An Army of Snipers?
- Thread starter soutgun2
- Start date
.50
Such an heavy round is not for everybody. The ultimate sniper round is the .338 lapua magnum, but for genaral issue anything stronger than 7.62 NATO is an overkill. You're resurrecting the concept of the "sharpshooter" regiments. In a sense, the British light division of the peninsular war was "an army of snipers"
If you tone down your concept to " every infantry soldier armed and trained to designated marksman level" you might have a starting point for an open discussion.
Such an heavy round is not for everybody. The ultimate sniper round is the .338 lapua magnum, but for genaral issue anything stronger than 7.62 NATO is an overkill. You're resurrecting the concept of the "sharpshooter" regiments. In a sense, the British light division of the peninsular war was "an army of snipers"
If you tone down your concept to " every infantry soldier armed and trained to designated marksman level" you might have a starting point for an open discussion.
This would work about as well as Operation Sealion. What happens when enemy soldiers get close? Sniper rifles aren't magical weapons that create an impenetrable barrier at distance, that can pick off everyone that walks within range. As someone stated above me, they are specialist tools, not suited for standard issue. Once enemy soldiers get close by either APCs, Air Assault, or just an amassed charge, the soldiers equipped with snipers are FUBAR. They have nowhere to run or hide or fight back. I'm sorry, but this seems less like a legitimate question and more like the fantasy of a CoD fanboy.
They get viciously torn apart as soon as they approach the cities, and are utterly impotent vs air cover
MacCaulay
Banned
Yeah.
I get what the point of the question is: how to people deal with seeing their enemies' deaths up close.
That's fine. And I like it that you're at least taking an approach to it that's kind of original.
That being said, the question kind of belies the difference between pilots and line infantry as opposed to infantry and snipers.
But I get what he's saying.
EDIT: The responses kind of go back to that TL vs. Story thing. Sometimes people take things so literally literal that they miss the higher philsophical question that is being posed.
What about the soldiers who simply aren't very good marksmen? You have to be an exceptionally good shot to qualify as a sniper, simply handing every soldier a sniper rifle wouldn't do, the scope and ammunition doesn't automatically make them snipers or compensate completely for their lessened skill.
Not everyone has the temprement to be a sniper. While all combat is about killing the sniper actively hunts other men and with the telescopic sight is looking their target in the eye as they kill them. It doesn't matter how good a shot you are if you can't get past that unpleasant fact and look at your fellow man as prey. An all sniper army would find itself with large numbers of troops unable do the job they trained for. There is a very good reason why snipers can ask to be reassigned.
.338 Lapua Mag.
The Military Channel recently showed a Bullpup sniper rifle. It is short, with a full length barrel. Actually, with 2 quick-change barrels(.338 and .30).An exchange took less than 70 sec.. A more balanced approach? That leaves the much harder problem of soldiers who simply point and shoot. A great # of studies show very large numbers of bullets needed to kill 1 of the enemy. Would our nation be prepared to handle those PSTD cases?
The Military Channel recently showed a Bullpup sniper rifle. It is short, with a full length barrel. Actually, with 2 quick-change barrels(.338 and .30).An exchange took less than 70 sec.. A more balanced approach? That leaves the much harder problem of soldiers who simply point and shoot. A great # of studies show very large numbers of bullets needed to kill 1 of the enemy. Would our nation be prepared to handle those PSTD cases?
They'll also have trouble on defence in terrain where the enemy can get to within, say, 300m. And that's ignoring the problems posed by aircraft, tanks, artillery, mechanised infantry, etc.
Snipers are very specialised solders, as has already been mentioned, and they are not appropriate for many circumstances. I think this idea is impractical.
MacCaulay makes the point that this isn't really intended to be a practical suggestion, and instead it's about the effects on the soldiers themselves of having to see their enemies demise. I haven't personally seen any research into whether snipers suffer greater PTSD rates than other arms - I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just haven't bothered looking for it. But that strikes me as a good place to start, because the difference between shooting someone with a .50 cal bullet and landing a propelled grenade at their feet seems academic in most respects.
Still dodging the point of how this doesn't work when most soldiers simply aren't qualified to be snipers. Giving them a sniper rifle doesn't make them crackshots, instead it makes them less effective.
whitecrow
Banned
A guy with an assault rifle would be just as screwed as a guy with a sniper rifle when facing those, so what's the difference?
(I agree that arming all soldiers with sniper rifles is impractical, I just don't see how they would be worst off than OTL grunts with AK-47s and M-16s when facing aircraft, tanks, etc.)
taking into consideration strictly the non-combat repercussion, you probably would need to have the most stringent mental tests for potential recruits to make sure your army isn't composed of thrill-killers. To be clear, I'm not saying that all snippers are sociopaths but rather that an army composed solely of them would probably not attract people who want to serve their country and learn a trade that will serve them lather on in civilian life.
Also, the army PR would probably be quite different. You can't realy go for the "glorious battle" kind of image. Neither can you realy show the soldiers as defenders. The only thing you could realy say is "we kill lots".
Also, the army PR would probably be quite different. You can't realy go for the "glorious battle" kind of image. Neither can you realy show the soldiers as defenders. The only thing you could realy say is "we kill lots".
2 Things
1. Enemy soldiers are not less likely to attack, they would come up with another plan of attack.
2. To continue Mac's line of thought, the fact that snipers can see thier targets clearly cancels the actuall distance. That being said, I don't think that there is going to be any difference with how soldiers accept killing someone.
1. Enemy soldiers are not less likely to attack, they would come up with another plan of attack.
2. To continue Mac's line of thought, the fact that snipers can see thier targets clearly cancels the actuall distance. That being said, I don't think that there is going to be any difference with how soldiers accept killing someone.
The difference is that normally any unit operating independently is an all-arms formation - look at a modern Russian motor rifle regiment, for example, or a British battalion task group. That means that while the individual soldier might not be able to cope with the threat that emerges, there's someone else not too far away who does have the tools for the job.
Making everyone a sniper is ok against enemy infantry under some circumstances, but is no more effective in general than arming everyone with a minigun or a flamethrower would be.