[DS and SG] Snipers... was other stuff....

Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> As far as strengths go, in Britain and Oz you look at no more than 4

> From what I've read, Australia has not made as systematic of use of
After every war, there is a lingering discomfort about the
cold-blooded nature of sniping that seems to make army brass and
civilian pols discontinue their service/training (hence any peacetime
force could expect to see little use of them). But once a shooting war starts,
they tend to reappear and the longer the conflict, or the more intense, the
more of an appearance they make. This might be something that is reflected by
an increased presence for forces that fight a lot and little or no presence
for forces which do not or are ideologically opposed (ie the UN). It does not
suprise me that the Australian army currently does not have many. CF have
actively
thwarted attempts to increase the number of sniper-trained people. It
isn't like the training costs as much as Air Defence or Anti Armour (a state
of the art sniper rifle (Remington M700, Harris Bipod, Leupold Ultra Sight,
match Ammo) can be purchased for under $2500 Cdn... barring recent
fluctuations... so about $2K US). It's just range time, practice with hide,
scoot and shoot, and the like. Sure, you add in gizmos like Starlight scopes,
night vision, etc. and you get a little more costly. But still not that bad.

Also note, snipers have missions (I just read about them) that I NEVER
imagined....

For example. Both team members take a sniper rifle. One sits in each door of a
VTOL and flies over an AO. They use starlight scopes and their eyes to spot
targets. Fire tracer at the target. Accompanying gunship nails it with
cannonfire.

For Example. Base defense - sniper uses rifle or HMG firing single
shots to reduce enemies ability to snipe, mortar or just generally move within
2000m of a firebase.

For Example. Sniper team carries radios (always) and has extraction ready and
infantry support if needed. They go out and operate in the bush on their own
but not far (via RF and other methods) from backup. They encounter targets
they can't engage, but that are worthile. Then they become Arty FOs or FACs to
call in gunships.

A sniper is dangerous because he can penetrate quietly areas where enemy may
be operating, and set up ambushes. Those ambushes can use sniper weapons, but
a lot of the time used mines, arty, or gunships.
Sometimes they even coordinated infantry actions - a lot of their job
is observation. And as Owen points out, intel gathering. And picking off guys
when they have the chance (usually without warning and without the targets
buddies knowing where the shot came from).

My old infantry CO was a proud sponsor of our Rifle Team. That's why we won
several Reserve Infantry Competitions (3 or 4 years running!) in our district
and why some of our shooters went to Bisley and won Queen's medals. We were
trained by an Vietnam veteran sniper. People may not be sold on their value,
or on the ease of their creation, but I think many folk have bought into the
hype and media in this regard.

I think the sniper myths most commonly held 1) They operate independently
(apparently some do, but most had infantry backup, evac, and arty or gunships
at an RTO call). They also were attached (as were other specialist) to
infantry forces.
2) Snipers got killed a lot. (I'm looking up the figures for John A -
I think there were few if any Sniper casualties in Vietnam).
3) They are hard to create - in a way yes - you need expert marksmen
and people with a hunters attitude. I don't know how many people out of any
100 shoot Expert in modern basic training. But this is the pool they drew from
in Vietnam. They got between 3 and 21 days training. The graduated 80% of the
people that were sent to sniper school. (Now those were selected by COs and
DIs. So that is a little misleading). I think it would be reasonable to say
that you could get 1 sniper team out of every 100 normal recruits who graduate
from a
training program. Or maybe 1 team of 2 out of every 130-150 who try
to join the forces (infantry). But the main impediment seems to be a
psychological one (and it is hard to justify any kind of war-only
expense during peacetime....).

Tom.
/************************************************

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

> thwarted attempts to increase the number of sniper-trained people. It

BTW, the M24 (US sniper rifle) which is all the stuff you listed above, goes
for about $5000. If you bought the components stock off the shelf it would be
$2500 but almost nothing on these weapons is stock. (They're special purpose
built using differnt malterials techniques etc etc)

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

> John M. Atkinson wrote:

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

There are some historical accounts of the sniper comabt during the Battle of
Stalingrad in the book by William Craig, Enemy at the Gates. Given the urban
environment and the duration of the conflict in Stalingrad, snipers did play a
more significant role in the action. it was not uncommon that snipers and
counter snipers would fight each other, typically with a single shot deciding
the outcome.

Jon spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> There are some historical accounts of the sniper comabt during the

Urban fighting is bad for all, and it must be worse for the guy who is used to
operating hundreds of meters from a target (Urban would
tend to close ranges). An example of sniper counter-sniper is in
Saving Private Ryan. It did come down not only to one shot, but to a timely
shot at that.

/************************************************