M107 Barrett .50 cal Rifle

[PSY]

Sniper Squad ... Additionally, the third member of the sniper team is equipped with an M203 rifle system to provide protection and security for the sniper and his spotter as well as a means to break contact if the team is compromised.

This sounds like the three man team consists of a sniper, a spotter, and a third team member armed with an M203, rather than two shooters and a spotter. At least that's my literal reading of the text.

[MikeyD]

The caption from the photo I posted above:

"Soldiers from the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team participate in Operation Lion Phase III along the Tigris River near Mosul, Iraq. This photo appeared on www.army.mil."

Here's a closeup of the weapons. Is the man on the right shouldering a silenced M16???!!! (note the old-style forward sight - white arrow) :eek:

[ August 11, 2006, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Battlefront.com]

PSY

This sounds like the three man team consists of a sniper, a spotter, and a third team member armed with an M203, rather than two shooters and a spotter.

Oh, there is no dobut about that in my mind that this is what it says. My question is if this is the way it works in practice now a days. So many things are now SOP in Iraq and Afghanistan that are either not in any FM or have been changed. Occasionally I stumble upon a TTY that more or less officially sanctions a change, but these are gems amidst the the rocks.

So at the moment we are a little unsure what to do. TO&E says the two Snipers act as a team of two with a single weapon, the third guy is there for Support. But when the Team is deployed on a rooftop for overwatch on an intersection only 300m away, do they maintain this structure or do they sport both sniper rifles at the same time?

MikeyD, that was my thought too. But if so, this would be the first instance I have ever heard of a silenced sniper M-16 being used. Seems silly when you look at what is next to him! If you've ever heard a Barrett go off in person you'd know what I mean. It's a tad bit louder than a .22

Steve

[MikeyD]

The alternative to it being a silenced M16 in the picture would be a tin can lying forward of the shooter coincidentally lined up with the gun barrel

I don't see these guys overlooking the intersection below them, more like they're concentrating on the riverbank in the middle distance some 1000+m away. From that distance they might be less worried than usual about someone trying to pop them with an AK.

[cassh]

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?

[Hortlund]

One of my favourite storys from Iraq re: using snipers.

Like the time when some ISF were driving and got blasted by an IED, causing numerous casualties and preventing them from recovering the vehicle. The terrorists came out and did their rifle-pumping-in-the-air thing, shooting AKs, dancing around like monkeys. Videos went ’round the world, making it appear the terrorists were running Mosul, which was pretty much what was being reported at the time.

But that wasn’t the whole story. In the Yarmuk neighborhood, only terrorists openly carry AK-47s. The lawyers call this Hostile Intent. The soldiers call this Dead Man Walking.

Deuce Four is an overwhelmingly aggressive and effective unit, and they believe the best defense is a dead enemy. They are constantly thinking up innovative, unique, and effective ways to kill or capture the enemy; proactive not reactive. They planned an operation with snipers, making it appear that an ISF vehicle had been attacked, complete with explosives and flash-bang grenades to simulate the IED. The simulated casualty evacuation of sand dummies completed the ruse.

The Deuce Four soldiers left quickly with the “casualties,” “abandoning” the burning truck in the traffic circle. The enemy took the bait. Terrorists came out and started with the AK-rifle-monkey-pump, shooting into the truck, their own video crews capturing the moment of glory. That’s when the American snipers opened fire and killed everybody with a weapon. Until now, only insiders knew about the AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down.

[Battlefront.com]

cassh,

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...

That's not correct. Two Snipers, one Security. The TO&E is very specific about this. One of the Snipers is a specialist on the M107, the other a specialist on the M24.

...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?

Whether the team has two guys locked and loaded or one I don't see any effective difference in their chances of being spotted. A trained sniper is going to be tough to spot, whether he has a rifle in his hands or a spotting scope. The chances of being spotted will go up with the volume of fire put out, so two weapons plinking targets will make the unit twice (roughly speaking) as likely to be spotted. No need to special code anything.

Steve

[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.

[Hortlund]

I dont really see what the big fuss is about. You have two snipers, one with a .50 cal and one with a 7,62. Depending on target range and various other factors, either the .50 cal guy is the shooter and the 7.62 guy is the spotter or vice versa. The third guy is just additional security. He is not a spotter, just a backup or whatever you want to call it. He is not spotting for two guys at the same time, and the two snipers are not shooting at the same time unless something has gone horribly wrong.

[akd]

Regarding the posted photo: the man on the right has an silenced and scoped M4/M16 (probably M4 considering the distance between the scope and front sight post. The man on the left has some sort of rifle with what looks like large flashhider and a substantial forestock, but no visible front sight, so probably an M24. The shadow cast by the weapon might provide a better idea with a bit of study (the image posted by MikeyD is not the whole frame).

No way to know whether they are "sky-lined" or not. We'd need a photo from the other direction.

[ August 12, 2006, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[Battlefront.com]

cassh,

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.

I don't In the sort of situation a Sniper Team will find itself in CM:SF, it is more about hitting targets than about stealth. And I should think that any Sniper worth a damned can plink targets within a few hundred meters without someone else. Regular riflemen are expected to do this, afterall, so a highly trained marksman should be able to do it easily. Hitting multiple targets at 500+ meters without compromising themselves... totally different situation.

A reminder I am not arguing for having the Sniper Teams being able to fire both sniper weapons at one time. I've merely guessed that they can, and do, work this way in certain given situations. And those situations are more likely than not to happen in a CM:SF scenario.

I wish someone who has some first hand info could pipe in on this or email me directly. That's really the only way we'll get an answer about this because the FM doesn't specify one way or the other.

Steve

[akd]

Here is the leftside team-member with shadow:

I can't really tell what the weapon is, but I don't think it is an M4/M16. And regarding the silenced M4, here is nice pic of one in the 172nd:

A US soldier secures the area where a suicide car bomb exploded near a police station in the northern city of Mosul in July 2006.

[c3k]

Gents,

Regarding the above photo, the one with three men on a crest, overlooking a road and some ruins in the far distance: examining it closely, it seems that they are at a firing range. Zoom in on the upper right portion, the area which is under the sights of the .50. It seems to me to be filled with man-sized targets. The vehicle could be across the road to simply keep others from wandering into a hot firing range. Not quite as SOP as a red flag, but I'd think it works. Now, I know that my explanation flies in the face of the stated caption, but I'm not one to trust captions blindly.

Please examine the original.

Thank you,

Ken

[akd]

Originally posted by c3k:

Gents,

Regarding the above photo, the one with three men on a crest, overlooking a road and some ruins in the far distance: examining it closely, it seems that they are at a firing range. Zoom in on the upper right portion, the area which is under the sights of the .50. It seems to me to be filled with man-sized targets. The vehicle could be across the road to simply keep others from wandering into a hot firing range. Not quite as SOP as a red flag, but I'd think it works. Now, I know that my explanation flies in the face of the stated caption, but I'm not one to trust captions blindly.

Please examine the original.

Thank you,

Ken

I have the full-res original and those do not appear to be targets. They lack backstops and would be large for "man-sized" targets. They appear to be some sort of structure that is part of the ongoing construction in the area. In addition to the two lines down range of the rifle, you can see a similar object in front of the pond/lake and a few more on the terraces above the road.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by akd:

Here is the leftside team-member with shadow:

I can't really tell what the weapon is, but I don't think it is an M4/M16. And regarding the silenced M4, here is nice pic of one in the 172nd:

It's 75% an M4, 20% an M16, 5% something else. Look at the shadow of the front sight post. Almost certainly an M4.

[akd]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by akd:

Here is the leftside team-member with shadow:

I can't really tell what the weapon is, but I don't think it is an M4/M16. And regarding the silenced M4, here is nice pic of one in the 172nd:

It's 75% an M4, 20% an M16, 5% something else. Look at the shadow of the front sight post. Almost certainly an M4. </font>

[cassh]

Steve said

In the sort of situation a Sniper Team will find itself in CM:SF, it is more about hitting targets than about stealth.

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 should think that any Sniper worth a damned can plink targets within a few hundred meters without someone else.

I thought the map sizes were going to be up to 2km square?

Hitting multiple targets at 500+ meters without compromising themselves... totally different situation.

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 am not arguing for having the Sniper Teams being able to fire both sniper weapons at one time. I've merely guessed that they can, and do, work this way in certain given situations.

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 ]

[Battlefront.com]

cassh,

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.

CM:SF is not a sniper simulator, it is a combat simulator. Infiltration is, therefore, something that can only possibly play a miniscule part in the overall sim. We aren't going to cater our time to "outlier" features. If we blurred that line then we would have to include a plethora of surveillance and counter surveillance units, for example. However, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. There are Snipers in CM:SF, they are designed to hit targets very accurately with minimal chance of being spotted.

I thought the map sizes were going to be up to 2km square?

I wasn't talking about the game. You seem to think that a three man Sniper Team can't function with both of its sniper weapons at one time because each sniper must have a spotter. I showed you why that isn't the case. Plus, at 500m+ ranges the Team would likely only use the M107 anyway since that's getting to be at the edge of the M24's capabilities.

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 repeat... this is not a sniper simulator. No special coding will be done to micromanage Sniper Teams. If we go down the road of specialized micromanagement commands, there are probably 100 things of more relevance to give players ungodly amounts of control over.

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?

I don't know how it is going to work in the game, I'm simply challenging your preconceptions of how it should work. If you recall, you started out this discussion doubting that the Sniper Team is 3 guys because you had a preconceived idea of how they should work. You tried to argue that Snipers don't pull "marksman" duty, when in fact that is exactly what they are doing in Iraq. Then you've tried to argue that they couldn't employ both sniper weapons effectively, which I think I've also shown to be false logic. At least in theory, though I am not 100% sure in reality.

My point here is that you have a very, very specific concept of what a Sniper Team is and is supposed to be. However, it does not appear to be compatible with how it really is used, or at least used in the kind of conflict represented in a CM:SF scenario. Cases in point...

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.

It probably took hours to get those teams in place, so this is a bad example. A CM:SF scenario could start out with the Sniper Teams already in place and the rest would work just dandy.

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.

This isn't a likely scenario in CM:SF. The player will likely have plenty of assets at his disposal to get rid of the problem. The player will not want to hold all those forces at bay for 30 minutes or so as the Sniper Team slowly moves around looking for the single reason for the hold up. And even if he did, I don't see any incompatibility with what I've said.

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.

Again, they would have to be propositioned at the start of the scenario.

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.

Yet again, an unlikely scenario of interest for CM players. And even so, you have still failed to illustrate why a three man Sniper Team would suddenly become ineffective because it is carrying both sniping weapons. Not that it is relevant, since the situation you outlined isn't

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.

Within the context of what CM:SF is simulating, sure thing. And they are. So I don't see what the possible problem is.

Steve

[ August 13, 2006, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

AKD, do you have a link to the high res shot of the Stryker Designated Marksman in front of the bombed out police station? I've been looking for a nice full detail shot of the customized M4A1. Thanks!

steve

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

AKD, do you have a link to the high res shot of the Stryker Designated Marksman in front of the bombed out police station? I've been looking for a nice full detail shot of the customized M4A1. Thanks!

steve

Steve, I believe it was a photo off the wire, but I'll keep my eyes out for a higher res version (or something else that would suit your purposes).

[Homo ferricus]

From what i can tell, a 3-man team seems perfect. I would imagine that it would only be one team member firing at any given sniper engagment, with the other "sniper" (in most cases the one manning the M24 since it seems like the Barrett is more useful in vitually any situation) spotting for the shooter, and the 3rd grenadier providing security and giving suppressing fire if needed. And i guess it is handy to have a third man to carry the extra sniper rifle. And since CMSF isn't, after all, a sniper simulation, like Steve said, worrying about concealmont and evasion isn't really neccesary, since the game probably won't be centered around a sniper team that needs to take out a specific target, and will be acting in support of infantry advances and counter-sniping, like everyones been saying.

but in defence of caash, US Army operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty much nothing but security and counter-insurgency ops, and its been stated that CMSF won't be simulating an insurgency or anything of the sort, so i don't see the relevance of bringing up sniper ops in Iraq or afghanistan.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Again, they would have to be propositioned at the start of the scenario.

And I hear those Damascus prostitutes can be very aggressive.

(Sorry, Steve, but that was just too juicy to pass up.) We now return you to your regular programming.

Michael

[cassh]

Steve Said

CM:SF is not a sniper simulator, it is a combat simulator. Infiltration is, therefore, something that can only possibly play a miniscule part in the overall sim.

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...

You seem to think that a three man Sniper Team can't function with both of its sniper weapons at one time because each sniper must have a spotter.

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.

Plus, at 500m+ ranges the Team would likely only use the M107 anyway since that's getting to be at the edge of the M24's capabilities.

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.

I'm simply challenging your preconceptions of how it should work. If you recall, you started out this discussion doubting that the Sniper Team is 3 guys because you had a preconceived idea of how they should work.

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.

You tried to argue that Snipers don't pull "marksman" duty, when in fact that is exactly what they are doing in Iraq.

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.

Then you've tried to argue that they couldn't employ both sniper weapons effectively, which I think I've also shown to be false logic. At least in theory, though I am not 100% sure in reality.

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.

My point here is that you have a very, very specific concept of what a Sniper Team is and is supposed to be. However, it does not appear to be compatible with how it really is used, or at least used in the kind of conflict represented in a CM:SF scenario.

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.

It probably took hours to get those teams in place, so this is a bad example. A CM:SF scenario could start out with the Sniper Teams already in place and the rest would work just dandy.

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.

This isn't a likely scenario in CM:SF. The player will likely have plenty of assets at his disposal to get rid of the problem.

How do you dispose of something you haven't located?

You going to carpet bomb the area?

Yet again, an unlikely scenario of interest for CM players. And even so, you have still failed to illustrate why a three man Sniper Team would suddenly become ineffective because it is carrying both sniping weapons. Not that it is relevant, since the situation you outlined isn't

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.

Within the context of what CM:SF is simulating, sure thing. And they are. So I don't see what the possible problem is.

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.

[Battlefront.com]

cassh,

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.

<sigh>... look, they are called Sniper Teams. They have three guys, not two. They operate, by and large, as highly trained sharp shooters in the kind of situations CM:SF simulates. That is what we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, so you can complain all you want but I don't see that as being productive. The kind of thing you are Hell bent on simulating is NOT what CM:SF is set up for. Neither was CMx1.

The bottom line is that you are making a big deal out of nothing. The relevant role of Snipers in a CM:SF situation can be simulated realistically. If you don't believe that, fine, but I don't care to argue about it any more. It's not worth my time or even yours to do so.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

One other thing cassh...

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.

You've got it all wrong. Some of the things you mentioned do not fit into a CM:SF type engagement, not that it doesn't fit into the hypothetical theater of operations. That is a huge difference, which I have already explained.

As for talking with the guys that are on the ground doing the job, that is EXACTLY what I want to do. So far, nobody has come forward. I've already said I am unsure whether or not, and under what circumstances, both Snipers would use their weapons at the same time. I've made a guess based on AARs and photos, but it is just that... a guess. But note that you haven't produced information to the contrary. In fact, you had to be corrected about the TO&E of a US Stryker Sniper Team, which to me shows that you are not judging what is going on NOW in the propper context. In short, despite your experience I don't see your information as being completely up-to-date.

Also, really go back and reread what I've written. Some of your comments in your last post about what you think game will and will not do are in direct conflict with things that I've actually said. I think you are letting your personal interest in the subject color your arguments.

A lot of what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan right now can't be found in any Field Manual. Militaries that adapt and adopt thrive, those that feel bound by tradition will be defeated if the enemy does not feel obliged to conform to the role of a traditional enemy.

Steve