Does experience trump training?

[jimbob86]

I suppose long experience can be training in a sense.

It is called the School of Hard Knocks, and tuition is very expensive.

[Wyosmith]

Hangglider, as I read your comments 2 questions come to mind;
#1, why don't you move out of there?
#2 why are you not as well armed as the enemy?
An AK 47 is an excellent weapon and not very expensive. Put a B-square scope mount on it and a low powered scope and it's outstanding as a general purpose military weapon.
YES!!!!!! Get some training. Get training from a MILITARY standpoint! Not a police standpoint. Why?
You can't arrest anyone and you have no jail to take them to.
Secondly, it's got to be admitted that is the gangs have taken over your local government favored them, not you, which is WHY they have been successful in taking over in the first place. I'd have to assume that if you shot and killed a few of them, YOU would be arrested and go to jail. Correct?
That's because of "liberalism" in your government. There is no way around that argument, which leads me back to my 1st question
Why don't you move?
If your government is against you at the foundational level, and for the gangs at a foundational level, you CANNON ever 'win" the war. You may win a fight only to be targeted by both the gangs and the cops later.
Arms yourself and get training Yes yes yes.
But get the heck out of there as soon as you can.

[hangglider]

Excellent questions WyoSmith.

I'm required contractually to remain in my residence for 6 years as a full-time resident--otherwise the city's housing authority will lower the boom on me financially. But that term is up in December. I paid 137 K for the place--in this economy and given the neighborhood, I'll be lucky to walk away with 30 or 40 K. That's a big hunk of money to take a huge loss on--but I will be gone one way or another by this time next year.

I don't need an AK--I already have an AR with M855 if I need it--but that's not the problem. I have to be sure of where each and every round goes when I pull the trigger--not an easy thing to deal with when a car pulls up with thugs who don't give a hoot about the law when they open up on your residence with an AK. I'm surrounded by homes and apartments. If you watch that video I posted above--the 7.62 was the superior penetrating round in an urban construction environment compared to 5.56 from M4/16.

I agree with your conclusions and courses of action otherwise.

[kraigwy]

Mindset (for lack of a better term) can offset training and experience.

Lets take paratroopers (which have been mentioned a couple times in this discussion).

During WWII American Paratroopers were involved in some of the most fierce combat in the war, yet, they had a much less rate of PTSD.

Why?

The army asked that question. Except for airborne school, airborne infantry go through the same training and any other American infantry troops so what is the difference.

The army went to Benning to study this and concentrated on the 34 ft tower. Any one who's been to jump school can attest that the 34ft tower is more frightening then actual jumping from a plane.

They found those who were slow to jump from the tower were twice as likely to fail or drop out then those who were quick to jump. So what you end up with when you talk about paratroopers is a higher percentages of "fast jumpers".

An example, someone mentioned we, America, fights different, and technology, air power, etc, makes the difference when comparing American Soldiers and others. This is true to a point, but then again the paratrooper example proves that's not always the case.

Look at Bastonge. You had one understrength light infantry division (paratrooper) holding off three heavy armor divisions. Weather prevented air support and re-supply, but paratrooper mentality allowed them to prevail.

Another factor that comes in to play that skips "training and experience" is control. If you feel you are in control of your fate, you are in a much better position to work through the problem, where if you aren't in control, fear interferes.

Take bomber crews in WWII. Percentage wise they had a pretty high causality rate. When under attack pilots faired better then turret gunners. They had the feeling they had control of their destiny where the turret gunner could do nothing but set there, leaving his fate to someone else.

If I may interject a "war story" it would help explain the "control of ones fate" theory.

In March 1968 I was involved in one of the worse firefights of my tour in SE Asia. I did fine, meaning I could set aside fear because at the time I was carrying a M-60, and I had control of what was happening around me. That is until I burned up the gun. Now I'm helpless, I had nothing but a 1911a1 and could Basicly just set there. That's when the worse fear of my life kicked in causing me to sort of freeze up. The only way I could control my fear was when a M16 from a fallen comrade became available and I could get back in the fight, I then felt I was back in control of my fate and again could work through my fears.

Experience may or may not help. I had experience of setting there with the 1911 which would help nothing. I had experience with the '60 and later the M16, which did help.

Where training comes in, is with training you are given the tools where you can gain control of your fate.

Experience is good if you can "after action" your conduct, meaning you have to evaluate your actions. Your failing in your experience means you have to train to prevent the failings in the future. You success in your experience needs to be studied to determine what you did right, and if possible expand on it.

In my "war story" mentioned above, if evaluated correctly I would had determined the time between the M60 and M16 should have been spent in a more aggressive roll. I did the evaluation and I think it helped me a lot in the rest of my tour.

In continuing my military and LE career in my future life I took the lessens learned (good and bad) and incorporated it in my personal training and the training I provided to others.

[Double Naught Spy]

In a one word answer: no, . . . experience does not trump training.

Apparently, experience can and often does trump training. Cops get beat with some regularity by untrained but experienced bad guys.

Go from Viet Nam up to the present: in every conflict the USA has been outnumbered in terms of soldier vs soldier numbers, . . . and yet the body count total has always been in our favor, in many cases by 10+ to 1.

In Iraq and Afghanny, . . . I have been led to believe that the numbers are even further apart, . . . and the only thing that makes the difference is that our men have the training, . . . rugheads have weapons, indoctrination, and desire. An M-4, . . . an M14, . . . or a Barrett, . . . trumps desire and indoctrination every time.

The only difference is not that our guys have the training, LOL. It certainly helps, but in each of the conflicts you listd, we have had tremendous superiority in technology, munitions, transportation, and medical care. In the recent engagements, our guys have also had the benefit of wearing very good ballistic armor. We have the ability to strike our opposition from altitudes they can't reach or from locations hundreds or even thousands of miles distant. Injured soldiers can be evacuated extremely quickly from many areas of combat, usually after receiving first aid on the ground, then getting further aid back at base and/or then transported to a hospital. After being stabilized, soldiers can be in Germany or back in the US for additional treatments within a couple of days of being injured.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/1...powers_071022/

American soldiers may be better trained than their opposition and that does help, but American soldiers also have many other very significant advantages. If a group gets pinned down, they can call in for and often get air support or artillary support.

Even when not on their home soil, the American military often has numerous advantages over its opposition

[MLeake]

As far as the cops vs bad guys thing goes, bear in mind that the BG often starts the ball rolling, and the aggressor has a certain advantage. Also, cops don't generally shoot people from ambush, or just walk up and start shooting.

Hit percentages tend to be higher before the other guy starts shooting back.

Go figure.

[Adamantium]

I'll be honest I didn't read all the responses so someone might have already made this point.

Training without experience teaches the fundamentals but doesn't always help you apply them in a stressful situation, more so if it is time sensitive. Experience without any training will almost always lead to gaps in fundamentals. Experience followed by training usually involves unlearning bad habits. Training followed by experience allows one to put details in their proper context because of the knowledge one can draw upon.

I went to school in the Army for 8 months to become EOD (Navy school though). When I hit the ground in Iraq I was a little behind the curve compared to people who did other jobs but had been in country for the better part of the year. But after I had gotten some experience under my belt those same people often got confused on the way our team did things because they had no deeper understanding of it than pure experience. Don't get me wrong they did their jobs very well but when it came to bombs and bullets it didn't matter how many they had seen they never developed a broader understanding of them.

The concept of Training -> Experience is the best one out there in my mind. So I guess if I had to chose one or the other I would take the training and figure things out after that.

[L_Killkenny]

Well let's face it not all training is equal and not all experience is equal. In a fight I'll take the guy with 100 street fights over someone with 5 years of tae kwon do training. But then I'd more than likely take someone with U.S. military training over any gang banger on the street. It doesn't just apply to fighting either. You can and do learn more from experience than you do from a classroom environment.

Basically though I have little respect for the ability of the average gang banger walking the street. They shoot a lot more than they hit and they run or duck a lot more than they stand up and fight. If they were really very good there'd be a lot more bodies on the street. Not necessarily a bad thing if they're shooting at each other IMO. Maybe we should sign em up for some hardcore training. On second thought, not such a good idea.

No one knows what they're gonna do in a fight. But from all I've seen I'll take my 25 years of shooting over some 1, 2 or 7 day class in a heartbeat.

LK

[hangglider]

It looks like the city may be FINALLY coming to it's senses: http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/...h-gangs/?local It's interesting to see that rural areas are likely to resist law reform regarding gangs.

[Nnobby45]

In a one word answer: no, . . . experience does not trump training.

Combat experience IS training.

Interesting question, however.

Experienced soldiers who've seen combat vs. a well trained Seal or Delta Force team on their first mission? I'll take the Special Ops, since their training is so extensive, and the quality of the soldier is simply superb.

On the other hand, it takes a lot of training to overcome the experience of soldiers who've seen extensive combat. Some things aren't learned anywhere except the real thing.

[Double Naught Spy]

As far as the cops vs bad guys thing goes, bear in mind that the BG often starts the ball rolling, and the aggressor has a certain advantage. Also, cops don't generally shoot people from ambush, or just walk up and start shooting.

Police training is supposed to take into account handling aggressive people including those that start the aggression. Even if you don't consider ambush shootings, cops still have a rough time.

Even when the cops are the aggressors they don't always win despite that advantage and their training advantage.

[bds32]

As has been stated by others, experience is training. The ideal situation involves the highest level of simulation and then the actual experience which tends to sharpen the skill tremendously. I like to think about our special forces warriors when thinking about the ideal situation. When experience happens under life threatening circumstances, you have stress innoculation which prepares you even more the next time an event happens. You program the "mid-brain" for the next time.

What is interesting about experience is that by winning actual confrontations, you are more likely to continue winning. It is called the "Ace factor." A simple analogy for me is the phenom in which the same NFL quarterbacks tend to lead their teams to championship football games year after year. This year was no exception. These guys are Aces because they've been there and they stay cool under pressure (think Joe Montana). The same thing happens in gunfighting, whether on the ground or in the air.

As far as gangbangers who may have a lot of experience but no training, the continuous quest for survival coupled with their predatory nature, sharpens their abilities. Surviving conflict makes them stronger and harder to defeat. It is the law of nature: only the strongest survive.

[MLeake]

The thing is, once again, that there are some things for which most people cannot reasonably expect to acquire "experience."

Getting into shootouts with handguns is one of those things. Most infantrymen, should they end up in a battle, will use a rifle (or heavy weapon); few will use a pistol; and most infantrymen do not end up in a battle.

Most cops will never fire their gun in the line of duty, outside of training.

And a lot of people who do fire their gun in self-defense, or LE work, won't do it a second time - so it's difficult to say what difference their initial experience made, compared to any effects their training may have had.

In other endeavors, training can trump experience. Flying is a good example. A lot of pilots amass a lot of time flying the line, but don't train for emergencies all that often. They are often very smooth at flying the plane in normal conditions, but may not be as good at handling emergencies in the aircraft as a pilot whose training more intensively and extensively focused on in-flight emergencies.

The more experienced pilot will probably have smoother landings and a better touch on the controls than the pilot with less experience, but more emergency training.

The guy who put in lots of hours and repetitions of training for engine failures or fires during takeoff will probably do better with the emergency in that environment.

[hangglider]

I think the paratrooper off the jump tower points out to an aspect of all this that is neither experience or training--it is the mental mind set (warning, this is all purely my subjective opinions). This is probably the hardest thing to quantify and define. I have a bar buddy who is an ex-Seal, and you wouldn't know it unless you knew him. Despite being older than me and retired, it's a marvel to watch him confidently "wade into battle" when hitting on the women.

[Neal_G.]

I don't think experience trumps training, but it depends on the experience gained and the training recieved.

Take what happened in Mogudishu in '93 between American forces and Somali militias. Throughout the fight, even though they did have air support (especially at night), the Rangers & Delta guys were outshooting their opponents consistently. This is pretty well documented by eyewitnesses from both sides.

However, what is often overlooked is that the Somali militiamen, by and large, would have had much more actual combat experience, or experience with gun violence in general, than any of the American soldiers. They grew up surrounded by etreme violence their whole lives. Gunplay, and gun violence is second nature to them, and still is, yet they recieve no real training and paid for it severely in that encounter.

If you don't train to properly use your weapon, your experience will mean little against someone who is properly trained.

[Sarge]

There are two necessary components to a gunfighter.

1. The willingness to shoot another person full of holes without hesitation or compunction. Your typical gangbanger shoot involves high volumes of typically inaccurate fire, directed into public areas in such a manner that would make most of us cringe. But the banger is driving the OODA loop at that moment because he don't give a damn, so he's filling the air with lead. Occasionally they even hit somebody.

2. The ability to get decisive hits at speed, under varying conditions and stress. This can ruin Mr. Banger's day.

Not everyone has #1 as an ingrained component. Like #2 it can, to a degree, be 'trained around', by teaching conditioned responses. #1 invariably becomes easier for those who have seen a lot of fights- and the determination to keep fighting can make the difference.

[Nnobby45]

I'm only referring to experience vs. training in re: to a gunfight. Not all the other aspects of training, such as police training with regards to dealing with suspects.

After the training is all done, the mindset and performance under fire is still untested. Not so with those who have experience but It's still a contest between individuals.

Of course, some aspects of training emphasize cover, waiting for back up, and so forth. As far as the individual contest between participants in a gunfight, there's no difinitive answer to the question of which trumps which.

[Panfisher]

Not trying to be vague, but I would have to say, "Depends on the training and depends on the experience". Not all training and not all experience is equal.

[tgreening]

I would say experience based on on-going training trumps all. Experience by itself may just count for little to nothing.

I own a weld shop. I've had welders walk in claiming "25 yrs experience". Turns out they have 25 yrs of experience doing it wrong.

[Nitesites]

^Profound

[Lee Lapin]

A little insight on experience from Rory Miller - read the whole thing at the link below.

Force professionals have an advantage. A rookie can model veterans. You hang with the guys who have been doing it awhile, hear the stories, get some tips. It settles into your brain that it is ugly but survivable. You can do this. With luck (I don’t think it was conscious, but looking back we tried to do this) with luck, your first Use of Force will be with an experienced partner who can keep his cool and knows what to do.

None of that exists for a civilian self-defense student. There’s no, “The first time you are attacked, you’ll be with Shelly. She’s been being attacked for years and can show you the ropes…”

For most, if they get any serious violence in their lives, it will only be once. There’s no wading pool for assault.

- http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2...ansitions.html

[nate45]

There really isn't anyway good way to get real fighting with weapons experience, on purpose, unless you are the aggressor.
Realistic practice and training are pretty much all the law abiding person has avalible.

Many people think of themselves as experts in firearms, edged weapons, impact weapons and hand to hand fighting, yet they have never been cut, shot at, or punched full force in the face. Many of those people really are proficent experts, despite not having been in a real fight. Some of them aren't.

Some of those people, if they are unfourtanate enough to get in a real fight, will utilize their practice and training and succeed. Some will, despite being well practiced, fail. There is really no way to know until the moment of truth.

I've been unlucky enough to have been in several life or death and possible great bodily harm situations. My physical and mental reactions have run the gambit between, partially frozen with fear, to calm acceptance that I was going to die. All I can say is, obviously I didn't. So even though I've had real life and death experiences, I'm not 100% certain how I will react if one occurs again. I personally don't see how anyone could be 100% certain.

Avoidance and situational awareness are, in my view, the #1 things to practice on, no matter who you are, or your line of work. Not getting in a fight, or at the least, being prepared before the fight starts will always be the best ways of winning.

Zen hat off/

[jimbob86]

A rookie can model veterans.

It would appear to me that that system is used in the gangs, too..... they have a hierarchy .....

[Maximus856]

I think a lot of you overthink criminals and firefights as a whole. It's the mindset and a few little things here or there that make the difference. It's not "I shoot 10000 rounds a year with this association or that." I'm not saying that doesn't help, but I honestly relate that to the big mouthy bully who hasn't gotten punched in the mouth. Everyone is saying experience is training, but I think that's a misnomer. Training is CONTROLLED experience. It's the same as the close proximity knife vs gun training. You have someone come at you knowing you're about to get "stabbed" so your ready for it. And if not, who cares? It's training and your not bleeding. Now imagine your thought process..ego aside, if that were to really happen.

As far as experienced gang bangers go, its kind of ridiculous to think they're doing military-esque tactics to any sort of success. They're pretty much the same as the bully I stated above. The principles of their tactics MAY be simil
ar, but the execution...not so much. Its like the Iraq military vs the US military in both wars. To say they didn't use military training would be a lie. But they still got run over as a whole in a matter of weeks. That brings me to my next point. While the individual infantryman may not have the experience, his training is based off of the experience of those who have gone before him. Even in one year I noticed the difference in tactics we used thanks to the experience of the year before. This in my opinion shows that there is no one set of tactics to use as an aggressor or victim. Which leads back to my original opinion of it all being mindset. Ever wonder why after 10 years of fighting a much more"inadequate" enemy were still at war? The two things I always preached were communication and situational awareness with the mindset to react accordingly. If you have no one to communicate with, then you damn well better have number two.

[NDN-MAN]

All of the training you guys and gals take, or will take. Is based on someones past experience. Be it LEO, military, or Self Defense.