They'll get to shoot about 40 rounds each during training. That'll be it for a while. So, B'east will have plenty of time to ad lib. Like, back in the day we had to run for miles in the desert with a mouth full of water and spit it out at the finish line. Or Geronimo's great grandson taught him how to track. That long part how game wardens repulsed an Apache raid at the High Chaparral.
Not sure where you get background information from but it shows a lack of facts at best. Our officers will shoot hundreds of 40 Cal and 5.56. Shotgun is less but so are the shotgun requirements which is familiarization. I would not want to base my judgment of your credibility based on your statements above. You are better than that. Is it the Air Force that only shoots 40 rounds each during training? Trying to figure that number out. Even the AZPOST qualification course is 50 rounds. Which for the advance firearms is the test at the ending of the training.
Some of this may be funny to those not involved in the military or law enforcement but I would ask where did you ever only shoot 40 rounds per officer/soldier each in one day of 6 hours on a range let alone three days?
In the Park Ranger Training Program they will shoot up about the same number of rounds of 9mm, 5.56 and shotgun as the state certified officers. They will shoot approximately 1,200 rounds of 9mm before they qualify on a day and night course.
That has always been one of my issues with troopers with Custer and especially the Colt revolver. Speed and accuracy requires constant training. Some of the troopers had never fired their Colt SAA from horseback nor had ridden that fast before.
As a military person you should agree that tactics require basic skillsets to implement. In order to have an effective charge the soldier should be able to ride with an independent seat and make hits with whatever weapon system they are using.
...handguns, shotguns, rifles, oh my........a bang-up meeting of like minded ...."gentlemen"...!
Probably some of the most fun these officers have while in training. Sure beats death by PowerPoint presentations. They are in their final stages of training and then they will go out with field training officers for evaluation.
Post by benteeneast on Sept 10, 2019 10:28:52 GMT -5
My problem is that Google Earth doesn't look like what I see in person. Here is a picture taken on Weir Point looking down the loaf with a horse near the cut between Cedar Coulée on the right and Middle Coulée on the left.
So Culpeper can look at the meta data and put it in Google Earth and give us a comparison.
It is no way reaslistic as being there or taking a nice picture like that. But it looks pretty accurate for an animation. Once down to eye level in GE it is just a simulator. I should probably change the terrain setting from 1 to 1.1 or something to show steeper slopes. But I wanted to show the default setting. The satellite imagery is from 12/2016 so there was no green vegetation. Also, when creating an image of an angle like this it loses a little of the sharpness as seen on the monitor. Coordinates approx. @ 13TCL1320445210 in GE. Also, if you are taking pictures with a smart phone or a DSLR with GPS than the geotags are embedded in the photo. You just need the right software to view or setting on the phone or camera.
Last Edit: Sept 10, 2019 11:48:27 GMT -5 by culpeper
Post by benteeneast on Sept 11, 2019 9:43:17 GMT -5
Good Job Culpeper I am impressed with your work. When I use Google it doesn't come out that well. The difference I talk about is still there even though you have represented the picture amazing to me. That difference is the detail in MTC. In the picture you can see the egress impossible areas represented by sheer impossible to ride cliffs. Those conditions are harder for Google to represent and instead of the actual lighter color of the cliff faces. So from a distance a rider can choose a direction based on observations.
CP I believe Google Earth uses overhead shots for color and elevation changes to do what you do when you turn it sideways. So a sheer wall in a drainage does not come out as well in regards to color. Am I right?
Last Edit: Sept 11, 2019 10:01:52 GMT -5 by benteeneast
Correct, GE has come a long way but on the ground it will always just be a simulation. Like you can't get down that low and see the soldiers markers. They are flat to the ground. But they have come a long way since its inception and a lot of it is because the satellite imagery keeps improving over the years. It is a very useful tool with a lot of interesting features. But that is all it is. It is very useful reading a book and visualize a spot or extension being described. It helps to visually put those pieces together if you can't be there. It forces me to spend more time thinking about it and I tend to remember it longer. Plus, I like how easy it is to switch back and forth frim imagery to topo map.
Last Edit: Sept 11, 2019 13:45:49 GMT -5 by culpeper