Sharpshooter/DM employment [Archive]

Norfolk

12-21-2007, 09:02 PM

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

12-22-2007, 01:34 AM

@ 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

12-22-2007, 04:55 AM

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

12-22-2007, 04:58 AM

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

12-22-2007, 07:25 AM

Norfolk

12-22-2007, 02:12 PM

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

12-22-2007, 06:52 PM

selil

12-22-2007, 07:07 PM

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

12-22-2007, 07:32 PM

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

12-23-2007, 12:15 AM

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

12-23-2007, 01:16 AM

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

12-23-2007, 03:08 AM

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

12-23-2007, 04:31 AM

William F. Owen

12-23-2007, 05:33 AM

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

12-23-2007, 05:37 AM

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

12-23-2007, 05:59 AM

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

12-24-2007, 04:03 AM

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

12-24-2007, 04:12 AM

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

12-24-2007, 04:46 PM

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

12-24-2007, 07:27 PM

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

12-24-2007, 10:20 PM

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

12-25-2007, 01:21 AM

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

12-25-2007, 01:43 AM

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

12-25-2007, 02:50 AM

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

It should be Scots Irish. You drink Scotch.

Rifleman

12-25-2007, 03:13 AM

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

12-25-2007, 04:31 AM

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

12-26-2007, 03:26 PM

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

12-27-2007, 12:39 AM

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

12-27-2007, 05:50 AM

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

12-27-2007, 08:38 AM

@ 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

12-27-2007, 04:34 PM

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

12-27-2007, 05:03 PM

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.

12-27-2007, 07:19 PM

Ken White

12-28-2007, 03:36 AM

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

12-28-2007, 06:40 AM

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

12-28-2007, 03:09 PM

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

12-28-2007, 03:55 PM

Rifleman

12-28-2007, 04:57 PM

Ken White

12-28-2007, 07:59 PM

. . . 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

12-29-2007, 05:54 PM

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

12-29-2007, 06:42 PM

...

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

12-29-2007, 11:16 PM

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

12-29-2007, 11:50 PM

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

12-30-2007, 12:43 AM

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

12-30-2007, 01:54 AM

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

12-30-2007, 02:20 AM

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

12-30-2007, 04:09 AM

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

12-30-2007, 04:26 AM

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

12-30-2007, 05:03 AM

... 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

12-31-2007, 02:32 AM

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

12-31-2007, 04:39 AM

@ -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

02-04-2008, 12:37 PM

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.

Jones_RE

03-11-2010, 04:17 AM

I read the paper. It seems to me that with a combination of 'battle zero' and the fundamentals of marksmanship (stance, grip, sight alignment, sight picture, breath control, trigger control and follow through) you can hit a man sized target at 300m. If you are only training to hit anywhere on a 20" target at that range then you don't even need to be very good at the fundamentals - a 6" group at 100m is good enough. Because the bullet's trajectory with the rifle's basic setup will always be somewhere close enough the soldier never needs to worry about estimating range.

If you want to have a chance at hitting at 500m then not only do you need to be better at the fundamentals - a 4" group at 100m is necessary, you also need to be able to estimate the range to the target, understand the trajectory of the bullet and adjust accordingly. Also, you're going to have to learn to take into account wind and elevation - and this is with a stationary target!

I read the author as recommending a weapon with better long range capability and teaching soldiers to use more than the most basic fundamentals. I can't think of a sufficient reason not to do both immediately.

kaur

03-11-2010, 06:13 AM

Jones RE said:

I read the author as recommending a weapon with better long range capability and teaching soldiers to use more than the most basic fundamentals. I can't think of a sufficient reason not to do both immediately.

I think that US military knows how to train sharpshooters. To improve situation this means that every soldier must pass Squad Sharpshooter program. This adds 1 week to training if I understand correctly.
For a long time there was available "Squad Sharpshooter Concept" in internet by Michael R Harris http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/smallarms/Harris.pdf It has disappeared now :)

About ammo and calibre. For some period I used very often Soviet ammo 5,45x39 (brain child of Soviet engineers that figured out that US new M-16 is "better" than AK-47) and 7,62x39. You can make just one test to compare the effectiveness. Arrange night shooting with tracers on the filed where grass is above the waist. With 5,45x39 you can see nice vertical rocket show in the sky with few holes. With 7,62 the picture is much more horizontal. I presume that you can see the same picture if you test 5,56x45 vs 6,5/6,8.

Firn

03-12-2010, 12:06 PM

I looked a bit around and found this concerning optics, weapons etc. This is of course about snipers in WWII, and rather good ones at that, but I think it is telling about the challenges of accurate rifle fire under "difficult" situations.

Interview von Hans Widhofner (1976) an drei deutsche Scharfschützen (Hetzenauer, Allerberger und Wirnsberger), erschienen in Truppendienst (Autor: Hauptmann WIDHOFNER H., Scharfschützen (I-III); TRUPPENDIENST Ausgabe 1967 Teil I: Seite 109 bis 113, Teil II: Seite 224 bis 229, Teil III: Seite 297 bis 299) - ENGLISH (http://www.snipersparadise.com/history/german.htm)

Widhofner questioned three seasoned snipers individually. They are designated in the order A, B and C. All three were members of the Third Mountain Division of the former German Army. With respect to their person please note the following:

A. Matthäus Hetzenauer of Tyrol fought at the Eastern Front from 1943 to the end of the war, and with 345 certified hits is the most successful German sniper.

B. Sepp Allerberg of Salzburg fought at the Eastern Front from December 1942, to the end of the war, and with 257 certified hits is the second-best German sniper.

C. Helmut Wirnsberger of Styria fought at the Eastern Front from September 1942, to the end of the war and scored 64 certified hits (after being wounded he served for some time as instructor on a sniper training course).

1. Weapons used?

A. K98 with six-power telescopic sights. G43 with four-power telescopic sights.

B. Captured Russian sniper rifle with telescopic sight; I cannot remember power. K98 with six-power telescopic sights.

C. K98 with 1.5-power sights. K98 with four-power telescopic sights. G43 with four-power telescopic sights.

2. Telescopic sights used?

A. Four-power telescopic sight was sufficient up to a range of approximately 400 meters, Six-power telescopic sight was good up to 1,000 meters.

B. Used for two years a captured Russian rifle with telescopic sight; yielded good results, Six-power telescopic sight mounted on K98 was good.

C. 1.5-power telescopic sight was not sufficient; four-power telescopic sight was sufficient and proved good.

3. What is your opinion on increasing the magnification of your telescopic sights?

A. & B. Six-power was sufficient. There was no need for stronger scope. No experience with greater magnification.

C. Four-power is sufficient in both cases.

4. At what range could you hit the following targets without fail?

A. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 600 meters. Standing Man up to 700-800 meters.

B. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 400 meters. Standing up to 600 meters.

C. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 400 meters. Standing Man up to 600 meters.

5. Do the ranges indicated by you apply only to you, i.e. the best snipers, or also to the majority of snipers?

A. & B. Only to the best snipers.

C. To me personally as well as to the majority of snipers. A few outstanding snipers could hit also at longer ranges.

B added: Absolutely positive hitting is possible only up to about 600 meters.

6. What was the range of the furthest target you ever fired at, and what kind of target, size?

A. About 1,000 meters. Standing soldier. Positive hitting not possible, but necessary under the circumstances in order to show enemy that he is not safe even at that distance! Or superior wanted to satisfy himself about capability.

B. 400 to 700 meters.

C. About 600 meters, rarely more. I usually waited until target approached further for better chance of hitting. Also confirmation of successful hit was easier. Used G43 only to about 500 meters because of poor ballistics.

7. How many second shots / Additional shots were necessary per ten hits?

A. Almost never.

B. One to two. Second shot is very dangerous when enemy snipers are in the area.

C. One to two at the most.

The percentage under "realistic" circumstances in a Great war. See also question 4.

13. Percentage of successful hits at various ranges?

Up to 400 meters A. 65 percent C. 80 percent

Up to 600 meters A. 30 percent C. 20 percent

Additional information: A. This is why about 65 percent of my successful hits were made below 400 meters.

B. Do not remember. Mass of hits were below the range of 600 meters.

C. Shot mainly within range of 400 meters due to great possibility of successful hit. Beyond this limit hits could not be confirmed without difficulty.

14. Do these percentages and ranges apply to you personally or are they valid for the majority of snipers?

A. This information is applicable to the majority of snipers as well as to the beat snipers, for: the majority of snipers could hit with absolute certainty only within a range of 400 meters due to their limited skills, the best snipers could hit with reasonable certainty at longer ranges; they in most cases, however, waited until enemy was closer or approaching the enemy in order to better choose the target with respect to its merit

More about optics and their importance:

19. Was it advisable to equip the sniper with a double telescope (binos)? What magnification did the double telescope have?

A. 6 x 30 enlargement was insufficient for longer distances. Later I had a 10 x 50 telescope which was satisfactory.

B. Double telescope was equally important as rifle. No further information.

C. Every sniper was equipped with a double telescope. This was useful and necessary. An enlargement of 6 x 30 was sufficient up to a range of about 500 meters.

20. Would you prefer a periscope which allows observation under full cover?

A. Was very useful as supplement (Russian trench telescope).

B. No.

C. Was used when captured.

21. Were scissor stereo telescopes (positional warfare) used?

A, C. Yes, when available. Was used mutually by sniper and artillery observer.

B. No.

Wind and moving targets.

27. How did you overcome side wind?

A. By my own judgment and experience. When necessary, I used tracer ammunition to determine wind drift. I was well prepared for side wind by my training at Seetaleralpe where we practiced often in strong winds.

B. By own judgment. We did not shoot when side wind was too heavy.

C. No explanation since snipers do not shoot with strong winds.

28. Can you recall the rules pertaining to your behavior when shooting at moving targets?

A, B, C: No; importance is own judgment and experience as well as fast aiming and fast firing.

TO&E and "designated marksmen"

10. Were you incorporated into a troop unit?

All three belonged to the sniper group of the battalion. C was the commander of this group. They numbered up to 22 men; six of them usually stayed with battalion, the rest were assigned to the companies. Observations and use of ammunition as well as successful hits had to be reported daily to the battalion staff. In the beginning, the snipers were called up cut of the battalion, as the war continued and the number of highly-skilled snipers decreased, they were often assigned and given their orders by the division. In addition, a few marksmen in each company were equipped with telescopic sights. These men did not have special training but were able to hit accurately up to about 400 meters and carried out a great deal of the work to be done by "actual snipers". These specially equipped riflemen served in the company as regular soldiers. This is why they could not achieve such high scores as the "snipers".

Recruitment:

17. From what group of persons were snipers selected?

A. Only people born for individual fighting such as hunters, even poachers, forest rangers, etc without taking into consideration their time of service.

B. Do not remember. I had scored 27 successful hits with Russian sniper rifle before I was ordered to participate in sniper training course.

C. Only soldiers with experience at the front who were excellent riflemen; usually after second year of service; had to comply with various shooting requirements to be accepted in the sniper training courses.

To be continued...

Firn

Firn

03-12-2010, 12:19 PM

Interviews with soviet soldiers (http://www.iremember.ru/content/view/52/74/lang,en/) in this case snipers.

Initially the exercises were easy. The size of a target – full-length, half-length, and running targets. Then they complicated the exercises gradually. The most difficult thing was to fire at a “head” target that suddenly appeared for several seconds at a distance about 300-400 meters.

More about distances.

There was another episode when we executed a specific task. A German sniper appeared at our sector of defense and started troubling us. Volodia and I used the same tactics of hunting. There was, however, only one difference: the day was sunny, therefore I slightly rocked my rifle with the optical sight over the parapet to motivate the German to fire.

As a rule, sniper's position lay a bit into the no man's zone. The best distance to fire was some 300–500 meters. We took our positions in the dark. We were allowed to leave them in the daytime only if it was possible to do it imperceptibly. If not – we sat until dark.

To execute a specific order we spent as long time as needed to liquidate the appointed target. More frequently we had free daily hunting and we liked it. You continue fighting from the same position as long as you are sure that it hasn't been discovered. Otherwise you should make off quickly.

Another interview by a female sniper:

But the Germans also put a sniper to watch us. And so I was watching, observing during my shift (because the eyes would get tired), and Marusia said: "Let me take the watch now." She got up, it was a sunny day, and she apparently moved the lens. As soon as she got up, there was a shot, and she fell. Oh, how I cried! The German was 200 meters away from us. I screamed so loud it could be heard all over the trenches, soldiers ran out: "Quiet, quiet, or they'll open mortar fire!" But how could I be quiet? She was my best friend. We sat until the evening, and I kept crying all that time. Then we buried her. I remember there were many wildflowers. It was at Orsha, at the 3rd Belorussian Front. Later her grave was moved to Mogilev, that's where she had been born. Later Nadia Lugina was also wounded from among us. My second partner was also named Marusia, last name Guliakina.

A.D. What were you taught at the school?

They taught us tactics, how to shoot, how to camouflage. Also ballistics, how the bullet flies. Here it flies, here it hits -- I forgot everything already.

A.D. Sniping partner couples were formed at the school?

At the school. When we came as civilians, Marusia Chikhvintseva and I stood next to each other, so we remained partners with her.

A.D. And did you train as partners?

Yes.

A.D. So it seems that the entire group was sent to one sector of the front?

No. Many of us graduated, I couldn't say how many now, but they sent us to all fronts.

A.D. But your group was constant? You had six pairs, right?

About 12 of us, six pairs. Simultaneously. A squad was 10 soldiers, but there were more of us.

A.D. What was the total number of Germans you killed?

I don't remember, Germans killed in battle weren't counted, only in the defense.

A.D. How did you count the kills?

The commander in whose trench we were would write a note. And we would return with it.

A.D. Then it's not clear, what if you only wounded him?

Yes, it could be, but we counted as killed.

A.D. So if he fell, that's a kill?

Yes. How would you check?

A.D. What was the usual distance you fired from?

At the school or at the front?

A.D. At the front.

1200 meters, and 200 meters. Our lines were close. Once Germans attacked our trench and took some girls prisoner, and killed them there. They killed Klava Monakhova. Only one soldier survived, there was an abandoned dug-out, simply a hole in the soil covered with a ground-sheet with snow on top, he hid there. Germans held out for a day, so he spent the day there.

A.D. What was the standard distance from which you fired? Or an optimal one?

Well, what's there to say? The rifle could shoot two kilometers in a straight line. But you could observe up to 800 meters. At the school we fired at 200, and 300. There was night target practice. Different kinds of shooting.

A.D. Even at night?

Even at night. How else?

A.D. Did you shoot at night at the front?

No.

A.D. And in the moonlight?

No. As soon as it dawned we went to our position, as soon as it got dark we returned. We stayed not in the trenches, but at the regiment commander's command post.

A.D. How many shots did you fire from one position?

One. You couldn't do two.

A.D. Or else you'd get killed?

Of course!

A.D. So, in practice that would amount to one shot per day?

Yes, if you kill, otherwise you might not have even one.

A.D. And partners were always next to each other?

Yes, at arm's length. Together all the time. Some went outside the defenses, but we didn't. Why? Because minefields had to be cleared, and that was very difficult and dangerous for the sappers. Then again, we stood as soldiers in the daytime, while the soldiers were resting. There were fifty soldiers in a trench. Ten of them, no more, stood watch at night

...

A.D. Did you use binoculars?

No, only the optical sight.

A.D. But the sight doesn't have a good field of view?

You could see 800 meters very well. You would sit there without moving, and if you moved, then you were noticed. A sniper would lie there quietly and see to the distance of two kilometers, 800 meters wide. He would observe everything. When I got tired, I would say "Marusia, I'm done," -- she would start observing. Because sniper's task was to eliminate commanders, machine gun emplacements, messengers that would be running around. They also had to be eliminated. Soldiers were not necessary, mostly -- officers, commanders. You would fire one shot, let go of the rifle, and lie there. You would wait until your partner fired her shot. When it became dark, we left our position. During the day we walked around, looked for a good spot to lie in wait. Sometimes picked a spot in front of our trenches. After picking a spot, took up the position when it was dark. Then we lay there without moving a muscle until the next evening, because you couldn't crawl away in the daylight. If there was an attack, that was different, then you would get up and run. Otherwise, you would lie in that spot to the end.

A.D. Did you have hand grenades?

Yes. We carried two hand grenades on our belt. One for the fascists, one for yourself, so you wouldn't be captured by the fascists. It was necessary.

A.D. Did you fire in the crosswind?

Yes, we were trained to do that. And firing at moving targets as well. Different things. Some fired, others spun those targets. At our school, there was one good trench, and one small one. God save you from being sent there, you would spend the entire day in the snow. After you returned, you would literally tear your foot bindings off your feet. Everyone's feet hurt.

A.D. Because you had to lie in the snow?

Yes. At the front we also lay in the swamps. Near Leningrad, there were only swamps. If a horse passed by, there was water under the hoofs. You would wash yourself with it, and even drink from that hoof print.

A.D. Did you have a regular Mosin rifle?

Yes, a three-line rifle (line=1/10 inch, 3 lines=7.62 mm - trans.) with a bayonet. Regular one. Always with a bayonet and an optical sight.

A.D. Why the bayonet?

Just in case, if you go on the attack. An entrenching tool, a mess tin, two grenades, ammo, first aid kit.

A.D. What was the farthest target you hit?

Near the Dnieper, a machine gunner and a sniper.

A.D. What was the distance there?

Across a field, they were sitting in a shed. Probably a kilometer, if not more. A target could be hit up to two kilometers.

A.D. You were attached to a regiment? A sniper squad was attached to a regiment?

To a regiment. A trench was given to us. That was the place we went until the offensive began. In a designated area.

A.D. What was the sense in that? If you couldn't occupy the same position?

There was a lot of room there. We had 500 meters, and there were two of us.

..

A.D. Maybe there were some incidents you could talk about in detail?

How I killed? It was horrible. Better not. I told you, Olga and I lay at arm's length from each other. We spoke quietly because the German would be there not far in front of us. They were listening to everything. Their outposts were better organized, after all. We tried not to move, to say something quietly, find a target. Everything would grow so numb! For example, I would say: "Olia, mine." She would already know -- she wouldn't kill that one. After the shot I would only help her observe. I would say, for example: "There, behind that house, behind that bush", and she would already know where to look. We took turns shooting. During the daytime we were always in position, came and left at night. Every day. No days off.

A.D. So you're saying, you couldn't move the rifle?

Absolutely no!

A.D. So how did it lie? Simply against the shoulder?

Against the shoulder and your finger was always on the trigger. Because you might've had to pull it at any moment. The sector of fire was 800 m. And so you would look, and suddenly a target would appear. When the target reached the crosshairs, then I fired. This means that the target walked into the shot on its own. And, of course, that spot would've been ranged.

There is certainly far more to good shooting in war than markmanship...

Firn

Firn

03-12-2010, 12:20 PM

The "Finnish view on sniping (http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/finnish.html)" raises some other points, but mostly reinforces the older ones.

The Russian snipers seem to execute their tasks with extraordinary patience and tenacity and seem to have excellent material at their disposal. This can be concluded from the fact that they were able to discern even the least movement at great distances and that they concentrated their efforts only upon well-selected, sure and visible targets. Generally speaking, they were interested only in sure targets. Also the cooperation between several snipers seems to be smooth and the allocation of the different phases of the work well-organized.

It seems that once in a while two snipers go after the same target, for it happened that two men walking side by side were hit almost at the same time. On another occasion, one of our [Finnish] snipers was taking aim at his opponent when another enemy sniper shot his rifle to pieces. The sniper's mate not only takes care of the observation, but also the deception of the enemy. He tries by all conceivable means to lure lookouts and guards from their protective cover.

Enemy snipers have used "dum-dum" ammunition, which made it more difficult to locate the spot from which the shot was fired but easier for the enemy to observe a hit.

(4) Ranges and Performances

Depending upon the distance between the lines, the ranges run from 100 to 900 yards, but occasionally enemy snipers have tried shots up to 1,400 yards. The usual and most effective distance is 200 to 400 yards, but even at 600 to 700 yards the accuracy of fire has been fairly satisfactory.

The fire readiness and speed of fire have been good even on moving targets, a proof on the one hand of thorough training, and on the other of the indispensability of the telescopic sight.

The speed and accuracy of fire gave rise to the suspicion that snipers posted in buildings made use of special aids. The accuracy of the fire may be illustrated by the following examples:

At 200 to 400 yards several scissors telescopes and periscopes were smashed to pieces. One sniper shot down a small rock which had been placed in an observation slit three times in rapid succession.

When one of our MG platoon commanders lifted his hand just once above the snow-wall to repair the alarm wire a Russian sniper scored a hit on his hand at 100 yards. A sniper was hit several times through an observation slit fashioned into the snow-wall with a stick. Various objects lifted by our men above the parapet, as a trial, were generally hit. It also happened that Finnish observers behind periscopes, were shot at through the snow wall.

To sum it, at least in my humble opinion:

If facing a competent enemy, only an unseen and/or unsuppressed, well-trained and suited soldier with good equipment can kill well at longer ranges with individual rifle-fire.

Firn

P.S: The "scoring system" differed considerably between the Germans and Soviets but there were also similar approaches:

A.D. What was the total number of Germans you killed?

I don't remember, Germans killed in battle weren't counted, only in the defense.

A.D. How did you count the kills?

The commander in whose trench we were would write a note. And we would return with it.

A.D. Then it's not clear, what if you only wounded him?

Yes, it could be, but we counted as killed.

A.D. So if he fell, that's a kill?

Yes. How would you check?

12. In what warfare could the sniper be most successful?

A. The best success for snipers did not reside in the number of hits, but in the damage caused the enemy by shooting commanders or other important men. As to the merit of individual hits, the snipers best results could be obtained in defense since the target could be best recognized with respect to merit by careful observation. Also with respect the numbers, best results could be obtained in defense since the enemy attacked several times during a the day.

B. Defense. Other hits were not certified.

C. Best results during extended positional warfare and during enemy attacks; good results also during delaying action.

30. What was the method by which your hits were certified?

A, B, C, By observation and confirmation by an officer, non-commissioned officer or two soldiers. This is why the number of certified hits is smaller than the actual score.

Both sides didn't "score" during attacks or battles. But the Germans had far more stringent certification requirements. One can easily see that given an equal amount of "success" the overall numbers of certified hits had to be considerably lower for a German sniper compared to a Soviet one.

kaur

03-13-2010, 11:15 AM

About Finnish snipers. According to 21th century definition, those guys were more like marksmen. The irony is that most of them fought without optical sights. Simo Häyhä, the soldier who is on the top of world sniper kills list, had rifle without optical sight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

PS I'd like to ask also advice from you. How sharphooters became snipers during I WW? Their tasks were the same (sharp shooting), but they got new name. Is this just flirt with words by Englishmen? I can't find no explanation to this :(

This is funny picture. Upper picture says that those guys are snipers, but lower picture talks about scharfscütze (which means sharposhooter in German).

http://books.google.ee/books?id=qLCm7-E9DmEC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=scharfschutze+1914&source=bl&ots=vLLG24KDyd&sig=tHsayLFkNqan4R_NgV5ELaAhf8Q&hl=ru&ei=QIGbS9i_DoHc-QbU45DPAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CB4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Firn

03-13-2010, 01:05 PM

If we look at the fundamentals I think we can draw several conclusions concerning effective long-range combat shooting against competent opponents.

Some tentative insight:

1) Only men which are not effectively suppressed can kill effectively over long distances (tautology alert)

2) Only tactical skill, care, patience and camouflage can make detection and thus suppression or death difficult enough, but fierce battles and firefights help the sharpshooters to conceal themselves in the fury of battle (but put them at high HE risk).

3) Only optics allow for effective observation and shooting at longer ranges and under difficult light situations. Binoculars are considered by experienced users essential (as well as NV for night combat). A good spotting scope can be of the greatest value and a periscopes a very useful supplement. (Thermal sights could greatly facilitate observation.)

4) Only one or at the very most two shots are advisable (or possible before death) outside a (major) firefight when good true enemy snipers are on the battlefield. (Modern sound suppressors should make a huge difference. Mitigation of the thermal signature could also be of great importance)

5) Only independent positioning and action allows for truly effective observation and rifle fire during "calm" periods and firefights. (This is linked to camouflage, detection and suppression. Sharpshooters who bunches up with a squad which blasts away can be suppressed with far greater ease than somebody working in front, the rear or on the flanks. )

6) Only a team of sharpshooters can keep up a constant, high standard of observation and readiness over a long period of time and deliver effective rifle fire out to extreme ranges and in adverse conditions (changing side winds, etc.)

... Last but not least ...

7) Only well trained and suited men and women with suitable equipment can be effective sharpshooters. Not too many can be trained for this task(s).

Thoughts:

For the reasons mentioned above, accurate long-range shooting might be delivered better by an independent section at platoon level or even company level or higher than by soldiers in a normal rifle squad. This doesn't mean that a "designated marksman" with a versatile weapon is futile at the squad level. Both the cost of the equipment and the training should be prohibitive...

Firn

Firn

03-14-2010, 05:30 PM

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.

Against a competent enemy he needs to be also adept a camouflage (or not exposing himself) and be a patient observer.

-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.

Agreed. Both the platoon and the squad can make sense in the current fight. In a long-range engagement it might make more sense that the squad supports the DM (and the heavier weapons) than the other other way around as well as the DM/LRR support the platoon.

-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.

-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.

I think that there are very good arguments for an accurate, semi-automatic DM rifle in a decent caliber. The 7.62 is a good choice, very well supported and is available in many good potential DM rifles. A good, rugged scope, perhaps variable (3-9, 3-12, something like that), a good sound suppressor, a good, partly adjustable stock and cheek-rest and a good, practical bipod are much more important than pure bench-rest accuracy.

Especially the sound suppressor seems to me of the greatest importances when having skilled enemy marksmen at the other side, at least this is what I take from the lessons learned by the interviews of the German, Russian and Finnish snipers of WWII. Masking the position was key to survival and the signature of the shot ( flash, sound, debris) were clear give-aways and made very often a second shot very risky or deadly. It strikes me as stupid to get highly skilled and valuable men killed because a relative cheap solution to a big problem was not purchased.

Firn

davidbfpo

03-14-2010, 07:42 PM

Moderator's Note

I have copied some of Firn's posts on sniping to this thread, as they are appropriate here and had originally been posted on an Afghan-related tactics thread: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=9942

Firn

03-15-2010, 09:22 AM

@david: I'm perfectly fine with that.

Going through the articles and some other works I tried to find out what else compromised a sharpshooter's or sniper's location or cost him his live. Some give-aways are easily greatly mitigated.

Eliminating the optic's shining or glare

Modern optics provide many big advantages but they can easily give away the position of very well camouflaged soldier by the tell-tale glare.

But the Germans also put a sniper to watch us. And so I was watching, observing during my shift (because the eyes would get tired), and Marusia said: "Let me take the watch now." She got up, it was a sunny day, and she apparently moved the lens. As soon as she got up, there was a shot, and she fell. Oh, how I cried! The German was 200 meters away from us. I screamed so loud it could be heard all over the trenches, soldiers ran out: "Quiet, quiet, or they'll open mortar fire!" But how could I be quiet? She was my best friend. We sat until the evening, and I kept crying all that time. Then we buried her. I remember there were many wildflowers. It was at Orsha, at the 3rd Belorussian Front. Later her grave was moved to Mogilev, that's where she had been born. Later Nadia Lugina was also wounded from among us. My second partner was also named Marusia, last name Guliakina.

Glare often meant a sniper's death - they are often both hunter and hunted.

There was another episode when we executed a specific task. A German sniper appeared at our sector of defense and started troubling us. Volodia and I used the same tactics of hunting. There was, however, only one difference (a helmet was used to bait a very skilled German machine-gunner who was the terror of the whole company): the day was sunny, therefore I slightly rocked my rifle with the optical sight over the parapet to motivate the German to fire.

(In the last episode the second sniper of the "hunter pair" spotted the enemy MG gunner due to the shot (muzzle flash, movement, ..) and killed him. )

Of course the very valuable periscopes and scissor telescopes were subject to close observation and targeting.

At 200 to 400 yards several scissors telescopes and periscopes were smashed to pieces. One sniper shot down a small rock which had been placed in an observation slit three times in rapid succession.

A very interesting episode of WWI (From sniping in France (http://www.archive.org/details/snipinginfrancew00pricrich))

Once the Germans startled a new and large form of periscope and we ceased destroying them at once the moment a clever observer found that with the telescope he could read the reflection of the numbers on the shoulder straps of the Germans who used them, thereby allowing us to identify the opposing unit with both comfort and ease.

Interestingly rule 1 in the use of spotting scopes (telescopes) of the same book is:

Rules for uses

1. Always extend the sun-shade (more O.P. have been given away by the light shining upon the object-glass of telescopes than in any other way)

... also

6. When looking into the sun make a sun-shade nine inches or a foot long to fit on the short sun-shade of the telescope. This will give you great assistance when the sun is over the German lines. This trick is borrowed from the chamois-hunters of the Pyrenees

What can be done about it?

- (Very) long sunshades
- Little honey-combed "kill flash" covers
- Using both togheter or separate, according to the specific needs

Both solutions are pretty cheap (http://www.opticswarehouse.co.uk/products.asp?cat=247). There should be easily money enough to prevent 95% of all shining reflections upon the ever more widely used optical devices. Every optic and every soldier behind it should protected by such a cheap and yet very effective solution.

Firn

P.S: Not only optics revealed the important targets:

No, I didn't tell everything. That hill. We attacked. Then we got pinned down by that machine gun and the sniper. The regiment chief of staff Aleksei Kitaev was next to me. He had a cap with a bright band. They shot him from the beginning.

William F. Owen

03-15-2010, 10:47 AM

Going through the articles and some other works I tried to find out what else compromised a sharpshooter's or sniper's location or cost him his live. Some give-aways are easily greatly mitigated.

While this is all good stuff, and not to be forgotten, I think the performance of modern Electro-optics does need to be considered. Thermal Imagery and the much higher magnifications are all very real dangers when it comes to being detected.

Tukhachevskii

03-15-2010, 10:48 AM

I have always thought that the sniper section (www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-21/chap1.htm#1-10) attached to the Stryker Battalions adds a unique capability which would be better employed at coy level as precision HVT/long range engagement assets rather than as specialised "snipers". Each three man team includes an M24, a 12.7mm M107 and an M4/M203 combo. pool three or four such teams under a section leader and attached to the coy wpns platoon would be force multipliers to be reconed with especially in SBF situations or on defensive operations. They would even be valuable in patrols (assigned to recon elements) with their specialised observation skils as well as providing direct precision fires in MOUT/FIBUA (or FISH & CHIPS) situations esp. the M107 against machine gun/sniper positions for instance.

Uboat509

03-15-2010, 11:10 AM

kaur

03-15-2010, 11:49 AM

One comment, to Uboat509 "calling in targets". I speculate that using snipers ability to shoot sharpliy depends a lot of tactics of your unit and principle of "economy of force". If you can't call in targets because you just don't have anyone in the sky or behind the mountains, you use your rifle. If someone is answering your calls, you can bring in B-52. Other question is price of ordnance. Bad thing is that snipers are mostly associated with ability to destroy tiny targets, but they can scout and observe too. Already this book was called "With Notes on the Scientific Training of Scouts, Observers, and Snipers"

http://www.archive.org/details/snipinginfrancew00pricrich

And this scouting/sniping/observing thread is already here:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=8165

82redleg

03-15-2010, 02:37 PM

Firn

03-15-2010, 06:07 PM

While this is all good stuff, and not to be forgotten, I think the performance of modern Electro-optics does need to be considered. Thermal Imagery and the much higher magnifications are all very real dangers when it comes to being detected.

Indeed, but it cuts of course both ways. Take for example magnification. The interview of the German snipers, among them the two guys with the highest certified kills certainly appreciated the optics with higher magnification used by them in the field. Prichard does too, and the telescopes they used had often considerably higher ones. Modern quality spotting scopes offer a far superior picture even at very high (60x65) magnification and under difficult conditions and are available at decent prices. Said that both fixed 20 or 30x and variable (15-45, 20-60) eypieces have their values, but variables have become perhaps the better overall choices.

Prichard has one example where two observers could distinguish French women cutting corn some 7000 yards away from German soldiers, but also underlines the importance of being able to observe minute details at much shorter ranges. Good spotting scopes make in my opinion in quite some environments a lot of sense for DM sections.

Thermals open up a whole new world due to the new EO spectrum, and could be very valuable additions to sections . I think it is difficult to gauge already their effects on the whole observing and sniping game.

Firn

Firn

03-16-2010, 05:41 AM

Just my take on a few things, first of all, I am more than a little skeptical of anything that the Russian said. Much of it was vague but a few things stood out as extremely unlikely. The first has to do with range. When asked what range she engaged from in combat, she listed 1200 meters and 200 meters. She also stated that the rifles that they were standard issue rifles with optical sights. 1200 meters is a tough shot with modern purpose build sniper rifles with top of the line optics. I find it hard to believe that they were continuously, effectively engaging targets at this range with production rifles with what were likely substandard optics. In another part of the interview she also mentions that here first kill was at 1000 meters and that shot could be made at 2000 meters. 2000 meters? Really? I am not buying that one at all. I have serious trouble believing that a Russian wartime production rifle was that accurate, never mind the optics or the skills of the sniper.

A.D. What was the standard distance from which you fired? Or an optimal one?

Well, what's there to say? ]The rifle could shoot two kilometers in a straight line. But you could observe up to 800 meters. At the school we fired at 200, and 300. There was night target practice. Different kinds of shooting.

I think this part is pretty consistent with the Finnish view on the Soviet snipers and the what the Germans said. The 2000 m are just theory, 1400 m was the highest range recorded by the Finns.

A.D. But the sight doesn't have a good field of view?

You could see 800 meters very well. You would sit there without moving, and if you moved, then you were noticed. A sniper would lie there quietly and see to the distance of two kilometers, 800 meters wide. He would observe everything. When I got tired, I would say "Marusia, I'm done," -- she would start observing. Because sniper's task was to eliminate commanders, machine gun emplacements, messengers that would be running around. They also had to be eliminated. Soldiers were not necessary, mostly -- officers, commanders.

The part you quoted does indeed sound as it would make little sense, something could have been lost in translation and other things added. So for example the first phrase could simply mean that generally moving your rifle was a very bad thing, just as the other Soviets said. The "Field of fire/view" of 800 m seems to be the breath of the field of view at 2000 m.

A.D. What was the usual distance you fired from?

At the school or at the front?

A.D. At the front.

1200 meters, and 200 meters. Our lines were close. Once Germans attacked our trench and took some girls prisoner, and killed them there. They killed Klava Monakhova. Only one soldier survived, there was an abandoned dug-out, simply a hole in the soil covered with a ground-sheet with snow on top, he hid there. Germans held out for a day, so he spent the day there.

See the Finnish view on the Soviet snipers:

(4) Ranges and Performances

Depending upon the distance between the lines, the ranges run from 100 to 900 yards, but occasionally enemy snipers have tried shots up to 1,400 yards. The usual and most effective distance is 200 to 400 yards, but even at 600 to 700 yards the accuracy of fire has been fairly satisfactory.

The fire readiness and speed of fire have been good even on moving targets, a proof on the one hand of thorough training, and on the other of the indispensability of the telescopic sight.

The speed and accuracy of fire gave rise to the suspicion that snipers posted in buildings made use of special aids. The accuracy of the fire may be illustrated by the following examples:

A sniper was hit several times through an observation slit fashioned into the snow-wall with a stick. Various objects lifted by our men above the parapet, as a trial, were generally hit. It also happened that Finnish observers behind periscopes, were shot at through the snow wall

The Germans

B added: Absolutely positive hitting is possible only up to about 600 meters.

6. What was the range of the furthest target you ever fired at, and what kind of target, size?

A. About 1,000 meters. Standing soldier. Positive hitting not possible, but necessary under the circumstances in order to show enemy that he is not safe even at that distance! Or superior wanted to satisfy himself about capability.

Her partner was usually roughly 20 m away and the importance of a single shot during sniper duels was underscored by the Germans too. I do think that the "hunting" in pairs had also the advantage that if the enemy sniper got one, he could have fallen to the bullet of the second Soviet which saw the signature.

It seems that once in a while two snipers go after the same target, for it happened that two men walking side by side were hit almost at the same time. On another occasion, one of our [Finnish] snipers was taking aim at his opponent when another enemy sniper shot his rifle to pieces.

This Finnish observation one is also interesting and consistent with the hunting methods of the male sniping pair.

The sniper's mate not only takes care of the observation, but also the deception of the enemy. He tries by all conceivable means to lure lookouts and guards from their protective cover.

A quick googling in youtube yielded some results:

The counter-sniping and luring starts at 9:20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe-PVjm9vsk)

This fits with what the German (Austrian mountain division) would say.

16. What else is especially important in addition to excellent marksmanship?

A: Besides the generally known quality of a sniper it is especially important to be able to outsit the enemy. The better "Tactician at detail" wins in combat against enemy snipes. The exemption from commitment to any other duties contributes essentially to the achievement of high scores.

Firn

Firn

03-16-2010, 06:08 AM

Another thing that I noticed, at least from my perspective, was how these snipers were employed. They are referred to as snipers throughout but they were actually being used more in the designated marksman type role. There is an important distinction to be made there, at least according to our doctrine as I understand it. When most people hear the word sniper, they automatically think of some guy in a guilly suit with a rifle making kills at extreme ranges. While that is part of what a sniper does, it is important to note that a sniper's ability to access a denied area and accurately observe and report on it is of much greater value than the ability to engage one target at range.

It is the same with a sniper. Certainly there are times when one well placed shot can wreck havoc with the enemy but more often I believe that greater value can be derived by having the sniper observe and report on enemy activity in an area where the enemy believes that they are safe from observation.

Interesting thoughts.

It seems to me that this deep infiltration thing was not often done, at least not where those snipers served. This is the only thing I could find about it. Perhaps troop concentration was too high and one said had no technology advantage to better use the night.

A added: In a few cases, I had to penetrate the enemies main line of resistance at night before our own attack. When our own artillery had opened fire, I had to shoot at enemy commanders and gunners because our own forces would have been too weak in number and ammunition without this support.[/U]

The general rule on all sides was that the "true" snipers were simply too valuable to risk them easily (look at night fighting).

Modern technology could have changed that, as calling in fire has certainly become far easier than during WWII.

The invaluable value of the observation done by the snipers and spotters has already been testified during WWI, you just have to take a look at the "Sniping in France" of the archive.org. The author, who organized a great deal of the sniping and observation efforts of the BEF really liked to drive that point home. All in all to dominate the sniper's battle was highly benificial for excellent observation and the blinding of the enemy.

Firn

Firn

05-02-2010, 06:45 PM

I recently looked at some wartime manuals from the first and second world wars in respect to snipers/sharpshooters/designated marksmen. I will start with a German one.

The German Manual "Vorläufige Richtlinien für Ausbilduvg und Kampf von Skitruppen (1942)" (Tentative Instructions for the Training and Tactics of Ski Troops) writes that it is desirable for raiding parties (Jagdkommandos?) to have as many telescopic sights as possible. The scopes should be mounted on semiautomatic rifles. Other than that:

Weapons

Maximum fire power and mobility are decisive factors in determining the type and number of weapons with which the individual ski trooper should be equipped. Therefore, the men must be equipped with the largest possible number of automatic weapons, rifles with telescopic sights, and a correspondingly large supply of ammunition. Half of the total personnel will be equipped with submachine guns and semiautomatic rifles.

The number of heavy weapons to be taken along depends on the facilities for carrying sufficient ammunition. Fewer arms and plenty of ammunition should be the rule.

The three large Jaeger squads (at least 1 scoped rifle each) should be supported by a heavy mortar squad and an pioneer detachment - the latter armed only with submachine guns and plenty of handgrenades.

About the isolated firefight:

Increasing the allotment of telescopic sights to riflemen strengthens the fire power of the squad and favors the more frequent firing of single shots. Concentration of the fire of all rifles with telescopic sights to overpower important single targets (enemy lead-
ers, observation posts, and machine guns) can be of particular advantage before and during an attack, and also in defense. Because of the limitations of transportation in ski warfare the platoon or squad leader must control the use of ammunition.

...

Training

In training the individual rifleman, the most important thing is marksmanship. The various firing positions will be practiced with and without skis. Training as sharpshooters with rifles equipped with telescopic sights, and with semiautomatic rifles, will be particularly stressed. Every man must be trained in the use of the light machine gun and the submachine gun. A knowledge of the most common infantry weapons of the enemy is desirable.

...

It seems that a great deal of German and Finnish (and likely indirect Soviet) experience went into this manual. It is interesting to see how the desirable "standard" squad was tweaked. The "ideal" strenght or equipment was in times of war usually just that, ideal.

"Standard" Squad of 10:

1 SQL, SMG, Field glasses
1 MG Gunner, MG, Pistol
1 MG Assistent, Pistol
1 MG Ammunition-carrier, Pistol
1 SIC, rifle
4 Riflemen, rifle

"Raiding Skisquad" (Jagdtrupp/Jagdgruppe) of 12:

1 SQL, SMG, Field glasses
1 SIC, SMG,
1 MG Gunner, MG, Pistol
1 MG Assistent, Pistol, Field Glasses (on of the three)
1 MG Ammun.-carrier, Rifle
3 Sharpshooter/Riflemen, Semiautomatic rifles with scopes
2 Grenadiers, bolt-action rifle with grenade discharger - (the manual says "at least one")
2 Riflemen, bolt-action rifles.

(Two persons are needed to pull the weapon akja (handsled) with the GPMG)

The mortar squad of 13 should also have a group of four sharpshooter/riflemen with scoped semi-automatic rifles, the crew of the mortar has pistols and 4 riflemen helping to draw the 5 akjas/sledges. The engineer/pioneer detachment has only submachine guns, special (explosive) equipment and many handgrenades.

Changes in strength, composition, and equipment of the squad may be ordered to meet the requirements of the situation.

Firn

Original foreword:

The manual Tentative Instructions for the Training and Tacties of Ski Troops is based on the experience gained from organizing, training, and employing ski battalions, raiding detachments, and improvised ski companies on the Eastern Front, as well as on knowledge gained from the Finnish Army.

William F. Owen

05-03-2010, 04:07 AM

GI Zhou

05-03-2010, 06:11 AM

I have a couple of opinions which may or not stand the test of time or criticism but occurred on air farce exercises I was involved with.

Generally the best shots are your most valuable people and there being taking away to become a DM when pre-deployment training is about to start, can occur. This is an issue that needs to be looked at before a deployment but the best made plans.... Just in time training often isn't.

Secondly being given a special weapon, different to the rest of the section whilst good for the individual does leave them singled out, making them a target if the other side has marksmen as well.

Thirdly because of their skills they could be employed as a body guard for the OIC and not used in their proper role.

In my case I was the most skilled and best shot with pistol or rifle out of three squads, so was used with the SNCO to provide fire as required. I had not done DM training but was the most experienced NCO. This is of course what the DM should be used for. I was strong enough in those days to shoot an L2 heavy barrel SLR (FN-HBAR) from the shoulder unassisted but was employed to fire single shots accurately with its bipod at longer ranges and on full automatic as a surprise.

Later on everyone was issued the Steyr AUG. The Steyr AUG is easier and more accurate for the ladies to carry but not my preferred weapon.

Firn

05-03-2010, 10:12 AM

I forgot to add the link (http://carl.army.mil/wwIIspec/number20.pdf), the very words led also to this one. (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=37295&start=30)

Chances are high that a great deal of the German experience and writing came from the Austrian/German mountain divisions/training centers. The German mountain jaeger were also at least partly skimobile due to basic training in the Alpine environment and fought often in close cooperation with the Finns along the Northern Front (see also the second link). The password "Garmisch-Partenkirchen" denotes a town in the Bavarian Alps with one of the most important training centers of the Mountain Jaeger. Of course the Karelian forests were just one of the environments in which Skitroops fought. The Taiga for example also forced specific adaptions.

The rifles:

While the manual prefers to have the sights on semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic rifles and scoped ones are often treated as different entities. This makes sense as most German and captured Soviet scoped rifles were operated by bolt-action. The preference to scope the semi-automatic rifles is interesting, perhaps they were simply in many circumstances the better compromise between accuracy and quick shooting (See also the interview of the Austrian snipers, which served also mostly in Mountain divisions IIRC).

The training:

In training the individual rifleman, the most important thingis marksmanship. The various firing positions will be practiced with and without skis. Training as sharpshooters with rifles equipped with telescopic sights, and with semiautomatic rifles, will
be particularly stressed. Every man must be trained in the use of the light machine gun and the submachine gun. A knowledge of the most common infantry weapons of the enemy is desirable.

I quoted this again as I missed the part which seems to indicate the better shots of the riflemen should get sharpshooter training and prefer (unscoped) semi-automatic rifles over (unscoped) standard ones. But there something might have been lost in translation as the Germans might have used different terms for the K98k ("Karabiner") and the Gewehr 43 ("Gewehr"). Anyway both would fit at the maxim to get most firepower with good mobility.

The guiding factors in selecting personnel for these ski groups are aggressiveness, marksmanship, and proficiency in skiing.

There are also many other interesting aspects detailed in this manual, from the importance of radio to the high need of much fieldcraft. To remain in the realm of firepower the light mortar often seems to have not been worth the weight - a single 81mm mortar with plenty of ammunition (4 akjas à 18 rounds, air-bursting grenades were often desirable, smoke was also carried) was prefered by larger raiding parties (roughly 60 men).

I also forgot to add the second akja of the Squad, which was often pulled behind the rest of the squad (with the SIC tail). The weapons akja was in front. While rifle grenades are clearly included in the first part ("at least one grenade discharger per squad") they are not detailed in the second part. Maybe simply forgotten or sacrificed in larger raining parties for more heavy mortar bombs. With a sighting device with a small spirit bubble and new war-time fuzes the grenadier could engage indirect targets at 300 m (500 m with better quality HE-grenades which allowed for more propellant. The light German 2-inch mortar was of course a better indirect fire choice, but lacked the semidirect firepower of the rifle grenades and was overshadowed by the attached 81 cm.)

Firn

P.S: Of course weight was a big issue even back then - the worth of modern vehicles like the Bandvagn or the Nasu can not be overestimated. Who had the experiences of a long ski march uphill and a nice drive will know why :D

In selecting equipment to be taken along, the aim must be to achieve the greatest possible economy in weight. The equipment which will permit the individual soldier to maintain his fighting strength must be based on the tactical requirements of the contemplated action.

For the first time in our life we (7. mountain division) saw the Finns' so-called Sissi combat and reconnaissance patrol food supplies which consisted - that being for us at that time completely new - to a large extent of concentrated food, which were easy to handle and also transport. Nescafe dried egg pulver, Special chocolate and similar things were given us by the Finns and the weight of our backpack was reduced at least around 2/3. It was interesting, that this food supply was almost exclusively of American origin.

Additional German, British and Japanese WWII manuals are available here (http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/wwIIspec/index.asp)

Firn

05-03-2010, 10:17 AM

From the manual „British commandos (1942) (http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/wwIIspec/number01.pdf)“. The quotes are from the Vaagso raid.

The ANZAC independent company should have had according to this paper at that time 1 sniper rifle per section, in all 9. Of course this document alone gives as just a little hint on how they were organized. Binos and telescopes were also issued, and there was a special training session for use of the telescope.

45. Group 2, from the start, encountered very stiff opposition, both from German infantry who fought to the last man in the buildings in which they were established, and from snipers, armed often with automatic rifles, who took up positions on the hillside west of the town where they were ery difficult to locate owing to the excellent natural cover.

It must be emphasized that the opposition in South Vaagso was severe in degree and skillful in quality. It appears from the interrogation of prisoners that the garrison had been augmented by a detachment who had been moved into the town for Christmas, but, however that may be, there is no doubt that the fighting spirit, marksmanship, and efficiency of the enemy in this area was of a high order.

The original troops of Group 2 had suffered heavy casualties and were operating in small parlties, very determinedly and
often under the leadership of junior N. C. O.'s, but making only slow progress against the German infantry posts and snipers from the hillside.

88. During this period Boarding Parties came under fire from snipers ashore and it is regretted that the stroke oar of Destroyer A's whaler was killed. The background of snow and black rock enabled the snipers to conceal their positions most successfully. Destroyer A, however, used her main armament, pom-porn and Oerlikons, at intervals to keep down the fire.

93. While No. 5 Group were being re-embarked snipers were very troublesome. Their stronghold was bombarded and sprayed with all armaments from both destroyers, and as a result no further trouble was experienced from that quarter.

Lessons learned in the Vaagso raid

2. It is considered that where H. M. Ships are likely to enter fiords, snipers should be provided on the scale of two per destroyer, who should be marksmen and should be equipped with sniper's rifles (a long Lee-Enfield with telescopic sight is suggested). These ratings should have full authority to open fire without further orders whenever a target.

Soldier_X

05-16-2010, 07:35 PM

I've trained SDM's at a school house for a bit. In the US Army the proponent for all things marksmanship is the US Army Infantry School (USAIS). Our Program of Instruction (POI) was submitted to USAIS for approval as THE SDM POI. There are always things in the works. I suspect it wont be too long before the next Marksmanship FM comes out.

As we teach it, the SDM is responsible for those targets from 300 to 600 meters, at ranges beyond that the targets belong to Snipers (doctrinally speaking). Extensive research conducted by the USMC Warfighter Lab had other quantifiable and interesting findings on the efficacy, use, tactics, purpose and role of the DM. This research is referenced in current training.

The SDM program found in the back of the current FM, suggests a 5 day training plan. This is too short, simply because a great deal of US Army units do not follow the marksmanship training strategy as outlined by the USAIS. Conflicting reference materials directing army marksmanship training, have resulted in units choosing the path of least resistance (i.e., DA PAM 385-38 STRAC). The STRAC is a peacetime guide, we havent been at peace in quite some time, but that is the reference that nearly every unit uses.

We could effectively implement a 5 day SDM course if the Army instead followed the training strategy outlined by USAIS which is PMI (12hrs), Simulators 1 day, grouping fire 1 day, zero 1 day, KD fam fire & qual 1 day, Pop up fam fire & qual 1 day. This concludes BRM. This is supposed to happen at least twice a year.

********************
SDM Weapon.
95% of the time, if not more than that, the SDM is just another guy in the squad. So why would you issue him a special weapon when his primary mission and responsibility rest with the squad? His weapon must be suitable for his primary mission. Many are quick to say that that SDM needs an M14! Or some other such weapon... TRIPE. What we have suggested to the Army is to accurize the M16A4 with parts already in inventory.

These parts already on hand are:

Free Float Hanguards (either KAC or ARMS, both are NSN items)

Match Trigger (NSN)

New Barrel (NSN)

There are comments in this thread that SDM's don't need no fancy free float tube, or words to that effect. What information is that based off of? That is like saying the SDM needs to be only so accurate.

Do this for me; take an M16 or M4, put it in some sort of fabricated vise that securely holds the weapon, so long as NOTHING touches the weapon from the slip ring forward. With the weapon so secured, insert a laser borelight into the bore. Aim the weapon at a wall 10 m or so distant, turn on the laser, mark the wall where the laser strikes. Then "place" your hand anywhere along the weapon forward of the slip ring and watch the laser dot move off of the mark. Now imagine you were actually applying force on the weapon, like applying pressure with a sling, or holding firm with a sandbag. You get the idea.

This for the unschooled, is why you need a free floating handguard if you want to be accurate (head size accurate) to 600 meters. This is also why those in the know do not use those idiotic grip/bipods, Gucci kit to be sure; enhancing accuracy? Not so much.

The requirement for the SDM is to engage targets with well aimed fire to 600 meters. Keep that in mind.

*******************
AMMO.
The M855 62 gr. green tip does not perform as well as other 5.56 mm ammunition both in terms of external and terminal ballistics. Since the SDM is a member of the squad, there still exists in the squad the capability to penetrate barrier material with the SAW firing M855 ammo. The Mk 262 varieties are better choices for the SDM and frankly for all of the riflemen in the squad in terms of the ballistics, external and terminal.

***************

Additional pieces of kit:

SDM's can be task organized to peform supporting roles in defense and in UO. Studies have shown a significant decrease in the amount of casualties in terms of fratricide and enemy fire, when the SDM is in overwatch supporting the movement of the fire team or squad.

To aid the SDM in this role two pieces of kit will help, a light weight laser range finder, and the HBL-S bipod with ARMS #32 mount.

...

In closing, the SDM IS NOT a sniper. He is an assaulter, with a good deal of additional marksmanship training. How good he is depends upon the quality of the initial training, the frequency and quality of the sustainment training, and the character of the individual Soldier. In the counter insurgency fight, civilian casualties are especially a bad thing. With highly trained riflemen we can dramatically improve our first round hit probability and the decrease the use of supporting arms which are far more likely to produce unintended consequences.

Firn

05-19-2010, 05:00 PM

In closing, the SDM IS NOT a sniper. He is an assaulter, with a good deal of additional marksmanship training. How good he is depends upon the quality of the initial training, the frequency and quality of the sustainment training, and the character of the individual Soldier. In the counter insurgency fight, civilian casualties are especially a bad thing. With highly trained riflemen we can dramatically improve our first round hit probability and the decrease the use of supporting arms which are far more likely to produce unintended consequences.

The squad sharpshooters (trained as "sharpshooters") of this raiding parties on skies seem to have been based on a pretty intensive amount of German, Finnish and Soviet experience. In short according to the tentative doctrine the best shots of the units should have got the individual weapons with the highest degree of long-range firepower and the so important telescopic sights with considerable training on their use.

In this case the raiding parties could often not rely on supporting arms, albeight for different reasons, and had to win the firefight on their own, often against superior numbers. For this very reasons semi-automatic weapons were scoped instead of the usual bolt-action ones.

I will continue later.

Firn

Firn

05-24-2010, 10:36 AM

Sorry for delaying my response a bit.

I think we covered overall the training, doctrine, weapons and calibers pretty well. The different approaches have different merits, for example the US Army one seems to be pretty much low-risk training and doctrine wise, while it still reaps considerable benefits.

Perhaps we discussed optics in less detail. I already wrote that not just the author of the last paper does time and time again note the importance of good optics. The quantity and quality of them made quite an impact on the battlefields of WWII and nobody seemed to get enough of them. German plans to equip large numbers of semi-automatic and assault rifles with telescopic sights failed for obvious reasons. In the current conflicts this old idea has become pretty much standard in Western forces, even if in different forms.

--------------------------------

OPTICS

Telescopic Sights:

While the DM is not a sniper and often uses a modified version of the standard rifle he could make good use of a "sniper scope". A quality tactical, rugged, variable power scope with a good compromise between low (1.5 - 3?) and high (6-12) magnification could allow him to handle both the standard duties as "assaulter" and the additional ones as sharpshooter. Quality, high magnification facilitates especially at longer ranges target detection and identification. The choice of the reticle and the FP is of very considerable importance and not an easy one. The scope has of course to be compatible with the standard NV equipment.

Additional pieces of kit:

SDM's can be task organized to peform supporting roles in defense and in UO. Studies have shown a significant decrease in the amount of casualties in terms of fratricide and enemy fire, when the SDM is in overwatch supporting the movement of the fire team or squad.

To aid the SDM in this role two pieces of kit will help, a light weight laser range finder, and the HBL-S bipod with ARMS #32 mount.

An ever growing numbers of (for military standards) cheap but high quality, light range finders (http://www.bearbasin.com/leica-1600-rangefinder.htm) come with a ballistic calculator which covers more and more of the important variables for long-range shooting. Tools like that take a lot of science out of the art of war, as long as they work that is.

10 Years of the Leica CRF Rangefinder – Now with Integrated Measurement of Angle of Elevation/Declination, Temperature and Barometric Pressure. The new Leica Rangemaster 1600 offers:

In addition to the standard ballistic trajectory, its Leica microcomputer also integrates the angle of elevation/declination, the temperature and the barometric pressure in its calculations. This brings an invaluable benefit for hunters, as it displays the point of aim in less than 0.3 seconds without any need to study ballistic tables and without laborious measuring procedures. Hunters can react rapidly and accurately and get their shots right on target in even the most difficult situations.

A further improvement offered by the new Leica Rangefinder 1600 is its extended range of 1500 meters (1600 yards), and the rejection of measured distances below ten meters. This aspect of its measuring behavior is particularly important for hunters and makes the Leica Rangefinder ideal for use from cover Bushes, brush and grass at close range can now no longer influence its measuring performance. All measuring results are analyzed electronically and deliver only unambiguous and accurate values.

A light and compact 20-60 or 15-45 spotting scope with a light, low tripod and a light mount (the rucksack works or a bean bag work well too if one wants to reduce the load) could be a great addition at the squad/platoon level. Of course it is not essential for every mission and terrain, but it can greatly aid target detection and ID when used from the overwatch position.

For COIN operations and not only a commercial digiscoping equipment suitable for a commercial digital camera might make a lot of sense too.

Firn

jcustis

05-24-2010, 10:59 AM

Firn,

I don't recall you ever making the statement out loud, but are you a trained sniper or SDM? Your posts lead me to believe that you are.

Firn

05-27-2010, 07:14 PM

Firn,

I don't recall you ever making the statement out loud, but are you a trained sniper or SDM? Your posts lead me to believe that you are.

No, during my military service (Alpini) I did neither got trained as a SDM or sharpshooter nor I trained others in this regard. This is the very reason why I always tried to reference my comments in this thread and to provide links to the wartime sources from which I have drawn said tentative conclusions.

My paternal grandfather on the other hand worked as a forest guard in a small private hunting estate before he got drafted late 1943 into the German armed forces (4. mountain division) and served as one of those informal company/platoon sharpshooters the German snipers refered to. He considered himselve a very lucky man to make it back home. (My maternal grandfather had pretty much the full program with the 2. and later the 4. mountain division from 1939-1945, on of the very few NCO who served so long and got home in one piece. Ironically he was partly responsible of the skitraining behind the frontlines, as he was a very fine skier and mountaineer. They organized ski competitions too, I still have on of his invitational flyers. He was also shortly attached to Finnish units to get a deeper grasp of the Finnish way of war. From late 1943 and Kuban onwards he served in the 4. )

Currently I'm working for the forest departement (studied biology besides political science) with a focus on wildlife/predator management, which is a hot topic due to the new ever increasing presence of Bears and Wolves. (Even Golden Jackals, Enok and Raccoon are joining in. It isn't about shooting btw). Spotting scopes used now also for digiscoping have proven to be excellent ways to study wildlife (Chamoix, Ibex, also Eagles, even Lammergeiers :cool:) above the tree line, on openings and in the air. I'm also partly responsible ( it rotates) for the shooting part of the hunting exams which are held twice a year. (Worked as a hunting guard) Sadly most people (guys and girls) without military training (the conscription ended some years ago) are overall doing there almost as well as the guys with it. :rolleyes:

Firn

P.S: Maybe parts of it should get moved into my introduction post. The moderators should do what they deem best.