Sniper question
I am not a sniper, nor do I play one on television, but I do watch making of s sniper and all that bull about making of a sniper on the Military Channel.
My question is" How many snipers go to their target and bring back trophies? My thinking is: if you can bring in air force, why need the sniper?? Tom
PS"I guess some of you can read about Hathcot in the above question. Tom
My question is" How many snipers go to their target and bring back trophies? My thinking is: if you can bring in air force, why need the sniper?? Tom
PS"I guess some of you can read about Hathcot in the above question. Tom
0
-
can't answer the first question but here's the second
snipers can shoot what the plans can't hit. there a very good breed, they can and have held back armies and have turned wars. the other good thing is you can't call an air-strike when you do assassination's in other lands were secrecy is a must....0 -
...because someone has to be afield to be able to spot the enemy. That's what scout/sniping is all about. Hathcock has called in arty and airstrikes on several occasions without firing a shot himself.
You need eyeballs on the ground in order to tell the jets where to go. Or to make arty corrections. Or to find the bad guys at all.
If a sniper elects to take his shot, it's because he has a good feeling that he can get out of dodge safely after the shot is fired. Joe0 -
quote:Originally posted by tccox
I am not a sniper, nor do I play one on television, but I do watch making of s sniper and all that bull about making of a sniper on the Military Channel.
My question is" How many snipers go to their target and bring back trophies? My thinking is: if you can bring in air force, why need the sniper?? Tom
PS"I guess some of you can read about Hathcot in the above question. Tom
Man you really seem to have it in for Carlos Hathcock. What's your problem? What is wrong with picking up an enemies weapon and perhaps wanting to keep it?0 -
dano: Would such training be confined to a specific type of military speciality, or to military training in general? 0 -
Which would be exactly what type of training? 0 -
It depends on what type of sniper training you are talking about. You have the SRT sniper training which is a law-enforcement related type of training in the Army that's pretty much confined to the MP Corps with a few exceptions.
tccox--Some applications require a more surgical approach. You won't find many artillery pieces in Iraq but you'll find plenty of sharpshooters ready to deliver precision small arms fire in urban environments. I was living in and working out of an Iraqi police station in the city with my squad. There was a scout platoon embedded next door in an abandoned building for about a month or so. The guys up there had a little tower room on top of the building with scoped M-14's behind camo netting. It was a fixed position which was probably known by more than just coalition forces so use of terrain and "fieldcraft" probably went out the window as the location was static. I wouldn't call it a "sniper post" in the purest sense but the ability to maintain eyes-on in the sector that the area covered combined with the ability to deliver that precision small-arms fire was quasi-sniper-esque if you will....or....as it were.0 -
Having read the Hathcock book some years ago and going from memory, I believe that we're likely considering different situations. Thus, our conclusions seem at odds.
In a "normal" (There is no such thing.) situation the sniper emplaces himself as to take best advantage of given conditions. This might apply in the situation where Hathcock was able to pin a NV unit down for an extended period of time. Certainly NOT a trophy situation. Certainly not sport. The same can be said of of his assassination play on the NV brass. Purely business.
Sniper vs. sniper was a different situation. This was the ultimate sport if you will. The "invitation" issued, the terms set, the location defined. Simply stated, two men had agreed to hunt each other on neutral ground. The winner would likely survive.
If we're speaking of this particular incident, then I expect many of the regular rules would not apply as the object of the "game" was much different than normal. After the fatal shot had been fired, then the game was over. There were no more targets and stealth was no longer an issue. For all intents and purposes the war was over.
Perhaps some might have said a short prayer and walked away, but we're not made of the same stuff as Hathcock. This encounter was a personal duel between professionals. The winner of this encounter was going to take a trophy. It had to be.
What we may be overlooking is the difference between a professional encounter between enemies and the normal tasks of a sniper. The former being personal. The latter being merely business as usual.0 -
in addition to the relatively close range intelligence gathering idsman75 mentioned, and the occasional "air strike" that givette mentioned, from what I've read (and I'm sure I'm not entirely accurate on this, but it's info) snipers and special forces are engaging more nowadays in what used to be the job of LRRP's, with regard to your typical open range battlefield scenario. (not so much in urban ops) since they are found further "in country" and even behind enemy lines or across national borders (as in the case with Iran) they are quite useful for intelligence gathering, specifically with troop strength, disposition, terrain features, etc. I would imagine that the modern sniper probably does more of that than anything else on his way to and from whacking a target.
furthermore, the role of "a sniper" would depend on whose army they're in. American snipers are fewer in number, higher quality, and penetrate further. Russian snipers, on the other hand, with their mass produced/mass deployed Dragunovs, are common (1 to every motorized platoon I think) have less training, and don't penetrate as far, so the mission creep must be less than that of the American snipers.
"how many snipers go to their target and bring back trophies"? probbaly depends on the sniper and how much action there is. if it's risky and he's got other stuff to do, I don't see why he would bother. I'm sure it's not always like a picnic.
idsman75 could elaborate on this, since he and I were talking about two different scenarios, and he probably knows more about what I was trying to say than I do. he was in the military, I wasn't.0 -
At least he didn't cut their ears off and string a necklace out of them. 0 -
i also am not a sniper but am a forward observer for field artillery and CAS.
a sniper is like a scalpel, a precision instrument. artillery and CAS(close air support) is like using an ax. nowhere near as precise . . unless you are using the new excalibre rounds or LGMs, but it is not always practicable to level a whole house just to get one individual; that is where the sniper comes in.
as for trophies? i remember reading somewhere that it is more for confirmation of the kill than as some morbid trophy, but i could be wrong0 -
Do you have a problem with the taking of ears??
Why ??
Doug0 -
I think I will too, Dano. Have a good evening. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tccox
I am not a sniper, nor do I play one on television, but I do watch making of s sniper and all that bull about making of a sniper on the Military Channel.
My question is" How many snipers go to their target and bring back trophies? My thinking is: if you can bring in air force, why need the sniper?? Tom
PS"I guess some of you can read about Hathcot in the above question. Tom
Snipers instill the fear of violent random unpredictable death in enemy troops and leadership. It leaves a solider with gut wrenching fear that a cross-hair may be on them as they eat, pee, or take a crap. That fear breaks one down. THAT IS THE IDEA.0 -
I wasn't going to put my .02 centavos in. I recall from reading "93 confirmed" the NVA/Viet Congs sent in a dude code named Cobra (or something like that) to take care of Gunny out in the bush. Gunny shot at the glint and went in to investigate what it was and it just happened to be that dude. Took the rifle back to base (and other bits of intel off him) and had some men collect the body. I wouldn't leave any arms out there so some other fools can use it aginst me or my comrades.
Also if my memory is correct Gunny at this time had been burned from an earlier ambush with bits of metal. Skin grafts and other medical fix of the day (not like the fix of today) the man still went back out. How many of us would just say "coach I'm done, send me home 'cos I ain't gonna go back out"?
As for you "tccox" sitting there watching TV for all your info. I hope one day a person will have that much kindness to help you out and not just shrug and say "better you than me".0 -
Snake. they called him "snake" because he ate and lived off the land. 0 -
i wish i could shoot half as good as a sniper 0 -
"Bring back trophies"???? OK- a couple of points- a true sniper of the US Military is not a hot dog. A sniper is a person of calm judgement, patience, reliability, and able to operate under minimal supervision. Rambo he is not. Sniper selection includes a background investigation, and assessment of mental stability (it is not a job free of stress) A sniper MAY be capable of gathering incredibly good INTELLIGENCE regarding enemy forces (How well equipped is the enemy? Food? Condition of uniform/footgear/weapons? Does he have written materials, maps, plans, orders- or a letter from home with a postmark that would tell how long he has been in your area? What physical condition is the enemy in? Well nourished? How long since he had a FREAKIN' HAIRCUT or a BATH ???? But trophies? No. And you don't need ears. You already saw his face thru the scope when your round hit. Why do you want to be reminded of that more than you already will be ?[xx(] 0 -
quote:My thinking is: if you can bring in air force, why need the sniper??
There are several reasons. I am just going to name a few. A Marine Scout/Sniper's Main Job is concelment! Staying concelled and being able to do it perfectly is the only thing that allows them to do the rest of their duties. Second and in my opinion most important is Recon! The abilty to gather info is not all that hard, but to gather info from the enemy line and/or behind it without detections is not. Even though we are continuously developing better and better survelince tech, sometimes there is no substitute for a man's eyes and ears. This is generally how the support(Air force, artillery, etc..) gets their info. And the last that I will hit on is Demoralization! The ability to acquire and eliminate a specific person or target from long distance. To pick and choose if you will who lives and who dies to strike fear in to the opposition.
quote:Legit "sniper" training, does not approve / condone the "taking of trophies".
It's a job......not a sport.......
dano you are right on the money here. Most of your Snipers have enough emotional trauma after the conclude there tour or enlistment. Taking a man's life is not an easy ordeal and I hope all of you out there who haven't don't ever have to and those who have I feel your pain. Taking of "Trophies" as it is put here only adds to the emotional distress in the long run and that is one reason instructors really discourage it. The main reason it is diacouraged is if you go after a kill, you are putting yourself in an even more dangerous situation. Now why would you want to do that0 -
Yoshmister et al, I didn't really mean to start a pizzing contest nor detract from Halfway's kills. I just don't believe the story about the shot thru the scope.
It really defies all the training snipers are supposed to go thru. Spend days tracking a target, shoot at a "glint" and then go trophy hunting?? Hogwash!!
Well, when I said sniper training, all I have to go on is what I see on TV but I haven't seen any of them go to the target and bring back his rifle. Maybe this is supposed to start a new trend? Yohomister, what are your sniping skills? Mine are zero, when I shoot a squirrel, I only take the left ear.
PS; it seems like sometimes my ground hugging buddies liked to see the AF save their bacon.
PPS Army Jan 1960 -1963
AF nov 68-nov89 (Ithink)
I ain't trying to take anything away from this guy's record, I just don't believe the scope shot. Tom0 -
Mythbusters proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the scope shot was impossible, and only a myth.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Mythbusters proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the scope shot was impossible, and only a myth.
Doug
No Doug, they revisited that Myth and concluded that it was possible.
quote:[edit] MythBusters
In an episode of the fourth season of the television show MythBusters (29 November 2006, Episode 67), hosts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman attempted to test the feasibility of shooting through the scope of another rifle, citing the confirmed Hathcock incident of shooting a North Vietnamese sniper through his victim's scope. They were unable to replicate the results in the story using the modern equipment they had on hand, so they declared the myth "busted." However, they did not replicate the exact conditions of Hathcock's combat incident. The MythBusters did not take into consideration powder loads, bullet weight, muzzle velocity, angle, or variations in air pressure and density. On the show, they conceded that they were not shooting at the same scope that Hathcock shot at and stated that under the exactly ideal conditions and with extreme luck, the shot may have been possible. In the episode aired on March 21, 2007, the MythBusters revisited this myth and confirmed that it was possible, however had to use armor-piercing rounds to fully penetrate the scope. They used a vintage scope this time, which was smaller than modern scopes, and Jamie successfully fired a bullet through the scope. The bullet penetrated the ballistic gel dummy's face to a depth of two inches, which would be lethal to a human. However, it should be noted that on the March 21, 2007 episode, that Jamie used an M1 Garand, whereas Hathcock used a Winchester Model 70 chambered in .30-06 Springfield, and utilized armor-piercing ammunition.0 -
quote:Mythbusters proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the scope shot was impossible, and only a myth.
Doug]
Doug, they had so much mail calling BS they went back and redid it,here is a copy of one of the several post on the net showing they reversed their call and decided it was possible and in his case reviewing the records did indeed happen,,google it and you will find many clips on your tube showing the redo show where they proved it was possible,,,,
In an episode of the fourth season of the television show MythBusters (29 November 2006, Episode 67), hosts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman attempted to test the feasibility of shooting through the scope of another rifle, citing the confirmed Hathcock incident of shooting a North Vietnamese sniper through his victim's scope. They were unable to replicate the results in the story using the modern equipment they had on hand, so they declared the myth "busted." However, they did not replicate the exact conditions of Hathcock's combat incident. The MythBusters did not take into consideration powder loads, bullet weight, muzzle velocity, angle, or variations in air pressure and density. On the show, they conceded that they were not shooting at the same scope that Hathcock shot at and stated that under the exactly ideal conditions and with extreme luck, the shot may have been possible. In the episode aired on March 21, 2007, the
MythBusters revisited this myth and confirmed that it was possible, however had to use armor-piercing rounds to fully penetrate the scope. They used a vintage scope this time, which was smaller than modern scopes, and Jamie successfully fired a bullet through the scope. The bullet penetrated the ballistic gel dummy's face to a depth of two inches, which would be lethal to a human. However, it should be noted that on the March 21, 2007 episode, that Jamie used an M1 Garand, whereas Hathcock used a Winchester Model 70 chambered in .30-06 Springfield, and utilized armor-piercing ammunition.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tccox
Yoshmister et al, I didn't really mean to start a pizzing contest nor detract from Halfway's kills. I just don't believe the story about the shot thru the scope.
It really defies all the training snipers are supposed to go thru. Spend days tracking a target, shoot at a "glint" and then go trophy hunting?? Hogwash!!
Well, when I said sniper training, all I have to go on is what I see on TV but I haven't seen any of them go to the target and bring back his rifle. Maybe this is supposed to start a new trend? Yohomister, what are your sniping skills? Mine are zero, when I shoot a squirrel, I only take the left ear.
PS; it seems like sometimes my ground hugging buddies liked to see the AF save their bacon.
PPS Army Jan 1960 -1963
AF nov 68-nov89 (Ithink)
I ain't trying to take anything away from this guy's record, I just don't believe the scope shot. Tom
From my recolection gunny was an avid woodsman at a very young age. The family was poor and he went out and brought home the bacon (so to speak). That came in handy with his advanced skills in the woods and Sniper duties in Vietnam.
If you just want to consentrate on the man's scope shot being luck or one in a million then it is just that "luck or "one in a million shot". He lived and the other dude's dead.
As for sniper training you have to have initial skill to hone, training alone doesn't make an effective sniper.
The rifle (or Trophy as you call it) was picked up when he and his spotter went out to take a look at what the glint was. May not have been the wisest of moves but part of their job is to collect. Now say you saw something shiny on the ground at a distance in a parking lot. Since you were headed that way would you not go take a look? Then when you got there it was something of value would you not pick it up? If you say you'd leave it then I'd say that was "Hogwash"[:D].
On them TV programs they don't cover everything a sniper does out in the field. If they did it would be longer than Kevin Cosner's "Dances With Wolves". So they cut the 90 hours of footage and just trim it up to the shooting and some belly crawling.
Like I said the rifle would've been a part of intel or proof that the "Snake" was dead. If that's what you consider Trophy Hunting then that's your point of view.
What does "My sniping skills" have to do anything to the scope shot or your so called trophy hunting? You need to stay on point and not deflect.
It's great you can make the squirrel hard of hearing. And agin I never asked about it but if you must boast about your "Mad Skills" cool-o.
I'm okay with you not believing in the "Scope Shot" but come on have one post instead of cracking open another post just to regurgitate what was posted on another post.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tccox
I am not a sniper, nor do I play one on television, but I do watch making of s sniper and all that bull about making of a sniper on the Military Channel.
My question is" How many snipers go to their target and bring back trophies? My thinking is: if you can bring in air force, why need the sniper?? Tom
PS"I guess some of you can read about Hathcot in the above question. Tom
Alot of responses to this question were hillarious. Sniper most of the time collect and monitor activity. As far as trophy goes, whats that? And what makes you think he/she wants one, or most importantly if he/she wanted to get that close ever, he/she wouldnt be called sniper.This is just my opinion.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Do you have a problem with the taking of ears??
Why ??
Doug
Are you joking?
Yes, I have a SERIOUS problem with that. This is absolutely intolerable behavior.
American soldiers are supposed to be professionals, and should not be engaged in savage bloodthirsty rituals that potentially put the American military in a bad light.
Taking ears, or otherwise desecrating bodies is the kind of juvenile behavior that feeds into enemy anti-American propaganda and domestic anti-military propaganda.
As to snipers taking trophies in general, the idea is to hit the target then get away (ideally undetected), not hit the target and come in close to the body (ie to grab some sort of stupid trophy) while the rest of the enemy is looking for you trying to capture/kill you!
Frankly, I don't think many snipers are stupid enough to try to grab a trophy. While there might be extraordinary circumstances where this sort of thing might be plausible (the Hathcock "duel" mentioned above being one), if that's what you're after, you probably lack the maturity to be a sniper in the first place.
WRT this thread, it bears repeating that a sniper is a "scout/sniper". Sure their job entails taking out high value targets of opportunity, but its also to quietly gather intelligence on the ground, in probable highly dangerous territory. This is something you can't do with an airplane.0 -
quote:or most importantly if he/she wanted to get that close ever, he/she wouldnt be called sniper
Ah, not so much Outlaw. Just because a Sniper is capable of making extremely long shots doens't mean that is all they take. Most military snipers rely on their outstanding ability of camoflague and concelment to get as close as possible. The purpose of getting as close as possible is that when a target is hit, the enemy automaticlly assumes that it came from some far off distance and automaticlly start covering extreme distance and leaving alternate escape routes open every where up close. The majority of the time when long shots are taken it is because it is almost impossible to get closer or it is somewhere that the shooter/spotter wont be able to get back out of after a shot. Most people think that to be a sniper you just have to be a good shot, Ha, that is very important but they have to be the best a alot of other things more important that just shooting. Stealth, cover and concelment, use of camoflague, mathematics, these are just a few. If you are a good shot without any of these attributes then you are just another rifleman.0 -
My cousin who went thru Ranger school said the same Dano. Snipers are loners. They get the job done and live with it. I have NO doubt Hathcock killed the NVC sniper. To him it was just another target. He made a lucky shot and was due one. To question him would not be wise. The look in his eyes would tell the story. Funny thing, when I signed up to go in the Marines, I was going to Quantico. War was called off. My understanding is that Sniper school is different now than it was in the past and those who qualify are far and few between. Alot of men wash out but some make it thru. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
27 comments