Why are recon,sabotage, sniper teams and generally unconventional

>>34732005
>Why are recon,sabotage, sniper teams and generally unconventional warfare so underused in wars?
What makes you think they are? And what wars are you speaking of? If you mean the middle east and syrian conflict; it's completely different from conventional wars between strong first world nations, and even then snipers and recon units are used a lot by all sides, though the term "recon unit" is used lightly.

>>34732005
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Force_Surveillance_Units

There are several Australian Army units with this exact purpose

>>34732005
>Why are recon,sabotage, sniper teams and generally unconventional warfare so underused in wars?
They are not.

File: download (35).jpg (6KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 259x194px

>>34732005
>Unconventional
>Why not more often
>Unconventional

>>34732031

But those are "Recon" units not recon units.

As "Ya recon those leaf cunts will take those brown cunts home as refugees?"

>>34732047
>In the event of a small or large scale insurgency in the north, the RFSUs role would be to detect enemy landings, especially near the important economic and defence infrastructure in their areas of operation. In the extremely unlikely event of an invasion of northern Australia the RFSUs would operate in a 'stay-behind' capacity. Patrols remaining in the field deep behind enemy lines would inevitably end up supplementing their diets from the land in order to survive and complete their mission as the first line of defence for continental Australia. Tasks for such a scenario are reporting on enemy movements, calling in airstrikes, killing and capturing the enemy in close quarter combat or sniping roles, demolition by explosive or sniping to impede enemy advance, and disrupting enemy supply lines for as long as possible.

File: 1491794436561.jpg (72KB, 700x468px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 700x468px

>>34732005
>recce
this word is overused

>>34732033
>>34732024
if they're not underused, then why didn't we hear about baathist/vietnamese/ snipers shooting at US officers in FOBs?

File: making my way downtown moving fast and im fob bound.jpg (148KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 604x453px

>>34732005
>recon
Because they are.

Because that requires competence and the military is entirely incompetent save the extremely small units that already exist

>>34732074
Not everyone has the training and/or capability to field them. Some doctrines may or may not use them.
>why didn't we hear about baathist/vietnamese/ snipers shooting at US officers in FOBs?
Google "NVA Apache". That's just an infamous example (though not purely because of marksmanship), however there are plenty of others. Just because there isn't a movie about one doing exactly what you said doesn't mean they didn't exist.

>>34732074
If you know about them, they're not doing their job properly.

>>34732005
They get killed, a LOT. A "normal conventional force" very realistically compares to anything praised as the "best in the world!"

Technology generally stacks odds better than expensive training.

File: 1ep4w7.png (26KB, 241x274px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 241x274px

>>34732107
>Technology generally stacks odds better than expensive training.

File: now zad.jpg (77KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 960x720px

>>34732080
Ketamine lancers dox photos are pretty rad.

>>34732107
Recon maybe, apparently over a deployment a british recon platoon went down from 18 down to 6 over 6 months, but no one died.

But you're wrong about training, look at the falklands war, almost identical equipment on the ground and the argentinians got their ass handed to them

>>34732164
You telling me Argentina and England were technological equals?

Honestly where do I fucking start with your statement.

>>34732208
> England
on the ground yes, they both had the same amounts of NV equipment, same small arms.

The argentines were in dug in positions and outnumbered the brits, but look at who took the fewer casualties.

Superior training and experience is a bigger factor than technology.

>>34732227
rather than argue with you. Can you help me find information to support your claim? All I'm finding is that the English just out munitioned them.

>>34732247
Not that guy but here's more examples.

Algerian soldiers and ISIS
The algerian army, being in the agrarian shithole it is, the algerian army basically had 1:1 armament equivalency to ISIS (Both sides use AKs, no body armor, etc etc) but the Algerian light infantry squads ended up BTFOing ISIS squads at every engagement
which is due to better training.

Another example is the rhodesian bush war, again, same armament, same number, but the rhodesians had better training, which ended in them BTFO'ing ZANLA and others

Third example, Chechen war, just how the hell did the chechens wreck the russian army? i mean the army had tanks, air support, etc etc
The reason for that is the chechens used good small unit tactics and in fact they were better trained than your average ruskie conscript

Fourth, battle of ben guerden, ISIS got all uppity in libya and tried to invade tunisia, Despie that the average tunisian soldier is equipped with nothing but a rusty 70's AUG and no body armor, and ISIS having LMGs, Technicals, etc etc, the tunisian army managed to wreck ISIS's shit because the army was better trained (despite that the "army" was just a couple of platoons and they were outnumbered by ISIS)

And there's many, many maaaany other examples of well trained units BTFO'ing better equipped, better numbered units

>TLDR: Training > gear
i'd rather have a team of underequipped rangers than a team of third world conscripts with tier 1 gear.

>>34732290
Great argument, I retract my statement and thank you for teaching me something.

File: 1500967543276.gif (3MB, 444x250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 444x250px

>>34732306
Thank you for your civility, have a you

>>34732005
More or less the only soldiers being sent there from our nation are intelligence officers or recons

>>34732005
desu most end up spotted and calling in a fire mission anyway, they're not very good at blending in and not being seen.

>>34732208
You're utterly retarded

>>34732208
Argies had some night vision stuff that they got from the US and issued to their special forces. Not a lot of it, but it was better than the brit standard issue