7/27/2019 The Concept of the Modern Battlefield

1/2

The Concept of the Modern Battlefield

1994

By Dave Reed

The concept of a "modern battlefield" has become a cliche term that has lost its meaning.

There can be differences in the battlefield of today that were inconceivable to warriors fromprevious conflicts. Moreover, new concepts from previous wars, such as those conceived -- forexample -- by Heinz Guderian and set forth in his work "Achtung! Panzer", would later becomestandard doctrine with modern, mobile, mechanized armies. This concept of a fast moving andflexible front was made possible by the introduction of a reliable tank, better communications, andthe ability to sustain the required logistic support.

We cannot view this form of warfare as though it is the only one. Nor is it the only one thathas seen change. Indeed, warfare throughout the world takes many forms, from very "cold" toextremely "hot." Change does not correspond to an abandonment of those methods which stillhave value on the battlefield. For example, there are those who consider sniping immoral and a

useless relic of a bygone era. Time and time again, countries involved in conflict have recognizedthe need for marksmanship. With each new technology introduced, there are those who cry thatthe infantry is obsolete. No matter how devastating the weapons employed, it is still the job of theinfantry to seize ground. Someone must physically pry the enemy soldiers from their holes anddeclare the territory secure. As long as there is need for riflemen, there is a need for snipers.

Sniping is no more immoral than any other form of warfare. Why it conjures up the image itdoes is hard for me to understand. People killed by a bomb or artillery shell have no warning thatthey are about to be killed. Shooting someone with a scoped rifle is no different. The war nowbeing waged in Bosnia has brought the term "sniper" into our living rooms almost daily. Weassociate the term with pictures of innocent women and children dying. To me, the Serbian

"snipers" are nothing more than terrorists who use rifles instead of bombs. Calling them sniperscauses confusion. Professional soldiers do not shoot innocent non-combatants and livestock withrifles or anything else. Cruel, evil, hate-filled people do this. These actions are not sanctioned bythe law of war and the appropriate category for these actions is "crimes against humanity."

Snipers are professional soldiers who use their special skills to deny the enemy access, killkey enemy personnel, and gather critical intelligence. Valid targets are officers, gunners of crewserved weapons, and communications specialists, as well as the gear they serve. These soldiersrequire additional training and as such, are hard for the enemy to replace. Moreover, often theequipment which a sniper has disabled is very delicate and very expensive, making it difficult forthe enemy to repair or replace.

With a growing awareness of political sensitivity, some military and law enforcementagencies have begun to refer to this role as "counter-sniping," and refer to shooters as such, oreven the more lame title, "marksman." This is like calling a garbage man a sanitation engineer.Our culture has sanitized our language to the point that it no longer conveys any real meaning.Secretaries are called administrative assistants, maintenance men are building or maintenanceengineers, etc. Sniping is, and will continue to be, an important skill and valuable asset for militarycommanders. Marksmanship is as important today as it was 400 years ago. Polluting the enemy'ssoil with lead may well cause some long-term damage, but hitting the target solves the moreimmediate problem: disabling the enemy's command and control structure so that he is unable to

The Concept of the Modern Battlefield

1 of 2

7/27/2019 The Concept of the Modern Battlefield

2/2

prosecute war effectively.

Back to Articles

The Concept of the Modern Battlefield

2 of 2