Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
Maybe a bit war experience from wars with 'peer' powers:
Peer power has little to do with it. It's the type of warfare and the degree, if any, of hatred of the opponents.
The infantry hated snipers unless they were sent to counter-snipe.
Sniper action provoked enemy sniping and indirect counterfires, and the infantry got hit in return for the sniper's actions.
In Korea, during the static phase, both the Chinese and the US were generally too smart to fall into the trap of over responding to sniper. Both tended to deploy a countersniper and not lose a lot sleep over it because only rarely did a truly deadly sniper appear. Nobody got particuarly irate at snipers because they didn't do much damage.

US line infantry in Koreas later stages did hate Tank which would crawl up a hill, fire a couple of rounds across the valley and leave rapidly before the 82, 76, 122 and 152 rain came --as it always did.

Minor off the wall comment; the Chinese and North Koreans could put a mortar round in your hip pocket but they were not good rifle shots. Their snipers were only so-so at best. In Viet Nam, the VC were good with neither but the North Viet Namese Army while poor with mortars, artillery and rockets were good rifle shots out to a hundred or so meters and particularly if armed with the SKS, however, their Snipers were not particularly good at any range over a couple of hundred meters.

In the pacific in WW II both the US and the Japanese made fairly extensive use of snipers generally without the actions you note; though they all are certainly valid for Europe and particularly the Eastern Front.