02-03-2017, 08:16 PM
Guys:
To set things a bit more on an even keel here. I am no SME on CQB or SFAUC. I relate things I saw and experienced but understand that they are almost two decades old. And I haven't kept up with it because I am out and honestly that stuff has nothing to do with my life today. It didn't have much to do with it even when in the Infantry or SF. I did see and experience a huge transition in thought, tactics, and equipment from the late 70's to the late 90's in SF as it related to what we called SOT then CQB and finally SFAUC. All was needed and was a huge benefit to SF as a whole in my opinion. Others in SF didn't share my opinion because they thought that SF was heading too far down the DA role and straying from its original intent. And no, pistols aren't issued to SF guys because someone thinks that the are extra insurance that a SF guy will survive a gun fight. They are issued purely as a result of doctrine. There are places and times where a pistol is more effective than a carbine in SF doctrine. So they are issued.
When working with precision riflemen in units following my career, I also noted that the Combat Arms as a whole had progressed but this was primarily caused by the needs in Iraq. At least SF had the foresight to realize that this type of training would be critical and started implementing training programs well before Iraq. Mostly due to Somalia I think.
And I am no master of CQB and do not consider myself an expert in it. Just note that I did observe as well as do, and when I observed I was looking to see if the technique or piece of gear worked for most of the guys. Even today if I see some technique or piece of gear that I think may give an edge, I may just try it and see if it works.
The whole issue about pistols might just as well be about religion. From my first days in the Army through today, I have heard the same arguments ad nausea.
I don't take any dissenting comments as being lectured to. Some of them are pretty good, too.
Hell, I thought we were discussion the use of Tomahawks in CQB! A replacement for the pistol perhaps? Don't cost much, no moving parts, inflicts terror into terrorists.
LR1955
To set things a bit more on an even keel here. I am no SME on CQB or SFAUC. I relate things I saw and experienced but understand that they are almost two decades old. And I haven't kept up with it because I am out and honestly that stuff has nothing to do with my life today. It didn't have much to do with it even when in the Infantry or SF. I did see and experience a huge transition in thought, tactics, and equipment from the late 70's to the late 90's in SF as it related to what we called SOT then CQB and finally SFAUC. All was needed and was a huge benefit to SF as a whole in my opinion. Others in SF didn't share my opinion because they thought that SF was heading too far down the DA role and straying from its original intent. And no, pistols aren't issued to SF guys because someone thinks that the are extra insurance that a SF guy will survive a gun fight. They are issued purely as a result of doctrine. There are places and times where a pistol is more effective than a carbine in SF doctrine. So they are issued.
When working with precision riflemen in units following my career, I also noted that the Combat Arms as a whole had progressed but this was primarily caused by the needs in Iraq. At least SF had the foresight to realize that this type of training would be critical and started implementing training programs well before Iraq. Mostly due to Somalia I think.
And I am no master of CQB and do not consider myself an expert in it. Just note that I did observe as well as do, and when I observed I was looking to see if the technique or piece of gear worked for most of the guys. Even today if I see some technique or piece of gear that I think may give an edge, I may just try it and see if it works.
The whole issue about pistols might just as well be about religion. From my first days in the Army through today, I have heard the same arguments ad nausea.
I don't take any dissenting comments as being lectured to. Some of them are pretty good, too.
Hell, I thought we were discussion the use of Tomahawks in CQB! A replacement for the pistol perhaps? Don't cost much, no moving parts, inflicts terror into terrorists.
LR1955