FATS

[KevinB]

I wouldn't trust FATS as an marksmanship benchmark or exposure. It is inaccurate and can teach bad habits. It can be beneficial in handling skills. It was designed as judgement tool and should be used as such. It is an excellent and affordable shoot or no shoot scenario based training aid. I shudder every time I hear a bean counter suggest it be used instead of range time (not directed at anyone out here).

+1

  The system is fact makes it impossible to teach the prone they way we want to - due to its mag pressure related stoppage software.
Funny EVERYWHERE outside the CF the system us FATS, not SAT.

 

[medaid]

Well apparently only on the Army side... The Navy calls it FATS. But then again are you surprised I-6? ;D we had to reinvent everything else including the wheel, what's a name right? ;D

 

[geo]

Lance,
Umpteen years ago, my original reserve unit was the 1st to receive a Brit "cine-target" simulator... we were the test bed close enough to FMC HQ.
X number of years later, we were the testbed for the 1st FATS ... again due to our closeness with FMC HQ and our experience with the ciné target range (which we still had in the 22 range).
At the time, it was called the FATS & to me at least.... it's still the FATS.  (SATs = aren't those college entrance exams?)

 

[KevinB]

CineTarget - wow that something I have not heard hide nor hair of in a while -- I think the last time I used one was 1988 with a C1A1 with subcal.
  It was actually a decent setup for that day and age.   These days there are way better systems for livefire visual.
When SAT boots up it still says FATS in the initialization period (well did two and a bit years ago).

  The biggest joke is some of the best markmen out their use DRY training as around 90% of their practice.  For whatever reason the CF seemed to try to use a piece of technology (again) in this respect. 
    FATS/SAT teachs a lot of bad habits - and with the addition of the C8FTHB and C7A2 - who shoots with a full stock - especially in armour?
 
I beleive it would be a much better simulator for ROE - and pre deployment in that respect - than how the CF currently misemploys it.

 

[geo]

+1 I6

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The SAT (Small Arms Trainer) is produced by FATS (FireArms Training Systems).  That is why when the SAT is started, you see the FATS logo.

The SAT was never designed to be a marksman trainer.  It was designed to teach the fundamentals of firing, and to maintain those basic skills.  Basic training, such as breathing procedure, trigger pressure, but placement and so on.

To complain that the SAT doesn't let you shoot with the mag resting on the ground is just showing me that you do not understand what the SAT was designed for.  You cannot teach basic principles of shooting by letting the soldier rest his mag on the ground.  He'd never be able to fire in any other position!

The SAT does not teach bad habits.  The SAT teaches the basics of firing a weapon.  Even the PWT is designed to test the knowledge of the basics of firing, no advance skills needed to pass that!

Once again, saying that some of the best marksman out there don't need it is very true.  They don't.  But not all of the people in uniform nowadays can say that they are among the best marksman.  As a matter of fact, I would say that the vast majority of people wearing the uniform are pretty darn bad with a weapon.  It is for this vast majority that the SAT is designed to train.  Not the snipers, or the designated marksmen, or even the well trained infanteer.