The primary function of a sniper is offensive and attrition based, reconnaissance is a secondary task, not a primary, and I'm tired of pretending it's not. They are a moderate risk, moderate reward asset who's typical mission involves:
>infiltrating beyond the FLOT but not necessarily behind the enemies forward line
>seeking high value targets such as leaders, communication operators and equipment, specialty weapons and operators of said weapons, and any other target of opportunity
>engage one or multiple of said HVT's and then leave, collecting and sharing intel they have gathered during the execution of their primary objective
>mission times usually shortish in duration of around 12-24 hours, not 3+ days
>should only be two men with no security element to maximize stealth
>equipment should be light without the need to bring bulky and heavy equipment for observation and long range communications
>should generally never move beyond the support limit and communications range of their parent battalions support assets
>continuous sniper operations can drastically effect the C2 and combat power of an enemy force before a proper engagement involving line units even happens
>can also be used to hunt and kill enemy reconnaissance units and or forward deployed patrols
The whole GWOT concept of using snipers as just another component of the battalions reconnaissance capabilities is a massive waste of resources while also having the poor assumption that a sniper or reconnaissance element will always have the ability to call for fire as their primary means to engage enemy forces - Which in the event of a near peer force that has decent counter-battery capabilities, isn't going to happen; which means, if you want to attrite the enemy before the real fight happens, you're not gonna do it with mortars or artillery, you're going to do it with patrols and specialized units, with snipers being one of the primary said units.
Traditional snipers werent practical for GWOT. Enemies post-2003 weren't uniformed and hid among the population, and there weren't delineated lines being contested. They were much better used augmenting FOBs and supporting patrols, than being camped out in the middle of nowhere waiting for some HVT to wander by.
The failures of GWOT rest much more in the overall tactics and doctrine that we used throughout both Iraq and Afghanistan, which is to say, snipers weren't just poorly utilized, but effectively everything was poorly utilized. But it still goes to show that even now with the Army's move towards LSCO, they are still employing extremely risk averse tactics and doctrine that were adopted throughout GWOT without even thinking about it. Snipers being one of many issues due to this.
No amount of tactics and doctrine would change the fact that the wars were a product of zionist neoconservative think tanks and doomed on a strategic level from the beginning. These were wars fought for zionists so they didn't have to fight their own enemies in the Middle East. They weren't meant to be won, they were meant to destabilize nations for oil resources, heroin, and zionism at the expense of American lives. These people frame "forever wars" as a "good thing" in Washington.
okay polchud, back to your containment board
What a long post to say absolutely nothing of value.
Snipers’ main function IS recon. Wether you agree that it’s a good idea for that to be their role is irrelevant because your opinion ultimately does not matter.
Have you ever been on a force on force military exercise ever where you didn’t have drone coverage?
Observation posts account for, in my experience, the vast vast majority of sightings of the enemy.
The role of a sniper is basically just another observation post but you can place it in enemy territory, increasing their effectiveness greatly.
If they remain hidden they can spot targets that, if they call in indirect fire, can do more damage than they could in a lifetime of sniping.
>muh hunting HVT
Also a function, but it’s secondary. Real life isn’t your fricking COD game where snipers get sent out each day to take out generals and presidents, most of the time is going to be laying down doing nothing but watching
>you want to attrite the enemy before the real fight happens, you're not gonna do it with mortars or artillery, you're going to do it with patrols and specialized units, with snipers being one of the primary said units.
Just not true.
That role would be filled by the designated marksman, not a sniper.
Most of what you said applies to designated marksmen.
Think of snipers as basically designated marksmen but more isolated and they don’t shoot as much.
And no, indirect fire won’t get overtaken by small arms as the main atrition factor probably ever. That has to be the most moronic shit I’ve read all day
>Observation posts account for, in my experience, the vast vast majority of sightings of the enemy.
The role of a sniper is basically just another observation post but you can place it in enemy territory, increasing their effectiveness greatly
Scout platoon can easily do that
> if they call in indirect fire, can do more damage than they could in a lifetime of sniping
not if the enemy can counter battery
>Real life isn’t your fricking COD game where snipers get sent out each day to take out generals and presidents
Nice projection, how about platoon leaders, squad leaders and specialty roles and weapons such as commo and heavy weapons.
>That role would be filled by the designated marksman, not a sniper
Designated marksmen have priority of fires that place enemy leaders and important weapons as priority and typically do not suppress. Snipers are a separate unit who's only purpose is to do exactly that, rather than supplementing an infantry platoon.
>And no, indirect fire won’t get overtaken by small arms as the main atrition factor probably ever. That has to be the most moronic shit I’ve read all day
Have fun getting your DIVARTY blown up completely because you just had to call in a fire mission on an enemy fireteams fighting position. Counter battery IS what drastically effects the way in which a war is waged. You would not have artillery duels and mass bombardment of fighting positions in a sustained way like you do in Ukraine if both sides have decent counter battery - Which many countries do. Denying this has got to be the most moronic thing I've heard all day.
Not that guy but honestly kid, have a nice day moron.
I win
The gay teenager cod kid award
You sound real mature yourself, what with your lack of an argument and getting mad at an anonymous user over the internet.
This moron unironically thinks small arms, and SNIPERS at that, are the main factor in taking out the enemy.
Everyone point and laugh at this tard.
Hell, even something as simple as a group of people with a couple switchblade 300s is more effective in doing that.
Snipers have their niche, but taking out large amounts of soldiers and high value targets isn’t their main advantage. If you have a soldier extremely well trained in observation even just the information they pass along (IDF aside, like troops movements and locations to plan around) are more valuable than the individual soldiers they might pick off if they even fire their weapon which most of the time they don’t.
Again, you can disagree with how snipers SHOULD be used but in their current usage by the vast majority of doctrines this is the case.
Counter battery fire isn’t the end-all solution to artillery moron. It’s just another hurdle to plan around. Just like AT weapons didn’t kill the tank and the drone didn’t make infantry useless
>current usage by the vast majority of doctrines this is the case
lmaoing at this right now
>Counter battery fire isn’t the end-all solution to artillery moron. It’s just another hurdle to plan around
So I guess that's not why BCT's and division commands are so scared and plan for hours and even days to weeks where and when to use their artillery during near peer training exercises? You fricking moron.
>Wether you agree that it’s a good idea for that to be their role is irrelevant because your opinion ultimately does not matter
OP rekt
/thread
When you get all your information from video games.
More like pre GWOT doctrine that has existed since WWII.
whats a gwot and whats a flot
GWOT
>Global War On Terror
FLOT
>Forward Line Of Troops (friendly front lines or at least main defensive positions)
>be op, a colossal homosexual
>sneaks his way into enemy territory to do recon on enemy movement in the area
>oh shit a target of opportunity
>let a single round go
>expose your presence and kill a single person
>mission accomplished
bravo Black person you won the war
It worked against you in Afghanistan though
wdym? even if he were an afghan, they won that war.
>they won
yeah
Winning through sheer not-giving-a-frick about casualties is barely a win. What exactly does afghanistan have right now?
>What exactly does afghanistan have right now?
Self-Rule
What purpose do standalone sniper teams serve in modern warfare?
Shooting the enemy?
Actually this raise an interesting point. Is there even much point to giving the spotter a sniper when calling an in an air or artillery strike is just better in every way and doesn't risk the sniper team? Sure it's cheaper but once the sniper shoots you have to exfiltrate and now they know there's a spotter in the area. The only thing I can think of is that the sniper is just there just to give a morale boost so that the spotter feels like an elite.
Fleeting targets of opportunity.
Airstrikes and artillery strikes can take anywhere from ten minutes to an hour or more to hit.
Ideally, yes, the spotting team is just there to watch the enemy. That's why it's said that the sniper's most powerful weapon is his radio.
>so that the spotter feels like an elite.
Usually they ARE elite. Recon is the actual primary role of Special Forces in a near-peer war, not direct action aka blowing shit up Rambo-style
>Fleeting targets of opportunity.
Is that really worth revealing your position and having to leave? The sniper team is a high echelon asset, they don't have to deal with long wait times like the grunts do. General at the front? Just shell that shit.
>Airstrikes and artillery strikes can take anywhere from ten minutes to an hour or more to hit.
The sniper team is a high echelon asset, they don't have to deal with long wait times like the grunts do
strikes still need to be planned, units found, tasked, informed
unlike video games, real life is not point and click
Excuses, we train our men just specifically to get rounds on target as quickly as possible. Snipers are Battalion level assets with a hotline to HQ. Even 5 minutes is overestimating the wait. Also just send a drone lol.
>we
you haven't been anywhere near the military, neverserved
A sniper team is apart of a battalions HHC and will usually have priority for the battalions organic mortars, but that's about it. Especially in a near peer war where the enemy has both EW and counter battery, in that case neither side will want to use their artillery until it's time for the decisive action during a major operation so that they don't risk their artillery batteries getting blown the frick up. Which is further reason why sniper teams being more attrition based rather than reconnaissance based is important, because the artillery isn't coming.
I didn't know a battalions scout platoon is considered special forces anon.
Usually in front of the infantry battalion will be the SF screen, who would be doing all that shit
In the case of battalion scout platoons, not all of them have sniper rifles
>Usually in front of the infantry battalion will be the SF screen
That would be more of a division/corps deep reconnaissance asset. Scout platoons from a battalion HHC will be only a few kilometers ahead at most.
>not all of them have sniper rifles
That's because there is a dedicated sniper section also within the battalions HHC.
What if instead of sniping teams, these armed forward recon/observation teams just had normal guns to provide their own security? The whole point of a sniper role is to take small numbers of targets at extreme range and to observe and relay information about the enemy. If they aren't primarily doing the first part due to the danger of exposing their location and are just hiding and watching, why even give them a specialized long range gun?
Honestly I question why recon-focused teams that typically hole up in urban or other very tight quarters wouldn't just be equipped with normal or specialized supressed CQC weapons that would be more useful against anyone you'd encounter while exfiltrating. Bring 2 high quality spotter scopes and MP5s and party like you're the CIA
>you absolutely must choose SMG or Sniper like you're choosing classes in my vidya
whynotboth.jpg
I considered this, but why even both? If it's less used than a tourniquet and has significant length and weight I don't get why you'd want to bring all that shit with you for no reason. I know that's kinda the military's whole schtick but I think it's needlessly extended to specialized units based on doctrines from over half a century and 4 billion people ago
>I think it's needless
well, newsflash, the ones who are actually lugging the things and have their lives depending on their kit apparently don't think so, so what exactly is your opinion worth?
not only will they have planned and practised tactics that make best use of the sniper rifle, they'll also have figured out ways to counter enemies using the same tactics, and ways to counter that
Any snipers who were apart of a mechanized or armored battalions HHC? How the hell does that work?