The Designated Marksman Concept

[slapper]

@Slapper I used to think the same thing, the problem is the 2i/c should have his attention on where the gun is firing not his own sight picture, the 2 man on the gun also has an important job already.

I'd have thought that at section level it would probably best serve the role already filled by one of the less forward riflemen, but increasingly I'm biased towards it being a Pl level thing.

ya i agree but if the 2 i/c has it he can still give orders he wont be shooting it just means he will have better accuracy if he needs to from that distance but your gunner should know how to shoot and have enough of a brain

[GoneToTheCanner]

Ropebag, in the DF, the concept that the ordinary soldier can be anything other than a spear-carrier who cannot think for himself, or for his mates, is realistically not more than 20 years old. Thankfully, it has evolved from "privates cannot and will not call for artillery support of any kind/will not call for air support of any kind/will not call for AFV support, etc, etc". The concept of all-arms and the training for same that would have been familiar to the Tommy/GI/Landser of 1944 was scarcely conceived or understood even by Congo days, slightly familiar by Leb days and regarded as the coming thing by Chad/Liberia.

regards
GttC

[ropebag]

GTTC,

oh...

[slapper]

Ropebag, in the DF, the concept that the ordinary soldier can be anything other than a spear-carrier who cannot think for himself, or for his mates, is realistically not more than 20 years old. Thankfully, it has evolved from "privates cannot and will not call for artillery support of any kind/will not call for air support of any kind/will not call for AFV support, etc, etc". The concept of all-arms and the training for same that would have been familiar to the Tommy/GI/Landser of 1944 was scarcely conceived or understood even by Congo days, slightly familiar by Leb days and regarded as the coming thing by Chad/Liberia.

regards
GttC

we have air support

[DeV]

? What?

Everyone in the section still carries 7.62mm ...... for the GPMG

Getting away from the section level focus, what abut a DM at Pl HQ, after all in the olden times we learned that the fourth bod in HQ was a runner/marksman. Is re-emphasising the Marksman part worth considering, or adding a fifth bod to the HQ?

In terms of training and ergonomics, the Canadiastanit's UOR'd a bunch of SR25s since it basically had identical handling properties to the C7 already in service, could a 7.62x51 Steyr HBAR be an option?

Just stirring the talking pot.

Maybe but the runner is a busy guy

Is there a 7.62mm Steyr?

Irish UNIFIL battalion used to have a sniper at platoon level

two contributions from this side of the water: firstly that you should be wary of capabilities that are not delegated to the lowest possible level. having DMR as a Pln asset is fine when you're doing 'two up front, one behind - and give it shitloads', however it runs into a slight problem when your Pln is split into two multiples doing seperate jobs 3km apart. secondly that there is no such thing as 'too accurate, at too long a range'.

not really wishing to widen the debate, but seeking to make a point that i think is important on this issue - the Irish Army PK/PE force is, i would suggest, the least supported PK/PE force in the western world in terms of its ready access to heavy, long ranged weapons: you travel without Artilley, you no longer have mobile large calibre guns, and you don't have AH or Fast Jets. if something happens in whatever god-forsaken dump tickles your ministers fancy next, you are far more on your own than any ISAF soldier in Afghanistan - your soldiers have to win the firefight in a way that no one else does: in Afghanistan a British Pln foot patrol will have a full Bty of 105's at its beck and call, with AH and FJ within 30 mins (and often within 5 mins), as well as GMLRS and other systems sat round with nothing to do but pour destruction on any grid that the Pln wants wiped off the face of the earth. 'all' that Pln has to do is go to ground, put up a bucketload of fire to stop the enemy advance and degrade the effectiveness of his fire, identify the enemy positions up the chain and wait until the enemy gets turned into a warm, pink mist.

because you don't have those systems available, your soldiers have to get themselves out of trouble. if they can put down accurate fire at 800+m they stand a better chance of doing so - i would think that this argument also covers the 7.62 minimi and something along the lines of the LASM...

if one has veered off topic, one apologises...

Your platoon commander and sergeant can only be in 1 place at a time as well and can't do the rest of the job without being with the rest of the platoon.

To the best of my knowledge, open to correction, but we don't do that.

Our battalions bring the 120 overseas

ya i agree but if the 2 i/c has it he can still give orders he wont be shooting it just means he will have better accuracy if he needs to from that distance but your gunner should know how to shoot and have enough of a brain

The members of the FSG will be too busy!

[danno]

The concept is viable/worthy but prob UGLs might be more universally useful.

[The real Jack]

In what distant universe dev do you make sense?

[Come-quickly]

Dev, are you honestly claiming that the Army doesn't use platoon minus fighting patrols? Really? And that they don't occasionally trust their massive training investment in officers and NCOs to allow them to operate independently of each other with the support of other trained NCOs and men?

@Danno: Again it's not an either or, that's like saying that 4x4s are useful but trucks are more flexible. DMRs do not preclude the use of UGLs, just ask any of the users of the DMR concept at section level, they all have at least one UGL per fireteam.

[DeV]

In what distant universe dev do you make sense?

Dev, are you honestly claiming that the Army doesn't use platoon minus fighting patrols? Really? And that they don't occasionally trust their massive training investment in officers and NCOs to allow them to operate independently of each other with the support of other trained NCOs and men?

@Danno: Again it's not an either or, that's like saying that 4x4s are useful but trucks are more flexible. DMRs do not preclude the use of UGLs, just ask any of the users of the DMR concept at section level, they all have at least one UGL per fireteam.

I didn't say that CQ!

I qualified my answer but:

In the British Army, as ropebag said, it is standard practice for an infantry platoon to divide in 2. The platoon commander commanding 1 and the Platoon sergeant the other.

We could have a platoon minus or section plus, but not 2 multiples. Open to correction

[Come-quickly]

Multiples also commonly known as fighting patrols!

Return to topic pending in 3...2...1...

[ropebag]

...Return to topic pending in 3...2...1...

the simplest gauge of whether a Pln/Sn level DMR asset is a good thing is 'are there any good, logical reasons against increasing the range at which the Pln/Sn can effectively engage the enemy?'

*creosote bush roles down empty street*

the cost, in government terms, is so minimal as to be non-existant - the capability upgrade is significant.

[apod]

Dev, are you honestly claiming that the Army doesn't use platoon minus fighting patrols? Really? And that they don't occasionally trust their massive training investment in officers and NCOs to allow them to operate independently of each other with the support of other trained NCOs and men?

Fighting patrols these days ARE platoon strength.We don't do "multiples" in the DF.
But yes we are trusted to operate independently if required.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Is a fighting patrol of platoon size not too big? What kind of distribution of weapons does it have?

regards
GttC

[Truck Driver]

Is a fighting patrol of platoon size not too big?

Nope... think back to your days of being taught the theory of ambushes, and the recommended ratio for you to engage Mr Nasty
I am assuming this is the reason why they are of Pln strength

[Come-quickly]

I think it's also because the DF (through no fault of their own) resource poor in terms of BVR support and Casevac etc and perhaps overly risk averse (again due to the social/political climate in Ireland where the Army rightly expects much wailing and gnashing of teeth and immediate cessation if we ever took mass casualties, something that is not psychology buried in other countries).

Edit: Any chance of on topic discussion or should I just give up and leave the stage to RDF vs PDF sniping (not in the military sense)?