The average Army sniper (both General Purpose and Special Operations) has far, far better equipment available to him today than he did on 9/11.
That said, the Fort Benning and Camp Robinson schools have not changed their Programs of Instruction much, with the exception of adapting the basic courses to the semi-automatic M110. The courses, to the best of my knowledge, have not adjusted to the increased range and body armor-defeating capability of the 300 Winchester Magnum M2010.
The Special Forces Course has changed to add hand-held personal data assistants, and increased trigger time using night-fighting electro-optical devices.
Gadgets do not replace nor supplant superior skill, good analysis, fieldcraft, and tactics.
That said, the Fort Benning and Camp Robinson schools have not changed their Programs of Instruction much, with the exception of adapting the basic courses to the semi-automatic M110. The courses, to the best of my knowledge, have not adjusted to the increased range and body armor-defeating capability of the 300 Winchester Magnum M2010.
The Special Forces Course has changed to add hand-held personal data assistants, and increased trigger time using night-fighting electro-optical devices.
Gadgets do not replace nor supplant superior skill, good analysis, fieldcraft, and tactics.
Military staff officers are constantly attacking traditional fieldcraft, partly because it's the part of the course(s) that fails so many students, and partly because they claim that the changing role of the sniper makes traditional skills obsolete. Thank goodness the administrators have not yet gotten their way. Because the fieldcraft necessary to the craft is the same; the application of it is what differs.
G
Guest
Guest
A concept that is foreign to many.
Good to know they are not trading the ability to close for reach. Don't get me wrong out reaching is good but, not at the expense of losing past ability's, at least in my book.
Could it be that we are getting old and are doubting the new ways? Think back to what the old timers were bitching about when you started out, some of the things they were right about but most they were not.
I have stacks of old manuals that are long out-of-print and are no longer "Modern doctrine."
That said, much of the wisdom written in those pages, and passed through "Old guys," is still valid.
Gadgets will change as new equipment obsoletes old stuff -- but closing with and destroying an enemy with kinetic rifle fire remains a basic Infantry principle.
That said, much of the wisdom written in those pages, and passed through "Old guys," is still valid.
Gadgets will change as new equipment obsoletes old stuff -- but closing with and destroying an enemy with kinetic rifle fire remains a basic Infantry principle.
I remember this a LOT. I was an SDM instructor at Ft Lewis, and the only thing that kept it going was that Col. Brown gave a shit about the ability to hit what you aim at --and fieldcraft. In addition to SDM, we ran everyone through pre-sniper and pre-ranger courses --you couldn't go to the school if you couldn't pass those. I think success went up to above 70%?
Problem is, most of these kids have no idea how to act like an Indian. They crash around the fucking woods like elephants; you can hear 'em coming a mile away. They cook their MRE's, ALWAYS, and eat the shit that stinks. They have little situational awareness nor the ability to range and track movement in a methodical way. Sometimes the cold bean burrito can save your ass.
I grew up hunting, and one of the things my dad made me do was to lie next to a log all day without moving (seriously). Couldn't go on the hunt if I couldn't stay still. Then it was how to walk through the woods, where to step. Then camo. Shooting, it seemed, was the last thing I needed to learn. And that was right. As it is, I've had at least one deer walk right up to me (in training no less, until my platoon came crashing along) almost petted him, and had a turkey so close I could almost snatch his ass up by hand.
Now it doesn't matter if you hunt animals or people, same thing. If anything, animals are much harder, they won't let you get close. It isn't hard to get close to people when you know they are coming down that draw downwind right towards you; you've smelled their food and heard 'em two miles out.
But in the desert, I guess range really is more valuable than fieldcraft. I watched something about snipers on History Channel a long time back, another on SF and Rangers. Remember them talking about how time and again we lost the skills --after WW1, WW2, etc., until (forget his name, a Marine) decided we needed a school to pass it along.
SO, if I had to guess today, I'd say not much as changed regarding the fieldcraft in the SCHOOLS, but in the army as a whole, yeah, it suffers.
Part of the problem is, fieldcraft takes a really long time to train and master. There is very little short term return on investment.
You figure at minimum for a single basic exercise you need at least 4 hours and during that time you might only move a few hundred yards. That is a tough sell. When you figure outside instruction is being used for the shooting portion and there you can see quantifiable results, teaching field craft is much harder and definitely time consuming for something that might only be 1% of the mission.
A good shooting course can teach an already accomplished shooter how to bend himself with his rifle to shoot faster and more accurately from a variety of situations in a relatively short period of time. In, out, and around the battlefield, from city to sea, to mountain landscape. You can't teach the same amount of field craft in that short amount of time.
The mission while similar on the surface is more specialized. It's faster, more dynamic and when stealth is require you see groups creating more specialized surveillance and Recce units to handle the field craft side of things. Think your Assualter vs your Breacher, or the DoorKicker vs the Sniper. Now the sniper will have your semi-auto raid shooter, versus your open country long range, long term survailer. The guy who accompanies the raid and provides over watch is not the same guy who watches a valley passage for 3 days without taking a shot. This is where you have the potential for the ELR shooter to shine.
It's true, field craft fails more students than marksmanship. We have better equipment to help aid in accuracy. But you can't aid stalking, there is no modern cloaking device, yet. In the USMC land nav failed a ton, it was the very first thing you did when you arrived. The 12 weeks we were enrolled in sniper school was not filled up with shooting, it was everything else, 3 to 1. But that training was based on the lessons of the past, at some point the lessons of today will dictate the class structure of tomorrow.
You figure at minimum for a single basic exercise you need at least 4 hours and during that time you might only move a few hundred yards. That is a tough sell. When you figure outside instruction is being used for the shooting portion and there you can see quantifiable results, teaching field craft is much harder and definitely time consuming for something that might only be 1% of the mission.
A good shooting course can teach an already accomplished shooter how to bend himself with his rifle to shoot faster and more accurately from a variety of situations in a relatively short period of time. In, out, and around the battlefield, from city to sea, to mountain landscape. You can't teach the same amount of field craft in that short amount of time.
The mission while similar on the surface is more specialized. It's faster, more dynamic and when stealth is require you see groups creating more specialized surveillance and Recce units to handle the field craft side of things. Think your Assualter vs your Breacher, or the DoorKicker vs the Sniper. Now the sniper will have your semi-auto raid shooter, versus your open country long range, long term survailer. The guy who accompanies the raid and provides over watch is not the same guy who watches a valley passage for 3 days without taking a shot. This is where you have the potential for the ELR shooter to shine.
It's true, field craft fails more students than marksmanship. We have better equipment to help aid in accuracy. But you can't aid stalking, there is no modern cloaking device, yet. In the USMC land nav failed a ton, it was the very first thing you did when you arrived. The 12 weeks we were enrolled in sniper school was not filled up with shooting, it was everything else, 3 to 1. But that training was based on the lessons of the past, at some point the lessons of today will dictate the class structure of tomorrow.
Sitting in a room overwatching a city block and taking down "popups" isn't much of a sniping (in traditional sense) and i guess designated sniper (dunno if your squad structure employs them but in old soviet doctrine there was one designated marksman per squad of 7) can do the job just fine. Moving around (hunting or gathering intel) that would be sniping and i don't think there is much of that going on with all the latest tools (UAVs, planted electronic trackers etc...). It's like with airforce and all of the discussions about removing weak link (human) from the aircraft limiting its maneuverability. Sure for some tasks its ok and sure if you don't "forget" old lessons and keep the knowledge and skills on standby but god forbid you forget. Such mistakes are paid in blood sooner or later (F4 and its missing cannon for example).
I think you can skip all that training and practice bullshit if you get a laser to go on your gun. You want the red or green kind, preferably made by a company like UTG.
My friend increased his call of duty score this way.
G
Guest
Guest
Nothing like giving a map Q and he tells you he has no gun, took pause on that one.
Frank,
I'd hate for us to loose the ability to close under observation thinking we will never need it again based upon this latest. Myself, prefer a course that fails a very high percentage, being part of something special when the bulk get threw, is just feel good to me. Much like when the Army changed hats, the guy under it felt good as did the brass, but he could not preform like the guys who earned it, prior to?
Sad to see guys with a title that are only good at one segment because todays task is X only. Are we starting to dumb down a course just to get folks into a shooting slot, because the std boot lacks shooting ability?
Long ago, Shoot, Move an Communicate was a basic concept every boot had to know, I would hope that simple concept is not being lost on specialized tasks as well.
To me most every time we have changed the std boot weapon, we have lost range and ability across the board. Then we use stop gaps to fill in for what and where we lost.
Hate to say it, but some have and some haven't. And therein lies the problem. Because 'these kids' are not all of one kind and in a fight of fusiliers against grenadiers it's easy to become complacent.
Rangers: Yes. Absolutely. Tier 2 needs to know because they use it.
SF: Some yes, some no. SOTIC rules, the instructors know their craft, but the level 1,2,3 concept is deeply flawed.
Army: Not really, at least not any more.
Marines: Caylen fought the brass every step of the way to keep meaningful fieldcraft training in his program. How well did that work?
Navy: Seals came late to the party with Brandon, but before that their fieldcraft absolutely sucked. Now, unless a sniper, the Tier 3 fieldcraft still sucks.
I would like to see the military give out professional sniper slots instead of Boy Scout badges. Then we'd be more like the Aussies, who rock the concept.
Gunfighter,
consider this, the old argument has returned, guys who never went to sniper school who either had access too or Brought a scope to combat being called sniper because the killed people with it. All it takes is a long distance scoped kill, no schooling required and people are embracing them as snipers. 10 Years plus of combat will do that. In a few years you'll see more snipers walking the street than ever because they shot someone with a scope.
This is part of the reason, you'll have shooters looked up too as snipers and the mission will adjust for it because they have some headlines. Try debating a man street the shooter never went to sniper school. In their mind the fact he made the shot and hit the target is enough.
Shoot, Move, Communicate is basic, but the definition: Delivering long range precision fire on select target or gathering information for intelligence purposes. Stumbling onto or into a fight and engaging seems to be the bar today. Field craft, not so much, it's the shot to most.
For the trained, or training, the mission is really diverse as is the gear and requirement. Teaching guys the same thing from different units becomes harder. Sure there are some basic principles you can teach, route selection, masking, but not everyone has their emphasis in the same place. At the end of the day the want shooters not stalkers. They would rather they can roll out of a vehicle race to an over watch and put fire on the target, than leave a day or two early, observe and direct, then shoot. Odds of not being seen are too small for the later in most modern cities.
consider this, the old argument has returned, guys who never went to sniper school who either had access too or Brought a scope to combat being called sniper because the killed people with it. All it takes is a long distance scoped kill, no schooling required and people are embracing them as snipers. 10 Years plus of combat will do that. In a few years you'll see more snipers walking the street than ever because they shot someone with a scope.
This is part of the reason, you'll have shooters looked up too as snipers and the mission will adjust for it because they have some headlines. Try debating a man street the shooter never went to sniper school. In their mind the fact he made the shot and hit the target is enough.
Shoot, Move, Communicate is basic, but the definition: Delivering long range precision fire on select target or gathering information for intelligence purposes. Stumbling onto or into a fight and engaging seems to be the bar today. Field craft, not so much, it's the shot to most.
For the trained, or training, the mission is really diverse as is the gear and requirement. Teaching guys the same thing from different units becomes harder. Sure there are some basic principles you can teach, route selection, masking, but not everyone has their emphasis in the same place. At the end of the day the want shooters not stalkers. They would rather they can roll out of a vehicle race to an over watch and put fire on the target, than leave a day or two early, observe and direct, then shoot. Odds of not being seen are too small for the later in most modern cities.
And the world keeps spinning, we always have had the problem of fighting today's war with the last war's tactics. We geared WWII training based on what we learned in WWI, we trained for Korea from what we learned in WWII.
I went to basic in '66. Most of the drill sergeants were Korea Vets, so that's what they taught us. It never ends.
Anyway, back to field craft, I spent a great deal of time working with the Alaska Natives, I was the XO of a company on St Lawrence Island, and CO of a company that consisted of Shishmaref (Hdqrs), Whales, Little Diamode, Brevic Mission and Teller. These guys knew field craft, it was their life, but it not only worked for them on the Bering Sea Ice, but carried forward when I went with some of them to Benning.
They sent some or these companies to Iraq and from reports I've read, they did quite well.
We could learn a lot from these guys.
G
Guest
Guest
Years ago we laughed at the Russians an Chinese when they would be on parade wearing, what we called scare coats. Some of their medals we named, as so many of the same kind were worn by most everyone of them, ie Never left the couch, First at chow, Can't touch my toes ect. After what Graham said I hope we have/are not jumping on the wagon as well.
Fieldcraft doesn't seem as important when the US has complete air superiority, advantage in troop numbers in a given area, and can move around the battlefield at will. If the situation or environment were to change, and the enemy had a more conventional army, fieldcraft would once again be a priority.
I would have to disagree. We still have and use great fieldcraft skills, they have just evolved. For instance, setting up an urban hide.
I think if I was to work with some of the Nam era snipers here, whom I greatly respect, I would learn a lot from them in the field craft arena, but I also think they would learn a thing or two from me.
Keep in mind, we still train in old school, conventional sniping, but we have also added modern high- volume warfare to our skill sets. I say "we" but I mean "they" since I'm too crippled to low crawl to the toilet.
I got medically retired in 09' and I feel that it has evolved even further since then!
I think if I was to work with some of the Nam era snipers here, whom I greatly respect, I would learn a lot from them in the field craft arena, but I also think they would learn a thing or two from me.
Keep in mind, we still train in old school, conventional sniping, but we have also added modern high- volume warfare to our skill sets. I say "we" but I mean "they" since I'm too crippled to low crawl to the toilet.
I got medically retired in 09' and I feel that it has evolved even further since then!
It really boils down to the unit leadership. These days, a sniper is only as good as the unit that they are a part of. There is the hazing mentality, where a PIG is worthless, and is not worthy of training, only to be used as a pack mule. In such cases, the memebers of the team dont know how to navigate with a compass, or stalk to within 200 and fire undetected. They unfortunately suffer consequences when they get into a tic in country. Then there is the instruct mentality, were everyone is a part of the team and should all possess the same skills, knowledge, and abilities.
It does not help when the command structure does not always support snipers, referring to them with such names as reckless cowboys, sun tan association, and steal take and acquire. If the command does not support their snipers, then the sniper elements do not get the fieldcraft training such as masking trails, tracking, additional stalking, and etc.
Yes there is less of an emphasis on traditional sniper tactics and fieldcraft sue to the nature of our current wars but it is still present, at least at Marine schools. It is not just about the shot, and they don't teach how to roll out of a vehicle and run to an over-watch position, as those are basic skills that should be pre-requisite to any sniper school. The biggest failure rates of Marine sniper school to this day are attributed to stalking and land navigation, a testament to the fieldcraft roots that are still being taught, and practiced within the active sniper community.
Your basic squad designated marksman or shooter does not get any such training.
It does not help when the command structure does not always support snipers, referring to them with such names as reckless cowboys, sun tan association, and steal take and acquire. If the command does not support their snipers, then the sniper elements do not get the fieldcraft training such as masking trails, tracking, additional stalking, and etc.
Yes there is less of an emphasis on traditional sniper tactics and fieldcraft sue to the nature of our current wars but it is still present, at least at Marine schools. It is not just about the shot, and they don't teach how to roll out of a vehicle and run to an over-watch position, as those are basic skills that should be pre-requisite to any sniper school. The biggest failure rates of Marine sniper school to this day are attributed to stalking and land navigation, a testament to the fieldcraft roots that are still being taught, and practiced within the active sniper community.
Your basic squad designated marksman or shooter does not get any such training.
If anything, fieldcraft should be expanded, more specialized, and tought on a broader range for more positions.
Interesting post.
Real change in the military does not take place from below. If sniper team leaders had to be snipers, and nothing but snipers, for nine years before getting a leadership position things would be different. There is no reason why 'Sniper' should not be a viable career within each service. Perhaps we should make 'Sniper' a viable, promotable trade rather than simply a Boy Scout badge.
that right there is the BIGGEST problem, getting somebody back on paper, steel, etc is not hard and like LL said you see results almost immediately. Getting someone back into fieldcraft is a lot harder, i actually LOVE fieldcraft have always loved it, reminds me of building forts and stalking as a kid. I have wanted to set up a stalking based match for a LONG LONG time.
I did 't realize field craft was unique to sniper teams.
It is critical to all infantry soldiers. I believe more critical to LRRP units then the average line companies.
My first infantry MOS was 11F (intelligence working for the S-2 shop, or RECON if you will)....that was all about field craft.
Having X years on a certain weapon be a sniper rifle or a machine gun doesn't nesserarley make a good leader but it could be a deterrent for a leader who needs to know all the jobs in his plt. or section.
There is more to a team (snipping or machine gun, etc.) then the weapon, such as logistics, training, care of his troops, in the field and the rear.
Snipping is a tool, not an end all. Field craft is critical to all jobs in the infantry.
It is critical to all infantry soldiers. I believe more critical to LRRP units then the average line companies.
My first infantry MOS was 11F (intelligence working for the S-2 shop, or RECON if you will)....that was all about field craft.
Having X years on a certain weapon be a sniper rifle or a machine gun doesn't nesserarley make a good leader but it could be a deterrent for a leader who needs to know all the jobs in his plt. or section.
There is more to a team (snipping or machine gun, etc.) then the weapon, such as logistics, training, care of his troops, in the field and the rear.
Snipping is a tool, not an end all. Field craft is critical to all jobs in the infantry.
Last edited:
The problem is that the senior leadership of our military units does not see the value of field-craft skills. Why send in a clandestine unit to locate close with and destroy the enemy when you can use a reaper or similar to identify and drop a JDAM on the target? That is the mentality which is prevalent in our military today.
If anyone takes the time to move into a concealed position, and communicate what they are watching unfold to higher command, the information is virtually ignored. Since command officials have no experience in field-craft and observation, they ignore it or discount the value of it. If you look at elite military groups from other countries, you see that the most successful ones still employ plenty of field-craft skills. Their command sees the value of it, and use their influence and weight to get their troops the necessary training.
Field-craft is critical to all jobs in the infantry. But it is still taught, and desired by scout snipers, recon, and other special units.
Having X years behind a sniper rifle does not make you a sniper, it makes you an experienced marksman. Working as a scout sniper requires a working knowledge and skill of much more, including field-craft in both urban and rural fields, as well as other skills including effective communication, maturity, and thirst to continually better oneself. Therefore it would be useful to actually have an MOS for snipers, similar to reconnaissance, MARSOC, and other specialized units. This would mean that troops could actually rise to command positions while still operating as a sniper, giving them an intimate understanding of the value of field-craft.
Sniping is for sure a tool. Snipers require support and are only a part of a much larger entity. They may not be an end all however they provide a hell of a lot of value and intelligence for the unit to which they are supporting. Arguably more than a designated marksman.
If anyone takes the time to move into a concealed position, and communicate what they are watching unfold to higher command, the information is virtually ignored. Since command officials have no experience in field-craft and observation, they ignore it or discount the value of it. If you look at elite military groups from other countries, you see that the most successful ones still employ plenty of field-craft skills. Their command sees the value of it, and use their influence and weight to get their troops the necessary training.
Field-craft is critical to all jobs in the infantry. But it is still taught, and desired by scout snipers, recon, and other special units.
Having X years behind a sniper rifle does not make you a sniper, it makes you an experienced marksman. Working as a scout sniper requires a working knowledge and skill of much more, including field-craft in both urban and rural fields, as well as other skills including effective communication, maturity, and thirst to continually better oneself. Therefore it would be useful to actually have an MOS for snipers, similar to reconnaissance, MARSOC, and other specialized units. This would mean that troops could actually rise to command positions while still operating as a sniper, giving them an intimate understanding of the value of field-craft.
Sniping is for sure a tool. Snipers require support and are only a part of a much larger entity. They may not be an end all however they provide a hell of a lot of value and intelligence for the unit to which they are supporting. Arguably more than a designated marksman.
Similar threads
Training Courses
Fritz Precision Training Course Review
