it as mixing missions or terms. You call often for a common lexicon -- Designated Marksman as a term is, IMO, pretty well established as I have described it. I suggest that the DM is and should be capable of highly accurate aimed fire -- not precision fire; there is a difference
Most terminology variances come from a person deciding that a given usage is not the way he would say it -- so he corrupts a well used term or invents a new term for an old well understood function. That, it seems to me is what's happening here.
Why didn't you say that? You started the thread with "Sharpshooter (archaic but acceptable term) / DM" (a current usage and well defined IMO term)...The legitimate and interesting argument here is, as I see it, how do you improve the platoons close precision attack capability?
@ What weapon and why?
@ What training is required to employ it effectively in support of platoon operations? (...and squads are part of platoons )
A DM is a DM. Thus I suggest clarity was lacking...
Seems to me the question is
If that's the case, my answers would be:"Does the Platoon need an improved close precision attack capability?
If so, what weapon and why?
What training is required to employ it effectively in support of platoon operations?"
Rarely -- but METT-T always applies; Generally a 7.62x51 should be adequate but a .338 or even a .50 might be occasionally desirable or necessary; Such support should come from the Battalion sniper squad on a mission basis; both PL and PSgt training should include employment of supporting weapons to include sniper teams.
Your thoughts?
Bookmarks