Are snipers and recon still valid in infantry battalions?
On posts 14 and 15 of this thread Jcustis suggested and Ken linked this 7.4 Mb pdf called ‘Scouts out’.
Interesting link, thanks for posting it.
Haven’t read the whole thing yet, just the conclusion. (No, I don’t do that when I read novels:p)
From the conclusion (page 202 / 203)
Quote:
Instead of being a function of specialized troops, perhaps reconnaissance is one of many functions of maneuver units similar to attack, defend, or move. Commanders cannot misuse units if they are organized and equipped to perform a variety of functions, of which reconnaissance is but one. So organized, former reconnaissance units will provide more flexible employment similar to the interchangeable modular brigades. As one of many similar units, they will not require augmentation. The heavy-light debate will then become moot or part of a larger discussion over the equipping of general-purpose forces.
So as not to digress from that original thread which is about armoured recon units, I’ve started a new one to see if the conclusions from this article can be applied to infantry battalions. This conclusion is conceptually (I think) what Jcustis and Wilf seem to suggest (on another thread which I can’t find back) with regards to dedicated snipers at battalion level. With other words, doing away with them. Just for clarification, they suggest DMR’s as opposed to snipers, so as not to loose the ‘sharp shooting’ aspect.
Or is their surveillance role (still combined with sniping?), as apposed to their recon role, under the S2 still useful, as this part of the conclusion may suggest:
(page 205)
Quote:
The technical aspects of reconnaissance that do not require routine interface with enemy forces and rely on specialized equipment, such as radars, are usually referred to collectively as surveillance operations. Surveillance operations do require specialized troops. However, the functions of such troops are clearly in the realm of combat support, not combat, and more properly belong in military intelligence support units rather than in combat squadrons.
And for as far as those snipers are part of a recon platoon, that platoon could then be renamed / re-rolled as a surveillance platoon…..
Another reason I can think of to keep snipers employed would be for counter-sniping
…..hmmm, food for thought, any takers?
PS: Schmedlap, I like your leather personnel carriers. Are the soles V-shaped?:D
To just take this is a slightly real world perspective
The problem in Afghanistan, and sometimes in Iraq from what I have heard, is not that snipers cannot do their job, or that the Battalion doesn't have enough people, but that they cannot effectively patrol based on restrictions placed by higher. These restrictions are that units must have a minimal manning to leave the wire, and often that manning is more than a scout team needs to be effective.
My thoughts are FOs have a role, recon soldiers have a role and snipers have a role in combat (both high intensity maneuver and counter-insurgency). If I were king of the Army, and I am not, I would designated marksman at the platoon level, sniper teams at the company level, a purely recon/scout platoon for the infantry battalion, then an additional sniper platoon at the battalion level. Basically, after months engaging an enemy at distances always greater than 500 meters, I don't think you can have too much long range marksmanship.
I see, said the blind man...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
I'm not sure you do!... My point being, let's not confuse, Sniping/Scouting and STA as all being the same thing. They are not.
I see -- and I agree...
Quote:
..."sniper training" that emphasises an STA type task, and the reason it does comes purely from WW1, and trench warfare.
I also agree with you on the 'Sniper' problem but I'm lazy and use the term as shorthand for 'An individual with an effective long range weapon and sighting appendage designated to fire at high value targets, materiel and personnel with a strong probability of success who is part of the fire support effort.' (thus my Asterisk in the post above to Rifleman when I meant to clarify that I was using the inappropriate term due to intrinsic sedentariosis, an affliction with which I have long suffered. :( ).
I am working on an acronym... ;)
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.
JCUSTIS hit a real need...
"Absolutely. I fear, however, that with the likes of pre-deployment training going on, and the sense of urgency that precludes professional development training for leaders, we are doing the process an injustice. Specifically, snipers continue to be screened, selected, and trained, but we (and this includes the USMC) are probably not continuing along with good sniper EMPLOYMENT training that allows us to maximize their potential. That is the key, since (unless their commander is totally incompetent) snipers should not be writing their own mission task and moving about will-nilly with no control. Thus the need for good training in appropriate employment.
I'll be the first to argue that you cannot get such training from the snipers themselves from within the unit. That just leads to all sorts of problems. "
I had an honest-to-God US Army school-trained sniper in one of my attached infantry platoons. He had no real advice on how to employ his capabilities. Certainly Iraq was not the best environment for their use, but a commander will have a hard time coming up with sound uses without a proper grounding in their capabilities and limitations.
Perhaps this is then partly leading to the issue of where to locate the sniper - at battalion, where a more experienced leader can decide where/how to employ them, or at the company, where they will probably do more good? Or is this a chicken/egg problem?
Tankersteve
Need more 900m targets...
jcustis:
Quote:
we (and this includes the USMC) are probably not continuing along with good sniper EMPLOYMENT training that allows us to maximize their potential. That is the key, since (unless their commander is totally incompetent) snipers should not be writing their own mission task and moving about will-nilly with no control.
I'd be willing to bet that the training of prospective commander on the Machine Gun barely scratches the surface. They teach the use of the Clinometer? I'm not at all sure that training or the employment of snipers is a glaring shortfall -- or even a minor oversight. It would seem to me that an Officer or Senior NCO would dig into the capabilities and the employment of elements he might have access to on his or her own. Many will say they should not have to do that and while there's some truth there, I doubt it's possible to adequately cover all the possibilities in any training -- and I'm probably the loudest guy on this board about more and better training...
That said, I don't dispute the fact that some sort of capability outlay is needed but I believe it should be in the book of war (the FM / FMFM for one's particular unit type) because any School education or training is going to have a shelf life and is going to be placed in the users own priority for recall and use.
One of the problems with snipers, discussed above, is that they have little to no value in some kinds of warfare, only moderate value in others and are a highly situational dependent asset. That leads to neglect until they appear and in a situation where the skills are pretty important.
Rifleman:
Quote:
I never heard an instructor at the XVIII Airborne Corps AMTU school say word one about WWII, Korea, or anything the USMC was doing.
Parochialsim is the American way. In the mid 90s, my son was doing the obligatory earthling tour in the 25th, in a Scout Platoon and was sent to the Marine Sniper School at Kaneohe (LINK). They trained Scouts as well so he came back with all sorts of good ideas (like not wearing the Kevlar on the range... :D) and virtually everything he suggested that he thought the Marines were doing better was roundly rejected as not being the Army way and the rejection was usually pretty derogatory. In Germany he went to the NATO LRRS School for several courses, brought back good ideas and all were rejected because the US Army didn't do it that way. True -- and an amazing number of Armies do a lot of things better than we do...
Earlier, I had been an Instructional Branch Chief at the Armor School. I spent a lot of Kitchen Table time developing some really good lesson plans. Not sure why I bothered because I knew at the time that all the NCO instructors would watch someone else teach a class, pattern their own class after it and would ignore the lesson plan. I even put trick sentences in a couple to see if they'd catch them. They did not. (so I had to resort to deceit and treachery to force them to think -- they mostly did pretty well but did I assist few in finding other employment. ;) ).
The point of all that is that your comment doesn't surprise me a bit -- and I think that all three items are a major smack at the 'selection' of instructors (there isn't any, most are pipeline feeds or self selected folks that want to hide from TOE units; curiosity about what they're going is not an issue), the training of instructors (abysmal, too much on tasks etc. and counseling) and the parochial "It wasn't invented here" syndrome (which is everywhere. Unfortunately. It is dangerous.).
Quote:
And it wasn't like the security element was in the same hide site as the sniper team. Just close enough to support by fire.
True, many miss that aspect -- and that goes back to my comment to jcustis -- people have to think and the old METT-TC thing makes every situation different. Many want nice pat book solution -- no one on this board, of course but others -- however there aren't any that will work reliably in all situations. Life is easy if you can do what those NCO Instructors at Knox did and just follow the example of others. Those Instructors you mention should've dug a little deeper, there are some great good and bad sniper actions out of WW II and Korea. Like this: LINK. That's been here before...
Quote:
Understood. And there's certainly advantages and disadvantages to each approach. All things considered, I believe in a spotter and I look at the team as a "crew" of sorts the same as an MG or anti-armor team.
I can take that or leave it, some people work better alone and I think if you know your people and you have one of those, he should be allowed to go out singly. Varies from unit to unit. That's with respect to the sniper -- on the DM, he's a part of a Squad, has no spotter -- and should not IMO -- so I'm inclined to make the system work rather than adjust to cope because it doesn't want to do the right thing 'cause it's too hard...
Tankersteve:
Quote:
I had an honest-to-God US Army school-trained sniper in one of my attached infantry platoons. He had no real advice on how to employ his capabilities. Certainly Iraq was not the best environment for their use, but a commander will have a hard time coming up with sound uses without a proper grounding in their capabilities and limitations.
Thus you'll probably disagree with my comment to jcustis above. That's fine but my observation has been that new capabilities get introduced in every war (or, like snipers, old ones are reinvented) and I'm not sure the training system can cope with every need. Some stuff you just have to pick up on the fly...
I know no one here is guilty of it (or they wouldn't be here) but there are many out there -- and we've all known a couple -- who take the line that "Every Officer and NCO is responsible for his or her own professional development." to mean solely selecting future assignments and doing all the important things that get noticed Many forget or would like to forget that it also means they have a responsibility to spend some of their own time learning the trade and that may mean that other, more personally intiguing things have to be foregone occasionally.
On Iraq, perhaps it depended on where one was and what was being done. I've talked to several who are convinced that the snipers in the last couple of years had a great deal to do with taking out a lot of the IED pizzazz by making planting a very risky occupation. Not to even go into the counter sniper effort.
Quote:
Perhaps this is then partly leading to the issue of where to locate the sniper - at battalion, where a more experienced leader can decide where/how to employ them, or at the company, where they will probably do more good? Or is this a chicken/egg problem?
My perception is that they are best employed at and by the Company in most cases where they are of value but due to the points you, jon and rifleman have all mentioned, they are located Bn. That's part administrative and training ease in peacetime or garrison but mostly human factors related; the S2 or S3 should be better able to employ them; they're a body of people all in one place for training; and they don't have to cope with personalities of 1SGs who don't like 'special' people or a Co Cdr who's too busy with 180 other things to use them properly (very difficult when there may be at the time, no real employment -- which is another sniper problem). The down side of that is more reluctance to employ them occasionally as that mean placing them in some company's AO. Sometimes, that Co doesn't want the hassle of "Bn's snipers." Lot of interesting sidelights and perambulations to the issue.....
A recurring mention or implication by many is snipers out running loose with no command supervision. Well, yes -- that sort of goes with the territory. Reluctance of some to accept that responsibility (with concurrent inability to personally affect it...) is part of the sniper problem. And the sniper myth doe not lead to dispelling that. Also mildly problematical when they're at Co level is the unit that insists on sending a support and cover party with them -- that can have an adverse affect on the sniper himself as well as the mission.
Due to all that they're tightening the criteria for selection for the Sniper School. With the right people selected, that ''no command supervision' isn't a problem (except for the few commanders or 3s who will make it so due to a lack of self confidence -- or CSMs / 1SGs who are overprotective of their Boss...) and the problem you had in Iraq should disappear. Well, be ameliorated a bit, anyway... :wry: