Continuing what I think could be an interesting discussion. I suspect that much of difference of opinion here will be related to individual units and experiences.
All in all, I think it's beneficial to have an RSO on a range or training area. They're responsible for ensuring safety without impeding training. When they do it right, it's a good thing, I think.
Then again, in my unit it's a solid NCO who is almost always tapped for RSO duty.
Although anecdote != data, I've had positive experiences in general. Especially when running ranges for non-infantry types.
In particular, I remember a 203 range we ran. Somehow, a box of de-linked Mk19 ammo made it to the ammo point. The RSO caught it.
Now, I realize that a Mk19 round won't easily chamber into a 203. I realize that you'd have to force it.
I also realize that Joe can be extremely dumb... and I'm particularly glad that oversight was caught.
We're almost talking apples and oranges, Fitz. No, I take that back. We _are_ talking apples and oranges.
There's a huge difference between an admin range and an LFX. Admin ranges scare the bejesus out of me. So, for that matter, can an LFX, once it's over the troops go into post adrenaline overload shutdown. That's when stupid crap happens and that's when you need someone - RSOs - to lock everything down. Conversely, during the LFX, provided you are doing it right and it is a good sim of actual combat (minus people shooting back), people watch out for themselves, and they must listen to one voice, their own leader, or _really_ dangerous things happen.
I am, by the way, currently writing an article for Baen on training for war. So this, unlike a whole bunch of other things I could be but should not be doing, is not a waste. The article will be a freebie on the Baen.com site.
Also, since there are currently serving NCOs on this board, it might be worth while to you, and even useful to me, to discuss a couple of things. This may be true even for E-6Ps, who are pretty sure they already know everything, to include things they weren't there for.
It's my take; you don't have to agree.
Live firing is, potentially, the most valuable training we can give people. There we can train skills - shooting, moving, communicating, planning, giving orders, supervising. We can condition people against fear to some extent because, properly done, there's a heightened element of risk. We can develop their problem solving ability in problems involving the use of force to overcome force. We can test our equipment and doctrine under conditions most closely approaching war. And we can select for leadership and elimination from service, in part because of the heightened risk. Some will deal well with it. Some, however, will not, particularly if you push the envelope.
_UNFORTUNATELY_, live firing in the Army or Marines can be, and typically is, the _worst_, the most counterproductive, training on offer. Why? Well how about that walk-crawl-run thing? You know, the one where we convince the troops they and their leaders just aren't competent to fight. It's got a place, mind you. ONCE. The very first time. Ever. But after that, having shown how to do it, to keep on with the travesty has nothing but bad effects. And how about on site rehearsals generally? The ones that are just so like real combnat since the enemy, being gentlemen, always lets you rehearse on his ground. The ones that ensure leaders need not do a recon? As they would in war? Yeah. Or how about giving the leader or commander the plan, rather than letting him develop his own from higher's plan..because he's just not competent...and never will be, since you won't let him even try.
My advice then is do it like war, or don't do it at all.
