"Your view on snipers?" Topic

From one of the always interesting ACW threads:
TMP link

Snipers have emerged over the past 150 years as an important part of military forces. I once read that German snipers in WW2 were one reason the Nazis weren't overwhelmed by the Soviets in the long retreat from Russia.

However there has been some ambivalence towards them.

Some seem to regard them as almost war criminals or worse. The fate of captured snipers is rarely pleasant. Even their own sides often don't warm to them.

How do you see snipers?

Just another military role?
Someone performing a vital military service albeit a role that the average man couldn't/wouldn't do?
Something worse?

They are a fantastic asset. Precision fires, great intel reporting, trained to call in air and arty. Every one I've met has been a great troop, tons of initiative.

Don't forget how dangerous sniping is. In WWII we would plaster areas with quad fifties just to get one of them.

There will always be snipers, and the best defense against them is your own sniper.

They're monsters, plain and simple. That being said, they're necessary and useful monsters when they're on your side.

The best defense against snipers is an FAE dropped near their location with you safely out of range. They are an asset without question.

They're monsters, plain and simple. That being said, they're necessary and useful monsters when they're on your side.

You couldn't be more incorrect. I've operated with snipers and as Jake said they were some of the most adept, conscientious, capable, intelligent and motivated troops I've known.

I can only hope what you've posted is an attempt at "humor."

It's not an attempt at humor; being a soldier and getting into a situation where one is forced to defend oneself is a sad fact of armed conflict. Hiding in the shadows and firing upon targets that cannot defend themselves with the full knowledge that your trigger pull will end another human being's life is inhuman.

"They were some of the most adept, conscientious, capable, intelligent and motivated troops I've known." The above does not make what you stated any less true.

Get bent.

I think they are the apex of modern warfare. If employed properly a single sniper caneasily bind or make the enemy use up resources and material worth a six to seven figure sum or more without even getting the sniper. Their work does not only do physical damage to the enemy, but psychological. No other weapon system that is as simple can do these things as well.

I went to sniper school in I think 85. It is not something you take light to heart. A sniper and a spotter can do a lot to secure other forces. I have worked with a lot of snipers over the years. They are much more common now then in the past. Gary and Randy in Somalia, were some of my best friends. Those now days have much better tools and equipment. I salute them all. Most engagements are still under 300 meters but there are many reports of targets out to almost 1000 meters.

Derek, you have it backwards. Force protection is the primary mission.

VR
James Mattes

Little Big Wars 20 Jan 2012 9:12 p.m. PST wrote:
They're monsters, plain and simple. That being said, they're necessary and useful monsters when they're on your side.

You know I have never been called a moster. I was spit on and called a baby killer in 76 or 77 in St Louis airport. I spent 26 years in the Army most overseas. It is an insult you should take back.

VR
James Mattes

@ Jay
My apologies for starting a thread that got you an insult. This wasn't my intention at all.

I have great respect for serving & past military men.

Little Big Wars 20 Jan 2012 9:12 p.m. PST wrote:
They're monsters, plain and simple. That being said, they're necessary and useful monsters when they're on your side.

I too am a Sniper, i have been for a good part of my career. Your post shows pure ignorance.

I dont consider myself, or my mates to be "monsters".

Even their own sides often don't warm to them.

?
Really, not in my experience.

Just my 2p,
Steve

My first reply was vitriolic, inflammatory, and undoubtedly would have me checking out the cell wall art for a protracted period of time. Few things trip my trigger as much as slander and libel against my comrades.

LBW, it sounds like you have never served, were a support troop, or more likely a graduate of a liberal arts program (no offense intended to those here whose educational background was not based in "real world experiences" which were the words of a Humanities PHD I met). NO ONE can "defend themselves" against an incoming round, be it 5.56mm, 7.62mm, .5in, 120mm, or 500Megatons; aside from a few comic book or kung fu movie heroes (who, if reality is not your regular realm, DON'T EXIST). By your definition, every combat troop who has served since swords and pikes ceased being the principle weapons is not human.

One of my best friends started out as a sniper, a very good past friend was too. They are better men than most. Better humans too.

Jay, I agree (more vehemently and profanely). Jay, James, and all other veterans reading this post, at the risk of repeating myself, Thank You Sir.

I don't think Little Big Wars meant his comment as an insult, James. I believe he did it as a reflection on what war forces decent men to do in order to win.

As for the OP question, I do not feel about snipers worst than I would for any other military asset. They are soldiers with special skills, just like are drone's pilots, artillerymen or pilots. The difference between snipers and other specialists is that the former must see their target in order to kill it. They can't detach themselves from the fact of killing like other specialists can. If only for that I would feel a great respect for those snipers that can do their job and still be able to preserve a nucleus of human decency.

I don't think Little Big Wars meant his comment as an insult, James. I believe he did it as a reflection on what war forces decent men to do in order to win.

That was exactly the point I was trying to make, though it applies to decent and less than decent people alike. Armed conflict necessitates people doing terrible things, and snipers suffer worse than most due to being able to see the results of their efforts.

Yes, I do have a liberal arts education, but I don't live in fluffy bunny land. Killing is wrong and killing deliberately is worse, but when it's a choice between the lives of people you know or can identify with and an armed stranger making the same choice, the decision is quite clear. I understand the difference between the moral choice and the necessary choice.

When I was a kid, Mum's grocer was a chap called Bill Obbard. He had been a Royal Marine Commando during WW2, and trained as a sniper (he expected first-shot kills at 300 yards). I don't know how many people he killed, because he never mentioned it, even though he could keep an 11-year old schoolkid entertained for hours with stories of his service. A sweeter, kinder and more cheerful man you could not wish to meet.

When I was a bigger kid, and at University in the Officer Training Corps, we did a camp with training staff from the 1st Devon & Dorsets, who had just come back from a very successful tour of Northern Ireland (they lost nobody, and got two kills -- I liked the photo they had of a VCP they set up, right on top of Republican graffiti on the road saying "South Armagh -- where the SAS don't dare"). One of the D&Ds sniper platoon let us cadets have a go on his L42, but insisted that we don't re-zero it, and use only his ammunition (he purchased match ammunition privately). He wouldn't let us help his clean it, either. You can bet that we bought him a few beers in the shared mess afterwards.

The snipers I've met have been generous and thoroughly pleasant people, whose job happens to be killing people who need killing.

All the best,

John.

LBW your comment was not only insulting to every person who ever was/is a sniper but shows a complete lack of thought or even a near understanding on what warfare is.

Snipers target threats on the battlefield and take them out without inflicting damage on innocents. If given the choice to target an enemy combatant, is it more humane to drop a smart bomb on them and risk the infliction of collateral damage on possible innocents or is it more humane to use a single well placed bullet to eliminate the threat that enemy combatant has.

Everything about warfare is inhumane but if you look closely at what snipers accomplish they are probably the most humane aspect of what is an extremely inhumane undertaking. The main targets snipers go for are immediate threats to ground troops (i.e. machine gun teams, other snipers, well positioned infantry, etc.) who are causing immediate casualties and then command and control elements of the enemy. Each of these targets once removed or disabled then at the very least reduce the effectiveness of enemy to inflict casualties and hopefully reduce their will to fight thereby not exposing even the enemy to further casualties. The sniper has to deal with the mental anguish of having seen firsthand the effects of successfully doing their job. Artillery and air power have the luxury of avoiding that unpleasant task but their effects are far more indiscriminate. And they along with regular infantry and armour deliberately try to kill their enemies, not accidently kill them. Seeing through the scope whether or not you successfully accomplished your task, only means that you will always see it in your mind and that does not make you a monster.

The sniper is no more a monster than any other member of the armed forces since each either directly or indirectly has the mission of removing the enemy. That means deliberately killing the enemy if that is what it takes to end the conflict.

LBW your comments are insulting at worst and naive at best. The only thing that you got right in your feeble attempt to back peddle was the comment that snipers suffer more. We do see do have to live with our actions every day for the rest of our lives and can not neatly send them away but that is the same for any infantryman that has been up close to their enemies. You need to rethink how you intended to get your thoughts across and at the very least apologize.

LBW thinks killing is always wrong. When he says:

I understand the difference between the moral choice and the necessary choice.

He clearly demonsrates that he does NOT understand. No one here is going to change his mind. I feel sorry for him and all the folks that hold that set of values.

I understand the difference between the moral choice and the necessary choice.

Then you may want to ponder a while over the fact that sinpers save lives on both sides. Deploying and supporting a sniper mission takes a lot of assets and has a lot of restrictions. As such, they are only used to target high value assets – game changers. A successful sniper mission will cripple your enemy's capability without sending large number of bodies (on both sides) into the meat grinder.

Additionally, a high value asset didn't get that way through a government conscription effort or by being forced to take up arms as a result of poverty (including war inflicted or aggrivated poverty). They got that way by consciously choosing to dedicate their time, life, and efforts to enabling thier side to kill much larger numbers of people.

You forgot to mention that (at least in the US Army) commanders tend to only send really good troops to sniper school. You pick the mature, smart guy, not the 'may be a psycho' guy.

Greyaxe,

I was a 42F for 5 years of active duty. I spent a year in Iraq geting mortared daily.

"LBW, it sounds like you have never served, were a support troop, or more likely a graduate of a liberal arts program"

I take great offense that my support role seems to lump me in with those not serving. Feel free to call me a fobbit all day long but getting mortared daily for a year should give me a bit more credit off the street.

You don't get to do your job without me doing mine… one team!

To me they are not monsters, but a element to to greatly feared, probably way out of their proportion considering how many causalties they actually cause. Artillery is probably going to get you first.

"Hiding in the shadows and firing upon targets that cannot defend themselves with the full knowledge that your trigger pull will end another human being's life is inhuman."

Boy.

You must hate artillerymen then.

I guess attitudes have changed since 1777.

graduate of a liberal arts program

A liberal education is the one proper for a free man -- that's where the "liber" comes in. That is, it's for voting citizens. The "real world" programs are basically highly advanced auto/print/metal shops -- vocational education. So get over your bad self.

Doesn't every soldier with a weapon point it in the direction of the enemy? Morally, what makes a soldier a "sniper"? Just being better at hitting what he is pointing at?

I think they are a morally better way of fighting than firing shells at unseen targets, bombing from high altitudes, firing indiscriminately in the general direction of the enemy.

No killing is a good thing but when necessary in war those that carefully get the maximum effect for the minimum kills (as a good sniper does) is a far better thing than massed fire power.

I think they are a morally good thing and the personality of those that I know that did it bears this out.

x42

Most modern snipers (and I know several) spend about 90% of their time in the field reporting intel on troop movments, disposition, etc. The long range shooting is definitely a vital part of what they do, but not the only thing.

None of that changes the fact that these are some of the bravest men I have ever encountered. They are often in enemy territory with only the gear they carry for long days or weeks on end with little to no support.

LBW, your comments are off base UNLESS you meant that the ENEMY sees snipers as monsters. In that case, you are correct. That is because the sniper team is a terrifying asset on the battlefield.

So, next time you'd like to speak off the cuff, think first.

Snipers are great.

Cheap, effective, reusable, don't need much log support, easily deployable, low collateral damage, etc. etc.

What's not to love?

The idea that they kill the enemy in any especially horrible way is imbecilic.

-Kle.

I publicly and loudly apologize to dropzonetoe and any other "non combat" MOS for any perceived slight; it was not intended. Indeed, "non combat" is a questionable label at best even in the most civil of times, every service member is part of a larger team, with the same goals and objectives. I come from a different era, where there were service people enlisting for the benefits but not the responsibilities. No excuse for my wording.

Jeff Ewing, there are liberal arts programs and then there are liberal arts programs. Some do teach valuable thinking skills, some teach the students to parrot whatever the proper line is this year. One of my former sniper friends became a history professor (as relayed by common friends), which meant he would have spent 10ish years in liberal arts schools,I lost track of Ron when he moved East for his PhD program.

Regardless, I haven't been a "bad self" since my teens when I learned better. Much less now as an old fat guy who plays with toys.

To get back to the threads original intent. I believe that snipers have a distinct usefulness in that they help ensure minimized friendly and collateral damage, while causing disruption in hostile operations.

I rather face a sniper then an ass with a IED….. and the ones I have worked with back in the days were all good men did their jobs well and saved my ass with good recon and fire on target when needed.

It's curious that most of the posters believe that snipers are great assets, but then only consider FRIENDLY snipers. What about those of the enemy? Do you feel about them as assets too? Or as "cold blooded murderers" (a common label in most military memoirs, by the way)?

War is about killing other people. Clausewitz clothed it with fancy words about politics by other means, but that "other means" were killing, maiming and destroying. There is nothing nice in war. Snipers are tools to make war as ugly as possible to the enemy, in order to force upon them your own politics. In that regard, they are not different from any other military asset. They are not worser than an AC-130, a hellfire armed drone or a battery of 155mm howitzers. In some senses they are better, as they focus the killing on individuals, not in areas. The danger of causing collateral damage (i.e. screwing up things) are less with a sniper team than with a bombing; no matter how smart the bomb can be. a man behind a scope will be smarter.

Yes enemy snipers are assets, but they are the bad guy's assets and therefore need to be targeted so they can't be used against you. That seemed like a silly question.

As for the as silly comment:

Snipers are tools to make war as ugly as possible to the enemy

Perhaps you haven't actually read the thread or understand how US and coalition forces are using snipers now-a-days. Recon, intel gathering, force protection/counter IED are typical roles. Even when used to take out a HVT it is to kill a specific target vice 'make war as ugly as possible'.

It's curious that most of the posters believe that snipers are great assets, but then only consider FRIENDLY snipers. What about those of the enemy? Do you feel about them as assets too?

I consider enemy snipers an extremely powerful asset. I believe most of the posters who talked about enemy snipers discussed them as that as well, even to the point of explaining how important and how many assets we would commit to take them out.

Or as "cold blooded murderers" (a common label in most military memoirs, by the way)?

I am tempted to ask what meta analysis supports your statement, however, instead I will just point out that you are mixing referents. "Cold blooded murders" is a value judgement and whether or not they are assets is a utility judgement. If you considered an enemy force to be CBK, you would likely consider the snipers as such, independent of their modality of employment.

I am with CPT Jake in saying that the use of snipers helps achieve military success (in some venues) with a minimum of casualties on both sides.

The snipers I have worked with have been excellent lads and good on the P****!

Enemy snipers are a fact of war,

Tally Ho!

Perhaps you haven't actually read the thread or understand how US and coalition forces are using snipers now-a-days. Recon, intel gathering, force protection/counter IED are typical roles. Even when used to take out a HVT it is to kill a specific target vice 'make war as ugly as possible'.

And perhaps you are so obsessed by imagined slights against the military that you mistake an affirmation about function with a criticism.

Which is not.

I am tempted to ask what meta analysis supports your statement, however, instead I will just point out that you are mixing referents. "Cold blooded murders" is a value judgement and whether or not they are assets is a utility judgement. If you considered an enemy force to be CBK, you would likely consider the snipers as such, independent of their modality of employment.

Not at all. I do not consider them as anything but tools in the military arsenal of countries and non-state actors. I believed I had made my point clear when I wrote: "In that regard, they are not different from any other military asset. They are not worser than an AC-130, a hellfire armed drone or a battery of 155mm howitzers."

What I was pointing is that IN military memoirs you can find references at how much feared and hated snipers were, even those from the memoirist's side. And yes, it is more frequent to find those references on earlier memoirs (ACW, for instance) than in more modern memoirs (though look at what Allied soldiers had to say about Japanese snipers).

In other words, what I was trying to explain (unsuccessfully as it happens) is that I do not believe that using snipers is more moral or inmoral than using any other military tool.

PS: By the way, that the moral debate is present in the sub-text of most of the answers. Apologies if I am too cynical to accept the innocence of certain kind of narrative.

I never faced down other snipers. Most forces did not have them. But they had set up positions with heavy arms, that we took out. In Bosnia we faced random sniper fire every day they were good but not that good. Never though about them other than the enemy. It is really that simple.
VR
James Mattes

I believed I had made my point clear when I wrote

I wasn't saying you were mixing referents in your opinion. I was referring the two part question that gave "cold blooded killers" and "assets" as alternatives. In that you are mixing referents. You can make any logically inconsitent argument you want when you build it from an inconsistent frame.

I do notice you have back off from the "most military memoirs", however I would still like to see a reference for your assertion of frequency of occurrence.

By the way, that the moral debate is present in the sub-text of most of the answers. Apologies if I am too cynical to accept the innocence of certain kind of narrative.

The moral dimension of the discussion was established in the OP and it is continued in the posts. I don't really see a lot of naivete in the posts. I see a lot of posts where people assert that they don't have a moral issue with the use of snipers, but that's not the same thing.

I have a liberal arts background myself. I spent about 5 years active in the USAF [2 of them in the PI and Nam]. After that I saw the Light and went Army Guard as an infantry officer. I spent a lot of time training scout platoons. I consider snipers to be an important asset no matter which side he is on. They do a hard job. As an ilustration of how important the Russians consider snipers, as a result of their experiences in Afghanistan, they increased the number of snipers from 1 per platoon to 1 per squad.
In our games we use German and Britsh/Canadian snipers quite a bit. They are maybe less effective than they would be in reality, but they are useful. I haven't really found any 76th or 72nd scale US or Russian WWII figures that I like for snipers--maybe 1 from AB miniatures.

I wish to apologize for my comments. My original statement had not been intended as an insult to service personnel, though it ended up that way. I had forgotten that the term sniper was not just the sixth figure in a support weapons pack or an artifact of history. The OP put me in mind of men killing medics or wounding a squad mate to lure out his buddies, which is horrifying.

I have the deepest respect for those who choose to make the personal sacrifice and do what needs doing so that I never have to put my belief that killing is inherently wrong to the test.

It is very interesting to see the wholesale respect/admiration being expressed on this thread and to contrast it with the historical accounts.

Don't have them to hand and can't remember exact titles but I do remember reading several histories in which it was noted that snipers were killed rather than being allowed to surrender. Including by western allied units in NWE. My recollection was that having a scoped rifle was a death sentence.

I doubt that a lot of the PBI in the world have changed their attitudes on the matter.

Back to the OP, they are an asset.

Little Big Wars 21 Jan 2012 8:28 p.m. PST wrote:
I wish to apologize for my comments. My original statement had not been intended as an insult to service personnel, though it ended up that way.

No blood no foul. Some of us have seen service in some difficult locations. It is not always easy.
VR
James Mattes

I do notice you have back off from the "most military memoirs", however I would still like to see a reference for your assertion of frequency of occurrence.

Any memoir from the Pacific war veterans. Read what they thought about Japanese snipers. Or read the memoirs of British soldiers in America and what they thought about the American practice of sniping officers. I would like to say that the Germans felt likewise, but regretfully I am not familiar with that language, and it would be very pretentious of me if I would dare to say they did.

I was referring the two part question that gave "cold blooded killers" and "assets" as alternatives. In that you are mixing referents.

Again: that is neither my opinion, nor what I was saying. That is what can be inferred from military narratives: my sniper is an asset, your sniper is a murderer; which is very different from what I am saying all the time: any sniper is an asset. See? No contradiction at all.

John the OFM wrote:

Doesn't every soldier with a weapon point it in the direction of the enemy? Morally, what makes a soldier a "sniper"? Just being better at hitting what he is pointing at?

Not just that -- there's better personal camouflage and fieldcraft, too, and, I dare say better land navigation and voice procedure.

All the best,

John.

It is interesting to trace the development of the attitude towards snipers. Hand to hand, man to man is seen as more "manly", or chivalrous.
Yet, David is hailed as a hero for slaying Goliath with a missile weapon. Hand to hand, David would have been toast.

In the American Revolution, the British were outraged by the American practice of singling out officers, and allegedly slew any captured American troops carrying a rifle. Yet, they employed Hessian jaegers who had no such scruples. But, there is the legendary account of Freguson passing up a clear shot at Washington.
We hear about the regiments at Waterloo who had 12 Colour Bearers shot, and were down to sergeants. Surtely, that can only be explained by aimed shots.

In World War 2, Yamomoto was by any meaningful interpretation of the facts, "assassinated", by sending P-38s out with the express intent of shooting him down.
American and British fighters in Normandy had German staff cars as priority targets. That took out Rommel.

Today, "disrupting" the enemy command and control is a priority. Removing euphemisms, what can that be but a targeted attack.

Drone strikes?
Navy SEAL raids?

The sniper does all of the above, but with a rifle. And I have no problem with that.

It's curious that most of the posters believe that snipers are great assets, but then only consider FRIENDLY snipers. What about those of the enemy? Do you feel about them as assets too? Or as "cold blooded murderers" (a common label in most military memoirs, by the way)?

Meh.
Fair's fair.
-Kle.

Hey guys, don't criticize LBW for having a liberal arts degree. I have a liberal arts degree, I consider myself a social liberal and I served in the Marines. A liberal education and even liberal attitudes are nothing to criticize in my opinion.

Fire your broadsides for his comments only please. Those are more then enough reason though now with his apology, which I will accept, this is probably now closed.

Private Matter 22 Jan 2012 9:52 a.m. PST wrote:
Hey guys, don't criticize LBW for having a liberal arts degree. …Fire your broadsides for his comments only please. Those are more then enough reason though now with his apology, which I will accept, this is probably now closed.

Spot on it is now over and done with. Let us move on.

VR
James Mattes

Any memoir from the Pacific war veterans.

So it is now your assertion that absolutely every memoir written by a Pacific war vetran expresses that attitude. I can pick any of them and it will be present? This is similiar to your assertion that "most" out of all miliatary memoirs address snipers in a negative light. It is a powerful statement that you can assert more than 50% of a lot of treatises have that view.

Again: that is neither my opinion, nor what I was saying. That is what can be inferred from military narratives: my sniper is an asset, your sniper is a murderer; which is very different from what I am saying all the time: any sniper is an asset. See? No contradiction at all.

Again: I never addressed your opinion.
Again: You did explicitly offer "asset" and "cold blooded murders" as either/or options in your post:

It's curious that most of the posters believe that snipers are great assets, but then only consider FRIENDLY snipers. What about those of the enemy? Do you feel about them as assets too? Or as "cold blooded murderers" (a common label in most military memoirs, by the way)?