Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 227

Thread: Snipers Sniping & Countering them

  1. #121
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    - I recall reading 'bout a year ago or so where a Canadian had the record for a while, but can't reference that

  2. #122
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goesh
    - I recall reading 'bout a year ago or so where a Canadian had the record for a while, but can't reference that
    ....Cpl Reynolds, of Dalgety Bay, in Fife, together with his spotter Lance Corporal David Hatton, worked out different factors such as wind speed and the trajectory of the bullet to hit the target. Musa, who was more than 1,500 metres away, was taken out with a single shot to the chest.....
    The Canadian sniper was Cpl Rob Furlong, who took out his target at a distance of 2,430 meters in 2003 during Anaconda. A bit before that, a member of the same team, MCpl Arron Perry, took out his target at 2,380. Both were confirmed, and both broke Hathcock's long-standing record, so they were discussed a lot on the 'net at the time, including debate over which one fired which shot. Both hits were at distances that were quite a bit more than 1,500 meters that Cpl Reynolds reportedly exceeded, so lacking more precise information, it doesn't appear that he has definitively taken the record.

  3. #123
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    I just gotta ask what kinda girl your likely to get
    Obviously, one who doesn't read The Small Wars Journal.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  4. #124
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    9

    Default measurements

    1 Mile = 1600 meter,
    2400 meter = 1.5 Miles.

  5. #125
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goesh View Post
    - I recall reading 'bout a year ago or so where a Canadian had the record for a while, but can't reference that
    Hey Goesh,
    You actually were the author of Kentucky Windage and you are once again quoted herein for memory

    Quote Originally Posted by goesh View Post
    It's hats-off to our Canadian allies currently engaging taliban and al qaidah forces in Afghanistan. Taken from the VFW March 07 edtion, we are informed of some down right impressive shooting:

    Canadians set two (2) new world records for the farthest combat kill with a rifle. Gunny Hatchcock, USMC, held the record from a kill made in Viet Nam registered at 1.39 miles but Master Cpl. Arron Perry whacked an al qaidah fighter at 1.43 miles. The rifle and scope used were not specified. Not to be outdone by a mate, Cpl. Rob Furlong then dropped his man using a McMillan Tac-50, sending him to the promised land at a whopping distance of 1.5 miles! Ooooo-Rahhh! Let's hear it for the Kanucks and them awesome .50s.

    When the chips are down, we can always count on the Canadians. In Operation Apollo, Canada dispatched 850 troops of the PPCLI to Afghanistan. They arrived with " I Love NY" stickers on their Coyote recon vehicles. During Operation Anaconda in March of 02', 5 Canadian snipers linked up with elements of the 101st Airborne in the Shahikot Valley. For 10 days, the snipers killed the enemy with amazing professional precision. In the words of one GI, "Thank God the Canadians were there."
    Regards, Stan
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  6. #126
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyhawk View Post
    ...of the scope to identify a drug lord as such at that distance.

    As for the shooter eliminating an obvious immediate threat, well done.
    Sniper observers often use 30x spotting scopes.


    The 1,500 m shot seems to have been done with .338LapMag cartridge, and it was apparently a first shot hit unlike some hits at longer distances.

  7. #127
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    9

    Default

    if it was with an .338 Lapua it IS/was a good shot.

  8. #128
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    I just gotta ask what kinda girl your likely to get
    A scottish one. In my experience they tend not to be the fragile flower type.

    SFC W

  9. #129
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default You are a master of understatment.

    I've met too many who can outshoot me.

    Won't even go into the wrestling...

  10. #130
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    This seems very appropriate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgzC-l_lmUU

  11. #131
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    I've met too many who can outshoot me.
    You're about to shoot a score of 5000 though; next one....
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  12. #132
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    I just gotta ask what kinda girl your likely to get
    Hopefully, one who inherited a Highland "stalking estate!"

    "Honey, can I use your rifle this evening while you're at PTA?"
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  13. #133
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default What kinda girl ....

    has been defined for all time by Ken:

    The Scotch Irish in early America were noted for their wanton ways -- loud, rowdy and very tough girls, and the genre itself for the huge numbers of kids they had and their willingness ... to hop in bed with or marry outside the clan or sept ...
    leaving out the parentheticals (which he may re-insert, since it is his quote).

    Perfect match for any Scottish gilly-suiter, I should think.

  14. #134
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default *bump*

    I just picked up a book called More of the Deadliest Men Who Ever Lived by Paul Kirchner. The book has 33 chapters, each one devoted to a different person - often a cop or soldier - who proved deadly.

    One of the chapters was devoted to Bert Waldron. This is the most extensive information I've seen yet on Waldron and it appears to be the most objective. Kirchner interviewed a former wife of Waldron, plus several people who served with Waldron.

    In a nutshell: Waldron was an enigmatic man of contrasts. He appears to have been a good combat soldier, yet he had some disciplinary problems stateside and his chain of command asked him to accept an honorable discharge after one enlistment because they didn't want to discipline such a decorated soldier.

    Waldron often lied and his habit of lying made some who encountered him think that everything about him must be BS. The odd thing was that he often lied even though the truth was impressive enough. For example, Waldron was the recipient of two DSCs, one Silver Star and three bronze stars; yet, Waldron once told someone that he had four Silver Stars and was going to be awarded the Medal of Honor.

    Kirchner wasn't able to come up with a hard yea or nay on Waldron's official 109 confirmed kills. Kirchner interviewed one officer who served with Waldron who said that he "suspected" that kills made by Waldron's security element were sometimes added to Waldron's total. Yet there is quite a bit of credible informantion in the form of 9th ID after action reports and interviews with soldiers who served with him that Waldron was indeed an effective sniper who made quite a few legitimate confirmed kills and some impressive individual shots. Or, as I said in a previous post: He was a superb rifleman correctly empoyed in a target rich environment. At least that much does appear to be true even if it's impossible to be certain about the 109 confirmed kills at this point.

    Kirchner never mentions Waldron doing time, so evidently the rumor that I'd heard and mentioned in my previous post isn't true; however, Kirchner says that the FBI was indeed keeping an eye on Waldron during the time he worked for WerBell.

    Anyway, the book is an interesting read and not just for the chapter on Bert Waldron.
    Last edited by Rifleman; 11-01-2009 at 02:51 AM.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  15. #135
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    129

    Default Training for 300 vs 500

    I read the paper. It seems to me that with a combination of 'battle zero' and the fundamentals of marksmanship (stance, grip, sight alignment, sight picture, breath control, trigger control and follow through) you can hit a man sized target at 300m. If you are only training to hit anywhere on a 20" target at that range then you don't even need to be very good at the fundamentals - a 6" group at 100m is good enough. Because the bullet's trajectory with the rifle's basic setup will always be somewhere close enough the soldier never needs to worry about estimating range.

    If you want to have a chance at hitting at 500m then not only do you need to be better at the fundamentals - a 4" group at 100m is necessary, you also need to be able to estimate the range to the target, understand the trajectory of the bullet and adjust accordingly. Also, you're going to have to learn to take into account wind and elevation - and this is with a stationary target!

    I read the author as recommending a weapon with better long range capability and teaching soldiers to use more than the most basic fundamentals. I can't think of a sufficient reason not to do both immediately.

  16. #136
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Jones RE said:

    I read the author as recommending a weapon with better long range capability and teaching soldiers to use more than the most basic fundamentals. I can't think of a sufficient reason not to do both immediately.
    I think that US military knows how to train sharpshooters. To improve situation this means that every soldier must pass Squad Sharpshooter program. This adds 1 week to training if I understand correctly.
    For a long time there was available "Squad Sharpshooter Concept" in internet by Michael R Harris http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/smallarms/Harris.pdf It has disappeared now

    About ammo and calibre. For some period I used very often Soviet ammo 5,45x39 (brain child of Soviet engineers that figured out that US new M-16 is "better" than AK-47) and 7,62x39. You can make just one test to compare the effectiveness. Arrange night shooting with tracers on the filed where grass is above the waist. With 5,45x39 you can see nice vertical rocket show in the sky with few holes. With 7,62 the picture is much more horizontal. I presume that you can see the same picture if you test 5,56x45 vs 6,5/6,8.

  17. #137
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Exclamation To bring this back on track...

    I looked a bit around and found this concerning optics, weapons etc. This is of course about snipers in WWII, and rather good ones at that, but I think it is telling about the challenges of accurate rifle fire under "difficult" situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    Interview von Hans Widhofner (1976) an drei deutsche Scharfschützen (Hetzenauer, Allerberger und Wirnsberger), erschienen in Truppendienst (Autor: Hauptmann WIDHOFNER H., Scharfschützen (I-III); TRUPPENDIENST Ausgabe 1967 Teil I: Seite 109 bis 113, Teil II: Seite 224 bis 229, Teil III: Seite 297 bis 299) - ENGLISH

    Widhofner questioned three seasoned snipers individually. They are designated in the order A, B and C. All three were members of the Third Mountain Division of the former German Army. With respect to their person please note the following:

    A. Matthäus Hetzenauer of Tyrol fought at the Eastern Front from 1943 to the end of the war, and with 345 certified hits is the most successful German sniper.

    B. Sepp Allerberg of Salzburg fought at the Eastern Front from December 1942, to the end of the war, and with 257 certified hits is the second-best German sniper.

    C. Helmut Wirnsberger of Styria fought at the Eastern Front from September 1942, to the end of the war and scored 64 certified hits (after being wounded he served for some time as instructor on a sniper training course).
    1. Weapons used?

    A. K98 with six-power telescopic sights. G43 with four-power telescopic sights.

    B. Captured Russian sniper rifle with telescopic sight; I cannot remember power. K98 with six-power telescopic sights.

    C. K98 with 1.5-power sights. K98 with four-power telescopic sights. G43 with four-power telescopic sights.


    2. Telescopic sights used?

    A. Four-power telescopic sight was sufficient up to a range of approximately 400 meters, Six-power telescopic sight was good up to 1,000 meters.

    B. Used for two years a captured Russian rifle with telescopic sight; yielded good results, Six-power telescopic sight mounted on K98 was good.

    C. 1.5-power telescopic sight was not sufficient; four-power telescopic sight was sufficient and proved good.


    3. What is your opinion on increasing the magnification of your telescopic sights?

    A. & B. Six-power was sufficient. There was no need for stronger scope. No experience with greater magnification.

    C. Four-power is sufficient in both cases.


    4. At what range could you hit the following targets without fail?

    A. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 600 meters. Standing Man up to 700-800 meters.

    B. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 400 meters. Standing up to 600 meters.

    C. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 400 meters. Standing Man up to 600 meters.


    5. Do the ranges indicated by you apply only to you, i.e. the best snipers, or also to the majority of snipers?

    A. & B. Only to the best snipers.

    C. To me personally as well as to the majority of snipers. A few outstanding snipers could hit also at longer ranges.

    B added: Absolutely positive hitting is possible only up to about 600 meters.


    6. What was the range of the furthest target you ever fired at, and what kind of target, size?

    A. About 1,000 meters. Standing soldier. Positive hitting not possible, but necessary under the circumstances in order to show enemy that he is not safe even at that distance! Or superior wanted to satisfy himself about capability.

    B. 400 to 700 meters.

    C. About 600 meters, rarely more. I usually waited until target approached further for better chance of hitting. Also confirmation of successful hit was easier. Used G43 only to about 500 meters because of poor ballistics.


    7. How many second shots / Additional shots were necessary per ten hits?

    A. Almost never.

    B. One to two. Second shot is very dangerous when enemy snipers are in the area.

    C. One to two at the most.

    The percentage under "realistic" circumstances in a Great war. See also question 4.


    13. Percentage of successful hits at various ranges?

    Up to 400 meters A. 65 percent C. 80 percent

    Up to 600 meters A. 30 percent C. 20 percent

    Additional information: A. This is why about 65 percent of my successful hits were made below 400 meters.


    B. Do not remember. Mass of hits were below the range of 600 meters.

    C. Shot mainly within range of 400 meters due to great possibility of successful hit. Beyond this limit hits could not be confirmed without difficulty.


    14. Do these percentages and ranges apply to you personally or are they valid for the majority of snipers?

    A. This information is applicable to the majority of snipers as well as to the beat snipers, for: the majority of snipers could hit with absolute certainty only within a range of 400 meters due to their limited skills, the best snipers could hit with reasonable certainty at longer ranges; they in most cases, however, waited until enemy was closer or approaching the enemy in order to better choose the target with respect to its merit

    More about optics and their importance:

    19. Was it advisable to equip the sniper with a double telescope (binos)? What magnification did the double telescope have?

    A. 6 x 30 enlargement was insufficient for longer distances. Later I had a 10 x 50 telescope which was satisfactory.

    B. Double telescope was equally important as rifle. No further information.

    C. Every sniper was equipped with a double telescope. This was useful and necessary. An enlargement of 6 x 30 was sufficient up to a range of about 500 meters.


    20. Would you prefer a periscope which allows observation under full cover?

    A. Was very useful as supplement (Russian trench telescope).

    B. No.

    C. Was used when captured.


    21. Were scissor stereo telescopes (positional warfare) used?

    A, C. Yes, when available. Was used mutually by sniper and artillery observer.

    B. No.

    Wind and moving targets.

    27. How did you overcome side wind?

    A. By my own judgment and experience. When necessary, I used tracer ammunition to determine wind drift. I was well prepared for side wind by my training at Seetaleralpe where we practiced often in strong winds.

    B. By own judgment. We did not shoot when side wind was too heavy.

    C. No explanation since snipers do not shoot with strong winds.


    28. Can you recall the rules pertaining to your behavior when shooting at moving targets?


    A, B, C: No; importance is own judgment and experience as well as fast aiming and fast firing.

    TO&E and "designated marksmen"

    10. Were you incorporated into a troop unit?

    All three belonged to the sniper group of the battalion. C was the commander of this group. They numbered up to 22 men; six of them usually stayed with battalion, the rest were assigned to the companies. Observations and use of ammunition as well as successful hits had to be reported daily to the battalion staff. In the beginning, the snipers were called up cut of the battalion, as the war continued and the number of highly-skilled snipers decreased, they were often assigned and given their orders by the division. In addition, a few marksmen in each company were equipped with telescopic sights. These men did not have special training but were able to hit accurately up to about 400 meters and carried out a great deal of the work to be done by "actual snipers". These specially equipped riflemen served in the company as regular soldiers. This is why they could not achieve such high scores as the "snipers".

    Recruitment:

    17. From what group of persons were snipers selected?

    A. Only people born for individual fighting such as hunters, even poachers, forest rangers, etc without taking into consideration their time of service.

    B. Do not remember. I had scored 27 successful hits with Russian sniper rifle before I was ordered to participate in sniper training course.

    C. Only soldiers with experience at the front who were excellent riflemen; usually after second year of service; had to comply with various shooting requirements to be accepted in the sniper training courses.

    To be continued...


    Firn

  18. #138
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Interviews with soviet soldiers in this case snipers.

    Initially the exercises were easy. The size of a target – full-length, half-length, and running targets. Then they complicated the exercises gradually. The most difficult thing was to fire at a “head” target that suddenly appeared for several seconds at a distance about 300-400 meters.

    More about distances.

    There was another episode when we executed a specific task. A German sniper appeared at our sector of defense and started troubling us. Volodia and I used the same tactics of hunting. There was, however, only one difference: the day was sunny, therefore I slightly rocked my rifle with the optical sight over the parapet to motivate the German to fire.

    As a rule, sniper's position lay a bit into the no man's zone. The best distance to fire was some 300–500 meters. We took our positions in the dark. We were allowed to leave them in the daytime only if it was possible to do it imperceptibly. If not – we sat until dark.

    To execute a specific order we spent as long time as needed to liquidate the appointed target. More frequently we had free daily hunting and we liked it. You continue fighting from the same position as long as you are sure that it hasn't been discovered. Otherwise you should make off quickly.
    Another interview by a female sniper:

    But the Germans also put a sniper to watch us. And so I was watching, observing during my shift (because the eyes would get tired), and Marusia said: "Let me take the watch now." She got up, it was a sunny day, and she apparently moved the lens. As soon as she got up, there was a shot, and she fell. Oh, how I cried! The German was 200 meters away from us. I screamed so loud it could be heard all over the trenches, soldiers ran out: "Quiet, quiet, or they'll open mortar fire!" But how could I be quiet? She was my best friend. We sat until the evening, and I kept crying all that time. Then we buried her. I remember there were many wildflowers. It was at Orsha, at the 3rd Belorussian Front. Later her grave was moved to Mogilev, that's where she had been born. Later Nadia Lugina was also wounded from among us. My second partner was also named Marusia, last name Guliakina.
    A.D. What were you taught at the school?

    They taught us tactics, how to shoot, how to camouflage. Also ballistics, how the bullet flies. Here it flies, here it hits -- I forgot everything already.

    A.D. Sniping partner couples were formed at the school?

    At the school. When we came as civilians, Marusia Chikhvintseva and I stood next to each other, so we remained partners with her.

    A.D. And did you train as partners?

    Yes.

    A.D. So it seems that the entire group was sent to one sector of the front?

    No. Many of us graduated, I couldn't say how many now, but they sent us to all fronts.

    A.D. But your group was constant? You had six pairs, right?

    About 12 of us, six pairs. Simultaneously. A squad was 10 soldiers, but there were more of us.

    A.D. What was the total number of Germans you killed?

    I don't remember, Germans killed in battle weren't counted, only in the defense.

    A.D. How did you count the kills?

    The commander in whose trench we were would write a note. And we would return with it.

    A.D. Then it's not clear, what if you only wounded him?

    Yes, it could be, but we counted as killed.

    A.D. So if he fell, that's a kill?

    Yes. How would you check?

    A.D. What was the usual distance you fired from?

    At the school or at the front?

    A.D. At the front.

    1200 meters, and 200 meters. Our lines were close. Once Germans attacked our trench and took some girls prisoner
    , and killed them there. They killed Klava Monakhova. Only one soldier survived, there was an abandoned dug-out, simply a hole in the soil covered with a ground-sheet with snow on top, he hid there. Germans held out for a day, so he spent the day there.

    A.D. What was the standard distance from which you fired? Or an optimal one?

    Well, what's there to say? The rifle could shoot two kilometers in a straight line. But you could observe up to 800 meters. At the school we fired at 200, and 300. There was night target practice. Different kinds of shooting.


    A.D. Even at night?

    Even at night. How else?

    A.D. Did you shoot at night at the front?

    No.

    A.D. And in the moonlight?

    No. As soon as it dawned we went to our position, as soon as it got dark we returned. We stayed not in the trenches, but at the regiment commander's command post.

    A.D. How many shots did you fire from one position?

    One. You couldn't do two.

    A.D. Or else you'd get killed?

    Of course!

    A.D. So, in practice that would amount to one shot per day?

    Yes, if you kill, otherwise you might not have even one.

    A.D. And partners were always next to each other?

    Yes, at arm's length. Together all the time. Some went outside the defenses, but we didn't. Why? Because minefields had to be cleared, and that was very difficult and dangerous for the sappers. Then again, we stood as soldiers in the daytime, while the soldiers were resting. There were fifty soldiers in a trench. Ten of them, no more, stood watch at night
    ...


    A.D. Did you use binoculars?

    No, only the optical sight.


    A.D. But the sight doesn't have a good field of view?

    You could see 800 meters very well. You would sit there without moving, and if you moved, then you were noticed. A sniper would lie there quietly and see to the distance of two kilometers, 800 meters wide. He would observe everything. When I got tired, I would say "Marusia, I'm done," -- she would start observing. Because sniper's task was to eliminate commanders, machine gun emplacements, messengers that would be running around. They also had to be eliminated. Soldiers were not necessary, mostly -- officers, commanders. You would fire one shot, let go of the rifle, and lie there. You would wait until your partner fired her shot. When it became dark, we left our position. During the day we walked around, looked for a good spot to lie in wait. Sometimes picked a spot in front of our trenches. After picking a spot, took up the position when it was dark. Then we lay there without moving a muscle until the next evening, because you couldn't crawl away in the daylight. If there was an attack, that was different, then you would get up and run. Otherwise, you would lie in that spot to the end.

    A.D. Did you have hand grenades?

    Yes. We carried two hand grenades on our belt. One for the fascists, one for yourself, so you wouldn't be captured by the fascists. It was necessary.

    A.D. Did you fire in the crosswind?

    Yes, we were trained to do that. And firing at moving targets as well. Different things. Some fired, others spun those targets. At our school, there was one good trench, and one small one. God save you from being sent there, you would spend the entire day in the snow. After you returned, you would literally tear your foot bindings off your feet. Everyone's feet hurt.

    A.D. Because you had to lie in the snow?

    Yes. At the front we also lay in the swamps. Near Leningrad, there were only swamps. If a horse passed by, there was water under the hoofs. You would wash yourself with it, and even drink from that hoof print.

    A.D. Did you have a regular Mosin rifle?

    Yes, a three-line rifle (line=1/10 inch, 3 lines=7.62 mm - trans.) with a bayonet. Regular one. Always with a bayonet and an optical sight.

    A.D. Why the bayonet?

    Just in case, if you go on the attack. An entrenching tool, a mess tin, two grenades, ammo, first aid kit.

    A.D. What was the farthest target you hit?

    Near the Dnieper, a machine gunner and a sniper.


    A.D. What was the distance there?

    Across a field, they were sitting in a shed. Probably a kilometer, if not more. A target could be hit up to two kilometers.

    A.D. You were attached to a regiment? A sniper squad was attached to a regiment?

    To a regiment. A trench was given to us. That was the place we went until the offensive began. In a designated area.

    A.D. What was the sense in that? If you couldn't occupy the same position?

    There was a lot of room there. We had 500 meters, and there were two of us.
    ..


    A.D. Maybe there were some incidents you could talk about in detail?

    How I killed? It was horrible. Better not. I told you, Olga and I lay at arm's length from each other. We spoke quietly because the German would be there not far in front of us. They were listening to everything. Their outposts were better organized, after all. We tried not to move, to say something quietly, find a target. Everything would grow so numb! For example, I would say: "Olia, mine." She would already know -- she wouldn't kill that one. After the shot I would only help her observe. I would say, for example: "There, behind that house, behind that bush", and she would already know where to look. We took turns shooting. During the daytime we were always in position, came and left at night. Every day. No days off.

    A.D. So you're saying, you couldn't move the rifle?

    Absolutely no!

    A.D. So how did it lie? Simply against the shoulder?

    Against the shoulder and your finger was always on the trigger. Because you might've had to pull it at any moment. The sector of fire was 800 m. And so you would look, and suddenly a target would appear. When the target reached the crosshairs, then I fired. This means that the target walked into the shot on its own. And, of course, that spot would've been ranged.

    There is certainly far more to good shooting in war than markmanship...


    Firn

  19. #139
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    The "Finnish view on sniping" raises some other points, but mostly reinforces the older ones.

    The Russian snipers seem to execute their tasks with extraordinary patience and tenacity and seem to have excellent material at their disposal. This can be concluded from the fact that they were able to discern even the least movement at great distances and that they concentrated their efforts only upon well-selected, sure and visible targets. Generally speaking, they were interested only in sure targets. Also the cooperation between several snipers seems to be smooth and the allocation of the different phases of the work well-organized.

    It seems that once in a while two snipers go after the same target, for it happened that two men walking side by side were hit almost at the same time. On another occasion, one of our [Finnish] snipers was taking aim at his opponent when another enemy sniper shot his rifle to pieces. The sniper's mate not only takes care of the observation, but also the deception of the enemy. He tries by all conceivable means to lure lookouts and guards from their protective cover.

    Enemy snipers have used "dum-dum" ammunition, which made it more difficult to locate the spot from which the shot was fired but easier for the enemy to observe a hit.

    (4) Ranges and Performances

    Depending upon the distance between the lines, the ranges run from 100 to 900 yards, but occasionally enemy snipers have tried shots up to 1,400 yards. The usual and most effective distance is 200 to 400 yards, but even at 600 to 700 yards the accuracy of fire has been fairly satisfactory.

    The fire readiness and speed of fire have been good even on moving targets, a proof on the one hand of thorough training, and on the other of the indispensability of the telescopic sight.

    The speed and accuracy of fire gave rise to the suspicion that snipers posted in buildings made use of special aids. The accuracy of the fire may be illustrated by the following examples:

    At 200 to 400 yards several scissors telescopes and periscopes were smashed to pieces. One sniper shot down a small rock which had been placed in an observation slit three times in rapid succession.

    When one of our MG platoon commanders lifted his hand just once above the snow-wall to repair the alarm wire a Russian sniper scored a hit on his hand at 100 yards. A sniper was hit several times through an observation slit fashioned into the snow-wall with a stick. Various objects lifted by our men above the parapet, as a trial, were generally hit. It also happened that Finnish observers behind periscopes, were shot at through the snow wall.
    To sum it, at least in my humble opinion:

    If facing a competent enemy, only an unseen and/or unsuppressed, well-trained and suited soldier with good equipment can kill well at longer ranges with individual rifle-fire.


    Firn


    P.S: The "scoring system" differed considerably between the Germans and Soviets but there were also similar approaches:

    Quote Originally Posted by Soviet female sniper
    A.D. What was the total number of Germans you killed?

    I don't remember, Germans killed in battle weren't counted, only in the defense.

    A.D. How did you count the kills?

    The commander in whose trench we were would write a note. And we would return with it.

    A.D. Then it's not clear, what if you only wounded him?

    Yes, it could be, but we counted as killed.

    A.D. So if he fell, that's a kill?

    Yes. How would you check?

    Quote Originally Posted by German snipers


    12. In what warfare could the sniper be most successful?


    A. The best success for snipers did not reside in the number of hits, but in the damage caused the enemy by shooting commanders or other important men. As to the merit of individual hits, the snipers best results could be obtained in defense since the target could be best recognized with respect to merit by careful observation. Also with respect the numbers, best results could be obtained in defense since the enemy attacked several times during a the day.

    B. Defense. Other hits were not certified.

    C. Best results during extended positional warfare and during enemy attacks; good results also during delaying action.


    30. What was the method by which your hits were certified?

    A, B, C, By observation and confirmation by an officer, non-commissioned officer or two soldiers. This is why the number of certified hits is smaller than the actual score.
    Both sides didn't "score" during attacks or battles. But the Germans had far more stringent certification requirements. One can easily see that given an equal amount of "success" the overall numbers of certified hits had to be considerably lower for a German sniper compared to a Soviet one.

  20. #140
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    About Finnish snipers. According to 21th century definition, those guys were more like marksmen. The irony is that most of them fought without optical sights. Simo Häyhä, the soldier who is on the top of world sniper kills list, had rifle without optical sight.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

    PS I'd like to ask also advice from you. How sharphooters became snipers during I WW? Their tasks were the same (sharp shooting), but they got new name. Is this just flirt with words by Englishmen? I can't find no explanation to this

    This is funny picture. Upper picture says that those guys are snipers, but lower picture talks about scharfscütze (which means sharposhooter in German).

    http://books.google.ee/books?id=qLCm...age&q=&f=false

Similar Threads

  1. All matters Canadian / Canada
    By Jedburgh in forum Americas
    Replies: 133
    Last Post: 01-27-2019, 04:41 PM
  2. Are snipers and recon still valid in infantry battalions?
    By Kiwigrunt in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 231
    Last Post: 08-02-2016, 11:23 AM
  3. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-03-2014, 03:19 AM
  4. MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.
    By SdunnyW506 in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 609
    Last Post: 04-22-2012, 02:10 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •