I am reading a book about sniping and this quote made me wonder if it still holds true today?


The average rounds expended per kill with the M16 in Vietnam was 50 000. Snipers averaged 1.3 rounds. Cost difference was $2300 vs 27 cents

Sign at US Marine Corps Scout Sniper School, Quantico

quote:

Originally posted by Gerhard.Delport:
I am reading a book about sniping and this quote made me wonder if it still holds true today?


The average rounds expended per kill with the M16 in Vietnam was 50 000. Snipers averaged 1.3 rounds. Cost difference was $2300 vs 27 cents

Sign at US Marine Corps Scout Sniper School, Quantico

Probably more so...think of a sniper using a $1 .50 Cal round to dissable a jet parked up on an airfield for instance..

Problem is if you want to take and hold ground, defend positions, you need although infantry with their M4's as snipers aren't going to cut it...

Most my friends have Ar's & old M1's all ready. I have five 223's and seriously got the 50 cal itch. Those long range shots would be as much fun with 50 as 30-378.

With all the new AR hunting rounds coming out, I think more people will be using them. They are great for shooting on the fly off snowmachine.

For me personally, when you start hunting with military type guns; you get super confidence in their accuracy in your own hands. My daughter can cover a dime at 100 yards with my old pre-ban 15 with Leupold scope; she can't wait to start killing caribou.

People around here mostly use old military guns in their boats & out and about, I wanna a SAW.

Sniping and dismounted combat are two completely different animals.

A sniper does not go looking to fight a bunch of enemy in a meeting engagement, he seeks a high value target and kills it. Nothing lesser will do. The main mission of snipers is intelligence gathering, disrupting the enemy in his own ground by killing slectively.

Compare a hunter to a plinker and you'll get the picture-few shots and lots of field time compared to lots of shots and lots of range time....

Gerhard

I have seen those figures as well. Most likely true.

However as others have posted, different needs for different deeds.

But I do feel that the "regular" Soldier could use more marksmanship training.

quote:

The average rounds expended per kill with the M16 in Vietnam was 50 000. Snipers averaged 1.3 rounds.

During the Vietnam war, we were dealing with a conscript army, and since then we have moved to an all volunteer, professioinal force. Their training is better, their arms are better, modern optics and our rules of engagement are more focused on putting lead on identified threats, as opposed to just spraying the jungle. Although I only have ancidotical evidence, I belive our infantry today, have a much better ratio of rounds expended to bad guys eliminated then their counterparts of the 1960's.

quote:

Sniper Rifles vs Assault Rifles

Two different tools for two different jobs. Snipers remove high-value targets and clear the way for ground troops. Foot soldiers with their automatic weapons capture ground and enemy soldiers. Used effectively by intelligent soldiers, each weapon fits its role just fine. We need both...

About the end of the Korean War, the Dept. of Defense adopted a shift in strategy from "aimed fire" to "suppressive fire." This was an outgrowth in the development of the German "assault rifle" in WWII.

Rifles got lighter, smaller caliber, and higher capacity magazines. Effective range dropped from 30-06 to .308 to 5.56 NATO -- about 300 yds effective.

Strategy shifted from aiming at a target to putting out a field of fire to suppress enemy movement.

-- And the Dept. of Defense doesn't really care what it costs.

The DOD doesn't care what it costs? Like hell they don't, they make us account for every round we carry, and investigate spent munitions. After a training evolution (say, annual rifle training), they clear us and we have to give up / get patted down for spare ammunition. Suppressive fire is a term used for machine gunners, not infantry. During a squad rush, maybe a few rounds to overcome distance so the enemy takes cover. But from than out, it's not spray and pray.
A military full of snipers would be good for a romantic, candle lit tactical dreamer's book, but that's about it. No discredit to them, they perform a outstanding duty, and as it was correctly stated, they are kind of like a hunter with the exception they do gather intellegence on occasion. Plus they can cause severe disarray to a enemy squad.
However, nothing will replace the grunt, the infantry man, the rifle man. They sure could use better marksmanship training, however you work with what you have and continue to improve. We're not working with the good old boys from WW2, Vietnam, etc. where they grew up with a gun in their hands. Now we're taking in city slickers that haven't even held a rifle before. Not a bad thing usually, but there's always that 2%.
As far as costs, yes maybe the sniper costs less per kill / destruction of property. But take into account that it's not a consistant thing for them. As well, EOD saves lives / money by disarming explosives that may wreck our vehicles and equipment, or even worse take our lives. A infantryman saves money by not going through the extensive training of a scout sniper. Everyone has a place and a duty.

One sniper, plus his spotter, can demoralize a whole company of troops just by killing one of two people sharing a canteen.
The more random the kill the more effective.

Jim

Snipers have 3 targets. Rarely will they get involved in CQB unless they are really in trouble.

The 3 targets are:

Officers and Senior NCOs.

Radio and communication system crewmen

Crew serve weapons. As in RPG, and anti-aircraft weapons, and of course other snipers.

Metalsmith,

care to explain the "Mad Minute" concept?

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Metalsmith,

care to explain the "Mad Minute" concept?

Rich

Wasn't that when, in patrol bases, they opened up on full auto for 1 minute.

2 effects was it cleared all the scrub and kept the enemy at bay.

I am sure someone will add more info.

.

pretty close...

Every couple of weeks, company sized units would "Laager Up" on a high position. Dig in foxholes and firing positions for the M-60's, set up their 60 mike-mikes and do some triangulation ranging. Choppers would bring real food, changes of clothing, especially socks and boxers. They also brought in a resupply of ammunition for the M-16's and M-60's. Cartridge cases would often turn green right before your eyes in that 99% humidity and 125-140 degree weather. Let's not talk about Monsoon Season.

Everybody carried as many magazines as they could scrounge. Anyway, resupply comes in, and half the company fires every friggin' round they have in magazines While the other half maintains the perimeter. They then clean the rifles and the magazines and reload them with fresh ammunition. Then the other half repeats the process. It ranks right up there with watching a Quad-Fifty in a Deuce and a Half back up to a perimeter about dark-thirty and cut loose. Only a full pass by Puff the Magic Dragon is more impressive.

One hundred to one hundred and thirty riflemen, each expending a minimum of 200 rounds as fast as they could...
That's about twenty-thousand rounds in a couple minutes. Do that just once a month, and the round count goes up. Of course they were shooting at suspected NVA/Cong...

That is where the basis for those 50,000 rounds per enemy soldier killed came from.

Kind of makes you wonder where the ammunition/primer/bullet/brass/powder shortage stories we hear now come from with 1/5th of the troops in Iraq/Afghanistan compared to Vietnam.

Rich
Been there, done that...

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:

One hundred to one hundred and thirty riflemen, each expending a minimum of 200 rounds as fast as they could...
That's about twenty-thousand rounds in a couple minutes
Rich
Been there, done that...

That makes 2 of us, except mine was on an SF Raid to a certain Rocket range here in Aus.

Let's say that wooden buildings don't last long
when 100 blokes open up with SLR's, M16's, M60's, Grenade Lauchers, 66mm and 84mm AT.

Hell it was impressive, especially since we weren't supposed to be there as we had an F111 on a bombing run and the boss cleared them live !!!

He knew we were there as he did a full after burner right over the top of us as he went from
Horizontal to Vertical when he went off station.

Would love to do another mass fire again.

.

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Randell:
About the end of the Korean War, the Dept. of Defense adopted a shift in strategy from "aimed fire" to "suppressive fire." This was an outgrowth in the development of the German "assault rifle" in WWII.

Rifles got lighter, smaller caliber, and higher capacity magazines. Effective range dropped from 30-06 to .308 to 5.56 NATO -- about 300 yds effective.

Strategy shifted from aiming at a target to putting out a field of fire to suppress enemy movement.

-- And the Dept. of Defense doesn't really care what it costs.

Fire and maneuver warfare, as a doctrine, is nearly a hundred years old. The tools get better, thats all.

quote:

The average rounds expended per kill with the M16 in Vietnam was 50 000. Snipers averaged 1.3 rounds. Cost difference was $2300 vs 27 cents

Sign at US Marine Corps Scout Sniper School, Quantico

Who cares about ammo? Factor in the rifle, the optics, the spotting scope, and all the additional gear plus the training expense to get a team up to speed.

Sniping is an integral part of warfare but saving money is not part of the equation. A better sign at Quantico would read:

"The American taxpayer spent tens of thousands of dollars to put you on the target with good equipment. Besides, the haji you whack could be the next bin Laden. Don't miss."

I would have no qualms accepting the Marines' expenditures.

Rich

a couple of things, a sniper does not gather intel he gathers information which is turned into intel. that is also his # 1 job. that is why the marine corps school is called MC scout sniper course and not MC sniper course. second while i was in Afghanistan i would not fire my 40 unless it was absolutely necessary, why would i give up a perfectly good position? what i would do is call in CFF or CAS and drop some WP and HE or a $1,000,000 JDAM on some Taliban @$$. so no, snipers don't really save any money to the Gov't. but we do a helluva job at killing and terrifying the enemy.

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Randell:
About the end of the Korean War, the Dept. of Defense adopted a shift in strategy from "aimed fire" to "suppressive fire."
Strategy shifted from aiming at a target to putting out a field of fire to suppress enemy movement.

JD is correct.

To carry the explanation further, during the Vietnam War one concept was that suppressive fires should be used to "fix" the enemy so he could be destroyed. Suppressive fires were also used to "break contact" or for "break out" operations. Suppressive fire was also used for "fire and maneuver" where one element provides suppressive fires while another element moves. The primary purposes of suppressive fire are to prevent the enemy from maneuvering and to keep the enemy from delivering effective fire on friendly forces.

The Vietnam War was also the first US war in which nearly every soldier was issued a weapon capable of fully automatic fire and a heap of ammo to keep it going --- and they did.

Fire and maneuver goes back to the first world war. It's not new, we just got better at it later. You may want to look at the MTOE and TTPs for a company in the second war.