The link has several photos.

http://www.scout.com/military/...marine-corps-snipers

Major Changes Coming for Marine Corps Snipers

WE ARE THE MIGHTY
Yesterday at 11:01 AM

Since the days of Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock and his exploits in Vietnam, the image of Marine Corps Scout Snipers has struck fear in the hearts of America’s enemies.

And for good reason.

The Corps has one of the most comprehensive — and toughest — training schools for its sniper teams, with a grueling curriculum of long-range shooting, covert reconnaissance and advanced camouflage.

And that’s the problem, Corps infantry leaders say.

Marine officials have confirmed that Commandant Gen. Robert Neller is considering a plan that would make being a Scout Sniper a primary military occupational specialty in the Marine Corps, a move infantry leaders say would help units better meet the increasing demand for these highly-skilled specialists.

A Marine spokesperson declined to comment on whether the Commandant would sign off on the changes but said the Corps is looking into how to improve its Scout Sniper cadre.

“The Marine Corps is currently assessing the best way to train and sustain its Scout Snipers,” Marine spokesperson 1st Lt. Danielle Phillips told WATM. “It’s important we are thorough in our review to determine the best way the Corps can improve this vital capability.”

According to officers familiar with the process who spoke to We Are The Mighty on background, the way the Corps staffs its sniper platoons falls far short of the authorized goal of around 20 per platoon. One leader said on average a platoon has four trained snipers “if we’re lucky.”

Read More: This is what makes Marine Scout Snipers so deadly

“A lot of kids come to the sniper school not prepared or not fully qualified, so they fail out,” the infantry leader said. “So we’re just not able to maintain the number of snipers we need in a battalion.”

That’s why Neller was forwarded a plan to make the 0317 Scout Sniper MOS a primary one, in hopes that the Corps will do more to make sure enough of the sharpshooters get to the fleet where they’re needed.

“There’s a struggle to find Marines who have the time to train up and get to a ‘school level’ of success,” said a senior Marine sniper familiar with the MOS change proposal. “Right now it’s almost impossible.”

The senior Scout Sniper, who spoke on background to We Are The Mighty, said if the change is approved, a Marine who signed on as an 0317 would go through boot camp and the School of Infantry then would immediately be sent to a Basic Scout Sniper course. After that, the Marine would go back to the fleet to fill a Scout Sniper job in a platoon rather than leaving to chance the option of being pulled into another combat arms job.

Today, Marines who are selected for Scout Sniper have already completed one deployment and are approaching their end of active service, making it hard to keep snipers in the Corps even if they get the secondary MOS, the sniper leader said.

“There’s no way to make sure they stay in the sniper community,” he said.

As part of the change, the Corps is looking into modifying the Basic Scout Sniper course to focus more on the “scout” part of the training as opposed to shooting skills, the senior Marine leaders said.

Over the years, scout snipers have played an increasing role in reconnaissance and clandestine observation of targets where infantry leaders need “eyes on” key areas. Additionally, it’s been increasingly difficult to teach the advanced marksmanship skills that were once part of the basic sniper curriculum, contributing to the wash-out rates and making it harder for Marines to prepare for the sniper school.

The senior sniper said a lot of the advanced shooting techniques and other sniper-specific skills can be taught by senior NCOs once the new 0317 gets to his platoon. After a deployment in a sniper platoon, the Scout Sniper is better prepared for an advanced course and will help form a more seasoned cadre of leaders back at the platoon, he said.

But there are critics, senior Marine leaders acknowledge, particularly when it comes to the training changes.

“The old timers are pointing a bony finger at us and saying the new plan waters down sniper training,” the senior sniper said. “That’s an emotional response to how it used to be.”

“Nobody’s watering down what the Scout Sniper is and what he can do,” he added.

Wow.

Being the non-combat pogue, ( Army ) that I was, but having read some of the history of snipers, this zeems like a great advancement, as long as the quality of the sniper's isn't degraded.

Thoughts on this?

quote:

“A lot of kids come to the sniper school not prepared or not fully qualified, so they fail out,” the infantry leader said. “So we’re just not able to maintain the number of snipers we need in a battalion.”

I wonder if this is a comment on society in general and not on the quality of post-boot recruits.

Sniping is not a task well suited to the raised-by-a-smart-phone-ADHD-instant-gratification generation.

You can only undo so much conditioning in a short period of time.

While not in line with current standards what could work is to have a basic school that takes training to a certain level, then at a certain rank level or time in service benchmark, a further advanced school could take place ( with some contractual deal that completion of the course tacks two more years of service on) to bring the troop to the next level. In order to be a sniper NCO leading elements all requirements equal to current doctrine would have to be passed.
In essence developing someone between the sniper and squad designated marksman at entry level then progressing as time goes on.

This sort of thing is always controversial, and I’ve often wondered what sorts of standards are too much.

Those who met the previous standards will always decry any changes: “I had to ….” Very often, though, the previous standards were arbitrary and based on somebody’s whim. I was recently reminded once again of how that often occurs when I read a book by one of the first SWAT team members to enter Columbine High School after the active killers incident. He was into physical fitness and made it a big deal for the selection process after he took over. In a later incident, though, a girl was killed because a team member failed to get an incapacitating shot on the hostage taker. As I was reading, I could only think to myself, “Was marksmanship as important to that team as the number of pushups its members could do?”

I’ve also read about otherwise excellent candidates who washed out of SEAL training because of physical problems that were caused by the intense requirements, and which were far more rigorous than what they would ordinarily ever face in service.

If there are enough candidates to keep a force filled regardless of how high the standards are, then the standards don’t matter. If there aren’t, though, then someone should be asking, “Are these standards realistic and truly applicable to the job to be done?” or “Are they just to establish bragging rights about how many fail?”

How often they kill with the M40 vs how often they use close air support or artillery may be the driving force behind this.

This makes total sense and I hope they do it. Do you want 4x hard core old-school scout-snipers in a sniper PLT or all 20?

Sure the new SS "Basic" course will be shorter and easier than the current one. However, they note more advanced skills will be taught at the unit. There can also be an advanced course serving as a "train the trainer" role for the more senior members. The ones who are training the newbs at the unit.

This is the kind of discussion that can go on for days.

In the end it boils down to how many do you need and the cost / length of the training program.

If you take in 100 qualified candidates and only graduate 5 your training is FUBAR.

That proves your pre-training screening / prep is crap, your training program is crap, or the objective standards for graduation are crap. Or a combination of all 3.

Adjusting any of those three is what professionals do.

And of course there will always be a legion of 'old timers' complaining about how hard it was 'back in the day'.

But in the end (and in this case in particular) the USMC would be better served by having 1000 snipers trained 80% as well vs. having 100 snipers trained at the highest level.

----------------------------------------

If the primary problem is that the washout rate is too high, then how will bringing in inexperienced marines straight out of Basic improve the problem? Should you be able to screen recruits better after a deployment then before they've even joined up?

Or is the problem that marines complete the course and then separate?

quote:

Additionally, it’s been increasingly difficult to teach the advanced marksmanship skills that were once part of the basic sniper curriculum, contributing to the wash-out rates and making it harder for Marines to prepare for the sniper school.

They don't really elaborate on why this is true. However, I can certainly empathize with the desire to shift training towards the scout and recon aspect, over the marksmanship. I too wonder if that isn't driven by the increasing use of CAS.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

quote:

“A lot of kids come to the sniper school not prepared or not fully qualified, so they fail out,” the infantry leader said. “So we’re just not able to maintain the number of snipers we need in a battalion.”

I wonder if this is a comment on society in general and not on the quality of post-boot recruits.

Sniping is not a task well suited to the raised-by-a-smart-phone-ADHD-instant-gratification generation.

You can only undo so much conditioning in a short period of time.

Great insight. Patience is in short supply in immediate gratification age.

Quantity over quality is all bad.
While there is no intent to reduce the quality of Marine SS, anytime the goal is higher numbers lower quality often occurs.
I hope they stay tight with their standards & continue to flush any 1/2 steppers.

As I alluded above, the question is what aspects of a training program that make it difficult to complete are intended to enhance quality, and which are intended to simply reduce the graduation rate? I’ve seen plenty of examples of the latter.

In one book I read about SEAL training, one was selected to undergo sniper training. Because of class scheduling, he was thinking of attending the Marine Corps course. A more senior SEAL told him to wait for the SEAL-specific course, and his reason: Less bullshit. When a SEAL complains about bullshit in a military training course, it’s certainly something to think about at the very least.

In the interest of disclosure I was a Soldier, and I was never a sniper. That being said this is my take on this issue.

Society has been changing, and not for the better. As people live better they become less used to hardship. It's a cliche, but kids today have everything at their fingertips, and even poor people are fat and have smart phones. Today's youth has gotten soft, and the transition from civilian to military is mentally more difficult for them than it was even twenty years ago. With more than 50% of the US population living within an urban or almost urban environment, it's becoming more difficult to recruit the kinds of citizens who make good Marines. The USMC goes to great lengths to screen their recruits, but you gotta work with what you have.

We don't fight wars like we used to. The days of main force BN and BDE combat teams slugging it out on a maneuver field of battle are long gone. Everyone watched Gulf War I on CNN, and no one wants to fight us at our own game. No nation state want's to get into a battle they'll loose, and those few that might have nukes. Even though the military is trying to convince themselves that the insurgency thing will blow over, the effect of this kind of fighting has had a pronounced effect on MTOE.

Speaking of MTOE, the Army has disbanded it's dedicated pathfinder companies and LRS detachments. It's not that these assets are disappearing all together, but the company and detachment sized use of these units are no longer necessary. Does a Marine infantry BN really need a platoon of snipers, or has most of this function been co-opted by SDM's of some sort?

Insurgency is the new black, and with that the long range rifle shot is becoming a very rare thing. Even though everyone is still fielding the bolt gun, the plethora of SDM rifles and the appearance of carbine length semi auto sniper rifles tells me the military is planning on the bulk of their precision engagements being at or under 600 meters. The kind of sniping that Carlos Hathcock performed is just not the kind of overwatch missions that make up the bulk of what snipers do these days.

With all the above being said the Marines are having a retention issue. Between training and deployments most troops don't stick around past their first enlistment. Throw in the constant fuck-fuck crap that the culture of every service seems to be steeped in and it's no wonder that offering the scout sniper course as a reenlistment option is proving to be less than popular.

The following two statements from the article point to a more systemic problem, and that problem is making time for training.

"A lot of kids come to the sniper school not prepared or not fully qualified, so they fail out,” the infantry leader said. “So we’re just not able to maintain the number of snipers we need in a battalion.”

“There’s a struggle to find Marines who have the time to train up and get to a ‘school level’ of success,” said a senior Marine sniper familiar with the MOS change proposal. “Right now it’s almost impossible.”

I saw this issue in the Army, so I have to assume it plagues the Marines as well. A COC that doesn't make time for it's troops to show up at school in shape and ready to train is a COC that doesn't support the mission. This is an issue that has to be addressed from the top down. No amount of home schooling is going to fix it.

Did I read that right? FOUR snipers per platoon in the USMC??? How big are their platoons??

Granted, I was mech infantry back in the day, but when the whole SDM thing rolled around in the late 80s/early 90s, it was just 4 guys per company.

quote:

Originally posted by AllenInWV:
Did I read that right? FOUR snipers per platoon in the USMC??? How big are their platoons??

Granted, I was mech infantry back in the day, but when the whole SDM thing rolled around in the late 80s/early 90s, it was just 4 guys per company.

I think they were referring to Scout/Sniper platoons, not line platoons. 4 SS school grads in a platoon of 20. That's no bueno if correct.

quote:

Originally posted by AllenInWV:
Did I read that right? FOUR snipers per platoon in the USMC??? How big are their platoons??

Granted, I was mech infantry back in the day, but when the whole SDM thing rolled around in the late 80s/early 90s, it was just 4 guys per company.

If I read the USMC MTOE correctly it's one sniper platoon per infantry BN. That's still alot of guys to identify, train, and retain.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
This sort of thing is always controversial, and I’ve often wondered what sorts of standards are too much.

Those who met the previous standards will always decry any changes: “I had to ….” Very often, though, the previous standards were arbitrary and based on somebody’s whim. I was recently reminded once again of how that often occurs when I read a book by one of the first SWAT team members to enter Columbine High School after the active killers incident. He was into physical fitness and made it a big deal for the selection process after he took over. In a later incident, though, a girl was killed because a team member failed to get an incapacitating shot on the hostage taker. As I was reading, I could only think to myself, “Was marksmanship as important to that team as the number of pushups its members could do?”

I’ve also read about otherwise excellent candidates who washed out of SEAL training because of physical problems that were caused by the intense requirements, and which were far more rigorous than what they would ordinarily ever face in service.

If there are enough candidates to keep a force filled regardless of how high the standards are, then the standards don’t matter. If there aren’t, though, then someone should be asking, “Are these standards realistic and truly applicable to the job to be done?” or “Are they just to establish bragging rights about how many fail?”

Lots of great points. I have often wondered similar things, but never taken the time to explore the idea. I definitely think we train incorrectly for many jobs. Full disclosure: I'm not and have never been a sniper or any sort of ground guy. I'm a SOF pilot currently doing a staff job. But this phenomenon of setting standards not corollated to the mission, meeting them but failing on the mission is certainly something I have experienced. It seems like an easy fix in a logical world, but changing training pipelines is an emotional experience for some people invested in an identity aspect of the product rather than mission accomplishment. I'd love to dig into the psychological mechanisms for leading change on the kinds of issues. Add it to the long list of things I'd love to do if I weren't swamped in daily tasks!

Makes sense to me, a non-ground guy.

However, I see .mil snipers employed from time to time, and none of them are regularly employed to make 400+ meter shots, much less 800+.

So a ramp up program makes a lot of sense to me.