Should the Army be cutting costs by allowing soldiers to qualify on their weapon virtually?

That's actually a technologically scientifically and or psychologically very interesting question. Some here agree, I'd expect, principally for technological reasons, while others here disagree for what I'd read seemed to be princiapally psychological aspects. There's certainly room for argument in both directions as I perceive the problem, most genuinely; training with the real thing I only got to do while I'd been in army ROTC for three years, as my army ROTC unit, which, unfortunately , no longer exists, got to go to both go down to ft Dix in NJ, as well as up to West point, where we actually trained on the orienteering range, did field exercises, went down the rappelling cliff, stayed with the cadets in the barracks, did formations with them in the barracks quads, and ate with them in the famous main dining hall where MacArthur gave his famous West point speech depicted in the film on him with Gregory Peck. Now, interestingly, when I'd then gone USAF instead, while I'd been at USAF OTS at lackland in San Antonio back when dinosaurs strode the earth in the Pleistocene era, before it was moved to Maxwell in Montgomery, AL , Wed evidently had a couple of options for the faculty , the first to have us do live training as discussed here, the other the obstacle course on the main part of lackland, as we were at actually at the lackland annex next door where the USAF OTS facility itself was located. Amusingly, though I'd wish we'd been allowed, the school faculty. I'd heard, evidently semtmis to the obstacle course, as things turned out, due, as one might perhaps cynically expect, to ammo cost, which I of course found disappointing, though what could one do, you know? The obstacle at lackland main actually had one wickedly high tower one had to climb with ropes which I actually found pretty terrifying, I made it, thankfully , though quite literally pulling myself over the top totally exhaustedly, in all truth, by the skin of my teeth, lol, then had to proceed, again equally terrified, to lower myself down the other side, again, lol. Thus, I think I can perceive both sides of the questions; I think simulation technology has now most definitely reached a stage where the fidelity of it to reality, incl most especially for! a purely psychophysical standpoint, is actually more than adequate to allow for simulation to be used for such a purpose, just as is the case with pilot nav training. I also when on the obstacle course had to do the whole crawling thingmumderbarbed wire with a 50 cal machine gun going off overhead, so between that and the live fire training I'd had at ft Dix and the exercises with blanks mymarmy ROTC unit did at West point I think I got a fair taste, within reason, to at the very least be able to comment halfway intelligently to at least some minimal extent here, within reason, of course. From a purely psychophysical standpoint, if, e.g. , recoil physical effects could be adequately simulated, along with targeting aspects, so as to allow adequate conditioned responses to be acquired, along with, as well, sufficient minimal actual practice on ranges using live fire, and also using blanksmon field exercises, then yes, most definitely , I think the Costa involved could be cut down considerably . I'd read considerable material on pilots and navs grousing about the same sort of questions with regard to flight simulation vs actual air time in a real cockpit. From a purely human factors standpoint, real is obv always best, that goes without saying, however, I'd read an interesting and quite thought provoking quote in amnovel once, to the effect that, with more than some truth I think historically , human technology cpfreq changes human morality, PR words to that effect. For that reason, inevitably , increasing simulation technology will always supplant, with ever increasing reliability , actual physical practice. I'd mentioned on the site here a whole back a website I'd seen on the use of drone trackball technology being mounted on civil air patrol or CAP light aircraft to let drone pilots I think army, mainly, be able to practice airborne drone operations with CAP help, which I and others on here actually thought a most innovative technological coup, if you will, the site can easily be found using Google, there were numerous other sites on that efforts ,as well. During ww2, the link aircraft simulator was hailed as a major breakthrough in pilot training, especially for instrument flight training, through the simple expedient of a cover mounted over the top to prevent pilot trainees fro having any visual horizon reference. The use high-g stress revolving simulators lets aircrew members feel the stress of high-g flight, and the NASA zero-g planes simulate zero-g fairly adequately doing a parabolic flight trajectory , I think, there are those well known videos of NASA personnel floating in the backs of such aircraft while in flight. I've also read of merchant marine simulator training for shipboard personnel, to let them become acquainted with shipboard handling simuiating various harbors worldwide, as well as various hazards to navigation. Samuel Clemens, mark Twain, wrote that navigating the mississippi on paddle wheelers he'd pilot clearly involved memorizing every shoal and Eddy on that river, I wonder, as I type this , what he'd have thought of using simulation technology for that same purpose perhaps. There will always be such a debate; however , as long as fidelity in simulation is complemented to at least some minimal extent with actual practice, to at least a minimally safe extent, then yes, by all means, I do most definitely think it's certainly at least possible, even if not necessarily preferable , or , for those practicing, especially desirable , per se. I've seen numerous instances of video games, as well, that seek to simulate svc mbrs doing urban combat exercises, e.g., clearing houses, as is well known, which, I think, only serves to further reinforce my conclusions that such simulation , while perhaps to be lamented as to necessity, is, in fact, most helpful, from an operant neurological conditioning standpoint, most especially. There was an episode of the program dog the bounty hunter wherein the crew was shown going for tear gas paintball training , which I actually found a most interesting episode, especially the sequence wherein one of the team mbrs volunteered to be hit with one, while wearing protective gear, of course , which I only mention here, as it simply struck me, no pun intended, as pertinent lol. Hope the material here was of interest and or use would be most eager for any thoughts many thanks.

It's a sad state that there are still units that can't get ammo. My unit will be doing a qual this summer. I have enough rounds to allow for grouping practice, practice and record qual, and advanced shooting. We will not be turning in ammo..to do so will potentially reduce our draw next year. We won't be just burning up our barrels firing off excess, I have the other events to provide some training value, but I don't understand why the distribution of ammo seems so lopsided in the Reserves.

I used to be with a training command, and we only put lead through a barrel once in the three years I was with them. Maybe it's a budget vs mission need thing with the IT units.

Too bad you are out in Connecticut, or I would invite you to come to my range.