Posted on 12/13/2017 5:38:30 AM PST by w1n1
The sniper is an incredibly efficient fighter, compared to the typical infantryman. Consider that in World War II, American infantry units fired 25,000 rounds to kill just one enemy soldier. By the Korean War, that figure jumped to 50,000 rounds, and the select-fire M14 and M16 infantry rifles of the Vietnam War only seem to have produced more misses, requiring the expenditure of 200,000 rounds to kill one enemy combatant.
It is ironic that a country built on a tradition of rifle marksmanship took nearly 200 years to formally embrace the sniper, the man that represents the military apex of that long tradition. In each major war, through Vietnam, our armed forces began with no snipers and had to create training programs, usually in the theater of operations, to train them on the spot. Training varied from none to good, but the typical formula that has made many a successful American sniper is a rural background with early and continuous exposure to hunting or competitive, rifle shooting. Time after time, at the conclusion of the war, the sniper schools were closed and the snipers faded away.
The knowledge they gained in the deadly art of hunting men faded away with them and had to be retaught in the next war. This happened because America’s senior military leaders saw the sniper as a specialist, of small importance compared to the conventional infantry, artillery, cavalry (and later armored) forces who massively outnumbered him. From the general’s point of view, snipers didn’t win wars; huge armies did.
DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, volunteers from the frontier colonies took their long rifles to war. No British soldier within 400 yards was safe, and 200-yard, one-shot-kills were common. Riflemen terrorized the British, on the march and in garrison, picking off officers and noncommissioned officers from hidden positions. Without any formal guidance, they were doing exactly the same mission as snipers do today, but the British had far greater respect for them than General George Washington.
In the American Civil War, snipers were called sharpshooters and recruited for their marksmanship skill. The percussion-lock rifled musket and minie ball of the period greatly increased accuracy, without sacrificing speed of loading, and made the battlefield a much deadlier place. Some sharpshooters made use of early telescopic sights and many used their personal weapons in battle.
Confederates favored the British Whitworth rifle (maybe the first long-range sniper rifle in the world), when they could get it. With its unique hexagonal shaped, fast-twisting bore, instead of conventional cut rifling, it fired a six-sided bullet accurately just over a mile. It was the first military rifle built for long range accuracy. A Confederate sharpshooter, armed with a Whitworth rifle, killed Union General John Sedgwick at the Battle of Pennsylvania from a range of 800 yards.
DURING WORLD WAR I, THE skill sets and standard operating procedures of our present-day snipers were developed and codified in no-man’s land and the trenches. By that time, the bolt action rifle reached the pinnacle of its development as an infantry weapon. It had a five- to 10-round magazine and fired a much smaller caliber, high-velocity and aerodynamic bullet, propelled by smokeless powder, up to 3 miles. Read the rest of the History of the Sniper story here.
“...American infantry units fired 25,000 rounds to kill just one enemy soldier. By the Korean War, that figure jumped to 50,000 rounds, and the select-fire M14 and M16 infantry rifles of the Vietnam War only seem to have produced more misses, requiring the expenditure of 200,000 rounds to kill one enemy combatant.”
Anyone else find this difficult to believe?
--I don't think the Barrett was around for Korea---
Snipes are bulky shorebirds with relatively short legs, long bills, boldly striped heads, and rusty reddish tails. The upper parts are blackish-brown variously streaked and barred buff. Broad buff strips run above the scapulars. All three plumage's are virtually identical.
Battle of Pennsylvania???
Like when the Pirates and Phillies play each other?
Ever heard of “suppressive fire”?
—no—and IIRC , AAF records show that 13,000 rounds of .50 BMG ammo were expended for every enemy plane shot down in he Pacific theater———
There was an Army captain that did use a .50mg as a sniper weapon; he was very accurate. Carlos Hathcock also used a .50mg in Vietnam.
Thanks for posting.
During the Revolution the British complained that colonial sharpshooters unfairly targeted British officers.
It was a head of the snake scenario. Once the British officers went down the ranks didn’t know what to do.
You know at the Battle of Pennsylvania Court House
Comparing the sniper to the infantry(man) is like comparing the field goal kicker to the lineman. One is precise and effective but never holds ground, the other keeps what he steps on.
The roles of the sniper in recent past and today are mostly about intel and interdiction, not defeating the enemy. Intell about high payoff targets, enemy formations and activity behind the FLOT (front line of troops)/in the deep battle territory is invaluable to the major commands in the that area of operations.
Interdiction, long having been a single shot well placed to disrupt an enemy command ( usually company or higher grade officers) then silence and evasion, has morphed into a more local overwatch from a key piece of terrain and mostly in urban terrain to protect ground missions from ambush. Often infantrymen/sappers/MPs/EOD etc know that while they are the big ticket operation, they also know that the snipers in overwatch consider them bait to draw out enemy marksman, having been in both roles.
As far as the efficiency comparison between the two- that is a silly comparison. The sniper may kill a handful, while expending a few rounds or calling in indirect/CAS etc, the infantry squad or platoon ( the fighting elements of the US Infantry) are designed to find, fix and close with and destroy enemy formations much larger than themselves to obtain a tactical advantage- in other words take ground away from the enemy while killing them in the process.
The sniper has the luxury and indeed, requirement to carefully think out each shot and its effect on both the situation in general and his team in particular. He disrupts and hopefully evades the subsequent search and destroy missions that inevitably follow his shot.
Having served in both roles during my enlisted years, I can honestly say that the value of the sniper is great, but not at the expense of the Infantry squad.
One problem that the Army and Marines have been addressing is the need for more precise fires at the infantry squad and platoon level. The US Army Designated Marksman Program emphasized the application of accurate rifle fire out to 600m using upgraded M16A4s or variants. The Marines do similar and both have seen great benefits of having not only better marksmanship training, but also better infantry squad weapons that are designed to hit at mid range.
Snipers in the Army Infantry Division used to be six two man teams per light and airborne Battalion, compared to 36 twelve man squads, and 12 heavy weapons squads in the same battalion. Not sure what the TOE is today.
Finally, the infantry squad moves into enemy held terrain with the intent of making them respond, so volumes of firepower is required to overwhelm the usually larger better defensible enemy unit ( inside hard buildings, behind barriers etc, so suppressing them while another squad maneuvers to a flank is well, an absolute. The sniper bides his time and only enages when all possible variables are in his favor ( in the deep aspect) while he fights from a prepared, protected position in the overwatch mode.
Don’t compare the grunt squad with a sniper team. It is disingenuous and not a valid comparison in the least.
The dismounted trooper or Marine (infantry or otherwise)ought to be the most respected warrior in our nation. They bear the brunt of the fight, do the super majority of the heavy lifting and face the most uneven odds, (in my experience as both an enlisted infantryman (83-92) and as a commissioned combat engineer (93-07)).
When I was a young enlisted Marine, I was assigned to guard our sniper. He had a Winchester Model 70 in .30-06 and he was an outstanding shot. We would move out together in the predawn dark and he'd pick a hide position while I covered the "back door" with my M-14. As soon as he got somebody, we'd get back to the company perimeter as fast as possible.
He killed a bunch of NVA and once he got what we believed to be a Chinese advisor - but honestly, our company was effective and deadly, day after day.
Snipers are just a tool that you use to add to the battle.
Seal Team Six - Memoirs of an Elite Navy Seal Sniper by Howard Wasdin.
Gen. Sedgwick was killed by a CSA sniper at the Battle of Petersburg.
OOOps. “Spotsylvania” Courthouse.
Don`t forget Johnson`s 1758 Mohawk sharpshooters and 1777 Morgan`s Riflemen [Murphy`s double kill at 300 yards] at Saratoga and other battles:
“1758 JOHNSON`S MOHAWK SHARPSHOOTERS FUSILLADE THE FRENCH 1758 July 8 From the side of Mt. Defiance ``Mohawks fired upon them [French] and we see them run into their fort and within their breastwork. And after a small space of time they ventured out to work again and after the engineer had viewed the fort he ordered them all to return back again...and the Mohawks went upon the same mountain [Defiance] after we came down and fired and shouted to alarm the French and then came down...`` 419 [One Mohawk oral tradition says that the Mohawks had rifled muskets.]-from “Native American Tales and Trails on the Northeast Warpath of the Nations”, pp.124-131
“As the battles around Saratoga raged, the British, having been pushed back, were being rallied by Brigadier General Simon Fraser. General Benedict Arnold (still a good guy at the time of Saratoga) rode up to General Morgan, pointing at Fraser and shouted “ . . . that man on the gray horse is a host in himself and must be disposed of”. Morgan gave the order for his best marksmen to try and take him out. Timothy Murphy climbed a nearby tree, finding a comfortable notch to rest his double barreled rifle, took careful aim at the extreme distance of 300 yards, and squeezed off a shot. General Fraser tumbled from his horse, shot through the midsection. He was taken from the field and died the next day. Another British Senior officer, Sir Frances Clarke, General Burgoyne’s chief Aide-de-Camp, galloped onto the field with an important message. Murphys second shot dropped him. He was dead before he hit the ground!
http://www.americanrevolution.org/murphy.php
This is not required in target shooting, or hunting.
Crude average. But sometimes that the best you can expect.
” ‘...American infantry units fired 25,000 rounds [WWII] to kill just one ... Korean War, ... 50,000 rounds, ... Vietnam War ... 200,000 rounds ...’
Anyone else find this difficult to believe?”
Yes.
But those are the official figures as stated by the US Army Ordnance establishment. Give or take a couple thousand rounds.
The Army Dept has never disclosed supporting data nor revealed the methodology it used to establish these numbers.
They are highly aggregate, and over-generalized, and thus are only approximate. They take no account of the totality of circumstances on the battlefield, where soldiers are not killed exclusively by other soldiers firing bullets from rifles, but can be hit by shell fragments, rocketry, burning debris & hot gases from fires & explosions, aircraft munitions, naval missile or gun projectiles, mines, grenades, even chunks of soil thrown up by impact of projectiles or detonation of warheads (bayonet & knife casualties still happen but are not a large chunk of the total: shrank into single-digit percentages during the American Civil War). And many other lethal items.
After the Second World War, the Army judged that these ever-increasing numbers of fired rounds per kill meant that individual aimed fire had declined in importance, so “firepower” was officially redefined as shots per minute.
In doing so, officials relied heavily on the work of Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall, journalist, author, and wannabe Army officer, who revolutionized combat history collection techniques during WWII and published his signature work, Men Against Fire, in 1947: it contained the controversial conclusion that only 25 percent of troops fired their individual weapons in combat.
SLAM (he was said to delight in the nickname formed by his initials) was unusually talented at ingratiating himself with senior Army leaders and was granted unprecedented access to troops during WWII and Korea. His conclusions were taken to heart as Absolute Truth, and he remained a revered “wise man” in the eyes of the Army’s scholarly education and training establishment, enjoying acclaim for the rest of his life, receiving numerous requests for special consults during US involvement in Southeast Asia.
In the late 1980s, WWII combat veterans began casting doubt on SLAM’s conclusions; many were members of units he claimed to have interviewed exhaustively, but none could remember any after-action interview process at all. Doubts began to sharpen when Korea veterans noted that SLAM’s interview teams could never have debriefed the numbers of troops they said they did, in the time officially recorded as what they used.
So far, the Army establishment still enshrines SLAM’s theories as orthodoxy. Believe or not and draw your own conclusions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.