and that's the worst possible advice besides "Don't fire rifles unless you can identify an individual target" (which is what our GI's were formally taught before going to combat where they had to unlearn that and learn suppressive fire).

And that's primarily what this discussion is about. We've made up for poor training and poor observation in the past with fire volume, go cyclic and just spray everywhere, because we could not rely on precision rifle fire because it wasn't precise. But now we're finding out that we do have the precise weapons/ammo/optic packages now, with just a little little bit of training we can improve observation and suppressive fire methods ensuring we don't need as much volume, and we can start using the weight savings from removing the largely unnecessary belt feds to bring more HE weapons.

If the M4A1 can do it (I don't think it can), then use them as the IAR. If it can't, build and buy an M4A2 and use that. Fuck HK, if their shit doesn't work, it means the gun sucks. But the overall concept is fucking awesome. Not a one for one swap, IAR for M249. Nope, every bullet launcher in the squad is an IAR, a cross between rifleman, designated marksmans, and automatic rifleman, and the extra weight savings is made up with more HE firing weapons and more HE munitions to carry for them. Because in this same scenario, I can use a Carl Gustaf MAAWW and blow the wall off any one of those buildings, there is very high chance that any enemy gunner shooting at me from any other position is going to hold their fire because they know the next bullet they fire might reveal exactly where their position is and they don't want to earn themselves an HE round that kills them despite hiding behind a stout, bullet stopping wall. Now that's suppression. And I want my squad to have that ability, not to ruin paint jobs with SAWs.

Devil's advocate on that-  Paul Howe had a TTP he called "work the windows" that he wrote about.  Functionally, it goes along the lines of "shoot where you think there are likely targets IE where people would logically be".

He discusses doing it in BHD.

The gist was to shoot a few rounds into ever window that had visibility on you, every doorway, every gate, and so on.

A burst from a SAW would work fine.

I suppose that would work well until you realize you'll be spending the night with just a basic combat load...

ETA: But If your TL is squared away getting LACE from you guys he should be adjusting your rates accordingly.

Seems like it could be beneficial in certain situations. I would count on it also giving your position up immediately tho

I agree with a lot of this - especially the utility of more HE weapons.

Here's a pretty interesting discussion of some of the other man portable HE systems that are out there:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/?msg=6987.1

The problem encountered looking at these various systems is that the launchers are all heavy to heavy AF, and HE projectiles themselves are quite heavy (even a 40mm grenade is 1/2lb, while a 84mm is 7llbs). This makes them generally poorly suited to a Squad level asset

For example, the new lightweight Carl Gustav M3E1 is 15lbs, and the projectile weight is listed as 7lbs. So you could replace the SAW gunner with a CarlGuy and 4 rounds for the same weight as a M249 and 600rds. But if it comes to room clearing or close defense - that guys firing back with a pistol. To say nothing of what happens after his 4 shells are launched.

Looking at it, I came to the opposite conclusion of the IAR: A 6mm squad beltfed (100gr .58 G1 BC @ 2750fps) that can replace both the M249 and M240. Then have the Weapon Squad, which previously carried the M240 and its kit, and have them carrying the HE asset/assets and rounds.

For example, a Weapon Squad with  (Carl Gustav guy + Assistant Carl ammo bearer) + (40mm Milkor guy + 40mm ammo bearer).

Death blossom

...or revert to old school.

SQUAD, FRONT.  WATCH MY TRACER.  Squad leader shoots two to three tracers where he wants you to shoot.  Can even do it in a burst.  Think third-world poor man's day laser pointer.  Dirt simple.

Replacing the SAW and 240 with the same weapon is silly IMHO. 240 is good. Or at least a 7.62x51 GPMG is good. You want the capability to put rounds really far out, especially on tripod, for things like bounding overwatch in open areas. Going to 6mm limits the effective range of that, and the barrier penetration of it. Not to mention we still haven't solved the problem of saddling the assault element in a squad with a weak link in terms of ability to push with the rest of them. In fact, you just made it worse. Shift to an IAR, or a weapon of that nature, at the squad level, it just makes sense.

As far as HE goes, you got the gustav, you got extremely lightweight 60mm systems that are out there, there's tons of options. Give the rifleman a Gustav and 3 rounds, still carrying his m4, TL carries 2 more rounds (which works well bc TL will likely be telling the gunner where to shoot so he'll be close enough to give him the 2 rds if needed) 320 gunner stays the same decked with 40's, AR goes to something mag fed, still carrying a larger load. Everyone wins. Really a smaller weapon than the Gustav would be nice. The RPG, from what I've seen, not having handled or fired one, seems to be a handier, simpler, lighter, less cumbersome weapon. I think a refined version of that could largely fill the same role that we're talking about while still letting the rifleman keep up with the squad. Remember, every time we talk about loading someone down with this shit, keep in mind they're going to have to bound with it, plus body armor, FLC, everything else too. We already have issues with this shit, lets not make it worse.

ETA: If anyone here with more secret squirrel cred's can enlighten me as to the RPG's effectiveness or if I'm out of my lane as far as it appearing to be a relatively not-cumbersome weapon, shed some light on that please. I do recall there was a generalized AAR or something from back in like '03 where miscellaneous issues were reported, like SAW 1st gen bipods being shit etc, and I recall that there was a demand for an RPG equivalent. I could be wrong though.

I'm not a bean counter but I think its going to be a giant pain in the ass to replace 7.62 linked ammo throughout the DOD. We're not talking just infantry using it, its in armor, air crews, etc. We probably have more of that ammo stored than any other in inventory, switching calibers means chucking it all. Me personally, I'm just trying to sell an idea that is most cost effective and do-able. And if we're changing out MG why not have it match service rifle/carbine?

I'm not 100% sold on Carl Gustaf in the squad itself or the weapon itself. Its a weapon system that already exists, is already in the inventory in limited numbers, so its a start to getting a permanent HE gunner MTOE position in the rifle platoon. Considering the weight issues of hauling an M4 and basic load along with it, it probably shouldn't be in a rifle squad unless they are pushed down for a specific mission. Probably best in platoon HQ or weapons squad. What I'd really like to see is an American product improved version of the RPG that is for bunker busting role as its primary function, and comes with the stipulation that it isnt' for killing tanks, which is what every asshole Army general is going to try to shoe horn it into that role if they are contemplated. Carl Gustaf is bigger, heavier, but far more powerful. HE rounds can be programmed to airburst, and they pack a whallop like a 105mm arty round, which is truly game changing when a single infantry platoon could do "talking guns" with a couple of them and create the same aftermath of an battery fire for effect arty mission but without any outside support and trying to get someone to adjust by radio. But if we can create our own RPG-7 that has a HE kill radius similar to a 75mm arty round, and programmable air bursting, I'd say go with that in a heartbeat and give the guy his own carbine too like the combloc did with their RPG gunners. Maybe one per squad, maybe one per fire team, depending on how well it performs in the massive amount of controlled testing I'd be doing for it. I'd also like to see better 40mm grenade rounds purpose built for increased fragmentation and explosive power, and bigger, longer, and more powerful considering we're not stuck with the shitty and short breached M203 anymore.

Saab Bofors can create an AT4 variant with HE warhead and airburst adjustment turn knob built into the ass end, and we can buy a shit load and issue them out as necessary in the the platoon, at least one per squad. That would be cool as fuck, but I still like the idea of a dedicated gunner since then the officer and NCO corps would be forced to come to terms for training and operational use of a team, squad, platoon geared toward laying down HE rather than bullet hose fire volume to accomplish its mission. It would require a completely different training mentality, different ranges, different risk assessment.

^ Read my mind.

I agree, I've read what Howe and others have said and that's basically it and it makes total sense. Especially when you take into factor that most barriers random small arms bullets are sprayed into wont be penetrated, so nobody hit or suppressed, then spray and pray goes out the window. But if I can fire one or two rounds of carbine fire into that open window or door or whatever to try to scare the shit out of the people inside to keep them from exposing themselves to shoot at me, why does a LMG need to shoot a couple 3-5 round bursts to do the same?

Overall, the only thing in MOUT I consider worthwhile for an LMG is using it to control linear danger area crossing points, hosing off fleeting targets of sprinting individuals, alone or in small groups, running from one piece of cover to the next. For that you really need full auto to make hits, unless you have a shit load of training on semi. It must be controlled, accurate, short bursts, and I can do that with an M4A1 with one of those awesome Geissele Automatics High Speed Selector, allowing a shooter to effortlessly move selector from semi to auto without the long shitty 180 degree turn on the standard selector switch.

The 6mm I spec'd actually exceeds the energy of the 7.62x51 at medium-long range - it still has 500 ft/lbs of energy at 900 yards, supersonic to 1325 yards...

Meanwhile, if you give a Rifleman a M4 + ammo + a Gustav + 3 rounds, you've actually made a soldier who is substantially more overburdened then the M249 gunner the IAR was supposed to solve.
-M4 w/ optics + mag = ~9lb
-6 PMAGS = 6.45lbs
-Carl Gustav M3E1 = 15lbs
-3 84mm rounds = 21lbs
= 51.45lbs in weapons and ammo

vs
-M249 + 200rd = 22lb
-200rd box x2 = 13.84lb
=35.84lbs

So now you've established the overall sector of fires and targets. They still need to be able to see them and hit them. More so they need to be taught, drilled actually, as to how to shoot and where to shoot. If you pump a couple tracer rounds in the general vicinity of the three story tan building at near 1 o'clock in this picture I'm guessing you don't want your whole squad just pockmarking the foot thick cinderblock/mud brick siding on the building with semi and full auto 5.56 firing and instead shooting precise rounds and HE into that third story open perch and that very obvious loophole.

Double the round count for the SAW, but your point still stands. The ideal solution would be something along the lines of a westernized/refined RPG and maybe a couple rounds carried by the TL to help distribute the load.

a scaled-down CG?

correct me if i'm wrong, but the original CG was designed as an AT weapon

however, at present its used as a HE projector

i don't think this was mentioned yet...

but optics on an IAR seems to be less of a hassle than on a belt-fed (less of a problem on the NEGEV and the KAC LMG)

assuming a new design for an IAR: if QCB and lasers are a concern, something similar to the MG42/MG3 layout might be the solution

5.56 tracer is hard to see during the day.

40mm HEDP is really easy to see, which is why TLs should carry it.

There is a lot of discussion here about SAWs in the infantry squad. I am not an infantryman, so here is a stupid question: How often are squads doing squad-alone actions not as part of a platoon? Yeah, in ROTC we did plenty of “do a squad raid,  one fireteam is the assault element, one fireteam is the support element with SAWs,” but that was in leadership evaluation drills and not actual combat training. Wouldn’t a squad mostly operate raids, attacks, ambushes, etc as part of a platoon that would consolidate SAWs at PLT level in a support position anyway?

I am aware I am far out of my lane so be gentle

That's how we did in Germany.

Of course, with a max range of 400M, with many engagements beyond that, maybe the 203 as fire control might not work where we are at right now.

In real life, the distance between squads and platoon HQ it really dependent on METT-TC. If doing MOUT, the squads could be all in the same house/courtyard complex, or maybe strung out down same street clearing houses on opposing sides of the streets. Or a couple blocks away. In rural environments, in the woods, doing sneaky Lightfighter stuff, they might be operating outside the reach of the patrol base or platoon objective rally point running recon patrols or ambushes, etc. For those roles they will be pushing to the max of their radio comms, with the rest of the platoon who will also act as a QRF in case the patrolling squad gets hit, usually a few klicks out max, really dependent on how fast the QRF can arrive (vehicles help push out the distance since they can cover ground faster as QRF). For larger platoon operations, like a platoon raid, they might be jammed right along with the rest of the platoon, with almost no serious gap between squads. So it really depends.

The standard old FM 7-8 Battle Drill 1A squad attack is a basic framework of how to conduct a small scale attack. Its not supposed to be a cookie cutter TTP. It sets the basic doctrine of fire and maneuver, with one team, always the lead team engaging a enemy position at 12 o'clock, acting as support base of fire, and the other team as assault element. Its best feature is that it allows a stress filled live fire training lane to teach basic squad and team communication, let's leaders lead, show cases numerous forms of individual movement technique, has the elements of another battle drill, React to Contact added, and allows the use of various signaling means that are usually part of the platoon or company SOP and expected to be used in combat, etc. Being live fire, it also instills confidence in the men who managed to run a lane without killing one another. However in real life things are nothing at all like the training lane.

The training lane enemy objective is always one small enemy stationary position, usually 2-4 individual targets placed in the relative open in the woods, not in a heavy defended position, not in a bunker, not in a building, not covering their flanks, not having obstacles, mines, or fire support, not tied into any units on their flanks. The basic scenario is that the Stellar and Intrepid US Army squad runs into a weak, clueless enemy fireteam doing their own patrol and defeats them in the meeting engagement before they have a chance to respond. The SL always surmises the situation after lead team reacts to contact and always makes the decision to attack based on nothing more than his clueless lead team leader telling him something like "It appears there are only a few enemy" and not having a clue what is to the left, right, or behind the enemy (what if that is just the lead element of an enemy company?). The assault element always runs as fast as they can, sprinting through the woods is the standard really, through completely unknown terrain to get into place to flank the small enemy position and they always know they wont be running smack into an alert RPK or PKM gunner, or mines or into the enfilading fields of fire of an enemy platoon on line. There is never a larger enemy squad or platoon that comes into play to save the small element, its always just an isolated 2-4 man enemy position that is completely helpless and not being tactical at all. Not an OP/LP, because then the flanking assault element would all get torn up by the enemy line behind it. There is never an enemy in that small group scanning the flanks to spot the bold flanking maneuver of four dudes running through the woods in plain sight. There are no RPGs exploding. The enemy will not attempt to break contact and run off, nor are they ever all dead either by the time the assault element flanks them and assaults through them.

In that training, among other similarly done, since so much of it is done just with blanks and even with live fire demo or HE is often not allowed, leadership walking the lanes as OCs often judge the effectiveness of the squad's performance solely by sound, specifically by how fast the SAW in the SBF team is shooting, and how fast the assault team gets into place. They are not judging accuracy by hits of any kind. Nobody is using grenade launchers because those are not allowed on most of the ranges, even few actual live fire squad attack lanes allow them, so grenadiers just fire their M16 or M4 and ignore the grenade launcher. This creates a mindset that leads to small unit leaders overly reliant on bullet launchers and with them specifically with the noise of machine guns make, and less concerned with the awesome explosive firepower and effectiveness of HE weaponry. Also, safety is a big concern, so nobody is chucking hand grenade or grenade simulators, OCs aren't throwing out arty simulators to simulate an enemy who has their own HE or has support to call on. There is no C-wire strung around the enemy position necessitating a hasty breach of a mined wired obstacle. Nobody in the assault element is knocking out a bunker, clearing the trenches between bunkers, or entering a house and clearing a room. Rarely will OC's judge more than one Soldier as a casualty, and usually then only in the consolidation phase to test the TL and SL in redistributing ammo, CLS, reporting, and preparing for a counter attack that NEVER comes. Overall, the framework of the drill works to show the Soldier how bounding overwatch and fire and maneuver can be done, but it should never be taken seriously as to how we should be doing things in combat. Unfortunately it is taken seriously by far too many NCOs and officers in the Army who have diluted themselves into believing that's what combat is supposed to be like.

To put it into perspective, the standard bread and butter Battle Drill 1A lane is to real combat what Karate kata is to unarmed fighting.

"Team, front, watch my grenade..."

Aims M203 at cluster of trees 350 meters away that a Taliban gun team is laying up in. THUMP, miss short by 100 meters. Because he used the Force instead of sights.

"Shit...team, disregard...Team, Front, on my grenade..."

THUMP, miss long by 50 meters. Because he didn't know the range and guessed wrong.

"Goddamn I fucking hate this thing. Disregard last. On my grenade..."

THUMP, miss short by 150 meters. Because he attempted to bracket while drastically moving weapon and changing sight picture and then fucking up range estimation again.

"Fuck this, on my tracer!"

I don't seem to have that problem. I guess the force is strong with this one.