Are snipers and recon still valid in infantry battalions?

[Fuchs]

Maybe a bit war experience from wars with 'peer' powers:
The infantry hated snipers unless they were sent to counter-snipe.
Sniper action provoked enemy sniping and indirect counterfires, and the infantry got hit in return for the sniper's actions. Infantrymen with scope scratch marks on their rifles got killed upon capture for being alleged snipers.

Snipers were dead if captured and really hated (even by their own infantry) in both World War's stationary phases. Exceptions prove the rule.


There are really a lot of factors that play into the sniping issue simply because snipers usually work detached from infantry formations/positions without needing a force concentration to be effective (that's a difference to AT units, for example).

My preference is a platoon at Bn level that trains snipers and forms sniper teams. The snipers can then be tasked with missions (support defence, support offence, surveillance, counter-sniping, free hunt). A loss of a sniper team (or something simple like sickness) wouldn't take away snipers from a Plt or Coy simply because the Bn level sniper Plt sergeant could send a ready replacement team.
An additional need for snipers in offensive actions or to counter enemy sniping could be met as well.

[Ken White]

Maybe a bit war experience from wars with 'peer' powers:

Peer power has little to do with it. It's the type of warfare and the degree, if any, of hatred of the opponents.

The infantry hated snipers unless they were sent to counter-snipe.
Sniper action provoked enemy sniping and indirect counterfires, and the infantry got hit in return for the sniper's actions.

In Korea, during the static phase, both the Chinese and the US were generally too smart to fall into the trap of over responding to sniper. Both tended to deploy a countersniper and not lose a lot sleep over it because only rarely did a truly deadly sniper appear. Nobody got particuarly irate at snipers because they didn't do much damage.

US line infantry in Koreas later stages did hate Tank which would crawl up a hill, fire a couple of rounds across the valley and leave rapidly before the 82, 76, 122 and 152 rain came --as it always did.

Minor off the wall comment; the Chinese and North Koreans could put a mortar round in your hip pocket but they were not good rifle shots. Their snipers were only so-so at best. In Viet Nam, the VC were good with neither but the North Viet Namese Army while poor with mortars, artillery and rockets were good rifle shots out to a hundred or so meters and particularly if armed with the SKS, however, their Snipers were not particularly good at any range over a couple of hundred meters.

In the pacific in WW II both the US and the Japanese made fairly extensive use of snipers generally without the actions you note; though they all are certainly valid for Europe and particularly the Eastern Front.

[jcustis]

I stand corrected. During ground intelligence officers course, our ground intel 2ndLts undergo 2 weeks of employment training. How well they recommend use of snipers when they are called on to develop R&S plans for infantry battalion ops is a different animal.

This makes me think back to a point. I was trained as a DM by USMC school-trained snipers who held the MOS. They used the terms R&S for about everything that required effort. I realize now that they really meant more along the lines of surveillance, and less along the lines of recce, since we were never trained in any reporting techniques, learning only how to draft observation sketches. Misuse of the term indeed...

[Ken White]

How well they recommend use of snipers when they are called on to develop R&S plans for infantry battalion ops is a different animal.

I realize I'm a Dinosaur and things may have changed a great deal but in my day a LT S2 and or a LT Scout Plt Ldr w/ Sniper Teams would've been asked about employment but given but given the slightest suspicion they might not understand all they know about what they think they're saying, El Commandante woulda said "Where's SSG Phugabosky?" Then when the Sniper Boss appeared, one of those lovely and enjoyable learning experiences could take place and probably the next time or certainly the time after that both LTs would know answers and forcefully state a position, just about guaranteed.

No one reports into any place knowing all the aspects of the job -- that's why training is an ongoing effort for everyone, in combat or out. IET needs to be improved but it will never be able to get all the job knowledge crammed into craniums; some if it is too experience related and too esoteric to translate at all well into books or instruction. Lot of cogntiive skills that simply take practice.

If someone cannot do something they should be able to do, someone has to train them. I'm not criticizing here, I'm looking for info. I get an impression -- and that's all it is, an impression -- from a lot of posts here from a number of serving people in the Army, Marines and AF that such training, mentoring, whatever you call it is far more rare than it used to be. It seems that the not fully competent tend to just be left alone while folks turn to the competent workhorses and over use them. That's one of many problems with oversize Staffs today, there are enough folks to let a poor performer slide because someone can cover it...

[jcustis]

If someone cannot do something they should be able to do, someone has to train them. I'm not criticizing here, I'm looking for info. I get an impression -- and that's all it is, an impression -- from a lot of posts here from a number of serving people in the Army, Marines and AF that such training, mentoring, whatever you call it is far more rare than it used to be. It seems that the not fully competent tend to just be left alone while folks turn to the competent workhorses and over use them. That's one of many problems with oversize Staffs today, there are enough folks to let a poor performer slide because someone can cover it...

Ken, once again you are absolutely right, and it doesn't even have to be with an over-sized staff. I'd argue that the clutches of pre-deployment training regimens has done this too us, or at least made us think we are too busy to do the work of staff planning training.

[Rifleman]

.....The infantry hated snipers unless they were sent to counter-snipe....Snipers were dead if captured and really hated (even by their own infantry) in both World War's stationary phases. Exceptions prove the rule....

This was a common feeling on both sides during the War of Northern Aggression.

One account from the war says that there was an unwritten rule that you didn't bother a man when he "goes out to do his business in the morning" but that "these sharpshooting brutes are always violating that."

And artillery officers of that war are on record making quaint statements in their offical reports like, "We were a good deal annoyed by sharpshooters." The guncrew members worded things a little differently: one artilleryman said, "We went in a battery and came out a wreck!"

[kaur]

kiwigrunt said:

And on that myth and acronyms, I’m starting to get the feeling that the myth is associated more with the word ‘sniper’, rather that the job.

If you go back to the roots of the word "sniper", then every good shot can be sniper. You just have to be able to hit this bird called snipe



As I understand in US SOF there is only one sniper in squad and no spotter. He should be able to accomplish following tasks.

• Employ gas-operated sniper
systems (SR-25/M-110 SASS), both
day and night and in rural and urban
environments, while engaging stationary
targets, moving targets and targets
with limited exposure times. (Note: the
M-24 Sniper Weapon System is still
the primary weapon system employed
during SFSC.)
• Employ the Barrett M-107 sniper
weapon, both day and night.
• Conduct technical-surveillance
familiarization.
• Familiarize students with current
tactical reconnaissance kit.
• Employ the tactical reconnaissance
kit and equipment.
• Select urban surveillance/firing
positions and construct urban hide
sites.
• Conduct urban stalking.
• Learn building-climbing techniques
(ascending and descending).
• Collect and manage information.
• Operate a tactical information
center.
• Learn collection methods
and techniques.
• Conduct close-target
reconnaissance.
• Conduct long-range, standoff
observation.
• Learn vehicle-reconnaissance
tactics, techniques and procedures, or
TTP.
• Learn walk-by TTP.
• Learn to operate manned and
unmanned remote sites.
• Demonstrate planning considerations
for sniper operations.
• Plan urban and rural operations.
• Conduct time-sensitive planning.
• Develop target stand-alone products
for near- and long-term use.
• Develop RECCE concept of
operation.
• Learn to shoot from aerial platforms
(familiarization only).
• Spend two additional days of sniper
and field-shoot marksmanship events
in preparation for must-pass exams.

Look at page 30 http://www.soc.mil/swcs/swmag/08May.pdf

As far as I understand (with my limited knowledge about topic), the only difference between sniper and scout is former's skills to shoot precisely further. SOF sniper should be able like scout infiltrate and exfiltrate. Action in final firing position is similar to observation post procedures (except shooting act). This additional skill could be really demanding for the whole team. I'm glad if Infanteer will correct me, but if I remember correctly Canadian sniper team consists already of four snipers. The reasons are security, huge load of equipment (several SWS with different ammo from 5,56 to 12,7 calibre) and possibilty to man position 24h. It seems that it's easier for organisation to train all scouts like snipers, than to add to sniper pairs just security element. USMC has choosen this path.