Iraq - snipers are for real

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lucky

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
2,919
Location
Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
sigacts-071100-1.gif
http://www.globalsecurity.org/

Also supporting what was written here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-11/ch6.htm
6-4. TYPES OF ENEMY SNIPERS AND THEIR CAPABILITIES

The three general types of snipers are the specially trained and equipped individual, the trained marksman, and the civilian irregular. Each has different characteristics of operation and may be used to accomplish different purposes. Countermeasures effective against one type may be less effective against another.

a. Specially Trained Sniper. The most dangerous sniper is the individual who has been specially selected, trained, and equipped with a modern scope-mounted sniper rifle. These individuals are expert shots and are trained to select key individuals as their targets. They can hit at great range (sometimes out to 1,000 meters) and are skilled in avoiding detection. They are normally members of an organized, armed force and wear a standard uniform that may be modified to provide better camouflage. Their actions are carefully integrated into the overall plan of operation. This sniper is the most difficult to counter effectively. Until recently, there were not many potential adversaries of the US that could produce significant numbers of such individuals. Many armies in the world now have a renewed interest in snipers. More and more sniper training is taking place, with an increase of high-power rifles that are available at a reasonable cost on the world arms market. US forces can expect to see more and more trained snipers with improved weapons systems during future urban operations. Some of these may be equipped with rifles and night observation equipment that are among the best in the world. The US Army and its Western allies already have a relatively large number of this type sniper, as do several states of the former Soviet Union, and the Peoples Republic of China.

b. Trained Marksman. A trained marksman is a common sniper often found in urban combat. This sniper is a trained soldier, equipped with a standard issue weapon, who is an above-average shot. He normally has fair to good field craft skills and is difficult to detect in the urban environment. He may be employed singly or in teams to create confusion among friendly forces, cause casualties, or harass and disrupt the tempo of operations. He is often used by the enemy in an economy-of-force role as a rear guard or covering force, while the main enemy force withdraws. He may also be placed on the perimeter of a defended urban area to provide early warning of the approach of friendly forces and to disrupt and cause them to deploy early. The trained marksman is a dangerous foe. He can be found in fairly large numbers in the armies of many potential adversaries. He is normally a member of an organized, armed force and wears a standard uniform. He may, however, be a guerrilla fighter, in which case he may not wear a recognizable uniform but will normally carry his arms openly.

c. Armed Irregular. The third general type of sniper is the armed irregular. He may have little or no formal military training but may have experience in urban combat. He may or may not wear any distinguishing uniform and may even appear to be merely another of the thousands of noncombatants found in a large urban area. He may or may not carry his weapon openly and may go to great lengths to avoid identification as a sniper. His fires are normally not accurate, and he seldom deliberately targets specific individuals. His actions are not normally integrated into an overall enemy plan, although his attacks may be loosely coordinated with others in his general area. Although this type of sniper has the least ability to cause heavy losses among US forces, he has high value as an element of harassment, and in some stability and support situations he may achieve results far out of proportion to his actual ability to cause casualties.

d. Range of Sniper Attacks. The typical range for a sniper attack is 300 to 600 meters with medium-caliber rifles. Shots from 800 to 1,000 meters are the exception. Heavy sniper rifles (caliber .50, 12.7-mm, 14.5-mm, and 15-mm) with ranges of 1,200 to 1,500 meters are now available around the world. These heavy sniper rifles were originally intended as antimateriel weapons for stand-off attack against high-value targets, such as radar control vans, missiles, parked aircraft, and bulk fuel and ammunition storage sites. They are only marginally accurate enough for long-range shots against individual personnel. It is their ability to shoot through all but the heaviest shielding material, and their devastating effects, that make them valuable psychological weapons. The ability to shoot through common urban building materials makes these large weapons valuable as countersniper tools.

e. Equipment Trends. Several other equipment trends will result in a greater threat to US forces from urban snipers in the future.

(1) The quality and quantity of night observation devices sold on the world market is increasing daily. In the near future, even trained marksmen may be equipped with devices to allow accurate fires at night.

(2) The use of simple, direct-view optical sights on military rifles is increasing. Although not in the accuracy class of true sniper weapons, these sights make the trained marksman a much more dangerous foe. This is especially true within the shorter ranges (less than 200 meters) normally associated with combat in urban areas.

(3) Many armies are now buying simple but effective devices to either silence or suppress the muzzle blast of sniper weapons. These devices inhibit the task of determining the location of a sniper. Although many of these devices significantly reduce the maximum effective range of the weapon, snipers can be very effective at less than 200 meters with these devices attached.

(4) The employment of heavy sniper rifles, such as the .50 caliber, has increased.

(5) The use of laser detection devices to detect, damage, degrade, or prevent the use of snipers has increased.
 
Of course they are real. They stand a better chance "sniping" and moving than engaging at medium ranges with small arms.
The US military has every advantage in a fight except the element of surprise. So fighters are going to exploit that to the best of thier ability. That is IEDs, sniping/rocket/mortar hit and run attacks.

Thier primary mission is disrupt anything that can reduce the taxes produced that fund the government, and to interfer with oil production that helps pay for it all. That mission brings them into conflict with our troops who are protecting those very things.

If they can reduce tax revenue and oil production, while steadily decreasing the morale of foriegn nations involved it is only a matter of time before outside nations for the most part abandon an expensive fight offering little or no material or financial gain.

Since it is our troops we naturaly support them. However it is also comforting to see that a group of rag tag rabble, dedicated to thier beliefs, with very few resources can still pose a challenge to the most powerful military on earth.
I think it shows that the original purpose of the 2nd still has validity even in modern times against modern military forces.
That highly dedicated guerrillas can still be effective.
Obviously the US military crushes them every time in open combat, so they have adopted tactics that are based on attrition.

Of course they could not actualy win unless they damaged the infrastructure of the US economy reducing the taxes produced which support and fund our military which they are fighting. I hope that does not happen, as that is my home :neener:
However it is the only real way they can speed up the attrition rate of the US military, by draining the economy which supports it.

Of course that action would likely backfire against them, causing Americans to be more supportive of efforts in the middle east and be willing to devote more resources for longer to fighting them.
So they just wait it out, sniping and blowing up targets, and keeping the government weak by disrupting the economy and assassinating those participating in government processes so it is still ripe for the taking by the time foriegners finaly pull out most of thier forces.

It really is all they can do, we dominate the air, and the ground, and any forces that face us openly recieve death from above. They have no way to fight well coordinated air support. That means no matter how hard they try they have no hope in combat even if they could challenge our ground forces.
 
it would greatly suprise me if many if any of those supposed "sniper" attacks took place at ranges over 300m...

in an urban environment, you simply dont get many chances to make such long range shots... im betting that most single shot attacks are committed from inside buildings or behind heavy cover, and that the shooter isnt located unless someone happens to see the muzzle flash...
 
in an urban environment, you simply dont get many chances to make such long range shots
Don't know what cities you been to but there are ample opportunities for extreme long range shots. The Texas Tower Sniper Charles Whitman made hits , or at least engaged individual targets ,out to 1,300 yards.
 
Guns & Ammo put out a special report on insurgent sniping in their Combat Arms issue (for display until December 11th, 2007).

Insurgent Sniping In Iraq
A look at how the insurgents are operating and their weapons
By David M. Fortier

If you're interested I could share some snippets from the article.
 
I for one would like to see what they have to say.

More on Whitman.
Police lieutenant and sharpshooter Marion Lee reported from a small airplane that there was only one sniper firing from the parapet. The plane circled the tower trying to get a shot at Whitman, but the turbulence shook the plane too badly for him to get Whitman in his sights. As the airplane took fire, Lee asked the pilot, Jim Boutwell, to back away, but "stay close enough to offer him a target and keep him worried." The airplane, which was hit no less than thirteen times, remained on station until the end of the incident.

.
Guess that puts paid to standard rifle caliber weapons being as good or better than .50 cal in knocking down light aircraft.
Whitman's choice of victims was apparently indiscriminate, and most of them were shot on Guadalupe Street, a major commercial and business district across from the west side of the campus. Efforts to reach the wounded included an armored car and ambulances run by local funeral homes. Ambulance driver Morris Hohmann was responding to victims on West 23rd Street when he was shot in a leg artery. Another ambulance driver quickly attended to Hohmann, who was then taken about ten blocks south of UT to Brackenridge Hospital and the only local emergency room. The Brackenridge administrator declared an emergency, and medical staff raced there to reinforce the on-duty shifts. Following the shootings, queues at both Brackenridge and the Travis County Blood Bank stretched for blocks as people hurried to donate blood.[17]

I can remember the Texas Tower incident fairly well he was doing a King Kong up there.
killed 14 people and wounded 31.
 
Without artillery support or air support all you really have left is what the insurgents are doing.

That the troops over there are Americans, this sort of activity is unacceptable. It does, however, provide some interesting lessons for those who might one day face such a force. If I awoke to see a T72 out at the corner and Iraqi troops running around my neighborhood, I too would likely become an insurgent.
 
This was highlighted well before the US and UK went into Iraq.One leading retired UK general went on record saying "the war will be over quickly,but the urban war would last forever".
These so called insurgents are masters at fighting in an urban environment,one shot and move.There is no answer to the problem,apart from the levelling Iraq.
By the way the majority of troops over ther are American and British.
 
Stubbicat, very well said:
These so called insurgents are masters at fighting in an urban environment,one shot and move.There is no answer to the problem,apart from the levelling Iraq.
By the way the majority of troops over ther are American and British.

I'd be an insurgent for sure if they invaded here.


And, I think it's odd how ethnocentric people can be stateside when it comes to the abilities and skill of the Iraqi people. Don't believe the hype. If you don't respect them as an enemy, it's because you don't know them.

People of remarkable ability with precision shooting can be found all over the world. Not all need training.

Ryan,
I missed the Fortier article. If you don't post it here, pm it to me if it's not too much trouble.
 
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/long_guns/insurgentga_033007/

Well last I heard the war had wound down considerable, but I haven't been keeping up with the news much lately.

All this killing talk has had me remembering all the dead men I've seen over the years and how many gruesome murders have been committed in neighborhoods where I've lived and worked. Not something that leads to a good nights sleep.
 
Hatred is the most powerful weapon on earth.We will never win an urban war,history will always be repeated.An enemy should never be under estimated when fighting in there back yard,I would have thought we should have learned that lesson by now ?
 
Roswell 1847,was that meant to be sarcastic ? we only hear what is good for us,especially with the run up to your elections.Our troops are still facing hostile fire and road side bombs,I am sure your men and women are still in the thick of it.
Gruesome stuff but we must remember we still have troops over there.
Out of interest,some of our troops returning from Afganistan,were made to change out of military uniform in the cold of a Afgan airport.Our goverment,thought our brave men and women may upset travellers if dressed in combats...
 
What is rather interesting is that around 230 years ago a group of freedom fighters took on the mightiest military force in the world, and WON.:D With some outside help from the French.:) I wonder how many of those freedom fighters would have turned into insurgents/terrorists if the French had refused to leave after the defeat of the British and instead started telling the Americans how to run their country?
 
Last edited:
The book I reviewed, Ronin: A Marine Scout-Sniper Platoon in Iraq, discusses the types of "snipers" the insurgents have and their training schools in foreign lands like Syria and Jordan.

There was a comment that we would never win an urban war. I disagree. Urban wars are winnable but it depends on how you use your resources. BTW, the scout-snipers in Ronin discussed possible methods of controlling Fallujah.
 
i guess what i was implying was that most so called "snipers" are really marksmen or sharpshooters... and not truly engaging at extreme distances...
 
I always thought urban wars were always the down fall of modern armies.I think in the days when total destruction or the protection of women and children were not on the agenda they were winable.I remember seeing young children running down alleys with ak47,dissapearing and then popping up on rooftops.Hit and run,miss or hit,lead into ambush,tight alleys,doors where body armour cannot get through,it's a minefield highly stressfull and scary.Then you withdraw and the sniper let's one go,it was nine times out of ten that young kid,no training,no shoes,and possibly no idea of what he has done.
 
City fighting is tough. The Russians had their own lessons handed to them by the Chechan Rebels. To negate the Russian superiority in airpower and artillery, the Chechans engaged them in close quarters. Chuikov of WW II did the same thing at Stalingrad. His phrase was grab the Germans by their belt buckles. At such close range, artillery could not be called because of fear of hitting one's own. Ditto with airpower. Then it boils down to who knows the terrain better and who is the better infantryman.
 
I'm sure over there they think they're the Wolverines from Red Dawn. Only they suck. If they invaded over here (with what army?) I would be an insurgent, too, I'm sure. Fortiers' article was good, it made me want a dragunov.
 
in an urban environment, you simply dont get many chances to make such long range shots

My nephew is an Army sniper, and he (and his spotter) have put many shots on target out to 600 yards in urban combat in Iraq using .308, working from rooftops.

He also killed an enemy sniper, and captured the guy's Dragunov. Unfortunately, he wasn't allowed to keep it.
dragunov1.gif
(Faces not included for their privacy.)
 
That's too bad. I would think people would see the advantage of rooftops in the distance of urban vs. rural sniping. Haven't you all seen the videos of Blackwater guys having turkey shoots from a rooftop to the entire rest of the town? The sandbox is very condusive to sniping. It is really just a big sandbox of warfare, perfect for all kinds of tactics.
 
I notice that category that "Sniper" attacks appear in also includes all other small arms. I'd like to see a further breakdown on which attacks are which.
 
I'm sure over there they think they're the Wolverines from Red Dawn. Only they suck.

Well, they sure haven't gone away yet, have they?

I wouldn't say they suck, considering they are taking on the most powerful military machine of all times and still manage to keep our "mission un-acomplished"... years after it should have all been over.
 
Jakeswensonmt: Kudos to your nephew, but why isn't he allowed to keep the Dragunov? It isn't full-auto.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top