Rub-a-dub-dub, more realism for your combat tub.

[aramis]

One thing that Mike isn't mentioning, but he's stated in the past...
that the 8+ is for combat shooting, not target shooting.

Target shooting should be much easier...
... as should the first shot by a sniper if the sniper is the first shot of the combat...

It's interesting to compare police accuracy in the field vs accuracy on the post-exertion firing test. General police accuracy seems to be 30% in the field for under 10m pistol shots. Post-exertion fire vs target is around 70% from what I've read. (This is the Run X laps, then fire a full clip through a 10cm hole at a man-sized target 3-5 m away.)

 

[Condottiere]

Leia was permitted to escape the Death Star, and presumably, the Stormtroopers were instructed not to harm the rescue party, just exert pressure.

 

[Tiikeri]

What the vast majority of munchkins actually want - John Wick vs John Doe

How true it is. A beautiful summation of the problem with so many players.

 

[Timerover51]

If you want more realism in your combat, the best thing to do is read some accounts of actual combat, or maybe read a good account of the Northfield, Minnesota Raid by the James-Younger Gang, and figure out how much lead was fired at the gang compared to the number of actual hits.

As for the combat from Vietnam forward, the trend is fired full auto and hope the spray hits something.

 

[whartung]

It's interesting to compare police accuracy in the field vs accuracy on the post-exertion firing test. General police accuracy seems to be 30% in the field for under 10m pistol shots. Post-exertion fire vs target is around 70% from what I've read. (This is the Run X laps, then fire a full clip through a 10cm hole at a man-sized target 3-5 m away.)

I would think there would be quite a difference between simple physical exhaustion (Run X laps, and fire), vs the adrenaline and cognitive overload of a hight stress situation such as close combat on the street.

 

[Diveguy]

I would think there would be quite a difference between simple physical exhaustion (Run X laps, and fire), vs the adrenaline and cognitive overload of a hight stress situation such as close combat on the street.

Yes, there is a difference. BUT - as *most* training sites frown upon shooting at the students, physical exertion is the closest thing we have to a way to induce such stress symptoms for a shooter to practice under.

But yes - things get a little more mentally difficult when the targets are moving, shooting back, don't instantly fall/show signs of impact, and the like. Which is why we still see such disparity in "real world" versus "range" numbers.

 

[whartung]

Yes, there is a difference. BUT - as *most* training sites frown upon shooting at the students, physical exertion is the closest thing we have to a way to induce such stress symptoms for a shooter to practice under.

Some cite the stress of competition as a tool. The combination of accuracy, the clock, and even peer pressure (plus the random weapon failure to spruce things up). I can't speak to how effective it is, as it's really in the mind of the shooter.

But yes - things get a little more mentally difficult when the targets are moving, shooting back, don't instantly fall/show signs of impact, and the like. Which is why we still see such disparity in "real world" versus "range" numbers.

Well, honestly, thank God, the simple truth is that most folks don't encounter these horrific situations in the first place. For sure, law enforcement and the military have higher incidences, and, minimally higher chances of encounter. But even among law enforcement the encounters are rare (perhaps less rare in some locales than others).

 

[Diveguy]

Some cite the stress of competition as a tool. The combination of accuracy, the clock, and even peer pressure (plus the random weapon failure to spruce things up). I can't speak to how effective it is, as it's really in the mind of the shooter.



Well, honestly, thank God, the simple truth is that most folks don't encounter these horrific situations in the first place. For sure, law enforcement and the military have higher incidences, and, minimally higher chances of encounter. But even among law enforcement the encounters are rare (perhaps less rare in some locales than others).

- Interesting that you mention that. 20+ years ago the feeling in the "professional" community was that competition was for pretenders, and "real warriors" didn't waste their time doing that stuff. Then, a number of very competent people got smoked in some competitive events and took it as a learning experience, not an insult.
Nowadays, there is a great deal of cross-pollination between the competition and the gunfighting community, which has benefitted both sides.

- As to your second point, this kind of circles back to a continuing debate/interpretation issue in terms of combat skills and characters in Traveller. IMHO, and IMU, I go with the fact that all characters default to Combat skills at 0 as meaning they have *some* experience and past encounters as you describe. Especially as, I tend to go with universes that are a bit more "crunchy frontier/Wild West" in flavor - so it's more likely that said characters would have some idea about the concept and consequences of violent encounters.

 

[whartung]

- Interesting that you mention that. 20+ years ago the feeling in the "professional" community was that competition was for pretenders, and "real warriors" didn't waste their time doing that stuff. Then, a number of very competent people got smoked in some competitive events and took it as a learning experience, not an insult.
Nowadays, there is a great deal of cross-pollination between the competition and the gunfighting community, which has benefitted both sides.

Well, that rings true to an extent for sure. The basic point being that competition introduces "real stress" (vs simple exhaustion). One of my favorite quotes (paraphrased) is from a motorcycle racer, talking about a persons attention capacity. Simply, that a person has "10 points" of capacity, and different activities, and events consume some number of points.

Consider a new rider trying to manage the combinations of the clutch, the gear shift, and throttle along with simple balance trying to get a bike moving. There's a lot going on, a lot of cognitive load. But, with practice, those actions become much more mechanical and automatic.

A person making a sudden stop on a bike, due to some emergent condition, a real beginner may simply slam on the brakes -- stopping the bike, but stalling the engine (since it's still in gear). With more experience, they'll know to at least bring the clutch in during the stop to avoid the stall, but end up stopped with the bike in high gear. Farther along, they find not only are they stopped, but the clutch it in, the engine is running, and they've shifted down to 1st gear, ready to move again. Even better, you may not have stopped at all but had the prescience and ability to avoid the event completely by maneuvering around it (which early on is not the intuitive reaction).

But you can see, when you're riding along and all of a sudden you have a eye expanding, aaooga horn blowing, "Tex Avery" style event, a lot of what you may have though was automatic may not be, especially if something goes wrong.

"A deer! Slam on the brakes!" but you hit the rear brake, not the front, now your back end is sliding around, which is unexpected, and your 10 point pool just got overflowed with 15 points.

When I see a racer, tucked in, knee down, in a 140MPH sweeping turn casually tearing off a face shield shade, you know that here's someone running along at 5 or 6 points of capacity... and how I'm not that guy! lol

These are the skills that get built up in competition. The repetitiveness of the stages building muscle memory and motor skills to the point that they can subconsciously "tap rack bang" during a failure. That the site picture naturally happens as soon as they raise the weapon, they not only focus quickly, but unfocus quickly, to help avoid tunnel vision etc. All of these things that can lower the "point cost" of fundamental skills and that can ideally be applied in a worst case scenario.

This is a lot different, I think, than just range time, since I think the clock and other pressures can add weight to the drills practiced. I have not done it enough on my own, and I'm not really fond of the idea of running clearance drills on my pistol while watching TV (though that's what some suggest, just to build muscle memory, build up hand strength, etc.) Just doesn't seem very fun!

 

[Diveguy]

Well, that rings true to an extent for sure. The basic point being that competition introduces "real stress" (vs simple exhaustion). One of my favorite quotes (paraphrased) is from a motorcycle racer, talking about a persons attention capacity. Simply, that a person has "10 points" of capacity, and different activities, and events consume some number of points.

Consider a new rider trying to manage the combinations of the clutch, the gear shift, and throttle along with simple balance trying to get a bike moving. There's a lot going on, a lot of cognitive load. But, with practice, those actions become much more mechanical and automatic.

A person making a sudden stop on a bike, due to some emergent condition, a real beginner may simply slam on the brakes -- stopping the bike, but stalling the engine (since it's still in gear). With more experience, they'll know to at least bring the clutch in during the stop to avoid the stall, but end up stopped with the bike in high gear. Farther along, they find not only are they stopped, but the clutch it in, the engine is running, and they've shifted down to 1st gear, ready to move again. Even better, you may not have stopped at all but had the prescience and ability to avoid the event completely by maneuvering around it (which early on is not the intuitive reaction).

But you can see, when you're riding along and all of a sudden you have a eye expanding, aaooga horn blowing, "Tex Avery" style event, a lot of what you may have though was automatic may not be, especially if something goes wrong.

"A deer! Slam on the brakes!" but you hit the rear brake, not the front, now your back end is sliding around, which is unexpected, and your 10 point pool just got overflowed with 15 points.

When I see a racer, tucked in, knee down, in a 140MPH sweeping turn casually tearing off a face shield shade, you know that here's someone running along at 5 or 6 points of capacity... and how I'm not that guy! lol

These are the skills that get built up in competition. The repetitiveness of the stages building muscle memory and motor skills to the point that they can subconsciously "tap rack bang" during a failure. That the site picture naturally happens as soon as they raise the weapon, they not only focus quickly, but unfocus quickly, to help avoid tunnel vision etc. All of these things that can lower the "point cost" of fundamental skills and that can ideally be applied in a worst case scenario.

This is a lot different, I think, than just range time, since I think the clock and other pressures can add weight to the drills practiced. I have not done it enough on my own, and I'm not really fond of the idea of running clearance drills on my pistol while watching TV (though that's what some suggest, just to build muscle memory, build up hand strength, etc.) Just doesn't seem very fun!

Yes, your bike racing example is appropriate (and has been used in at least two units I've been around in terms of firearms skills as well.) And a big part of the point as you said is that adding a clock, timer, and more importantly the challenge of competition makes things a little different. Add Type-A competitive personalities to the mix, and it's a good way to drive people to want to improve.

FWIW - I am NOT one to recommend doing things like malfunction drills while focused on other tasks. Too many ways to introduce bad habits and drill them into the brain, amongst other things. I'd rather spend (or instruct) someone on a solid 10-20 minutes of fundamentals with dry fire, malfunction drills and the like where they are completely focused on the task, than have two hours of not-focused repetition. Also, mental visualization (again, focused, not distracted) of performing said drills is also surprisingly effective in terms of training benefit. I recommend looking into some of Pat McNamara's work and discussion on the subject for more.

Now back to our regular Gauss gun commercial...

 

[Condottiere]

Constant training and simulation, until responses become routine, if not robotic.

 

[mike wightman]

Constant training and simulation, until responses become routine, if not robotic.

...improves things, but can not prepare you for the person next to you having their head shot off and the sound of bullets, explosions etc all around you.

A real firefight can not be simulated, because in any simulation you know you are not going to die unless there is a really unfortunate accident.
In real combat they really are trying to kill you and how you will react to that is something that can only be found out once it happens.

 

[Leitz]

In "On Killing" (Grossman) the author explains the miss rate as a human reaction against killing another person you can actually see. Supposedly the US Army lost 50,000 effectives during WWII due to the psychological cost of having to shoot another human. On the other hand, naval gunners and air corps bomber crews had fewer issues; they could compartmentalize the action and never see the human target.

Training programs that condition a soldier or LEO to combat shooting help reduce failure to engage as well as provide support after the fact. Sadly, video games also provide high levels of anti-social conditioning and negative social morality.

 

[Timerover51]

In "On Killing" (Grossman) the author explains the miss rate as a human reaction against killing another person you can actually see. Supposedly the US Army lost 50,000 effectives during WWII due to the psychological cost of having to shoot another human. On the other hand, naval gunners and air corps bomber crews had fewer issues; they could compartmentalize the action and never see the human target.

Training programs that condition a soldier or LEO to combat shooting help reduce failure to engage as well as provide support after the fact. Sadly, video games also provide high levels of anti-social conditioning and negative social morality.

S. L. A. Marshall discusses the same issue in "Men Against Fire". His estimate was that only about 25% of infantry soldiers actually fired at the enemy due to the civilian concept of "Thou Shalt Not Kill",

 

[Diveguy]

S. L. A. Marshall discusses the same issue in "Men Against Fire". His estimate was that only about 25% of infantry soldiers actually fired at the enemy due to the civilian concept of "Thou Shalt Not Kill",

Both these issues are *somewhat* accurate, in that a great deal of military training for infantry type units is designed to address this innate reluctance. However, much of Grossman's work and conclusions have been relatively discredited amongst the professional military community. He's particularly not held in high regard by anyone in SOF - the exact terms used would violate board rules.

 

[Leitz]

Both these issues are *somewhat* accurate, in that a great deal of military training for infantry type units is designed to address this innate reluctance. However, much of Grossman's work and conclusions have been relatively discredited amongst the professional military community. He's particularly not held in high regard by anyone in SOF - the exact terms used would violate board rules.

What are they saying instead? The "professional military community" is pretty large and diverse, I've been amazed, and dismayed, at some of their beliefs.

Still reading Grossman. He's referencing WWII numbers a good bit; part of his hypothesis is that "modern" military training has been designed to overcome the reluctance to kill, and that there is risk of psychological trauma if the operator is assumed not to be bothered by the event. SOF types are self-selecting and likely on the other end of the spectrum.

 

[Tiikeri]

Saw grossman speak 20 tears ago, was unimpressed. Took himself way too seriously. Seemed like a careerist self promoter. Read his book, a lot if ww2 statistics, some vietnam war statistics, and of course the violent video games bugaboo popped up to scare parents everywhere. The violent video games bugaboo followed the violent tv bugaboo which follwed the violent comic books bugaboo. Reminded me of the stupid rat city experiments in the 60s or whatever used to sell books about the dire fate of Americas inner cities, ohhhh noooo. So much warmed over civet coffee. Funny how we all played violent video games and watched violent movies and then got on with our lives instead of turning into slavering killers. Funny hiw densely populated singapore didnt tyrn into a mess of evil civets playing violent video games in their own coffee.

Anyway, it seemed like grossman was trying to turn his masters thesis into an income stream, very tedious.

 

[Diveguy]

What are they saying instead? The "professional military community" is pretty large and diverse, I've been amazed, and dismayed, at some of their beliefs.

Still reading Grossman. He's referencing WWII numbers a good bit; part of his hypothesis is that "modern" military training has been designed to overcome the reluctance to kill, and that there is risk of psychological trauma if the operator is assumed not to be bothered by the event. SOF types are self-selecting and likely on the other end of the spectrum.

Tiikeri's post right after you addresses this question much how I would have. I've also sat through a presentation by Mr. Grossman and reached similar conclusions regarding his thoughts on the TV/video game bogeyman, and his self-promotion.

As for the base theory - the more prevalent thought now seems to be that if you treat your troops with "Killing is wrong, and you're going to be f'd up from the stress of doing it, and that's just part of the job," you get bad end results. (Put on surprised face). On the other hand, the groups which approach it as "Sometimes violence is necessary to do the right thing, and if you train and accept that then you'll be able to cope just fine," have a much better long term result.

There's also been some interesting research and discussion comparing prior cultures and the "warrior society mindset" as it were with the modern world. In particular, the ability of troops to return home, share their stories with the community, and not be viewed as outsiders or wrong has a lot to do with resilience as well.

For further reading, Sebastian Junger's "Tribes" is a great recent work.