In Praise of Snipers

[Paparock]

In Praise of Snipers
How military sharpshooters are changing the global battlefield.
By: Ben Walters

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...F-35BA4EC3F79A

For five days, the massed firepower of the US war machine, embodied by the colossal destroyer Bainbridge, seemed helpless -- unable to do anything against three Somali pirates in a lifeboat.

Instead, it was the smallest of powers -- three men, three guns, three shots -- which ended the standoff and rescued American Captain Richard Phillips.

In recent years, the sniper has taken on an increasingly privileged position in both military strategizing and the popular imagination -- a shift last weekend's successful operation has only helped to cement. "Nobody would have considered using a sniper team 20 years ago," says Richard Venola, editor of Guns and Ammo magazine. "But commanders' appreciation of how a sniper team can be a workhorse in the combat zone has changed. And the public opinion has changed too. Sniping is today what being a Green Beret was in Vietnam, or a Navy SEAL commando."

A wealth of pop culture testifies to this, from video games like "Sniper Elite," to Kathryn Bigelow's forthcoming Iraq war movie "The Hurt Locker" and Stephen Hunter's series of novels about sharpshooter Bob Lee Swagger. And America's current wars have demonstrated, in Venola's words, "how a sniper team can control 'real estate' cheaply and effectively without being in people's faces."

They're also more and more integral to civilian policing. "Any town of more than 50,000 people probably has a SWAT team nowadays, including police snipers, and the Sheriff's department would have snipers too," says John Plaster, a retired Special Forces major, founder of a sniper school, and author of the seminal training manual "The Ultimate Sniper." Plaster compares the rise of the sniper to the development of the National Football League. "Just like you had to have high school teams and college teams to produce the expertise to make a league, you had to have a bedrock of qualified instructors with mastery of their weapons and understanding of tactics [to train another generation]."

Precisely what equipment the Navy SEALs used last Sunday has not been confirmed, though it might have been the SR-25, a semiautomatic rifle that combines substantial power with fast follow-up capabilities. Barrett .50 caliber ammunition, which could maintain its trajectory after piercing the lifeboat's fiberglass hull, might also have been used.

The Navy declines to confirm or deny such speculation. In fact, it declines to discuss any aspect of sniper training or practice. "Our preference is that folks not talk about it," says Naval Special Warfare Command spokesman Commander Greg Geisn. "Any time techniques and procedures are revealed, it gives opportunities for our foes to counter those techniques, and in high pressure situations where lives are on the line, it's important we have every edge available to us."

Nor could Barrett confirm whether their ammunition was used, though Bob Gates, the company's vice-president of business development, points to a wide range of sniping applications for .50 caliber bullets. "You can penetrate armor, lightly-armored vehicles, pick out a Scud missile, a generator, a radar device, or a person at 2,000 meters. The equipment is far superior to what was available in the Vietnam era."

Since then, there have also been improvements in shockproofing -- the smallest knock to a rifle's sight in transit could make all the difference to that crucial first shot -- and in night vision and thermal scopes. "In Vietnam, there was very little night vision," Gates says. "Now we see in the dark, and that's why we own the dark."

Today's snipers can also use specialty long-range sights -- such as the Horus Vision, which can fix targets across more than 2,500 yards (about one-and-a-half miles) -- or computerized sights, like Barrett's BORS, which adjusts for elevation, temperature and barometric pressure. Plaster notes that a well-trained marksman, "without being lucky or exceptional, can hit a cigarette packet two football fields away. In the past, as a commander, you would not have expected someone in your unit to be able to do that with consistency. The Achilles heel used to be that commanders didn't appreciate what snipers can do or know how to use them. Now it's been proven as a concept. After Iraq and Afghanistan, they want more."

Also, as Gates notes, "they're trained to a much higher degree now than they were 30 years ago. They're not just handed a rifle with telescopic sights, they get up to 18 weeks training. And it's not just the shooting and the use of cover and concealment. They put them through psychological evaluations to see what their mind is like. It takes a certain kind of person. Not just anyone can pull the trigger."

Plaster agrees. "That was within their capabilities," he says of the 100-yard shots that killed the Somali pirates. "But just placing the shot is one thing. Having the guts to be on the fantail of a bobbing ship, someone's life hanging on your ability to get that one shot -- how many people can take that kind of pressure?"

"It demands an extraordinary amount of inner calm and self-discipline," Venola says. "You don't have someone telling you what to do, and you're letting insects walk across your face, baking in the sun. They're introspective. Most of the people who are top-flight marksmen wouldn't be on your A-list for parties."

Snipers have proven to be exceptionally well-suited to current conflicts such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Bad guys are wearing civilian clothes, using human shields," Plaster notes. "Commanders know, more than ever, the value of being able to place a shot with precision under circumstances where other troops are not even allowed to engage. The primary kinds of conflicts we're looking at for the next decade or so are insurgencies and terrorism, where there are always going to be a lot of civilians around. You can't let loose with artillery. But you can designate snipers."

Plaster expects the proven strategic and tactical success of sniping to lead to even greater technological development. "The world record today for .50 caliber was 2,700 yards in Afghanistan. That was exceptional, and they probably fired four rounds and missed three, but they did connect against a Taliban leader. If you can develop that as a basic capability, expectations will follow."

Gates also describes ongoing research into laser weaponry, "the phaser, the proton torpedo -- everything they've talked about for years on television." The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is currently developing EXACTO, a "guided projectile" or smart bullet. Gates doesn't expect to see results soon, but believes "it will probably go the route of most DARPA projects. They normally don't start things they can't finish. It will reach fruition some day and it will revolutionize long-range shooting."

Today's sniper, then, is both more capable and more respected than his predecessors. "It hasn't always been viewed as a glamorous position," Gates says. "For many years, if you were a sniper, you weren't fighting fair because you weren't in the open field. But since Desert Storm and the recognition that they can turn the flow of battle, their position has been enhanced. They're not just shooting someone from behind a tree. They're changing the battlefield."

[AZZenny]

Great article -- thanks.

[rafi]

I thought the article was the perfect blend of technology and the human factor.

To pull the trigger in itself is monumental, but knowing that a brothers life is depending on the shot? These are special men (and women).

[Emo Zipper]

True statement. The type of marksman you see today in Police Department SWAT teams will seldom take a shot at a range greater than 150 meters. On the battlefiend the marksman will seldom take a shot closer than 300 meters. The mental control however is the same. The closer the range the more personal it may become. ...EZ

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by rafi

I thought the article was the perfect blend of technology and the human factor.

To pull the trigger in itself is monumental, but knowing that a brothers life is depending on the shot? These are special men (and women).

Amen. A friend of mine is a USMC Scout Sniper. He fits the "recruit guidelines" as do I. Of co**** I've explained why I can not go into service.

Sniping has appealed to me since movies like Sniper, Saving Private Ryan and Shooter. Reading about Carlos Hathcock helped with my interests as well.

What galvanized my respect and interest in sniping was actually being able to talk to the real folks that do the trigger pulling. One guy did a tour in the Stan and had just got out of the Corps after over 10 years of service. LOVED to pick his brain. It was great he really helped me understand the job very well. A few others were Army snipers and they provided me with information about other aspects of the job that I would have had no idea to ask about. It was great to talk to them about their prior expertise. The job really would have been for me. And yes I can agree. I'm not exactly on anyone's A-list for party invites. :)

To me, morals come into play. Guys that are action junkies seem to make me nervous in a job like defending a nation. A sniper with good morals is not going to push the envelope so far as to put some one in harms way that doesn't need to be that close to danger. Buddy or civilian or otherwise, a respect for life is a must but the will to pull the trigger to defuse the situation has to be the balancing must-have.

Originally Posted by Emo Zipper

True statement. The type of marksman you see today in Police Department SWAT teams will seldom take a shot at a range greater than 150 meters. On the battlefiend the marksman will seldom take a shot closer than 300 meters. The mental control however is the same. The closer the range the more personal it may become. ...EZ

But the closer the range the less you'll miss if your aim is good. Both require a great deal of sharpening your training and skill that is for sure. My hat is off for either side of the sniping spectrum.

[Sgt. Cav]

Then read, War of the Rats, and watch Enemy at the Gates.

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by Sgt. Cav

Then read, War of the Rats, and watch Enemy at the Gates.

I have Enemy at the Gates. I just tried to name ones off the top of my head. :)

[scelli]

Originally Posted by Archangel

Amen. A friend of mine is a USMC Scout Sniper. He fits the "recruit guidelines" as do I. Of co**** I've explained why I can not go into service.

To me, morals come into play. Guys that are action junkies seem to make me nervous in a job like defending a nation.

By recruit guidelines, I assume you're are referring to the basic minimum mental/physical qualifications for entering the US armed forces. Actually, you'd be surprised by the amount of individuals we quite often derogatorily referred to amongst ourselves as "tent-pegs" while on recruiting duty who go for their mental or physical tests and somehow manage to surprise everyone by actually getting into the service. Then there's the surefire "This guy can't miss!" recruiting poster applicant who ends up not even passing the ASVAB, no less being sent for a physical to AFEES...or whatever they're calling the examination station these days.

As far as action junkies: They make me nervous, too. I've stated previously on this forum in another thread that I always tried to be well upwind from such "heroes" as there's almost nothing good which comes about with dudes like this. Sooner or later, these guys normally end up getting themselves killed and almost assuredly someone else along with them as well. Bad news all the way around.

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by scelli

By recruit guidelines, I assume you're are referring to the basic minimum mental/physical qualifications for entering the US armed forces. Actually, you'd be surprised by the amount of individuals we quite often derogatorily referred to amongst ourselves as "tent-pegs" while on recruiting duty who go for their mental or physical tests and somehow manage to surprise everyone by actually getting into the service. Then there's the surefire "This guy can't miss!" recruiting poster applicant who ends up not even passing the ASVAB, no less being sent for a physical to AFEES...or whatever they're calling the examination station these days.

As far as action junkies: They make me nervous, too. I've stated previously on this forum in another thread that I always tried to be well upwind from such "heroes" as there's almost nothing good which comes about with dudes like this. Sooner or later, these guys normally end up getting themselves killed and almost assuredly someone else along with them as well. Bad news all the way around.

Nah I mean that I'm aware of guidelines that COs look for in "Sniper Candidates". Sometimes they are even printed in sniper field manuals.

I don't know if it could hurt a friendly, I never can tell sometimes about certain info I have attained that people might get in trouble over telling me so I'll message you privately over the guidelines.

No I'm the type that will post-pone signing on the dotted line just to make darn sure I would pass the ASVAB and any physical requirements needed to be passed to qualify. I typically don't play around. I've learned from many a veteran that when you do something, get it in gear. Don't stand around looking up at the sky like a moron. For that I have to thank every veteran alive. They gave me a mindset of efficiency, effectiveness and a sense of knowing I need to knock out a task, problem or issue. There are other things in my life I need to work on regarding the same but I know I can do that, given time to sort out my own inner FUBAR. :)

[Topmaul]

Originally Posted by scelli

By recruit guidelines, I assume you're are referring to the basic minimum mental/physical qualifications for entering the US armed forces. Actually, you'd be surprised by the amount of individuals we quite often derogatorily referred to amongst ourselves as "tent-pegs" while on recruiting duty who go for their mental or physical tests and somehow manage to surprise everyone by actually getting into the service. Then there's the surefire "This guy can't miss!" recruiting poster applicant who ends up not even passing the ASVAB, no less being sent for a physical to AFEES...or whatever they're calling the examination station these days.

This is not meant as offensive to ArchAngel or anyone else, I am on the receiving end of recruits after boot camp. Back when I was a junior Petty Officer we could tell what the economy was doing on the outside because when things were good we got your "Tent Pegs" when thing were bad we got good people.

I don't want tent pegs I want quality people to train and carry on after I retire. Dealing with they younger generation is hard enough as it is.

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by Topmaul

This is not meant as offensive to ArchAngel or anyone else, I am on the receiving end of recruits after boot camp. Back when I was a junior Petty Officer we could tell what the economy was doing on the outside because when things were good we got your "Tent Pegs" when thing were bad we got good people.

I don't want tent pegs I want quality people to train and carry on after I retire. Dealing with they younger generation is hard enough as it is.

No offense taken. :)

Trust me, I have my own worries about my own generation as well. Many (but thankfully not all of them) just don't have things together upstairs. It's sad really. I hope they can get a clue, it'll change their lives whatever they do in life.

[scelli]

Originally Posted by Topmaul

This is not meant as offensive to ArchAngel or anyone else, I am on the receiving end of recruits after boot camp. Back when I was a junior Petty Officer we could tell what the economy was doing on the outside because when things were good we got your "Tent Pegs" when thing were bad we got good people.

I don't want tent pegs I want quality people to train and carry on after I retire. Dealing with they younger generation is hard enough as it is.

Actually, those on this forum are aware I support bringing back the military draft and have often stated the primary reason is quite simply that there is no excuse in my mind why qualified males cannot sacrifice a mere two years of their lives in military service to the country. There are also a number of other valid reasons, a few which both you and Archangel have rightly touched upon.

There is something I need to state regarding my one (unhappy) year of recruiting duty. It was constantly preached that recruiters had no right whatsoever to decide who would be a superstar during their enlistment and who might be a potential "unexploded round" and eventually bolo out of the military environment We were often told that as long as an applicant passed the mental and physical requirements designated by those up above who wrote such requirements, it was merely our job as glorified facilitators to ship them to boot camp and let the powers that be work their wonders on the youngsters.

[Sgt. Cav]

Thank you for that insight, scelli, you wouldn't believe some of the invectives hurled in the direction of you Recruiters, for the tent pegs you sent us.

[scelli]

Originally Posted by Sgt. Cav

Thank you for that insight, scelli, you wouldn't believe some of the invectives hurled in the direction of you Recruiters, for the tent pegs you sent us.

Let me assure you: I also had a few choice comments about recruiters until I was involuntary assigned to that MOS for a year.

[Emo Zipper]

Originally Posted by Sgt. Cav

Then read, War of the Rats, and watch Enemy at the Gates.

I have an original copy (hardbound) of "Enemy at the Gates". One must read the book in order to understand the depth of the conflict. How it affected the Russians and the outcome of the "Great Patriotic War". ...EZ

[scelli]

Originally Posted by scelli

Let me assure you: I also had a few choice comments about recruiters until I was involuntary assigned to that MOS for a year.

Although this thread is a few months old, just ran across the particular article below today involving Army recruiters. It's an interesting read.

However, I don't necessarily agree with some of the conclusions rendered by the reporter(s) or individuals interviewed; these people appear well-meaning I'm sure but obviously are civilians without any military background whatsoever:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5788103.html