Sniper teams

[copeab]

Originally, snipers acted alone. Then some had a spotter added, who also provided a little security. A few added a third member, a radio operator.

It appears that this has now bloated to a seemingly unwieldy _six_ man sniper team (sniper, spotter, radio operator, point man and two security). A lot of this bloat appears to be from the mission of the sniper being expanded from simply sneaking into enemy territory, killing a high value target at rifle range, then sneaking away, to including recon and forward observer duties (and possibly others). However, instead of three two-man teams each with one mission, you have one large team with multiple missions. It just seems to me the larger size would make it easier to detect the team, eliminating the benefits of "safety in numbers". OTOH, a six-man team seems to be a perfect size for most parties.

So, thoughts?

[Ramjam]

A six-man sniper team does sound a bit over the top to me.

They, as you said, are meant to sneak in, pop off their target and sneak out. Secondary to that role is to do recce work, but with six guys you are making the chance to be discovered three times more likely.

Hell that's why most reece teams only work in 4 man teams and that's due to the equipment that might need to cover if they are setting up a op etc.

[Eddie]

What's more important to you? Three two man teams that get killed because they can't secure themselves, or one six-man element that gets spotted every now and then but comes home after the mission is complete?

That's what the brass had to look at. Although, I've not heard of a six man team going out on a regular basis. Normally, it's the three man team, occassionally an entire section will go out (10-men).

It's based more on the security level in the AO and the necessary amount of coverage needed by the element the snipers are supporting.

As to recce team size, every nation is different. Our standard scout team size is six men (and I think the Marines follow that standard as well). LRS units have 6-8 depending on LRSD or LRSC. This excludes SOF, of course. Certain SOF elements go out in as little as one or two men up to whatever is needed.

[HorseSoldier]

six man teams are for a different mission (or at least a different style of sniping) and for operations in urban terrain where you are guaranteed to be detected, at least by civilians (whose loyalties are variable) if not by the bad guys. a lot of sniper work intheater these days is not about sneaing in and shooting one guy and leaving, it's about owning a good position and interdicting any bad guys trying to run theougj the engagement area.

[Adm.Lee]

I once found a RAND study of LRRP operations in Vietnam (it blew my mind that I would just find it sitting on the shelf of my small callege library). It found that 6 was just about the optimum number of a team. I immediately thought that would work out great for RPGs. Of course, that was for jungle reconnaissance, which didn't mean sniping very often. That number allowed them enough manpower to set watches and ambushes, while being able to watch all around them.

The 6-person model works rather well if you swap in a light MG's 2-man crew for the sniper pair, as well.

Now that I think on it, I've almost never had anyone play the spotter in a game. Usually, someone will want the sniper rifle, but they rarely set up to do anything special with it.

[jester]

The size of the team will be dictated by:

Mission
Enviroment
Target
Resources Available

Those are all factors. As was said about urban, the traditional "hide" doesn't exist, so you need folks to secure your six and flanks, as well as relay info of what is going on.

Remember, a mission of a sniper is not just to shoot, but to know when to shoot and when not to shoot. Do you shoot and let them know you are there, disperse them, but hey, you took out 1 guy, or observe and report it to higher HQ who can send in a platoon and nail all of them? And then do it again and again as you have eyes on one of their "routes."

Back in the day, we also used the man portable radar as well, and those took a team larger than the sniper team. Same when we introduced the .50 cal sniper rifle, the team increased to three or four men as well.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I once found a RAND study of LRRP operations in Vietnam (it blew my mind that I would just find it sitting on the shelf of my small callege library). It found that 6 was just about the optimum number of a team. I immediately thought that would work out great for RPGs. Of course, that was for jungle reconnaissance, which didn't mean sniping very often. That number allowed them enough manpower to set watches and ambushes, while being able to watch all around them.

When it comes to recon, six seems to be the magic number. Vietnam LRRP teams usually went out into the bush in 6-man elements, SOG recon teams 4-6, and SEAL teams around 7. Rhodesian Selous scouts also usually went out in in teams of 5-6 but frequently operated in pairs.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Now that I think on it, I've almost never had anyone play the spotter in a game. Usually, someone will want the sniper rifle, but they rarely set up to do anything special with it.

The Hollywood of it is snipers are cool, but in reality the spotter needs to be at least as skilled a shooter, since besides target detection he's also the one making wind calls and the other real technical aspects of sniping. (Or as one SOTIC instructor in my old unit put it, you can teach ani chimp to pull the trigger in a week, competent spotters are much, much harder to train.)

In game terms for long range work, the shot should really be based on a blend of shooter and spotter's skill levels, probably weighted 2/3 spotter 1/3 shooter.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

The Hollywood of it is snipers are cool, but in reality the spotter needs to be at least as skilled a shooter, since besides target detection he's also the one making wind calls and the other real technical aspects of sniping. (Or as one SOTIC instructor in my old unit put it, you can teach ani chimp to pull the trigger in a week, competent spotters are much, much harder to train.)

This is it exactly. The Spotter is the more senior and experienced member of the team.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I once found a RAND study of LRRP operations in Vietnam (it blew my mind that I would just find it sitting on the shelf of my small callege library). It found that 6 was just about the optimum number of a team. I immediately thought that would work out great for RPGs. Of course, that was for jungle reconnaissance, which didn't mean sniping very often. That number allowed them enough manpower to set watches and ambushes, while being able to watch all around them.

The 6-person model works rather well if you swap in a light MG's 2-man crew for the sniper pair, as well.

Now that I think on it, I've almost never had anyone play the spotter in a game. Usually, someone will want the sniper rifle, but they rarely set up to do anything special with it.

Back to scout teams, you don't really want to integrate a sniper team into your scout team if you have the choice. Or a machinegun team. That's not the purpose of a scout team.

If you make contact as a scout, you don't want to do the Navy SEAL thing and just shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot...well, you get the drift. You want to break contact and put terrain between you and the people shooting at you. Call in arty or mortars. Maybe some CCA. That was how we did it back in my enlisted days. Whatever it is, you want to shoot other peoples' bullets first, though.

For team makeup, you want a Team Leader, an Assistant team leader, an RTO, a Senior Observer and then two other observers. In all truthfulness though, the observers could really be renamed security. That's the role they normally fill.

Your heaviest weapons should be grenade launchers. Anything else, and you just weigh yourself down and make it harder to break contact.

Caveat: This is for infantry scouts. Cav Scouts do their own thing and I don't profess to fathom or agree/disagree with it.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by jester

The size of the team will be dictated by:

Mission
Enviroment
Target
Resources Available

Those are all factors. As was said about urban, the traditional "hide" doesn't exist, so you need folks to secure your six and flanks, as well as relay info of what is going on.

Or doctrinally, METT-TC and ASCOPE which sums up all of those factors and a couple more. Another factor to consider is, if your teams start growing in size, the commander should wargame putting out multiple teams and cutting up the battlespace. So many variables come under the purview of commander's choice though that it's really not something that can be easily codified. That's more where we get into the art of war vice the science of it.

You have your doctrine of how you want to fight, you have your mission analysis of what and where you're going to fight, and you have your plan of how you're going to make those meet and execute the fight.

And then you hope things look somewhat like what you pictured. :\

[Webstral]

Bloat certainly happens. I think the place to worry about it, though, is in the staff and services areas. Company, battalion, and brigade staffs are like gas giants—drawing in troops who would be better used somewhere else. Freeing soldiers from the gravity well of staffs requires some real effort. The US Army has slimmed down the support tail vis-Ã*-vis the combat teeth a bit with the modular reorganization, which is a step in the right direction.

As for the sniper teams, the six-man team makes me think of a guy who went to Iraq with me. He had just come from a LRS unit with the 101st. He may have been with us for four months before we were mobilized for OIF3. When I was active duty in the 90’s, LRS was strictly surveillance—at least according to doctrine. My new compatriot told that at least in the 101st the role was changing. LRS was supposed to attack targets of opportunity and perform other non-surveillance actions. The thinking for this goes to flexibility, I believe. Six men striking from the shadows can do some things that might not otherwise be possible so economically. Of course, there are counterarguments for keeping LRS confined to surveillance missions. A six-man sniper team has a bigger footprint but more options, it seems to me.


Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Bloat certainly happens. I think the place to worry about it, though, is in the staff and services areas.

Joe Haldeman has a good example of this in the Forever War. Mandella was meeting some of his new troops in an auditorium:

Officer: "My name is Lieutenant Hilleboe and I am your Second Field Officer."

Mandella, thinking: That used to be "Field First Sergeant." A good sign that an army has been around too long is that it starts getting top-heavy with officers.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Bloat certainly happens. I think the place to worry about it, though, is in the staff and services areas. Company, battalion, and brigade staffs are like gas giants—drawing in troops who would be better used somewhere else. Freeing soldiers from the gravity well of staffs requires some real effort. The US Army has slimmed down the support tail vis-Ã*-vis the combat teeth a bit with the modular reorganization, which is a step in the right direction.

Agreed. Thankfully, units are deploying frequently enough that guys are stepping on their peckers upon redeployment and keeping the BN and BDE coffers with a ready supply for the staffs.

As for the sniper teams, the six-man team makes me think of a guy who went to Iraq with me. He had just come from a LRS unit with the 101st. He may have been with us for four months before we were mobilized for OIF3. When I was active duty in the 90’s, LRS was strictly surveillance—at least according to doctrine. My new compatriot told that at least in the 101st the role was changing. LRS was supposed to attack targets of opportunity and perform other non-surveillance actions. The thinking for this goes to flexibility, I believe. Six men striking from the shadows can do some things that might not otherwise be possible so economically. Of course, there are counterarguments for keeping LRS confined to surveillance missions. A six-man sniper team has a bigger footprint but more options, it seems to me.

I don't think it's widespread throughout LRS units but it's definitely not unbelievable, especially with all the emphasis that the Career Course put on doctrinal use of them. RRD has been executing that since their first few weeks in A-stan and I'm pretty sure that's the precedent to argue for that.

[kcdusk]

Originally Posted by copeab

OTOH, a six-man team seems to be a perfect size for most parties.

So, thoughts?

Easy. Do you have 1, 2, 4 or 6 players? I think thats what determines your party size.

Then you can determine, or they can decide, what there mission or actions are.

Personally, i'd go with up to 4 regular players/posters than a larger group of 6 where you have passengers.

[copeab]

Okay, so a six-man team isn't that stealthy because it's not supposed to be that stealthy (at least relative to, say, a one or two man team) because it just doesn't have the same mission as a two-man team (where stealth may the the most important thing) ?

[copeab]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

Personally, i'd go with up to 4 regular players/posters than a larger group of 6 where you have passengers.

I have no problem running NPCs with a party, so using NPCs to fill out a team is no big deal to me. However, if I start getting too attached to a regular (rather than recurring) NPC, it's time for the NPC to leave or die.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by copeab

Okay, so a six-man team isn't that stealthy because it's not supposed to be that stealthy (at least relative to, say, a one or two man team) because it just doesn't have the same mission as a two-man team (where stealth may the the most important thing) ?

Yeah, basically. The big team is the right tool for some current missions in urban terrain especially. don't know that it would be a common organization in the T2K game world where population densities are lower and military attitudes towards civilian populations are different.

[Abbott Shaull]

A six man sniper team seems a bit bloated but take in consideration operational conditions it not surprising. I was surprise that they didn't have such large teams assigned to Europe, but I am sure the learning curve would of pointed this out real quickly. I can still see in some circumstances where the sniper and spotter will operate well in advance of the rest of team. Mainly for stealth, the team move a point where the rest of team provide security while the sniper and spotter move stealthy to take out their target and move back. On the plus side, if the team happen to make a chance contact to or from this point it has more of chance of breaking contact.

It is one of the things that the Marine Snipers teams were/are suppose to act as scout too, so bring the team to 6 members makes sense. Not the most profitable use of a sniper team, but hey use your asset economically.

On the other hand in the t2k world. With everything in the hand basket, most teams would be used sniper/scout roles. Which could lead to an element having a 6 man team, like I said that at least in Europe many teams would be bloated due the number of built up areas the fighting would have taken place at. For the most part I still see many of the sniper teams being down to 2 men. I do see at the squad level or platoon level having a designated marksmen with battle rifles instead of the standard assault rifle/carbine.

Just some thoughts.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

On the other hand in the t2k world. With everything in the hand basket, most teams would be used sniper/scout roles. Which could lead to an element having a 6 man team, like I said that at least in Europe many teams would be bloated due the number of built up areas the fighting would have taken place at. For the most part I still see many of the sniper teams being down to 2 men. I do see at the squad level or platoon level having a designated marksmen with battle rifles instead of the standard assault rifle/carbine.

Just some thoughts.

With radios scarce and fire support less responsive most places I could see two man sniper teams being kept closer to supporting units, or if sniper teams are being sent out making them bigger in the T2K world.

DMRs are probably something that people want circa 2000, though I'm not sure how much motivation there'd be for fielding them during the pre-nuclear phase of the war most places. In a lot of conventional fights, a Bradley's 25mm and similar weapons can cover DMR tasks for mechanized units.

When that sort of firepower dwindling after the nuclear exchange, and conventional fighting being increasingly supplemented with low intensity operations against marauders, partisans and whatnot, I can see DMRs becoming a higher value item. What form that would take for US troops with supply lines disrupted is an interesting question -- some of the last drafts of troops arriving from the US might have been at least partially equipped with M14s, so maybe some of those get pressed into the DMR role, perhaps with locally copied versions of the M21 scope mounting system, or pieces of rail allowing use of whatever number of ACOGs were available in theater, etc.

[Webstral]

I firmly agree with others that sniper-based teams of whatever size are going to take on increasing importance in the Twilight: 2000 world. Extensive use of them is made in Arizona, principally in a defensive mode but also in the offensive mode (principally on the part of SAMAD's LRS). The open areas of southern Arizona lend themselves to surveillance and control by small teams with accurate, long-range firepower. The Green Jackets of Vermont, on the other hand, use their snipers much more aggressively. Patrols pre-emptively go outside the Green Zone looking for marauders to eliminate. The Black Watch of southern Vermont uses its snipers more in a marksman role, although a few riflemen can execute the other aspects of sniping. The Granite Brigade of Manchester, NH uses its snipers mostly for defensive surveillance, although most of these guys would love to get outside the wire more. The Maritime Rifles of USCG First District also tend to emphasize the defensive use of snipers, although like the Green Jackets they will infiltrate enemy territory to identify and attack high-value targets. The Gunryo in Nevada, on the other hand, uses its bare handful of real snipers almost exclusively in the offensive mode, attacking marauders and insurgents within the Shogun's territory after they have been located. Blue Two of the US Navy's operation in San Francisco Bay uses its snipers in an offensive/law enforcement role in which the snipers respond to developing crises.

Webstral

[Mock26]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

The Hollywood of it is snipers are cool, but in reality the spotter needs to be at least as skilled a shooter, since besides target detection he's also the one making wind calls and the other real technical aspects of sniping. (Or as one SOTIC instructor in my old unit put it, you can teach ani chimp to pull the trigger in a week, competent spotters are much, much harder to train.)

I once saw a program about snipers and they were going over training for (if I remember correctly) British snipers. Part of that training included spotting 20 or so ordinary objects placed at varying distances, things like a spoon or a candy wrapper and such.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

With radios scarce and fire support less responsive most places I could see two man sniper teams being kept closer to supporting units, or if sniper teams are being sent out making them bigger in the T2K world.

DMRs are probably something that people want circa 2000, though I'm not sure how much motivation there'd be for fielding them during the pre-nuclear phase of the war most places. In a lot of conventional fights, a Bradley's 25mm and similar weapons can cover DMR tasks for mechanized units.

When that sort of firepower dwindling after the nuclear exchange, and conventional fighting being increasingly supplemented with low intensity operations against marauders, partisans and whatnot, I can see DMRs becoming a higher value item. What form that would take for US troops with supply lines disrupted is an interesting question -- some of the last drafts of troops arriving from the US might have been at least partially equipped with M14s, so maybe some of those get pressed into the DMR role, perhaps with locally copied versions of the M21 scope mounting system, or pieces of rail allowing use of whatever number of ACOGs were available in theater, etc.

As for lack of communications, well not too many snipers when they went it alone worried too much about asking for permission to pull the trigger, and for the pointed end of the stick, they probably prefer not to have some asking what the hell they are doing at all hours of the day....

I would agree the DMR isn't something that you would see in the Mechanized/Armored units, but the Light Infantry/Light Motorized would find good use for them.

As for the Rifles being used, well for in Europe whatever the unit can get hold of. I can see Korea and the Airborne/Air Assault in the Middle East already getting the share of M14s that could be sent for DMR before many trickle into Europe.

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Eddie

This is it exactly. The Spotter is the more senior and experienced member of the team.

When I was in military, the sniper was the senior member that had gone though and passed scout sniper school. The spotter was the junior guy that a lot of times had not gone through or completed the school and was just a referred to as a scout or PIG( precision instructed gunman). But this was also before they got big into urban sniping and hanging out in larger teams. Has it really changed that much?

[copeab]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

When I was in military, the sniper was the senior member that had gone though and passed scout sniper school. The spotter was the junior guy that a lot of times had not gone through or completed the school and was just a referred to as a scout or PIG( precision instructed gunman). But this was also before they got big into urban sniping and hanging out in larger teams. Has it really changed that much?

The show I was watching said that the team leader was either the sniper or the spotter, which suggests it varies by team.

[Adm.Lee]

I just read (~two weeks ago) a book on US Marine snipers ("HOGs in the shadows") and one by a British Army sniper ("Sniper one"), both in Iraq in the 2003-2004 period. Both used two-man teams, and the spotter and shooter traded off a lot. The HOGs book said that usually the team leaders were definitely graduates of the scout-sniper schools, while the juniors might or might not have done so.

The British, interestingly, also sent their sniper platoon out on patrols, much as any other line platoon. That meant the whole platoon, or a significant chunk of it-- usually some teams were back on the roof of their base. That may have been a result of the posting of the battalion's support company (mortar platoon, sniper platoon, recon platoon) as a discrete deployment, rather than dividing it up among the line companies of the battle group.

[Abbott Shaull]

I seen the one on sniper teams from UK on the History Channel. As I recall for at least Marine Commando Sniper teams they both had to pass the training. The senior man was the Team Leader, but best shot usually was the sniper while the other did spotting.

Both had to be trained snipers for two reason. To be able to move in and positions without giving themselves away. The spotter having training as sniper and use of the entire weapon system would be better able to give accurate information from the spotter scope to sniper to get a hit.

[waiting4something]

The reason for spotters and snipers trading off is usually from what I have read is from fatigue setting in fast. You can't stay mentally or physcally alert for long periods of time when nothing is happening, and they have to take turns getting some shut eye too. From what I remember the spotter usually carried the radio and a M203. The sniper had the M40A1. As a rule in the infantry the junior guys always get the job to carry the heavier or extra shit(hello radio). I felt sorry for them when they had to carry the SASR and the ammo for it.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

...and for the pointed end of the stick, they probably prefer not to have some asking what the hell they are doing at all hours of the day....

Ain't that the truth! Bored NCOs (not to be confused with NCOs doing their jobs) are the bane of a soldier's non-combat existence. I know the US Army meant well by altering the battalion TO&E to include a staff sergeant major (as opposed to the command sergeant major) for the purpose of improving career progression. However, the handful I've seen have not impressed me. I've seen too many pointless ass-chewings of Joe when Joe was going about his business, basically squared away. I watched the 4-64 AR SGM quiz a Joe who came through the line of fire for literally ten minutes until he found something Joe didn't know. Then Joe got his head bitten off. War is hard enough without that garbage.

To be fair, the same SGM established a system whereby the watch towers of the FOB were visited sporadically and without warning to ensure the sentries were doing their jobs. It was a staff sergeant performing these rounds that discovered our resident narcoleptic asleep at his post. That needed to be done, and the battalion sergeant major was the one who made it happen.

Webstral

[Abbott Shaull]

So are you saying that the Sergeant Major at Battalion level is no longer considered a Command Sergeant Major, or did they give Master Sergeant slot a promotion?