Sharpshooter/DM employment

[Rifleman]

Sharpshooters or designated marksmen: riflemen trained and equipped to engage with precision rifle fire at distances past the effective range of the average troop with the issue rifle; however, not trained or equipped (or experienced enough?) for true sniper operations.

How many are needed and where do they belong?

One per rifle squad? In a platoon weapons squad? In a company weapons platoon to be to be employed at company level or attached out as needed?

At one time I would have said one per rifle squad but this assumed squad fire and maneuver. That would have allowed the squad's DM to stay with the squad's fire element. But in an understrength squad, a squad that probably has to fire or maneuver, a DM at squad level doesn't seem like a good idea.

I don't think you would want a DM at squad level if that squad has to conduct an envelopment, would you?

[Norfolk]

Good thread Rifleman.

Yeah, I've been thinking about this for a while since I saw the Brits switch their LSWs from the LMG to the DM roles. I rather agree with you Rifleman; I doubt that DM's are very good at Squad or Section level under normal circumstances. If you want people to deal with long-range targets or "special" targets like enemy heavy weapons crews, then you want those people to be as free as possible from having to deal directly with the enemy to the immediate front; that's what the guys in the Squads and the Sections are there for. That said, there will be circumstances where attaching them out to the Squads and Sections may be necessary.

I suspect that if you were to have about 4 DM's, normally held at Platoon level, the Platoon Commander or 2 i/c would be able to coordinate their fires better, and the DM's could operate in pairs, with one pair able to keep fire on the enemy's heavy weapons crews and depth targets if the other has to displace. Alternatively, the DM's could also functiona little more in the classic Rifleman role by skirmishing ahead or to the flanks of the Platoon under certain circumstances, and really causing the enemy some consternation even before the Platoon attacks; or in the defence, the DM's again acting as classic Riflemen could be used to cover the Platoon's withdrawal by slowing the enemy down.

This brings me to another point about DM's. I think that they should probably be called Riflemen, not Designated Marksmen or Shaprshooters. If they are armed with a Rifle with a full-length barrel and an optical sight, and preferably with a bipod as well, coupled with a little advanced Marksmanship training and some Scout training, I think that they might be rather close in tactical concept to the Riflemen of old, and just as useful. When you think about it, the "Riflemen" in the Squads and Sections aren't really Riflemen any more, they're classic Carbineers, armed with short-barrelled rifles and used to win the Firefight and then to Assault in Close-Quarter Combat.

Call me a Traditionalist (and I am) :D, but I think that bringing back classic Riflemen, in a modern form, would be a very good way to go.

[William F. Owen]

@ Sharpshooters or designated marksmen: riflemen trained and equipped to engage with precision rifle fire at distances past the effective range of the average troop with the issue rifle; however, not trained or equipped (or experienced enough?) for true sniper operations.


@ I don't think you would want a DM at squad level if that squad has to conduct an envelopment, would you?

This discussion may be somewhat fruitless unless we have a shared understanding of terms.

To my mind, and that of the British Army and IDF an "Marksman is merely member of a fire team equipped with a 5.56mm weapon with a 20-inch barrel, optic sight, and bipod. He should be able to consistently hit targets out to 6-800m. This is part of the current fad for fire teams with a 5.56mm LMG, Sharpshooter and a 40mm UGL.

I don't think this makes sense. I'd have 2 x 8.6mm or 7.62mm bolt action rifles at the platoon level and train 4-5 men how to use them out to 1,000m for the 7.62mm and 1,800m for the 8.6mm. I estimate, the 8.6mm takes about twice as long to train, and probably cost 5 times as much overall.

These men would be Long Range Rifleman, not snipers. They would have all the normal infantry skills, but be expert at getting the best out of the weapon. I would put them with the Platoon Recce Teams. They would carry the rifle and an IW.

[Rifleman]

This brings me to another point about DM's. I think that they should probably be called Riflemen, not Designated Marksmen or Shaprshooters. If they are armed with a Rifle with a full-length barrel and an optical sight, and preferably with a bipod as well, coupled with a little advanced Marksmanship training and some Scout training, I think that they might be rather close in tactical concept to the Riflemen of old, and just as useful. When you think about it, the "Riflemen" in the Squads and Sections aren't really Riflemen any more, they're classic Carbineers, armed with short-barrelled rifles and used to win the Firefight and then to Assault in Close-Quarter Combat.

Call me a Traditionalist (and I am) :D, but I think that bringing back classic Riflemen, in a modern form, would be a very good way to go.

Interesting to me, given my interest in frontier history. :cool: The 71st of Foot, Frasier's Highlanders, didn't encounter designated marksmen when they hit Daniel Morgan's skirmishline at Cowpens. They encountered Riflemen with a capital "R."

Of course it's also historically accurate that by The Late Unpleasantness of 1861-65 (;)) the term sharpshooter had started to gain broad usage for special skirmishing units. Most line infantry units had rifles by then but only a few men got the weapon's full capability out of it. Evidently they thought another term was needed for distinction.

Incidentally, it's a myth that frontier America was a nation of riflemen; the good'uns were always the minority. A farmer with a fowling piece was far more common than a longhunter.

The longrifle on the early American frontier seems to have been sort of like the longbow in medieval England; you almost had to be bred to the weapon culturally. It shouldn't have to be that way, of course, since the fundamentals of marksmanship aren't that hard. But even today you see some troops that can never seem to "get it" no matter how much instruction they receive.

[Rifleman]

Okay, two folks so far for keeping them at platoon level. Slightly different ways of going about it but both agreed that the DM should not be a member of a standard squad or fire team.

[Uboat509]

I see no reason not have DMs at the squad level. They are still available to the platoon if needed but they are also available to the squad leader during decentralized ops. DMs aren't snipers. They don't have bolt-action sniper rifles. They are ordinary infantrymen who may or may not have a more accurate version of the weapon that the rest of them carry but who does have more training/skill in engaging targets at longer ranges. He still fights as a regular infantryman but he has an additional skill-set (and possibly weapons system) that the squad/platoon leader can tap into if needed. At least that is how I understand the concept and that is how it makes the most sense to me.

SFC W

[Norfolk]

I see no reason not have DMs at the squad level. They are still available to the platoon if needed but they are also available to the squad leader during decentralized ops. DMs aren't snipers. They don't have bolt-action sniper rifles. They are ordinary infantrymen who may or may not have a more accurate version of the weapon that the rest of them carry but who does have more training/skill in engaging targets at longer ranges. He still fights as a regular infantryman but he has an additional skill-set (and possibly weapons system) that the squad/platoon leader can tap into if needed. At least that is how I understand the concept and that is how it makes the most sense to me.

SFC W

What we are envisioning here is a Rifleman equipped with something more along the lines of the LSW, which is too long for quick handling in Close-Combat. Furthermore, in a Firefight, the Rifleman so armed in a Squad or Section may be too busy trying to beat down the enemy immediately to his front to be free to deal with enemies at long range. If he is normally held at Platoon, he has a rather better chance of being free to deal with the enemy in-depth, as the Squads and Sections will be dealing with the enemy to the immediate front. Having a few guys in the Platoon HQ that can lay down fires out to 800m or so with single shots or 2-3 round bursts against heavy weapons crews and depth-targets is probably easier to do than one guy in each Squad or Section trying to do so with the enemy right in front. That at least, is the general idea that we seem to have in mind.

[jcustis]

The Marine Corps' current rifleman, armed with a rifle combat optic, M16A4, and Gripod combination VFG/bipod closely approximates what a squad designated marksman needs to be capable of, if we ever had a need for one. No need to fancy Harris bipods or free-floating barrels. Enhanced training is the key for guys like that, but sustaining their training will always be the toughest part.

What if they are all fresh out of a DM course and the platoon commander and platoon sergeant aren't good marksmen, or are more concerned with fire and maneuver? Slapping a more powerful or variable scope on the rifle would not necessarily mean that they are training to a higher standard, but perhaps simply carrying more weight.

A DM or two at the platoon level would be more appropriate in my mind. DMs are great for static security/defensive ops, but less so for dismounted offensive operations. However, even if he is not going to be out on the stalk, I strongly believe that he needs a trained spotter. The spotter could be another equally capable DM, with his own weapon that is zero'd to his requirements. Two teams of two DMs apiece and (4) rifles would permit continuous operations from a static position for somewhere around 12-24 hours. Again, the emphasis is on continuous observation operations. I was a DM with a match-grade bedded M-14 in my early enlisted days, and the business of glassing an area with binos is one of the most mind-numbing and tiring tasks around.

As for the weapon, if we want good effects against light material and considerable range, it would need to be something in the 6.8mm - 7.62mm range of calibers. There is something to be said for simply sticking with a 5.56mm, given the state of urbanization that is projecte in just about every strategic doctrinal pub out there, or the range of concept papers churned out each fisal year. What's a good range requirement in an urbanized area? 800m...1,000m? We'd have to take a hard look at whether or not firing windows are posible out that far first, methinks.

[selil]

Don't forget that it's not all distance it is also sub 1 inch accuracy. The ability to peel a bad guy off a good guy in the close confines of urban territory and ranged from 25 meters to 300 meters as an operational space is imperative. Another also under appreciated element is penetration and sustained velocity of a round through at least some type of material. Whether it be glass, or plaster sustained effectiveness beyond the first surface for urbanized terrain is important.

[kaur]

I think that Wilf's point about .338 rifles at platoon level (used by marksmen, not snipers) is very good idea. In Afganistan, were a lot of patrols are carried out by company-sized units, the contact demands (often) long range precision fire, that even .50 MG's are not able to provide.

[Uboat509]

Don't forget that it's not all distance it is also sub 1 inch accuracy. The ability to peel a bad guy off a good guy in the close confines of urban territory and ranged from 25 meters to 300 meters as an operational space is imperative.

With this you are leaving the realm of the DM and moving firmly into the realm of the sniper. This type of training requires specialized weapons with highly specialized training. I don't know about the Marines but the Army does not do this type training with its snipers, at least not big Army snipers. In any case, the situations where this type of precision shooting in close proximity to friendlies is fairly rare.

SFC W

[William F. Owen]

A Designated Marksman is "Designated." Having a M16A4 with an optic sight and bipod or L86A2, is relatively cheap and simple to do, but you are still limited by the fire team organisation, and weapons characteristics.

Having two large calibre bolt action rifles available to the platoon and training the best shots in the platoon to use them is nothing to do with sniping.

I just call it Long Range Rifles. The UK issued the 8.6mm L-115A1 to Para and Marine platoons for that reason. The new 8.6mm L-115A3 will soon become the issue rifle to the sniper platoons.

It takes no more time to teach someone to use a long range rifle with a good scope than it does to train them to use a guided weapon or SF GPMG.

Modern sniping is far more about qualification than operational role.

[selil]

I was thinking of a marine with upgraded optics package on something chambered in Lapua .338 or similar. Good for penetration, but necessarily giving up the capability as a regular grunt. Definitely not scout/sniper quality, but better than average, and hopefully average is still pretty darn good.

[jcustis]

It takes no more time to teach someone to use a long range rifle with a good scope than it does to train them to use a guided weapon or SF GPMG.

Modern sniping is far more about qualification than operational role.

Could you provide a little more detail as to why you believe those two statements?

[William F. Owen]

It takes no more time to teach someone to use a long range rifle with a good scope than it does to train them to use a guided weapon or SF GPMG.

Modern sniping is far more about qualification than operational role.

Could you provide a little more detail as to why you believe those two statements?

Happy to. When the UK ran the Platoon Manoeuvre Support Gun Controllers Course it was mandated as 20 days - 4 working weeks.

I don't know about Javelin but I know the IDFs Spike MRs instructors course is 10 days. - 2 working weeks.

In order to effectively employ a 8.6mm rifle all you have to know is how to use the weapon and the sight, plus the basics of application within platoon tactics. That can be taught in 10 working days, especially when assisted with modern PC training programs, to show how the mil-dot sighting system is used.

Snipers have to not only learn but also qualify in a whole range of other skills.

[Schuld]

The Marine Corps' current rifleman, armed with a rifle combat optic, M16A4, and Gripod combination VFG/bipod closely approximates what a squad designated marksman needs to be capable of, if we ever had a need for one. No need to fancy Harris bipods or free-floating barrels. Enhanced training is the key for guys like that, but sustaining their training will always be the toughest part.

...I strongly believe that he needs a trained spotter. The spotter could be another equally capable DM, with his own weapon that is zero'd to his requirements.

To my mind, and that of the British Army and IDF an "Marksman is merely member of a fire team equipped with a 5.56mm weapon with a 20-inch barrel, optic sight, and bipod. He should be able to consistently hit targets out to 6-800m.

It seems that the current US experience is that a DM is as valued for observation skills as riflery skills, as in the example of Lance Cpl Wilson:

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,107872,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl


What's a good range requirement in an urbanized area? 800m...1,000m? We'd have to take a hard look at whether or not firing windows are posible out that far first, methinks.

Snipers are making those kind of urban shots, but then again one of the USMC advanced sniper courses is urban sniping. I know of a major school that reports lots of requests for training in making shots at fleeting targets at 400-600m -- so this would be the critical consideration for DM training.

To play the Devil's advocate, what are the advantages of a DM over an expert LMG gunner with a low-powered optic, the ability to squeeze off an accurate 3-5 round burst, and an assistant gunner acting as observer?


Slightly different ways of going about it but both agreed that the DM should not be a member of a standard squad or fire team.


As a historical footnote, one-per-squad was the plan in 1st Raiders. In each squad "Red Mike" had one "scout" who was supposed to be equipped with a scoped springfield in the original TO&E in the beginning of 1942. I've not found much on the Raider DM program, other than "Red Mike" dispatched Claude Harris back to set up the USMC West Coast sniping school in 1943. Lt Harris sent the top 5 graduates on to the Raider Training Center for 3 weeks of training (RTC was normally 8 weeks long). I don't know how many of the RTC-trained snipers went on to a Raider bn.


In Afganistan, were a lot of patrols are carried out by company-sized units, the contact demands (often) long range precision fire, that even .50 MG's are not able to provide.

The .338 Lapua is good out to roughly 1300 meters for an oxymoronic "average expert"-- this per a SOTIC plank holder -- just remember that snipers wish each other luck with "no wind, brother" for a reason! I know everyone wants to talk about amazing shots, but the attempts/successes formula has to be applied here.


Modern sniping is far more about qualification than operational role.


We might be wise to avoid thread drift into sniping!

I believe I understand what you're saying -- the historical evolution of sniping in the UK has led to the identification of a cluster of basic skill sets (scout-sniper-observer) that are infused into a soldier who then applies those to circumstances. American sniping has been hugely influenced by the UK -- the real, practical, and mostly unknown historical evolution of modern sniping, avoiding the confusion caused by history's broken threads.

I would like to say that the various current American military sniping programs do have slightly different qualifications depending upon perceived operational roles -- regular Army, USMC, and AF all currently run sniper programs here, and various commands within SOCOM run separate programs as well. In terms of comparison and contrast, for example, when the SEALs transitioned from dependence on the USMC basic course to their own (with SBS input), they created an 11-week course that included 2 weeks of photographic reconnaissance training. The Air Force school, on the other hand, gears itself largely to counter-terrorism/police SWAT-style operations and counter-sniper operations. In the American private sector I would describe the McMillan program as the most British, since they hired Mark Spicer to help run it!

[William F. Owen]

I believe I understand what you're saying -- the historical evolution of sniping in the UK has led to the identification of a cluster of basic skill sets (scout-sniper-observer) that are infused into a soldier who then applies those to circumstances. American sniping has been hugely influenced by the UK -- the real, practical, and mostly unknown historical evolution of modern sniping, avoiding the confusion caused by history's broken threads.

In the American private sector I would describe the McMillan program as the most British, since they hired Mark Spicer to help run it!

I'm impressed! Yes you are right! :eek:

I may want you on my side when I get into a huge bug fight with the Sniper Wing up at Brecon!

Mark Spicer as in the Sniper Instructor who wrote the book? Really? Good for him.

[Rifleman]

So, several folks have advocated four long range Riflemen per platoon as being about right. That's twelve for a company.

Now, if you put all twelve Riflemen in one squad under an experienced squad leader for administration and training, and made that squad part of a company weapons platoon, and attached four Riflemen out to each rifle platoon for operations..... :)

And if the company weapons platoon was led by a warrant officer weapons specialist who had once been an NCO, something similar to the Marine Gunners..... :cool:

Just thoughts, just thoughts. ;)

[Rifleman]

What if they are all fresh out of a DM course and the platoon commander and platoon sergeant aren't good marksmen, or are more concerned with fire and maneuver? Slapping a more powerful or variable scope on the rifle would not necessarily mean that they are training to a higher standard, but perhaps simply carrying more weight.

I think my proposal would guard against that.

A DM or two at the platoon level would be more appropriate in my mind. DMs are great for static security/defensive ops, but less so for dismounted offensive operations. However, even if he is not going to be out on the stalk, I strongly believe that he needs a trained spotter. The spotter could be another equally capable DM, with his own weapon that is zero'd to his requirements. Two teams of two DMs apiece and (4) rifles would permit continuous operations from a static position for somewhere around 12-24 hours.


Again, four long range Riflemen per platoon, but only for operations. I think having them live with the rest of the Riflemen in a single squad in a company weapons platoon is the best option. That way they can be mentored by an experienced squad leader and, in an ideal world, a weapons platoon leader who is a warrant officer.

[Norfolk]

So, several folks have advocated four long range Riflemen per platoon as being about right. That's twelve for a company.

Now, if you put all twelve Riflemen in one squad under an experienced squad leader for administration and training, and made that squad part of a company weapons platoon, and attached four Riflemen out to each rifle platoon for operations.....

And if the company weapons platoon was led by a warrant officer weapons specialist who had once been an NCO, something similar to the Marine Gunners.....

Just thoughts, just thoughts.

While we're at it, how 'bout we call them Jaegars?:eek:;):)

[jcustis]

And if the company weapons platoon was led by a warrant officer weapons specialist who had once been an NCO, something similar to the Marine Gunners.....

My, my, my. That would be a splendid idea given the inherent complexity of heavier weapons. The difficulty lies in that it isn't easy to grow Marine Gunners. At least in the Corps, there would have to be a significant T/O shift to bring about that manpower change, and I don't know if the computer models could find a way to do it without tearing a hole in the fabric of the infantry. The selection of Marine Gunners is a carefully managed process, from what I know. No room for slackers or grunts who have been "faking the funk," along the way. I imagine there is still a sufficient pool to screen from.

One of the limiting factors is that this Wpns Plt commander would have to complete our Infantry Officer Course (unless a separate course was built up and out of the current Small Arms Weapons Instructor Cource [SAWIC]). Definitely an interesting idea, but the manpower tables are almost too much inertia.

Back to the DM issue, I think retaining this squad or so at the Wpns Plt level indeed makes sense. Keep the weapon something of the 7.62x51mm variety. It keeps another caliber out of the logistics grinder, and in a pinch, straight ball ammunition can be employed. We certainly did so with our M-14s, although every now and then the special "white box" ammo would show up and it was considered a gem to have it due to its ballistic consistency.

If we could go back a bit to what Schuld spoke of, what would we have DMs do? What sort of enabler do we want them to be? It is an important question b/c it means a lot to say that you want a basically-trained grunt to receive additional training on a heavier-caliber weapon and precision optic for the purpose of engagin targets beyond normal riflemen range, and means something considerable different to say you want him to be a keen observer, supporting arms controller, etc.

In order to complete the in-house DM package that FAST Co was running back in the '91-'95 timeframe, I underwent something on the order of a week training in scouting skills (classroom), followed by another 10 days of actual patrolling exercises with a section of DMs, and eventually a 10 day shooting package that included unknown/known distance shooting and field stalks. Considering our employment envelope, I considered myself well-trained.

[slapout9]

Back to the DM issue, I think retaining this squad or so at the Wpns Plt level indeed makes sense. Keep the weapon something of the 7.62x51mm variety. It keeps another caliber out of the logistics grinder, and in a pinch, straight ball ammunition can be employed. We certainly did so with our M-14s, although every now and then the special "white box" ammo would show up and it was considered a gem to have it due to its ballistic consistency.

If we could go back a bit to what Schuld spoke of, what would we have DMs do? What sort of enabler do we want them to be? It is an important question b/c it means a lot to say that you want a basically-trained grunt to receive additional training on a heavier-caliber weapon and precision optic for the purpose of engaging targets beyond normal riflemen range, and means something considerable different to say you want him to be a keen observer, supporting arms controller, etc.



I think this is a better direction to go. If we could create better marksman of all rifleman you would always have a personnel pool to choose from..you-you-you are designated marksman for this mission afterwords you revert back to your original job.

[Rifleman]

While we're at it, how 'bout we call them Jaegars?:eek:;):)

Noooo! Few of the son's of the son's of Ulster who killed Patrick Ferguson at Kings Mountain would have identified with that word. I liked your first idea better: Riflemen, since the men with M4s are really modern Carbineers.

Now, what's the matter? Is my signature getting to you again? You know, I could always change it to this for you and Wilf:

"If all else fails, I will retreat up the valley of Virginia, plant my flag on the Blue Ridge, rally around the Scotch-Irish of that region, and make my last stand for liberty amongst a people who will never submit to British tyranny whilst there is a man left to draw a trigger" - George Washington at Valley Forge

Merry Christmas and no taxation without representation! :p

[William F. Owen]

Now, what's the matter? Is my signature getting to you again? You know, I could always change it to this for you and Wilf:


Hey buddy, don't touch nothing. My wife's grand parents both served time in British jails as terrorists. In fact, her grand parents organisation made several attempts on my grand fathers life!

[selil]

Now, what's the matter? Is my signature getting to you again?

It should be Scots Irish. You drink Scotch.

[Rifleman]

Yes, I've heard that and I understand that Scots or Scottish is the accepted term for people in Scotland. I'm certainly willing to acknowledge the Scots by whatever they want to be called.

But on the North American frontier the Ulster immigrants and their descendants called themselves Scotch-Irish, or "Scotch-Arsh" as my Appalachian grandpa would have said. It's an established term in those circles that goes back a ways:

http://www.scotchirish.net/What%20about%20the%20name.php4

Besides, they started making liquor out of corn almost as soon as they landed so they certainly didn't need to reserve the term Scotch for whiskey. :wry:

I reckon we've gone off course a ways, haven't we?

[selil]

I reckon we've gone off course a ways, haven't we?

Yes we have but it was welcome on this cold evening. And, if you had my last name you'd understand the issue.

[Norfolk]

Noooo! Few of the son's of the son's of Ulster who killed Patrick Ferguson at Kings Mountain would have identified with that word. I liked your first idea better: Riflemen, since the men with M4s are really modern Carbineers.

Now, what's the matter? Is my signature getting to you again? You know, I could always change it to this for you and Wilf:

"If all else fails, I will retreat up the valley of Virginia, plant my flag on the Blue Ridge, rally around the Scotch-Irish of that region, and make my last stand for liberty amongst a people who will never submit to British tyranny whilst there is a man left to draw a trigger" - George Washington at Valley Forge

Merry Christmas and no taxation without representation!

Quite agreed on the "Rifleman" title for DMs - "Jaeger" (hehe) was a bit of a wind-up...and it worked! [Norfolk grins to self]

Ahhh, now I know where your true loyalities lie Rifleman...and I have been known to haunt the forests, mountains, and Bourbon distilleries of Appalacha'...but not necessarily in that order - and Bardstown!
I have Scots-Irish (Scotch-Arsh, just for you Rifleman) on my mother's American side - they came to the US rather late, in the 18th century.

I have never had the pleasure of traversing the fair Valley of the Shenandoah, nor the Blue Ridge, but I will take Phil Sheridan at his word that it makes for a rich and quite pleasant foraging ground...;)

And I do protest your implied assertion, Sir, that the denizens of Westminster are somehow less preferable to their upstart counterparts situated adjacent to Georgetown in handling matters of Public Taxation and Finance. I can discern no benefit to be had by having their lot so close at hand; indeed, had it not been for that Tax Revolt you fellows refer to as a "War of Independence", you might still possess the benefits of a lower tax rate, as what was levied in the Colonies was only a fraction of what was levied in the Mother Country...They after all, had Westminster resident amongst them, and had to pay for their immediate wants.

You see, "Taxation Without Representation" was actually a ticket to a lower Tax Burden than what you have now - with the added benefit of having the leviers of said Burden resident Over There. Hah! Now what do you say of your little Revolution now, eh whot?:eek:;):D

But in all fairness, if it wasn't for my 1/8th Scots-Irish ancestry, I wouldn't be the Redneck Country Boy that I am today.

I do have a question for Wilf re the .338 Lapua/8.6 mm: A fine cartridge to be sure, but would the benefits of such a powerful round be unnecessary for a true Rifleman, even in the Skirmishing and Marksman roles - would not something in the 6.5 to 7.62 mm range be quite sufficient? I am concerned because the .338 is not suited for rapid-fire if that were needed, or is there another reason besides range and AP performance for considering the .338 in the Rifleman role?

[William F. Owen]

I do have a question for Wilf re the .338 Lapua/8.6 mm: A fine cartridge to be sure, but would the benefits of such a powerful round be unnecessary for a true Rifleman, even in the Skirmishing and Marksman roles - would not something in the 6.5 to 7.62 mm range be quite sufficient? I am concerned because the .338 is not suited for rapid-fire if that were needed, or is there another reason besides range and AP performance for considering the .338 in the Rifleman role?

All good questions.

a.) 8.6mm has a very flat trajectory. Even I can hit 1 x 0.5m boards at 1,000m.

b.) As concerns "skirmishing" the LRR operator has the same status as a GPMG gunner, except he can sling the thing on his back and carry a carbine. In an Owen Fire Team Group / Platoon, they would replace LMG gunners in the Recce teams.

c.) Unlike a .50, it can be fired from one knee, which becomes an issue in places that have terrain like Cyprus or the Lebanon, or that have long grass.

The reason I have studied the 8.6mm a fair bit is that it gives the platoon a measurable increase in performance for little added weight compared to other systems.

[Rifleman]

You see, "Taxation Without Representation" was actually a ticket to a lower Tax Burden than what you have now - with the added benefit of having the leviers of said Burden resident Over There. Hah! Now what do you say of your little Revolution now, eh whot?

Y'know, I think he's implying that if George III and Cornwallis hadn't been such wankers that I'd be proud to still be a subject instead of a citizen. ;)

But in all fairness, if it wasn't for my 1/8th Scots-Irish ancestry, I wouldn't be the Redneck Country Boy that I am today.

There's hope for you! :cool:

Back on topic. I'm interested in hearing what others think about having a single squad of long range Riflemen in a company weapons platoon and attaching them to rifle platoons for operations.

Edson's squad sharpshooters in the 1st Raider Battalion didn't become standardized throughout the Marine Corps. There must be a reason for that.

[William F. Owen]

@ Back on topic. I'm interested in hearing what others think about having a single squad of long range Riflemen in a company weapons platoon and attaching them to rifle platoons for operations.

@ Edson's squad sharpshooters in the 1st Raider Battalion didn't become standardized throughout the Marine Corps. There must be a reason for that.

@ I do see some merit in having different organisations for skills training and operations. The problem is that the unreflective always come out with the train as you fight gibberish - like that's even possible!

@ and it may not have been a good reason. Armies, especially infantry, rarely ever do stuff for good reasons. Emotion and opinion are VERY powerful.

[Norfolk]

QUOTE=Rifleman:

There's hope for you! :cool:

The Redneck International (REDINTERN) knows no borders!;)

Back on topic. I'm interested in hearing what others think about having a single squad of long range Riflemen in a company weapons platoon and attaching them to rifle platoons for operations.

Edson's squad sharpshooters in the 1st Raider Battalion didn't become standardized throughout the Marine Corps. There must be a reason for that.

I suspect that the reason for Raider Squad Sharpshooters not becoming standard in the rest of the USMC may have been the preference to pool specialists at Company level, especially when so much of the regular USMC was involved in frontal-attacks during the Island-Hopping Campaigns. The constant close-combat conditions of Guadalcanal were not quite the same elsewhere I imagine - Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Okinawa, etc.

I think that it is an interesting idea Rifleman, having a Squad of Sharpshooters at Coy level, and attaching them out as needed. Normally I woul say that it would make training and coordination better and easier, and it would be. Now, I'm not certain that would be necessary, or even desirable because the main role of said Sharpshooters as it occurrs to me is to support Platoons and especially Squads during the Firefight. My main concern here is that the Sharpshooters might become distracted from that if held at Company level and attached out from there. I think that I am of two minds on this.

As I seem to understand it, while the Squads are dealing with the close-in enemy (within 200-400 m, or even less), the Sharpshooters are dealing with the enemy behind said close-in enemy (out to 600-800 m, or even more if using the .338 Lapua that Wilf recommends), and that is usually a Platoon fight, but in direct support of the Squads. At times, cover and visibility restrictions will require the Sharpshooters to be attached directly to the Squads. Beyond 800 m really is a Company fight most of the time (and in some cases, much less than that).

But if a Squad of Sharpshooters were held at Coy level, they could form not only a potent Sharpshooting element, but also a very potent Skirmishing and Scouting element as well. In the hands of a skilled Coy Cmdr, they could really ruin an enemy's day (unless that enemy were Mech Infantry or Armour), and only using a fraction of the Coy's forces to do so. Just imagine, for a moment, what trouble a single skillful Sniper can raise for a Company or even a Battalion in some cases. Now just imagine what a dozen or so Sharpshooters (albeit obviously not of Sniper-calibre) could do, especially if their Rifles were capable of automatic fire as well as single-shot. Small teams of expert Markmen with good rifles (heavy barrel, optical sights, and bipod) and unsocial manners harassing an enemy Rifle Company or Battalion a few clicks in front of one's positions, or scouting ahead and to the flanks on the advance, could cause the enemy some consternation. And particularly if said Sharpshooters were able to distract the enemy's attention while our own Company moved to accord them an even warmer reception.

This seems to me to be something a little along the lines of what Ken might thing of (I think that I may be beginning to understand how the Old Dinosaur's mind works, and that frightens me a little!).;) Great idea Rifleman.:D

[Tom Odom]

The Redneck International (REDINTERN) knows no borders!

That's why we have mobile homes! :D

Seriously we did some work on this issue in the Company-level SOSO series of newsletters. CALL Newsletter 06-16 VOL 6 Tactical Marksmanship and Counter Sniper Ops. As it is FOUO you will have to look for it on the CALL gateway. Note also that we made use of a USMC X-File on desgnated Marksmen as well.

Best

Tom

[J.C.]

Interesting post, so here's my two cents.

As a PL in Iraq (TST PLT for 502nd IN CMD GRP), I already have DM. Usually, but not universally all line companies (no idea about heavy units) are MTOE at least 4-6 M14s. They usually distribute those over the Co. In most cases they are given to the best shots or preferable shooters who have gone through sniper classes. At Campbell SF units will regularly run advanced shooting classes.

In Plt. you will then take those shooters and put them on patrol with that weapons system with either an scope 3x9x30 or an ACOG. Depending on your mission you can form Small Kill Teams to over watch ASRs or MSRs for IED emplacement or to catch insurgents at POO sites or as over watch elements.

Your imagination is limit less to what you can use them for. As far as having them in a Sqd. in a PLT or attachment at Co is a bad idea. Control and supply/maintenance issues would suck. Everybody would want to play that's not my soldier game, except when they wanted them. Further, having 1 or 2 of them built in a platoon gives the PL flexibility to have them on a patrol in the streets, over watch, or be put in a hide site.

I think its just best to have them integrated through out the company apart of platoons instead of forming some special section.

[Ken White]

Interesting post, so here's my two cents.

As a PL in Iraq (TST PLT for 502nd IN CMD GRP), I already have DM. Usually, but not universally all line companies (no idea about heavy units) are MTOE at least 4-6 M14s. They usually distribute those over the Co. In most cases they are given to the best shots or preferable shooters who have gone through sniper classes. At Campbell SF units will regularly run advanced shooting classes.

In Plt. you will then take those shooters and put them on patrol with that weapons system with either an scope 3x9x30 or an ACOG. Depending on your mission you can form Small Kill Teams to over watch ASRs or MSRs for IED emplacement or to catch insurgents at POO sites or as over watch elements.

Your imagination is limit less to what you can use them for. As far as having them in a Sqd. in a PLT or attachment at Co is a bad idea. Control and supply/maintenance issues would suck. Everybody would want to play that's not my soldier game, except when they wanted them. Further, having 1 or 2 of them built in a platoon gives the PL flexibility to have them on a patrol in the streets, over watch, or be put in a hide site.

I think its just best to have them integrated through out the company apart of platoons instead of forming some special section.

worked in Korea, worked in Viet Nam and it's working in Afghanistan and Iraq. Company weapons at 5.56 are the norm other than a few 7.62s for the DM when the terrain calls for it -- as it does on the latter two and did not in the former two.

Lot of things sound good in theory but when you put 'em into practice with live humans and human fallibility gets involved, it's not so neat. Giving the PL team to worry about is unnecessary and a distraction.

Snipers (as opposed to DM -- and contrary to UBoat's statement the Army does train 'em) need to be at Bn level as they are now and can be farmed out as required (seldom will be) and they can normally use 7.62 going to .338 only if the terrain suggests the added range is necessary. 1,000m shots are neat but rare and those missed aren't usually going to affect the war.

[Uboat509]

Snipers (as opposed to DM -- and contrary to UBoat's statement the Army does train 'em)


I didn't say that the Army does not train snipers. I was responding to someone's post about the necessity of having DMs available in a platoon for high precision urban sniping in close proximity to friendlies. That is a highly specialized type of sniping that is not taught in the conventional sniper school, as far as I know. I fully agree with your statement about keeping snipers at battalion level and keeping 7.62.

SFC W

[Ken White]

I didn't say that the Army does not train snipers. I was responding to someone's post about the necessity of having DMs available in a platoon for high precision urban sniping in close proximity to friendlies. That is a highly specialized type of sniping that is not taught in the conventional sniper school, as far as I know. I fully agree with your statement about keeping snipers at battalion level and keeping 7.62.

SFC W

No excuse, just got lazy -- I think (but am not sure) the 82d is running a course???

Don't know about anyone else but I'd be really surprised if no one was -- to include in theater...

[Uboat509]

Benning, of course, is still running their course. I think that most of the divisions have some sort of internal course although I don't know what specifically they are teaching. I imagine it is more of an advanced marksmanship class than a sniper course, which is fine. Somebody here said that 5th Group is running some advanced marksmanship classes for their big Army counterparts at Cambell. I would not be surprised if 1st Group was doing the same for the 25th ID at Lewis. Of course, most senior officers in the 82nd would rather hack off a limb with a rusty butter knife than ask Group for anything.

SFC W

[Rifleman]

Benning, of course, is still running their course. I think that most of the divisions have some sort of internal course although I don't know what specifically they are teaching. I imagine it is more of an advanced marksmanship class than a sniper course, which is fine.

The internal course at Ft. Bragg in the '80s was the XVIII Airborne Corps AMTU school. It was five weeks long and was a true sniper course at that time, although I think it might have started out more or less as an advanced marksmanship course and developed into a sniper course over a period of years.

The POI contained a considerable amount of fieldcraft in addition to marksmanship. The marksmanship instruction was good but we were limited to a 600 yard KD range facility. We used M21s. Mine had the first generation Leatherwood ART.

I believe the school closed it's doors when the official Army program started at Ft. Benning in the late '80s. IIRC, the last NCOIC of the AMTU school at Bragg was one of the first instructors at the Benning school. I believe he was SSG (SFC?) Raitt (sp?).

[Ken White]

. . . Of course, most senior officers in the 82nd would rather hack off a limb with a rusty butter knife than ask Group for anything.

SFC W

During the build of the Groups in the early 60s, the 82d provided about half the people to form 3d, 5th and 6th Groups, the other half came from the 101st and the rest of the Army. Needless to say, since the Groups had priority, the Division lost about 35% of their NCOs (some of the best and some of the worst, few mediocre) over a two year period. Later, requests to the Hill for any support for the Div were -- and I hear, are still -- met with a "Sorry, too busy on real stuff..." answer. Yet, when the Hill asks for Division support, they generally get it

A Beret is a good weapon if you sew a silver dollar behind the flash, without that addition, just waving it around does not endear one to others. There's a tendency among the younger tigers in the Groups at Bragg to do that. At other posts with earthling populations, one can be super cool Supertrooper-- doesn't work nearly as well at Bragg, too many old guys around who've been in the Groups -- or other units (and some of those guys can be really dismissive of excessive swagger).

Plus the Div has been deployed in both theaters recently and most of the Officers and NCOs have seen up close what other elements really do and some of the minor boo-boos made by said other elements. I have one fascinating story about an abandoned Suburban and a bunch of goodies... :wry:

As I've said, plenty of errors on both sides...

Excessive parochialism by too many in the Army is a disease and is dangerous. It does no one any favors.

[Schuld]

Benning, of course, is still running their course. I think that most of the divisions have some sort of internal course although I don't know what specifically they are teaching. I imagine it is more of an advanced marksmanship class than a sniper course, which is fine. Somebody here said that 5th Group is running some advanced marksmanship classes for their big Army counterparts at Cambell. I would not be surprised if 1st Group was doing the same for the 25th ID at Lewis.

To my knowledge, the current major Army programs are:

US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center School (USAJFKSWCS) Special Operations Target Interdiction Course (SOTIC) Level 1

US Army Sniper School

National Guard Marksmanship Training Unit Scout-Sniper School

The DM programs are a hodge-podge, some generated in-house (often informally run by qualified snipers or, if USAR/NG unit run someone whose regular job is as a police marksman), other COI have been run by US Army Marksmanship Unit (USAMU), by US Army Sniper School's parent command, and by various major police SWAT units for geographically collocated deploying military units. I believe some SFG(A) have made SOTIC Level II courses available to other units, in the tradition of 10th running the SHAPE International Special Training Centre Sniper for NATO. Assistance with both materiel and POI have been provided by many and various unit-contracted private-sector firms.

Many M-14s have had the cosmoline scrubbed off and an ACOG slapped on. Other units have paid to have completely remanufactured M-14s equipped with HSLD stocks and scopes.

XVIII Airborne Corps AMTU

I think AMTU Ft. Bragg sniper school went through 2 iterations, first in '76-'78 under Emerson, and then from about '82 to '87 between the revival of interest in sniping by the exploits of the Rangers in Grenada/USMC in Beirut and the centralization of AMU people at Ft. Benning/creation of US Army Sniper School? Something like that.

what would we have DMs do

First: who you are infusing those skills into? Are they already 19D/scouts or 11B/regular infantry?

Second: what do they need to do? Precision shooting, observational skills, penetration skills (stalking/infil/exfil methods), generalized scouting skills, intelligence-gathering skills, eclectic and wide-ranging sniper-specific skill sets (i.e.: anti-tracking, how can you use only glass and not dial? if you have M80 and not Lake City ammo how do you sort-select or even improve the issued rounds, where do you find the patterns to construct armored loophole plates and what are the methods of disguising loopholes in long-term hides, who makes the best trench periscopes, etc., etc.)....

Probably Occam's Razor is: will the DMs always be in the role of supporting the squad/platoon/company, or will the squad/platoon expect to occasionally support the DM in specialist activity? If the first, then shooting/observing, and if the second, then a low-attrition mini-scout-sniper course might be required.

Keep the weapon something of the 7.62x51mm variety.

depends what you want to accomplish. Run small kill teams? Engage enemy HMG/LM teams? Different weapons for different situations... The 7.62 and 12.5 regular issue are handy when things go to hell, but the problem is also that because they're handy supply can't be bothered to stock the good stuff and M33 is going to render that 12.5's long-range potential ineffective.

Consider the recent Vanity Fair article via AM. ROE requires only the armed may be engaged. Said shooter only engages from house that withstands 30mm cannon fire and of a sort of construction that has withstood 500 pound bombs in the past. Start dropping the really big bombs and you'll have lots of civilian casualties. Another situation: soldier killed at half-mile with HMG fire and LR HMG fire common:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/01/afghanistan200801

Time to STFU/STFD :wry: I can just see that I'm not going to win anyone over to the idea that if it was my full moon hangin' in the breeze scouting I'd much prefer the HK-21E 7.62 LMG fitted with optic to an XM-110 SWS, and as long as I'm dreaming freely give my spotter a suppressed krinkov with a tishina low-noise-signature grenade launcher so we can look kewl plus he'll needs to be able to hump my extra ammo :p

http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/aks74u-ts.jpg

[Ken White]

...

The DM programs are a hodge-podge, some generated in-house (often informally run by qualified snipers or, if USAR/NG unit run someone whose regular job is as a police marksman), other COI have been run by US Army Marksmanship Unit (USAMU), by US Army Sniper School's parent command, and by various major police SWAT units for geographically collocated deploying military units. I believe some SFG(A) have made SOTIC Level II courses available to other units, in the tradition of 10th running the SHAPE International Special Training Centre Sniper for NATO. Assistance with both materiel and POI have been provided by many and various unit-contracted private-sector firms.

Hodge podge is good; no one has all the right answers. Many units also use contract training at Blackwater, Gunsite and so forth.

Many M-14s have had the cosmoline scrubbed off and an ACOG slapped on. Other units have paid to have completely remanufactured M-14s equipped with HSLD stocks and scopes.

Which is more than adequate -- most of those are used far more for their range and penetrating power rather than for their accuracy.

A Designated Marksman is nothing more than a particularly good shooter in a Squad; he is NOT a Sniper and there should be no attempt to make him one and / or to burden him with exotic gear.

I think AMTU Ft. Bragg sniper school went through 2 iterations, first in '76-'78 under Emerson,...

Who had little to do with it. Emerson, I mean. Hatchet Hank was many things, a good, much less superlative, tactical and technical guy was not one of them.

First: who you are infusing those skills into? Are they already 19D/scouts or 11B/regular infantry?

By definition.

Second: what do they need to do? Precision shooting, observational skills, penetration skills (stalking/infil/exfil methods), generalized scouting skills, intelligence-gathering skills, eclectic and wide-ranging sniper-specific skill sets (i.e.: anti-tracking, how can you use only glass and not dial? if you have M80 and not Lake City ammo how do you sort-select or even improve the issued rounds, where do you find the patterns to construct armored loophole plates and what are the methods of disguising loopholes in long-term hides, who makes the best trench periscopes, etc., etc.)....

Probably Occam's Razor is: will the DMs always be in the role of supporting the squad/platoon/company, or will the squad/platoon expect to occasionally support the DM in specialist activity? If the first, then shooting/observing, and if the second, then a low-attrition mini-scout-sniper course might be required.

They support the Squad. Period. The other things are sniper tasks.

[Schuld]

Who had little to do with it. Emerson, I mean. Hatchet Hank was many things, a good, much less superlative, tactical and technical guy was not one of them.


It's thread-drift, but I vaugely recall someone telling me he backed the program as Corps commander because of Hackworth's snipers' success in Vietnam. My memory is shot -- I just re-read my post and realized I was thinking 12.5x99 (versus 12.7x108), but they're both 12.7 (.50 cal).

[Norfolk]

Ken White wrote:

A Designated Marksman is nothing more than a particularly good shooter in a Squad; he is NOT a Sniper and there should be no attempt to make him one and / or to burden him with exotic gear.

and:


They support the Squad. Period. The other things are sniper tasks.


The DM/LRR/Sharpshooter/Rifleman concept has morphed over the course of this thread into something much too close to the role of the Sniper. As Ken says, the DM's are there to support the Squad, and I'll add to provide longer-range fires against enemy Heavy Weapons and depth targets while the lads in the Squad deal with the enemy immediately to the front. An automatic rifle with heavy barrel, regular ACOG-type scope, and bipod is all the special equipment he needs; a slightly glorified assault rifle. Maybe not even that. If he can put single shots or even short bursts out to maybe 800 m, that should be quite sufficient I imagine.

[William F. Owen]

They support the Squad. Period. The other things are sniper tasks.

Ken, it seems like you do not think this discussion is useful. If we subscribe to your view then we accept the status quo.

The legitimate and interesting argument here is, as I see it, how do you improve the platoons close precision attack capability?

@ What weapon and why?
@ What training is required to employ it effectively in support of platoon operations? (...and squads are part of platoons :wry: )

[Ken White]

Ken, it seems like you do not think this discussion is useful. If we subscribe to your view then we accept the status quo.

it as mixing missions or terms. You call often for a common lexicon -- Designated Marksman as a term is, IMO, pretty well established as I have described it. I suggest that the DM is and should be capable of highly accurate aimed fire -- not precision fire; there is a difference

Most terminology variances come from a person deciding that a given usage is not the way he would say it -- so he corrupts a well used term or invents a new term for an old well understood function. That, it seems to me is what's happening here.

The legitimate and interesting argument here is, as I see it, how do you improve the platoons close precision attack capability?

@ What weapon and why?
@ What training is required to employ it effectively in support of platoon operations? (...and squads are part of platoons :wry: )

Why didn't you say that? You started the thread with "Sharpshooter (archaic but acceptable term) / DM" (a current usage and well defined IMO term)...

A DM is a DM. Thus I suggest clarity was lacking... ;)

Seems to me the question is

"Does the Platoon need an improved close precision attack capability?

If so, what weapon and why?

What training is required to employ it effectively in support of platoon operations?"

If that's the case, my answers would be:

Rarely -- but METT-T always applies; Generally a 7.62x51 should be adequate but a .338 or even a .50 might be occasionally desirable or necessary; Such support should come from the Battalion sniper squad on a mission basis; both PL and PSgt training should include employment of supporting weapons to include sniper teams.


Your thoughts?

[William F. Owen]

This discussion may be somewhat fruitless unless we have a shared understanding of terms.


Well i did start off with this condition.



..it as mixing missions or terms. You call often for a common lexicon --

Your thoughts?

It's not just common definitions, but also a common understanding of operational requirements. - which is pretty impossible to arrive at.

My starting point for all of these discussions has been, "if we do X or Y, does it make things better." This may be very simplistic language, but I use it deliberately. The problem, as I always say, is that there is little in the way of matrices for showing improvement.

IMO, it is fairly easy to measure the effectiveness of DM, v LRR, or how both improve a platoons performance for relative trade offs.

[Ken White]

Well i did start off with this condition.

True but many have wandered off elsewhere...

It's not just common definitions, but also a common understanding of operational requirements. - which is pretty impossible to arrive at.

Agree on the operational requirements being impossible. That, of course, is true due to the infinite number of situations that have arisen, do and can arise. Which is why flexibility and adaptability far outweigh doctrinal or prescriptive approaches.

My starting point for all of these discussions has been, "if we do X or Y, does it make things better." This may be very simplistic language, but I use it deliberately. The problem, as I always say, is that there is little in the way of matrices for showing improvement.

IMO, it is fairly easy to measure the effectiveness of DM, v LRR, or how both improve a platoons performance for relative trade offs.

That, I think is our -- your and my -- disconnect. The words matrices and measure are, IMO, largely inimical to any really meaningful use in discussing the conduct of warfare other than in logistic efforts. I have watched literally hundreds of approaches to mathematical modeling, the application of metrics to warfare (in many ways) and attempts to make an art into a science. Virtually all have produced small gain for excessive effort and a number have been failures and /or even counterproductive.

Your approach is not simplistic, not at all. However I do believe you're trying to codify a combination of chaos and human fallibility into an orderly and logical set of parameters and I strongly doubt that's possible other than in a very general way. I think one can derive some general rules and practices but I think you're searching for a degree of precision in a very messy amalgamation of people and events that cannot be obtained. I say all that not in a critical mode but just to point out that we apply differing thought processes to the problems. I hope that does not perturb you, it certainly is no bother to me and while I can and do respect your opinions and your efforts, it would take a great deal to convince me that any significant or universal benefit might be found in codification of most aspects of combat

Which is a long way of getting to the point. Yes, it is "...fairly easy to measure the effectiveness of DM, v LRR, or how both improve a platoons performance for relative trade offs." for any given situation; the problem is there are entirely too many potential situations to come up with more than a very broad rule of thumb. Be too prescriptive and you tie hands...

[selil]

I know this is way far outside the scope of the discussion, but as a point of experience when I got out of the Marine Corps I spent several months working as an Indian Tribal Policeman. Within the department the officer on the contract were required to qualify with the sidearm (9mm, .357, 44 magnum, or 45 magnum), 30-30 lever action rifle, and pump shotgun. Those who qualified at the highest level with the 30-30 had the option to "upgrade" to a AR15S2, semi automatic with a scope. In our hostage rescue scenarios (we had council chambers, small school, etc.) the designated marksman (NOT SNIPER), was given the role of providing A) covering fire for troops on the move, B) selective target removal, C) Sustained high volume covering fire. I look at this from the military perspective as not meeting the sniper requirements, not really being a machine-gunner, and not really being a regular trooper. But, the position if employed would provide several enhanced capabilities. It was a force multiplier based on current skills and simple equipment upgrades. In a force restricted by funds, and hampered by politics that was a good thing.

[Ken White]

... But, the position if employed would provide several enhanced capabilities. It was a force multiplier based on current skills and simple equipment upgrades. In a force restricted by funds, and hampered by politics that was a good thing.

Who also suffer from the same constraints (funds available for the effort and politics... :D).

It works there as well.

[jcustis]

An automatic rifle with heavy barrel, regular ACOG-type scope, and bipod is all the special equipment he needs; a slightly glorified assault rifle. Maybe not even that. If he can put single shots or even short bursts out to maybe 800 m, that should be quite sufficient I imagine.

For me, Ken has broken this issue down into a basic capabilities statement, which is an excellent jumping off point.

-What would we have a DM (or sharpshooter if you like) do in the performance of his duties? We've kicked this can around, but I rather prefer the simple ability to fire single shots or shots in rapid sequence (requiring a semi-auto) out to 800m with a 1/2 value wind blowing, and to have all shots impact within a 12-inch circle. The 12-inch circle equation has two components: a weapon that can hold all the rounds within that circumference once fired from a stable bipod or expedient benchrest position; and a shooter who is mentally and physically capable of wresting that performance out of the weapon.

These two components of capable weapon and the dude capable of using it are inextricable. If you can't call wind and either employ a hold-off or adjust the dope on the weapon, you do not belong behind the weapon. I concur with Ken that we do not need to imbue a DM with the full range of sniping skills when all we want is for him to be capable of that 12-inch shot. I will offer, however, that in order to positively ID the target, the DM does need solid training in observation, range estimation and range card construction, engagement sequence techniquences, and a few others that don't exactly come to mind right now. Call these basic rifleman skills if you wish, but the DM must have them down cold.

-Where does he need to be within an infantry organization to be useful? Ideas abound within this thread, but even if we each have our own burning desire to see DMs put HERE, or HERE, I think the beauty of modern military organization is that both the Army, the Marine Corps, and most friendly nations have the wherewithal to task-organize where appropriate. We could start off a particular type of campaign with DMs at the wrong level, but we are generally smart enough to figure out when we need to make a change.

-What caliber weapon does he need? I still stick to the thought that 7.62x51 is fine. Even if there are "better" calibers out there, to what degree do we get an increase in capability? Is it so significant that we pour funding into the tests, re-tooling, re-packaging, etc., for a new round that may in fact offer only marginal increases? Give me a laser beam with a millisecond time of flight, and then you have my attention.

Within a light armored reconnaissance company, there are (2) Barrett .50 semi-autos. Why not three since there are three line platoons with 4 scout teams apiece? I don't know, but I suspect that they made their way into the T/O&E at some point because a number of subject matter experts went to a conference or steering board and all agreed that having a light-weight, anti-materiel capability for employment by scouts in dismounted OPs was a good thing. Are they sniper weapons? In the hands of a sniper, I suppose they are. In the hands of an LAR scout, I prefer to simply call it by its official name, the Special Application Scoped Rifle (SASR). Do we need SASRs within a rifle company? I dunno, but I like to believe that an attachment from the battalion scout sniper platoon would do nicely an negate the need for the ordnance to be resident at the company level. LAR doesn't have a scout sniper platoon, but by T/E it would rate (10) SASRs.

-There is somewhat of a sideline truism to this discussion that I think impacts what folks believe is the right fit. At some point, TOO MANY WEAPONS is a bad thing, even if they mean you've covered all of the capability spectrum and can hit a wider array of targets at a longer range, and have better effects. We can easily reach some sort of capability saturation because we simply don't have the time to train our warriors to the training and readiness standards we have in place right now...what about all of the new-fangled stuff? A spin-off problem is that we eventually have untrained but well-intentioned Soldiers and Marines attempting operator-level maintenance on a system they are not proficient with. The result is that no one gets to check the better toy out of the armory because the company doesn't have a trained guy on deck. I grit my teeth about it, but that's one of the reasons why a new equipment training team has to provide training before a particular piece of gear is fielded to a unit. Them's the rules and they are there to protect ourselves from...ourselves.

[William F. Owen]

@ -Where does he need to be within an infantry organization to be useful? Ideas abound within this thread, but even if we each have our own burning desire to see DMs put HERE, or HERE, I think the beauty of modern military organization is that both the Army, the Marine Corps, and most friendly nations have the wherewithal to task-organize where appropriate. We could start off a particular type of campaign with DMs at the wrong level, but we are generally smart enough to figure out when we need to make a change.

@ -What caliber weapon does he need? I still stick to the thought that 7.62x51 is fine. Even if there are "better" calibers out there, to what degree do we get an increase in capability? Is it so significant that we pour funding into the tests, re-tooling, re-packaging, etc., for a new round that may in fact offer only marginal increases? Give me a laser beam with a millisecond time of flight, and then you have my attention.
.

@ So how many rifles do you purchase on the initial buy? If you are a force developer, you have to justify the cost outlay based on some form of analysis. It's the untested, arbitrary, data free, opinion based analysis that I am always arguing against!

@ So equip with a n HK417 or the M110 SASS. Good starting point. If you have men that can group 5cm at 100m then you have men who can hit targets at 1000m providing for correct wind and range estimation. Not hard to do!

[arty8]

I think that the army has addressed the DM issue by issuing more optics. The active duty unit that replaced my company in Iraq in Oct-every single NCO had an ACOG. I used an aimpoint the entire tour and there were times when I would have given everything I owned for a scope that magnifies. Even mounted on an M4 I think that an ACOG gives some capability past 300M.