Snipers Sniping & Countering them

[SWJED]

15 Jan. London Daily Telegraph (via Washington Times) - U.S. Army Sniper Nails Record Shot.

Gazing through the telescopic sight of his M-24 rifle, Army Staff Sgt. Jim Gilliland, leader of Shadow sniper team, fixed his eye on the Iraqi insurgent who had just killed an American soldier.

His quarry stood nonchalantly in the fourth-floor bay window of a hospital in battle-torn Ramadi, still clasping a long-barreled Kalashnikov. Instinctively allowing for wind speed and bullet drop, Shadow's commander aimed 12 feet high.

A single shot hit the Iraqi in the chest and killed him instantly. It had been fired from a range of more than three-quarters of a mile, well beyond the capacity of the powerful Leupold sight, accurate to 3,300 feet.

"I believe it is the longest confirmed kill in Iraq with a 7.62mm rifle," said Sgt. Gilliland, 28, who hunted squirrels in Double Springs, Ala., from the age of 5 before progressing to deer -- and then to insurgents and terrorists.

"He was visible only from the waist up. It was a one-in-a-million shot. I could probably shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."

Later that day, Sgt. Gilliland found out that the American soldier who had been killed by the Iraqi was Staff Sgt. Jason Benford, 30, a good friend.

The insurgent was one of between 55 and 65 Sgt. Gilliland estimates that he has shot dead in less than five months, putting him within striking distance of sniper legends such as Carlos Hathcock, a Marine who recorded 93 confirmed kills in Vietnam...

[SWJED]

14 April Daily Mail - The Super Snipers Who Will Target Terrorists ... From Three-quarters of a Mile by Christopher Leake and with a Hat Tip to Council member Merv Benson at his Prairie Pundit blog.

The [British] Army is creating a new breed of super-sniper to take on insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan who use innocent women and children for cover.

Until recently the Army's regiments had an average of just four snipers each and they were taught the basics of their role within their units.

But now senior officers have decided to double the number of snipers - and to train them to a far higher standard on an intensive eight-week course at the Army's weapons training ground in Brecon, Mid Wales, where they will learn the kind of advanced skills previously limited to units such as the SAS.

To complete their transformation into super-snipers, they will be trained to use a devastating new weapon - the British-made L115A1 rifle which can bring down an enemy target nearly three-quarters of a mile away with remarkable accuracy.

Army insiders say its great advantage is that snipers will be able to kill with a single shot, avoiding the "collateral damage" of hitting innocent bystanders.

Although the L115A1 will not officially be used by regular soldiers until next year, Army sources admitted last night that a small number would probably be trialled in the two war zones in the next few months...

[goesh]

Innovate and advance - sounds like a winning program to me

[Stan]

we (both Americans and Canadians) have some excellent .338 rounds and rifles that bring down grizzlies at 500 yards.

I have nothing against our forces getting the best available, however...
Exactly why do we need to buy a weapon system from another country ?

The 338 Ultra, A poor man's Lapua: Check out any hunting magazine or American Rifleman's latest. The Lapua requires lots of modification to work in a Remington action and that means high cost. The Ultra round is a factory available chambering and requires no modification to the Remington. These can be built for almost the same cost as a .308 sniper rifle.

The British Army says:
http://home.swipnet.se/longrange/british_army_338.htm

“It had to convince us that it had a 70 per cent chance of hitting the frontal aspect of a Land Rover at 1,500m – that’s seven out of ten shots on target – and it will. And there’s enough energy in the round to do disabling damage at that range.”

I have to admit, I have never shot a Land Rover at 1,500 meters

Sorry, but smells of politics to me

[Culpeper]

I think some US Army dude was awarded a Silver Star for shooting some jackass with a RPG climbing a water tower at a range of over a half a mile using a .50 sniper rig during dusk hours. Half the jackass stayed up on the ladder and the other half fell to ground. Long range high caliber sniper systems have huge physcial and psychological impact. Unfortunately, these same types of weapons can also be made available to the other side on the open market. It's the type of round that makes the big difference here. The commercially available rounds don't make quite the same impact as the military version. I have a lot of respect for the .30 variety but the .50 is a monster with the right ammunition.

[bismark17]

That video of the snipers using the Barret in Afghanistan was just amazing. I just found that again the other day.

[Stan]

We had a real good thread herein on sniper's weapons beginning with a Canadian Soldier breaking the current distance/kill record (1.5 miles!). Sadly, no footage after the TAC-50 dropped the insurgent inside of a window frame !

Apparently, some do not like the relatively heavy .50's report, recoil and muzzle flash. We use frangible .50 rounds on suspect articles and IEDs, but nothing like a trusty 12-ga. watercanon round

Perhaps we should go back to the days without recoilpads, and the ol' man's Winchester 45.70...talk about recoil and report

Bismark, I'd love to see that video Link (s) Please ?

[SGTMILLS]

We were asking for sniper training only weeks into our rotation because by the time our intel got up and down the chain of command, the infantry snipers would show up on the wrong day, or wrong time, etc. etc. engineers asking for sniper training was too off the wall for 101st, i guess. this is a def. improvement to the system. who doesn't need more accurate snipers on their side?

[sgmgrumpy]

Barrett Arms hopes to raise the bar even higher with the introduction of its new XM-109 25mm payload rifle.

The centerpiece of the XM-109 system is the 25mm HEDP ammunition it fires. A scaled down derivative of the low velocity 30mm HEDP M789 ammunition fired by the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, the MX-109's 25mm ammunition has been judged to be 2.5 times more effective at destroying targets than a .50 caliber armor-piercing round. It is expected that this ammunition can penetrate nearly 40mm (an inch and a half) of armor plating at 500 meters, or blast open doors from around the corner. In other words, it gives the Soldier breaching capability on fortified positions, while minimizing exposure to enemy fire, thanks to its effectiveness at greater distances. Also in the works are a number of specialized rounds, ranging from solid core AP ammunition to non-lethal/ crowd control munitions utilizing inert rubber balls, and RC agents.

XM-109

[Rifleman]

Sharpshooters or designated marksmen: riflemen trained and equipped to engage with precision rifle fire at distances past the effective range of the average troop with the issue rifle; however, not trained or equipped (or experienced enough?) for true sniper operations.

How many are needed and where do they belong?

One per rifle squad? In a platoon weapons squad? In a company weapons platoon to be to be employed at company level or attached out as needed?

At one time I would have said one per rifle squad but this assumed squad fire and maneuver. That would have allowed the squad's DM to stay with the squad's fire element. But in an understrength squad, a squad that probably has to fire or maneuver, a DM at squad level doesn't seem like a good idea.

I don't think you would want a DM at squad level if that squad has to conduct an envelopment, would you?

[Norfolk]

Good thread Rifleman.

Yeah, I've been thinking about this for a while since I saw the Brits switch their LSWs from the LMG to the DM roles. I rather agree with you Rifleman; I doubt that DM's are very good at Squad or Section level under normal circumstances. If you want people to deal with long-range targets or "special" targets like enemy heavy weapons crews, then you want those people to be as free as possible from having to deal directly with the enemy to the immediate front; that's what the guys in the Squads and the Sections are there for. That said, there will be circumstances where attaching them out to the Squads and Sections may be necessary.

I suspect that if you were to have about 4 DM's, normally held at Platoon level, the Platoon Commander or 2 i/c would be able to coordinate their fires better, and the DM's could operate in pairs, with one pair able to keep fire on the enemy's heavy weapons crews and depth targets if the other has to displace. Alternatively, the DM's could also functiona little more in the classic Rifleman role by skirmishing ahead or to the flanks of the Platoon under certain circumstances, and really causing the enemy some consternation even before the Platoon attacks; or in the defence, the DM's again acting as classic Riflemen could be used to cover the Platoon's withdrawal by slowing the enemy down.

This brings me to another point about DM's. I think that they should probably be called Riflemen, not Designated Marksmen or Shaprshooters. If they are armed with a Rifle with a full-length barrel and an optical sight, and preferably with a bipod as well, coupled with a little advanced Marksmanship training and some Scout training, I think that they might be rather close in tactical concept to the Riflemen of old, and just as useful. When you think about it, the "Riflemen" in the Squads and Sections aren't really Riflemen any more, they're classic Carbineers, armed with short-barrelled rifles and used to win the Firefight and then to Assault in Close-Quarter Combat.

Call me a Traditionalist (and I am) , but I think that bringing back classic Riflemen, in a modern form, would be a very good way to go.

[Rifleman]

This brings me to another point about DM's. I think that they should probably be called Riflemen, not Designated Marksmen or Shaprshooters. If they are armed with a Rifle with a full-length barrel and an optical sight, and preferably with a bipod as well, coupled with a little advanced Marksmanship training and some Scout training, I think that they might be rather close in tactical concept to the Riflemen of old, and just as useful. When you think about it, the "Riflemen" in the Squads and Sections aren't really Riflemen any more, they're classic Carbineers, armed with short-barrelled rifles and used to win the Firefight and then to Assault in Close-Quarter Combat.

Call me a Traditionalist (and I am) , but I think that bringing back classic Riflemen, in a modern form, would be a very good way to go.

Interesting to me, given my interest in frontier history. The 71st of Foot, Frasier's Highlanders, didn't encounter designated marksmen when they hit Daniel Morgan's skirmishline at Cowpens. They encountered Riflemen with a capital "R."

Of course it's also historically accurate that by The Late Unpleasantness of 1861-65 () the term sharpshooter had started to gain broad usage for special skirmishing units. Most line infantry units had rifles by then but only a few men got the weapon's full capability out of it. Evidently they thought another term was needed for distinction.

Incidentally, it's a myth that frontier America was a nation of riflemen; the good'uns were always the minority. A farmer with a fowling piece was far more common than a longhunter.

The longrifle on the early American frontier seems to have been sort of like the longbow in medieval England; you almost had to be bred to the weapon culturally. It shouldn't have to be that way, of course, since the fundamentals of marksmanship aren't that hard. But even today you see some troops that can never seem to "get it" no matter how much instruction they receive.

[Rifleman]

Okay, two folks so far for keeping them at platoon level. Slightly different ways of going about it but both agreed that the DM should not be a member of a standard squad or fire team.

[Uboat509]

I see no reason not have DMs at the squad level. They are still available to the platoon if needed but they are also available to the squad leader during decentralized ops. DMs aren't snipers. They don't have bolt-action sniper rifles. They are ordinary infantrymen who may or may not have a more accurate version of the weapon that the rest of them carry but who does have more training/skill in engaging targets at longer ranges. He still fights as a regular infantryman but he has an additional skill-set (and possibly weapons system) that the squad/platoon leader can tap into if needed. At least that is how I understand the concept and that is how it makes the most sense to me.

SFC W

[Norfolk]

I see no reason not have DMs at the squad level. They are still available to the platoon if needed but they are also available to the squad leader during decentralized ops. DMs aren't snipers. They don't have bolt-action sniper rifles. They are ordinary infantrymen who may or may not have a more accurate version of the weapon that the rest of them carry but who does have more training/skill in engaging targets at longer ranges. He still fights as a regular infantryman but he has an additional skill-set (and possibly weapons system) that the squad/platoon leader can tap into if needed. At least that is how I understand the concept and that is how it makes the most sense to me.

SFC W

What we are envisioning here is a Rifleman equipped with something more along the lines of the LSW, which is too long for quick handling in Close-Combat. Furthermore, in a Firefight, the Rifleman so armed in a Squad or Section may be too busy trying to beat down the enemy immediately to his front to be free to deal with enemies at long range. If he is normally held at Platoon, he has a rather better chance of being free to deal with the enemy in-depth, as the Squads and Sections will be dealing with the enemy to the immediate front. Having a few guys in the Platoon HQ that can lay down fires out to 800m or so with single shots or 2-3 round bursts against heavy weapons crews and depth-targets is probably easier to do than one guy in each Squad or Section trying to do so with the enemy right in front. That at least, is the general idea that we seem to have in mind.

[William F. Owen]

@ Sharpshooters or designated marksmen: riflemen trained and equipped to engage with precision rifle fire at distances past the effective range of the average troop with the issue rifle; however, not trained or equipped (or experienced enough?) for true sniper operations.


@ I don't think you would want a DM at squad level if that squad has to conduct an envelopment, would you?

This discussion may be somewhat fruitless unless we have a shared understanding of terms.

To my mind, and that of the British Army and IDF an "Marksman is merely member of a fire team equipped with a 5.56mm weapon with a 20-inch barrel, optic sight, and bipod. He should be able to consistently hit targets out to 6-800m. This is part of the current fad for fire teams with a 5.56mm LMG, Sharpshooter and a 40mm UGL.

I don't think this makes sense. I'd have 2 x 8.6mm or 7.62mm bolt action rifles at the platoon level and train 4-5 men how to use them out to 1,000m for the 7.62mm and 1,800m for the 8.6mm. I estimate, the 8.6mm takes about twice as long to train, and probably cost 5 times as much overall.

These men would be Long Range Rifleman, not snipers. They would have all the normal infantry skills, but be expert at getting the best out of the weapon. I would put them with the Platoon Recce Teams. They would carry the rifle and an IW.

[Jones_RE]

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.

[kaur]

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.

[Firn]

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.

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

[Firn]

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