Why Have Soldiers Stopped Aiming?

Overview

The video argues that, in some modern combat contexts, soldiers are “aiming less”. This is attributed to changes in tactics and technology, especially the increased use of firing methods that don’t rely on traditional line-of-sight aiming, such as blindfiring/pre-firing, along with systems that assist aiming automatically.

Key Arguments

1) Aiming is being deprioritized in certain situations

Traditional marksmanship—careful aiming to hit a specific point—has long been a core principle. The narrator claims that in some scenarios (notably trench and urban fighting), troops increasingly use methods where aiming at the exact point is not required or is treated as standard.

2) Blindfiring / pre-firing is framed as life-saving

The video presents pre-firing (shooting around corners) as having shifted from being viewed as undisciplined to being common in real footage. It’s portrayed as safer because it can:

• Reduce risk by keeping enemies occupied/suppressed
• Enable more cautious or safer movement by forcing opponents to keep their heads down

3) “Accuracy by volume” and area effects

Rather than emphasizing pinpoint precision, the narrator highlights “accuracy by volume”—using high-rate fire or wide-area fire to suppress targets effectively.

It also cites smart airburst munitions, which can be programmed to explode over likely enemy areas, further reducing the need for exact aiming.

4) Political and military incentives

The video suggests that some incentives favor tactics that:

• Encourage surrender or reduce friendly casualties
• Prefer deterrence or neutralization over direct close killing

It references Ukraine as an example where blasting positions can deter or limit resistance.

5) Historical context: “quickfire/quick kill” once taught unaimed speed

The narrator claims the US military previously trained fast, less-aimed shooting—citing programs like quick kill (late 1960s). The doctrine described emphasizes:

• Rapid engagement
• Gaining fire superiority first
• Using aimed fire more when the enemy is clearly visible

6) Why it faded: doctrine vs. safe scalable practice

A central defense is that these ideas didn’t necessarily disappear because they were “bad,” but because they were too dangerous and hard to practice at scale, including risks such as:

• Friendly fire
• Shooting through walls or unintended obstacles
• Accidental muzzle-pointing during training

7) Shift toward SRM from the 2010s

The video says US training moved away from unaimed techniques and toward rapid but aimed close-range shooting. Two reasons are given:

1. Civilian presence (concern about non-combatant harm)
2. Better optics and shorter rifles, enabling fast accuracy with sights/red dots rather than relying on hip-fire

8) “Aiming is reduced” partly because optics do the aiming

The narrator argues soldiers depend less on manual aiming because new systems provide aiming support, such as:

• The XM157 concept (with rangefinding and ballistic computation)
• Other smart optics systems (including “SMASH”-type concepts)

These are discussed as useful not only against people but also against drones.

9) Reassurance: changes are additive, not a full replacement

The video counters fears that the military no longer values marksmanship. It argues that:

• Traditional aiming skills still exist
• Smart optics aren’t universally adopted
• New methods function as additional capabilities layered onto existing training

Presenters / Contributors

• Primary presenter/narrator: The channel/video host (name not provided in the subtitles).