cassh

That’s a lot of extra post for someone who doesn’t want to discuss/argue a point anymore! Will warfighting and the infantry battle somehow be significantly different in CMSF than combat that has taken place in urban, mixed and desert environments in the past ten year? You said this in one post as if it were gospel then in the next post you say this:- How can you substantiate your first claim and then proffer up the fact you’re a bit light on first hand evidence and expect your complete dismissal of my concerns about the modelling of these specialist units not to irk. Do you not think it may be worth considering – and I mean that – to just consider – not concede – that sniping in its true sense is a highly stealthy operation, and that two gun shooting team does not model this well. You say that snipers are predominantly sharp-shooting, however from conversations with friends coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan I am getting reports of good old fashioned sniping taking place as well as standard overwatch from fixed OPs - well in the British army at least – can what the US Army are doing be so very different? http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006350757,00.html Well this was in last week’s news – the Sun is a terrible tabloid newspaper that sensationalises everything – however the key passage in the article is thus:- That would suggest my model is at least valid in a current operational theatre. I would seem crass to dismiss it outright. I may not know the ingredients of your grandma’s apple pie or how she makes it but I know you don’t put sardines in it. And if she’s started doing it, then she needs to see a doctor. My point is sniping is sniping. It hasn’t change that much in the past half century. Hence why I make the differentiation between sharp-shooting and sniping as a role/mission. Also from the end of the second article you cite is more than interesting:- As I said just consider that the units might need the ability to model a highly stealth mode to accurately reflect the assets available to current company and battalion command teams.

Steve Said Hmmm - funny that, as infiltration is a basic combat technique employed by any competent army as part of its warfighting doctrine. Ever heard of the term "surface and gaps" or recon-pull... No – I just think it is a dumb way of employing this specialist unit. Like using tank only attacks in the desert against dug-in infantry with ATG – yeah you can do it – but it's not how they should be used. That's not the case. British Army equivalent to M24 is the L96 and I was trained to get a first round kill as 600m. Please don't misrepresent what I have said. I have not change my view or indicated otherwise. I still think the US Army sniper team structure is flawed. It's not a preconceived idea – it's having done the job knowing that three men complicates things and offer no tactical advantage in a true sniper role. Again – don't misquote me or misrepresent what I said. I said this was a waste of their talent and skill and that a commander employing their snipers in such a role were not utilising these asset to do what they do best. In other words it was a poor command decision. As I clearly said– as sharp-shooter you can have two shooters at any range – but in a sniper role you really only want one gun firing as your spotter can indicate when a safe shot can be taken without compromising the shoot unnecessarily. With both snipers shooting you significantly increase the chance of detection, because not only is the second fired shot more likely to be spotted, the sniper also does not have the feedback from the spotter as to whether all the potential observers in the area have got eyes on the FFP general area when he indicates it is safe to take the shot. I also have very specific notions of what works and has worked successfully on operation tours in numerous theatres and types of conflict for the past fifty years. If you think that current sniping in Iraq and Afghanistan does not fall into what I have outlined above then you need to talk to the guys on the ground who do the job. So we cannot move units stealthily into better firing positions. And just because you are stealthy does not mean you move like a snail. If a infantry unit cannot crawl/sneak a block in the length of the game then something has gone wrong. How do you dispose of something you haven't located? You going to carpet bomb the area? Well lets see. Two guns shooting without proper spotting backup against multiple enemy units looking their way verse one gun shooting with the spotter indicating when it is safe to shoot. Who do you think is more likely to be detected? And if you think sending reccon/sniper units forward to take out OPs and reverse slope heavy weapons is not relevant then I suggest you read up a little more on how infantry battalions actually fight. Because the potential for an all guns blazing unstealthy sniper unit is an oxymoron. Just call them marksmen team/sharp-shooter team – but it is an insult to think that this is anything close to a sniper team and the way they operate.

Steve said Why is that – are we predefining the tactical approach and problem solving prior to any scenario/situation? For me personally I’ll want to use sniper teams for stealthy missions/roles such as infiltration and engagement of enemy heavy/crewed weapon systems and C4I units. I thought the map sizes were going to be up to 2km square? Why – sometimes you want to get/or have to get close to the enemy and remain stealthy (one shooter). How do you stop a unit armed with two guns having both shooters shooting at the same time? I think we need to restrict the second shooter unless we toggle a two-shooter option. I know, but you have indicated its possibility - and this means getting a sniper team close to the enemy and then only shooting with one gun may not always be possible? The rather laboured point I am trying to make is that a true sniper unit should not be able to fire both guns at once when in stealthy mode. Either we have two unit types (Sniper and Sharp-Shooter) or a one-gun two-gun stealth mode toggle option on the sniper team? Some CMSF Scenarios where stealthy sniper team is better suited. MOUT – the enemy are moving troops back and forth along covered rat runs from reserve position to the FEBA such as it is – you want to infiltrate sniper teams to interdict the roads running perpendicular to the FEBA so as they move troops up or withdraw you can pin them and retard movement speeds. This is not fanciful as it is exactly the tactic used by NVA snipers in Hue, Vietnam and shows common sense tactics. MOUT – an enemy sniper team/ATGM team is holding up you advance and you need to take them down. However, he’s firing from depth and difficult to locate – you have a sound contact and that is all. Someone needs to go forward and find them – infiltrating the enemy’s forward positions to allow the team to ID their location – best unit to do this – super stealthy snipers. You want to draw your enemy into a juicy L-shaped ambush but leave teams forward undetected as cut-off group so any survivors get nailed – again a stealthy sniper unit seems ideal. You have multiple enemy heavy weapons pits deployed in a reverse-slope depth defence. A stealthy “one-shooter” sniper team has a much better chance of entering the hidden deadground on the other side of the slope unspotted to get direct LOS on the enemy and then start taking them out whilst remaining undetected – the two man shooter team would find this more difficult. Taking effective and accurate enemy small arms fire is horrible – but it is terrifying when you don’t know where it is coming from. The combat worth of a stealthy undetected sniper team on enemy morale and their will to fight is massive. My concern is that without restriction the second shooter may come into play and compromise stealth which is the inherent quality and characteristic of this type of team. They need to be given the chance to do what they do best. [ August 13, 2006, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: cassh ]

Well there is because often you don't want both guys shooting at once - also the shooter needs a dedicated spotter - and if the security guys doing his security job you need to force the spotter to spot and range whilst the single shotter shoots! I'll reiterate what I said before - a spotter cannot really spot for two shooters at once and fulfil his spotting duties fully. You're going to do what you think is right - i just feel the nuance of sniper and spotter techniques and their close operational inter-relationship will be lost with what you're proposing.

A supressed M16 would be most useful for close-up security by the spotter when you want to take out bad guys without waving a big flag to say here we are. Although the Barrett is loud the round hits the target way before the sound reaches them - this means the enemy is hit - usually a shocking event which would distract anyone - then the poor bastard's buddies get the sound - but at 1000m+ there ain't much of that to go off as the sound wave has dispersed significantly. Additionally the sniper team can actually go firm behind hard cover/concealment whilst the round is in flight - meaning by the time the enemy hear anything there is physically nothing to be seen... Steve - if the SOP for these three man teams is two shooter when deployed in what I beleive are sharp-shooter roles, but the TOE has the breakdown shooter, spotter and security then possibly the most elegant solution is to have two unit types with different roles in the unit list. A sharp-shooting team - two shooters and a spotter which has greater firepower when conducting overwatch of an ambush marker type thing but can be spotted more easily, and a sniping team of shooter, spotter and security which has very high stealth capability but just one active weapon unless in close contact with maybe a "go loud" option where all three team members can fire whilst withdrawing and breaking the contact?

Steve said Hmmm... Well as far as sniping is concerned in Afghanistan it is very much as case of "traditional" sniping - i.e. infil into hostile areas - slotting enemy bods - laying low - exfiling and recovery to safe zone. Don't know where you heard contrary to this but I know that is what British, Canadian and US SFO are up to. In Iraq as well much of the genuine sniping as opposed to sharp-shooting is covert and in hostile zone – often laying in ambush on known IED hotspots or areas of enemy operation. The kill tally they are achieving is very high indeed – some units averaging ten hostiles killed per month per shooter. Routine overwatch on road junctions and VCPs is not really a sniper operation but a sharp-shooting one unless the insertion needs to be covert and/or the FFP is in enemy/hostile control. If local commanders fail to use their sniping teams effectively and deploy them as sharp-shooters then that is a great waste and a sign of incompetent tactics. Much of the successful engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are occurring at night where advanced optics capabilities give us the edge, and cover of darkness offers some degree of additional security and lowers the chance of detection – especially during movement phases of the operations. Of note the British Army are now implementing a new Sniper Platoon across ever infantry battalion in the army and there is a huge upsurge in sniper training and developing these tactics within the contemporary battlespace – such as how to avoid thermal detection, avoid acoustic-detection sensors, how to use acoustic detection systems within counter-sniping operations etc. The platoon will expand what was for most battalions and ad hoc four or eight man section and creates a formal 18 man platoon.

MikeyD - If that photo is meant to exemplify a three-man sniper team then please note some points - only one shooter, two spotters/non-shooters i.e. no second shooter. Also note completely exposed with no concealment, personal or positional. Also they have not got any form of physical cover. These are very basic things any “sniper” team would employ not matter what the counter-threat - as some dumb **** can always get lucky and slot you if you make it easy for them. Not sure if these posers are lying in a “sky lined" position on a ridge but it doesn’t really matter as the set up is for the camera and not tactical. If they actually operated like this then they should be ashamed of themselves and their infantry skills as any half-decent opposition could slot these three lads in short order. They would effectively be lying there and saying “please counter-snipe us”. I’m not saying three-men “sniper” teams are not the US Army TOE/SOP now, but as far as I can see that ain’t a sniper team - that is three riflemen with a big gun and a pair of binos posing for the camera. Steve - Your cosy Baghdad roof-top scenario is great but what you're describing is sharp-shooting not sniping. Sniping is not shooting out of your own secure area/compound in the Green Zone with a big-bore. It means going out and taking the fight to the enemy. It means setting up shop in his back yard and intimidating him. Restricting his movements, pinning him down, undermining his morale and spreading fear amongst his personnel in the areas he once thought were safe. To be able to do this you need to be able to infiltrate the enemy’s turf unnoticed and remain there undetected whilst you engage the enemy. Have a look at the syllabus for any sniper cadre/training and you’ll soon detect that most of the course’s emphasis is to do with fieldcraft and operating undetected - not marksmanship. The simple question then must be why is covert operation given such emphasis? This isn’t a Hollywood thing (name me a movie that understands sniping and I’ll drink a warm mug of poo) – this is about the art of sniping. Why have armies sought out backwoodsmen, ghillies and huntsmen as natural snipers rather than simply the best/crack shot? It’s because guile, understanding of concealment, ground, cover and movement are what allows the sniper to do what no other soldier can do. err – no the spotter has other key tasks such as to provide security and threat assessments, defining the target area that can be engaged without having to displace, recording any intelligence activity or information, selecting new potential FFPs, prioritising targets and then all the things that affect speed and accuracy such as range, wind and fall of shot. With a three-man team the spotter cannot really do his job if two active shooters exist. How can one spotter spot fall of shot for two shooters at once – this is not going to work – how does the spotter respond when both shooter ask for windage adjustments at the same time? There is a very delicate vocal dance between spotter and shooter that allows for accurate and efficient engagement of targets that simply cannot work with another cog in the wheel. It just doesn’t smell right. If that is what the US Army are doing I think they are going down the wrong path.

Differently... Remember to think differently...lol

Steve said:- Then try another... Coinage and original prose should not be belittled - it is what keeps English, and any other language for that matter alive and vibrant. Umm... English grammar? It may be complex - but it certainly has rules - and the grey areas are covered by the likes of Fowler (Common English Usage).

Hue City 1968 Tet - A classic MOUT battle pitting two very different infantry philosophies against one another - perfect for the CMx2 engine and a really balance battle...

p.s. usually the spotter is responsible for security during exfil and recovery - usually armed with assault rifle in case of contact. But surely the more men you have, the greater chance of being spotted and compromised. With a 3-man team you've just increased the propbaility of something going tits-up by 50% no matter how good their fieldcraft and stalking because the team has to move into position at some point - and with three men you need to have a body moving for 50% longer...?

How does a third man laser range and spot windage for two men at once?

I thought snipers operated in pairs usually? spotter and shooter? do the US army use three men then? UK it is pairs - think USMC also pairs but could be wrong...

fytinghellfish - Although a little contrived I don't hate it. I think that English is a little richer for phrases such as this... but I take your point, that it is somewhat idiomatic, ambiguous, and pompous. Reminds me of myself...

fytinghellfish - cool - I guess they use the stryker as their armoury? That begs another question - if a wagon goes up in flames can a squad/team draw weapons from other vehicles in their platoon or company - or are they stuffed? Secondly could this mean the Syrians will want to try and get as many hard kills of strykers early doors from a tactical perspective to deny the US troops access to their gucci weapons and ammo resupply as the fight goes on? Will extra VP be available for early vehicle kills in an engagement - as obviously the earlier in the fight the vehicle brews-up, the greater the duration their dismounts are without their kit and are more vulnerable?

Will U.S. sniper teams get to use the M107 as standard or will a 7.62 weapon be the norm - and how detailed are buildings for ballistics modelling? i.e. will a round's penetration be calculated on varying materials used on load-bearing and interior walls? It is just the M107 has so much utility in a MOUT engagement I'd hate to see its performance an capability underplayed because of some abstraction in building modelling. Any info on building modelling would be greatly appreciated.

fytinghellfish - it is a reasonably common phrase used to indicate poor performance/results where ostensibly it/they should be better. Google the phrase and you'll see how often it is used by journalist reviewing food or sports teams that underwhelm for example...

aircraft do look like b-17s on bomb run obviously an afv (tank with explosion behind) looks like a sherman... text on map element tells us jack conclusion - definately ETO as MTO last major game CMAK) and i don't think too many lend-lease b-17 used on eastern front.

I'd love to see something like GDW/GRD's Europa series but with the sea/amphibious side of things it always lacked - the level of detail and OOBs were the thing that made them so special.

Just noticed SF set in 2007 - might actually be released then as well!

That's gonna require some big-ass piece of fish as bait!! Whale [sic] or shark?

Peter - I agree 12 to 16 years development from requirement through to operational deployment is normal. China seems to be doing this more quickly in recent projects by harnessing fully developed foreign sub-systems and proven concepts - thus negating some prolonged R&D and testing phases. Admittedly, the J-10 was not an overly complex aircraft, but 10 years is quick in any ones book. I'm sure the Chinese identified the requirement in the early 1990's and that sub-systems have been in development since then. For example, the Chinese publicly demonstrated their first iteration of a thrust-vector engine back in 1996. Now I'm not saying this was directly initiated for the J-XX (J-14) programme, but surely their desire for this technology and knowledge of a requirement for fifth generation air-superiority platforms goes back to at least the early to mid 1990's when the F-22, Eurofighter and Mig-35 programmes were well known. They may already have 8 - 9 years under their belt, and with faster development scales than in the west, I think their programme could be nearer 12 rather than 16 years. I'm just wondering how much they have already, and how much bolt-in technology the Russians are willing sell to get some much needed cash. Your observation about the similarities between the airframe concept of the Mig-35 and J-XX is one that underscores the very point about compressing development scales by incorporating proven foreign technologies...

LongLeftFlank - are you saying Mr. Coniglio's use of words such as surely invalidate the article? If that is the case then you are the harshest critic I've ever encountered. His statement "J-14 will surely be fitted with a fly-by-wire flight control system" would seem common sense. His statement "apparently designated J-14" is valid in that it is the most likely name, but still unconfirmed. His statement "clearly based on the J-12" also seems valid given the shape of the airframe. If you read the third to last paragraph he outlines exactly what assumptions have been made and why. My only agreement with you would be in the syntax of the first sentence of the second paragraph - but as you say he is both a non-native English speaker - and an engineer - not both known for their excellent English prose. Or highly emotive statements perhaps... Mr. Coniglio's audience in the defence and engineering sectors will surely not stretch to such grammatical pedantry, but be rather interested to see what the Chinese are developing. Peter - I suspect you well know the close ties between Russian, Israeli and French defence contractors in the development of various Chinese aircraft over the past decade or so. It seems that the Chinese will be basing much of their 5th generation programme on Russian and Israeli systems and sub-systems - most likely including airframe configuration. Well...set a reminder in outlook or some such thing, and if this forum is still going in 2010 we'll have a look-see and weigh up where the Chinese are. My suspicion is that they will be much further down the line than you give them credit for a present... but we shall have to wait and see.

Do you mean "Jane's". The images may be faked, but they may also be real. Regardless Jane's have reported the CAC and SAC prototypes have been selected by the PLAAF for testing and evaluation - an advanced stage of any aircraft development programme. Jane's are usually very reliable on their data so I have little reason to doubt them this time.