M107 Barrett .50 cal Rifle

[Battlefront.com]

Found this while cruising the Net:

My name is SGT John xxxxxx currently deployed to Mosul Iraq with the First Stryker Brigade as a company level Sniper. I have a three-man team. For some reason the Stryker brigade figured a three man team would be better than the traditional two-man team. It has been working well for us. We are able to maintain a better degree of security as well as sustain ourselves on longer missions. To tell you a little about myself i have been in the army for approximately 4 and 1/2 years. I have completed army sniper school and graduated honor grad. I have attended the Marine sniper school at Camp Pendleton and have done sniper training with the Seattle SWAT team. I am always trying to improve my knowledge as a sniper to improve my lethality and survivability. I have been here in Iraq for 6 months now. When I return to the states I have a SOTIC date slotted so I will attend that as well when I return. I have been in the Sniper community for about three years. I have found that there is no better job in the military. When I get out, I am planning to continue my work as a sniper hopefully in a SWAT team or as a private security.

Like I said, I’ve been in country for about 6 months and we have faced allot of problems over here with employment that the schools do not teach so it’s made my job pretty difficult. We have been able to adapt and overcome our challenges but unfortunately, it has been at our own cost because the unit does not see the reason we need different gear than the line platoons. We have had to purchase rappelling harnesses, rope, carabineers, and flack vest's that allow us to seat the rifles in our shoulders better, along with other comfort items. On April 9th all hell broke loose here in Mosul and we were up on an OP. My shooter spotted approximately 150 personnel with RPG's and AK's inter mixed with civilian personnel. He was able to fire three shots before the crowd dispersed. He killed two and wounded one at a 430 meters while under indirect fire. Now the shot does not seem that difficult but if you add the fact that he was firing from the 5th story out of a 12 degree loophole and the persons were running. I am proud of my shooter for making those shots. We were in heavy fire for about 5 hours that day and in all my company killed about 30 NCF and sustained no friendly injuries. I just thought I would tell you a little bit about us.

Nothing really relevant here, except for the first quick comment about the three man team working well. Take it for what it's worth... here's the link:

http://americansnipers.org/sniperletters.html

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Another interesting Styker related Sniper article:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/armysnipers.htm[//url]Note mention of 300 rounds fired. Note the effect the fire had after 15 minutes. That's the sort of thing that is going on in Iraq, that is the sort of thing that is relevant to CM:SF.

Steve

[cassh]

but I don't care to argue about it any more. It's not worth my time or even yours to do so.

That’s a lot of extra post for someone who doesn’t want to discuss/argue a point anymore!

You've got it all wrong. Some of the things you mentioned do not fit into a CM:SF type engagement

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?

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

You said this in one post as if it were gospel then in the next post you say this:-

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.

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?

But note that you haven't produced information to the contrary.

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:-

Once the shot has been fired they need nerves of steel to stay concealed while Taliban rebels wielding rocket-propelled grenades and machine-guns desperately try to hunt them down.

That would suggest my model is at least valid in a current operational theatre. I would seem crass to dismiss it outright.

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.

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:-

The snipers’ skills go beyond that of skilled marksmen. Many people, even some of the current students, think that the sniper’s only addition to a unit is that of a sharpshooter.

“I thought we’d just come out here and shoot, but I learned a lot more than I thought I was going to,” said SGT Justin Mongold, one of the class graduates and a member of Company A, 1st Bn., 23rd Inf.

Reconnaissance, target acquisition and damage assessment are also skills snipers bring to the table.

“We give a unit a different edge. You don’t always need a door kicker or a squad just to bust into a room. You might need to take out — or ‘get eyes on,’ just one person,” Mongold said.

It isn’t enough to have trained snipers in the unit. You have to have leaders who know how to take advantage of the snipers’ skills. During the team’s stop at Fort Lewis, about 50 leaders from the 3rd Bde. and 2nd Cav. Regt. attended a sniper-employment class. Classes like the Sniper-Employment Officers’ Course help develop unit SOPs for the use of snipers.

“It used to be part of the Infantry Officers Basic Course, but now we teach the latter as a separate class for staff sergeants and above,” said Smith.

“Commanders are slowly becoming educated about using snipers to their best advantage,” said Souerwine. The snipers themselves hope that this trend continues.

“I think there needs to be more concentration on sustainment training, and snipers need to be allowed to operate to their fullest potential,” Brown said. “We know that this is a risky job, but everybody’s here despite that.”

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.

[Homo ferricus]

STEVE, PLEASE QUIT ARGUING WITH THIS FELLA AND FINISH THE GAME.

PLEASE!!!

[cassh]

STEVE, PLEASE QUIT ARGUING WITH THIS FELLA AND FINISH THE GAME.

PLEASE!!!

Hmmm, now that does make more sense!

[John Kettler]

Steve,

The Army link was most interesting, but the real surprise was the link at the bottom to a three part article on Air Force snipers. Had no idea there were any!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

cassh,

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?

In some ways yes, just like the old armor doctrine was pretty much rewritten in the last 2 years, so too has small unit operations in MOUT environments. Not that the original doctrine was totally wrong, it just was simply found wanting for updating.

CMx2, as with CMx1, is designed to simulate quick, sharp, medium scale conventional (for the most part) engagements. Snipers definitely have a role within this tactical environment. Absolutely nothing I have said contradicts that point. Most of what you are asking for is quite possible and correct in that context. You won't find anything that I've said that contradicts that. In fact, I have said the opposite. Snipers are critically important to modern day MOUT warfare. In fact, the urban warfare conference I attended a while back, the recently returned frontline commanders there were saying how they wanted MORE snipers. The US Army now even has an advanced course for leaders in how to employ snipers more effectively. Unfortunately, you don't see it this way because you have a very specific, narrow concept of how snipers should be organized and deployed. You are not seeing the forest through the trees. As evidence of that, you said this...

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.

When previously I said this:

There are Snipers in CM:SF, they are designed to hit targets very accurately with minimal chance of being spotted.

Since I have already said this several times now, I'm at a total loss as to what your point of argument is, other than you have a beef with how the US is actually using its Sniper Teams. You are, I guess, some sort of Sniper Snob. If they aren't out there as a pair, stalking and killing, then they are being misused and/or aren't Snipers. The fact that they are called Snipers, went through weeks of sniper schools, and are being touted as one of the MOST important tools in the commander's toolbox in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to make no impression on you.

Perhaps I can make this more clear to you...

Will snipers be able to move stealthfully within a CM:SF battles? Yes. Will they be able to shoot and fell targets with a greatly reduced chance of being spotted? Yes. Will the effect of a Sniper be greater than the sum of its expended ammo? Yes. What it does not do is cater a scenario to a lone wolf, 3 hour long stalk and kill situation. That would be a sniper simulator, not a combat simultaor.

BTW, this is something else that you'll probably find repulsive; automatic fire Sniping:

The role of snipers is changing. There are still, "one shot, one kill and get out" situations. But often the sniper is concealed in friendly territory and facing multiple targets that all need prompt attention. This has made semiautomatic sniper rifles like the SR25, and refurbished (and upgraded for better accuracy) M-14s popular with many combat snipers. Sniping ranges are often quite short, making a slightly less accurate (than a bolt action sniper rifle) SR25 popular. For this kind of shooting, every round does not have to hit within a inch of the cross hairs. Two or three inches will do if you are aiming for the trunk, and not the head, and at 200-300 meters, a trained sniper can do this with a high quality semi-automatic like the SR25, and do it quickly enough to make a difference.

http://www.strategypage.com/iraqlessonslearned/iraqwarlessonslearned.asp

Warfare is about doing what works, not what is traditional. Traditions are being broken in Iraq and Afghanistan quite regularly. It's bee one of the toughest things to deal with as we make CM:SF. Even Field Manual tactics written in 2002 or 2003 can not be trusted as accurate any longer. And as much as people want to think that Iraq and Afghanistan are not reflective of future conflicts (i.e. that these are Stability Ops, not Combat Ops), think again. The US military has been aware of this change in warfare for quite some time, though apparently none of its higher level leaders (civilian and Military) apparently understood this fact. Here is a quote from the 1996 OPFOR Field Manual 100-63:

When opposed by an adversary of similar capabilities, an infantry-based OPFOR can conduct conventional, force-oriented combat. However, when faced with a large, technologically advanced army, it is likely to attempt to redefine the terms of conflict and pursue its aims through terrorism, insurgency, or partisan warfare. In the case of intervention by an external power or coalition, this strategy aims to undermine the enemy’s will to continue the conflict without the necessity of defeating his main forces on the battlefield."

"They do not try to meet such an enemy head-on in conventional combat. They prefer hit-and-run raids, ambushes, ruses, sabotage, and assassinations. They try to be unpredictable and invisible to view, employing methods not anticipated by their enemies. They do not fight by the rules of conventional warfare.

It is not hard to see why traditional military doctrine has been undergoing an overhaul over the last 4 years. Prior to then it certainly wasn't set up for this sort of battle, even though it is likely the only one it will face for the foreseeable future.

Steve

[cassh]

In some ways yes, just like the old armor doctrine was pretty much rewritten in the last 2 years, so too has small unit operations in MOUT environments. Not that the original doctrine was totally wrong, it just was simply found wanting for updating.

I thought they’d actually rediscovered a lot of the stuff they’d lost somewhere in the wash over the years – i.e. importance of direct fire HE weapons, various forms of special purpose explosives and charges, using vertical battlespace fully, cohesion and coordination on entry and movement, multiple supporting fire and overwatch etc etc. Nothing really that new – just re-learning all the old tricks again.

The US Army now even has an advanced course for leaders in how to employ snipers more effectively.

the very point I was highlighting from your article citation above if you read the quote I selected. That was the very point I made in previous post once or twice as well. Most company commanders and battalion commanders understand OPs and overwatch, precision rifle fires and suppression of point defences/enemy strong points, interdiction of enemy communications and avenues of advance/movement.

Where they usually fail is in the reconnaissance, intelligence and patrolling battle to control and dominate the battlespace and retain the initiative. The role to be played in a MOUT battle by recce and sniper assets is not simply pinging bad guys who come to take a crack at you. It is to get in his face and make him scared the whole time, undermine his ability to operate any recce or intelligence, and ensure your command cycle retains the initiative so your friendly forces are operating at a faster command tempo than the enemy.

Unfortunately, you don't see it this way because you have a very specific, narrow concept of how snipers should be organized and deployed.

No, not at all. I’ve spent too many nights in a sanger overlooking some godforsaken ****hole to know that sharp shooting is a key posture one takes to control ground and restrict enemy activity. It’s just is not the whole story.

There are Snipers in CM:SF, they are designed to hit targets very accurately with minimal chance of being spotted.

Yes, but as I keep reiterating a two shooter team is by its nature less stealthy – therefore less realistic when the stealthy option is what the operators would choose in certain circumstances.

Since I have already said this several times now, I'm at a total loss as to what your point of argument is, other than you have a beef with how the US is actually using its Sniper Teams.

Because you still don’t get how sniping works. It’s not an anti US Army sniper thing – as it is clear that they still operate a shooter and spotter in sniping and possibly two shooters in a sharp shooting capacity and the third guy is security – which in a MOUT environment makes sense if you need to cover the back door. However, even in the sharp shooting scenario you linked to above the spotter is describing how his shooter (singular) picked out 3 insurgents from a mob.

You are, I guess, some sort of Sniper Snob. If they aren't out there as a pair, stalking and killing, then they are being misused and/or aren't Snipers.

Well it does seem to be a waste of their skills to be frank – and you underscore the very prejudice mentioned above that many officers still have regarding sniping – that somehow snipers think themselves above the line riflemen or some such bollocks. But from the the very article you cited we have this again:-

Commanders are slowly becoming educated about using snipers to their best advantage,” said Souerwine. The snipers themselves hope that this trend continues.

“I think there needs to be more concentration on sustainment training, and snipers need to be allowed to operate to their fullest potential,”

Somehow this view I was in agreement with has been bastardised into something quite different your view from what I’m thinking. How is heavens name did you arrive at this conclusion:-

The fact that they are called Snipers, went through weeks of sniper schools, and are being touted as one of the MOST important tools in the commander's toolbox in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to make no impression on you.

That’s been my very point from the beginning of this mess.

Will snipers be able to move stealthfully within a CM:SF battles? Yes.

NO – not with two shooters - Jesus it’s a simple enough point you don’t seem to be getting.

What it does not do is cater a scenario to a lone wolf, 3 hour long stalk and kill situation. That would be a sniper simulator, not a combat simultaor.

Nor does any sniper cadre or infantry training establishment.

BTW, this is something else that you'll probably find repulsive; automatic fire Sniping:

Semi-automatic fire actually - that is one of the key strengths of the M82A1, especially when suppressing heavy weapon positions at extreme range – rounds are landing as the last one is fired.

Warfare is about doing what works, not what is traditional

That’s why no one in the British army ever reads the manuals – you listen to the guys who have just completed operational tours – and that’s been the way every year since 1945 save one.

When opposed by an adversary of similar capabilities, an infantry-based OPFOR can conduct conventional, force-oriented combat. However, when faced with a large, technologically advanced army, it is likely to attempt to redefine the terms of conflict and pursue its aims through terrorism, insurgency, or partisan warfare. In the case of intervention by an external power or coalition, this strategy aims to undermine the enemy’s will to continue the conflict without the necessity of defeating his main forces on the battlefield."

"They do not try to meet such an enemy head-on in conventional combat. They prefer hit-and-run raids, ambushes, ruses, sabotage, and assassinations. They try to be unpredictable and invisible to view, employing methods not anticipated by their enemies. They do not fight by the rules of conventional warfare.

Well yes because we have absolutely no idea about asymmetric warfare and COIN operations in the British army – this whole insurgency thing is a complete mystery to us. Malaya, Borneo, Yemen, Aden, Oman, Kenya, Northern Ireland taught us nothing at all. IEDs, car-bombs, gunmen hiding in mobs – we’ve been dealing with that for fifty years. This is “old skool” not something new at all.

I don’t know how much the US Army had to adjust from NATO-WARPACT philosophy to COIN, policing actions and supporting civilian authorities maintain the rule of law – but that was the British Army’s default setting for the past fifty years and the whole cold war thing was a weekend job. So please don’t be patronising in the finer points of asymetric warfare and counter-insurgency - it is very well understood.

[Battlefront.com]

cassh

Yes, but as I keep reiterating a two shooter team is by its nature less stealthy – therefore less realistic when the stealthy option is what the operators would choose in certain circumstances.

It is only "less realistic" if it is not being done. If it is being done, then it is "more realistic". You can argue all you want about it being good or bad, but you'd be wrong to call it "less realistic".

The role to be played in a MOUT battle by recce and sniper assets is not simply pinging bad guys who come to take a crack at you. It is to get in his face and make him scared the whole time, undermine his ability to operate any recce or intelligence, and ensure your command cycle retains the initiative so your friendly forces are operating at a faster command tempo than the enemy.

That is my understanding of what a Sniper does, so you're wrong to say I don't understand. What you don't understand is that CM:SF's environment doesn't lend itself well to much of what you've been talking about. You also don't seem to understand that I'm asking questions instead of making assumptions about how US Styrker Snipers are operating in Iraq right now. You are mistaking questions for ignorance. Not a good thing to do.

That’s been my very point from the beginning of this mess.

But you are insisting you know how they are used and not used, when in fact you do not. You didn't even know they operated in three man teams, which you said was "the wrong direction" once it was pointed out to you. So we are not disagreeing on if Snipers are important or not, it is on how they are actually being used by US forces in Iraq today. You don't have any information to offer on this, yet you have extremely strong and prejudiced opinions that you are trying to pass off as fact. That's where we are running into problems.

NO – not with two shooters - Jesus it’s a simple enough point you don’t seem to be getting.

And you seem totally incapable of reading where I said I am looking for evidence, one way or another, about if two shooters are used and if so under what conditions. I've never said you are wrong, I've just said that you are wrong to presume you are right. You have offered nothing helpful here, only arguing with me based on your British Army experience outside of today's Iraq.

That’s why no one in the British army ever reads the manuals – you listen to the guys who have just completed operational tours – and that’s been the way every year since 1945 save one.

Which is why I want to hear from US soldiers that have done operational tours in Iraq. Eventually the information will filter down to me, but until then I am keeping an open mind. You're convinced I'm wrong, you're convinced that US doctrine and TO&E is "going in the wrong direction". Based on what? Unless it is first hand experience in a US military formation in Iraq, I don't find your experience particularly relevant to answering the specific questions I have posed. There are a hundred other questions I could ask you that I'm sure your answers would be very useful for, but that's the stuff I already have answers for.

This is “old skool” not something new at all.

Not new to the US forces either, since it's had experience in Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, and a few other places. But apparently these lessons have been forgotten over the years, at least in US doctrine and training. And since we're talking about US forces, not British, that is the only thing that counts.

So please don’t be patronising in the finer points of asymetric warfare and counter-insurgency - it is very well understood.

I'm not being patronizing, just simply stating the facts in context. So get your Royal Feathers unruffled and understand that you're out of context. It doesn't mean you are incorrect about anything you have said, just not relevant by default. No insult intended, since I respect your opinions... I just can't use them to answer the questions I have posed. When we go about putting Brits into CM:SF then you're opinions will matter more because they will be in context.

Steve

[hellfish]

So can we fit Bren tripods to our M107s?

[Battlefront.com]

This discussion is actually more akin to the infamous MG42 tripod discussion. The thing that is differnet here is that cassh isn't a 300 pound American pretending to be a German soldier from WWII a few weekends a year Cassh at least knows what he is talking about within the context he is putting his comments in. The problem is I am asking questions that are in a different context and therefore may yield different answers. Now that I fully understand that is where we differe perhaps we can put this to bed until we get some better info.

Steve

[hellfish]

Actually, on a semi serious note..

Dan posted a render of an M240B on a tripod. Will we have the option to place them on a tripod or to use the bipod?

[akd]

I posted this excerpt from Small Arms Review back in January, but I suppose it is worth resurrecting:

Stryker Brigade Snipers in Iraq

Troubled by the lack of recognition in news releases and other elements...SAR sent a request through Pentagon channels to the 25th Infantry Division, [then] deployed in Northern Iraq. The response was immediate and enthusiastic. Some excerpts:

-Major Mark Bieger [was] the Battalion Operations Officer for 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment in the 1st Brigade (Stryker Brigade Combat Team), 25th Infantry Division in Northern Iraq.

"Snipers have been critical to successful operations in fighting the insurgency in Mosul, Iraq. The sniper provides twho critical advantages: precision, long-range direct fires and covert surveillance. In an urban environment, the sniper's unique capabilities cannot be matched with other, lesser-trained soldiers, technology or alternate tactic, technique or procedure. The snipers of this battalion are absolutely necessary and an invaluable piece of the organization."

-Captain Chris Bachl [was] a Stryker Infantry Company Commander of A Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment deployed in Northern Iraq.

On sniper effectiveness in Iraq: "The seven man sniper squad (2 x 3-man sniper teams plus 1 Squad Leader) are used in a full array of operations in support of company and battalion targeting operations. Common operational uses include covert stay behind ambushes, cache/terrain of interest observation, counter-IED, Iraqi Army patrol overwatch, and counter-mortar/counter-rocket and COP/Hard site security. They truly operate over a full spectrum of operations to include both lethal and non-lethal roles. One critical role they play involves the gathering of information and intel as they conduct observation and surveillance. My company snipers were very adept at pinpointing enemy actions at a distance using their advanced optics. Their spot reports translated into critical real-time information (sensor to shooter link) that platoon's were able to act on instantly using their digital capabilities."

One example: "While providing observation and coutenr-reconaissance in support of a platoon maneuvering forward from a COP, the sniper team spotted 'suspicious activity.' After developing the situation and further observation, they observed military-aged males gathering at a house at a distance of 600 meters from the combat outpost. The sniper team was able to then vector the maneuver platoon to the house while the spotter and sniper continued to maintain eyes on the situation. Once the platoon was in sight, they gathering began to disperse, some picked up RPGs and AK-47s and started firing at the approaching platoon. The sniper team was able to islolate them with precision fires allowing the platoon to maneuver closer to the building."

-Captain Kevin Saatkamp [was] an Infantry Stryker company commander in the 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment deployed to Northern Iraq.

"Snipers fulfill a critical role in the the urban insurgency. The benefits of the organic company sniper, unique to the Stryker Brigade, ad a tremendous precision fire asset to those who need it most: the infantryman on the ground. Consisting of a 3-man element, the sniper team provides not only the ability to 'reach out and touch someone,' but also the ability to observe targets covertly without a large signature. The largest challenge to the sniper in Mosul is the difficult and varied terrain. One mission the team may be placed in a 3-story building, the next in an open field. Leaving behind a sniper team in an area that just received contact has proved especially effective to US forces. Although not always employed, the sniper can provide an insight into the neighborhood that a normal dismounted patrol can't. In short, the company sniper team is a tremendous combat multiplier to the Stryker company and battalions."

Here is the original thread and complete post:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000682#000000

[ August 15, 2006, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: akd ]

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks AKD! Good stuff.

Steve

[hellfish]

What about my tripod question?

[Battlefront.com]

Ah... forgot you had a SERIOUS tripod question Yes, the M240B and PK/PKM are by default fired from the tripod. However, if the team doesn't have enough time to set it up they can fire from the bipod. At least that's on the ToDo list! Right now they happily fire from tripods only.

Steve

[akd]

Here's another tidbit on future Army sniping:

Soldier Armed

XM110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System

By Scott R. Gourley

Representatives for Army Test and Evaluation Command are conducting operational testing on the newest addition to the U.S. Army arsenal: the XM110 7.62 mm semi-automatic sniper system (SASS). As that testing is under way, there is a high likelihood that small numbers of the new system will begin entering the field in response to urgent need requirements.

According to Lt. Col. Kevin P. Stoddard, U.S. Army product manager (PM) for Crew-Served Weapons, the XM110 program evolved in response to a field requirement from some U.S. Army sniper teams. Those teams are currently equipped with the M24 7.62 mm sniper weapon system and the M107 .50-caliber semi-automatic long-range sniper rifle. Because snipers operate in teams, their equipment requirements fall under the PM for crew-served weapons.

“Right now the Army has an M24, which is bolt action,” Stoddard explained. “Then we came along with the .50-caliber, the M107, which is a .50-caliber semi-automatic. It’s designed to reach out beyond 1,000 meters [to engage] anti-materiel targets. Then units came along with a new requirement. They were looking for [the ability to engage] light-skinned materiel as well as personnel with 7.62 mm. They were also looking for a weapon that would be good in a close urban fight as well.”

The requirement for a new semi-automatic sniper system was released at the end of 2004. The Army called for “a 7.62 mm semi-automatic sniper system capable of delivering precision fire primarily on anti-personnel targets out to a range of 1,000 meters. This system must be a man portable, shoulder-fired system using military standard 7.62 x 51 mm caliber ammunition but optimized for the open-tip M118LR long-range ammunition. In addition, M993 armor piercing (AP) ammunition will be fired based on specific mission requirements. Compatibility with the existing family of military 7.62 x 51 mm caliber ammunition is also required. The primary components of the system include a rifle, detachable bipod, hard transport/storage case(s), soft carrying case(s), cleaning/maintenance equipment and manuals. The weapon will have a flash/sound suppressor, high capacity (up to 20-round) detachable box magazines; rails/mounting surfaces for mounting fire control (optics, backup iron sights and aim-light) systems; variable power optics/electro-optics (in order to engage targets between 50 and 1,000 meters); and an accompanying spotting scope with range estimation reticle(s) and a night vision interface.”

The solicitation drew formal responses from five candidate systems. Following government down-selection processes, the SASS contract was awarded in late September 2005 to Knight’s Armament Company of Titusville, Florida.

According to Stoddard, Knight’s Armament based their SASS entry on a modification of their 7.62 mm MK11 MOD 0 weapon currently used by U.S. Naval Special Warfare Sea/Air/Land (SEAL) team elements. Lineage of the MK11 design can be further traced back to the 7.62 mm SR-25 (Stoner rifle) fielded to sniper elements within the U.S. Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment. “The basic gun is the Mk 11 design, but there are certainly some additions to that for the SASS,” he said. “The SASS is designed as a system. What that means, as an example, is that we had to develop a suppressor that changed the dynamics but did not change point of aim/point of impact. It was optimized for that gun.”

Other changes to the SASS design include different mounting rails, different trigger components, an ambidextrous safety selector, different weapon color, two different magazines—10 round and 15 round, “drag bags,” carrying cases and shipping containers.

Emphasizing the systems aspect of the XM110, Stoddard explained that his office is also using SASS with a new sniper-spotting scope. “We’re also qualifying the XM151 spotting scope that has the same reticle in it that the sniper sees in the Mark 4 scope on the XM110,” he said. Both scopes are manufactured by Leupold. Once qualified under SASS, the new spotting scope will also facilitate the spotter mission when the team is operating with other sniper weapons.

Operational testing is currently being conducted on 15 XM110 SASS systems at Fort Drum, N.Y. That testing will support a low-rate initial production decision, which is currently projected for the end of June. Longer range plans call for the gun to be classified as standard—redesignated as M110—around December with a current projected total buy of 4,492 systems.

In addition to this traditional testing and fielding process, Stoddard also noted the possibility of an urgent fielding of a small number of systems to elements of the 10th Mountain Division in the immediate future. Regardless of the nuances of the fielding approach taken by the Army, Stoddard highlighted the tactical benefits that the XM110 SASS will provide to warfighters. “Over time, the battlefield changes,” he observed. “The enemy gets smarter. Targets don’t stand up and stay there. They get behind things. They learn to expose themselves for a few seconds and then they drop down and move again. And when the insurgents come—it may be one, two, three or four guys—they come as multiple targets. As for the warfighter, he may have to shoot through glass, or he may have to stop a vehicle by putting rounds into its engine block. He may have to do it because he’s closing off an area or he’s at an advantage point or something of that nature. It may be that he needs to take a first and second shot before the target can react. With the XM110 he gets a very accurate weapon that gives him that capability.”

[Battlefront.com]

The M110 SASS is going to be seen quite frequently in CM:SF

Steve

[DASman]

I just read that artical myself, and thought of this thread.

E

[Bigduke6]

[Mr. Picky]

What language is Colonel Stoddard speaking?

What is an:

"Anti-material target"

"Advantage point"

:confused:

This bit is rather murky as well:

“We’re also qualifying the XM151 spotting scope...

Last I heard, in modern English, you can qualify for instance an arguement or a statement, but not a material object, like for instance a sniper scope.

Maybe it's a secret Pentagon project, or the Patriot Act exempts lieutenant colonels and higher from the obligation to use grammar, or

maybe terrorists say "modify", "change", and "adapt" frequently, and Stoddard doesn't want any one confusing him with a terrorist.

I dunno. The guy's a field grade, and that's a lot of bad English to pack into three little quotes.

Also, what's the deal with "warfighter" this and "warfighter" that? Dd I miss something, is "soldier" no longer an appropriate term?

:confused:

[/Mr. Picky]

[Battlefront.com]

Language and terminology are not necessarily the same thing. One can define a term any way one wants to. The acceptance of that term is up to the reader, but it is rather pointless when it is an official term of a government, industry, or other group generally tasked with defining such things. You know, like us creating and defining "WeGo" or "CoPlay"

Anti-Material Target = a mission to defeat non-Human based targets, such as a car.

Advantage Point = no clue I think this one is just bad English (note that the author seems to be a civilian).

Qualify = a formal stage in the acceptance process for a new [fill in blank] when something is tested for service. In the context of this article, it means the XM110 has made it through a specific stage of the procurement process and is therefore now approved as having met specific qualifications. Therefore, it is qualified.

Warfighter = latest and greatest term for someone who is in combat. And yes, it is better than "solider" since that term is specifically a member of the Army. Warfighter includes Army, Marine, Naval, and Airforce personnel. One term, all covered.

Steve

[cassh]

Warfighter stems from the rekindling of the "warrior" that began in US military literature and doctrine about 10 years ago (USMC began the whole thing IIRC) - it is designed to reinforce the idea that members of the armed force "fight" not push buttons or click mice. As steve said it a nice catch-all phrase for people in combat and fits in with the growing emphasis of joint services planning and operations - must say the DOD a fair bit of paperwork as well...

Think the author may have meant "vantage point" and added an "a" ffrom ssomewhere?

[cassh]

The M110 is going to be more accurate than the M24 - which goes to show BA rifles have no discernable advantage in accuracy terms which has always been their justification.

In operation it means the weapon will be less likely to be disturbed from it naturally pointing at the target as can occur when trying to reload too quickly or without due consideration with a BA rifle - meaning it will remain more accurate for less experienced personnel.

As it seems to be very similar to the AR-15 which was a favourite of PIRA gunmen and US SF - so it already has a good pedigree. I know how popular the HK MSG90 and PSG-1 have proven with some sniper teams as they provide great flexibility than BA rifles, and are just as accurate. Also bloody handy if you are compromised and need to put rounds down quickly.

Now work that one out Steve - sniper snob who prefers semiautomatic weapons...

[hellfish]

http://anysoldier.com/brian/Afghanistan/

Photos from a 3-man sniper team of the 173rd Airborne in Afghanistan.

[Battlefront.com]

The M110's predecessor had some quality control problems, from what I've read. Some, right out of the box, were terrible while others were excellent. Something to do with the final assembly of the barrel attachment for the silencer. Hopefully not many of the nearly 4,500 ordered will wind up like that!

cassh,

Now work that one out Steve - sniper snob who prefers semiautomatic weapons...

Perhaps someone hacked into your Forum account and posted? Seriously, inherently semi-auto is superior to bolt action. The M-14 has been a favorite sniping rifle for years, and in fact was deployed in large numbers to Afghanistan and Iraq as an emergency move. The US military has been purchasing small numbers of semi-auto rifles for sniping for Special Forces (the M110 is based on a rifle familiar to SEALS, for example) on a sort of case by case basis. Now with the new Stryker establishment's needs, as well as the generally expanded role within the other formations as well, a large purchase was needed.

BTW, the semi-auto Barrett beat out the bolt action Barret during trials, and that is the one we are simulationg too (M107B).

Anybody that has shot bolt action, semi, and full can see why semi is, inherently, superior to ether for precision fire in target rich environment.

Steve