Are snipers and recon still valid in infantry battalions?

[COMMAR]

.... and doctrinally it's not a stretch or even silly to have AT and Recon as the same people, for a who range of reasons I will not bore everyone with right now.

Its not a stretch at all. Its exactly what the Force Recon Hunter/Killer Teams did in the opening days of Afghanistan.

Force Recon Teams teamed up w/the BLT's (Battalion Landing Team) CAAT Teams (Combined Anti-Armor Team) to form up H/T Teams that operated as a separate Maneuver Element in Deep Battle Space.

These combined small teams conducted DA & Interdiction missions out in a 400+mi radius fr/ FOB Camp Rhino alone or sometimes escorted or by Cobras or LAVs.

The 1 famous Interdiction, only known b/c it was caught on camera, was the Shoot Out on Highway 1 which is just outside of Kandahar.

Excerpt fr/an LA Times article, "What The Marine Saw" referring to the Combat Cameraman attached on that particular Interdiction:

Once Camp Rhino was established, Marines from the elite Force Reconnaissance moved northward to intercept Taliban and Al Qaeda forces fleeing a major battle north of Kandahar to regroup and possibly mount a counteroffensive.

In Humvees and light-armored vehicles, Marines moved slowly through villages in search of fleeing enemy troops. They disarmed anyone suspected of being Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters and, if they were not hostile, let them go. Villagers, mostly old men and children, greeted the Marines.

He was also there a few days later when the heavily armed Marine "hunter-killer" teams moved cautiously toward the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar--unsure whether Afghan villagers would treat them as liberators or enemies.

...To prevent enemy vehicles from fleeing Kandahar, the Marines were ordered on the night of Dec. 7 to set up a roadblock. Thirty feet of razor-sharp concertina wire was strung across a narrow asphalt road and anchored by tent pegs.

Glowing "chemlights" were attached to the wire so the roadblock could be seen by oncoming drivers. Marines positioned their vehicles at the bottom of a berm beside the road and snipers crouched several hundred yards away. Chenelly took up his video camera.

Shortly after 4 a.m., headlights were spotted rushing toward the roadblock. A truck hit the concertina wire and skidded to a stop. On the video, Marines can be heard calling to each other excitedly, "He blew it. He blew it." Chenelly remembers the sound of the wire scraping the side of the truck. A Marine who speaks the local Afghan dialect shouted for the men in the truck to drop their weapons.

Instead, men in the cab and the truck bed--who appeared to be sleeping--raised their AK-47s at the Marines, some of whom were just 10 feet away. In an instant, both sides began firing--captured on video as green glowing tracer rounds. "Force Recon didn't hesitate for a second," Chenelly said. "They didn't flinch. If they had, I don't think we'd have all made it out alive."

The heat of the rounds ignited an ammunition cache in the back of the truck. Rounds, including rocket-propelled grenades, shot off in all directions, like some deadly Fourth of July celebration.

"It's very surreal when it's happening," said Chenelly. "For a second, you can't believe it. It's like an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. It goes so fast and everything blows up."

Seconds later, Marines can be heard on the video calling out, "Go, go, go, quick, quick, get back." An authoritative voice--that of a master sergeant, the ranking Marine on the scene--barks out, "Let me know when everybody is in."

The Marines withdrew down the road, leaving eight Taliban and Al Qaeda members dead, their truck a flaming ruin. The Marines left the bodies on the road as a warning to others who might decide to fight rather than surrender. None of the Marines were injured.

[kaur]

Wilf said

and doctrinally it's not a stretch or even silly to have AT and Recon as the same people, for a who range of reasons I will not bore everyone with right now.

COMMAR said:

Its not a stretch at all. Its exactly what the Force Recon Hunter/Killer Teams did in the opening days of Afghanistan.

There is information that Maglan is useing Nimrod long range AT missiles.

The Nimrod is an exceptionally long-range anti-tank guided missile developed by Israel Aerospace Industries. It provides standoff strike capability against a variety of point targets such as tanks, APCs, ships, bunkers and personnel concentrations. Nimrod has a semi-active laser guidance system, capable of day and night operation. Its flight trajectory can be set below obscuring cloud layer, while a forward scouting team uses a laser designator to direct it from up to 26km behind. Nimrod may be installed on a variety of towed launchers, light combat vehicle
launchers, helicopters, and fixed-wing aircraft. The launching vehicle or aircraft may fire up to four Nimrods at once from a single pack.

http://www.shpmedia.com/Images/ADJ%2...%20weapons.pdf

If i understand correctly Maglan is company-sized unit. I don't even dare to speculate what is the ratio "missile platforms vs recce units". Both must be able to act alone because 26 km is really long distance that you can't cover between breakfast and dinner.

To come back to sniper topic, here is one article about snipers in Afganistan.

A Close Fight, and a Couple of Miracles
By Noah Shachtman August 27, 2009

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...e-of-miracles/

[120mm]

Don't know if this will come through, but the following is a link to CTC Quarterly Update for 1st Qtr '09. I wrote an article of the Brigade staff's employment of Snipers and the role of the Sniper Employment Officer.

https://call2.army.mil/toc.aspx?document=5086

You need AKO login to read it, but the bottom line is that the Army Sniper community would like to see Snipers used more appropriately, trained better, and more weight given to the advice of the Sniper Employment Officer at the Brigade level.

As much as I agree with Wilf's ideas about how are armies SHOULD be run, I don't think any of us will see it in our lifetime, so there remains the need for specialized sniper and recon capabilities. Straight infantry guys just seem incapable of "getting" what the sniper and recon role is.

[William F. Owen]

As much as I agree with Wilf's ideas about how are armies SHOULD be run, I don't think any of us will see it in our lifetime, so there remains the need for specialized sniper and recon capabilities. Straight infantry guys just seem incapable of "getting" what the sniper and recon role is.

Why is that? Is it because the sniper and recon roles are poorly described? I believe/know (as I am sure do you) that 99% are not actually stupid. Poor educated maybe, and this should not apply to officers.

Essentially you are saying that the role cannot be expressed in a way that describes how they should be employed? I fully agree that is the problem.

This is why my "Platoon snipers- Long Range Riflemen" concentrate on one simple task - providing long range precision engagement in support of the platoon.
Recon - as in Finding the enemy and/or gaining information is a whole other issue, but unless you can describe the role in ways that can be practically applied, you are doomed.
What all this tells me, is that instead of finding ways to use Recon and Snipers, we should focus on describing, in the simplest useful way, what capabilities, Platoons, Companies and units actually need.

[Uboat509]

Why is that? Is it because the sniper and recon roles are poorly described? I believe/know (as I am sure do you) that 99% are not actually stupid. Poor educated maybe, and this should not apply to officers.

Education is not the issue at all. They get it. The problem is that they hate it. It takes a certain kind of person to spend three days under glass in a hide watching a target that you may not even get to shoot at. Most guys would much rather be on the assault. You can order regular infantry guys to do the S/O mission and most will do their best but it takes a level of patience and focus to be a good sniper that not everyone has. Tell most infantrymen, or most anyone for that matter, that their job will consist of laying in hide looking at a target through glass for up wards of several days, that while they are in that hide they can't move or even get up to void their bowels, that they have to keep eyes on that target for the entire time that they are there which means little to no sleep and that at the end of all that they may not even get to engage the target even when the assault kicks off, and they will tell you that you need to find someone else for the job.

SFC W

[William F. Owen]

Education is not the issue at all. They get it. The problem is that they hate it. It takes a certain kind of person to spend three days under glass in a hide watching a target that you may not even get to shoot at. Most guys would much rather be on the assault. You can order regular infantry guys to do the S/O mission and most will do their best but it takes a level of patience and focus to be a good sniper that not everyone has.

Well having done more than my fair share of time on OP hides (as part of a Reconnaissance Platoon). I've done all the peeing into bags plastic bags (containing sanitary towels) and eaten nothing but cold food. I concede life can be hard, but in comparison to what? Infantry operations are physically and psychologically demanding. It is an extremely challenging role and should not attract or tolerate those looking for an easy life.

UK infantry training takes OPs as a normal infantry task - is it always well taught? No, so I do have gripes about how you train, but I absolutely assert that it should be trained for and used.

Does that mean life it too tough to lie in an ambush position for a couple of days? Sorry, but if a normal Rifle Platoon cannot do a 3-5 OP task or lie in ambush for 2-3 days, then you simply do not have infantry worthy of the name.

Current Recon/Sniper concepts are always held to a notional level of low infantry skill. My objective is to promote and discuss a more useful understanding of infantry. I absolutely agree if you have a low standard of infantry training, then you may well need Sniper/Recon as quasi-force multipliers, instead of inherent skill sets.

[120mm]

Why is that? Is it because the sniper and recon roles are poorly described? I believe/know (as I am sure do you) that 99% are not actually stupid. Poor educated maybe, and this should not apply to officers.

It's not that at all. Besides Uboat509's comments about straight infantry hating the roles, perfectly intelligent (and perfectly useful) infantry guys just aren't suited for the role, and will deliver suboptimal results. On the other hand, those whose personality is suited to recon or sniping just don't seem to ever pull their thumb out and conduct that attack on that hill when necessary.

I've edited this to add that sometimes, suboptimal is good enough, and there is a very good argument for multi-tasking regular infantry. In fact, the more I think on it, the more I like Wilf's argument for more talented and broadly trained infantry. But I think there will always be a need for specialized roles and training among sniping/recon.

Now, I think there is an error in selection: Those with a talent for sniping/recon need to be selected because of aptitude, proven during operations, and not as a result of assignment.

[William F. Owen]

It's not that at all. Besides Uboat509's comments about straight infantry hating the roles, perfectly intelligent (and perfectly useful) infantry guys just aren't suited for the role, and will botch the damned mission each and every time. On the other hand, those whose personality is suited to recon or sniping just don't seem to ever pull their thumb out and conduct that attack on that hill when necessary.

Are not all Sniper and Recon skills merely extrapolations of normal infantry skills, held to a higher standard?
Aren't Snipers and Recon Operators identified from the ranks of the infantry via testing? - so all Snipers etc, must first prove themselves as infantrymen. I see nothing to suggest that skills and personalities makes them mutually exclusive.

My case is simply:

A.) The stripping out of skilled and determined individuals from Platoons, to go off and form specialist platoons deprives Rifle Platoons of effective soldiers. In a manpower limited army, that makes no sense. Why create two or three tiers of infantry?
B.) Warfare evolves, so Infantry training and roles must evolve in line with the conditions required. That requires altering current concepts. I see no actual evidence that infantry training cannot be developed to produce the required skills levels.

Almost all the opposition I encountered to adapting infantry training in the UK came from career-based Sniper and Reconnaissance soldiers, who seem to want to prevent discussion and thus progress.

[120mm]

Are not all Sniper and Recon skills merely extrapolations of normal infantry skills, held to a higher standard?
Aren't Snipers and Recon Operators identified from the ranks of the infantry via testing? - so all Snipers etc, must first prove themselves as infantrymen. I see nothing to suggest that skills and personalities makes them mutually exclusive.

My case is simply:

A.) The stripping out of skilled and determined individuals from Platoons, to go off and form specialist platoons deprives Rifle Platoons of effective soldiers. In a manpower limited army, that makes no sense. Why create two or three tiers of infantry?
B.) Warfare evolves, so Infantry training and roles must evolve in line with the conditions required. That requires altering current concepts. I see no actual evidence that infantry training cannot be developed to produce the required skills levels.

Almost all the opposition I encountered to adapting infantry training in the UK came from career-based Sniper and Reconnaissance soldiers, who seem to want to prevent discussion and thus progress.

Actually, no. The guys who make good Recon guys and snipers typically don't play well with straight infantry guys. And straight infantry guys usually shun them, and drive them out of the military completely, if there isn't a friendly place for them to go. Like to recon or sniper units.

So the "stripping out of infantry units" never really happens. Infantry guys get rid of guys as "unsuitable" on a daily basis who might've made decent recon and snipers.

And then infantry guys, who have no real appreciation for the nuance involved - (The idea that recon and sniping is just a higher standard of infantry tasks is laughable to someone who "gets it") promote people "just like them" to do those tasks, which they eventually do, with usually poor results.

[William F. Owen]

Actually, no. The guys who make good Recon guys and snipers typically don't play well with straight infantry guys. And straight infantry guys usually shun them, and drive them out of the military completely, if there isn't a friendly place for them to go. Like to recon or sniper units.

Well then there's a massive difference between the US/USMC and the UK. No one in the UK "Shun's" snipers at all. In fact quite the opposite is sometimes a problem. Every swinging d*ck wants to be one, and "Sniper skills" are held to be the gold standard of infantry skills.

Strangely enough I just found an old UK Army Doctrine Training report on Manoeuvre Support Sections at the company level, as used by one unit in Iraq in 03. 5 Men = All sniper trained, with 2 x L96 and but a secondary roles to employ Sustained Fire GPMG. - put the same in a platoon and I think we have something!

[Uboat509]

A.) The stripping out of skilled and determined individuals from Platoons, to go off and form specialist platoons deprives Rifle Platoons of effective soldiers. In a manpower limited army, that makes no sense. Why create two or three tiers of infantry?

Let's talk about that for a second. I have heard the whole argument about Scouts/LRSU/SF/etc. poaching all the good soldiers from the line companies for years now. Frankly it's insulting to the guys who choose to stay in the line companies. Seriously, are the line companies so utterly devoid of talent because a few decide to go to Scouts or SF or whatever that they can't function? Scouts are one platoon out of an entire battalion. SF is one small regiment out of the entire Army. Does that really represent the majority of good NCOs and soldiers in the Army? That's it just those few? It always has sounded more like sour grapes to me than a valid argument against Scouts or LRSU or SF.

In any case it is only creating two or three tiers of infantry if you believe that they are doing the same job. They are not.


SFC W

[Ken White]

I've seen all that happen but I've far more often seen it not happen. I've seen and been in recon units and sniper crews populated only with 'selected' volunteers and been in others populated with whatever the pipeline fed in the way of replacements - to include 'school trained snipers' who couldn't use a mil formula or calculate windage.

Very little difference in performance. In fact, the 'selected' crews tend to be mediocre in performance and showboat prima donnas if you don't watch 'em. What you postulate is true a few places in peacetime, in a busy war no Army could afford that mentality. No decent Commander would tolerate it. Yes, I know all commanders aren't decent -- but most are.

Any good Cav NCO can train 80% of the average grunts to be decent scouts; he can train about 20% of them to be superb scouts -- and those same percentage are about the number that will be decent and super Infantrymen, just different skillsets and yes, the Scout does have to know and do more, a bunch more -- most of these kids can do far more than too many officers and NCOs are willing to let them do.

A decent sniper can train any guy who has a flair for shooting and the patience for the job to be a sniper. How good he will be is a matter of time and experience.

The above comes from about 11 years, four in combat in two different wars, of recon from FMF and Corps to Infantry Battalion level, Cav and Infantry, Mech and Airborne. You show me a unit that acts as you say -- and, as I said, I've seen and been in a few, I know they exist -- and I'll show you a sorry unit (They were and to make your day one of 'em was Airborne ). Good units don't have those problems. I've also not seen the shun idea -- in most units I was in or familiar with, there were people in the rifle companies who wanted to be Scouts or Snipers and had to wait for a vacancy to move...

[RJ]

"Actually, no. The guys who make good Recon guys and snipers typically don't play well with straight infantry guys. And straight infantry guys usually shun them, and drive them out of the military completely, if there isn't a friendly place for them to go. Like to recon or sniper units.

So the "stripping out of infantry units" never really happens. Infantry guys get rid of guys as "unsuitable" on a daily basis who might've made decent recon and snipers.

And then infantry guys, who have no real appreciation for the nuance involved - (The idea that recon and sniping is just a higher standard of infantry tasks is laughable to someone who "gets it") promote people "just like them" to do those tasks, which they eventually do, with usually poor results."

My last tour in the Corps was with the 2nd Recon Bn, 2nd Marine Div. Prior to that I had spend 36 months with Line Regiment Marines in the 1st and 3rd Marine Divisions.

Once I acclimated to the 2nd Recon focus, the attitude from the Line Companys was a little touchy. They knew they were good to go, in their mission and resented the fact they "we" might be just a tad ahead of them.

When I reported to the 2nd Marine Div., it was to a Casual Company that received Marines from other Divisions or duty stations. I reported to the 2 Mar. Div Casual Company on a Sunday and was greeted by a Cpl. clerk typist. He looked at my orders and said something about sending me to a regular Marine Infantry Regt. I put a bottle of burbon on the counter and said what else do you have available. 2nd Recon was and option. I liked to think of it as water, or burbon, seeking its own level.

Ken White, will appreciate my bit of horse trading at the Reception Center.

Life in Marine Battalion Recon Units revolved around 9 man Squads. 8 paddlers and a Coxsun for a rubber boat equaled a Squad Leader and two four man recon teams.

Back in the day the Recon Bn. of a Marine infantry Division had one mission. Beach Assualt Recon. No sniper attachment what so ever. Our mission was to paddle into hostile beaches and "test" them for firm vs. loose sand compaction. Firm was good, and loose was not acceptable for an amphibous invasion.

Our A/O stretched from the high water mark to 2,000 yards into the potential beachhead.
As an infantry grunt, I appreciated the Gator Navy. As a recon Marine the submariners became my shipmates.

Our Battalion had the responsibility to scout and confirm beaches that could handle an Amphibous Assualt by a Marine Division.

Our T/O weapn was a 45 cal. sub machine gun nicked named "Grease Gun" and produced by the ACME Toy Company of Newark, NJ.

Our training dictated that shooting it out with the enemy was the last option.

Our job was to get in and get out with a good hydrographic survey of the beach and a in depth recon of the land beyond the beach for 2,000 yards or so.

Zero enemy contact was considered a perfect mission. There were no Seals at the time and Frogmen did underwater demolition work on beach obsticals, but their A/O didn't extend into the littoral zone above the high tide mark.
The Marine Corps did not have a Sniper Training Unit at Quantico at that time.

When I was a Marine Infantry Squad Leader the Battalion had two fighting units attached to the H&S Company at Battalion HQ. A Scout and Sniper Platoon and a 81 mm Mortar Platoon. The Scout Platoon did point and flank screening as the Battalion moved forward. The snipers were utilized as a long rifle shot, defense unit. Each Rifle platoon knew who were the best shots and if specific, long range shots were needed at the immediate platoon front, the platoon commander would designate who the shooters were going to be. In my day shooters were more than likely to be used for defense and not offense. There wasn't a need to designate a DM in theplatoons. We knew who was really good and who wasn't.

As a young grunt, I was a proficient gunner with 60mm Mortars (Thank You NYNG) and for a short time humped an 81mm Base plate as a PFC in the 5th Marines. I also spent time as a .30 cal LMG gunner and was a Rocket Section Leader in a Weapons platoon. (8.5 Bazooka). In M Co. 3/5.

120mm mortars were assigned to the Regiment level of force protection.
Iv never interacted with those lofty master mortar gunners.

My favorite order was and still is "Guns Up!' With "Fire Mission" a close second.

Infantry was my think, Dude!

[William F. Owen]

Let's talk about that for a second. I have heard the whole argument about Scouts/LRSU/SF/etc. poaching all the good soldiers from the line companies for years now. Frankly it's insulting to the guys who choose to stay in the line companies.

I agree. Let me explain.

Scout, LRSU, and SF are not all the same thing.
Some guy wants to go do SF, off you go, and good luck. SF is a legitimate and vital role.
LRSU(?) - Worked with LRSU at LRRP School in Wiengarten. Never really understood the role, as they explained it, but it was a formation level capability - above unit, so quasi-SF role.

Now if some guy in a platoon wants a greater challenge, to go do something outside the unit, then good for him.

What I am against is the division of roles and capabilities WITHIN units, that creates creeping excellence, parochialism and worst of all, does not serve operational capability.
The only two valid applications I can see for some level of platoon specialisation (excluding CSS types) is Mortars, and dedicated STA/FOO/FAC.

PS: I am not anti-sniper. I want at least 2 per Platoon, (maybe 6 per Company) and to be as good as they can be. I just don't want them spending time parcelled all together, perpetuating a ownership of skills, that IF relevant should be common to all.

[krsna]

Enlarging the argument on Generalisation of Recon job vs Specialisation, here's a news feed. This may give some ideas on things for the future.

"Now, a communications system that two Fort Lewis Stryker brigades are fielding in Iraq aims to provide leaders with more real-time information – and a better chance of tracking insurgents.The Tacticomp system can link soldiers on the ground with commanders back at the operations center, using troops’ geographical coordinates and live video from cameras soldiers carry or from drone aircraft circling overhead.The information streams back to computers inside the Stryker vehicle and to the unit’s tactical operations center.Soldiers carrying the device can send texts to each other or broadcast a message in an ad-hoc chat room. And the ability to send video or still photos to the operations center can be used to verify identities of targets.

Fort Lewis’ 3rd and 4th Stryker Brigades – both part of 2nd Infantry Division – are fielding the equipment in Iraq. The 3rd Brigade left earlier this summer for Diyala province; the 4th Brigade leaves in the coming weeks for Baghdad. Between them, they have nearly 8,000 soldiers.

Soldiers from 4th Brigade tested the equipment two weeks ago, with mixed feelings. Many liked the idea of live video – especially with the ability to tap into the data stream from unmanned aerial vehicles overhead – but some believe carrying the extra gear will make them stand out.“The video feed is a really good concept,” said Spc. Anthony Morris, an infantryman preparing for his second deployment. “I like the ability to see what guys are talking about. But the extra equipment makes you a big target.”

Each kit weighs about 8 pounds and includes a handheld controller with a video screen and a camera that can attach to the helmet or body armor. Battalions will decide which soldiers field the equipment, but previous units that have deployed to Iraq with the system have distributed them to platoon leaders and higher."

Comments.

[William F. Owen]

The Tacticomp system can link soldiers on the ground with commanders back at the operations center, using troops’ geographical coordinates and live video from cameras soldiers carry or from drone aircraft circling overhead.

I the IDF is issuing V-RAMBO to all the Infantry units with equipped with the Skylark 1LE UAV.

Based on what the users tell me, it's a very impressive system - and I'm a UAV sceptic!!

[COMMAR]

The only two valid applications I can see for some level of platoon specialisation (excluding CSS types) is Mortars, and dedicated STA/FOO/FAC.

PS: I am not anti-sniper. I want at least 2 per Platoon, (maybe 6 per Company) and to be as good as they can be. I just don't want them spending time parcelled all together, perpetuating a ownership of skills, that IF relevant should be common to all.

I just need a little clarification. Now when you say, "I am not anti-sniper. I want at least 2 per Platoon".

Do you mean "Snipers" or do you mean snipers as in Glorified DMs?

Why I say that, beyond the obvious, is b/c the US Army (I know ur Brit) & the USMC's idea of Sniper Employment is different. This discussion seems more Army centric in the Ideas of sniper/recon employment.

The Army keeps their snipers very close to their Line Units, very much like DMs, nothing wrong w/it just their TTP.

The USMC is more liberal w/the autonomy given to their Scout-Snipers often giving free range thru-out say a Comp-sized AO to disrupt enemy movement & cause havoc as a separate almost mini-maneuver element.

So when you say snipers, are you proposing "Snipers" whose missions are independent of, but in conjunction with the Rifle Plts & at times (choke pts, crossings, etc.) supporting?

Or are you proposing DM type snipers, 2 per platoon, whose 'Primary' job is to support Rifle Plt movements?

Nothing wrong w/the latter just want to be on the same page.

[MikeF]

Enlarging the argument on Generalisation of Recon job vs Specialisation, here's a news feed. This may give some ideas on things for the future.

"Now, a communications system that two Fort Lewis Stryker brigades are fielding in Iraq aims to provide leaders with more real-time information – and a better chance of tracking insurgents.The Tacticomp system can link soldiers on the ground with commanders back at the operations center, using troops’ geographical coordinates and live video from cameras soldiers carry or from drone aircraft circling overhead.The information streams back to computers inside the Stryker vehicle and to the unit’s tactical operations center.Soldiers carrying the device can send texts to each other or broadcast a message in an ad-hoc chat room. And the ability to send video or still photos to the operations center can be used to verify identities of targets.

Fort Lewis’ 3rd and 4th Stryker Brigades – both part of 2nd Infantry Division – are fielding the equipment in Iraq. The 3rd Brigade left earlier this summer for Diyala province; the 4th Brigade leaves in the coming weeks for Baghdad. Between them, they have nearly 8,000 soldiers.

Soldiers from 4th Brigade tested the equipment two weeks ago, with mixed feelings. Many liked the idea of live video – especially with the ability to tap into the data stream from unmanned aerial vehicles overhead – but some believe carrying the extra gear will make them stand out.“The video feed is a really good concept,” said Spc. Anthony Morris, an infantryman preparing for his second deployment. “I like the ability to see what guys are talking about. But the extra equipment makes you a big target.”

Each kit weighs about 8 pounds and includes a handheld controller with a video screen and a camera that can attach to the helmet or body armor. Battalions will decide which soldiers field the equipment, but previous units that have deployed to Iraq with the system have distributed them to platoon leaders and higher."

Comments.

Technology may complement reconnaissance, but it will not replace it. The sterile videos footage cannot replace those that creep through the night.

Although the article and technology you cite is new to those stykers, the reporter, and yourself, it is not new. Under the blessing of then MG William Caldwell, my squadron tested the same technology in 2005 and employed it in 2006 and 2007 in Iraq.

The technology provided us enhanced capabilities, but it could not replace the paratrooper burrowed deep in an observation post. For example,

- we observed that when UAVs flew overhead, everyone hid. We could HEAR the UAVs from a mile or two away. The picture shown in the videos did not reflect the picture on the ground. The enemy was smart enough to counter this notion of alternative coverage.

- Video footage and UAVs could not pick up the difference in Arabaic dialogue that we could. In one instance, one of my scouts managed to get close enough to a stronghold to determine that the dialogue spoken was not Iraqi but Egyptian. This intel helped confirm the presence of foreign fighters.

- Video footage is deceiving. I cannot tell you the amount of hours that I spent trying to explain to CAS, NTISR, and the command group that the footage they were watching was dogs running around and not insurgents.



v/r

Mike

[120mm]

I've seen all that happen but I've far more often seen it not happen. I've seen and been in recon units and sniper crews populated only with 'selected' volunteers and been in others populated with whatever the pipeline fed in the way of replacements - to include 'school trained snipers' who couldn't use a mil formula or calculate windage.

This isn't what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is people who's avocation happens to be the job. In other words, they are suited by personality and aptitude.

Very little difference in performance. In fact, the 'selected' crews tend to be mediocre in performance and showboat prima donnas if you don't watch 'em. What you postulate is true a few places in peacetime, in a busy war no Army could afford that mentality. No decent Commander would tolerate it. Yes, I know all commanders aren't decent -- but most are.

Actually, wartime is where the avocational scout or sniper is a) allowed to do the job regardless of MOS and b) really shines at it. I think we are in complete agreement about any selection "non-process" the Army likes to use to award MOSs.

Any good Cav NCO can train 80% of the average grunts to be decent scouts; he can train about 20% of them to be superb scouts -- and those same percentage are about the number that will be decent and super Infantrymen, just different skillsets and yes, the Scout does have to know and do more, a bunch more -- most of these kids can do far more than too many officers and NCOs are willing to let them do.

Which takes serious time. Not something you can just say "you, you and you are now scouts or snipers - now go do that recon/occupy a hide site, in enemy territory, accomplish your mission and survive". Which is precisely what WILF appears to be proposing. Or not, depending on which post it is.

A decent sniper can train any guy who has a flair for shooting and the patience for the job to be a sniper. How good he will be is a matter of time and experience.

As an aside, here is what is currently happening: Sniper comes trained in BASICS (note the use of all-caps) from the school, is neglected, failed to allow to train and/or abused for a few years by his parent unit, then some crusty NCO/Officer sees him in his decrepit state and then judges snipers by that example. This is a pretty universal complaint, btw, and isn't the result of a few "bad" commanders.

The above comes from about 11 years, four in combat in two different wars, of recon from FMF and Corps to Infantry Battalion level, Cav and Infantry, Mech and Airborne. You show me a unit that acts as you say -- and, as I said, I've seen and been in a few, I know they exist -- and I'll show you a sorry unit (They were and to make your day one of 'em was Airborne ). Good units don't have those problems. I've also not seen the shun idea -- in most units I was in or familiar with, there were people in the rifle companies who wanted to be Scouts or Snipers and had to wait for a vacancy to move...

I'd say then, that you are pretty enculturated as an Infantry guy and are blind to the problem. It's kind of like racism, and unless you are part of the minority, it is very difficult to "get" the problem. (which makes me wonder why I'm wrestling the pig) The problem is also that to an enculturated guy, the phoney-baloney prima donnas, wannabes and posers are hard to distinguish from the "real deal" guys who just act weird, look different and play with unusual toys, from an institutional standpoint.

There are all sorts of insiduous ways that the kind of guy who'd make an exceptional (not a plodder, just doing the job, school or no) recon guy or sniper is treated differently from his peers. Primarily because he may not be that good at being "hoo-ah air-bone infantaree!" (sorry, I couldn't help myself) or not care for the culture it's wrapped up in. Of course, there's all sorts of decent specialty guys who don't have that problem, and I do not speak to them, lest they descend on this post in droves.

[Ken White]

This isn't what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is people who's avocation happens to be the job. In other words, they are suited by personality and aptitude.

but acknowledging this aspect is valid -- anyone with a personality and aptitude is going to do any job better than one lacking the traits -- most of the rest is opinion and, like this one:

Actually, wartime is where the avocational scout or sniper is a) allowed to do the job regardless of MOS and b) really shines at it.

is partly true. This one is that due to the fact in wartime the rules structure dissipates. You did note I didn't deny that the structure and attitudes you cited existed -- I simply said they were not in my experience as pervasive as you seemed to say. I'll also note that those attitudes are more prevalent in peacetime and tend to disappear or at least diminish significantly in wartime.

Which takes serious time. Not something you can just say "you, you and you are now scouts or snipers - now go do that recon/occupy a hide site, in enemy territory, accomplish your mission and survive".

Depends on what you mean by serious time. In Viet Nam I got new kids (i.e. Basic and AIT completions w/about 6 months in the Army and newly arrived in country) up to speed in a couple of weeks to do all that -- those coming in from the Rifle Companies with three or more months in country took slightly less time (mostly due to having to break bad habits). That's for Scouts doing sneak and peek stuff; snipers do take more time.

...This is a pretty universal complaint, btw, and isn't the result of a few "bad" commanders.

I can believe that and will grant that lack of professional knowledge due to inadequate training and education -- and pursuit of knowledge by individuals creates an Army wide problem and leads to the syndrome you cited; I also contend that good Commanders can and do turn that stuff around.

Recall that I don't dispute the problem exists, I said that it did -- I also said it was in my experience the exception rather than the rule. Maybe the problem is that today's Commanders do things differently than in my day. We are, after all talking about the Army I was in in the 50s to 70s versus the one you're more familiar with currently, in the 90-10 period. It does seem to me that the Army is more hidebound than it used to be and it is absolutely more bureaucratic than it was. Bureaucracy can lead to a 'it's not being done our way' syndrome...

I'd say then, that you are pretty enculturated as an Infantry guy and are blind to the problem.

Gee, project much? 18Fs and 19Ds are Infantry? Who knew?

Of course, it could also be that I don't see it as an all pervading problem because I've been lucky enough to have been in more good units that bad ones. Sorry your experience differed.

(which makes me wonder why I'm wrestling the pig)

The anger thing, perhaps? You seem to enjoy wrestling a lot.

The problem is also that to an enculturated guy, the phoney-baloney prima donnas, wannabes and posers are hard to distinguish from the "real deal" guys who just act weird, look different and play with unusual toys, from an institutional standpoint.

Nope. Posers and wannabes always give themselves away by talking trash and not producing. Prima donnas look great but don't perform well.

There are all sorts of insiduous ways that the kind of guy who'd make an exceptional (not a plodder, just doing the job, school or no) recon guy or sniper is treated differently from his peers.

In other words, they aren't doing it your way? Yeah, I've seen a lot of that. Again, I don't deny that happens -- I just don't think it is the rule; you do. Your prerogative and we can disagree on that. We don't need to be disagreeable in that disagreement. I'm just trying to sort out the 'why...'

Primarily because he may not be that good at being "hoo-ah air-bone infantaree!" (sorry, I couldn't help myself)

I know you can't and I'm used to that from earthlings -- but IMO you're still not right in your assessment that only the eccentric can do the job. That's really what the issue is IMO, all the bit about treatment of eccentrics is a small part of the problem -- which is who can do it in combat (peacetime doesn't count for much).

or not care for the culture it's wrapped up in.

Then why would they stick around a culture they don't like, respect or agree with? No one today is drafted. Makes no sense to me that folks come in the Army, decide they hate it for this or that reason and stay. Why would one do that...

Of course, there's all sorts of decent specialty guys who don't have that problem, and I do not speak to them, lest they descend on this post in droves.

Yes, there are -- and while there are Infantry (and other branch) guys who are way too doctrinaire, there are also all sorts of guys in the Army who don't have the problem you attempt to tack onto them -- unless the Army has changed a whole lot more than it seems to have from my day...