Sorry, didn't mean to misquote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Uboat509
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...
What goes around comes around...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Uboat509
. . . 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.
Kiwi Fruit and Kumquats, I think...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Schuld
...
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
First: who you are infusing those skills into? Are they already 19D/scouts or 11B/regular infantry?
By definition.
Quote:
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.
I do not see the discussion as not useful, I do see
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
"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?
Aha. I think I see our disconnect...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Well i did start off with this condition.
True but many have wandered off elsewhere...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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...
Yep - and that's the US Army's basic approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
... 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.