Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 232

Thread: Are snipers and recon still valid in infantry battalions?

  1. #201
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    A more reasonable approach is to infil the first 100-200 km as normal and then simply grab a civilian vehicle as a ride. The force density and threat of police checkpoints will be marginal that deep behind the battlefield.

    A helicopter ride for 2x500 km is certainly neither necessary nor worth it.
    NO ROADS. None where I train, none in A-stan (what we train for). Can take my team several hours to move a few klicks due to terrain, weight of equipment (physical conditioning only helps so much) and, ta-da, the need to not be seen or comprimised (i.e. we are not moving out on trails or roads even if available).
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  2. #202
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default A point at a time

    Quote Originally Posted by gute View Post
    If the primary job of the ARS is to conduct reconnaissance and not look for a fight why not replace it with a SBCT RSTA squadron/model? The CAB scout teams have six M3 vehicles instead of 2-3 and M114s?

    Now, this is based on the HBCT receiving a third CAB.

    Secondly, is a squadron necessary or should one large troop be capable of doing the job (again, this is based on a 3-CAB HBCT)?
    1. While the job of the ARS remains unchanged, there is now general concurrence that mounted reconnaissance will often require figthing for information. The current 3X5 platoon lacks the combat power to do that when deployed as sections (one HMMWV + 1 CFV).

    2. The CAB scout platoon share the same 3X5 task organization.

    3. The SBCT ARS Troops have three platoons of 4 vehicles each vice two platoons of eight in the HBCT. Part of the issue is the lack of standard platoon and troop organizations are overly complicting training.

    4. Force struture remains a "zero-sum" issue. Add a 3rd CAB means somethinf like 50% fewer HBCT. There are currently 25 HBCT split between the active army and national guard. That means 50 CABs. Putting a third CAB into each HBCT would most likely result in 16/17 HBCT, a nearly 1/3 reduction in the number of HBCTs. This does not count the recent announcement to convert 2 or three HBCTs.

    5. Large troop versus squadron depends on what you mean by large and the loss of the squadron staff for inter-facing with the Bde. The current HBCT ARS has a total of 20 CFVs, 30 armored HMMWVs and 6 120mm mortars. Really little more the two troops (one tracked and one wheeled) already.

  3. #203
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Proposition:
    Standardize ALL mounted recon platoons at 10 x vehicles.

    IBCT Recon SQDN mounted troops utilize HMMWVs.

    SBCT RSTA SQDN uses 1 x M1127 troop (3 x 10) plus 2 x HMMWV troops.

    SBCT IN BN uses 1 x M1127 platoon.

    HBCT ARS (not really an ARS anymore, but anyway) uses 3 x M1127 troops (3 x 10).

    HBCT CAB uses 1 x M3 platoon.

    Alternatively, we can go back to the mixed troops from the ACR, LCR and DIV CAV- each recon troop has 2 x recon PLTs (10 vehicles now, instead of 6) and 2 platoons of tanks/MGS/TOW HMMWV. The organization of all troops (and platoons) is the same. The difference is the system.

    Rough math (I'm sure TAH will correct me) tells me that we can get the force structure personnel (not sure about the systems, but that should be doable, too) from the overhead (HHCs, CO HQs) of the HBCTs we have to reduce to put 3 CABs in each HBCT, with requisite CS/CSS elements (FA Btrys, EN PLTs, FSCs, etc).

  4. #204
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
    Proposition:
    Standardize ALL mounted recon platoons at 10 x vehicles.

    IBCT Recon SQDN mounted troops utilize HMMWVs.

    SBCT RSTA SQDN uses 1 x M1127 troop (3 x 10) plus 2 x HMMWV troops.

    SBCT IN BN uses 1 x M1127 platoon.

    HBCT ARS (not really an ARS anymore, but anyway) uses 3 x M1127 troops (3 x 10).

    HBCT CAB uses 1 x M3 platoon.

    Alternatively, we can go back to the mixed troops from the ACR, LCR and DIV CAV- each recon troop has 2 x recon PLTs (10 vehicles now, instead of 6) and 2 platoons of tanks/MGS/TOW HMMWV. The organization of all troops (and platoons) is the same. The difference is the system.

    Rough math (I'm sure TAH will correct me) tells me that we can get the force structure personnel (not sure about the systems, but that should be doable, too) from the overhead (HHCs, CO HQs) of the HBCTs we have to reduce to put 3 CABs in each HBCT, with requisite CS/CSS elements (FA Btrys, EN PLTs, FSCs, etc).
    So now I get to be the "Math Nazi"

    The math does got two ways personnel and vehicles.

    A 10-vehicle platoon would need as a minimum 30 Soldiers (pretty much the recent standard) I am more inclined to standarize at 6 vehicle platoons.

    Knox was/is pushing 36-man scout/recon platoons.

    6 CFVs = 6 fully manned vehicles + 18 dismounts spread across two or three sections.

    6 M1127 RVs = 6 fully manned vehicles + 18-24 dismounts spread across two-three sections.

    6 HMMWVs (or JLTV in the future) = 6 fully manned vehicles + 12 dismounts and 6 extras as there is no more room in the HMMWV (four inside and one up top).

    I favor the single function platoon inside a mixed troop so 2 scout platoons = 2 "gun" platoons works for me.

    By adding the "Gun" platform you get addiotional capability as opposed to just more of the same.

  5. #205
    Council Member 82redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USAWC, Carlisle Bks
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    So now I get to be the "Math Nazi"
    OK, OK, I'll do it myself I must depreciate my math-in-public abilities in advance, so I may mess up some multiplication .

    HBCT:
    Current ARS Recon Troop is 93 pax, 36 in each PLT. Increasing to a 10 x M3 platoon increases 14/PLT, 28 per troop, and 2 tank platoons are an additional 28 pax per troop, so 56 pax, 5 M3 and 8 M1 x 3 troops = 168 pax, 15 M3 and 24 M1
    Same 14 pax and 5 x M3 in each CAB scout platoon equals additional 28 pax and 10 M3 in each CAB = a total of 196 pax, 25 M3 and 24 M1 per HBCT.

    SBCT:
    Current RSTA Recon Troop is 3 platoons x 27 pax + 4 M1127 RVs. Conversion to 2 PLTs x 10 M1127 + 50 pax / PLT = 8 M1127 + 19 pax increase/ troop x 3 troops = 24 M1127 + 57 pax / SQDN.
    4 MGS + 12 pax / PLT x 6 platoons (2/troop) = 24 MGS and 72 pax = net increase of 24 MGS, 24 RVs and 129 pax in the SQDN
    Current IN BN Scout PLT is 24 pax + 4 RVs- same increase to 50 pax and 10 RVs is 6 RVs + 26 pax/PLT x 3 PLTs (1/ IN BN) = 72 pax + 18 RVs.
    Total of 201 pax, 24 MGS and 42 RVs per SBCT.

    IBCT:
    Current RS Recon Troop is 3 PLTs x 6 HMMWV + 24 pax = 18 HMMWV + 72 pax/troop. Conversion to 2 PLTs x 10 HMMWV + 40 pax = increase of 2 HMMWV + 8 pax/ troop x 2 troops = 4 HMMWV + 16 pax / SQDN
    Addition of 4 TOW PLTs x 4 HMMWV + 12 pax/ PLT = 16 HMMWV + 48 pax / SQDN
    Total of 20 HMMWV + 64 pax per IBCT.
    Last edited by 82redleg; 09-22-2010 at 02:11 AM. Reason: I realized after I posted that I forgot to reduce the footprint, like in my previous post. So, the vehicle numbers are off.

  6. #206
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    However, adding anything to the current organization means a corresponding subtraction somewhere else.

    My thoughts over on the BCT thread about a Re-structured HBCT Cav Sqdrn is a zero sum game. I "re-arranged the deck chairs" with the end result being two "Heavy" Cav Troops (13 CFVs and 9 tanks) and one Light/wheeled troop in the Cav Sqdrn. Much more combat capability then the current. The price was the substitution/reduction in the CABs to a six-HMMWV platoon of limited/restricted capability.

    Too much time, effort, resources ($$s) was tied up in the "Quality of Firsts, See 1st, understand 1st, act 1st, finish 1st" Blah, blah blah. We also had too many folks for too long who could not see recon as a mission vice a unit type. The doctrine changed back in March 2010. Now Recon Sqdrns are "allowed" for fight for information. However, the equipment and organizations remain the same

    The Billpayers to field the HBCT Recon Sqdrns were: the Brigade recon Troops, The Division Cavalry Sqdns, and the ADA Bns (strangely enough). The piece/parts available to transform/modularize were armored HMMWVs and CFVs and a handful of tanks. The thought of tanks in recon was (considered) bad. (What do you need those for? You'll just get into a fight and get distracted from your real purpose...) Same over in the SBCTs, no MGS in the recon just the line battalions.
    I rather like your particular rearrangement of deck chairs.

    What I find interesting about the ADA cuts was that, de facto, "Gun" ADA units often provided convoy security and extra firepower in general. Perhaps it's often overlooked, but it still was a constant historically. Of course, no one believes that the USAF will ever do anything less than a perfect job of clearing the skies of enemy airpower. (Do any potential enemies have attack helicopters? I forget.)
    Of course, my worry is that this combat power wasn't really replaced (and that's in addition to all of the Heavy Cav that got a lot lighter.)

    On a similar subject, as best I can tell, the Cav units were a big bill-payer for the MI battalions, when those were first conjured up in Division 86 (as the CEWI). I can recall an article by a general complaining that the new CEWI battalions weren't adding sufficient value, and on top of that he had now had less Cav. (Back when DivCav was two ground troops of 19 Bradleys each, and two AirCav troops.)

    Of course, that general was complaining back in the 80's.
    Back when the US Army was much larger, and MI branch was actually smaller than it is now.

    But yes, your plan would give a Brigade commander two economy of force heavy troops, and one light one for sneaking around - probably the best we could hope for, given the current constraints.

  7. #207
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
    OK, OK, I'll do it myself I must depreciate my math-in-public abilities in advance, so I may mess up some multiplication .

    HBCT:
    Current ARS Recon Troop is 93 pax, 36 in each PLT. Increasing to a 10 x M3 platoon increases 14/PLT, 28 per troop, and 2 tank platoons are an additional 28 pax per troop, so 56 pax, 5 M3 and 8 M1 x 3 troops = 168 pax, 15 M3 and 24 M1
    Same 14 pax and 5 x M3 in each CAB scout platoon equals additional 28 pax and 10 M3 in each CAB = a total of 196 pax, 25 M3 and 24 M1 per HBCT.

    SBCT:
    Current RSTA Recon Troop is 3 platoons x 27 pax + 4 M1127 RVs. Conversion to 2 PLTs x 10 M1127 + 50 pax / PLT = 8 M1127 + 19 pax increase/ troop x 3 troops = 24 M1127 + 57 pax / SQDN.
    4 MGS + 12 pax / PLT x 6 platoons (2/troop) = 24 MGS and 72 pax = net increase of 24 MGS, 24 RVs and 129 pax in the SQDN
    Current IN BN Scout PLT is 24 pax + 4 RVs- same increase to 50 pax and 10 RVs is 6 RVs + 26 pax/PLT x 3 PLTs (1/ IN BN) = 72 pax + 18 RVs.
    Total of 201 pax, 24 MGS and 42 RVs per SBCT.

    IBCT:
    Current RS Recon Troop is 3 PLTs x 6 HMMWV + 24 pax = 18 HMMWV + 72 pax/troop. Conversion to 2 PLTs x 10 HMMWV + 40 pax = increase of 2 HMMWV + 8 pax/ troop x 2 troops = 4 HMMWV + 16 pax / SQDN
    Addition of 4 TOW PLTs x 4 HMMWV + 12 pax/ PLT = 16 HMMWV + 48 pax / SQDN
    Total of 20 HMMWV + 64 pax per IBCT.
    Pencils Down.

    HBCT recon is a total of 8 platoons of 3 CFVs, 5 HMMWVs & 36 PAX each for a total across the BCT of 24 CFVs, 40 HMMWVs and 288 PAX.

    As I understand your HBCT proposal this would go to:

    8 platoons of 10 CFVs and 50 PAX each (80 CFVs + 400 PAX) plus
    6 platoons of 4 tanks and 16 PAX each (24 tanks and 96 PAX)

    For an increase across the BCT of 56 CFVs + 24 Tanks + 208 PAX.

    The CFVs and tanks are a one time buy, but that number of an increase probably traslates to more supporters also. The real kick is the 208 PAX increase. Across the force of 25 HBCTs thats 5200 more Soldiers, an increase over more that a full BCT.

    Drop 100 CFVs back to 6 and the increase in CFVs in still 24 and PAX is just the 96 tankers. Still 2400 PAX total (2/3s of a BCT)

    SBCT recon is currently 12 platoons of 4 M1127 RVs and 27 PAX for a total of 48 RVs and 324 PAX. Reducing the number of platoons to 9 of 10 RVs & 50 PAX plus 6 platoons of 4 MGS & 12 PAX results in 90 RVs (an increase of 52) 24 MGS and increase of 24 and 450 scouts and 72 MGS "Tankers" for 522 and increase of 198 PAX per SBCT or 1386 PAX (about 1/3 of an SBCT).

    Reducing SBCT Scout platoons to 6 RVs of 36 PAX equals 9X6 Rvs for 54, 9X36 for 324 PAX. Reducing MGS to 3/platoon equals 18 MGS and 54 PAX for a total increase per SBCT of 6 RVs, 18 MGS & 54 PAX.

    I have been kicking around a re-structured SBCT of only two Infantry Battalions but with four versus 3 line companies and a re-orged SBCT ARS of 3 recon Troops (2X2 RV & MGS) and a infantry Company. Brings SBCT structurely inline with the HBCT and IBCT model, I use the remaining Bn HQs to form the SBCT Special Troops Bn of the engineers, MICO, Signal Co, Anti-tank company, again to simplify the overall BCT structures.

    never looked at the IBCT but the numbers look about right.

    Here, we have the luxury of unlimited bugets and no limiting manpower caps. No so in the "real Army".

    More is almost always better then less. It really takes some work to some how the same is better just re-arranged or better yet, less is better.

  8. #208
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabre View Post
    I rather like your particular rearrangement of deck chairs.

    What I find interesting about the ADA cuts was that, de facto, "Gun" ADA units often provided convoy security and extra firepower in general. Perhaps it's often overlooked, but it still was a constant historically. Of course, no one believes that the USAF will ever do anything less than a perfect job of clearing the skies of enemy airpower. (Do any potential enemies have attack helicopters? I forget.)
    Of course, my worry is that this combat power wasn't really replaced (and that's in addition to all of the Heavy Cav that got a lot lighter.)

    On a similar subject, as best I can tell, the Cav units were a big bill-payer for the MI battalions, when those were first conjured up in Division 86 (as the CEWI). I can recall an article by a general complaining that the new CEWI battalions weren't adding sufficient value, and on top of that he had now had less Cav. (Back when DivCav was two ground troops of 19 Bradleys each, and two AirCav troops.)

    Of course, that general was complaining back in the 80's.
    Back when the US Army was much larger, and MI branch was actually smaller than it is now.

    But yes, your plan would give a Brigade commander two economy of force heavy troops, and one light one for sneaking around - probably the best we could hope for, given the current constraints.
    I appreciate the vote of confidence and concur with your overall assesment.

    An interesting aside is the use of ADA/AAA units for missions other then shooting things out of the sky. It started back in Korea and continued in Viet Nam. During OIF, it was the best use of the resources as opposed to letting them sit idle. The gate guard / perimeter security mission at the FOB I was on in Iraq was done by the Brigade ADA Battery. When the 41st Division went in 2005 it was not initally given and ADA Bn (No mission) but I think it was given back for just such roles as above.

    The only things left for the ADA guys to shot at are TBM, UAVs and cruise missiles. All viable threats. Oh and mortar rounds and rockets before the hit a FOB.

  9. #209
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Sorry this raise this thread.
    On snipers:
    I once borrowed finnish book "Tarkka-ampuja 1 (Sniper 1, but finnish term for sniper translates literally into "sharpshooter)" by Finnish carreer officer Major Pauli Salo. He is sort of authority in snipercraft here in Finland.
    He defined three sniper classes by their level of training/skill required
    "lowest" class is simple designated marksman at squad and maybe platoon level. they have not camoflage but should have scoped
    Then comes "fire support sniper" they is trained in camoflage and sharp shooting, but they don't "roam freely", instead give supporting fire to platoons and companies.
    Then at the top of heap are scout/snipers, something in vein of for example scout/snipers of USMC. He lamented in his book that scout/snipers are not trained in Finland.
    I know that partially these are similar what I have seen other countries have, but I'd like to hear your opinion. How realistic(Term?) are these definitions.

    I skimmed thread but didn't find clear opinion on my though:
    If youd have enough decent enough manpower and rifles. Would it make sense to have sniper units at all levels ie.
    infatry squad: designated marksman/men
    infatry platoon: sniper pair
    infatry company: sniper team
    infantry battalion: sniper platoon
    infantry brigade: sniper company <-of this feasiblity I am espesially interested
    I am also partially thinking of point of view of finnish army.
    Even though even AR armed soldiers are trained to take carefully aimed shots one would think that snipers would be good and cheap force multiplier for non-professional army like ours.
    To be continued...

  10. #210
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    30

    Default

    On recon: I wonder wether is based on reality of finnish terrain or misunderstanding of armoured recon but here in finland armoured recon platoons are basicly four reduced strenght foot-recon squads riding in either CV90 or BMP-2. I wonder do other countries have similar systems or do everyone else have dedicated platforms for armoured recon and would our type of armoured recon platoon be uselful in any other kind of terrain.
    Also in I know here armoured recon means IFV mounted recon, but I am not sure wether APC mounted recon is armoured recon or is it foot-recon albeit with better protected transport. Is for example stryker recon armoured recon or foot recon?

    PS. Had I had motorcyclist licence and better fitness (and insaner attitude) before I did my service I might have applied to armoured recon platoon's motorcycle team. but past is past.

  11. #211
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    I wonder do other countries have similar systems or do everyone else have dedicated platforms for armoured recon and would our type of armoured recon platoon be uselful in any other kind of terrain.
    Also in I know here armoured recon means IFV mounted recon, but I am not sure wether APC mounted recon is armoured recon or is it foot-recon albeit with better protected transport. Is for example stryker recon armoured recon or foot recon?
    The US military has a variety of systems, doctrines, and organizations that conduct reconnaissance. I'd say that the Stryker community, much like the USMC's Light Armored Reconnaissance community, would identify with armored reconnaissance, although dismounted reconnaissance patrolling is practiced to a high level of art for the times when the scouts are on the deck.

    Long-Range Surveillance units in the Army, and Reconnaissance Battalion and Force Reconnaissance Company units conduct reconnaissance and surveillance that tends to be oriented of foot-mobility, but they retain the generic skills to operate mounted. They are usually limited by the small-arms weapons systems employed on the vehicles the use for mobility, but they can still fight for information to some degree.

  12. #212
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    30

    Default

    By the way was it Wilf or some other who noted that recce should be one of the soldiers basic skill sets? I have no problem with that when talking about professional armies where soldiers sign contracts for x years and thats what was propably talked about. But how would that work for army like Finland's where conscripts serve 6, 9 or 12 months? One would think that if you tried to teach guy serving six months both "line" infantry and recce skills he would have pretty shallow grasp of both. So it would make sense to specialise given short training times.

  13. #213
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    It takes about half a year to train an infantryman fully, including short-range scouting. Make that 9 months in peacetime due to weekends and lower intensity.

    The problem with conscript armies is that the army leaders want to use conscripts as active force personnel, they don't consider conscripts to be men who get a training and then leave. As a result, conscript training is cut down to press at least some months of reduced effectiveness active service out of them - and many conscripts are being mis-used as cheap forced labour to be used on the most stupid jobs with minimal training.

    The political leadership can force the military leadership to consider conscripts as men to be trained for war, and nothing else. That, after all, is the purpose of conscription in wartime, true to Scharnhorst's idea.

    Allow the top brass in uniform to consider conscripts as cheap unfree labour that's available no matter how attractive the service is and you'll end up with a ####ty for of conscription.
    Force them to train the conscripts and then release them - you will end up with a huge pool of trained reservists when the #### hits the fan.

  14. #214
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post

    The problem with conscript armies is that the army leaders want to use conscripts as active force personnel, they don't consider conscripts to be men who get a training and then leave. As a result, conscript training is cut down to press at least some months of reduced effectiveness active service out of them - and many conscripts are being mis-used as cheap forced labour to be used on the most stupid jobs with minimal training.

    The political leadership can force the military leadership to consider conscripts as men to be trained for war, and nothing else. That, after all, is the purpose of conscription in wartime, true to Scharnhorst's idea.

    Allow the top brass in uniform to consider conscripts as cheap unfree labour that's available no matter how attractive the service is and you'll end up with a ####ty for of conscription.
    Force them to train the conscripts and then release them - you will end up with a huge pool of trained reservists when the #### hits the fan.
    I do think you really hit the nail on the head with that post, and have really nothing to add to the intent of it.

    [OT:

    Having followed the debates in quite some European countries in the last ten years, the most important argument for conscription seems to have been that without it you can not offer civil service as an alternative to it, thus loosing a very important work force for the social sector. So now we finally know the true idea behind conscription, it is a legal move to force young males to work in the social sector for almost nothing.

    :end the OT part]

  15. #215
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    There were three more major reasons in Germany:

    # A national myth about how conscription ensures that the military is loyal to the democracy (sure, as if Hitler had not re-introduced democracy...).

    # The fact that the conservatives fought hard for it in the 50's (it was Germany's first major payment for the Western integration) and treated it as a great party accomplishment.

    # The fact that the military is totally inept at recruiting and enlisted soldiers job experience in the military is not really attractive. That, of course, was caused by the fact that military leadership mis-used the almost for free conscripts for decades - and especially so in the last decade of conscription with its very short service period.


    There were also some low opinions about foreign professional troops (especially French and British soldiers, who were often characterised as pub brawlers) and their high fiscal cost (especially U.S. troops).
    An economist can of course easily point out that conscription has a lot of otherwise avoidable hidden costs (especially the loss of freedom).


    Eventually, conscription became so dysfunctional in Germany and conventional warfare defence was lost so much out of sight that conscription went away - without a proper reserve pool generating replacement.

  16. #216
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    22

    Default

    My two cents about conscription and markmanship :

    I made my 'National Service' during the end 80's; Main thread was called RED; We were supposed to slow then enough by conventional means to allow NATO strength (US & CAN) avoiding nuke use.
    The conscription was, for me, the better way to mix people : farmers and urbans, low and high educated. Social mixing, each with his background to reach a same goal. I'm not naive, even if one tenth of a class was really motivated, these 1/10 could be more than useful as reserve if a major threat happens. Politicians forget that particular conscription's goal, and for electoral and economical (not my point of view) reasons switch to professional army.
    We were not, after 12 month, really skilled as today professionals can be, but physical & intellectual requirements wasn't so high as today : 90% were good enough for the job.
    Today, with unemployment rates between 8 and 10% (especially for youngs), teaching discipline and community's life will not be a waste of money and time for many young men (an perhaps women).
    The loss of freedom is part of living together, "my rights finishes where other's rights began". Nowadays, everyone is focused on his/her rights, none on his duties. Conscription was a way to learn / remember that.

    Marksmanship can be learned before enrolling, basics can be acquired with a 22lr between 50 and 200m.
    It is a school of self control and mental strength. It does not require some specific physical skills.
    Marksmanship is one of the ways to reduce ammunition consumption, improving fire support.
    Last edited by jps2; 07-19-2011 at 02:55 PM.

  17. #217
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
    NO ROADS. None where I train, none in A-stan (what we train for). Can take my team several hours to move a few klicks due to terrain, weight of equipment (physical conditioning only helps so much) and, ta-da, the need to not be seen or comprimised (i.e. we are not moving out on trails or roads even if available).
    Reed
    Getting back to the subject, terrain is the primary key for distance and range is dependent on that. Jungle, urban or mountainous terrain (with without cover), infrastructure and the type of enemy faced, all decide the recon/scout element as well as the use of snipers. It is vital for a battalion commander to have knowledge of the terrain and enemy he faces. Can we stick to ideas on this please. Personally I believe a recon/surveillance platoon organic to the battalion, and a sniper section/squad is an invaluable asset. Their issue/or misuse and continuation training has more effect on the battlefield. There was no section marksmen when I served (and I do not go into combat) but even on peacetime exercises the best shot assumed the role of a squad marksman. Squad and platoon commanders adjusted their structures so that their skills were best utilized.

  18. #218
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
    It seems that snipers have usually been employed most effectively at battalion level.
    That's what my experience thought me. Both recon & sniping are capabilities which, in a perfect army, any infantry company should have. However, I have found it very difficult to maintain these capabilities within the company level, due to the small number of men concerned and the "force of momentum", which tends to constrain the company CO to his more immediate and generalized tasks.

    Moreover, the battalion CO should not, IMO "sub-let" this crucial element to his company commanders.

    Therefore - a battalion recon platoon and sniper section.
    "Nowadays people seem to imagine that impartiality means readiness to treat lies and truth the same, readiness to hold white as bad as black and black as good as white. I, on the contrary, believe that without integrity a man much better not approach a problem at all." Orde Charles Wingate, 1938

  19. #219
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 03-09-2012 at 10:26 PM. Reason: Complete quote, hopefully in right place, PM to author.

  20. #220
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gute View Post
    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •