Are snipers and recon still valid in infantry battalions?

[Kiwigrunt]

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)

From the conclusion (page 202 / 203)

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)

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?

[Fuchs]

Infantry battalions have mortars, yet brigades have howitzers.

Infantry squads have designated marksmen, yet battalions should have a sniper plt.

A KISS drive might eliminate such partial redundancies, but that doesn't appear to be optimal to me.

Specialization advantages, a pool of expertise and the ability to attach experts to units based on their needs look promising to me.

[Mark O'Neill]

Snipers shape (and destroy) , and snipers and recon inform, Both are vital at the tactical level in cOIN,

Cheers

Mark

[William F. Owen]

My beef/ concerns are basically as follows.

Precise effect, long range rifleman are good. No argument. Hitting folks with one shot at 6-900m is a capability I want in Companies and Platoons as part of my fire support.

I also want an STA capability, to call in fires and conduct observation - that may include operating a small UAV -. Do I want the same men doing the same job and the same time? My opinion is that I do not.
I want to simplify "Sniping" down to long range fire support, and build it as an individual skill based on some degree of natural ability.

[Mark O'Neill]

My beef/ concerns are basically as follows.

Precise effect, long range rifleman are good. No argument. Hitting folks with one shot at 6-900m is a capability I want in Companies and Platoons as part of my fire support.

I also want an STA capability, to call in fires and conduct observation - that may include operating a small UAV -. Do I want the same men doing the same job and the same time? My opinion is that I do not.
I want to simplify "Sniping" down to long range fire support, and build it as an individual skill based on some degree of natural ability.

But no one said that snipers were an 'in lieu' item for effective ISTAR systems on the battlefield. In sucessful armys they are a complimentary.

regards

Mark

[William F. Owen]

But no one said that snipers were an 'in lieu' item for effective ISTAR systems on the battlefield. In sucessful armys they are a complimentary.

OK, so why do I want my limited sniper manpower grouped off, with "ISTAR" and not in the platoons?

[Rifleman]

I want to simplify "Sniping" down to long range fire support, and build it as an individual skill based on some degree of natural ability.

Exactly. And just because artillery forward observers and snipers are both trained, professional observers doesn't mean they belong in the same platoon.

[Ken White]

Sorry, old US TV commerical allegory...

...Hitting folks with one shot at 6-900m is a capability I want in Companies and Platoons as part of my fire support.

Agree.

I also want an STA capability, to call in fires and conduct observation - that may include operating a small UAV -. Do I want the same men doing the same job and the same time? My opinion is that I do not.

Disagree.

All the UAVs and technical means in town cannot replace a good scout. Good scouts are born, not made and there aren't many of them about -- but a good one is worth his weight in Kiwi Fruit and can do things no gadget will ever do. Even a mediocre scout is better than not having one. We may get to the point in future where that is no longer true -- but at this time, it certainly is.

My belief is that the 'snipers / DM / whatever you want to call them' should not be in the Scout organization. While those shooters, like every other Infantryman are ISTAR sources and good ones, their primary aim is different (pun intended). "Shooters over here, you Scouts go out and play..."

Thus you have the shooters at Company level -- I'd go for Platoon level, one team each, Co Cdr to pull for some missions (or give him a team also). With maybe a couple of teams at Bn level; senior NCO to be the shooter trainer, working for the S3.

A Scout Section working for the S2. A platoon is probably more than are needed, 10-12 for a Bn should be adequate for most purposes. They should operate purely in a stealth, sneak and peek mode, lightly armed to preclude getting into firefights. Many in combat carried just a pistol for that reason.

Purely light Infantry should have just that Scout Section. Old style heavy or standard infantry and mechanized infantry, all with vehicles should have, in addition to the Scouts, a mounted Reconnaissance or Cavalry Platoon able to fight for information. Light Infantry should never be put in a situation where that's required (but they should be able to employ an OpCon or Attached Cavalry Troop).

My experience in doing jobs like that for a fair number of years is that most S2/S3 and Commanders do not really know how to employ their Scouts or Recce elements. Thus the Scouts Out contention that most dedicated recce units end up as minor combat units. That has been true but need not be as that result is directly attributable to my observation.

Said Scouts and Recce/Recon Platoons should not be used as a palace or commanders guard. Ever.

[Michael C]

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.

[Steve Blair]

My experience in doing jobs like that for a fair number of years is that most S2/S3 and Commanders do not really know how to employ their Scouts or Recce elements. Thus the Scouts Out contention that most dedicated recce units end up as minor combat units. That has been true but need not be as that result is directly attributable to my observation.

I wonder how much of this has its roots in the Army's early historical practice (prior to World War I, to put 'early' in context) of farming out a great deal of the "sneaking and peaking" side of recon to either private contractor-types or highly-specialized units (often of an ad-hoc nature)?

[Rifleman]

Thus you have the shooters at Company level -- I'd go for Platoon level, one team each, Co Cdr to pull for some missions (or give him a team also). With maybe a couple of teams at Bn level; senior NCO to be the shooter trainer, working for the S3.

It seems that snipers have usually been employed most effectively at battalion level. Having said that, company commanders could most likely use a true sniping capability, not just "designated marksmen."

I've mentioned before that I like the idea of a "sharpshooter type" rifle squad led by a senior staff sergeant in a rifle company's weapons platoon. The squad should be big enough to attach a team (or two?) of DMs out to each rifle platoon and have a team left under the company commander's control. Platoon leaders could further attach the DMs directly to a squad if necessary for operations but I don't like the idea of DMs living with a rifle squad full time even if it's been done successfully before.

Use the arms room concept: the teams attached to rifle platoons would likely operate with semi-auto rifles with the team(s) employed by the company commander using bolt rifles or a .50 Barrett, mission dependant.

This squad should also be a natural for things like LP/OP duty or other types of screening.

[William F. Owen]

Disagree.

I'm not sure you do!

All the UAVs and technical means in town cannot replace a good scout. Good scouts are born, not made and there aren't many of them about -- but a good one is worth his weight in Kiwi Fruit and can do things no gadget will ever do. Even a mediocre scout is better than not having one. We may get to the point in future where that is no longer true -- but at this time, it certainly is.

Concur. There are good "stalkers / scouts." Yes, if you can find them and train them, then they are a positive asset.
I am not suggesting we replace that capability with UAVs, but some of the new tactical UAV capabilities are extremely impressive, and also combat proven. My point being, let's not confuse, Sniping/Scouting and STA as all being the same thing. They are not.

My belief is that the 'snipers / DM / whatever you want to call them' should not be in the Scout organization. While those shooters, like every other Infantryman are ISTAR sources and good ones, their primary aim is different (pun intended). "Shooters over here, you Scouts go out and play..."

Yes I agree. Different jobs, so different people doing different things, but that becomes very hard to sustain, when you have "sniper training" that emphasises an STA type task, and the reason it does comes purely from WW1, and trench warfare.

[gute]

My beef/ concerns are basically as follows.

Precise effect, long range rifleman are good. No argument. Hitting folks with one shot at 6-900m is a capability I want in Companies and Platoons as part of my fire support.

The XM-25 may allow for infantry to engage targets out to 900 meters without the need for trained snipers. I know the weapon was not designed to be a sniper or DMR weapon, but this could end up being a benefit.

[Fuchs]

The XM-25 may allow for infantry to engage targets out to 900 meters without the need for trained snipers. I know the weapon was not designed to be a sniper or DMR weapon, but this could end up being a benefit.

The grenade is low density and relatively low velocity. Its effective range drops dramatically if there's some wind.

Effective range against moving targets sucks as well, for the effective frag radius is certainly smaller than the distance a man can run before the grenade arrives at 500 m.

It is a niche weapon, the thermal sight and the restrictions it imposes on the hostiles are most likely the most useful things about it.

[reed11b]

The XM-25 may allow for infantry to engage targets out to 900 meters without the need for trained snipers. I know the weapon was not designed to be a sniper or DMR weapon, but this could end up being a benefit.

A sniper is NOT the same as a squad marksman. Stealth and an ability to gather information are big parts of our job. It's why we are a battalion or higher level asset.

There had been talk back in '05-'06 of making the XM-109 BORS site compatible with the air burst fuzed round. Now that would have made the XM-109 upper welcome in most sniper sections that already use the M-107 LRSR.
Reed

[Culpeper]

Are snipers and recon still valid in infantry battalions?

Yes; their actions can easily stop or deter anti-coalition activities in a small area. And that is whether they are present or not. The problem lies with the age old problem of company commanders reluctant to let them loose to do their jobs as they were trained.