Snipers Sniping & Countering them

[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.

[Ken White]

... 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... ).

It works there as well.

[jcustis]

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.