Designated Marksman discussion thread

[DMR]

More to follow Kevin, but the general answer is the requirement put forth for the M-14 EBR was realy centered on 7.62mm being the requirement, vs any logical thing like i need this effect at that range, ect.

It pissed me off writing it, Shaw at SW's was pushing for a M-110 based system, but at the time of writing it was still an XM system, and the DM derivative was not even that. Then we had to specific it be M-14 based and ...........................

I understand there was a great deal of debate between the 600m and 800m group at higher levels as they developed the EBR and some other requirements. I left the position that I had, so in the end all I saw was the out come, not the process leading to it.

[a0cake]

The 240 is a Pl weapon is it not?

I don't want to get off topic too far but I will answer your question lest anybody get the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about.


There is a disconnect between FM 7-8 / 3-21.8 and how combat power is being organized in the contemporary operating environment by units dealing with manpower issues. Having to man OP's, force protection, casualties, mid tour leave, etc, are issues that do not get accounted for by the MTOE. Try to organize a platoon and squad the way the book says in Afghanistan and you will quickly realize that you will not be able to function that way.

Units are not made using a cookie cutter and they don't all look the same. Example: On my last deployment, A Company had 2 platoons, B Company had 4 platoons, and C Company had 3 platoons. That's not in any book.

Why? Because that made the most sense given that B Company had to man 4 separate OP's / COP's...A Company rotated pulling forcepro and running patrols out of the main FOB with two platoons...etc etc etc.

Commanders can organize their combat power however they want.

To your point, yes the M240 is doctrinally a platoon weapon, existing only in the weapons squad in each platoon, BUT...

Here's how our M240's were organized last time around. It's how the unit we RIP/TOA'D with did things and how the unit that replaced us did things:

SQUAD 1

Assault Team A

Machine Gun Team A (This MG team leader is an SDM as per my replies above)

SQUAD 2

Assault Team B

Machine Gun Team B (This MG team leader is the second SDM as per my replies above)

Allows each squad to operate and move independently with a dedicated support and assault element organic to each squad.
It also allows the PL to do some pretty "whiz-bang" shit during the movement scheme of maneuver wise. On target, SL1 takes over AT A / B and leads the assault. SL2 takes over both MG teams and runs the SBF. It's a pretty fluid. It was rough at first, but once everyone knew their job it worked very well for our mission.

For all intents and purposes, the M240B / MK48 has become a squad weapon for a lot of units.

I'm not saying all units run like this, but many do.

Sometimes sticking to doctrine in these discussions leads to analysis paralysis.

[DMR]

Let me start by again stating that i am a sorry, fat assed, retired so and so, those still in the fights comments need to be weighted higher then what i have to say. My points are not meant to attack anyones position, just provide points to ponder. I'm still wishing I had taken Sinister up on his offer to spend some quality time expanding and testing out all of the points in this discussion.

In the old days we called this Task Org, something which is used less and less in the current vocabulary. Got it.

The MTOE is just a frame work which allows you to share a common vocabulary. It also also for resourcing and developing requirements. Some of the manning issues in units today come from breaking the units MTOEs, mostly by not task organizing.

Need a PSD? two options. A. Task a Line Squad to be the PSD, you could even rotate the duty between units. B. Suck soldiers out of your formations to make a PSD. Option B is the most common COA taken. Impact? Platoons/squads are undermanned, while the parent organization is overmanned. Those are command choices, so you can't fight it, but often the artificial shortages in the subordinate units are left vacant.

I acknowledge basicly no one is fighting based off their MTOE, heck noone is authorized MRAPs, so everything is basicly a pick up came down range based on resourcing and the AOR. So if it's a pick up game you still need some sort of framework to work from.

TTP's realy guide the gear train. If my TTPs state that the DM can be expected to enter and clear structures, trenchs, ect OR provide long range over watch/precision fires then whats his material AND training requirement? A long rifle with can and varible optic might not be the right choice, while an M-4 and an ACOG will meet 90% of my needs. How many man hours can I dedicate to mastering both ends of his skill set?

On the other hand if my DM's primary mission is to provide overwatch and long range/precision fires. Entering and clearing would be a last ditch skill set then whats my material AND training requirement? By definition I would state that this is not a member of squad duty description.

When you are talking about other unit types such as the Weapons Company or a RSTA/CAV unit or Heavy BDE you have to spend more time splitting out the hairs, but it can be done.

In your example old timers would have to ask, what does 3rd Squad have when they dismount/patrol(damn MRAPs) and were the hell is the PSG? Again speaking within doctrinal referances insures that we all understand each other.

If you notice in all of my discussions I try to refain from the term "Squad" when discussing the "Designated Marksman" requirement. I know this is counter to some degree from what I'm saying above, but i do it to differ the requirement from the position.

Member of squad weights the requirement one way, member of platoon weights it another.

What aOcake has layed out above for the training progression and employment of his BATTALIONs Designated Marksmen is the exception. Most units don't have as thourgh of a process behind developing the TTPs and training of their DM's.

While you are using differant terms to describe how the systems are deployed they parrell my prefered disposition. 4 DMs equipped with 5.56 SPRs or 7.62mm DMR's operating in coordination with the MG teams. Those teams are task organized to support the squads ensuring that during movements, say a search and attack, the squads have supporting weapons. During the attack or during reconsolidation the MG teams and DM's provide overwatch and/or precision fires.

If you devolve the requirement down to the squads then its realy hard to have a system which is good at in your face distances and long range, wielded by a PFC that arrived in the unit mid tour.

To the 600m vs 800m discussion. It's realy about target detection. With the optics availible to a typical squad platoon how far out can I get PID? Most of the units optics are 4x ACOGs, 3.5x MGOs and 8x binos. Trying to get trace beyound 500m with any of those optics is about impossible and depending on the AO, you may not get splash either. Now look at your DMR optics. If you have an optic weapon combo which will allow you to self spot how far out can you do so? Now how far out can average Joe do so with minimal training?

How far does the Army believe they need to engage? I don't think you will find a consistant answer. To me I need a minimium stand off capablty of 600m. This allow me to engage out to danger close with organic weapons. Do I need the ablity at the platoon or squad level? It's a tough call, but given that squads operate as part of a platoon the vast majority of the time, and that I can task organize MG's and DM's to support them I would error on the side of platoon.

Armati,

I'm about half way through the book you referanced. Good read. It underlines one of our other needs for the DM, which is close in precision fires, vs the focus exclusively on the 500-800 meter window.

[Armati]

For all intents and purposes, the M240B / MK48 has become a squad weapon for a lot of units.

I'm not saying all units run like this, but many do.

Sometimes sticking to doctrine in these discussions leads to analysis paralysis.

When I carried an M60 (yes, I am that old) I always thought it was a squad weapon. For my money, the Army missed the boat and should have went with the M60E3/Mk43 over the SAW.

In any event...

Questions:

What is the thought process in going with a 7.62mm SDMR? While we may field special ammunition I thought the idea was to be able to use regular issue 5.56mm and mags if the tactical situation went south.

If you do go 7.62mm, why the M21 type over the M110?

[kaltesherz]

Questions:
What is the thought process in going with a 7.62mm SDMR? While we may field special ammunition I thought the idea was to be able to use regular issue 5.56mm and mags if the tactical situation went south.

If you do go 7.62mm, why the M21 type over the M110?

As someone who carried an M14 in combat I'd much rather have carried an M110 or similar 7.62 AR just from an ergonomics and accessory point of view, plus there were no spares for M14s. Also anyone who can handle an M4 can handle it, unlike the 14. But on the other hand none of us EVER had any reliability issues with our M14s and I've heard of issues with M110's.

I liked 7.62 for the SDM role for the extra range and lessen the effect of wind, esp at range. M118LR seemed to be plentiful when I left Afghanistan in 2009 so I can only assume it's even more so out there.

[a0cake]

I gave my 2 cents on all these issues on Page 10 Post number 192.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.p...&postcount=192

I'll add here that there is absolutely no reason to go with an M14 based system over an M110 Carbine or similar.

When I carried an M60 (yes, I am that old) I always thought it was a squad weapon. For my money, the Army missed the boat and should have went with the M60E3/Mk43 over the SAW.

In any event...

Questions:

What is the thought process in going with a 7.62mm SDMR? While we may field special ammunition I thought the idea was to be able to use regular issue 5.56mm and mags if the tactical situation went south.

If you do go 7.62mm, why the M21 type over the M110?

[One Shot]

One of the commenters said that a bipod has no place an a DMR rifle.

That is the opinion of an individual and he has a right to it. The smartest thing to do is let the shooter configure his rifle the way it works best for him. So, that means if a guy does or does not want to use a bipod then the shooter makes that call. I would at least want a detachable bipod for my shooting needs. That way if I wanted to use one, I'd have one on me. If I were maneuvering through hallways and rooms, I would not want a bipod on my rifle in that situation. But otherwise, I would have something, if nothing else than my rucksack, on which I could base my rifle for a shooting need.

[One Shot]

Both the Army and the Marine Corp mean well when it comes to structure of units, training of units and supplying of units. The trouble is, and this has been stated many times, "Our military is always preparing to fight the last war." And that is pretty much true. Right now new trainees are learning how to fight based on what our people learned in Iraq and Afghanistan because that is the war the majority of their instructors recently fought.

My point is: There is nothing that keeps a good officer or NCO from setting up training in-house. If I were a NCO, I would approach my officers in my company with the idea of setting up our own in-house advanced riflemen, Designated Marksmen or even snipers. With a little inventive thinking, scopes and mounts could be purchased in some fashion outside of normal supply channels when needed. The key here is how much do you believe in good marksmanship and how can you interlock your belief in good marksmanship into your own unit?

[wild_wild_wes]

I gave my 2 cents on all these issues on Page 10 Post number 192.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.p...&postcount=192

I'll add here that there is absolutely no reason to go with an M14 based system over an M110 Carbine or similar.

7.62 might technically be the optimal solution, without a major restructuring of marksmanship training, I doubt it would be supportable.

[a0cake]

7.62 might technically be the optimal solution, without a major restructuring of marksmanship training, I doubt it would be supportable.

I don't know what this means. Marksmanship is marksmanship regardless of caliber. As far as being supportable, there are already 7.62 M14's being used as DMR's throughout the entire US Military. How on earth would an AR based 7.62 rifle require restructuring when the current DMR is the M14?

7.62X51 is the optimal solution, and in fact the current one. What is lacking is a) Training and b) the current M14 based systems.

None of this is the caliber's fault.