Showing posts with label urban warfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label urban warfare. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

What If?

I started reading a book on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict and it started something like this. "The saddest situations occur when both sides have a legitimate claim to being the good guys." Truly the situation that has occured and been perpetuated by various power players is a sad one for both sides.
What if we stopped giving the Israeli's, Egyptians, Palestinians and pretty much every other nation in that hotbed money and weapons? Aside from buying influence does making sure both sides are better armed really serve to help create a lasting peace? If you come outside to your tween boys fighting in the back yard do you give them each a stout stick? If your buddies get a bit rowdy at the bar do you give one a whiskey bottle and the other a knife? I don't think so.

Are we really helping Israel or are we enabling them to continue a dysfunctional conflict and not seriously search for a realistic solution? If we really care about the right of oppressed people to have an independent nation to call a homeland what about the Kurds or the Pastun's or the Tibetans?

Maybe one could argue that it is good for Israel that we back them with weapons, money and the implicit threat of force. However more to the point is it a good thing for America? Are we serving our independent needs and goals with these actions?

Even asking these questions could get me labeled an anti semite. That might concern me more than any position folks could take on the issue. Whipping out an "ist" every time you get questioned is the adult sociapolitical equivalent of a little  kid yelling "LALALALALALALALAL" or "I can't hear you" when they know their argument is losing.

I don't know what the answers are but asking questions might just be worthwhile.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

End of Combat Operations in Iraq?

The last "combat" brigade left Iraq today. I wouldn't say this means our efforts in Iraq are over but it is sure a significant milestone. As for what will happen now, time will tell. I do think it is very important that we practice expectation management. If we expect Iraq to be a nice calm place with totally functional, completely democratic and honest institutions and great infrastructure like say Israel (the only example I could think of in the middle east) we will be disappointed. However if we expect sporadic bombings and localized violence, semi corrupt elections along party lines and haphazard infrastructure we might be on the mark.  I say that for a couple reasons.

It is important to remember that early American history didn't go so smoothly. There were small localized uprisings, the government went broke and stayed there more or less and our first government failed entirely. We had some real problems with pirates robbing our ships. Around 20 years after our nation was established the British stomped us pretty badly and burned down our capitol. (Would it be ridiculous and war hawkish to suggest we burn down Buckingham Palace to get even? Better late than never right?) A couple generations later we fought a massive civil war. For some reason we Americans have a short memory and an even shorter attention span. We would like to make Iraq into a wonderful place over the course of a few short years. If we manage our expectations and take a longer view the situation can be seen more realistically.

What does this mean? Well hopefully we as a nation can finally borrow a little bit less money to keep things going. Also we will have fewer brave young Americans at risk which is always a good thing. Getting out of Iraq will allow us to increase dwell time for soldiers. This will almost certainly help with some of the problems (prescription drugs and suicide are notable) we are currently facing. More focused training time at home station will allow for the retrofitting and replacement of equipment as well as training which are good things. Also this will let our nation focus almost exclusively on Afghanistan which is something that has needed to happen for a long time. I don't know what will happen there but it would be a darn shame if we let a lack of adequate amounts of men, weapons and equipment be the deciding factor.

These are sure interesting times we live in.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

A Valid Question

Blogger Chief Instructor said...Question: What's the deal with the chest rigs? I honestly have not even considered them as part of my preps. If I'm on foot, I'll have a backpack. Is the idea of the chest rigs that you can have easier access to magazines? Is that it or am I missing something? They seem like they'd be used if you had a bug-out location and were patrolling the grounds. Are there other uses?
Answer: Chief Instructor,  Look at it this way.  I know you do some defensive pistol shooting type competitions. Would you consider keeping the spare mags you need during a course somewhere in a back pack? I don't think so. You almost surely have them in a mag pouch so you know where they are and can get at them in a hurry. Makes sense right? 
I think every pistol should have a holster, a belt and a mag/ speed loader pouch in addition to a cleaning kit, mags and ammo. With that pistol you need a place to carry it except your hand which means a holster and then you need a belt to put it on. Don't want to have to try and stuff it in your pants awkwardly. You also need something to hold spare ammo in lest you find yourself riffling through a backpack. For each pistol a holster, belt, mag/ speed loader pouch as well as mags/ ammo are ancillary equipment.
Why is a rifle any different? You need a hands free way to carry it as well as something to store spare ammo and whatever else you may need. I would say chest rigs or an LBE or whatever sort of setup you prefer is part of the basic ancillary gear for a rifle (along with a sling, cleaning kit, mags, ammo, etc).
As for my preference for chest rigs in particular. They are what modern professionals use for a lot of reasons. Sort of how quite a few police departments use Glocks and not many  use 1970's era Ruger or Smith and Wesson semi automatics. Chest rigs are very ergonomic and you can wear them and run or whatever. Very hard to change mags at more than a snails pace if they are buried in a backpack while given a little bit of practice a chest rig is really fast. So part of it is that they are a necessary piece of equipment to get the most out of whatever rifle you have. As for their exact niche as a prep....

Does a chest rig fall into the Blackhawk Down/ Red Dawn category? Maybe. Admittedly it would have to be a pretty dark scenario for you to need a chest rig and a rifle. However like so many low probability high impact events when you need it you really need it. I bet there were a few average Joe's in the LA Riots or Katrina who would have liked a convenient and quick way to carry spare ammo. If things are so screwed up that you are grabbing a rifle or a shotgun you need a good way to carry ammo (and other stuff) for it.

Also as criminals operate in more larger more organized and violent manners the need to prepare for a nasty and prolonged gunfight is there. Truly this is probably the most realistic niche for this type of gear. Yeah at 10 feet in the living room it will not take long for an outcome but if people get behind concealment/ cover or there are multiple tango's you might shoot a lot more than you imagine. If you consider the possibility of having 3-4 armed tango's a couple spare mags would be awful nice.

For whatever my advice is worth I think you should have a chest rig or an LBE or a set of whatever type web gear suits you as part of the ancillary gear for each defensive rifle you own.

Chief, I hope that answers your question.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Thoughts On Insurgencies Two

The first one was well received and I really enjoyed writing it. I've been thinking on the topic again recently. In no particular order.

One thing I find incredibility amusing is that so many folks who could be called wanna be insurgents (lets face it the difference between a freedom fighter/ patriot and and terrorist is if they are on or against your side) completely ignore fitness. I like the term insurgent largely because it is relatively judgment neutral. You see the old school videos of the Michigan militia or whatever and it is usually a bunch of fat old guys standing there shooting rifles. Seriously insurgents do not fight static fights. They initiate an ambush or blow a bomb or conduct a raid and get away really fast before a large group of better armed and supported individuals comes to kill them. This usually means being able to move on foot quickly for some distance. If you are 40 pounds overweight you will not be able to get away and you will die. Insurgency is a very Darwinian business and that doesn't go well for fatties and idiots.

Onto the topic of idiots. A man, or I guess a woman, has got to know his limitations. This means being careful and choosy about the kind of fight they get into. They need to pick a fight with the right group of individuals or in a place that suits their capabilities, ideally some combination of both. They also need to pick a fight that they can get away from. Unless you're down with the whole suicide thing you need a real solid exit plan.

In terms of numbers and weapons insurgents always face bad odds. However if 3 insurgents with knives find an occupier in a dark alley it doesn't matter that his side has the overall odds in their favor. The same could be said if a section or platoon sized element of insurgents hits a squad sized patrol and gets away fast enough to miss the QRF.

As some folks mention to me not everybody is in their 20's or 30's and physically fit. I would submit to you that there are a lot of lot of 40 and 50 often with numerous poorly treated wounds from decades of almost constant warfare. Those 40-50 something year old insurgents are giving our boys in Afghanistan hell but they are in shape. Saying that you are older and thus in horrible shape is an excuse, sorry but it's true. For a person with a truly (not you are obese and go figure your joints aren't handling the weight well) destroyed knee or back, some kind of other medical problem, etc the idea of being an active rifleman in an insurgency while it has a certain mystique just isn't realistic. That is OK though.....

Why is that OK? Well the first reason is that it's life. If you have MS then running all over the place doing direct action stuff just isn't realistic. If you have a destroyed knee then hiking 20k through the night to get to a perfect point to mortar a small outpost isn't realistic either. However unlike the "every man is a rifleman and we will fight together" propaganda reality is that only part of an insurgencies total participants are active combatants in the traditional sense. So there is still a role for people who can't go running and gunning, in fact there are many roles. How are there many roles you ask?

Think of our modern conventional forces. They are not composed entirely of Infantrymen and Armor guys but in fact there are numerous other units and jobs, some of which have almost nothing to do with killing people, blowing stuff up and holding territory.

Insurgencies would need explosives efforts, logistics people, medical folks, intelligence and many other types of skills. A 55 year old ER doctor with a huge gut and bad knees is more valuable than a squad or even a section of fit 20 year old guys who can carry a rifle. A boringly average 40 year old woman who had a mediocre job in local government and was able to remember stuff from work, write it down at home and pass it to the right people could be a huge intel asset. A guy who is able to discretely bring continuous if modest donations (from his buddies at the country club or the shooting range or church or whatever) coming in could keep the shooters in the field.

Even the most boring guy with no real skills could help by offering to run an occasional short term safe house. Meeting them at a good bland place and pulling into the garage before the people get out and them staying out of the front room with the open window would be all the security that is needed.  All that would be needed is a bed or a cot, a stocked fridge/ pantry and some form of entertainment. Cable TV or a good stash of books and games would be sufficient. Most likely they would just sleep a lot and sit around. This would be a bad one for somebody with kids because even if coached they have no mental filters. Your 6 year old daughter talking about the strangers who come over for a few nights occasionally would cause real problems. This one would be best left to those without kids in the home.

Even a grandma who was willing to let somebody stash stuff in a false wall in the spare bedroom could be of a real help. Maybe she is just helping out or maybe she gets a few bucks now and then. Lots of inner city drug people keep their stash in the home of a seemingly innocent and unconnected family. The rent is paid and they let people drop off and pick up packages.

Insurgents need continued sources of revenues to operate. They have got to eat, purchase arms and ammunition and do all sorts of stuff that costs money. Typically this money comes from either outside donations (from a foreign power or well funded friends like the Saudi's) or coercing the local populace. Robbery, kidnapping and other general criminal behavior is also often employed to get funds to continue the fight. There is a reason that now and then you hear about some extremist group getting arrested for robbing a bank. It isn't that they want to rob banks parse but that they need money to fund future operations. That doesn't mean those are the only options. A small part time operation could require minimal funding because the participants have normal jobs support themselves that way. They would also have the advantage of good cover. Instead of being the 4 guys who live in an apartment, don't seem to have jobs and come and go at odd hours it would be Jim the accountant and his wife Sally the home maker, members of the Elks lodge and solid members of the community. Of course their OP Tempo would be a lot slower because no matter how motivated you are a normal job and life would greatly limit time to fight those darn occupiers. Also these folks would not be the backbone of a successful insurgency but that doesn't mean they couldn't be valuable members, particularly if they had access to Intel, useful skills or deep pockets.

As a final thought it might not be a bad idea to keep some stuff stashed though for survivalists that is old hat. Of course it is all but impossible to stockpile enough stuff to sustain an insurgency forever but it wouldn't be too hard to get a good start. Pretty hard to spend a couple days doing a recon without chow and if there is a way to shoot people without bullets I don't know what it is. Ammo that you can get now with the only limiting factor being your ability to pay might be next to impossible to get if through normal channels if supplies were interrupted due to restrictions because of a conflict. A couple hundred bucks worth of ammo now could be enough to do a lot of damage later.

Well I could talk on this topic for some time but I've got to go to bed.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Militias: What They Were. What They Are, What They Can Do and Examples

I have been sort of holding off on this for awhile because well it is going to be a long and complicated post. Today is as good a day as any so I will get started.

Questioning the sanctity of militias in this group is probably more dangerous than saying you voted for Diana Feinstein and party regularly with Bernanke. Anyway I am going to attempt to look at the role of militias in America from the establishment of the new world to now. Also I am going to try and look at some of the examples of successful militias and question what militias can do for our national security. This should be fun.

Militias have a long history. Groups of cave men likely had something like a militia where able bodied men used what weapons were at hand to defend themselves and or just kill other groups of cave men. Prior to division of labor people probably fought much shorter battles because they were unable to really store up food. I imagine groups occasionally bumping into each other and sometimes fighting being the norm.

In England militias have a long tradition. They were a come as you are sort of affair. Our colonial militias were drawn along these lines. Colonial militias were not created because they were the best option, they were created because of a lack of better options. Warfare at that point was so localized that a standing army 20 miles away would not do any good. Also since these colonies were chartered by private companies they were watching their dollars. The general idea was that all able bodied males are armed and will come together to defend their village from aggression or try to massacre the local Indians when they become a bother.

While some militia units did awesome things for every one of them there was at least one bumbling expedition lead by a complete fool that ended in total disaster. Having the head of the militia often be a political figure had disastrous results in many cases. This brings us to a couple of interesting points.

First of all a real problem the militias had in the various conflicts up to and including the French and Indian War was that they were local. Often militias were fairly well organized at the local level and could be called up by the states but that was it. Often say the New Hampshire militia would refuse to go to Vermont to assist them in fighting. Even getting them to leave their local area was often difficult. Don't get my wrong I totally understand why these men wanted to protect their families, homes and livelihoods but a few guys here and a few guys there guarding their towns is not how wars are won. Because of their desire to protect their homes and Governors desires to protect their state and or internal squabbles militias efforts stumbled. By and large in this period they were often unable to achieve Mass, did not have good Unity of Command and lacked Economy of Force. The end of the French Indian was brings us pretty much up to the American Revolution.

To bring this period to a close I think the main points were as follows. Militias were definitely the cheapest and most expedient way to bring a level of protection to the local level. Their performance was good and bad depending mostly on the quality of their key leadership. Ability to work effectively in a regional sense was often hampered by the localized structure of militias and their sometimes unwillingness to go far from home.

The American Revolution is often what is cited as the great American example of why we are awesome and why militias are amazing. I do think it is completely awesome that a bunch of folks stood up the the most powerful and well trained army in the world to pursue the goal of freedom.  Of course these folks could not have done so had they not been armed but we will revisit that point later.

To say American militias beat the Redcoats is a serious oversimplification. To say that America was very lucky that the Revolution happened in a period where England and France happened to be fighting it out abroad would be accurate. To say that American militias were able to avoid being totally destroyed until a the Continental Army could be raised and foreign aid could be secured is probably accurate if not philosophically pleasing.

One part I would like to note from this period is that military and civilian arms at the time were very comparable. In fact in some ways the rifles many colonists carried were superior to the Brown Bess. A group of militiamen from some village were probably equipped in a roughly comparable way as a comparable group of redcoats.

After the Revolutionary War over time the concept of a compulsory militia of all able bodied males became less prevalent as the necessity for it went away.

From the late 19th to early 20th century state militias became much more organized at a federal level. This period saw the Militia Act of 1903 and the creation of the National Guard. as we know it today. This is also where we are going to see a significant shift between what militias were and what they are today. Militias were compulsory organizations of all able bodied adult males of military age who often provided their own weapons and equipment and occasionally (varying widely by period and region) trained at the local level. Though they draw lineage from the militias of the past it could be argued that today's National Guard has little in common with the militias of the past. First of all they are volunteer organizations composed of a relatively small group of individuals and all of the equipment is provided by the Guard and centrally stored at their Armories. The guard is more of a professional  though part time part of the U.S. Army than a militia group at least for the sake of this discussion. One could talk all about the Guard but that isn't really what this is about so further discussion will not involve the National Guard unless they are specifically mentioned.

People who are championing the militia concept often speak of Switzerland as a great example. I will agree with this with one significant proviso. The Swiss have a very good compulsory militia. That they have a strong tradition of marksmanship and keep their weapons at home would help greatly should they need to be activated. Also that they keep their noses entirely out of every ones business and stick to chocolate and banking helps a lot but that is another discussion entirely.

My proviso is as follows. The Swiss militia had little to do with Germany not invading in WWII. It is fashionable in some circles to say that the Swiss militias were so well trained and great marksmen, etc that Hitler decided not to fight them. I think if we really take an objective look it was geography that kept Switzerland safe, well that and some collaboration. If the Swiss people with their tradition of neutrality and strongly militaristic culture and corresponding militia had happened to live in Poland they would have been Blitzkrieg-ed.

Someone, likely Brass is going to bring up both Vietnam vs France and then the US and the Afghans vs, well everyone who has ever came to Afghanistan but mostly them vs the Ruskies. Small wars/ wars of empire/ whatever the term of the period are an interesting beast. The indigenous group involved tends to do better when there is an outside group providing them with weapons/ equipment and better still when they have a safe haven.  The American Revolution would have been a lot different without help from France and Spain. Vietnam would have been a very different war without the Commies giving aid to the North and them having a safe haven in neighboring countries. The Afghans would have had a far harder time fighting off the Ruskies without massive foreign aid, mainly from America and Saudi Arabia. The Afghan elements we are fighting today would have a harder time without a safe haven in Pakistan.

Maybe it is just because I am in the military but I think these wars are won or lost more by political decisions than military skill/ might. If we really look at it the key factors in these sorts of engagements are how realistic (or unrealistic) the political goals which took the military (Russian, US, whatever) there and their willingness to do what is necessary to meet those goals than anything else. Going back to my post yesterday the military can kill people, break stuff and control space/ deny that space to others. If the enemy crossing an imaginary line gives them a safe haven, there aren't enough troops to get the job done and or the goals are entirely unrealistic the best military in the world can't win. Just to put it into perspective I could whoop a very good boxer in a fist fight if he had drank a quart of booze, was wearing a blindfold and had an arm tied behind his back.

As to the concept of militias in modern America. Some liberals and anti gun folks portray modern militias as a bunch of white, racist trailer trash has been/ never were types with beer guts who get together to shoot guns, ramble anti government conspiracies and drink beer. Liberty and militia type folks will portray modern militias as pro American, well trained and competent, freedom loving individuals looking to protect their communities and families, modern Minute Men if you will. To be honest I think they are both probably somewhat right with their portrayals personifying the extremes of the modern militia movement.

As for how effective militia groups would be I think we first need to say it would vary widely based on the militia itself. That group of a few fat drunk has been/ never were types who get together to ramble about conspiracies and drink some beer would probably not be an effective fighting force unless their job was to turn full beer cans into empty beer cans. A group of reasonably fit and well trained individuals who were properly equipped and effectively lead that took on realistic missions could probably get some stuff done.

Now we ask, effective against what? Lets say there two broad possibilities would be foreign invasion and some sort of an internal problem (I will let you imagine your own scenario).

So lets just say that those darn Canadians raise a million man Army and invade the US. A bunch of militia men in foxholes would not be able to stop an Armored column from taking over their town. Now if they were smart and realistic they could harass the heck out of them and get their hands on some heavy machine guns and then become a real pain a la Red Dawn. Offing a guy here, blowing up a truck there and stealing some supplies in another place is not going to get those darn Canadians back over the border. However the more resources they have to spend guarding their logistics and hind quarters the fewer they have to fight our conventional forces and continue their invasion.

Now to an internal scenario. I think this is where a militia could have some real value. Even those fat drunks might well be able to get together and protect their families, all of their pickups and at least one of the trailers. Also depending on exactly what the scenario is they might be able to get some stuff done. An effective militia force would likely have solid well thought out plans to protect their families and such in their immediate area which could have some real value in an internal scenario.

I think the biggest things holding militias back are that they are now small, marginally equipped (for modern warfare) and varying trained:

Instead of every able bodied male being in the militia a la colonial America they are now very small select organizations at least by % of the total population. Lots of very competent and well trained folks stay away from militias because they do not want to deal with hassles and put their freedom/ family at risk by drawing that bulls eye on their head. Between unfriendly government agencies, their informants, and just plain psychos in their ranks militias these folks see them as a dangerous group to be involved with. Entrapment is a dangerous thing and conspiracy is a very open ended phrase.

Our weapons laws being what they are militia groups are really handicapped. Either they are seriously lacking weapons for modern warfare or they are probably breaking the law. Class III weapons being highly regulated, rare and VERY EXPENSIVE mean they are almost surely not widely fielded. While it doesn't matter if someones individual rifle goes bang once, three times or repeatedly when the trigger is pulled medium and heavy machine guns are very useful. Also mortars and anti armor weapons are not present at least in more than a token sense.

Of the three things likely holding militia groups back training is the one they can realistically do the most about. Honestly I doubt a group which did not have some experienced folks in key positions for both training and potential operations could be successful. Setting and enforcing standards would be essential. Physical fitness is key. Selection, size, recruitment and training always go together. If goals are set too high you will have three or four highly qualified (whatever that means to you) folks and if they are set too low you will have a bunch of worthless buffoons. Setting realistic goals for who you want to recruit and figuring out how to get them to join and stay would likely be the biggest challenge of a militia.

Broadly speaking the two roles militias have been best in were immediate localized defense and as a balwark against tyranny. Seeing as the Indians have pretty much been done declaring war on local towns and burning isolated farms and we have two weak neighbors (though I am watching those darn Canadians) immediate local defense is probably not a big concern. As for the militias role in preventing tyranny I think it is a distant second to the fact that Americans own about a billion guns but is positive none the less.

I just want to say this was a long post and I didn't spend weeks researching it so I am not going to debate small historic points with you. However discussing broad trends and conclusions should keep us plenty busy.

Edited to include:
To my fat drunk readers in trailers. Sorry if it seemed like I was taking a shot at you guys. It is the liberal anti gun totalitarians stereotype, not mine. I think you are great just the way you are and am fine if you don't want to change. Its just that if you are serious about being part of some sort of militia it might be wise to be a bit more about the exercise. Again sorry if I offended.

Edited again to include:
To all. My point certainly is not to belittle militias or say they could not do some good things. If it came off that way maybe I am having an off day. Note that for both an internal scenario and an external threat I mentioned areas where a militia could be quite successful. Also in mentioning what I see to be their biggest limitations it doesn't take much imagination to turn two of them into a blue print on how to do it very well.  The one they can't do much about is weapons. Unless they can get their hands on Javalines at Costco and RPG's and heavy machine guns at Walmart they are pretty much left to improvise or try and scrape some up if need be. My goal was to look at militias both in the past and today through a pragmatic lense instead of one tinted by political leanings. If I got you thinking a bit more critically it was at least a partial success.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Simunitions and paintball for force on force training

We have been doing a lot of shooting which is awesome. Close quarters shooting and room clearing have been the emphasis for obvious reasons given our current operational environment. I have done this stuff before but practice is always good and it had been awhile. Maybe I will talk about close quarters shooting or room clearing some time but not today. We are going to talk about simunitions and paintball (guess lasers fall into this category also but are far less common) for force on force training. I like the positive sandwich method.

These training aids give immediate positive and negative feedback. There is no "I got you first" argument here unlike blanks or bang bang crap. If you have paint on you and the other guy doesn't you loose, if it is the reverse you win. For situations where you both shoot at more or less the same time referees are useful. A welt or two for making a mistake is a very cheap lesson in the context of a serious deadly game.

These training aids have some definite limitations which include the following: cost, availability, different platforms, range and penetration. I think the biggest single issue is range. These weapons have short ranges which are generally under 50 meters. There is not currently a way to have them (airsoft, paintball, simunitions, etc) be safe at close ranges and have the power to reach out very far. As JWR suggested you could just rule these people dead but that gets into "your dead because you were out in the open", "no I'm not that was a 4 second rush" stuff. This could lead toward people thinking they are safe when in fact they aren't. JWR said something to the same effect. The next biggest issue is penetration. I think this is far less important then range because it is easier to factor it out. Next comes availability, the simunitions stuff seems to be somewhat restricted if just by their target market instead of legislation. If nothing else getting new recievers is expensive (I imagine). Going with any of the cheaper routes means you do not get that stressful training with your firearm of choice which is by far the most valuable. The closest thing (without the danger) to clearing a malfunction or reloading under real fire is doing it when in contact with someone who is shooting less then lethal rounds at you. Cost is the lowest on my list because getting a cheapo paintball setup from Walmart is pretty realistic for most people but that is still $40+(ballpark) that could be spent on something else like extra hi cap mags.

The big role I see for these is close range stuff like room clearing and urban warfare, mainly room clearing and fighting in houses. So you think a battle with the evil mutant zombie bikers would take place in a nice fighting position shooting across the field with your battle rifle? Guess what, you are wrong...dead wrong. Take a look to your left and right. The odds are about 99/100 that you are sitting in a house. People do not live in fields, we live in houses. If we are being pragmatic the most likely violent conflict at your place is a break in or home invasion.

The immediate feedback (positive and negative) of simunitions or paintballs is probably the best tool to practice room clearing for real. I learned more in less then a half hour of simunitions force on force then in weeks of past training. I see this as a legitimate useful role for these training tools. Some comments have been made that these training tools lead to reckless practices and (very weapon specific tournaments and leagues aside) I disagree. Short of exchanging actual gunfire I can't think of a better method then something which you can feel that smarts pretty good. Getting pegged in the left forearm or right pinkey while number one man clearing a building with 4 hostiles and an HVT makes it about as real as you can without some serious trama followed by buddy aid, a casevac and surgery with a possible amputation.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts