Are snipers really just terrorists? I mean, in terms of their deployment, they might be sent out for a high value target, a sort of a targeted assassination, but what of the sniper that is up in the tower of a city in which there is fighting? Is the sniper of any tactical value or is it just to scare the crap out of the enemy?
The main combat role of the sniper is reconnaissance. They are not just trigger pullers, they are masters of conceal and cover. I cannot think of any military worth their salt that does not utilize them. They have proven their value time and time again in armed conflicts for centuries.
Snipers were always used to deal with enemy's officers. They tend to make a serious detterent to any assault, which involves infantry. In a way deploying snipers might have the same effect as deploying mines.
Snipers were very effective in spreading terror in places like Kosovo and Bosnia. Snipers have always been effective weapons. Hayha (700+ kills) terrorized the Russians so much they sent a battalion to hunt him, with no luck. Incredibly he killed that many in only 100 days.
Ask Sniper Zaytsev about the value of the Sniper. A sniper can be equal to a whole Division, if the circumstances are correct. They can tilt the balance of a battle, they can bog down a whole enemy advance in a urban setting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Zaytsev
They were often used in combination with mines. Hard to avoid stepping on the wrong spot when someone could be aiming at you. It really becomes a war of attrition. Neither side can really advance. Typically they have to call in the artillery to root them out.
That really depends on who the sniper is. If they are part of an organized military force, and their target is either other military members or high value civilians then no, they are not terrorists. If they are part of an organized military force and they are picking off random civilians, then yes they are terrorists. If they are not part of an organized military and they are sniping anybody, then they are terrorists. It is not the role that needs to be judged, but who the shooter is and what their target is. In fact, one of the most celebrated snipers ever, Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock frequently did not even shoot to kill, but purposefully shot to wound. He knew that it would take at least 2-3 enemy soldiers to take care of a wounded comrade, where as nobody was required to take care of a body.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYN3rfkg12M This came down to terror and demoralizing the enemy, and taking out high profile targets the more important the better. And who cares if your an enemy of our nation then take out the enemy by any means. Snipers are a vital part of warfare.
This all depends upon the era you are talking about. During the era of Napoleonic tactics and earlier, the Generals ("high profile targets") were generally right on the battlefield, directing the individual units like pieces on a chessboard. Communications were no farther then line of sight, so a General had to be on the battlefield itself. By the time of WWI, this had changed. First Telegraph then Wireless communications meant that the Commanders no longer needed to be directly on the battlefield itself. So the role of the sniper changed from taking out the Top Leadership to taking out the Unit Leaders. Now some militaries started to adapt to this. In the US, Chain of Command and Assumption of Leadership became a key component of battlefield planning. The CO dies, the XO takes over. They die, the senior most of the next level down (Platoon for a Company, Company for a Battalion, etc) took charge. But there were always multiple people who were available to step into leadership. However, some organizations did not fare so well. The Soviets were a prime example. Leadership there was often by Party Position and political purity. And there was no "Professional NCO Corps", NCOs were largely chosen from the regular enlisted and simply sent to "Leadership Schools" based upon party affiliation. So in their military, taking out the leadership often left the units without a head. Then you often have the morale factor. Take out the tope individual, and if somebody takes over you take them too. This alone can often break a unit, even if the actual casualties as a percentage are low. But the general rule of thumb is that the lower the unit cohesion, the less likely it will remain as an operational fighting unit when the leadership is taken out.
Thanks, the recce role I hadn't thought of. I realise everyone has them, I wondered if their role was - apart from recce - to put fear into people. - - - Updated - - - Thanks, those comments make sense to me. The targeting the officers seems like a useful tactic, I'm reminded of the death of Admiral Nelson RN.
In the Marine Corps, Snipers are generally called "Scout-Snipers", and operate in the Surveillance and Target Acquisition (STA or "Stay") Platoon of every Infantry Battalion. In fact, only now have I discovered that the acronym changed from when I was in. In the 1980's, STA stood for "Surveillance, Tracking and Acquisition".
If they are only shooting enemy combatants they aren't terrorists. The sniper is of tactical value, otherwise we wouldn't be using them.
90% of the time snipers are the eyes of the battalion commander. 10% of the time they are surgeons with bullets. They are a effective weapon when they do fire. 1 sniper's bullet could save 1,000 lives.
