A "Gun Martial Art"?

[KenpoTex]

like i said, not my thing. but some folks like cowboy action shooting, some folks like muzzleloading...whatever trips thier trigger.

hey i made a pun!

jf

The difference is that I've never heard any SASS types claim to be teaching tactics or material relevant to modern-day usage of the firearm for combat/defense. The period-correct clothing and weapons are strictly for the fun of it.

Spray and pray is used because you cann't really zero an AK47,

Whahahahaha :rofl: dude...read more, post less.

 

[LawDog]

Spray and Pray, the military and a few tact. units will use this technique from time to time. It is known as "suppression fire", "grazing fire" and so on. They do this to keep the bad guys head down so a tact. move can be done with a lower K-D ratio.
Most thought that WW I was the "war to end all wars" so they thought that spending money on the military was a waste of varuable and expensive resources that could be spent elsewhere. So the old reliable horse stayed. After all, trucks can't graze in a field or reproduce themselves.
After WW I the USA still used the horse partially because of the depression and, back then, those vehicles were not very "off road" friendly.
They were many reasons why.
The gun,(all types), is one of our histories first WMD's.
:shock:

 

[Deaf Smith]

CuongNhuka,

Do you own an AK? I do. It can be zeroed quite well. Not as accurate as a M4, but about like a run-of-the-mill Winchester 30/30. Yes the terrorist get poor training and in fact their ability with firearms is why they went to IEDs. Notice though their methods are so effective they have lost Iraq.

The Philippines is not all jungle and cavalry is not good heavly wooded areas. Cavalry relys on shock of the charge. I've ownd a horse ranch before and I can tell you bunch of running horses is a very hard thing to stop (but machineguns, and submachineguns, do that quite well.)

And CuongNhuka, the Japanese at the first of WW2 did TRY to use swords. They found them difficult to weld when cut in half from automatic weapons fire.

Hey LawDog, did you know Pope Innocent II, in 1139, banned crossbows for Christians fighting Christians (but he granted a dispensation for fighting Moslems or Pagans).... he considered it to effective. Of course everyone ignored his decree and they used them on each other. So I guess it was a weapon of mass destruction for it's time.

Deaf

 

[jarrod]

just wanted to throw in my support of the AK. you can hit a man sized target up to 200yrds without too much trouble, which history has proven to be enough for general, non-specialized use.

more importantly, you can use it in almost any conditions.

jf

 

[CuongNhuka]

Do you own an AK? I do. It can be zeroed quite well. Not as accurate as a M4, but about like a run-of-the-mill Winchester 30/30.

Don't you need a special tool to adjust the front sight? That makes it very hard to adjust if you an AK that is 40 years old. God knows were that part has gotten off to.

Notice though their methods are so effective they have lost Iraq.

Define winning and losing. They are in Iraq. They are killing us. They are doing the same basic thing in Afghanistan, and they're doing pretty well by most standards.

The Philippines is not all jungle and cavalry is not good heavly wooded areas.

What's going to work better, horse calvary (or infantry with a horse supply train) or a tank in a heavily wooded area/jungle?

.... A bunch of running horses is a very hard thing to stop (but machineguns, and submachineguns, do that quite well.) .... the Japanese at the first of WW2 did TRY to use swords. They found them difficult to weld when cut in half from automatic weapons fire.

Thats kinda been my point through most of this thread. So, I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me.

you can hit a man sized target up to 200yrds without too much trouble

Thats fine. I can hit a man sized target at 500 yards. Something tells me thats a little bit better. Part of that whole "better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it" thing

 

[Yoshiyahu]

Those drills taught to hard working law abiding fathers who desire to protect their family might be a great idea. I mean what if a Gun Wielding Crack head broke into someones house with an uzi. The father could use these tactics to advoid being killed, defend his family and kill the intruder. I mean he might do ten years for manslaugther and five years for having a illegal gun in house like Ak-47 or other Assualt rifle but he would be alive and well and his family would be alive. An in fifthteen to twenty years he would be a free man. Better to be alive in prison for two decades than to be dead and never taste the sweetness of your wife again...Wouldn't you say?

I can see the idea of a 'Gun Martial Art' existing. Lets take firing a rifle from a military point of view. In the Marines we fired from the standing, kneeling (which has three versions), sitting, and prone. At close range there's a differnit standing, and two more versions of the kneeling. I geuss you could call those stances.
At long range, we fire Tri-Fires, Slow-Fire, and Rapid-Fire. Close range there's Control Pairs, Hammer Pairs, Presentation Drills, Failure Drills, Box Drills, Rapid Re-Loads, and so on. I geuss those would be the techniques and drills. When you get to MCT you start to do more close range fire, and unknown distance, and firing on the move. Those would more advanced techniques I geuss.
When you do the qual for each table (which is a set combination of positions, ranges, and drills) that could be called a kata. Weapons maintaince could be looked as warm up/stretching/cool down. Then you could go into other weapons (the SAW, M240 Bravo, AT4, M203, M67, various other machine guns, rocket launchers, handguns, rifles, and shotguns) those would be like dan-level material.

So, a "Gun Martial Art" is possible, but doesn't really have much use outside of the military. Oh, and grappling is a bayonet (you either swear by it, or think it's freakin useless)

 

[tellner]

It's not just that "the terrorists" get poor training and therefore went to IEDs. You can't go up against armor and large groups of well-equipped soldiers who have air and artillery support if you only have small arms. It just doesn't work.

So they found ways to kill more of the enemy at a lower cost. That's simply how you fight if you want to win. In fact, it turns out that the DoD had predicted the threat before the war. But the White House didn't want to be confused with facts in their glorious little war. So they ignored it.

Are they losing? I'd say not. We've killed a bunch of them, but the effort has bankrupted the United States. The official pronouncement is that it cost us a bit over one and a half trillion (with a "T") dollars. It eviscerated the United States Army and Marine Corps. It sent American stature and prestige down the toilet. Iran was left as the regions dominant power. The entire country is being segregated along religious lines. All the minority religions including better than half a million Christians have had to flee for their lives.

In Afghanistan the Taliban is back. They take our convoys at will. They are all over the countryside and have become the de facto government in much of the country. They have also destabilized large parts of Pakistan and have succeeded in radicalizing much of the population or at least killing and terrifying the opposition. In other words, they're doing to the US what they did to the USSR. From the day we went in there an old joke was running through my head "Hey Ivan, let's invade Afghanistan!"

 

[Yoshiyahu]

So what should America do to end the terrible money problems and stop their people from dying in a senseless war?

It's not just that "the terrorists" get poor training and therefore went to IEDs. You can't go up against armor and large groups of well-equipped soldiers who have air and artillery support if you only have small arms. It just doesn't work.

So they found ways to kill more of the enemy at a lower cost. That's simply how you fight if you want to win. In fact, it turns out that the DoD had predicted the threat before the war. But the White House didn't want to be confused with facts in their glorious little war. So they ignored it.

Are they losing? I'd say not. We've killed a bunch of them, but the effort has bankrupted the United States. The official pronouncement is that it cost us a bit over one and a half trillion (with a "T") dollars. It eviscerated the United States Army and Marine Corps. It sent American stature and prestige down the toilet. Iran was left as the regions dominant power. The entire country is being segregated along religious lines. All the minority religions including better than half a million Christians have had to flee for their lives.

In Afghanistan the Taliban is back. They take our convoys at will. They are all over the countryside and have become the de facto government in much of the country. They have also destabilized large parts of Pakistan and have succeeded in radicalizing much of the population or at least killing and terrifying the opposition. In other words, they're doing to the US what they did to the USSR. From the day we went in there an old joke was running through my head "Hey Ivan, let's invade Afghanistan!"

 

[jarrod]

coungnhuka, you cut of part of my quote

500yrds of accuracy is clearly better than 200yrds. it's also largely unecessary in most warfare applications, & even pointless if it is at the expense of reliability.

jf

 

[Deaf Smith]

The official pronouncement is that it cost us a bit over one and a half trillion (with a "T") dollars.

Well considering that's over what, six years? And we just gave Wall Street and the big three auto companies about the same amount. War does cost, just as 9/11 costed. Just as the USS Cole costed. So I guess it would be better just to let the terrorist kill more. Hmmm that might cost more than a few trillion.

It eviscerated the United States Army and Marine Corps. It sent American stature and prestige down the toilet. Iran was left as the regions dominant power. The entire country is being segregated along religious lines. All the minority religions including better than half a million Christians have had to flee for their lives.

So we have a choice, worry about what others think of us or fight? And this time, unlike Vietnam fight to win. I really don't care what France thinks of us, nor what Denmark or Sweden or some two-bit country in Africa. I do care about American lives that are killed by terrorist. If the war must go to their lands, so be it.

In Afghanistan the Taliban is back. They take our convoys at will. They are all over the countryside and have become the de facto government in much of the country. They have also destabilized large parts of Pakistan and have succeeded in radicalizing much of the population or at least killing and terrifying the opposition.

The vast majority of provences in Afghanistan are Taliban free. They are near the Pakistan border. Yea they attack some convoys, so what? That's war. Do we run and give up? No. Iraq is almost done. Won't be long till a 'surge' comes to Afghanistan.

In other words, they're doing to the US what they did to the USSR. From the day we went in there an old joke was running through my head "Hey Ivan, let's invade Afghanistan!"

No tellner, if you read the history of the Russian war in Afghanistan you will see WE gave them SAMs. WE gave them logistics. They were in control of 90 percent of the country. The Russians feared to leave the cities. Kabul was rocketed nightly.

Now they don't have a bunch of Stingers. They don't have the logistics to go far. Most of Afghanistan peaceful. Kabul is not under siege at all!

The one way we can loose Afghanistan is to run. And then what? Let it be a terrorist training ground all over again?

Deaf

 

[CuongNhuka]

You can't go up against armor and large groups of well-equipped soldiers who have air and artillery support if you only have small arms. It just doesn't work.

I've worn our armor. It's nice, and it will stop a 7.62 round, but it's very far from being perfect. It has plates on your chest and your back. There is nothing more then padding on your ribs. The face is exposed on the kevlar. The entire lower body (minus the crotch piece, maybe) and the arms are completly exposed. Get into a sniper position on top of a building with an AK47, and shoot a guy on the inside of the thigh. There is no armor there, and the femoral artery. And, thats a pretty easy shot if your close.
Air and arti have there flaws. In the MOUT enviroment, you cann't use too much arti in a city full of civilians. And even the best pilots make mistakes. One of my combat instructors told us about a US tank (during the first Gulf War) getting hit by one of our planes, because the pilot thought it was Russian! Now imagine if that pilot had to hit a building in a city. I'm not sure if I really trust too many pilots to be able to precisely hit a target. When it comes down to it, we're going to use alot of infantry to acomplish alot of differnit missions, because of the danger of freindly fire, and hitting non-combatants. And those infantrymen are not perfectly protected.

Are they losing? I'd say not.

I said that someone needed to define winning and losing.

In Afghanistan the Taliban is back. They take our convoys at will. They are all over the countryside and have become the de facto government in much of the country.

OK, I don't know about that part. I know that Marines get well trained in how to defend our convoys, which are well armored and armed. They attack our convoys at will maybe, but they don't take our convoys. And with what the Marines do when we lose a vechile, I know they don't take much of anything from us.

They have also destabilized large parts of Pakistan and have succeeded in radicalizing much of the population or at least killing and terrifying the opposition.

We're not in Pakistan, so, I'm not sure how much of an impact we can really have in that area.

500yrds of accuracy is clearly better than 200yrds. it's also largely unecessary in most warfare applications, & even pointless if it is at the expense of reliability.

Like I said, "Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it". And I'd like to know what you mean by 'expense of reliabilty'. The only time (out of the thousands of rounds I've fired from 2 M16s) I've ever had a problem was when I tried to fire blanks on burst.

 

[The Last Legionary]

Nope, not in Pakistan at all.
Couple, maybe a dozen missions into Pakistan, 30-40 thousand more troops heading to the big A, but you're right as always.

Nice to see the "I just got out of basic" mindset. Let us know how it is after your first tour and you've actually shot at something besides a paper target.
That is, assuming you come back, which I do hope you do, kid.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's not just that "the terrorists" get poor training and therefore went to IEDs. You can't go up against armor and large groups of well-equipped soldiers who have air and artillery support if you only have small arms. It just doesn't work.

So they found ways to kill more of the enemy at a lower cost. That's simply how you fight if you want to win. In fact, it turns out that the DoD had predicted the threat before the war. But the White House didn't want to be confused with facts in their glorious little war. So they ignored it.

Are they losing? I'd say not. We've killed a bunch of them, but the effort has bankrupted the United States. The official pronouncement is that it cost us a bit over one and a half trillion (with a "T") dollars. It eviscerated the United States Army and Marine Corps. It sent American stature and prestige down the toilet. Iran was left as the regions dominant power. The entire country is being segregated along religious lines. All the minority religions including better than half a million Christians have had to flee for their lives.

In Afghanistan the Taliban is back. They take our convoys at will. They are all over the countryside and have become the de facto government in much of the country. They have also destabilized large parts of Pakistan and have succeeded in radicalizing much of the population or at least killing and terrifying the opposition. In other words, they're doing to the US what they did to the USSR. From the day we went in there an old joke was running through my head "Hey Ivan, let's invade Afghanistan!"

Thanks to technology and training we have the upper hand......but ultimately war in asia comes down to will. They will ultimately outlast our will.

As to the tactics, you are spot on right......there are those who claim that you can't fight an F-22 with an AK-47.......but they are mistaken. The way you fight an F-22 with an AK-47 is to shoot the pilot while he's on the way to the pub! Asymmetrical warfare involves thinking around the enemies strengths and using them against them.

 

[jarrod]

And I'd like to know what you mean by 'expense of reliabilty'. The only time (out of the thousands of rounds I've fired from 2 M16s) I've ever had a problem was when I tried to fire blanks on burst.

i'm not arguing with you on the 'have it & not need it' point'. my m-16 jammed up on me frequently in sandy, windy conditions. gun vs. gun debates are largely a matter of taste, i'm just saying that for my money i'll take 200yrds of definately over 500yrds of maybe, based on my experience.

jf

 

[tellner]

sgtmac, it's not just about "will". It's also about cost. They can physically continue the sort of war they are fighting indefinitely. We have to spend a metric buttload of money to fight this kind of war. We have run out of money for 10,000 mile supply lines, lasers, ammuntion by the pallet, JDAMs, air-strikes and billion dollar embassies. They are not going to run out of bodies and simple tools.

It's also a question of the hound and the hare as in Aesop's fable. "He was running for his life. I was running for a dinner." We can go home. They can't. They are stuck with fighting this war whether they want to or not. For us it's a choice. Close to your point but not completely the same thing.

 

[Yoshiyahu]

Would you say an AK-47 is a better weapon when it comes to not jamming?

i'm not arguing with you on the 'have it & not need it' point'. my m-16 jammed up on me frequently in sandy, windy conditions. gun vs. gun debates are largely a matter of taste, i'm just saying that for my money i'll take 200yrds of definately over 500yrds of maybe, based on my experience.

jf

 

[sgtmac_46]

sgtmac, it's not just about "will". It's also about cost. They can physically continue the sort of war they are fighting indefinitely. We have to spend a metric buttload of money to fight this kind of war. We have run out of money for 10,000 mile supply lines, lasers, ammuntion by the pallet, JDAMs, air-strikes and billion dollar embassies. They are not going to run out of bodies and simple tools.

It's also a question of the hound and the hare as in Aesop's fable. "He was running for his life. I was running for a dinner." We can go home. They can't. They are stuck with fighting this war whether they want to or not. For us it's a choice. Close to your point but not completely the same thing.

Money is, ultimately, irrelevant.......the will to spend money is less costly than the will to spend bodies. It always comes to will and who is willing to bleed the most, whether that's red or green. We have ZERO staying power. We as a society have cultural ADHD.....we view history in hours and days......our enemy views history in years, decades and centuries.

We could certainly MAKE them run out of bodies, but we lack the will for that as well.

The last sentence is quite accurate.....for us this is an adventure, and one we wish to get over with as quickly as possible......the enemy KNOWS that all they have to do to win is out wait us.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Would you say an AK-47 is a better weapon when it comes to not jamming?

The AK-47 is a suitable weapon for most shooters......it's accuracy isn't really an issue as it is inherently more accurate than the limited ability of the average shooter any way. When you find the rare person who can shoot up to the gun, they can talk about the difference, but with most folks it's just parroting some line they heard. The AK-47 in reasonably trained hands is a quite adequate instrument.......and there is much to be said for field sustainability and zero maintenance.

 

[CuongNhuka]

i'm not arguing with you on the 'have it & not need it' point'. my m-16 jammed up on me frequently in sandy, windy conditions. gun vs. gun debates are largely a matter of taste, i'm just saying that for my money i'll take 200yrds of definately over 500yrds of maybe, based on my experience.

jf

Well, like I said, I've never had a problem with it. I do imagine it gets differnit if you cann't properly work on it for period of 'however the hell long you're out in the feild' (there's a refernce in that quote). I'm just saying, from my experince, there is no major flaws with the weapon system. I do know that the AK47 has more stopping power, but really, if you get shot, are you going to care about that 2 mm differnce? You probably wouldn't even notice the differnce between a AK round and a pea-shooter handgun if it's somewere vital, at the range most battles have been taking place.

Like SgtMac said, it's designed to be used and abused. The AKs that are being used agianst us are (some of them atleast) the ones made in Russia during the Cold War. Some of them are over 40 years old! You could bury one of those things in a swamp, come back 5 years later and it will still fire pretty well. It's a decent weapon that was designed for a militia army. So, it's pretty easy to learn. But, as a whole, I'd perfer the M16. Don't smack it around too much, clean it, lube it, stay in practice, and you should be good to go.

 

[Deaf Smith]

As to the tactics, you are spot on right......there are those who claim that you can't fight an F-22 with an AK-47.......but they are mistaken. The way you fight an F-22 with an AK-47 is to shoot the pilot while he's on the way to the pub! Asymmetrical warfare involves thinking around the enemies strengths and using them against them.

Actually I've heard of our military practicing shooting the canopy of enemy fighters while they are still on the air strip using snipers. The snipers would get withing range (.338 Laupa and .50s will do that) and wait till our attacking aircraft are geting near, but before they can scramble. Then hit the canopy's to disable the defending force till the air assault hits. After than turn the guns on the SAMs to interfear with them.

So yes, there are ways for rifles to give a modern force problems. But I just doubt the terrorist in Afghanistan have the methods to deal with UAVs, laser and GPS guided munitions, spy satelites, NVDs, and all the goodies we have and are thinking up now. See, some of the newist UAVs are the size of the mouse you use on your PC! Even have a bomb built in if desired.

And guys, any of you ever hear of a UAV aircraft carrier? That is a small 1000 ton ship with purely UAVs? I suspect this will be the way to deal with pirates soon, and maybe Taliban, from affair. The 'pilots' will be munching cheesburgers back in Houston while flying over Afghanistain, or Somali.

Yes we can outlast them if we play it right. I remember Admiral Zumwalt, back in the '60s, told the president to NOT go in land heavy (that is grunts on the ground) but to go in sea and air heavy. Of course LBJ did the opposite, and learned, at great cost, we can't keep that up for ever. It got to where we were loosing over 100 GI's a day.

We have done very very well in Iraq for what it cost us. Way less than any other war. But we can and should improve.

So don't be suprised if one day the 'Terminator' is no joke.

Deaf