Welcome Aboard!

AHOY,


UPDATE 12/21/13, 11:42 HOURS

I am revealing who I am today i.e. posting my name, I am Keith Oeffinger, I was born in San Antonio Texas in 1963. See today's post 12/21/13 .


Update, 01/11/14 12:30 hours;

I would like to say, with only one reply, like three years ago, this blog seems too much like a mirror site to me. And it appears very few patriots are looking back at past posts.

The new “Fragmented Fighting Facts” series of posts that dedicates one post to each Basic rule has now been completed. This series starts with the post tilted “Post # 1, Planning, Preface” that posted on 05/12/13. This series is under the label “Tri-F in progress”. Posts well be updated as I edit or discover additional knowledge thus the series is the most current version of my "Fragmented Fighting Facts" manual. For an old but complete version i.e. all in one post copy. Patriots are welcomed to try viewing one of the “pages” listed in the “special word section” on the starboard side of the blog. I say try due to the fact I’m not sure if they are published i.e. viewable to the general public due to all the issues or HACKING with my blog. There is also a complete copy posted, that is titled, “Tri-F in progress” too, it was posted 11/13/10.

And feel free to fire away with a reply, (sarcasm on).


FLASH REPORT; the “TERRORIST ARE NOT AMONG US, AND NEVER WERE I.E. AL QAEDA IS A STAWL MAN, GHOST”.

The most important lesson that everyone should have taken away from the Boston Marathon bombings was that those young men proved that no al-queda members are in the u.s. Otherwise they too would just go get some presure cookers and had to a parade.

“I AM NOT A TERRORIST” this nation’s worst enemy is FEAR. This fear is being promoted mostly by the back woods, right wing, Christians of this nation. We need to separate church and state, period. And that is of course for the States sake.


I would like patriots to understand that I use the terms "official revealed fact" to mean what everyone is being told by officials, media etc. I use the term "kings truth" to mean what I know or believe to actually be the actual facts. I DO NOT MEAN IT IN A RELIGIOUS WAY. I.E. the term Kings is plural as in those running the show.


Preface for the Fragmented Fighting Facts

Note pink highlighted material is that, that IMO is questionable factually, it maybe an “official revealed fact” that I am questioning. The material may need to be defined i.e. explained more or it could be a personal note. Yellow is location undecided or unedited material i.e. unread that I have not decided on what to keep or not. Green means a change has been made i.e. an update. By noting the green updated highlights a Patriot well not have to read the Fragmented Fighting Facts in its entirety to stay current. Red is important, perhaps the "kings truth".

Newjarheaddean; this is my collection of combat notes. One might call it my anthology of combat tactics, techniques, methods and skills. The note taking began about fourty years ago (I was around 13 years old) with the observation of 10 rules listed with in a book covering the French and Indian i.e. Native American, wars, entitled “Roger’s Rangers”. That’s right the rules that started all this are “Army Ranger” rules, this book was located in the “Westfall” library in San Antonio Texas off of Vance Jackson. I get a kick out of the libraries name due to the general agreement that modern or state vs state warfare started with the singing of the peace treaties at Westphalia. I could not read at the time; however I knew that a list in a book on war would be important. I copied those rules down like a scribe might have written hieroglyphs and had my dad read them to me. . This discovery preceded numerous sources including approximately one hundred books and about a dozen field manuals, of which a few were of WWII era. These were found at libraries, half price bookstores and garage sales. Since going on line in 2007, I have found material on web sites such as “Defense and National Interest” (DNI), “Global security”, “Strategy page” , “Wikipedia” and “Bayonet strength” and “Efour4ever” in the combat lessons learned section. These last two sites cover WWII.

Previously referred to as K.O.O.L.N. (acronym definition, top secret), FLASH REPORTS; I NOW AM TELLING EVERYONE IT STANDS FOR KEITH OEFFINGER'S ORGANIZATION OF LEARNED KNOWLEDGE the joke on me here was I believed Knowledge was spelled with an (N). I was a special education student and did not learn to read until my last year of high school. I have now titled my work “Fragmented Fighting Facts” or “Tri-F”; the name derives from the computer grammar function always alerting me to the fragmented nature of my sentences. This is due to the “just the facts, ma’am” manor the material is written i.e. there has been little if any effort to write in whole sentences or provide context. This is not to say there is no order with Tri-F, in fact there is a theme. I have laid out the information as one might expect a commander or members of a unit to recall it thus utilizing it to conduct a mission.

We start with “Planning”, followed by the section on “Defense”, then there’s “Preparations and conduct of patrols” or “PCP”, and we end with “Conduct of Engagements” or “COE”, i.e. engagements being the term used here for shootouts. Each section of Tri-F consists of numbered “Basic rules”, each basic rule followed by detailed notes that either relate to, explain, or give examples pertaining to the basic rules. As with the general format of Tri-F, each section’s basic rules are laid out as one might need to recall them. This is most obvious in the last section COE starting with basic rule number one, “Flash report”, i.e. actions to take upon contact with the enemy. This sections last basic rule deals with handling POWs.

Keep in mind this is a work in progress; I’m constantly discovering new information to add which in turn still at times requires rearranging things. At the same time, interestingly enough to me, I have not needed to rearrange my original order of the basic rules for quite some time. There are however, two instances where the detailed information fallowing a pair of basic rules became so similar I decided to combine the pair into one basic rule. These two occurrences are noted in footnotes.

Now heed this, out of all the information contained within this work, only an estimated 1% was taught to me while I was serving in the U.S.M.C. Moreover, to put a fine point on it, it’s worth noting I served in Charlie Company, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, First Marine Division, i.e. an Infantry unit. Before my discharge (after only a two year cruse), I attended Jungle Warfare School in the northern training area of Okinawa (for two weeks), Mountain Warfare School in Korea (for one week) and Combat Town Camp Pendleton for MOUT training (for one day). I did not take part in any amphibious training nor did I ever go to Twenty Nine Palms for Desert Warfare training. We did ride around in AAVs once at Camp Pendleton. All in all I would say the only things I missed out on were a beach landing (at Coronado I believe) and a little sun burn, due to the fact that those twenty nine palms, I was told in the early eighties were all located at the front gate of that base. Needless to say, the training did not impress me, and I now know it was not going to get any better as some suggested to me at the time, and still others later claimed that I should have just stayed in longer.

With my position on the lack of training, I do wish to make it perfectly clear that I do support the service women and men in the U.S. armed forces. I also believe them to be as brave as any people on earth, (with the exception of the (Y) generation). My concern is in the way the Infantry especially is being mislead and used. I want people to understand my experience and IMO a lot of evidence suggests Uncle Sam intends to use his infantry in ways that does not include training any generation in the art of “traditional Guerilla combat tactics” i.e. as a “Traditional Commando” would be. I am not talking about “SWAT” team “Close quarter” tactics, like the “Stick dynamic entry”. That tactic should be called the “cluster f**k”. Just call that sort of tactic what it is NYPD (Cops T.V. show bad-boys, bad-boys) in Afghanistan.

The problem is that that tactic was developed by police departments to deal with an objective occupied by drugged up party animals, i.e. untrained civilians. The police never use it in a spur of the minute situation. They use it when the house/objective has been under constant surveillance for mouths in some cases and the police know all manner of information about everyone in the house and the structure and neighborhood in general. The cops choose a time when everyone is pasted out from partying the night before and have long lost any weapons (between the cushions or under the bed) they might have had on them as show pieces during the party. The primary reason for the large numbers of police in close proximity is to make sure the gang does not think the raid is a rival gang “brake in” and thus resist in any way. There is lots of yelling too, thus reinforcing the message that no one is trying to be covert, like one would be to get away with a crime.

This brings up an intriguing observation of mine; that being that by the book an assault should be made from the top down, yet the troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere use the Stick dynamic entry and usually enter from the front door, like a SWAT team. However resent high profile raids show the SWAT teams attacking from the top down. Examples you may recall are the raids on the Shinning path group in Peru in 2000 and the Mumbai raid by Indian forces on the Jewish center in 2008. IMO this proves the existence of what I’ll refer to as a “need to know” training policy, being followed by various governments, the purpose being to limit the number of true Commandos that could become tomorrow’s rebels, apposing corrupt governments. One last thing about the Stick, IMO every single time the regular forces unit conducting one of these foolish Stick dynamic entries comes under fire i.e. runs into resistance, the Stick brakes i.e. the whole unit evacuates and awaits some kind of support form tanks, guns, tubes or air. Bottom line IMO the Stick is used as a probing tactic and is meant to be a moral boosting show peace tactic to make the unit feel as if it has taken a hill, which was nothing more than another empty building, that IMO Intel suggested, was the case before the entry was ordered. Recalling the police policy of long periods of surveillance prior to raids.

It also seems to me that in light of the old saying “you can fight a war with bombs and blockades but only boots on the ground can win it” ( IMO, Uncle Sam has now revised that saying, as fallows) “you can win a war with bombs and blockades, but only the infantry can end the war”, farther more IMO Uncle Sam has gone one more step and decided to use private security companies and local i.e. indigenous people for the infantry role. All this fear of true commandos is all very similar to the “Mujahideen” not being allowed by various governments, to return to their homelands i.e. native nations, after fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.

And as for the U.S. and other Western nations, training foreigners to fight a counter insurgency goes. IMO this training includes nothing more than police procedures i.e. conducting investigations, forensics, searching individuals and buildings to collect evidence and yes serving warrants, if necessary, with those all mighty “stick” tactics. And of course, lots of “new innovative techniques and tactics” involving CAS and IMO (Old) so called high tech equipment the U.S. Military Industrial Congressional Complex wants to clear out of the warehouses.

All in all IMO Uncle Sam has chosen to put just about all his eggs in one advanced technology system, think Star Wars Storm Troopers or Matrix i.e. the Operator or Morpheus trying to guide Neo and others to safety. IMO it looks something like this; (x) unit go to (x) address, kick in front door, use stairs to your right, go south down hallway to (x) door, it is unlocked, interning room go to (x) window looking out window to the north you will see your target running east though the neighbors garden. All this information and the “live” feeds of target and area of operations would be provided by a fleet of satellites as well as Near space assets that are never mentioned by the media as current military assets and of course there’s the robots, UAVs and a flood of other covertly deployed sensors as well as covert eves dropping of any civilian electronic devices in the Area of operations.

Thus in light of these and similar so called “new innovative, techniques and tactics” (notice the media and governments choice of words “techniques and tactics” as if we’re talking Commando training i.e. why not use some modern high tech terms the system is so eager to introduce us all to normally as a matter of routine), IMO Uncle Sam has placed the traditional Guerrilla combat tactics, on the back burner and is hoping they all go the way of other black arts.

This is not just true of the infantry; let us take a peek at aerial combat. Does anyone out there actually think today’s U.S. pilots are turning and burning, pulling high (G) maneuvers trying to hit the entry windows and get inside the bandits turn. Think any pilot has conducted a yo-yo or split S maneuver lately or made the choice between a single or two-circle fight. Now days its all about stealth, ECM and Smart even autonomous weapons, missiles especially BVR tech. IMO this explains why the U.S. Navy is not concerned with not having a front line fighter equal to the USAF F-22 Raptor. An article I recently read on “Strategy page” mentioned a lot of talk about a Navy F/A-18E at an air show, displaying a little F-22 silhouette decal i.e. a simulated Kill credit symbol/icon. IMO the F/A- 18E did not gun down that kill.

And then everyone knows that just about all now and IMO soon all weapons systems including the bayonet well have a chip in it.

So if the electronics ever fail (maybe due to a shift in the axis of earths electromagnetic field, passed a certain point or perhaps a record size solar flare) IMO it well be the masters of the age-old Guerrilla combat tactics i.e. The Fragmented Fighting Facts Basic Rules that survive, keeping in mind “no one wins”.

I also wish, that those who join the various services where told all this up front i.e. “we do not intend to train you as a traditional Commando”.

Another thing I would like everyone to consider is that; what makes a Marine special is not the training she or he receives, no it’s the steel the youth demonstrates when they choose to join the Marines. Even when compared to the Special Forces, who IMO are only specialists in their particular field, once again mostly high tech specialties and whose ranks are filled with older personnel that have already been serving and have graduated from a boot camp i.e. are aware of the hoop and hype hurry up and wait tactics. And who are then usually chosen i.e. coached into changing their MOS. I am aware of the change in recruitment policy after 2001 allowing for direct entry into the S.F. community. IMO a rarity and IMO it is still not the same as just choosing to go to a Marine Corps Recruit Depot from the start.

Furthermore, to those who just well not accept the truth about the lack of training along the lines of traditional Guerrilla combat tactics. I can now say that I have exchanged comments with a number of Iraqi and Afghanistan combat vets. These comments can be found on the internet if you Google up my call sign, Newjarheaddean also spelled with one (D). IMO it is obvious that the tactics I speak of are news to the vets, some have made commits that proves in combat they were just winging it. And no, I don’t believe that all the vets are observing some kind of code of silence on these tactics including the vets who are against the wars. Unless everyone wants to say that YouTube and other internet companies are conspiring to edit all combat footage that shows these tactics being used and that, the vets are staging other videos that show them (albeit with great bravery) as armatures without a clue and winging it. If anyone ever sees video, showing the tactics listed in Tri-F being used, be sure and provide a link with your comment. I once saw a flash of film on CNN showing combat in Lebanon during the 1980s that showed some of these tactics being used by a Guerrilla fighter. I well also say I do believe that UAV footage is edited by the Pentagon to keep the public from seeing the few but well trained Taliban and other Guerrilla fighters that are using these tactics. Alternatively, maybe people think our professional highly trained well-equipped military is unable to defeat 10 – 20 thousand religious extremist amateur thugs in almost a decade of fighting. All the while killing at least by some estimates 100 a mouth including dozens of top commanders.

Let me also say, on the numbers of U.S. PTSD casualties, i.e. IMO, WIA, (And IMO deserving of a Purple Heart). The Government portrays these cases as a result of fighting a war that is “unlike any other war we have fought before” (LOL). Facing an enemy that is fighting in some mysterious and or cowardly manor that simply cannot be countered by military means. I believe the high numbers are a result of US forces fighting in a manner that is suicidal i.e. pointless and counterproductive to the real world situation. Example; you have a young brave American ready to fight for the nation, while on one of these IMO “Russian roulette parades” someone shoots at the unit from some building, everyone scrambles for cover, as some spray and pray, then after determining the location using SWATS (Soldier Worn Acoustic Targeting Systems) sniper detectors, or one of the many similar vehicle mounted systems the commander calls in some sort of CAS, if someone’s brains have been blow out especially if it was an officer or the location is vague, a real “crowd pleaser” maybe used i.e. 2000 pounder.

IMO this is how 90% of engagements (fought by regular infantry units) are resolved. Special Forces are now and in the feature more and more regular infantry well be using the Matrix. And to those that think this is the exception I say show me the number of WIA or KIA (On either side) by small arms fire i.e. during traditional firefights. Even if one includes sniper fire those figures are really low. So IMO after witnessing all the carnage and innocent civilian life being lost and receiving all those looks from the witnesses, it is the American that realizes it is his unit that is not fighting right.

This is reinforced and really sinks in back in the states when the vet is asked to tell the Commando stories that never occurred and thus the vet must tell the truth i.e. give up the Commando reputation, keep it all inside or start lying. If the first option is chosen that unveiling reality is demoralizing and makes it all not worth it. If either one of the other chooses are made IMO the vet becomes the ticking bomb. And I can tell you all that many times, I have recalled being told once that “when you go home keep your mouth shut about the things we did. If you don’t you well be thought of as a liar or crazy and either which way your life well be over”. That First Sergeant was right, but like my daddy use to say, “He’s right but he does not know why he’s right” i.e. IMO the First Sgt. thought of what we did in terms of remarkable heroic feats. However, IMO certainly since the beginning of the Vietnam era, it is the lack of training i.e. the manner in which our service women and men are fighting that keeps this tragedy going.

I would also suggest the vets of today are just like I was 25 or so years ago in the sense that they know there training is lacking, however, they just cannot explain what’s missing. However unlike me they refuse to accept that old fashion “black arts” are the answer i.e. should be the basis of basic training. And I now know the “Black art” tactics they and I should have been trained in and I can now say, “The PFC that told the Corp it was out of step, now has provided the proof”. What surprises me is that most vets it seems don’t care at all about the tactics I speak of and seem to view me as an unpatriotic “party pooper”, when I’m just a U.S. Marine trying to improve the Corps and save lives. Bottom line IMO the infantry needs to consist of unmarried i.e. undistracted, NO CHILDREN, dedicated true professionals, trained in the tactics listed in Tri-F and many more I am sure exist.

And to those that say “chivalry is for the museums” I say “first we must have peace on earth”.

One Newjarheaddean

“Let no Marines ghost say if my training had only done its job”

" Give me a million dollars and I well change the world"

" When it comes to persecution and suffering that fairly tale about christ dose not have (S) nothing on me"

" I well bet my lucky start"

“IKYG”

G-day!

Update; 12/19/14 09/53 hours




Total Pageviews

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Post # 50, Conduct of Engagements, rule # 13

AHOY,


Update; 06/12/13 10: 39 hours this was just the title change. 

FRAGMENTED FIGHTING FACTS

Preparations and Conduct of Patrols

Basic rule # 13


 13) Sweep against moving targets:
This is making target cross your stream of fire. Note with stationary target make note of possible cover target may seek before opening fire. Automatic weapons pull up and to the right. Lead for targets running to your right is tricky. It may be generally safer for you to make longer dashes to foe’s right. Note consider moving to Rule number four zig zag.
If engaged invaders may hide behind non-bulletproof objects like trees, just shoot through each tree. They will run if engaged in the open be ready to get off as many shots as possible..

With aircraft; if the battlefield is quit Jets can be hard 20-30 seconds away. In urban terrain it is difficult to tell direction however. Lead jets by 600’ helicopters by 150’, using the known aircraft’s length as a guide. Best chance of success is a head-on position, aiming above the aircraft. However if the aircraft is diving on your position. Do not fire at them, you well only give away your position. Wait till it has pulled up. One option is the Exact Rendezvous method, selecting a reference point i.e. concentrate fire on hilltop. Massing fire along flight path junctions. For ambushes weapons i.e. guns and RPGs should be located in tunnels, as an anti smoke tactic. With aircraft farther away, at ranges near 800 meters, try using self destruct mechanism. Another tactic used against aircraft include, mining possible landing zones. Shadows cased by low fling a/c can be more visible then a/c.

Do not look up when aircraft fly overhead. (One of the most obvious features on aerial photographs is the upturned faces of soldiers.)

Helo tactics

Try and overrun a LZ before the air assault forces had an opportunity to get organized and oriented. They also learned to “hug” soviet forces so that helicopter gunships could not fire at them.

Vary the take-off and landing directions from the helipads.
Sometimes fly in threes.
700-800 meters away and then fire, trying to catch the helicopter with the explosion of the round's self-destruction at 920 meters distance.                         

Soviet helo pilots took to flying NOE do to fact FIM -92 could not track targets below i.e. looking down. FIM -92 speed Mach two. Range 6 km. i.e. five miles.
Soviet fixed wing pilots not only gaining altitude quickly after takeoff but make very steep banking turns.


MOVING TARGETS

Certain situations, such as multiple targets at varying ranges and rapidly changing winds, do not allow for proper elevation and windage adjustments.
Leading; is establishing an aiming point ahead of the target's movement and maintaining it as the weapon is fired. With a scope it is the distance the cross hairs are placed in front of the target's movement. AKA Hold off, shifting the point of aim to achieve a desired point of impact. This requires the weapon and body position to be moved while following the target. A common error of the sniper is a tendency to watch his target instead of his aiming point. He must force himself to watch his lead point or chosen point on the mil scale, it becomes the sniper's point of concentration just as the cross hairs are for stationary targets. There are four factors in determining leads: Speed, as a target moves faster, it will move a greater distance during the bullet's flight. Therefore, lead increases as speed increases. Angle of movement, a target moving perpendicular to the bullet's flight path moves a greater lateral distance than a target moving at an angle away from or toward the bullet's path. Therefore, a target moving at a 45-degree angle covers ½ the distance as a target moving at a 90-degree angle. Range to the target, the farther away a target is, the longer it takes for the bullet to reach it. Therefore, lead must be increased as range increases. Wind effects, when using lead, the sniper aims into the wind. If the wind is moving from the right to left, his point of aim is to the right. A wind blowing opposite the target's direction of movement requires more lead on target, than a wind blowing in the same direction as the target's movement. Also with wind blowing in same direction, if it has a much greater speed than target, lead would have to be reduced accordingly. Note; I do not have the math skills to confirm the fallowing examples, or formulas. The following formulas are used to determine moving target leads: TIME OF FLIGHT x TARGET SPEED = LEAD. Time of flight in seconds. Target speed in fps. Lead = distance in feet. Average speed of a man crawling 1 fps/0.8 mph, walking = 2 fps/1.3 mph, double time = 4 fps/2.5 mph, jogging = 6 fps/3.7 mph. To convert leads in feet to meters: LEAD IN FEET x 0.3048 = METERS. To convert leads in meters to mils: Lead in meters x 1,000 over range to target equals mil lead.

THREE METHODS OF LEAD;
Exact Rendezvous; Preferred method of engaging moving targets. The sniper must establish an aiming point i.e. stationary point, ahead of the target and pull the trigger when the target reaches it. This method works best on targets with less lateral movement i.e. less movement from left to right. It allows the sniper's weapon and body position to remain motionless. Determining/holding exact (sight picture) using the horizontal stadia lines in the mil dots in the M3A.
Estimate Rendezvous; Used to engage an erratically moving target (fleeting) i.e. one that only presents itself briefly and then resumes cover. As the target moves, cross hairs are centered as much as possible with the target. This involves establishing and maintaining an aiming point in relationship to the target and maintaining that sight picture (moving with the target), while squeezing the trigger. When the target stops, reappears or inters the sights the sniper fires. This technique puts the firer in position for a second shot if the first one misses.

M3A scope, when using the scope, the sniper uses the horizontal mil dots. The mil scale can be mentally sectioned into 1/4-mil increments for leads. For example, a target at 500 meters that requires a 10-inch lead, he would place the target's center mass halfway between the cross hairs and the first mil dot (1/2 mil).

Tracking method with single lead?
Single lead method;
Note; I do not have the math skills to confirm the fallowing examples, or formulas.
On the method, the trailing edge of the front sight post is centered on target mass. Note see figure 7-29. This causes lead to automatically increase as range increases.


Image edited

The rule provides for many speed-angle combinations that places the bullet within 2 inches of target center at 100 meters, the rule begins to break down for targets moving at slight and large angles. If applied on targets moving at a slight angle-for example, 5 degrees at 100 meters-the bullet strikes forward of target center, about 4 inches with standard sights and about 7 inches with LLLSS sights. In fact with targets moving at an angle less than 30 degrees, the bullet strikes somewhat in front of target center. With targets moving at an angle of more than 30 degrees, the bullet strikes somewhat behind target center. In the worst case (i.e. 90-degrees, moving 8 mph IMO we are assuming 100 m range) the shot-group center is located 9.8 inches behind target center. If bullets were evenly distributed in a 12-inch group (recall 5.56mm equipped with bipod is capable of at least 6 inch group at 100m range) this (12 inch group) would result in hitting the target 40 % of the time.

The angle of target movement is the angle between the LOS and the target's direction of movement. Figure 7-31 reflects the differences in lateral speed for various angles of movement for a target traveling at 8 mph at a distance of 150 meters. At 90 degrees an 8-mph target moves 24 inches during the bullet's time of flight. If it is moving on a 15-degree angle, it moves 6 inches (the equivalent of 2 miles per hour). Note list figures in figure 7-31.


Image edited

More Example information; 8 miles per hour at a 90-degree angle and range of 300 meters, target covers 4 1/2 feet during time of fight. 10 mph is 14.6 feet per second. Common muzzle velocities 2640-3k plus fps. The front sight post covers about 1.6 or 1.5 inches at 15 meters and about 16/15 inches at 150 meters. Since the center of the front sight post is the actual aiming point, placing the trailing edge of the front sight post at target center provides a .8 or ¾ inch lead on a 15-meter target and an 8 or 7 ½ inch lead on a target at 150 meters. This rule provides a dead-center hit at 15-meters with target moving 7 mph at a 25-degree angle because the target travels .8 inches during time of fight. At 150-meters with target moving 7 miles per hour at a 25-degree angle moves 8 inches during time of fight.


A walking target at 250 meters is hit dead center when moving at 45 degrees. Hits can be obtained if target is moving on any angle between 15 and 75 degrees. When target is running, a center hit is obtained when the target is on an angle of 15 degrees; misses occur when target exceeds an angle of 30 degrees.

Note so after all that, IMO i.e. SWAG, rule of thumb, I say a 45 degree angle reduces lateral movement by one ½ to 1/3 and 60 or 75 degrees about 25% either which away, 15 or 30 degrees 75% either which away. Then there is this; Marines must be taught to fire at targets as though they are stationary until lateral movement exceeds (15 degrees). Marines should be taught to increase their lead if they miss, which increases their probability of hitting all targets. Furthermore, impact points and aiming points generally coincide at 100 yards or less, weather target stationary, walking or running. So IMO rough estimates are as fallows, at 300 yards range, aiming point is the leading edge for walker, one body width for runner. At 400 yards range, one body width for walker two or three for runner. With vehicles start at leading edge of body, add one body width for every 10 mph. Remember to consider angle of vehicles movement. Adjust lead as you would for wind values. 90 degree angle equals max speed and there for max lead, less than 45 degrees reduces both etc. This emphasizes the need for knowing bullet/muzzle velocities i.e. time of flight and how it relates to the range, angle, and speed of the target.


This concludes this post on Conduct of Engagements, Basic rule # 13



“Let no Marines ghost say if my training had only done its job”

" Give me a million dollars and I well change the world"

" When it comes to persecution and suffering that fairly tale about christ dose not have (S) nothing on me"

" I well bet my lucky start"

"IKYG"


G-day!




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)