Gecko45, is that you?
That's a blast from the past, maybe he's back.
Gecko45, is that you?
No, but those who are most likely did not come by their expertise from participation in gunfights.Guys, no one says ALL people who have been in gunfights are experts. But neither can you claim someone who has NOT been in a fight is an expert.
If you have been in 11 gunfights, then I think you should produce some evidence that proves that. That is quite a lofty claim, and frankly, is pretty hard to believe. So, put up or shut up on that, friend.
If you have been in 11 gunfights, then I think you should produce some evidence that proves that. That is quite a lofty claim, and frankly, is pretty hard to believe. So, put up or shut up on that, friend.
Not necessarily. I trained with some fellows who hadn't been in combat yet, (they got some shortly after, in a place called Panama) and they were definitely expert.Guys, no one says ALL people who have been in gunfights are experts. But neither can you claim someone who has NOT been in a fight is an expert.
I can't speak for all graphs, but these graphs don't tell anything about the underlying circumstances, nor are they intended to.Anyway, the issue with graphs is that they don't always tell you enough about the underlying circumstances.
Pick whatever hit ratio you like and see how it affects the numbers. The graphs don't imply anything about what hit ratios are realistic, they simply provide some basic insight about how hit rate changes the likely outcome.When we speak of the hit ratio at the range vs hit ratio on the street, who are we looking at?
Neither. The graphs are results of some probability calculations. There's nothing in the graphs that says anything at all about a shooter or the type of shooter.Are we looking at a combat veteran or street hardened big city police officer who might perform well under life and death pressure, or are we looking at a recreational shooter who never really got their mind around the idea that they might have to fight with their gun?
The graphs aren't about "examining hit rates" nor do they provide any data from prior engagements, they are about helping to provide a picture of the probabilities given some assumptions.When we examine the hit ratio of the range shooter, what are we considering of their experience on the range? Is a "100%" range shooter someone who shoots bullseye competitions and slow fires from a fixed position? Or, is the 100% shooter on the range a person who has performed well in IPSC/IDPA or other practical shooting disciplines? Maybe we're only talking of the recreational shooter who stands at the 7-yard line and shoots a full-sized silhouette target from a fixed position, never drawing from a holster or concealment.
Guys, no one says ALL people who have been in gunfights are experts. But neither can you claim someone who has NOT been in a fight is an expert.
You've got it backward. Being in a gunfight doesn't make someone an expert. But never being in a gunfight means there is an upper limit to the expertise a man can claim, no matter how much study he has put into the subject.Would you consider Massad Ayoob an expert? He’s never been in a gunfight, but I recognize him as an expert in the field due to his extensive research. Certainly moreso than taking advice from some random guy who scored a lucky shot in a 7-11 parking lot somewhere.
I'm not at all sure about that.But never being in a gunfight means there is an upper limit to the expertise a man can claim, no matter how much study he has put into the subject.
Once again, that's backwards.I'm not at all sure about that.
Take someone who has participated in numerous different, realistic FoF simulations and put him in a gunfight. I seriously doubt that the experience gained in that real encounter will add to his level of expertise.
And when they've been blooded and have a few kills to their credit, they'll be even better.[/QUOTE]It is not a matter of how much expertise someone can "claim".
Realize that none of the combat pilots in our armed services today have ever been in actual air to air combat. Yet there are some real experts among the men and women who fly today.
The realism of the simulation may not be perfect. But numerous varied simulations have to be far more effective than a few real encounters.And you're operating on the assumption that realistic FoF simulations ARE realistic. From personal experience, I will tell you that you cannot simulate a life-or-death, kill-or-be-killed situation. I've been in combat, been wounded, and have worked with simulations many years.
Perhaps in terms of self confidence, but unless they just happened to come upon somehting not addressed in simulation, not in terms of skillset or ability.And when they've been blooded and have a few kills to their credit, they'll be even better.[
No one has ever been able to prove that statistically. I know -- I'm one of the guys who tried it.The realism of the simulation may not be perfect. But numerous varied simulations have to be far more effective than a few real encounters.
You are correct that the great advantage to simulation is the ability to do things in the simulator that you can't do safely in real life (a classic example is autorotation in a helicopter.)Same as in air to air combat, and in air emergency management. No full lifetime of airline experience will equip a pilot for two-engine-out, hydraulic failure, severe wind sheer, loss of a control surface, and rapid inversion roll on approach in the mountains incidence, But the pilot mist be able to handle any of them. They gain that ability via extensive simulation.
There you have it -- in life-or-death situations in the real world, you ALWAYS come upon something not addressed in simulation -- because you don't die in the simulator.Perhaps in terms of self confidence, but unless they just happened to come upon somehting not addressed in simulation, not in terms of skillset or ability.
Unless things go poorly, one does not die in a real world situation.There you have it -- in life-or-death situations in the real world, you ALWAYS come upon something not addressed in simulation -- because you don't die in the simulator.
The Gulf of Sidra vets and the few Gulf War I vets that actually encountered aircraft probably still are on active duty, there have been numerous US air combat incidents since then.Realize that none of the combat pilots in our armed services today have ever been in actual air to air combat. Yet there are some real experts among the men and women who fly today.
Eh. I know, and have known, plenty of guys who've never been in gunfights that I'd rather have with me in a gunfight, than many guys I've known who've been in gunfights who I want nothing to do with.You've got it backward. Being in a gunfight doesn't make someone an expert. But never being in a gunfight means there is an upper limit to the expertise a man can claim, no matter how much study he has put into the subject.
Those things are all true. The value of simulation is you can do things in simulation you cannot do in the real world. But it is a mistake to think simulation is real -- and sometimes it is radically different from reality.Unless things go poorly, one does not die in a real world situation.
Many things encountered in the real world are addressed by what has been practiced in simulation, whether in use of force situations, air combat, flight emergency management, or power plant emergency management, or any of several other things. But few of them can be learned in the limited experience of the real world.
But how is that relevant to the question?Eh. I know, and have known, plenty of guys who've never been in gunfights that I'd rather have with me in a gunfight, than many guys I've known who've been in gunfights who I want nothing to do with.
That's one thing. The other is that one can experience all kinds of different scenarios, as many times as one desires. A lifetime of real experience does not do that.The value of simulation is you can do things in simulation you cannot do in the real world.
How Many Rounds to Carry?
But how is that relevant to the question?
What I WANT may be totally wrong, after all!