From the beginning of the history of warfare, few types of
soldiers have exhibited the disproportionate impact on the battlefield that
snipers have. Normally, I’d launch into
a recitation of historical examples of the outsized impact of the sniper but,
in this case, I think the point is too obvious and too indisputable to justify
the effort so I’ll just say, snipers are gods on the battlefield.
With that in mind, we see that the Marines are eliminating snipers.
With that in mind, we see that the Marines are eliminating snipers.
As part of the Marine Corps' ongoing and controversial attempt to reinvent the service for future warfare, it had decided to get rid of the scout ...
As part of the plan, all three training locations for the grueling three-month Scout Sniper course will stop accepting new students starting in fiscal 2024 … [1]Gone or significantly reduced: tanks, artillery, mortars, snipers. The Marines are being systematically eliminated as a fighting force. It would be impossible for a Chinese agent to do more harm to the Marine Corps than the Commandant is doing.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/marine-corps-eliminate-elite-scout-sniper/2023/02/28/id/1110503/
Seen from the other side of the Atlantic this seems astonishing, especially given the reputation and known abilities of USMC Scout-Snipers. The UK made this same mistake after World War 1 and paid for it very badly when up against German snipers in 1940-42. All I can suggest is that the Marines quietly send a few people each year to attend the Royal Marines sniper course in England to keep the expertise going, until such time there is a fundamental rethink. This appears to be a very strange decision indeed. Why? Does the Corps really think that technology will fill this gap and that any reasonable shooter can take on the role?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the US Army have a Sniper School the marines can attend?
DeleteYes, the Army offers a 7 week course. The Marine course was an 8+ week course that included scouting whereas the Army course doesn't seem to.
DeleteWhether the Army would have openings for Marines is unknown but I suspect not. Specialty schools are usually full up.
Snipers are useful in anti terrorism wars but not useful in counter another competent forces. Lots of battles are beyond visual range thus snippers are not useful.
ReplyDeleteOh good grief. Go study history before you embarrass yourself again.
DeleteI'll bet they are not cutting their diversity-inclusion-equity (D-I-E) training.
ReplyDeleteThe diversity issue was the severe under representation of Scouts, the Scout-Snipers were really Snipers.
DeleteTo fix the scout problem there is a now a 26 man scout unit, with x-trained marksman. The Marines fix the scout problem and create a sniper problem.
The Marine Snipers tended to xfer to SOCOM were the differences between scouts, snipers and marksmen are understood. The Marine's Walk and Eat Crayons powerpoint deck was lost is seems.
WE SHALL CRUSH THE ENEMY UNDER THE WEIGHT OF OUR POWERPOINT DECKS!!!
ReplyDeleteAt this point, we should have a list of what the Marines CAN do...itll be shorter. Id rather see the Marines drop their non-helo avition before they drop somthing actually relevant...
ReplyDeleteThe Commandant should be fired. Period. This is entirely within the purview of the Commander In Chief or the Joint Chiefs and there have been many cases of this in the past. It is understandable that it is rare for this to happen as most try to respect high ranking officers, but enough is enough. An example needs set. We cannot trust the Joint Chiefs to do it as they allow incompetence to go unpunished regularly, but perhaps the current President or a future one will have the testicular fortitude to do so if enough former and current military speak up in protest.
ReplyDeleteComandant is doing exactly what the ruling junta told him to do.
DeleteI guess the islands will all be so small that they won't need snipers. Do they think drones are replacing the scout function?
ReplyDeleteWill drones even be usable, when China is likely to have electronic warfare units flood the airwaves with jamming to prevent the drone control stations from controlling the drones?
DeleteSeriously, the US military WILL do the same, if it has competent leaders. Why doesn't anyone assume the enemy won't do the same, and take counter-countermeasures to prevent enemy countermeasures from interfering with their operations?
I've talked with a source who consults with active and former ODA who've come back from MENA deployments. In their opinion, in contested territory, the usefulness of a sniper is minimal, if not obsolescent. The traditional sniper role of a 2-man team going on foot, stalking and observing and taking out a HVT, just isn't viable anymore, and you get better results with drone strikes for the HVT headhunting mission. With how Big Army and the Marines are going hard on LPVOs on the rifles, and the way the new XM157 smart LPVO allows first shot first impact - especially with Big Army having contract options to buy up to 250,000 of these optics. (And if the LRF ballistic computer module fails, it's still a 1-8x optic with an etched reticle: you can absolutely use it manually.)
DeleteWhat they see is that loitering munitions are going to replace the sniper: instead of a sniper team, you're going to have a Switchblade team, carrying multiple Switchblades and yeeting them into the air for close recon - i.e. within 800 to 1000 yards of the squad - for surveillance and attack.
"Will drones even be usable, when China is likely to have electronic warfare units flood the airwaves with jamming to prevent the drone control stations from controlling the drones?"
This reminds me of the prediction of future war presented in Black Powder Red Earth: Awbari. Crisis Troop Scorch and Hongbin Security are fighting a proxy war that's ultimately on behalf of America and China, and at that point in time (2030), loitering munitions are a platoon-level asset. Both sides have counter UAS specialists and deploy EW assets to the battlefield to restrict the adversary use of loitering munitions.
With how Big Army and the Marines are going hard on LPVOs on the rifles, and the way the new XM157 smart LPVO allows first shot first impact - especially with Big Army having contract options to buy up to 250,000 of these optics - the argument made is that in terms of capability, there's not really that much difference between a recon scout and a scout-sniper when their weapon is more or less the same and the skillset is the same, and that the rifle squad's rifles are now capable enough that you don't necessarily need a designated marksman or a squad sniper because the whole squad now has LPVOs and can see out to 800 yards, vs before when a rifle squad had a mix of 1x Aimpoints and 4x ACOGs and maybe only one DMR with an 8x scope.
DeleteOn the other hand, there might have been a certain bias in play here because these were dudes who were on ODAs, and since the mid 2010s, ODAs have been going hard on getting LPVOs for everyone, so their expectation is that every man in a rifle squad can be a squad sniper because every man in a Green Beret ODA can be a squad sniper.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFrom the post,
Delete"As part of the plan, all three training locations for the grueling three-month Scout Sniper course will stop accepting new students starting in fiscal 2024 ..."
When you eliminate the training, you've eliminated the function. You can claim to still have the function but if you don't train for it, you don't have it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteWhen you eliminate the training you eliminate the function. Combining training with something else waters it down to uselessness. Face it, snipers are gone. If you want to believe a fantasy, feel free.
DeleteOn the other hand, how relevant is the traditional scout sniper team on the battlefield? It's been argued to me, by dudes who kill other dudes for a living, that the traditional scout-sniper HVT headhunting mission ala Carlos Hathcock is obsolescent because we have better tools for that now: drones, loitering munitions, recon calling in airstrikes and fires on the target.
DeleteThere's also an argument that the squad sniper won't really be a thing anymore because every man's going to have an 1-6x or a 1-8x LPVO in the future, and the M4A1 with M855A1 ammo has enough range to guarantee lethal hits at 550 yards and wounding hits at 650 yards, which is about the limit of where a rifle squad should be engaging and controlling anyhow; beyond 600 yards is what the GPMG and mortars and IFV should be servicing.
"It's been argued to me, by dudes who kill other dudes for a living, that the traditional scout-sniper HVT headhunting mission ala Carlos Hathcock is obsolescent"
DeleteWell, that's certainly one opinion ... one that ignores all the other more common and useful tasks the scout-sniper performs.
And what happens when we run out of smart munitions (chip shortages such as we're experiencing today and that will only get far worse during war)? We can carry and supply far more bullets than we can quad-copters, loitering munitions, or whatever technology we think will replace snipers.
Simply providing some supposed miracle rifle to everyone doesn't make them a sniper any more than handing a random guy an aircraft makes them an ace pilot.
We keep trying to substitute technology for personal competence and it keeps failing. That's why our ships, loaded with every conceivable advanced sensor and computer control in the world, keep running aground or colliding with merchant ships. It's why, despite having the most advanced weaponry and technology in the world, we got booted out of Afghanistan with our tails between our legs, bargaining with the Taliban to let us go without hurting us.
"Face it, snipers are gone."
DeleteFace it, the Marines are gone, unless they can find a mission. And right now, they're looking for it in all the wrong places.
They've abandoned their classic mission of amphibious operations. Since Vietnam, they've tried to get by as a baby army with a baby air force. As a friend of mine's daughter asked him, "Daddy, why does the navy's army need an air force?" Since that kind of force is simply begging to be absorbed into the Army, they're trying to create some sort of ultralight infantry mission out of whole cloth. Except there's no there there.
Here's my thinking about a conceptual approach. Army does large unit broad front continental operations. Marines do small unit operations with a focus on the littorals. And both emphasize training, maintenance, and technology in that order of importance rather than relying on handy dandy gadgets to work miracles.
"Well, that's certainly one opinion ... one that ignores all the other more common and useful tasks the scout-sniper performs."
DeleteTo be sure, there's that Army bias speaking about the traditional sniper mission that lives in our minds; in the army, the scouting function is performed by reconnaisance platoon, and the sniper in the army is employed to either do guardian angel overwatch in defense and support of the rifle platoon/company, or to go and scout a bit further afield of the company (ie the rifle coy's organic scout asset, vs the recce platoon that belongs to Battalion).
"Simply providing some supposed miracle rifle to everyone doesn't make them a sniper any more than handing a random guy an aircraft makes them an ace pilot."
The M4A1 with M855A1 ammo isn't a miracle rifle, it's the standard issue rifle with the standard issue ammo. I'm just pointing out that the rifle squad already has an adequete rifle for what it needs to do - the benefit of the magnified optic is the soldier can now see further to identify and engage targets (because trying to shoot past 300 yards with a red dot is difficult at best, nevermind trying to do that with iron sights). The rifle squad has more capability that can be leveraged by the soldier, provided Big Army puts more effort into training Joe instead of making him do chickenshit garrison duty.
As it was explained to me, it wasn't just a matter about the rifle, but about how the battlefield has changed: in Vietnam, it was viable to send 2 dudes into the jungle to snipe an enemy commander, but as time went on, that became less and less viable because a 2-man sniper team on foot has limited mobility and ability to absorb casualties when detected - and a competent enemy will have means of detecting troops, like you said a few years ago:
"We'll have to remember to send a thank you note to the enemy for allowing these magical special forces to land, unhindered, and find and designate all the enemy bunkers, again unhindered. Seems odd that a heavily defended beach would allow these ghosts to do that but, hey, that's modern military thinking - everything we do will work and the enemy won't attempt to interfere, at all!"
"Back to reality ..."
"With proximity sensors, night vision, IR scanners, radar, etc., I'm guessing not well!"
"What country can't afford those kinds of simple 'toys'?"
- CNO, 2019
(https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/08/chinese-type-05-amphibious-assault.html)
(even in the later years of vietnam, MACV-SOG took heavy casualties from the reconnaisance missions they sent across the border.)
The way the Army thinks, snipers are not that survivable on the battlefield, and Big Army would rather have the scouts do only one thing.
If we look in the context of an Army recon team, they've got their M3 Bradley CFV carrying an autocannon and antitank missiles and a 3 man recon team with dirt bikes, this is basically the M8 Greyhound in the modern era, just with more space for more kit. The Brad stops to hold an OP, the scouts deploy at an offset to go scouting, and when they find the HVT they observe and then call in fires to service the HVT and the headquarters (which Carlos Hathcock and other snipers in his platoon did, back in the Vietnam War). Or they're USASOC doing special reconnaisance, in which case they're on their jeeps, carrying ATGMs on their vics, and again, patrolling on foot at an offset to the objective, and when they find the HVT, they're calling in fires or using their ATGMs to service the HVT, not their rifles.
(I think this really more of an Army doctrine/philosophy though, the Army is a lot more vehicle-mounted than the Marines are.)
"We keep trying to substitute technology for personal competence and it keeps failing."
DeleteThe argument was that the specific role of one man in the rifle squad being the designated marksman/squad sniper would and should be obsolescent, because marksmanship is a trainable skill, and EVERY man in the rifle squad can and should be trained to that level of skill, because that's what they did in their unit. (On the other hand, again, these were Rangers and Green Berets talking, so I suppose there might be some bias there because these are people who are a cut above, in units where high standards are expected and enforced, where every man is expected to be crosstrained and knowledgeable and an interchangable cog in the machine, versus the single function specialists in the regular army.)
In the weird twisted way of thinking of Berger, makes sense to more or more get rid of snipers or just turn it into some extra training for recon.....why do you need snipers when USMC on an island firing ASMs at Chinese navy then Chinese waste your island????
ReplyDeleteEverything Berger wants is to be super long distance fight: ASM, ASW, AH1Z carrying AMMRAMs,etc...he doesn't want to get in close and fight, USMC will get flattened if they do since armor, artillery is gone, how many ground troops do you think USMC will have in the next decade if you get rid of anyone that fights "close"??? Why would you need so much "infantry"?
"Why would you need so much "infantry"?"
ReplyDeleteThe question is rapidly approaching, "Why do we need Marines?"
Sadly, at this point, there is no need for the Marines. They offer nothing unique and are an unnecessary duplication of effort and resources.
DeleteThat hurts and cuts to the bone....only because it is fastly becoming true.
DeleteHere is an odd Navy cut that would not occur without an okay from the Marines.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2023-03-03/gator-bees-decommissioning-9334218.html
So now Marines can only operate from ports, unless they want to do the lengthy landing craft shuttle. They might think their new LAWs don't need piers, but during WW II the LSTs often were a few yards short of the beach when they landed. They would drop a few pontoons and the Navy amphib CBs would assemble a ramp to cover the gap. Will that be gone? I doubt the Marines have even considered having LAWs carry pontoons along their sides, which was common in World War II.
Even landing craft often can't make it to shore as shown in the famous photo and video of MacArthur landing in the Philippines. The Marines can jump off and wade ashore, but that's a huge problem in cold weather. Vehicles may be able to make it ashore but you don't want stuff to get wet or stuck.
I just checked and the new LAW will have a 12 foot draft and the LCU has an 9 foot draft. World War II LSTs had an 8 foot draft the smaller LCMs had a 4 foot draft with landing craft at 4 foot. Even then landing sites were limited by beach gradient, and they had pontoons!
DeleteMy reading of the article is that the whole capability isn't going away, since this isn't the only such battalion:
Delete"Since the order to decommission was handed down, the crew has worked to close up shop, with most of the equipment moved to its sister battalion — Amphibious Construction Battalion 1 in San Diego."
"the whole capability isn't going away"
DeleteIt's like laying off all but one policeman in a large city. The capability didn't go away but it's ineffective. If they thought they needed multiple battalions before and they have only one now then they were either wrong before or ineffective now. Which is it?
Also, other articles on the topic have noted that the battalion personnel have been cut in half over recent years so it's less than one battalion. It's only a matter of time until the remaining one gets completely deactivated.
"If they thought they needed multiple battalions before and they have only one now then they were either wrong before or ineffective now. Which is it?"
DeleteIneffective now. But you knew that.
OK, so you have one ACB left. It's on the west coast. You need pontoon causeways for an operation in the Med. How do you get there from here?
Does the RN have enough Mexeflotes to do the deal?
I suppose it's not a problem if nobody is doing amphib ops. But that's an assumption that I'm not prepared to make, even if the Marines are.
"I just checked and the new LAW will have a 12 foot draft and the LCU has an 9 foot draft. World War II LSTs had an 8 foot draft the smaller LCMs had a 4 foot draft with landing craft at 4 foot."
DeleteWe used to be able to ballast the Newports to where they only drew 4 feet forward. But the tradeoff was 18 feet aft, so unless the beach gradient was really weird, that was undoable because the props would ground out first--the one result that you never wanted. IIRC we estimated that the Newports could get dry ramps on something like 3% of the world's beaches. A lot of utility was sacrificed to get a 20 knot SOA.
Here is an article I once wrote about this topic. Note some interesting photos. All the LSTs at Leyte needed ramps. And the Navy had a system of hooking up a chain of landing craft so an LST could offload. The LST could also open its stern gate so cargo ships could offload. And CBs can build a big ramp like a pier out 100 yards so cargo ships can offload.
Deletehttp://www.g2mil.com/Landing%20Ship%20Assault.htm
Those amphib sailors also have bulldozers to push soil to help ramp up to the ships or pontoons, and to pull out stuck vehicles. I was surprised to learn first hand that vehicles can get stuck on a rocky beach. Some trucks and dozers would get stuck so bad the tank retrievers were needed to pull them out. I've seen cables snap while dozers tried to pull out trucks and even AAVs. When they got rid of the tanks they rid of the tank retrievers, so I guess the Corps will just have to abandon lots of equipment now.
And the Navy has 14 new Spearhead expeditionary fast transports with 12.7 foot drafts. Unless a port or large pier is available, they need the CBs to assemble a few feet of pontoon piers to offload. This is important because during a war an enemy will bombard ports and piers and defend them. Now that will be lost.
Sorry, to ramble, but this stuff is important and never discussed anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearhead-class_expeditionary_fast_transport
G2mil, I just don't think they care. I really don't. They just want to take their careers to the house and be done and dusted.
Delete"Here is an article I once wrote about this topic."
DeleteThat's a good article, however, there are some aspects worth further discussion.
Historically and generally, LST's have been relegated to follow on sustainment rather than initial assault landings/unloadings. This is because LSTs are susceptible to damage/destruction due to their size compared to, say, a Higgins boat. While it is accurate to say that an LST would be difficult to sink (as is any sizeable ship except an LCS!), it is also accurate to say that an LST would be highly susceptible to crippling damage. The sheer 'packed' nature of the LST ensures that a hit will cause significant casualties and damage to the embarked troops, vehicles, equipment, fuel (for the vehicles), and munitions. By definition, an LST is an example of high risk due to the density of troops and equipment (the lots of eggs in one basket analogy).
A single hit on the bow of an LST would likely render it unable to unload at the beach due to ramp/bow damage. An LST that can't unload is not much different than a sunken LST.
Normandy saw the use of scores of LSTs but not in the initial assault.
Once a beachhead is secured, LSTs can be used quite effectively in combination with causeways or other methods of unloading but until the beach is secured, their use is highly risky (density of troops/equipment combined with their large size) and limited to a small percentage of beach gradients.
An LST is an excellent sustainment capability but may not be an ideal initial assault asset. It would also be highly useful in unopposed landing scenarios as happened later in the Pacific war as the Japanese conceded the initial landings (Iwo Jima and Okinawa).
Any thoughts?
If a shortfall exists in US Army recruitment, why not add trained Marine infantry to make up for this ?
ReplyDeleteBecause that would reduce the overall force numbers even lower than they already are.
DeleteMarine is seeking its new roles from being second Army nor being a subsidiary of Navy. This is like a business unit struggling to justify in a company while its functions seem overlap with another unit.
ReplyDeleteIf you talk snippers face China, then China's QLU-11(export version LG5) is really danger.
https://modernfirearms.net/en/grenade-launchers/china-grenade-launchers/norinco-lg5-qlu-11-eng/
Why does each branch of the armed forces need to train its own snipers?
ReplyDeleteIf there’s a demonstrable need for the USMC to employ snipers, why can’t they train them alongside Army and other SF snipers?
The need for competently trained snipers highlighted by the John Hopkins University Operational Research Office report of June 1952 - Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon
ReplyDeleteAn analysis of WWII and Korea hit effectiveness using the MI found it was only satisfactory up to 100 yards and declines very rapidly to low order at 300 yards, the general limit for battlefield rifle engagements.
Its conclusions
1. The ranges at which the rifle is used most frequently in battle and the ranges within which the greater fraction of man targets can be seen on the battlefield do not exceed 300 yd.
2. Within these important battle ranges, the marksmanship of even expert riflemen is satisfactory in meeting actual battle requirements only up to 100 yd, beyond 100 yd, marksmanship declines sharply, reaching a low order at 300 yd.
3. To improve hit effectiveness at the ranges not covered satisfactorily in this sense by men using the M-1 100 to 300 yd, the adoption of a pattern-dispersion principle in the hand weapon could partly compensate for human aiming errors and thereby significantly increase the hits at ranges up to 300 yd.
4. Current models of fully automatic hand weapons afford neither these desirable characteristics nor adequate alternatives. Such weapons are valueless from the standpoint of increasing the number of targets hit when aiming on separ'ated man-size targets.
5. Certain of observed in the manufacture of current rifles and ammunition can be relaxed without significant losses in over-all hit effectiveness.
6. To meet the actual operational requirements of a general purpose infantry hand weapon, many possibilities are open for designs which will give desirable dispersion patterns (and accompanying increases in hit probability) at the ranges of interest. Of the possible salvo or volley automatic designs, the small caliber, lightweight weapon with controlled dispersion characteristics appears to be a promising approach. (Low recoil of a small caliber weapon facilitates dispersion control.)
7. To create militarily acceptable wound damage at common battle ranges, missiles of smaller caliber than the present standard .30 cal can be used without loss in wounding effects and with substantial logistical and over-all military gains.
8. A very great increase in hit lethality can be effected by the addition of toxic agents to bullet missiles.
Post WWII trials for a new NATO round held in US with the Winchester developed full power .30 T65 cartridge, the 308/7.62 NATO round, a slightly reduced capacity 30-06 as it was never filled to capacity during WWII as created too much recoil for the M1 vs the Brit lower powered intermediate .280/30 -7mm round concept inspired by the German 7.92x33 Kurz caliber. US Army generals rejected the Brit intermediate round as would not penetrate army helmet at 1,000 yards.
Vietnam came and the new semi-auto M14 with its 7.62 round, an updated M1 that was quickly replaced by the fully auto M16 with its low powered .223/5.56mm round for its much superior fire power at close range of ~100 to 300 yards.
When one wants an ineffective cartridge he trots out “research” paid to highlight wrong questions.
Delete7.62x51 delivers more energy at 400-yards than 5.56 does at 4-yards. A 1959 German G3 is as relevant in size, weight and likely better reliability as the SIG M5 now in production. Just outfit it with the optic & smuzzle. The Swedish AK4D is prime example.
The Cold War over after the JFK assassination, NATO and the West got rid of the draft and the spectre of trained men wielding effective rifles. “The Cold War” devolved to intellectual tail-chasing past some proxy conflicts.
5.56 is no threat to politicians and even a mediocre military.
Pretty much no weapons system without roots in the 1960s and earlier has been effective in cost and performance since 1970. Not difficult to see that as by plan.
“Sniper” is a mindset. As is Scout.
Can’t see the advantage of such in a combined role, one isn’t serious about warfare.
The tools are those of decades standing, and the combat role of Scout & Sniper can’t be seriously questioned reading back several centuries.
Contact, plus opportunity in surprise to remove key personnel.
"7.62x51 delivers more energy at 400-yards than 5.56 does at 4-yards. A 1959 German G3 is as relevant in size, weight and likely better reliability as the SIG M5 now in production. Just outfit it with the optic & smuzzle. The Swedish AK4D is prime example."
DeleteOn the other hand, at 400 yards, the M855A1 round out of the standard 14.5" barrel length of an M4A1 retains more than enough velocity to consistently fragment and create lethal wounds, and for the same volume and weight, you can carry 210 rounds of 5.56 vs 120 rounds of 7.62. That's almost twice the warload, which is a not-insignificant consideration when fire superiority in the close range firefight is achieved by sustaining a sufficient volume of accurate fire - it is no coincidence that our adversaries have also moved away from battle rifle calibers to their own intermediate small caliber high velocity rounds.
The SIG M5 is the Cult of the Rifleman in the Army manifesting itself again.
People who kill other people for a living are fine with using 5.56. If it's really such a weakass round, put your money where your mouth is and get shot with it, lol
You make the arguments cited about ineffective. Not against body armor and light-skin vehicles (minimal cover) is 5.56 any good. Or at range.
DeleteMore rounds of “bad” doesn’t equal “good”.
Have fun with CQB.
.
My dude, are you actually arguing that a rifle squad is going to sucessfully engage APCs and light armor with 7.62? Come on. Vietnam and the M113 was sixty years ago. Modern APCs today are protected against .50 cal and 14.5 - that's Heavy Machine Gun caliber. I don't see the US Army using the Ma Deuce as the SAW, do you? The person who deals with light armor is your squad grenadier and the poor fuck who has to carry the MATADOR/AT4/CG/Javelin/LAW. (On one hand, Javelin against APCs is a little wasteful. On the other hand America has been firing Javelins at Taliban MG teams and snipers, so....)
DeleteWhat is the job of the rifle squad? To fix the enemy in place to be finished by supporting fires, and to close with and defeat the enemy in close combat. At 400+ yards, being used to suppress, there is no difference in effect on a person. People do not go "Oh, that was just a weaksauce 5.56 round, it doesn't matter if I get hit with it, Imma walk through that suppression." They go "Jesus fuck that round nearly hit me, I don't wanna move from here, I need to call someone to deal with those assholes suppressing me." (I will agree that cover to 5.56 is concealment to 7.62, but that IMO is an argument for going back to the GPMG as the SAW, and I remain disappointed that the promise of NGSW-AR - GPMG firepower at LMG weight - is unrealised.)
The close range firefight is won by fire superiority, and part of how you get fire superiority is by having more ammo than the other guy, You pin them with suppressing fire. The more ammo you have, the longer you can keep the enemy pinned and suppressed. I can keep the suppression longer with 210 rounds than I can with 120 rounds. Worse, if I have 120 rounds of 7.62 and my opponent has 210 rounds fo 5.56, he can afford to be more aggressive than me because he has more ammo and I will run out of ammo faster than he does.
As for CQB, yes, let's try use 7.62 in CQB, with the greater muzzle blast and flash and higher recoil - meanwhile an M4 is super flat shooting and very controllable, making it ridiculously easy to maintain sight picture and deliver rapid follow on shots. Sure, there are plates that will defeat M855A1 in CQB. So what? It's fucking CQB. Shoot the other guy in the groin and vibe check him when he's on the ground, or shoot his plates anyway: It's a 62 grain round going 3100 fps; his plate will catch the round, but his body's still taking an impact stronger than being punched by Mike Tyson. And that was just one round, what more multiple in quick sucession. Hell, you can shoot him in the face where he has no plates. If people can hit a texas star at 50 yards, they can shoot a face at hallway distance, let alone across a room.
5.56 is still the caliber of choice in JSOC. People who kill other people for a living disagree with you.
This Commandant seems intent upon removing from the Corps anything that resembles a viable combat capability.
ReplyDeleteTo look at it another way, I think that there needs to be a new hard look at the concept of the marine scout snipers in the modern day.
ReplyDeleteWith modern technology, the concept of "reconnaissance" has evolved way beyond a 2 man team radioing enemy positions in camouflage.
So a separation between a sniper and a reconnaissance role may be justified.
Reconnaissance has become much more important for today's precision weapons (HiMARS, etc.). However, there are many tools require soldiers to use them effectively. Individual soldier to spot and kill in front line becomes outdated. They need to send information back so precision weapons can kill.
Delete" Individual soldier to spot and kill in front line becomes outdated."
DeleteNot if the enemy is right in front of you!
"They need to send information back so precision weapons can kill."
You're ignoring the value of simple area effect weapons. You're also ignoring the cost/logistics of simple and cheap area effect weapons. We're already seeing this in the US supply of precision weapons to Ukraine. We've given large chunks of our precision weapons to Ukraine and have realized that we have very limited ability to replace them and no ability to do so quickly. Only a fool would rely on precision weapons in a war. They'll be quickly depleted and almost irreplaceable.
Want to re-think and try again?
I'm not sure which is more disturbing:
ReplyDelete1) The Marine Corps is getting rid of snipers.
2) There are people on this blog defending it.
Lutefisk
"There are people on this blog defending it."
DeleteI have no problem with people defending or advocating anything as long as they do so with data, facts, and logic!
You seem to be in favor of scout-snipers so, as an intellectual exercise, how would you counter the argument that technology can replace scout-snipers?
They are everywhere men use or discuss tools to solve problems.
ReplyDeletePlease make a substantive contribution to the discussion. I don't care which side or what viewpoint but offer something constructive. This blog is a step above the usual. Help keep it that way. Thanks.
DeleteAt this rate the new Marine recruits will be equipped with pastel colored uniforms and potato guns for weapons.
ReplyDeleteDo they even have a missions now?