Military Losing the Sniper War Against Russia?

JustMe2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
157
Interesting article with lots of hyperlinks to other articles about each new long range rifle being used by the militaries of the world. Russia is saying they can hit consistently at 4600 yards. Yikes. Russia is also saying they are using a 3-line tactic of placing snipers at close, long and ELR ranges simultaneously to cover each other. I don't believe NATO does this, but it sure would have helped the "Lone Survivor" team if we had used this tactic.

Lots of reading, but I thought you guys would enjoy the multiple reads.

 

Bravo 4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
3,808
Location
The South
I do agree that the Army needs to make being a Sniper an MOS instead of an additional skill. They only take it serious when needed, that's a historical fact. They also need to take SDMs more into consideration. I also agree the U.S. has been slow in adopting a weapon system that'll keep up with the rest of the modern world as far as the weapon's effective range. I doubt anyone can attest to this more than I. The rest of it....nope.
 

sea2summit

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
367
Location
Alaska...most of the time
The need for snipers on the modern battlefield is different. Mostly due to the rules we’ve applied to ourselves. Individual guys running around needing to take extreme distance shots will get taken care of pretty quick. You’ve got to remember there are many systems out there now that can listen to the sound of the bullet and calculate everything to get a very accurate grid to the shooter. Pretty much a suicide mission unless it’s happening in a fight already in progress.
 

dfanonymous

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
1,234
I do agree that the Army needs to make being a Sniper an MOS instead of an additional skill. They only take it serious when needed, that's a historical fact. They also need to take SDMs more into consideration. I also agree the U.S. has been slow in adopting a weapon system that'll keep up with the rest of the modern world as far as the weapon's effective range. I doubt anyone can attest to this more than I. The rest of it....nope.
Personally I think the doctrine is slow to evolve at the conventional force level. The gear and weapons will follow.
On a side note, I think it’s a horrible idea to have a company of snipers out in the field covering each other.
 

Bravo 4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
3,808
Location
The South
Personally I think the doctrine is slow to evolve at the conventional force level. The gear and weapons will follow.
On a side note, I think it’s a horrible idea to have a company of snipers out in the field covering each other.
Slow isn’t the word, it usually happens due to a need...and after the fact. Having SMEs in positions to effect change sure helps, most doctrine writers I’ve met were old retired (and then some) fellas that may need to stay that way. Does no good either way if the signatories aren’t on board. I will say that recent events have us going in the right direction.
I believe the Chief in the article was saying that snipers are (or at least should be) obsolete, that any soldier should be able to support that role. From what I read (correct me if I’m wrong) that same fella was a sniper at one time. I know things are perishable but that guy has lost his
**** mind. If you think we are obsolete then you are fooling yourself, instead you should be trying to convince the enemy of that.😁 Good luck, just maybe they have something right.
 

JustMe2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
157
Well to be fair, didn't Russia kinda invent the whole "sniping" concept from the start? And didn't the US learn most of what they know from the Russians and or Germans on the subject to begin with? Anyway, good for the Russians!
That would be an interesting research paper to see when the 1st sniper was created because the US had snipers during our revolutionary war with the advent of rifling-barreled muzzleloaders and conical bullets called Kentucky rifles instead of using smooth bored rifles and lead balls.
 
Last edited:

JustMe2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
157
Personally I think the doctrine is slow to evolve at the conventional force level. The gear and weapons will follow.
On a side note, I think it’s a horrible idea to have a company of snipers out in the field covering each other.
Why would it be a horrible idea? Each team could engage their own targets and, if needed, they could cover a compromised team's bugout. Double duty type of thing.
 

JustMe2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
157
The need for snipers on the modern battlefield is different. Mostly due to the rules we’ve applied to ourselves. Individual guys running around needing to take extreme distance shots will get taken care of pretty quick. You’ve got to remember there are many systems out there now that can listen to the sound of the bullet and calculate everything to get a very accurate grid to the shooter. Pretty much a suicide mission unless it’s happening in a fight already in progress.
Aren't these locating systems pretty large and expensive? I doubt every Company size unit would be dragging this equipment with them.
 

dfanonymous

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
1,234
Slow isn’t the word, it usually happens due to a need...and after the fact. Having SMEs in positions to effect change sure helps, most doctrine writers I’ve met were old retired (and then some) fellas that may need to stay that way. Does no good either way if the signatories aren’t on board. I will say that recent events have us going in the right direction.
I believe the Chief in the article was saying that snipers are (or at least should be) obsolete, that any soldier should be able to support that role. From what I read (correct me if I’m wrong) that same fella was a sniper at one time. I know things are perishable but that guy has lost his
**** mind. If you think we are obsolete then you are fooling yourself, instead you should be trying to convince the enemy of that.😁 Good luck, just maybe they have something right.
Agreed.
Idk I stopped reading at every “Marine is a rifleman.“ The only people who say that are officers and POGs. It doubt the MOS will go away, there’s to much specific task to support in a STA platoon. Counter sniper, surveillance, and reconnaissance is a full time gig in itself. It’s not all about supporting raids and satellite patrols. If anything, there should be more DMs in the infantry to help extend the range. Especially when those nasty dishkas come out on the side of a mountain.
 

dfanonymous

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
1,234
Why would it be a horrible idea? Each team could engage their own targets and, if needed, they could cover a compromised team's bugout. Double duty type of thing.
Because that’s not how war is conducted.

Sometimes, and I mean, sometimes, military intelligence is right. If there’s even a hint of there being some area layer’d with Russian snipers I won’t even fill out a mission card without knowing there’s at least a specter in the air. Ideally, I’d ask to MOAB or at a minimum that entire grid. And be denied more than likely. I will drop every piece of ordy in my power before pushing a single man through. Then ask for light armor to escort my guys on foot. It wouldn’t a game. I’m not wasting my people’s life or time playing cat and mouse.

If all else is denied, there’s other things that can be used, that won’t be talked about on this forum, but to give an idea, we have satellites that do things that would help at night.

All in all it takes awhile to make a good sniper, we wipe out a company of theirs because they put them all together in a three mile radius, that’s a tactical mistake on their part. Also the Russians are liars. Ive seen their 1990s NVGs and perst’s.
 

Trending threads

Top