I'm with you. J.C.
worked in Korea, worked in Viet Nam and it's working in Afghanistan and Iraq. Company weapons at 5.56 are the norm other than a few 7.62s for the DM when the terrain calls for it -- as it does on the latter two and did not in the former two.Originally Posted by J.C.
Lot of things sound good in theory but when you put 'em into practice with live humans and human fallibility gets involved, it's not so neat. Giving the PL team to worry about is unnecessary and a distraction.
Snipers (as opposed to DM -- and contrary to UBoat's statement the Army does train 'em) need to be at Bn level as they are now and can be farmed out as required (seldom will be) and they can normally use 7.62 going to .338 only if the terrain suggests the added range is necessary. 1,000m shots are neat but rare and those missed aren't usually going to affect the war.
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
Sorry, didn't mean to misquote.
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...
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. 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
The internal course at Ft. Bragg in the '80s was the XVIII Airborne Corps AMTU school. It was five weeks long and was a true sniper course at that time, although I think it might have started out more or less as an advanced marksmanship course and developed into a sniper course over a period of years.
The POI contained a considerable amount of fieldcraft in addition to marksmanship. The marksmanship instruction was good but we were limited to a 600 yard KD range facility. We used M21s. Mine had the first generation Leatherwood ART.
I believe the school closed it's doors when the official Army program started at Ft. Benning in the late '80s. IIRC, the last NCOIC of the AMTU school at Bragg was one of the first instructors at the Benning school. I believe he was SSG (SFC?) Raitt (sp?).
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
What goes around comes around...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Keep the weapon something of the 7.62x51mm variety.
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/STFDI 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
Kiwi Fruit and Kumquats, I think...
Hodge podge is good; no one has all the right answers. Many units also use contract training at Blackwater, Gunsite and so forth.
Which is more than adequate -- most of those are used far more for their range and penetrating power rather than for their accuracy.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.
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.
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.I think AMTU Ft. Bragg sniper school went through 2 iterations, first in '76-'78 under Emerson,...
By definition.First: who you are infusing those skills into? Are they already 19D/scouts or 11B/regular infantry?
They support the Squad. Period. The other things are sniper tasks.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.
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).
Ken White wrote:
and: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.
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.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
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I do not see the discussion as not useful, I do see
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.
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)...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
A DM is a DM. Thus I suggest clarity was lacking...
Seems to me the question is
If that's the case, my answers would be:"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?"
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?
Well i did start off with this condition.
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.
Last edited by William F. Owen; 12-30-2007 at 03:23 AM. Reason: cos I not drunk enuff cooffe this murning
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Aha. I think I see our disconnect...
True but many have wandered off elsewhere...
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.It's not just common definitions, but also a common understanding of operational requirements. - which is pretty impossible to arrive at.
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.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.
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...
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.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Yep - and that's the US Army's basic approach.
Who also suffer from the same constraints (funds available for the effort and politics...).
It works there as well.
For me, Ken has broken this issue down into a basic capabilities statement, which is an excellent jumping off point.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.
-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.
Last edited by jcustis; 12-31-2007 at 04:45 AM.
@ So how many rifles do you purchase on the initial buy? If you are a force developer, you have to justify the cost outlay based on some form of analysis. It's the untested, arbitrary, data free, opinion based analysis that I am always arguing against!
@ So equip with a n HK417 or the M110 SASS. Good starting point. If you have men that can group 5cm at 100m then you have men who can hit targets at 1000m providing for correct wind and range estimation. Not hard to do!
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
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.
Times Online, 9 Apr 08: Same sniper rifle killed six British soldiers in Basra
Six British soldiers have been picked off on the streets of Basra by an enemy sniper using the same rifle, an inquest heard today.
Between the months of March and June last year, six soldiers were shot using high velocity bullets fired from exactly the same gun.....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks