Are snipers and recon still valid in infantry battalions?

[Ken White]

...The strength of a sniper is in the "individual" aspect of his capabilities, supported by his much advanced field-craft skills as compared to average rifleman. A DM is an average rifleman with exceptional shooting skills (I think).

If I understand what you wrote, then a 'sniper' is just an average DM with exceptional capabilities...

I have a three fold question. What are these exceptional capabilities really; why are they necessary or desirable; and what are they to be used to accomplish?

...But I still can see a potential use for the combination of these exceptional shooting skills and exceptional field craft skills, resulting in the ‘sniper’.

To do what? ' Snipe' is not a good answer:

LINK.

[Fuchs]

If I understand what you wrote, then a 'sniper' is just an average DM with exceptional capabilities...

I have a three fold question. What are these exceptional capabilities really; why are they necessary or desirable; and what are they to be used to accomplish?To do what? ' Snipe' is not a good answer:

The differences between snipers and designated marksmen (it's about time to call the latter riflemen in my opinion) are useful and clear.

DM:
Is an infantryman with a rifle meant to enable well-aimed, longer-range shots. The DM is part of the infantry and has additional shooting and counter-sniping expertise.

Sniper:
Meant to work in teams of two or three, usually separated from infantry (except movement to and from missions). Relies more on concealment and camouflage, less on cover or body armour for survivability than DM.
Extreme single shot long-range capability (training+hardware) and long-range observation capability (spotting scope). Low mobility, but extraordinary patience and endurance.


Their survivability concept allows completely different missions and tactics.
A sniper team in an infantry platoon would be mostly wasted, it would have much less choice of positions and much less surprise opportunities.
A DM is neither prepared nor meant to leave his platoon and go stalking in isolation.

The niches are simply different ones, and both are well-justified.

[Kiwigrunt]

Thanks Fuchs, you made the points a bit clearer and more concise than I managed.


Ken:

Then we could call them EDM -- Exceptional Designated Marksmen -- right?

We could. And we could call a scout an Exceptional Designated Find Function Rifleman.


Ken:

In stability operations and in mobile warfare, there are no enemy lines to speak of.

Sure, but there could still be something that we might call ‘bandit country’.


Ken:

…that's always subject to modification based on the METT-TC of the war or a particular period in a war. If there is a degree of stasis, is this sniper team restricted to the Battalion zone and if so, how far out in front of the BN FLOT / FEBA / MLR or whatever we call it today can they be expected to go?

I think your first sentence answers the second. (I’ve gota be careful here.)
I have no idea of how they typically operate but I might imagine that, METT-TC dependant, they could be pooled together at brigade level. Or perhaps uses to operate alongside SF if it is deemed that their potential effect there is greater than within the battalion structure….ohh…I’m stabbing here.


Ken:

No sniper team or collection of sniper teams is going to do those things I placed an asterisk by. They can try but they will not be able to do any significant damage in such missions. You may not agree and if it's important, perhaps you could give me some examples of such actions. Taking just one example, in the area denial mission or the screening mission against marginal opponent, I believe that if one were to try that against a mediocre or even a poor Rifle Co they'd eat your lunch in about 30 minutes. You might get a few but your survival expectation would be quite low...

Point taken. In fact, I would pretty much be inclined to agree. Those were a few points that I pulled out of the book where warning bells were ringing in my head as well. I imagine that in those scenarios they would only be used for reasons of force economy in areas where enemy action is not anticipated but surveillance is still required. So, where the battalion commander simply can’t afford to drop a rifle coy. So here surveillance may be the main effort with shooting being a tool to just buy a little time, hopefully enough for the CO to react……….blah blah blah.


Ken:

While I see some counter recon value, a DM ( LDM, Lowly DM ??? ) can do that job and I do not agree on using shooters for recon or scouting -- wrong mentality.

Does that mean that riflemen have the wrong mentality for the find function? If that’s so than we may want quite a few recon platoons to a battalion.


Ken:

So what you're left with is HVTs (perhaps if the fates smile), targets of opportunity, harassment, counter sniping and some counter recon. Is the cost and effort to train compensated by that?

And that would be the crucial question. Part of that equation would be, what might it potentially ‘cost’ the battalion if snipers were not fulfilling those tasks, even if they are only marginally effective. And I certainly cannot answer that.


Ken:

Presuming there is an enemy line, what precisely is the sniper to do behind them? He can get off a good shot or two but then he's going to have to move thus decreasing his 'unseen' quotient. He may kill an opposing Brigade Commander -- but that is unlikely to even slow the Brigade, much less stop it. I think I see far more myth than reality here

Concur. And that is what I’m digging at. I know everything that there is to know about snipers…..because I’ve read the book. And from a professional perspective, I can only support that with relatively limited infantry/rifleman/mortar handler experience. I’m really just trying to get to the bottom of this ‘myth’ and to understand it better.

So, who we gonna call…….myth busters!

[Ken White]

Thanks Fuchs, you made the points a bit clearer and more concise than I managed.

Yes, he did. In fact, he went where I was trying to get -- which is away from the sniper myth and into reality. Good job, Fuchs.

Sure, but there could still be something that we might call ‘bandit country’.

Yep -- and that's a very different thing than 'behind enemy lines.' Neutral ground may have good guys or bad guys in varying amounts and decently trained troops can operate there in small numbers with a little stealth or in large numbers without it. Behind enemy lines implies that the Enemy occupies the territory in numbers enough that you are not there -- it's a question of opponent density.

Does that mean that riflemen have the wrong mentality for the find function? If that’s so than we may want quite a few recon platoons to a battalion.

Yes and no. Depends on a lot of things like age, maturity (those two are not the same thing), experience, physical condition and other things. The basic problem is that if you have offensively oriented folks (snipers, DM, average rifleman) they do not comfortably ignore small batches of opponents and they do not have the training (nor should they) to classify a bridge, collect soil samples, determine load bearing surface capability, determine locations for river crossings or drop zones, and they are not specifically trained to observe and report. They can do a Recon patrol to find enemy formations or positions, provide local security or to select movement routes but the detailed stuff requires more than most infantrymen will be able to provide. It does take a different guy to lay still in a hide and let bad guys step on his hand.

And that would be the crucial question. Part of that equation would be, what might it potentially ‘cost’ the battalion if snipers were not fulfilling those tasks, even if they are only marginally effective. And I certainly cannot answer that.

Old METT-TC again but having operated as one -- plus later in units in combat with and without snipers -- I'd say most Bns most of the time can get by without them but if present they provide a capability that can enhance that Bns combat power slightly in some types of warfare and significantly in stability ops.

I carried a Scoped '03 during part of the moving war in Korea, I got some good shots and know others that did also -- but we admitted we did little real damage and had no significant effect. OTOH, a couple of years later when it was a static war of trenches and outposts, snipers had a ball and countersniping was in and some did some good stuff.

Snipers in Viet Nam did some legendary stuff, Carlos Hathcock for example -- but they didn't really have much effect on the war. The biggest complaint I've heard from Desert Storm snipers is that they didn't get to fire a shot.

Yet, today in both Afghanistan and Iraq, snipers have been extremely effective. Far more so than most realize or makes the news. So; lot of variables and the key, I think, is that in stability ops or a static warfare situation, they're generally more valuable than in mobile warfare.

All that said, the skill is important and needs to be maintained because in some situations, it is extremely valuable.

. I’m really just trying to get to the bottom of this ‘myth’ and to understand it better.

Aren't we all...

Where to put them? Rifleman has a point with a Bn cell -- that occurs because it simply makes the training easier to manage in garrison -- and because if you put them in the Co (where in both our current theaters, they really should be) you have the human factor problem of disinterested or lazy NCOs or Officers that will interfere with the training and / or the employment. Bde's probably too high; Bn and Co are about right but the factors mentioned mitigate for a Bn cell. Right now in the US Army they're in the Bn Scout Platoon, I don't think they should be but the US army is reluctant to do what the Commonwealth Armies do and trust things like that to a WO or NCO.

So, who we gonna call…….myth busters!

True dat. Myths abound about all things but the snipers, parachutists and SF have some real whoppers. Been all those and learned believing the myths can get you killed and / or embarrassed...

[William F. Owen]

True dat. Myths abound about all things but the snipers, parachutists and SF have some real whoppers. Been all those and learned believing the myths can get you killed and / or embarrassed...

...and worrying, when it appears that most "sniper history" and thus "sniper doctrine" is built on myths and very little evidence to support how and why.

My point: Very good shots, with very good rifles are an essential infantry capability (75% still air hits on a 1 x 0.5m tgt at 800m?). That does not necessarily describe, or justify the "snipers" of popular imagination.

[kaur]

Ken's argument:

Not a frontage issue in all cases but it can be -- it is a depth issue in the sense that the Rifle Co Recon (Combat patrols are a separate animal and they belong to the Cos and not to the Scout sect) Patrols should normally go out no more than 10-15 km, max, generally less -- and METT-TC dependent -- so they run about 4 hours out and 4 back, max (with 4-6 total being better and with no overnight stays) the Scout Sec, OTOH should be prepared for three to five day patrols in bad guy territory or up to about 30 km out. Not everyone grooves on that-- or can do it. Div Recon should be used for the stuff from 30-100km out while Force Recon can do the strategic stuff beyond 100km.

plus Wilf's patrol based infantry doctrine and I'm close to throwin word "Sniper" to dustpin

kiwigrunt cited Spence's book missions:

To take out high value targets
To take out targets of opportunity
To lay forward- or flanking screens *
Ambush – or cut off to ambush *
Area denial /covering terrain *
Blocking positions *
Harass the enemy
Counter sniping and counter recon.
And, if necessary, recon or assistance to recon.(asterisks added /kw)

Fuchs added his definition:

Meant to work in teams of two or three, usually separated from infantry (except movement to and from missions). Relies more on concealment and camouflage, less on cover or body armour for survivability than DM.
Extreme single shot long-range capability (training+hardware) and long-range observation capability (spotting scope). Low mobility, but extraordinary patience and endurance.

I agree with Ken White that snipers (DM's) can't accomplish those missions alone. They do need security componet close. They can act like in movie "Sniper", but in real life this is really risky (if this is even the right word) business

If you give to soldier who is trained according to Wilf's doctrine semi-auto .338 rifle, then most of the missions should be accomplised.
If squad DM is trained in a week to hit human targets in 500m distance with 5,56x45 ammo (without spotter, without LRF), I think this is really possible that the same soldier can hit targets with .338 in 800m (or even further) distance. If USA Army will find themselves new assault rifle via competition, maybe they should add that contenders (Colt, FN, HK etc) should add semi-auto .338 to their family of weapons. Armalite already has http://www.armalite.com/ItemForm.asp...0-49488ec48776
If .338 is chosen, who get's those M110 rifles? Another question is on what level this DM should be located. Platoon level, like Wilf has proposed?

Just one comment to Ken White's post:

That crew is the squad so that's where he or she should be. The training issue in garrison is easily solved by scheduling the DM sustainment training so that they all get together under the senior Co (or Bn) DM / Sniper. In my view, you'd have two Sniper * tms at Co, a DM in every squad and the senior Sniper becomes the Co DM trainer. if there's also a Bn Sniper Tm or section, the leader becomes the Bn Master Shooter and oversees training.

Isn't this structure close to your thought, except the "Sniper" word

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18522946/S...nated-Marksmen

[William F. Owen]

If you give to soldier who is trained according to Wilf's doctrine semi-auto .338 rifle, then most of the missions should be accomplised.

I suppose I had better put some meat on these bones, before others do!

My "Long Range Rifleman" works in the Platoon as part of the fire support effort. His mission is to deliver precision fires out to X-range (800m).
I envisage him using an 8.59mm Lapua, bolt action rifle with an scope for daylight and TI or II for night-time (300m?).

The 2 week unit-level training course is aimed at getting him to hit a target, by correctly judging distance and environmental conditions, so that he can gain a first round hit on a man-sized target, under operational conditions.

[Ken White]

I'm still working on that acronym...

...plus Wilf's patrol based infantry doctrine and I'm close to throwin word "Sniper" to dustpin

I'm inclined to agree on the word -- but the concept is still viable. There's a need in many circumstances, it's just important that the capabilities and limitations be understood.

...They do need security componet close. They can act like in movie "Sniper", but in real life this is really risky (if this is even the right word) business

True, many times today, in US practice, a Rifle squad or more is sent with the Snipers for that reason.

Isn't this structure close to your thought, except the "Sniper" word

Yes -- and in fairness, the US Army essentially considers the Sniper and his Spotter as a crew and the Sniper rifle as a crew served weapon. Having done the job with no spotter, being a bit of a loner and vaguely anti-social plus believing it is easier to hide one man than two, I don't -- but then I'm not in charge.