Hiddenrug I belive that you have been given a lot of information by various guys that have served in various militaries. I know of no instance, either from experience or of reading about it, where professional soldiers are ever taught to fire on the move.
If you still believe that this happens then please provide some evidence of it. Thanks…
Now, once again that we’ve heard all the fantasy text book and video game “facts,” I defy anyone to categorically state that no one in any circumstance ever fired their weapon while in an other that stationary mode. Listen to that. That means that no one in the history of warfare ever walked or ran as they squirted defensive fire. These are the kind of straw-man points that people defend. It’s just funny.
I can tell all of you that when Charlie has ambushed your squad on a road you are going to spray and pray. That sill bullcarap from WW1 about saving 10 cents worth of ammo flies right out the window when your and your pals’ lives are on the line. Yes, your M-60 guy WILL side step off a trail while firing to defend the squads’ movements to cover positions. Our guy, The Viking, would walk forward sweeping with the buzz saw on a regular basis. Nothing magical about it.
Tell the guys lying in the red surf colored from their pals’ blood at Tarawa that they couldn’t get up and fire as they ran to another position. If anyone spends a few hundred hours viewing WW 2-era film you’ll see GIs firing while on the move.
I keep hearing these scenarios that only conform to some bygone armchair general’s concept of combat or fictional movies. Does anyone actually believe a BAR man NEVER swept a tree line as he ran forward or laterally to a better position? Wake up!
Vietnam was a guerilla situation much of the time and sillyness such as fire only when you see 2 guys would have gotten you fragged. Much of the time ambushing enemy personnel were not even seen when a fire fight began. I’m astounded to know that we did it all wrong when we swept a hooch or a ditch with half a mag. We had a grip that was not a “hip shot” stance. It was more of a “rib shot” position. Holding the rifle butt close to the side well above the hip but not in a semi-shoulder aimed position was the accepted universal search and destroy stance in which we moved through the scenery.
We were taught an advanced but long known point shooting, snap shooting technique that is difficult and lengthy to describe but works extremely well. When you quickly shoulder your weapon the hand guard hand and arm move to a place that elevates the weapon to a position where slow sighted shots are dispensed with and the firing picture along with the master eye rely on instinct and hand-eye coordination. With practice this becomes 2nd nature. Believe me in an surprised scenario no one, no one, is shouldering a weapon and squinting throught both iron sights!!! If they did they’d be dead.
Firing on the run is not a course at your basic camp. It is learned through necessity in combat. By the same token it is not done in every scenario either. Most of the guys in WW2 that arrived on the islands fresh from the States were taken aside and quickly UN-learned the stuff that would have gotten them killed in combat by the veterans.
My friend’s Dad described defensive AND offensive fire technique on the move as he advanced with his BAR that they never taught in the camps in the States. He advanced firing upward at tree snipers while moving. He squatted and fired with bent knees moving forward sweeping a crest of coral outcrop that concealed an MG. He lunged left or right diving for cover as he snapped out .30-06 rounds from his weapon when fired upon.
S/SGT. Elvin Callahan- Purple Heart, Silver Star is laughing his ass off in Valhalla as he reads this thread since he did it all wrong. 
I agree with you 100% twitch, never say never in combat. Go watch a bunch of guys play paintball and see how many you see firing on the run, I know its not anywhere near combat but its a game where guys are firing on each other and the tactic’s are close.
Yeah, plus MBTs and other armor have been firing on the move for a long time too thanks to computers.
Twitch the idea of saving 10 cents of rounds IS absurd, however, the idea of saving a few rounds for later is sound. A soldier carries his rounds, and can not always expect a resup. No one here is saying it has never happened, just that it is an un-sound tactic.
If this guy was shooting at tree snipers whilst moving he is a braver man than I. But was he constantly moving or snap shooting from a standing position as he moved? How many did he hit? How many of his men were injured or killed by these snipers? Who would have been very small targets, well concealed and fireing slow, well aimed shots.
Maybe this was tactically essential at the immediate time, i.e. they had to get off a beach, or similar bare expanse, and into cover. But I still feel that getting down in to a solid fireing position and firing a quick 5 round burst into the cover would have completed the task admirably.
The two person target thing, was taken from a film to describe the conservation of ammo by a machine gunner, in such a target rich environment. Not for use in all scenarios.
I think you will find that the position you describe as the “rib shot” is the same(ish) as the “shot gun” style that I described and is a often used positon in the opening shots of a fire-fight or in CQB, such as room clearence, for the same reasons you describe.
If you are having to un-learn what you have been taught in training and learning new skills on the battlefield, then something needs to be changed at your training school.
I haven’t seen that many un-realistic scenarios in this thread and I know many on this site are not armchair generals.
Sorry Mike, I am not picking on you (honest) paint ball is nothing like combat. You can fire as many balls as you wish, after all you can resup for a small quantity of cash at the rest area about 20 - 30 minutes after the first shot is fired.
Twitch1 wrote
Yeah, plus MBTs and other armor have been firing on the move for a long time too thanks to computers.
True Twitch, your Abrams, the Brit Chally 2, the German Leopard are all capable of fireing on the move thanks to computers. Some can even engage a moving target on the move!!!
But many still have to stop, relying on the speed of their gunners to get a bead on the target quicker than they can on him.
Twich, no one is saying that its never been done. No professional soldier is taught to do it though.
It is true that some tanks do stop to fire. By doing that the gunner can get a better fix on the enemy wile the enemy tank is till moving.
Henk
Hiddenrug,
Could you post your replys to my above post.
Specificly the advantages or merits of fireing from the hip on the move and the differences between British and Australian Cadets.
Otherwise you may look a bit childish. Sort of a “I’m taking my ball and going home” mentality.
Anyway anything you have to say on the matter will be read and appreciated.
Cheers 1000ydstare.
At the commencement of WW2 the old farts that ran the military establishments were preaching WW 1 doctrine- tactics and maneuvers. They were still convinced that bolt action riflemen were going to stare one another down in static positions popping off well-aimed rounds in avid efforts to conserve ammo. Bullshit! Luckily semi-auto and full auto weapons got into the GI’s hands pushed through by a few dedicated key persons.
The old farts also believed that battle wagons were going to face each other down also ala WW 1 in big showdowns. No one recalled Billy Mitchell proving how truly vulnerable they were to aircraft bombs. Again there was enough modern thinking to prevail and aircraft carriers were given funding.
And as far as air warfare goes just about every old fart was locked in 1920s with some fantasy vision of what they THOUGHT air war would be in the next war.
In every instance the old way was proved wrong. The war quickly evolved into something completely alien to the old thinkers’ visions. The establishment has always trained for the last war and once in combat much training had to be forgotten and new just evolved tactics improvised to cope with the current combat situations.
On Wake and Guadalcanal it was nothing like the Marines were trained for back in the States. Obviously the alternate sceanrios continued throughout the Pacific war and there never, ever was combat like was taught at basic camps.
Soon the island assaults were the road to Tokyo. Very rarely did Marines ever lack ammo with whole ships full of it off shore to resupply them after landing!
This obsession for the theory of saving ammo is just wrong. No one, no one is going to consciously think about ammo when their tit is in the wringer, no one. My outfit was far more remote in its ability to make contact with friendlies and while we took care to not squander ammo, no one did NOT fire a whole mag if needed at the direction of incoming from an ambush so other could make for cover. What the hell kind of mate would we have been if we tried to be ammo misers but let out buds get lit up?
Since much of our ops required very extended periods without contact it was not unheard of for guys to actually run out of ammo and use enemy arms. So? There was plenty of AK ammo floating around.
But this was rarely the case in island fighting in WW 2. There were very few “lost patrols” cut off from supply. S/Sgt. Callahan mentioned he was always just a few minutes ahead of ammo. Most of the time he had more ammo than he could carry when boxes were brought up. On Iwo he spent a few nights semi detached from the rest of the units force but was never fretting.
Callahan’s duels with tree and other types of snipers with the BAR gives the nod to firepower. While moving forward incoming single rounds were noted but no one at first could tell the source. Callahan saw the palm frond move from the muzzle blast and increased speed at an oblique angle off and away from the squad towards a shell crater for cover for himself so he could cover his pals. Unfortunately he was firing his weapon all the while contrary to the old fart dictum of WW1. Scratch one Nippon sniper.
Each island presented different challenges. Some were so tight defensively that they couldn’t see the exact point of origin of fire while only 10 feet away! There were times when they didn’t have the luxury to lay in the surf line in an attempt to train well-aimed fire at an unseen enemy due to the fact that his MG was chewing up his prone mates who were desperately trying to get a visual on where the fire was coming from. In cases such as this it is literlly move or die. And if you choose to move and live you’re probably going to spit out some defensive fire even if it is inaccurate. It’s human nature.
The need to move and fire is paramount if you are fired upon in a open position. If you’d stop to shoulder and aim you’d be dead! I can’t make it any clearer than that. You move towards cover instinctively, yes, firing as you go sometimes. It is not a standard tactic to fire on the move but is certainly is no rarity either. It is done in dire circumstances when you’re either going to die or move.
To be traversing terrain and be ambushed for one to stop and aim fire in the direction of incoming one would have to be an idiot or have big brass balls Texas size.
It’s discouraging that those uninitiated to fire still believe stuff they read in a book or saw in a movie which hark back to the backward thinking of WW1 tactics and maneuvers.
Today’s and tomorrows armor engagements WILL go to the vehicles that have modern abilities to fire on the move. Any vehicles that can’t will be called on thing- targets. If any old time tankers still believe in decrepit panzer tactics they are in for a rude awakening. This technological ability is like the change over from prop to jets- no comparison.
I’m just stunned that anyone buys into this WW1 mindset. Well I guess I can if you’ve never actually been in combat or never talked to vets from previous wars. Have fun with the delusions.
Twitch1 wrote
I’m just stunned that anyone buys into this WW1 mindset. Well I guess I can if you’ve never actually been in combat or never talked to vets from previous wars. Have fun with the delusions.
And who might these people be, Twitch?
Problem is, Billy Mitchell was a con-artist and he got found out. All he demonstrated was that an aircraft could lift a sufficiently large bomb that when dropped on an obselete battleship which had no defences, no damage control and probably wasn’t even closed up the ship would sink. At the same time as claiming he had demonstrated that the aircraft was a practical weapon against surface shipping and should be used as such - even to the extent of replacing surface shipping. Remember for the first two years of the war the Germans totally failed to sink moving armoured ships from the air, and it took the Japanese sinking of PoW and Repulse to prove it was possible. That’s why it was such a shock to the RN and other navies.
Aircraft carriers predated Mitchell, and were of course a WW1 idea. You know, the war whose doctrine was completely obselete?
You do realise that several of those you are arguing with are serving British soldiers who have served in Iraq recently, don’t you?
I have searched through several US modern documents and have yet to find a reference to fire when moving. I conclude therefore that firing when running (without stopping) is not taught in the modern US military.
I understand that in certain situations, scared or undertrained soldiers may do so, but in all seriousness it can only be more hazardous to those around you than the enemy. Even a lowly Crab can see the possibilities of a man behind me firing on the run, who is closer, me or the enemy?
It can also be dangerous, if your’re in a platoon and a scared or undertrained soldier is behind you,everyone’s ordered to move and theres enemy firing at the whole platoon,the soldier fires while moving possibly injuring a soldier, or even killing one allied soldier!
Like I said, have fun with the delusions boys!
Like I said, who are the arm chair generals with no experience of combat twitch?!!
What is YOUR experience by the way?
Also is there any real difference from my “shotgun” style and your “rib style” please see below
I wrote
Even if fireing from the hip in CQB, the firer would be stationary and aiming using the “shot gun” style (as it is known now where he looks down the barrel to ensure the burst is going in the right direction) in bursts of 2 - 3 rounds.
To elaborate we hold our weapon roughly between shoulder and ribs, and shoot over the top. Especially usefull as our sights are optical and for snap shots it takes time for eyes to focus through them.
Twitch1 wrote
We had a grip that was not a “hip shot” stance. It was more of a “rib shot” position. Holding the rifle butt close to the side well above the hip but not in a semi-shoulder aimed position was the accepted universal search and destroy stance in which we moved through the scenery.
This, by the way, is dubious bordering on absurd.
He squatted and fired with bent knees moving forward sweeping a crest of coral outcrop that concealed an MG. He lunged left or right diving for cover as he snapped out .30-06 rounds from his weapon when fired upon.
He could only have fired in this way when static, maybe between foot moves. If you actually squat and try this manouvre with a weapon (I got bored today so tried with a LSW and a GPMG) you will find the following…
That the barrel swings through 90 degrees plus, as you move forward, unless you were on point you would kill people on your own side.
Aiming is practically impossible, accurate aiming IS totally impossible.
You can only move slowly, perhaps useful if below a crest or wall, but for anything else pointless, you would be an easy target. If you are firing, then by definition the space in front of you is open. You’re a sitting duck.
You are actually very unstable when moving, especially with a heavier weapon, and could easily fall over and end up like a beached whale, or worse rip in to your own men.
Point 4 was discovered whilst not fireing, I can only assume it would be worse if fireing.
It would be very hard, due to your body position, to get mags or belts out of the mag pouches. Also if using belt it would have to be very short meaning frequent reloading, rendering a belt fed weapons main asset redundant.
Twitch if you can counter any of those points please do.
Look, I’m telling everyone for the last time that I and members of my squad on various occassions during ambush by Charlie moved and snapped off some fire in the direction of the perceived enemy. This goes for our M-60 handler too. Just because no one has read about it or heard about it outside of actual combat does not mean it is not an accurate portrayal of events. I really no longer care if armchair experts or peacetime soldier boys whov’re never been shot at believe anything.
Twitch wrote
Just because no one has read about it or heard about it outside of actual combat does not mean it is not an accurate portrayal of events. I really no longer care if armchair experts or peacetime soldier boys whov’re never been shot at believe anything.
We have never said it was never done, just that it was never taught and was actually tactically unsound, as you couldn’t aim properly and follow the shot through properly. You have actually been told that by a few people on this site.
As for your “peacetime soldier boy” remark. I some how seem to remember getting in to contacts in Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Macedonia and Sierra Leone, Telic 3 and not to mention Telic which definitily comes in to the “shot at” category being an actual war. This came from all sources mortars, artillery, small arms and machine guns and of course IEDs and improv mortars. I also spent time at Camp Dogwood and Baghdad, in the American sector, in Iraq where we were exposed to all manner of fire.
I would have respect for any soldier who was in a peace enforcement operation because we are the ones who have to fight a war with our hands tied behind our back. Where every move is scrutenised by lawyers if you make a mistake. Perhaps this is why we always use aimed shots.
There are many other members of this site who have been on ops, regardless of what you think of them, and been fired upon. I would wager that they have all responded in a profesional, calm and aimed manner. Rather than leading the place up.
I think you may be aiming your comments at the wrong tgts here Twitch.
In recent years there have been a number of places where the British Army have been shot at and had to return fire.
Falklands, Bos, Gulf 91, Macedonia, Kos, Sierra Leone, Gulf (03 until present date) and the Emerald Toilet. These are only some of the ones covered by the major international press.
There are other forum members that have served in various theatres around the globe, so while I have the greatest respect for you having done your duty in SE Asia please remember that in conflicts before or since yours, soldiers didn’t have an easier time, nor did they get any less dead when shot.
Or any less scared when they were being shot at…