Spicer, Plaster and others helped...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kaur
I think that this is more appropriate to define designated marksman. I'd like to borrow sniper's definition from Mark Spicer's book "Illustrated manual of sniper skills."
You're right on that being the Designated Marksman (DM). I tend to agree with Wilf that the term Sniper is subject to misuse. For example, Spicer's definition you supplied:
Quote:
"Sniping is the employment of individual shooters from concealed positions with no warning, from any distance, depending on the range of the weapon. This is not to say, of course, that to maximize the chances of sniper surviving to fight again, the longer the distance between him and the victim the better (1). Conversely, if the sniper is able to conceal himself and engage successfully at close range, then that is also sniping (2)." (Notes added / kw)
shows the problem; in the first place 'no warning' is not necessarily always correct or necessary and the distance or range is subject to a great many tactical and terrain variables. In the second case the shooter is doing the same thing any DM does. So While I made my definition mostly as a joke, I think it might really be more accurate than the 'Expert's' serious attempt at a definition.
Wilf's point that the term 'Sniper' suffers from the baggage of the trenches here in the west and from a lot myths worldwide is correct I think.
"Sniper' has been and is misused, Designated Marksman is unwieldy and Sharpshooter has bad connotations. I was also joking about thinking up a new acronym but maybe I really ought to do that. How about 'Better than Average Destroyer And Sharp Shooter' (BADASS). Hmm. Maybe not. Needs more work. I'll see what I can come up with...
On the civilian assist in small arms training -- true. There are a lot of sport shooters here that concentrate on long distance shooting. That kind of shooting got to be a lost skill in the Army with the departure of the M1 so to build the skill for a lot of people rapidly, the Shooting Clubs pitched in to help -- as they have in every war we've been in since the 19th Century.
We can disagree but the why we do may have a bearing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kiwigrunt
...The strength of a sniper is in the "individual" aspect of his capabilities, supported by his much advanced field-craft skills as compared to average rifleman. A DM is an average rifleman with exceptional shooting skills (I think).
If I understand what you wrote, then a 'sniper' is just an average DM with exceptional capabilities... :wry:
I have a three fold question. What are these exceptional capabilities really; why are they necessary or desirable; and what are they to be used to accomplish?
Quote:
...But I still can see a potential use for the combination of these exceptional shooting skills and exceptional field craft skills, resulting in the ‘sniper’.
To do what? ' Snipe' is not a good answer:
LINK. :D
I guess I need to get the book and read it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kiwigrunt
Correct, and that would be the point. Just like with your battalion level scouts regarding recon. ;)
Then we could call them EDM -- Exceptional Designated Marksmen -- right? :wry:
Quote:
They would be referring to (apart from ‘sharp shooting’) field craft, as taught to all infantry, but to much higher standards (again, similar to your scouts).
Snipers are capable of operating unseen, behind enemy lines, in small teams (typically of two) to engage the enemy. This in contrast to scouts who avoid any contact.
I see a DM (what’s with the ‘D’ anyway, why not just M?) as integral to the unit, be that squad, platoon or company. As such his rifle can essentially be seen as a support weapon. I don’t see a DM as someone who is likely to move far from said unit.
A sniper works directly for battalion (or whatever) and can operate independently, behind enemy lines at great distances from anyone else. His rifle, which may be the exact same, would be an IW (for him).
In stability operations and in mobile warfare, there are no enemy lines to speak of -- that's always subject to modification based on the METT-TC of the war or a particular period in a war. If there is a degree of stasis, is this sniper team restricted to the Battalion zone and if so, how far out in front of the BN FLOT / FEBA / MLR or whatever we call it today can they be expected to go?
Quote:
To take out high value targets
To take out targets of opportunity
To lay forward- or flanking screens *
Ambush – or cut off to ambush *
Area denial /covering terrain *
Blocking positions *
Harass the enemy
Counter sniping and counter recon.
And, if necessary, recon or assistance to recon.(asterisks added /kw)
No sniper team or collection of sniper teams is going to do those things I placed an asterisk by. They can try but they will not be able to do any significant damage in such missions. You may not agree and if it's important, perhaps you could give me some examples of such actions. Taking just one example, in the area denial mission or the screening mission against marginal opponent, I believe that if one were to try that against a mediocre or even a poor Rifle Co they'd eat your lunch in about 30 minutes. You might get a few but your survival expectation would be quite low...
While I see some counter recon value, a DM ( LDM, Lowly DM ??? ;)) can do that job and I do not agree on using shooters for recon or scouting -- wrong mentality.
So what you're left with is HVTs (perhaps if the fates smile), targets of opportunity, harassment, counter sniping and some counter recon. Is the cost and effort to train compensated by that?
Quote:
(I pulled some of these points straight out of Mark Spicer’s book) And again, potentially all behind enemy lines and in very small teams (stealth and economy of force). And there, I think, lies the difference between a sniper and a DM.
Presuming there is an enemy line, what precisely is the sniper to do behind them? He can get off a good shot or two but then he's going to have to move thus decreasing his 'unseen' quotient. He may kill an opposing Brigade Commander -- but that is unlikely to even slow the Brigade, much less stop it. I think I see far more myth than reality here -- but I have not read the book, so I'll get hold of a copy and see what Brother Spicer has to say. Then I'll return to this sub thread.
The really good ones could become DIMWITS
Dedicated Intelligent Marksmen With Incredible Tactical Skills. :D
There was a time when I qualified for the job -- still qualify for the acronym... :wry:
Yeth, Myth ith the right word, Thir...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kiwigrunt
Thanks Fuchs, you made the points a bit clearer and more concise than I managed.
Yes, he did. In fact, he went where I was trying to get -- which is away from the sniper myth and into reality. Good job, Fuchs.
Quote:
Sure, but there could still be something that we might call ‘bandit country’.
Yep -- and that's a very different thing than 'behind enemy lines.' Neutral ground may have good guys or bad guys in varying amounts and decently trained troops can operate there in small numbers with a little stealth or in large numbers without it. Behind enemy lines implies that the Enemy occupies the territory in numbers enough that you are not there -- it's a question of opponent density.
Quote:
Does that mean that riflemen have the wrong mentality for the find function? If that’s so than we may want quite a few recon platoons to a battalion.:D
Yes and no. Depends on a lot of things like age, maturity (those two are not the same thing), experience, physical condition and other things. The basic problem is that if you have offensively oriented folks (snipers, DM, average rifleman) they do not comfortably ignore small batches of opponents and they do not have the training (nor should they) to classify a bridge, collect soil samples, determine load bearing surface capability, determine locations for river crossings or drop zones, and they are not specifically trained to observe and report. They can do a Recon patrol to find enemy formations or positions, provide local security or to select movement routes but the detailed stuff requires more than most infantrymen will be able to provide. It does take a different guy to lay still in a hide and let bad guys step on his hand. ;)
Quote:
And that would be the crucial question. Part of that equation would be, what might it potentially ‘cost’ the battalion if snipers were not fulfilling those tasks, even if they are only marginally effective. And I certainly cannot answer that.
Old METT-TC again but having operated as one -- plus later in units in combat with and without snipers -- I'd say most Bns most of the time can get by without them but if present they provide a capability that can enhance that Bns combat power slightly in some types of warfare and significantly in stability ops.
I carried a Scoped '03 during part of the moving war in Korea, I got some good shots and know others that did also -- but we admitted we did little real damage and had no significant effect. OTOH, a couple of years later when it was a static war of trenches and outposts, snipers had a ball and countersniping was in and some did some good stuff.
Snipers in Viet Nam did some legendary stuff, Carlos Hathcock for example -- but they didn't really have much effect on the war. The biggest complaint I've heard from Desert Storm snipers is that they didn't get to fire a shot.
Yet, today in both Afghanistan and Iraq, snipers have been extremely effective. Far more so than most realize or makes the news. So; lot of variables and the key, I think, is that in stability ops or a static warfare situation, they're generally more valuable than in mobile warfare.
All that said, the skill is important and needs to be maintained because in some situations, it is extremely valuable.
Quote:
. I’m really just trying to get to the bottom of this ‘myth’ and to understand it better.
Aren't we all...
Where to put them? Rifleman has a point with a Bn cell -- that occurs because it simply makes the training easier to manage in garrison -- and because if you put them in the Co (where in both our current theaters, they really should be) you have the human factor problem of disinterested or lazy NCOs or Officers that will interfere with the training and / or the employment. Bde's probably too high; Bn and Co are about right but the factors mentioned mitigate for a Bn cell. Right now in the US Army they're in the Bn Scout Platoon, I don't think they should be but the US army is reluctant to do what the Commonwealth Armies do and trust things like that to a WO or NCO. :mad:
Quote:
So, who we gonna call…….myth busters!
True dat. Myths abound about all things but the snipers, parachutists and SF have some real whoppers. Been all those and learned believing the myths can get you killed and / or embarrassed... :wry:
How about replacing the word 'sniper' with KAUR -- Kinetic Assault Ultra Range???
I'm still working on that acronym...;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kaur
...plus Wilf's patrol based infantry doctrine and I'm close to throwin word "Sniper" to dustpin :)
I'm inclined to agree on the word -- but the concept is still viable. There's a need in many circumstances, it's just important that the capabilities and limitations be understood.
Quote:
...They do need security componet close. They can act like in movie "Sniper", but in real life this is really risky (if this is even the right word) business :)
True, many times today, in US practice, a Rifle squad or more is sent with the Snipers for that reason.
Quote:
Isn't this structure close to your thought, except the "Sniper" word :D
Yes -- and in fairness, the US Army essentially considers the Sniper and his Spotter as a crew and the Sniper rifle as a crew served weapon. Having done the job with no spotter, being a bit of a loner and vaguely anti-social plus believing it is easier to hide one man than two, I don't -- but then I'm not in charge.