Snipers Sniping & Countering them

[Schuld]

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

To my knowledge, the current major Army programs are:

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

US Army Sniper School

National Guard Marksmanship Training Unit Scout-Sniper School

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

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

XVIII Airborne Corps AMTU

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

what would we have DMs do

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

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

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

Keep the weapon something of the 7.62x51mm variety.

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

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

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...hanistan200801

Time to STFU/STFD 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

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

[Ken White]

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By definition.

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

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

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

[Schuld]

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

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

[Norfolk]

Ken White wrote:

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

and:

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

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

[William F. Owen]

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

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

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

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

[Ken White]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems to me the question is

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

If so, what weapon and why?

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

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

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


Your thoughts?

[William F. Owen]

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

Well i did start off with this condition.

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

Your thoughts?

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

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

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

[Ken White]

Well i did start off with this condition.

True but many have wandered off elsewhere...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[selil]

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

[arty8]

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