Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenchu
Amnell, given I have been in the Army and been in fights with Infantry soldiers, it is kind of silly you dont listen to me. What you are talking about is all in theory. But the reality is most soldiers are just idiots with guns. I know only 2 soldiers from my Army time that my current self would question my ability to beat in a fight. This is because I have since learned Muay Thai, and these other guys, one did Muay Thai, the other fought in UFC. It is not because they were soldiers. Wake up to reality, Amnell.
I saw marines shooting at targets that I could have hit just by throwing rounds at it, and they were still missing. The main problem was they didn't seem to understand that an assault rifle is designed for single shots, and only fires autmomatic for close quarter emergencies.
Percentage stats saying "they have to pass" is rubbish, also.
An Army in wartime will lower its standards considerably for recruits. You think they will turn away those who cant hit the target? I dont. I know they didn't in Australia. Only 1 person legitimatly passed the F89 Minimi shoot we did on my training course, yet no one was kicked off, and the scores were 'edited' for 'errors'... The way I see the marines shoot does not make me think they would do any better than we did.
Can I ask, exactly, how big is a target they are shooting from 800m away? Is it a car, or a house? Seriously, the rifle can shoot that far, but not everyone can do it. Nor is it really reliable at that distance, or practical. A lot of people can not really see that far. If you think you can land a head shot without a scope at 800m then why dont you look out the window and see if you can actually see someones head at that distance. It starts to disappear at 400m, so I would like to see what kind of target they are hitting, if that is true at all. Where did you hear it?
Anyway, fact remains, there is no reason why a soldier should be considered a formidable hand to hand combat fighter.
|
But you've never been in the USMC, so you may as well know as much as I do. My grand-dad was a Marine drill instructor for about thirty years who taught hand-to-hand combat to recruits--and to his children. Now get this: at the age of sixteen, my mother, who is about half of my size, was getting into fights against large groups of girls who were older than her, men twice her size, multiple men bigger than her in bar fights, and was almost always winning those fights. The ironic thing about the bar fights is that she was usually trying to help her pussy husband, who was also a Marine. (Goes to show that not everyone's a bad ass--and yes, my mum married for the first time at sixteen)
Are you sure they were Marines and not Army?
If it's true that in wartime militaries lower their standards, than I'd sure hate to see what their standards are in peacetime. Like I said, the UN typically calls for US Marines to be sent to hotspots--not US Army, not Australian Army, not even British SAS or US Navy SEALs. Unless it's logistically stupid, it's always USMC. There's a damn good reason for that, whether you see it or not.
If someone landed a HEAD shot at 800 yards without a scope, they'd be god. Or very lucky. The targets, I'm sure, are large enough that they're visible and probably brightly coloured so that their easy to spot. The idea behind making the trainees shoot targets that far away is that they'll probably never have to shoot at that distance, but they will be much more reliable at more normal distances. I learned this from a class on military history, and it's been confirmed in various documentaries I've seen.
I would never make the mistake of assuming that someone is not a good fighter because he learned how to kill with a rifle. That's as stupid as assuming that the guy you're fighting on the street doesn't have a pistol concealed somewhere. So just because YOU can't see a reason why a soldier should be considered a formidable opponent, it doesn't mean that that isn't the case, anyway, and definitely doesn't mean that you should treat him as a weak oppononent.
I wonder how many poor fools have made that mistake about any soldier since the advent of the assault rifle and wound up dead for it...?