the Distant Executuoner

[sipowicz]

Read this on the plane aobut a US Sniper....great read!

Febraury 2010: William Langewiesche on American Snipers | Politics | Vanity Fair

 

[DCWilson]

Concur about the article. A very interesting overview of the history, skills, and psychology of a long-range shooter.

I thought the most interesting point in the article was almost a throwaway generalization: the assertion that a sniper's role in military operations is essentially defensive. I sure never got that feeling from any of Stephen Hunter's Bob Lee Swagger novels.

(Which is not a criticism. Hunter's books are novels, not how-to manuals. I like Hunter's books a lot, but don't regard them as totally realistic. But that discussion is for another day and another thread -- maybe even another forum.)

 

[dpmac83]

A great article, I tend to agree with the author about the physcological aspects of sniper's "kills" compared to the "regular" infantrymans "kills". I am not ex or former military anything, but it seems to me that the stalking of your target would actually make the act of killing more personal than the rapid fire of the urban warfare.
JMO.

 

[sipowicz]

I see JKC posted this yesterday...sorry for the double shot...

 

[Hermann]

Thanks for the link, interesting read.
Reminds me of a very close friend on mine, US Marine, sniper, served in Iraq and Afganistan, too. He only refers to the killed enemies as targets, no emotions, just a technical term. Only one thing: one should not touch my friend while he is sleeping ...

 

[Firehouse]

I'd love to read the manual he wrote. I wish I knew the name of it.

 

[Dennis The B]

The Military Channel...

...has had a series about snipers on all month-long. They've covered hardware, training, and history.

One of the former GI's they discussed with, mentioned that the average infantryman put out rounds with the address "To whom it may concern." The sniper's round always had an individual's name on it.

Even though the shot may be at more than three hundred yards, the target's eyes can frequently be seen. That makes it really personal.

I do disagree about the characterization of the sniper. Depending on the unit's mission, his task becomes one of offense or defense.

When advancing, the sniper (really scout/sniper) gets a vast amount of intelligence that's extremely helpful to an offensive-minded commander.

Afghanistan can probably be more accurately described as defensive, since we are holding territory.

 

[pharmer]

I'm sorry but I was listening to the radio earlier and the reporter was making a great point about how "the US snipers are being used to great success against enemy snipers in a Taliban stronghold. They are the point of the spear in the current offensive." What happened to napalm? We are in pitched battles with the enemy, no civilians reported nearby, and we are trading shots?! Was a time they'd be roasted with their goats. Joe

 

[MMA10mm]

Concur about the article. A very interesting overview of the history, skills, and psychology of a long-range shooter.

I thought the most interesting point in the article was almost a throwaway generalization: the assertion that a sniper's role in military operations is essentially defensive. I sure never got that feeling from any of Stephen Hunter's Bob Lee Swagger novels.

(Which is not a criticism. Hunter's books are novels, not how-to manuals. I like Hunter's books a lot, but don't regard them as totally realistic. But that discussion is for another day and another thread -- maybe even another forum.)

Well, try reading Carlos Hathcock's book, "Marine Sniper, 93 confirmed kills." He sure wasn't defensive all the time. Like the instance where he was airlifted and dropped on the wrong side of some line on a map and given the task of taking out a major NVA commander who thought he was in a safe area... Or, when he was holding a company of enemy behind a dike for several days and eventually called in an arty strike to finish them off when weather and lack of ammo started to lead to him not keeping them confined.

A great article, I tend to agree with the author about the physcological aspects of sniper's "kills" compared to the "regular" infantrymans "kills". I am not ex or former military anything, but it seems to me that the stalking of your target would actually make the act of killing more personal than the rapid fire of the urban warfare.
JMO.

There was a good show about a sniper leader (NCO) in Iraq who taught his men to take body shots instead of head shots. He had both a tactical and a psychological reason. Tactically, the body was an easier target to hit - larger and moves less. Psychologically, it let his men not look at the targets in the face. The combination of these two factors meant his men could engage targets faster and in greater numbers as well. And, let's face it, a 308 to center-of-mass isn't much of a survivable wound, and if the badguy does survive it, he'll probably never be the same...

 

[cballman]

After reading this story it goes to show everybody that a sniper does have feelings and are not the robots killers that they are made out to be. After reading about the snipers in the Vietnam war they are still people to.