Draft Revision of C7/C8 PWT System (2-3-4).

[SeanNewman]

Hello everyone,

Some peers and I at the Infantry School have identified what we perceive to be a fault with the way the PWT system teaches and trains progressive shooting.  Primarily in that it really isn't progressive; PWT3 (intermediate marksmanship) is progressive from PWT2 (basic marksmanship), but then PWT4 is a completely different skill set (intermediate CQB).  This is how it is laid out in the CF Operational Shooting Package.  In case you're wondering, PWT1 is just the basic group/zero-types of applications.

While I won't cover every single serial, generally what it is includes:

PWT2 - Group/zero at 100m, and then mostly some scored prone shoots at 200m.  No different positions, no movement, no close up shooting.

PWT3 - Different applications at intermediate ranges, then a rundown from 400.  No shots are actually taken from the 400 point though, and close up there are a couple auto bursts. 

PWT4 - Basic and intermediate CQB shooting, snap shooting, etc.  All close up. 

The core problem is that due to the way it is numbered, one would perceive that PWT4 must automatically be the highest level shooting and thus a high readiness unit should only focus on that.  However, as noted the way it is now it is a completely different skill set, and the potential exists to focus on that too much thus losing the ability to shoot out to 300-400m.  The opposite holds true for non-infantry units that only do PWT2, because they will never shoot close up.

What we are in the process of doing is not completely re-inventing the wheel so much as pulling parts of the current PWT4 into 2 and 3, and then making PWT4 truly advanced shooting.

The draft looks like:

PWT2 - Basic CQB incl fixed snap shooting and basic marksmanship from stances other than the prone, potentially out to 300m.

PWT3 - Intermediate CQB incl turning and shooting and improvised positions, as well as intermediate marksmanship out to 400m.  There will also be some induced stoppages by injecting dummy rounds.

PWT4 - Advanced CQB to include shooting on the move (possibly running, we'll see) and shooting after being shot (one handed [both hands] and off the back), and advanced marksmanship out to 600m.  Lots of induced stoppages (for confidence sake it will be stressed that it's to work on the drill, not that the C7 actually fails that much).  There will also be a template of a large plywood cut-out that will simulate shooting over/under a car, through a door slit, etc.

Note - Colours above don't mean anything other than to show that now it will truly be progressive.

This path has the blessing of the Cells involved who have a stake in it, the CoC, and the Small Arms Working Group we held last month with reps from LFDTS/DAT.

However, as this is still in the draft stage I would love to have your input on how to make this the best possible if any of you have any good ideas.  Thank you for your interest, I genuinely feel like this will make training better and more realistic for everyone.

 

[Michael OLeary]

It would be great to get back to a properly progressive method of training marksmanship, but I've got one simple question for you to consider as you work through this proposal:

Where are you creating the additional resources (time, ammunition, and also training funds for Reserve units) to add more complexity to marksmanship training?

Without those resources, it simply creates a burden on units already pressured to complete all mandated training events, IBTS and other.

 

[SeanNewman]

Mr O'Leary,

The Reservists have been in mind throughout this process.  We will still have one range be on one day.

As for the ammunition, overall it will still be generally close to neutral because now PWT2 and PWT3 use relatively little ammo and then PWT uses tens of thousands of rounds.

Pulling some of those PWT4 shoots forward will lessen the cost of running a PWT4, which has two extra benefits:
1 - The CF as a whole gets a higher skill set; and
2 - People doing the PWT4 don't have a large jump from 3 to 4.

Your stake in this personally is fully understood.  We are punching the numbers to see specifically how many rounds should be at every level to keep things as close to possible budget-wise as they are now.  It is understood that not everyone does the PWT4, but those who do use an obscene amount of ammo (not knocking shooting, just the imbalance).

So to summarize, PWT4 becomes far cheaper to shoot, PWT2 and PWT3 become a tad more each.

 

[stealthylizard]

Isn't 600m beyond the effective range of a C-7?  That's one of the reasons why the actual shooting on the PWT 3 doesn't start until the 300m mark.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Funny this.  I was delving through CSOP yesterday looking for some advanced shooting.  I noted the obstacle that I face about conducting PWT Level 4 for my Sqn.  My infantrymen conducted PWT 3 last week, but my crewmen conducted PWT 2.  By the book the crewmen must complete PWT 3 first.  I have done PWT 3 before as a armoured guy and I may just go ahead and take the crewmen out for a PWT 3 in June, but I am not sure that PWT 3 is a good return on the time/ammo investment for crewmen.  I did the Reflexive Shooting package five years ago(which morphed more or less into PWT 4), and I do think that that is a good return on the investment for crewmen (crewmen bailing out of a vehicle and needing to engage close-in hostiles etc).  As such I do agree with you that there are some things to be looked at in CSOP.

As a dumb-ass tanker, the easy solution in my mind is to de-link PWT 3 from PWT 4 for non-infanteers.  This way we still have to do the shoots from the 200m as part of IBTS mandated PWT 2, but then we do the short range stuff as a PWT 4 time and ammo permitting.  I don't have the book in front of me, but perhaps have a basic PWT 4 module for non-infanteers?

Looking at your suggested changes to PWT 2, I'm not convinced that we need mandated PWT shoots from the 300m for crewmen and non-infantrymen.  Have you walked down the hall to the other Schools?

If PWT 2 is made more complex with CQB shoots, will CQB instructors be needed to conduct the training and shoots?  If so, this will be a huge obstacle, and this would be something that would need to be looked at in the Training Needs Analysis for any fundamental changes pan-Army changes.  Right now any army sub-unit can conduct PWT 1 or 2 with the people that it has.  Changing that would be a huge decision. 

 

[SeanNewman]

600m in the PAM as effective section-level fire.  400m is the distance given in the PAM for individual, with 300m given at rapid rate.  Confusingly, DSSPM lists 550m.

The 600m shoots on the PWT4 may become a supplement used for the upcoming Sharpshooter (different than Marksman) rifle/testing.

 

[SeanNewman]

T2B,

300m shoots in PWT2 would not be scored, but it would be the opposite it is now.  Instead of shooting unscored at the 100m and then moving to 200m, it would be firing some rounds at the 300m and then moving to 200 so everything would be easier (aim small, shoot small).

Your concern about PWT2 becoming advanced is due to the confusion caused by the weapons drills, which is an entirely different matter and is my main effort at work.  You should not handle the C7 any differently at 15m than you do at 300m and that is being resolved.

When you suggest having a basic PWT4 module for non-infantry I'm not sure what you mean.  If everything is progressive, the bar would be set at 2 or 3.  Or did you mean the PWT4 bits like shooting after being wounded (?)

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As a Reservist, I typically, get one weekend a year to complete the mandated range practices for my unit. A relay for PWT 3 including zeroing takes roughly an hour. If you move outside this timing, for what I need to do to qualify yearly, you are stealing my time for the other stuff I need to get everyone qualified on.


I'll add that given our facilities here, if anything needs to be shot from past 300m, we won't be able to complete.

 

[SeanNewman]

I have been promised by some Reserve peers that as long as nothing drastically changes, more shooting and training is always better.

Using your example, if a 60 minute shoot turns into 90 (max) minutes then that is worth it, but don't do anything stupid like making it 4 hours, etc.

What you are getting back for that trade off is better riflemen if you never do any other training, and a much lower resource burden if you ever do PWT4 because the requirement to get to the next level is lower.

Added - I have also heard the 300-400m argument (Range and Trg Safety was also at the working group).  That's a hurdle I will cross.  I will not lower the overall skillset of the force as a whole to accommodate those who do not have a 400m point.  If anything it will stipulate that shots that would have been done at 400m can be done at 300m if no 400m exists.

That being said, how is it that you can do PWT3 now?  You have to start off at 400m and wait for the first exposure, so anyone who doesn't have a 400m point is already not going by the book.  Do you jog on the spot at the 300m?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

T2B,

300m shoots in PWT2 would not be scored, but it would be the opposite it is now.  Instead of shooting unscored at the 100m and then moving to 200m, it would be firing some rounds at the 300m and then moving to 200 so everything would be easier (aim small, shoot small).

Your concern about PWT2 becoming advanced is due to the confusion caused by the weapons drills, which is an entirely different matter and is my main effort at work.  You should not handle the C7 any differently at 15m than you do at 300m and that is being resolved.

When you suggest having a basic PWT4 module for non-infantry I'm not sure what you mean.  If everything is progressive, the bar would be set at 2 or 3.  Or did you mean the PWT4 bits like shooting after being wounded (?)

Right now, I can choose to do a scored shoot at the 100m by doing the PWT Level 1 first. 

The CSOP talks about the need for CQB instructors for the PWT 4.  If you take those shoots into the PWT 2, will you still need those instructors? 

Regarding new drills, have you thought about the training bill for the army and the CF?

My question about the PWT 4 is regarding the scope for having infantry and non-infantry PWT 4 components.  Is you seeing one-size as fitting all for the Army in terms of shooting?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I have been promised by some Reserve peers that as long as nothing drastically changes, more shooting and training is always better.

Using your example, if a 60 minute shoot turns into 90 (max) minutes then that is worth it, but don't do anything stupid like making it 4 hours, etc.

What you are getting back for that trade off is better riflemen if you never do any other training, and a much lower resource burden if you ever do PWT4 because the requirement to get to the next level is lower.

More shooting and training is better, but you are now adding extra trg into my calender that I don't have. Adding .5 hr to the actual practice is one thing, but when do I retrain everyone for the new practice and CQB shooting techniques? If people don't have the skills, and proficiency, PRIOR to going on the live range, you are creating a dangerous situation I'm not prepared to accept just so someone can get their 'Leading Change' bubble filled.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That being said, how is it that you can do PWT3 now?  You have to start off at 400m and wait for the first exposure, so anyone who doesn't have a 400m point is already not going by the book.  Do you jog on the spot at the 300m?

The 400m point that we start our rundown at, is not sufficient to shoot from but is suitable to run from.

 

[SeanNewman]

T2B and RG,

You are both talking about a much bigger problem in that you are confusing the drills part of the shoots with the shoots.

The CF must de-link CQB shooting from the drills that have been taught by Urban Ops / DHTC, as they are separate issues.  The C7 is not to be handled any differently at any different ranges.

Shooting from CQB ranges requires no special training whatsoever.

You are both demonstrating the fault with how it is being interpreted that you need magic tap-rack-go skills to operate the rifle close up, and that is completely false.

As I stated, the drills aspect is my main effort at work now and it is being fixed even before this PWT issue.  There will be one way that drills are taught from basic all the way through.  The first set of trials have been conducted in the last month, and we are moving from there.

T2B, yes we are all over the implementation plan.

RG, ack and I appreciate your input.  I will be sure to include a stipulation that if suitable 400m firing points do not exist those applications may be done from 300m (which is much better than just not having 400m shoots for anyone).

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

T2B and RG,

You are both talking about a much bigger problem in that you are confusing the drills part of the shoots with the shoots.

The CF must de-link CQB shooting from the drills that have been taught by Urban Ops / DHTC, as they are separate issues.  The C7 is not to be handled any differently at any different ranges.

Shooting from CQB ranges requires no special training whatsoever.

You are both demonstrating the fault with how it is being interpreted that you need magic tap-rack-go skills to operate the rifle close up, and that is completely false.

As I stated, the drills aspect is my main effort at work now and it is being fixed even before this PWT issue.  There will be one way that drills are taught from basic all the way through.  The first set of trials have been conducted in the last month, and we are moving from there.

T2B, yes we are all over the implementation plan.

RG, ack and I appreciate your input.  I will be sure to include a stipulation that if suitable 400m firing points do not exist those applications may be done from 300m (which is much better than just not having 400m shoots for anyone).

I am not talking about weapon handling drills.  I am talking about the CSOP stating that PWT 4 needs to have CQB instructors (I think that they use the word "should").  I don't think that the issue is entirely the IA drills, but also about shooting techniques at that range.  Perhaps no special instruction is needed to teach turns etc, but where did the MCpl/Sgt in charge on the range learn that?

Are you planning to apply the same standard to all arms?  What arms have you spoken with?

 

[SeanNewman]

T2B,

PM coming soon.

Others,

Please don't worry about the drills/UOI part of it.  For this thread, please separate yourself from the current way PWT4 does the drills and just look at the distances and what types of shooting is happening and that way your opinions will focus on what I can change on this topic (the drills are being changed elsewhere).

 

[downinOZ]

Have you looked at the marksmanship training and advanced shoots developed by other countries?

 

[SeanNewman]

Have you looked at the marksmanship training and advanced shoots developed by other countries?

A lot of them, yes...most of it the UK.  Can't remember off hand what they call theirs at the moment, something "___OSP" just like us.

We've also delved into the police and security books to get ideas.

It's funny (not really), but a lot of the civilian-type range practices are more combat-focussed that what ours are now, particularly for the 9mm.

 

[dapaterson]

While these progressions represent steps forward for the Cbt Arms, do they meet the needs of CSS soldiers?

While there must be some crawl-walk-run progression, we must also remember that the typical engagement scenarios for an MSE Op (for example) are different from those of an Infantryman; the training should be tailored for both.

Just my Monday morning 2c, (prior to any coffee).

 

[SeanNewman]

Mr Patterson,

You are exactly right, and getting the CSS more useful training was one of my goals.

As it is now, a Combat Arms soldier is the only one who would ever fire close up, which in my opinion is absurd.

Don't worry, unless you're in a "high speed" trade you won't be doing the PWT4 (unless you wanted to improve your skillset), but as things are now, if you shoot the PWT2 all you do is shoot from mostly the prone at 100m and 200m.

CSS types if anything need to fire close up and from the standing if they are ever ambushed close up and need to dismount.

If your unit is still only required to do PWT2 and that's what you will fire, PWT2 will still be basic shooting and nothing crazy, it will just involve basic shooting from close range as well.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I've always thought that the PWT, and the British equivalent (in my day it was called the APWT), were pretty much irrelevant for the modern battlefield.

If you think about it, the PWT has been designed to fit into a range template that has been in place since the 19th century, when many of our 'gallery' ranges were built to train troops for tactics abandoned decades ago. The relays launch forward based on a timed practise which, it seems to me, was designed to train infantry to dash forward as the artillery barrage lifted the next 100 metres a la WW1. The majority of the shooting is done between 3 and 100 metres, while huffing and puffing, from some positions that you would be unlikely to adopt on a regular basis in combat. In his book, 'Goodbye Darkness', for example, William Manchester describes spending hours on the range in USMC bootcamp practising shooting from the sitting position, yet he admits he never saw anyone shoot anyone else using that position through 3 years of war in the Pacific. At no time is the soldier required to be able to hit a target at ranges beyond 300 metres, which is quite bizarre as we have been equipped with an excellent sight that allows us to do just that.

In my personal experience, I never really learned proper 'battle shooting' until I was let loose on a field firing range, preferably one that's located in a thrid world country where 'normal' range control practises do not apply. There's a reason why many of the best WW1 air aces (or Sgt York) were excellent shots, and it had alot to do with their development of instinctive shooting skills while bagging birds and varmints etc on the farm back home.

I would say that trying to rewrite a desperately and dangerously obsolete shooting package (e.g., PWT 1-3) is like trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need a root and branch revision of our 'Shoot to Kill' (Death to 'Shoot to Live!')training to meet the needs of the modern military in the COE - or even the FOE for that matter - along with a complete overhaul of all our ranges and our overly controlling range management rules, to support that new shooting regime.

But hey, that's just me...