Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups - We Are The Mighty
MIGHTY TACTICAL

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

Firearms training presupposes a purpose or goal when we step out onto the range. While most would agree that training with your firearm is an essential part of improving skills; without a method to track your progress or reassess your goals, training turns quickly into recreation. There is no purpose beyond punching some holes in paper or seeing if that watermelon really does explode as it does on video. We’re not saying that it’s not fun. It just isn’t really training.

There’s an old saying, “You don’t win nothing for practice. You don’t win nothing without it.” Grammar aside, we agree. Practice means working on a skill. In any physical endeavor, there is no substitute for putting in reps. The arena of use doesn’t matter, be it self-defense, hunting, or competition. The path from competence to proficiency to mastery is one that’s sometimes solitary and sometimes shared.

Whether training by yourself, with a partner, or as part of a class each dynamic has benefits and drawbacks. But each has a place in skill developing.


Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

Photos by Jay Canter and Muzzle Flash Media

Take a Class

Taking a course requires a commitment of time and money. Classes offer students a predetermined focus or theme revolving around a specific skill, and there are a multitude of different types of classes available.However, not all courses are created equal.

So you need to do some research to answer some basic questions. Is the individual/company providing the course reputable? Have they been around for a while? Are the reviews for the course good? Is the class size reasonable for the skill(s) being taught?

We recently took a defensive handgun class with Aaron Cowan of Sage Dynamics. Sage Dynamics was founded in 2012, and the reviews for the defensive handgun course were positive. The course had 18 participants, was taught over two days, and the participants were a mix of law enforcement and civilians.

Perhaps the defining element of the class was Cowan’s discussion of not just how something is done, but why it’s done. Knowing how to do something is important, but knowing why something is done in a certain way is vital when building skills because it defines a skill’s application. Real-life situations are not neat. Bad guys don’t just stand there, innocents are almost always involved, and only God knows what they’re going to do.

There are some drawbacks to training classes. They tend to be costly and don’t always fit your schedule. Unless you’re lucky enough to live near a training center with open enrollment classes, such as Gunsite or the Sig Academy, or a city where classes are often hosted, you’ll have to travel. Now, that means road tripping or booking flights and arranging lodging. Then there’s the added hassle of flying with guns and ammunition. Class size has a significant impact on the quality of the instruction. If there are too many participants, the likelihood of getting significant one-on-one time with the instructor goes down.

Or, if your skill level happens to fall in the middle of the ol’ bell curve, and you’re not outspoken, you may be easily overlooked. There’s also the harsh reality that simply taking a class, even with all the time and money invested, will not make you a better a shooter — however, this is one of the most important aspects of taking a class, learning how to improve your abilities on your own or with a buddy. It’ll simply give you the tools to pursue being a better shooter.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

Photos by Jay Canter and Muzzle Flash Media

Instructor skill set is critical. The ability of the instructor to execute his/her own training philosophy and required skills will make or break the class. We’re not saying the instructor must be former military, law enforcement, a national champion, or world-renowned hunter. There are many excellent shooters who are simply not excellent teachers. On the flip side, an instructor must be able to walk their talk. The best firearm instructors have the skills to execute what they teach.

Some group settings come with interesting twists. All students in RECOIL’s own Summit in the Sand training event, held in fall of 2017, were provided SIG P320 X5 pistols and ammunition for the class. Students got to run drills with an unfamiliar gun that separated them from the baggage they normally brought to the range with their own pistols. Aside from taking you slightly out of your element, running something strange also gives you a different perspective on your own gear, helping inform future gear purchases.

Using the P320 X5s, students either walked away with a greater appreciation for the guns they normally ran, or left scratching their chin and wondering if maybe it was time to go shopping for a new EDC.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

Photos by Jay Canter and Muzzle Flash Media

Training with a buddy

Training with a partner, friend, family member, or mentor is another good way to advance your training agenda. It provides a free(-ish) and flexible alternative to training in a group setting. You’ve got to provide your own targetry, but paper is cheap and steel lasts a long time, as does a rubber dummy. And going to the range with a partner is less of a scheduling challenge than wrapping your schedule around a class and skips the pain of planning and traveling, or telling the significant other you’re going to miss your in-laws’ 50th wedding anniversary party.

The variables that loom large are the commitment to your training goals, the skills to practice, to what degree they are practiced, and the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) of your partner.

If your partner’s KSAs are less than yours, you may wind up in a case of the not knowing what you don’t know, which can derail your progress. If your shot group looks like you’re using a shotgun while combatting a severe case of hiccups and your buddy looks you in the eye and tells you your group is, “a bit wild,” that may be an accurate statement, but it won’t help you correct the problem. He or she may dig deep and say something profound like, “It seems your sight alignment is off.” That’s a slightly more helpful suggestion, but still falls short of correcting the problem. Yet shooting with someone of lesser skills is not without benefit.

You might notice an error in how they shoot and realize it’s a common problem. That realization hopefully puts you on the path to correcting the problem. And, if you’re at all competitive, training with a partner will motivate you both to a higher level of performance as you practice. Bragging rights do matter, especially if there’s a cigar or case of beer on the line when it’s all said and done.

While training with a partner of like abilities can be good, it shares some of the same pitfalls as training with someone of lesser ability. Most notably, not knowing what you don’t know. This lack of knowledge makes progress on your training goal a hit-or-miss proposition if you find yourself struggling. So when you hit that point of failure neither of you really knows how to solve the problem. The temptation at this point is to simply switch to a drill you’re more comfortable with.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

Photos by Jay Canter and Muzzle Flash Media

Shooting with someone of like abilities helps in reinforcing good habits, as your buddy is likely to call you out when you get sloppy. Your partner is able to give you more accurate feedback, such as telling you that you’re pushing forward on the gun as you pull the trigger. This is helpful, but feedback without instruction doesn’t give you the tools to correct the problem.

The third option, training with someone who is significantly better than you, eliminates the most glaring of problems noted above. They’ll know what you don’t. They’ll be able to not only tell you what you are doing wrong, but help you correct the error. They can take you to the point of failure and give you tools to move past it.

They can help you refine your training goal and give you the practice scenarios to aid in achieving the desired outcome. They can teach you how to self-diagnose problems. There is the normally unspoken motivation to shoot as well they do along with the awareness that, in most cases, it is possible.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

Photos by Jay Canter and Muzzle Flash Media

Flying solo

Training by yourself is the most flexible way to train. You decide when, where, and what skills you’re going to practice and how many rounds you’re going to shoot. It can be most relaxing, as you’re not comparing yourself to — or being judged by someone. Yet, this requires the most self-discipline. Without it, your practice session can quickly go from a bona fide training day to just blowing up household objects found on the range.

The major failing, again, is not knowing what you don’t know. Unless you’ve reached the level of being able to self-diagnose, it’s difficult to move past the point of failure. There is also the common tendency of practicing what we’re already good at. Fun? Yes, but fun alone isn’t much help in advancing your overall training agenda.

We don’t get better by wishing. Wanting something doesn’t make it happen. There are many avenues of training and some are inherently better than others. We suggest training with someone whose abilities outmatch your own or paying to learn from bona fide professionals are the most efficient ways to go — and combining the two is even better. That being said, it’s not the only way.

Editor’s Note: The Best of Both Worlds

An alternate, and highly beneficial form of group training is competition. While matches don’t provide much opportunity for one-on-one remedial instruction, they do offer a unique chance to pressure test the skills you’ve worked so hard to cultivate through the other methods listed by Kris in his article. Shooting unfamiliar courses of fire among a group of shooters all vying for status under time limit adds a whole slew of stressors that are all excellent tools for determining just how deeply you’ve been able to program your shooting skills.

In RECOIL’s Summit in the Sand training event, we gave students one day of formal instruction followed by one-day competition that allowed attendees to check their learning progress against their peers. The P320 X5 gave students a unique tool to gain experience. Even though the P320 was designed from the ground up as a duty pistol, the X5 is a highly refined version of that template optimized for speed and efficiency on the competition circuit, showcasing a cross-pollination of ideal features from both the tactical and competition worlds.

Ammunition for Summit in the Sand was also provided by SIG. In addition to the FMJ range ammo we used, SIG also has the corresponding V-Crown line of defensive hollow point ammo. Being able to train with the same brand of ammo you carry eliminates one more variable between training and carry.

This article originally appeared on Recoilweb. Follow @RecoilMag on Twitter.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

US Navy’s new autonomous refueling drone flies for the first time

The U.S. Navy and Boeing announced on Sept. 19, 2019, the first flight of the MQ-25 Stingray test asset from MidAmerica St. Louis Airport in Mascoutah, Illinois, which is adjacent to Scott Air Force Base. The drone is set to be the first carrier-launched autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to be integrated in a Carrier Air Wing.

The Boeing-owned test asset, known as T1 (Tail 1) and sporting the civilian registration N234MQ, completed the autonomous two-hour flight under the supervision of Boeing test pilots operating from their ground control station. The aircraft completed an FAA-certified autonomous taxi and takeoff and then flew a pre-planned route to validate the aircraft’s basic flight functions and operations with the ground control station, according to the official statement.


Capt. Chad Reed, Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Aviation (PMA-268) Program Manager, stated: “Today’s flight is an exciting and significant milestone for our program and the Navy. The flight of this test asset two years before our first MQ-25 arrives represents the first big step in a series of early learning opportunities that are helping us progress toward delivery of a game-changing capability for the carrier air wing and strike group commanders.”

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

The MQ-25 unmanned carrier-based test aircraft comes in for landing after its first flight Sept. 19 at MidAmerica Airport in Mascoutah, Ill. The Boeing-owned test asset, known as T1, flew two hours to validate the aircraft’s basic flight functions and operations.

(Boeing)

This first test asset is being used for early development before the production of four Engineering Development Model (EDM) MQ-25s under an USD $ 805 million contract awarded in August 2018 in a Maritime Accelerated Acquisition (MAA) program, which aims to deliver mission-critical capabilities to the U.S. Navy fleet as rapidly as possible.

According to Boeing, T1 received the experimental airworthiness certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration earlier this month. Testing of this first development asset will continue over the next years to further early learning and discovery that advances major systems and software development, ahead of the delivery of the first EDM aircraft in FY2021 and in support of a planned Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for 2024.

MQ-25A Stingray Takes First Flight

www.youtube.com

The MQ-25 Stingray will be the first operational carrier-based UAV, designed to provide an aerial refueling capability and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), and the second UAV to operate from an aircraft carrier, after the Northrop Grumman X-47B Pegasus that was tested both alone (2013) and alongside manned aircraft (2014) from the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) and the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71). The integration of the Stingray into the Carrier Air Wing will ease the strain on the F/A-18E Super Hornets that currently perform buddy-tanker missions in support of the aircraft carrier’s launch and recovery operations, leaving them available for operational taskings.

This article originally appeared on The Aviationist. Follow @theaviationist on Twitter.

Articles

Vietnam-era S-60 gun turns Russian T-15 Armata into a Bradley killer

While most people may be familiar with Russia’s T-14, that tank is not the only Armata the Russians have in the works. The term Armata actually refers to a “unified tracked platform,” according to an Aug. 2016 report from Army-Recognition.com.


And that family also includes a heavy infantry fighting vehicle known as the T-15. While GlobalSecurity.org reports that the T-15 has the same 30mm gun used on the BMP-2, along with four turret-mounted AT-14 anti-tank missiles, Army-Recognition.com’s report indicates that a gun first fielded in the 1950s could get a new lease on life with the T-15.

And that has some analysts worried.

Senior Fellow for National Defense at the Family Research Council, retired Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis, argues notes that the T-15 as presently equipped is “a clear threat against the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which is under gunned with a 25mm M242 chain gun with TOW missiles.”

What has Maginnis alarmed is that the T-15 is slated to be fitted with the S-60 cannon, which started its life as an anti-aircraft gun that got wide use in the Vietnam War and a host of other conflicts. It was also deployed on naval vessels, and is still in service on some of the Grisha-class corvettes in the Russian Navy.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
The T-15 Armata heavy infantry fighting vehicle. This baseline version has a 30mm cannon and four AT-14 missiles. (Photo from Wikimedia Commons)

Army-Recognition.com noted that the old gun would be put into the AU-220M turret currently under development. In addition to the old gun, the turret also has four AT-9 “Spiral-2” missiles.

When asked about the implications of the AU-220M turret, Maginnis said, “the Bradley will be outgunned. Further our Strykers face a similar problem even though they may include the Javelin.”

“We are relying on pretty old technology vis-a-vis the Bradley and the Abrams even given the upgrades,” Maginnis added, blaming a “modernization holiday thanks to sequestration.”

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
A captured S-60 57mm anti-aircraft gun in an Israeli museum. This gun is the centerpiece of a new turret for the T-15, the AU-220M. (Photo from Wikimedia Commons)

As to what could be done to counter the T-15 and other modern Russian vehicles, Maginnis said it’s about new weaponry and modern defensive systems.

“The U.S. Army desperately needs to up-gun its arsenal for direct and indirect fire systems,” he said. “We need to relook at our reactive armor given the increased Russian anti-armor penetration systems.”

But it’s not just about tanks and armored vehicles, he said.

“We also need to relook at our air-to-ground capabilities against armored vehicles,” Maginnis said. “The A-10’s 30mm gun is good, but the Russians have paid close attention to that capability and have effective anti-aircraft counters.”

Russia’s support of the Syrian regime included the deployment of S-400 surface-to-air missiles, according to a December 2015 report by the BBC. This past February, Sputnik News reported that T-90 main battle tanks provided to Syria by Russia made their combat debut.

“We are sadly falling behind due to neglect. Hopefully Mr. Trump’s Pentagon leaders will read the weapons effects intelligence coming out of the Ukraine and Syria and come to the sobering realization that America has a lot of catching up to do,” Maginnis concluded.

Articles

This veteran is restoring the same helicopter he flew in Vietnam

MIGHTY TACTICAL

The F-35 can save its pilot from deadly crashes

The Air Force will soon operate F-35s with fast-evolving collision-avoidance technology able to help fighter jets avoid ground collisions by using computer automation to redirect an aircraft in the event that a pilot is injured or incapacitated.

In late 2018, the Air Force will fly an F-35 equipped with an existing technology now in F-16s called Air-Ground Collision Avoidance System, or AGCAS.

The system is slated to be fully operational on an F-35A as early as summer, 2019, service officials said.


Preliminary AGCAS development work has been conducted as part of ongoing F-35 development.

“AGCAS development and integration efforts were completed previously on the F-16 post-block aircraft. Lessons learned from the F-16 AGCAS effort will be applied to the F-35,” Air Force spokeswoman Capt. Hope Cronin told Warrior Maven.

An initial flight test on an F-35A is scheduled to occur in late 2018, she added.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

A U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter aircraft.

(Photo by Tech. Sgt. Joseph Swafford Jr.)

AGCAS uses sensors to identify and avoid ground objects such as nearby buildings, mountains or dangerous terrain; AGCAS has already saved lives, senior Air Force officials tell Warrior Maven.

There can of course be a range of reasons why an aircraft might collide with the ground, one of which could simply be that a pilot winds up pulling so many “G’s” that they lose consciousness, a senior Air Force weapons developer said.

The technology calculates where the aircraft is and where it would hit the ground based upon the way it is flying at the time, service officials said. If the fighter jet is flying toward a potential collision with the ground, the on-board computer system will override the flight path and pull the aircraft away from the ground.

Most of the algorithms, developed by Lockheed Martin, are continuously being refined and testing using simulation technologies.

Interestingly, results from a case study featuring test-pilot input on AGCAS details some of the ways pilots can learn to work with and “trust” the system’s computer automation. This question of how pilots would rely upon the system emerged as a substantial concern, according to the research, because the system takes control away from the pilot.

“Understanding pilot trust of Auto-GCAS is critical to its operational performance because pilots have the option to turn the system on or off during operations,” writes an essay about the case study called “Trust-Based Analysis of an Air Force Collision Avoidance System” in “Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications.”

The essay further explains that results from their study found that AGCAS was deemed far superior by test pilots to previous “warning systems” which are “prone to false alarms,” can “degrade trust.”

“Warning systems require the user to manually respond and thus are not effective when the pilot is incapacitated or spatially disoriented, and the pilot may not always correctly recognize a warning or correctly make the terrain collision evasion maneuver,” the essay writes.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

F-35A front profile in flight.

(Photo by MSgt John Nimmo Sr.)

Air-to-Air Collision Avoidance

In a concurrent but longer-term effort, the Air Force is now also working to develop algorithms to stop air-to-air collisions. This technology, developers explain, is much more difficult than thwarting air-to-ground collisions because is involves two fast-moving aircraft, rather one aircraft and the ground.

Envision a scenario where two or more supersonic fighter jets are conducting combat maneuvers in such close proximity, that they come less than 500-feet away from one another — when an automatic computer system engineered into the aircraft takes over and re-directs the fighters, saving lives and averting a catastrophic collision.

This is precisely the scenario scientists at the Air Force Research Lab are hoping to make possible by the early 2020s through an ongoing effort to deploy Air Automatic Collision Avoidance System, or ACAS.

Algorithms are being specifically developed to automatically give computers flight control of an F-16, once it flies to within 500-feet or less than another aircraft, Air Force Research Laboratory developers have told Warrior Maven. The computer systems are integrated with data links, sensors and other communications technologies to divert soon-to-crash aircraft.

There have been several successful tests of the ACAS technology at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., using F-16s.

So far, the Air Force has conducted 19 “two-ship” flights and one “three ship” flights using the system to prevent collisions, officials said.

The system is also engineered to identify and divert aircraft that are “non-cooperative,” meaning not from the US Air Force, AFRL developers said; sensors are designed to work quickly to detect a flight path or approaching trajectory with the hope of thwarting a possible collision.

While this effort has been underway for quite some time, an Air National Guard mid-air collision of two F-16s in South Carolina last year underscores the service’s interest in rapidly expanding promising collision avoidance technology to incorporate air-to-air crashes as well as air-to-ground incidents. Fortunately, in this instance both pilots ejected safely without injury, multiple reports and service statements said.

This article originally appeared on Warrior Maven. Follow @warriormaven1 on Twitter.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

This was the ‘helicopter destroyer’ that might have been

The Spruance-class destroyer USS Hayler (DD 997) served for 20 years before she was sunk during a training exercise.


During that time, she was a standard Spruance-class vessel. This meant she had two five-inch guns, an octuple Mk 29 launcher for the RIM Sea Sparrow missile, a Mk 16 Mod 1 launcher for the RUR-5 Anti-Submarine Rocket, two Mk 15 Phalanx Close-in Weapon Systems, two triple Mk 32 torpedo tube mounts, and space for two SH-2 or SH-60 helicopters (which could swapped out for a single SH-3).

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
Japanese Maritime Self Defense Ship JS Haruna (DD 141) arrives at Naval Station Pearl Harbor for this year’s Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC). Haruna had similar armament to baseline Spruance-class destroyers and could carry up to three Sea King anti-submarine helicopters. (US Navy photo)

But the Hayler could have been very different. In fact, when ordered, Congress had actually given the Navy a choice: Hayler would either be built by herself as the 31st and last Spruance-class destroyer, or the Navy could get both Hayler and an unnamed sister ship as the lead vessels of a new class of helicopter destroyers.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
The decommissioned destroyer Hayler (DD 997) takes fire from a 57mm Bofors gun aboard the Canadian Halifax-class multi-role patrol frigate HMCS Ville De Quebec (F 332), during a Sink Exercise conducted 300 miles off the East Coast of the United States. (Photo courtesy Canadian Navy)

At the time Congress gave the Navy the choice, Japan had brought the Haruna-class helicopter destroyers into service. Haruna and Hiei, both named after Kongo-class battlecruisers, had a similar armament suit to the baseline Spruance-class destroyers.  The big difference: The Japanese vessels could carry up to three HSS-2 anti-submarine helicopters, a locally manufactured variant of the Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
USS Little Rock (LCS 9), seen here during her December 2017 commissioning, is currently stuck in ice on the Great Lakes. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin)

Litton-Ingalls had done some of the basic design work and had modified the Spruance design to carry up to four SH-60 Seahawk helicopters. However, the Navy chose not to buy the new design and decided to just build the Hayler. With the struggles that the littoral combat ship has faced, including breakdowns and one being stuck in ice, perhaps a modified Spruance-class destroyer with four helicopters would have been an excellent choice for the Navy. We’ll never know.

Articles

The Abrams tank could soon have this new force field to make it even tougher to kill

The M1 Abrams tank has a reputation for being very hard to kill.


According to Tom Clancy’s book “Armored Cav,” in one instance an Abrams got stuck in the mud during Operation Desert Storm and was attacked by three T-72s tanks.

The Iraqi rounds bounced off – including one fired from less than 500 yards away. After the crew evacuated, a platoon of Abrams tanks then fired a bunch of rounds with one detonating the on-board ammo.

The blow-out panels worked and it turned out that the only damage was that the gun’s sights were just out of alignment. The tank was back in service with a new turret very quickly. The old turret went back to be studied.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
Abrams tanks on the move. (US Army photo)

An Abrams tank doesn’t get much tougher to kill than that, right? You’d be wrong, especially when the Army equips it with an active defense system. According to a report by DefenseTech.org, three systems are in contention, with the Trophy Active Protection System by Rafael being the front-runner.

Army Maj. Gen. David Bassett, who is in charge of the Army’s programs in the area of ground combat systems, said that he was hoping to make a quick decision on an active protection syste, for the Abrams.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
Israel’s Merkava MK-IV (Mark 4) | Israel Defense Forces photo

“I’m not interested in developing, I’m interested in delivering,” he said, noting that the Army is looking to upgrade the bulks of its inventory of armored vehicles. Only the M113 armored personnel carriers are being replaced by the BAE Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle.

The Trophy system works by using four radar antennas and fire-control radars to track incoming rockets, missiles, and rounds. When a threat is detected, one of two launchers on the sides of the Abrams would then fire a shotgun-type blast to kill the threat. Similar systems are on the Israeli Merkava 4 main battle tank and Russia’s T-14 Armata main battle tank.

T-14 Armata (Photo from Wikimedia Commons)

Some reports claim that Russia has developed a weapon capable of beating an active-defense system like Trophy. The RPG-30 reportedly used a smaller rocket in front of its main rocket to try to trigger the system.

But still, the Trophy can attack rockets and grenades at a distance, before the warhead even reaches the Abrams’ skin.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

This is what happens when you put lasers on rockets

The AGM-114 Hellfire has been a lethal anti-tank missile, and it’s also been used to make a bunch of terrorists good terrorists, according to one of William F. Halsey’s more Mattis-esque statements. But the 20-pound warhead on the Hellfire can be too much of a bang.


How that perceived problem was solved was to put laser guidance onto a smaller missile. Lockheed Martin has done just that with a program called DAGR, which you can best describe as what happens nine months after a Hydra rocket and a Hellfire hooked up.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
The key to making a Hydra a mini-Hellfire is here. (Lockheed Graphic)

According to an e-brochure sent by Lockheed Martin, DAGR used the rocket and warhead of the Hydra, and mated it with the laser-seeker technology of the Hellfire. This creates a missile with a range of up to seven and a half miles, but also has a 10-pound warhead that the laser guidance can put within three feet of a target. Okay, not as big a boom, but would you want to stand next to ten pounds of high explosives detonating?

Lockheed notes that this system is not only cheaper, but that it can hit high-value targets and minimize collateral damage. Since it works like the Hellfire, it can be used on any aircraft, helicopter, or drone that can use the Hellfire.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
The quantitative edge that DAGR provides for a AH-6 or OH-58 is obvious. (Lockheed Graphic)

The DAGR can be fired from modified Hydra rocket pods, but the system also can be used from a specialized launcher that holds four rounds. Each of these missiles comes in at 36 pounds, and is 75 inches long.

You can see a video about DAGR below.

Articles

Here is how the Navy feels about finders keepers

The Navy tends to be very strict when people recover items from sunken wrecks. In fact, when an Enigma machine was taken from the wreck of U-85, the Navy intervened. They even tried to grab a plane they left lying around in a North Carolina swamp for over 40 years.


Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
A U.S. Marine Corps F3A-1 aircraft of Marine Air Group 91 commanded by LCol Joseph M. Renner. (U.S. Navy photo)

According to a 2004 AP report, the plane in question was very valuable. It was the only known surviving Brewster F3A “Corsair.” Well, let’s be honest here. The F3A can best be described as a Corsair In Name Only, or CINO. Brewster’s Corsairs had problems — so much so that in July, 1944, the Navy cancelled the contract and Brewster went out of business less than a month after D-Day.

Brewster was also responsible for the F2A Buffalo, a piece of crap that got a lot of Marine pilots killed during the Battle of Midway.

According to that AP report, the story began with a fatal accident on Dec. 19, 1944, which killed Lt. Robin C. Pennington, who was flying a training mission in the F3A. The Navy recovered Pennington’s body and some gear from the Corsair, then left the wreck. Eventually, the plane was recovered by Lex Cralley in 1990, who began trying to restore the plane. A simple case of “finders keepers, losers weepers,” right?

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

Nope. The Navy sued Cralley in 2004 to get the plane back. After the report appeared, comments were…not exactly favorable towards the Navy at one normally pro-military forum.

Eventually, then-Representative Walter Jones (R-NC) got involved. According to a May 28, 2004 report by Hearst News Service, Jones eventually authored an amendment that settled the lawsuit by having the Navy turn the F3A over to Cralley.

The Navy usually has been very assertive with regards to wrecks. According to admiraltylawguide.com, in 2000, the Navy won a ruling in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal preventing Doug Champlin from salvaging a TBD Devastator that had survived both the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway.

Articles

The 6 most terrifying weapons of World War I

When the Great War began in 1914, the armies on both sides brought new technologies to the battlefield the likes of which the world had never seen. The destruction and carnage caused by these new weapons was so extensive that portions of old battlefields are still uninhabitable.


World War I saw the first widespread use of armed aircraft and tanks as well as the machine gun. But some of the weapons devised during the war were truly terrifying.

1. The Flamethrower

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
German flamethrowers during WWI (Photo: German Federal Archive, 1917)

The idea of being able to burn one’s enemies to death has consistently been on the minds of combatants throughout history; however, it was not until 1915 Germany was able to deploy a successful man-portable flamethrower.

The flamethrower was especially useful because even just the idea of being burned alive drove men from the trenches into the open where they could be cut down by rifle and machine gun fire.

The terrible nature of the flamethrower, Flammenwerfer in German, meant that the troops carrying them were marked men. As soon as they were spotted, they became the targets of gunfire. Should one happen to be taken prisoner, they were often subjected to summary execution.

The British went a different way with their flamethrowers and developed the Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector. These were stationary weapons deployed in long trenches forward of the lines preceding an attack. The nozzle would spring out of the ground and send a wall of flame 300 feet in the enemy’s direction.

These were used with great effectiveness at the Somme on July 1, 1916 when they burned out a section of the German line before British infantry was able to rush in and capture the burning remnants.

2. Trench Knife

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

Even with the advent of the firearm, hand-to-hand combat was still a given on the battlefield. However, with the introduction of trench warfare, a new weapon was needed in order to fight effectively in such close quarters. Enter the trench knife.

The most terrifying trench knives were developed by the United States. The M1917, America’s first trench knife, combined three killing tools in one. The blade of the weapon was triangular which meant it could only be used for stabbing, but it inflicted terrible wounds.

Triangular stab wounds were so gruesome that they were eventually banned by the Geneva Conventions in 1949 because they cause undue suffering. The knife also had a “knuckle duster” hand guard mounted with spikes in order to deliver maximum damage with a punching attack. Finally, the knife had a “skull crusher” pommel on the bottom in order to smash the enemy’s head with a downward attack.

An improved design, the Mark I Trench Knife, was developed in 1918 but didn’t see use until WWII.

3. Trench Raiding Clubs

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
Crudely shaped trench club from World War I. (Photo: York Museums Trust)

Along with the trench knife the Allies developed other special weapons for the specific purpose of trench raiding. Trench raiding was the practice of sneaking over to enemy lines’ and then, as quietly as possible, killing everyone in sight, snatching a few prisoners, lobbing a few explosives into bunkers and high-tailing it back to friendly lines before the enemy knew what hit them.

As rifles would make too much noise, trench raiding clubs were developed. There was no specific design of a trench raiding club, though many were patterned after medieval weapons such as maces and flails.

Others were crude handmade implements using whatever was around. This often consisted of heavy lengths of wood with nails, barbed wire, or other metal attached to the striking end to inflict maximum damage.

4. Shotgun

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
U.S. Marine carrying the Winchester M97 shotgun.

When Americans entered the fight on the Western Front they brought with them a new weapon that absolutely terrified the Germans: the shotgun. The United States used a few different shotguns but the primary weapon was the Winchester M1897 Trench Grade shotgun. This was a modified version of Winchester’s model 1897 with a shortened 20″ barrel, heat shield, and bayonet lug.

The shotgun, with 6 shells of 00 buck, was so effective that American troops referred to it as the “trench sweeper” or “trench broom.”

The Germans, however, were less than pleased at the introduction of this new weapon to the battlefield. The effectiveness of the shotgun so terrified the Germans that they filed a diplomatic protest against its use. They argued that it should be outlawed in combat and threatened to punish any Americans captured with the weapon.

America rejected the German protest and threatened retaliation for any punishment against American soldiers.

5. Poison Gas

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
British emplacement after German gas attack (probably phosgene) at Fromelles. (July 19, 1916)

Of course any list of terrifying weapons of war has to include poison gas; it is the epitome of horrible weapons. Poisonous gas came in three main forms: Chlorine, Phosgene, and Mustard Gas.

The first poison gas attack was launched by the Germans against French forces at Ypres in 1915. After that, both sides began to develop their chemical weapon arsenals as well as countermeasures.

The true purpose of the gas was generally not to kill — though it certainly could — but to produce large numbers of casualties or to pollute the battlefield and force the enemy from their positions.

Gas also caused mass panic amongst the troops because of the choking and blindness brought on by exposure causing them to flee their positions. Mustard gas was particularly terrible because in addition to severely irritating the throat, lungs, and eyes, it also burned exposed skin, creating large painful blisters.

6. Artillery

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
8-inch howitzers of the 39th Siege Battery, Royal Garrison Artillery conducting a shoot in the Fricourt-Mametz Valley, during the Battle of the Somme, 1916. (Photo: Imperial War Museum)

Though artillery had been around for centuries leading up to WWI, its use on the battlefields of Europe was unprecedented. This was because of two reasons.

First, some of the largest guns ever used in combat were employed during the war.

Second, because the world had never seen such concentrations of artillery before.

Artillery shells were fired in mass concentrations that turned the earth into such a quagmire that later shells would fail to detonate and instead they would simply bury themselves into the ground. Massive bombardments destroyed trenches and buried men alive.

Artillery bombardments were so prolific that a new term, shell shock, was developed to describe the symptoms of survivors of horrendous bombardments.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

Is COVID-19 creating a nationwide ammunition shortage?

As if shortages of toilet paper, bottled water and hand sanitizer were not enough; shooters are reporting ammunition shortages amid the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak. The response to the virus seems to be responsible for the next nationwide shortage of ammunition and possibly firearms.


The ever prescient Alexander Crown, recently penned an article for RECOIL, When the Brass Dries Up and lays out some of the more recent ammunition shortages and how to cope with them. It seems very timely amid reports we have been hearing since early February.

We’ve seen subtle signs of a panic buying here and there the past few weeks but it looks like the lid is about to blow off.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

A looming shortage of ammunition and firearms

A reader from Arizona, Brent Stuart, tried to purchase two cases of pistol primers last week from Sportsman’s Warehouse in Phoenix, AZ, this afternoon and was told he could only purchase one case. The clerk at the counter told him there was a new corporate policy limiting the amounts of firearms, ammunition and reloading components purchased in a single day. According to the employee, he had received a copy of a memo from corporate headquarters that morning limiting firearm, reloading components and ammunition purchases temporarily.

The memo states:

With increased demand and limited supply on select items, Sportsman’s Warehouse has implemented the following purchase limits to ensure our product reaches as many of our customers as possible.
Firearm Limits:
  • Handguns (any type): 2 per customer per day.
  • Modern Sporting Rifles: 1 per customer per day.
Ammunition and Reloading Components Limits:
  • All Bulk Handgun and Centerfire Rifle Ammunition (100 rd + count box): 1 Per caliber, per customer per day.
  • Bulk Rimfire (200 rd + count box): 1 per customer per day.
  • All Handgun, Rimfire and Rifle hunting ammunition: 3 boxes per customer per day
  • All 25 ct. shotgun shells: 10 boxes per gauge per day.
  • All primers: 1k per day.
  • Keg powder (4,5,8): 1 per day.
  • All 1lb powder cans: 1 per day.

We tried contacting Sportsman’s directly Friday 3/13 and our call was placed on hold for more than 30 minutes. So, we took the liberty of calling a few of the local stores in Reno and Carson City, Nevada. Both stores reported no limits on anything, but said ammunition was flying off the shelves. One employee reported a 75% decrease in stock on the shelves within the two hours he had been there. The other stated that it would not surprise him if such a policy would be put into place soon as a measure to stop ammunition and firearm shortages due to COVID-19.

Online retailer blames COVID-19 for buying surge

Online ammunition retailer, Ammo.com, reports a significant increase in sales since February 23, 2020. The company believes that this surge corresponds with the public concern regarding the COVID-19 virus.

When compared to the 11 days before February 23 (February 12 to 22), in the 11 days after (February 23 to March 4), Ammo.com’sber of transactions increased 68%.

Alex Horsman, the marketing manager at Ammo.com, said of the surge, “We know certain things impact ammo sales, mostly political events or economic instability when people feel their rights may end up infringed, but this is our first experience with a virus leading to such a boost in sales.” Horsman continued, “But it makes sense. A lot of our customers like to be prepared. And for many of them, it’s not just facemasks and Thera-Flu. It’s knowing that no matter what happens, they can keep themselves and their families safe.”

We queried another big box store, Cabela’s and Bass Pro-Shops, who reported that ammunition is selling at a record pace. Week to date tallies for Herter’s 9mm 115-grain FMJ ammunition is 5,589 boxes. That’s 279,450 rounds and it’s not even Saturday. Month to date sales are 40,152 boxes for 2,007,600 rounds and we are not even halfway through March for just that one type and brand of 9mm ammo.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

Cabela’s had no plans to limit purchases at this time.

Firearm sales and COVID-19

Firearm sales numbers are always difficult to nail down definitively, but at least in Nevada, calls into the state’s background check system have been taking in excess of 2 hours. At certain times after waiting for 30 minutes or more a message tells the dealer that the queue is full and disconnects the line, causing them to call back in and having to wait again.

We’ve witnessed that happening while in several different gun shops and ranges over the past several weeks. It appears more people are buying firearms than usual.

Firearm and ammunition sales in California are reported to be five times above normal due to COVID-19.

“I’ve sold 12 handguns in two hours,” said Gabriel Vaughn, owner of the Sportman’s Arms in Petaluma, told KTVU. “Any time people are uneasy, sales go up, and it’s always the same, guns and ammo.”

A shooting range in Clovis, California, had to stop customers from buying ammunition to take home because they were running out of ammunition for the range. The Firing Line owner Jake Belemjian says people are stocking up on ammunition because of COVID-19 and the shop can’t keep up with the demand.

Political fears

If this were not bad enough, the NRA is reporting that today, an ordinance has passed in Champaign, IL, to empower the mayor to “[o]rder the discontinuance of selling, distributing, dispensing or giving away of … firearms or ammunition of any character whatsoever.”

Apparently, politicians want to fan fears of limiting access to firearms and ammunition, leading more people into panic and creating more shortfalls in supply. We have speculated that the State of Nevada’s background check system’s extensive hold times may be the work of an anti-gun governor ordering staff cuts or allocating personnel elsewhere, but it seems coincidental with the timing of COVID-19.

The fact that it is an election year with an outspoken anti-gun candidate on the presidential ticket could add fuel to this fire and spur along potential ammunition and firearm shortages even without COVID-19, but probably not this early in the cycle.

Is This a Nationwide Shortage?

Dealers and distributors who have maintained good inventory should be able to continue to service customers. Most shooters who’ve gone through these shortages before have learned from the past and planned accordingly.

We aren’t yet seeing a firearm shortage due to COVID-19 in our neighborhood, but there may be an extended ammunition shortage on the way if it is not here already. In 2014, it was 22 LR, according to Ammo.com that caliber is moving a lot, but the surprise we found topping their list of most in-demand ammunition for the past few weeks was 40 SW.

  • 40 SW: 410%
  • 223: 194%
  • 7.62×39: 114%
  • 9mm: 101%
  • 12 gauge: 95%
  • 5.56×45: 69%
  • 380 ACP: 43%
  • 45 ACP: 35%
  • 308 Winchester: 32%
  • 22 lr: 29%

We would never tell anyone to not buy ammunition. Just don’t act all panicky and act like the folks who are building toilet paper forts in their garages.

Speaking of which, Franklin Armory has a smoking deal on Government issue “MRE” toilet paper and it comes with a free BFS-III binary trigger. Of course, that means that you will probably need to buy more ammunition.

This article originally appeared on Recoilweb. Follow @RecoilMag on Twitter.

MIGHTY MILSPOUSE

US submarine maintains ‘readiness and lethality’ after time in ‘limbo’

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper visited the USS Boise on Sept. 25, 2019, praising the crew for maintaining “readiness and lethality,” even though the Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarine completed its most recent deployment in 2015.

The Boise has been in limbo, awaiting repairs amid a Navy-wide backlog that has sent subs, including the Boise, to private docks for repair, driving up costs.

The Boise is currently at Naval Station Norfolk, according to the Daily Press, and awaiting repair at Newport News Shipbuilders.

Read on to learn more about Esper’s visit to the Boise.


Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper at the USS Boise.

(Department of Defense)

Esper came to Virginia to discuss the problem of Navy suicides.

Esper visited the Boise during a trip to Norfolk, where three Navy sailors assigned to the USS George H.W. Bush have died by suicide in the past two weeks.

“I wish I could tell you we have an answer to prevent future further suicides in the armed services,” Esper told sailors. “We don’t.”

This year, suicides in the armed services have garnered significant attention, with the Air Force calling a one-day operational stand-down in August 2019 to address the number of suicides in its ranks.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

Defense Secretary Mark Esper tours the USS Boise, Sept. 25, 2019.

(Department of Defense)

While at Norfolk, Esper took a tour of the USS Boise.

The submarine Esper praised for its readiness has been out of action for four years and lost its certification to perform unrestricted operations in June 2016 as it awaited repairs, according to Navy spokesperson Cdr. Jodie Cornell.

“The Boise has been waiting for repairs since its last deployment ended in 2015, and become the poster child for problems w/ Navy maintenance,” journalist Paul McLeary tweeted Sept. 25, 2019.

The Boise and two other Los Angeles-class submarines have long awaited repairs that the Navy doesn’t have the capacity to perform, so the service has contracted the labor to private shipyards.

Cornell told Insider that the Boise could go into repairs in spring 2020, but the contract for the private shipbuilder to perform the repair was still in negotiations.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups

Esper aboard the USS Boise on Sept. 25, 2019.

(US Department of Defense)

The Boise maintains a full crew, despite being stuck at Naval Base Norfolk.

Cornell told Insider that while there is indeed a full crew aboard the Boise, “the command has been executing an aggressive plan to send crew members to other submarines to both support the other ships, including deployments, and to gain Boise crewmembers valuable operational experience.”

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated in 2018 that attack submarines have spent 10,363 days in “idle time” — when they can’t operate and are unable to get repairs — since 2008.

During that time, the Navy also spent an estimated id=”listicle-2640620235″.5 billion to maintain attack subs that weren’t operational.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

Articles

Sebastian Junger’s new book “Tribe” is nothing short of a lesson for all Americans

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
Sebastian Junger embedded with Army troops at Combat Outpost Restrepo In Eastern Afghanistan. (Photo: Vanity Fair)


Sebastian Junger spent nearly twenty years writing about dangerous professions, most notably those surrounding war and other conflicts. Although he retired from war reporting after longtime collaborator Tim Hetherington was killed during the Libyan Civil War, he has a lot of experiences on which to reflect. In his new book, Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging, he contextualizes a life spent close to death and danger and provides lessons for modern societies that have struggled with the fact that technological improvements and material wealth haven’t necessarily made their populations happier.

Tribe is the 54-year-old Junger’s own homecoming of sorts. He was a Vanity Fair contributor when he spent time in Afghanistan’s Korengal Valley, which was also his first collaboration with photographer Tim Hetherington. That collaboration led to three films based on the pair’s time in the valley: “Restrepo,” “Korengal,” and “The Last Patrol,” as well as Junger’s book, War. After Hetherington was killed in Misrata, Libya in 2011, Junger produced “Which Way is the Front Line From Here? The Life and Time of Tim Hetherington” for HBO documentary films.

Junger’s lifetime of covering conflict led him to write Tribe, the theme of which is how modern society has isolated individuals and marginalized the value of groups – a phenomenon to which returning warfighters can relate. Junger notes there are positive effects of war on mental health and long-term resilience, using examples of war trauma from Sri Lanka to Israel and Liberia to Cote d’Ivoire to illustrate the effects of war. He explains the utility of the “shared public meaning” and why it’s crucial for warriors to return to a society that understands them. He argues that “honoring” veterans at sporting events, letting uniformed service people board planes first, and formulaic phrases like “thank you for your service” only serve to deepen the divide between the military and civilians by highlighting the fact that some serve and some don’t.

Firearms: Training solo versus training in groups
Junger’s main discussion about combat veterans is that they require three things: a society that is egalitarian and gives them the chance to succeed, to not be seen as victims, and to feel as necessary and productive as they were on the battlefield. According to his findings, the U.S. ranks very low on all of these because there’s no cultural perception of any shared responsibility. The shared responsibility of the whole for the one is what Tribe is all about.

The book isn’t about just veterans or victims of conflict. The recurrence and spread of individualism have an effect on all of us. Junger delves into the history of the native tribes of the United States to illustrate his points: tribal societies were more socially progressive and conscious of the suffering of its members, especially those who went to war. Collective societies tended to be happier units because they cultivated collectivized happiness. Everyone in a tribe has a role to play, and everyone feels useful.

Sebastian Junger’s newest book isn’t about veterans, but Tribe is full of lessons all veterans should heed when seeking their tribes. More broadly, Tribe’s lessons should be heeded by the entire nation, especially during this election season that seems to be more divisive with each step in the process of finding those who would lead us in bringing us all together.

For more information on Sebastian Junger and “Tribe” visit www.sebastianjunger.com.

Do Not Sell My Personal Information