Snipers versus Sharpshooters, FYI

[Slapdragon]

Disappointed in that wimpy sharpshooter? Well, this comes up often, so I thought maybe a nice FAQ on the subject would be in order.

On the westerm front for some reason snipers were not extensively used, at least their is very little evidence that specially trained soldiers stalked other soldiers with special weapons. The reason is that the land of Europe is not open enough, and the conflict did not include many static fronts. For the US, sniper rifles were made and issued, but a soldier who used it was just a good shot, nothing more, he did not receive any extra training usually, and sometimes was not given his weapon for long enough to get used to it. In addition, many rifles never made it to the front lines, they ended up in supply sergeant and read area commander's personal possesion and in many cases returned home with the soldier. The US Army did not establish a sniper school until 1950 and the Marine Corps felt all of its soldier were Snipers and did not create a school until the 60s.

In static areas of the Finnish, Eastern and Balkans fronts things were very different. Wide open spaces, long periods of stalemate while the fight went on elsewhere, very porous front lines, and a certain blood thirsty attitude led to the extensive employment of real snipers. The most infamous sniper of the war is probably Simo Hayha, made famous, if you can read Finnish that is, by his book "Valkoinen Kuolema". Firing over Iron sights, and aided by the floundering Russian soldiers who were unprepared for the Winter War, Simo scored over 500 kills, finally succumbing to an explosive bullet to the head (he survived).

Nikolay Yakovlevich, a Russian sniper, was credited with more than 400 kills, including one in which he stalked a German Sniper for an entire day in a slow motion battle, finally killing the German sniper.

Vasili Zaitsev, another Russian sniper, killed more than 200 people at Stalingrad, while dozens of other snipers had scores in the 50s, including a unit ofr female snipers.

These are who everyone is thinking about when they see a sharpshooter. They used camoflauge, stealth, and patience to obstruct enemy movement abd kill important leaders. A single sniper in a good position could stop a company attack. These snipers could also destroy optics, radios, and other important equipment.

[Rother]

It looks like the Army hasn't changed that much in 50 some odd years. In my time in the Army there were always a couple of sniper rifles in the company's arms room. Nobody ever shot them though. Not even the guys that were assigned to them. They were always just the mysterious rifles in the cases that you didn't touch for any reason.

Rother

[Schugger]

Slapdragon, I think any Sniper would prefer an environment with lots of cover over one with a clear field of view. I know, I would.

[Berkut]

Stalk and Kill, a book by Adrian Gilbert, can provide an insight into the world of the sniper.

It deals with the role of the sniper from the American civil war to the low intensity conflicts of today.

It also covers the duel between Zaitsev and Konings..which i have i have recently been told is to made into a movie.

------------------

BERKUT

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Slapdragon]

I think your right about the cover issue, but that was not now it worked in World War Two. Also, the true snipe could move through steepes grass and not be seen.

[Schugger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Also, the true snipe could move through steepes grass and not be seen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The true Sniper would be able to use any kind of cover to his advantage.

The advantage of an build up area to the flat steppes of russia is obvious: The grass offer no kind of cover and you will have a hard time to quickly change your postion without being noticed. In an urban environment you could take a few shots, change your position and prepare a new ambush much more easily. ( That scene with the german sniper really bugged me in SPR).

[ScoutPL]

Good synopsis Slap but I think you're adding a little too much to the "Sniper" mystique. As a former infantry officer who commanded sniper teams in todays modern US Army I did my fair share or research into their history, training and development.

The snipers in the German army were products of the sniper schools developed during the first world war. In WWI snipers obviously came into their own through harassment and interdiction shots on the static front lines. The russians, who are always quick to play the psychological card, picked up on the usefulness of snipers and used them extensively in built up areas and static fronts. The Finns were practically fighting a guerrilla war for most of their campaign so its seems reasonable that snipers would be popular there as well. The fact that your hero was using a rifle with iron sights might lead one to argue he was just a "sharpshooter" anyway. Hard to get a 600-800m shot, favored ranges for a sniper in any terrain, with the naked eye.

Sniper doctrine, best I can determine, has always been to get as many of them as you can with out getting spotted/seen. Because once you've been spotted, all bets are off since most combat units, due to the psychological/morale effect of snipers, will stop at nothing to run them to ground. I did my best as an infantry officer and a commander of snipers to dispel the mystique the movies and books build around them and to teach my snipers not to rely too heavily on that mystique. I think the biggest reason you see a lack of snipers on the western front is not due to terrain or cover, snipers LOVE covered terrain. After that first or second shot its time to move and move quickly, covered terrain is the best way to do that. Hence their extensive use in places like Stalingrad. I think doctrinally the US Army, which at the time was of the frame of mind of "why send a man when you can drop a bomb or send in an artillery barrage", felt snipers were a time consuming, ineffective asset. An Army who's doctrine is based on the view that a defense is just an opprtunity to prepare for the next attack, isnt going to look highly on the long drawn out process of getting snipers into position and taking the time to wait for the perfect shot. Add to that the US aversion to elite and "unethical" units and the great shortage of infantryman by 1944 and I think you get a clearer picture of why they werent used. The manpower issue also comes into play for the Germans. By 1944 all of the school trained Snipers who started the war had met a similiar fate and the push to train bucket loads of new snipers just wasnt there. By the way, a rifle company who lets itself get pinned down by a lone sniper is a pretty poor rifle company.

[Londoner]

The famous duel between Koning n the other guy has been recently debunked. Assuming we're thinkin about the same thing, my memory is not what it used to be . Is this the story of the Russian sniper killing the German by putting a round through his scope? Anthony Beavor, in his exellent book Stalingrad believes it is all myth. Beavor spent two years in Russia, going over many previously unseen archives, his work is widely regarded as the most comprehensive, indepth study on Stalingrad to date.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Londoner (edited 09-24-2000).]

[Schugger]

Very good post, Scout PL. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

There is still one thing that makes me curious; the difference between "Sniper" and "Sharpshooter". In another thread someone ( I think it was Slapdragon) said, that Snipers act independantly while sharpshooters act solely as part of their squad. Well, here in germany we don't have any sniper schools ( at least I don't know any) and there is not a real difference between the two terms as the "Scharfschütze" has to fill both roles.

Is this different in the US Army?

[Mr. Clark]

Great thread!

So, what was the guy in SPR, a sniper or sharpshooter? or are they in fact basically the same?

[Slapdragon]

It was not Stalingrad but Kharkov that the slow motion sniper battle happened, and he shot the guy as he was taking a dump because he saw a flash of color. I will reorder the book that it was in, but it could well be an "urban legend". History is funny that way.

The problem with snipers is that they are like fighter aces. For every sniper hiding in the grass their is 30 that are no better than sharpshooters, and another 300 who never live to tell their tale because they were blown up.

The rifle company being pinned down by one sniper is accounted for in five different sniper accounts from the recieving end, but in each case your comment about the Rifle company being a poor company seems about right. Usually what happens is that a senior NCO gets killed and the green rifle company stalls until someone can effect control again. In this case, the leadership of the company rested on one or two men, who attracted the attention of the sniper by running around kicking butts trying to get people to move.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 09-24-2000).]

[Schugger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

Great thread!

So, what was the guy in SPR, a sniper or sharpshooter? or are they in fact basically the same?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I had understood the difference correctly in the scene where the US guy geeks the german guy, the former one was acting as sharpshooter ( he acts along his squad ) and the german one was a sniper ( he acts idependantly). Later on in that movie when the US guy was in the Churchtower he acts as sniper.

You see, the difference is floating between sharpshooter and sniper. These combat situations sound realistical to me, as the circumstances of the combat situation decides in which role the guy with the best marksmenship is best suited for.

What was not realistical ( IMHO of course ) is that the german sniper sits in place for such a long time and the US guy selects to take on the fight from the churchtower.

[Mr. Clark]

Full Metal Jacket also had a sniper sitting in place for a long battle didn't it? Been a while...

Anyway, thanks for the clarification! I've been interested in anti-terrorism and commando groups for a while, and have never realized there was a difference between the Sharpshooter and the Sniper.

Makes sense now though.

[ScoutPL]

There are very real and distinct differences between sharpshooters and snipers. The biggest differences are training and utilization. A sharpshooter is a selected marksman out of a rifle squad who may or may not be specially equipped to fulfill his role. Sharpshooter is a TO&E slot that disappeared after WWII/Korea, mainly due to the US Army's move to a firepower over accuracy type outlook. Hence the adoption of the M16 and the global move toward assault rifles. Interestingly enough, if my memory serves me correctly, the Soviets kept a sniper rifle at the squad and/or platoon level for quite some time (the SVD). A sniper on the other hand (by US definition) is a school trained specialist who has a very specific mission and is supported in the accomplishment of that mission just like any other unit would be. The most well known combat examples of this are the two and three man sniper teams that were used in Vietnam. They went out for a few days to a week, with a plan and an objective. Check out this area, try to catch this guy moving around, see if there is any activity here, etc. They developed a plan and were supported by all echelons of the command. They used stealth, camofladge and TIME. Time being the most important. A sniper is never rushed. He understands his objective and will let other targets of opportunity slip past in order to get his real target. Dont get military and police snipers confused. In a military sense, police snipers are more like sharpshooters then snipers. As far as SPR goes all of the guys using scoped rifles in that movie would be classified as sharpshooters, using the strict military definition. I'm sure if those had been my guys lying there in the rain we would have all been screaming "KILL THAT F**KING SNIPER!" too. But technically they were both sharpshooters.

Shug, as far as the German army goes, I dont remember ever seeing any Sniper rifles with the Fallschirmjaeger I trained with but then they were usually carrying US weapons anyway (JRTC rotations). If you have access to a sniper system and are trained to go out on your own to accomplish specific missions, seperate from your squad then the US Army would classify you as a sniper. But if you are only armed with the same battle rifle as the rest of your guys and you dont act independantly (in practice not in theory) then you would be classified as a sharpshooter. As an interesting side note: the US Army is working hard at phasing out all rifles in favor of the carbine. Getting further and further away from marksmanship having anything to do with doctrine. Makes you kinda cringe doesn't it?

[Slapdragon]

The modern French Army still has sharpshooters organic to rifle squads.

The Americans dropped the long range Marksmanship after the Chinese, Germans, and Vietnamese showed us how effective massed firepower could be. The assumption now is that over 200 meters away, support weapons deal with it.

[GriffinCheng+]

Can anyone point me to the book or resource about the duel between Nikolay Yakovlevich and another German sniper?

Griffin.

------------------

"+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again

[Slapdragon]

I can, or at least I should. I originally thought it was recounted in Special Ops by K. Dockery, but went and checked out the book, and it is not in it, mostly talks about SEALS.

I will look through my notes and be back to you in a day or two.

[Kali]

ScoutPL, I have SPR, and the US sharpshooter had a bolt action.

[ScoutPL]

Yeah, a modified Springfield M1903 (WWI service rifle), typical sharpshooter issue for WWII.

Those guys did a good job researching alot of things for that movie. Only wish I could get my guys in CM to push around a 20mm Flak gun like they did in the last battle scene!

[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

That was not a 20mm Flak -- It was a Gerbilwerfer.

[tss]

Slapdragon wrote:

Simo scored over 500 kills

Actually, that figure is exaggarated. No one knows for certain how many kills Häyhä got at Kollaa, not even he himself. IIRC, he got 246 confirmed kills with a rifle. He got another 30-50 before he started counting and at least several dozens when fighting as a SMG gunner. I'd say that his kills ranked up somewhere at 300.

Häyhä also fought one duel against a Red Army sniper. The name of the Soviet sniper is not known here in Finland but he managed to kill three Finnish officers in two days. Häyhä found and shot him when sun reflected from his scope.

ScoutPL wrote:

The fact that your hero was using a rifle with iron sights might lead one to argue he was just a "sharpshooter" anyway.

Häyhä used a scoped rifle for some time but discarded it and returned to open sights. The reason was that when firing with telescope sight you have to raise your head a couple of centimeters higher than with open sights. As he could hit his targets without scope, he didn't want to take the unnecessary risk.

Hard to get a 600-800m shot, favored ranges for a sniper in any terrain, with the naked eye.

Häyhä could consistently hit a running target at 400 meters. With naked eye. However, I want to point out that he had _exceptionally_ good aim. Before the war he had won all Finnish shooting competitions that he had attended. He was an active hunter (using only one shot for each prey) until he was 75 years old and even then stopped it only because of leg troubles.

- Tommi

[Schugger]

Thanks again for your answer, Scout PL

I do not know anything about the Fallschirmjäger`s squad equipment ( they are a rare breed, you know). I'm very surprised that the Fallschirmjägers you trained with had US equipmentand. Is it possible that they belonged to the newly formed units known as " Krisenreaktionskräfte" ( Crisis Reaction Force?) formed just after the UN action in Somalia.

However, in 1990 when I did my term with the Panzergrenadiers all of us were issued the standard ( old but reliable) G3 rifle. The "Scharfschütze" actually had two G3 rifles, one with the scope for daylight use and one to attach the "BiV" ( danger, another long german word follows - Bildverstärkerzielfernrohr) which is a night vision scope.

You may find it of interest that we were trained to act as part of the squad - assisting Squad Leader, leading the halfsquad- as well as for "sniper" missions.

The Panzerjägers, another branch of the german armoured infantry, are quite similar to the Panzergrenadiers except that they have another armoured transport.

As far as the G3 goes, I do think it is going to be replaced by the G11 (?) which has caseless ammunition for more firepower.

And you're right, it makes me cringe and if I have to choose between firepower and accuracy as individual soldier you know what I would prefer.

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schugger:

As far as the G3 goes, I do think it is going to be replaced by the G11 (?) which has caseless ammunition for more firepower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, the G11 is in limbo. Apparently nobody wants to foot the bill for it and its ammo in the post-cold war era. HK has developed a new line of rifles to replace the G3/G33 line called the G36. It's still 5.56 like the G33, but otherwise is an almost totally new design. It features a built-in carrying handle with integral 3.5x scope. There is also a carbine version.

------------------

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[frag]

If you want to read a good book over snipers combat in Stalingrad, read this! I did, and it's excellent!!! It was so good that I finished it in two days...

THE WAR OF THE RATS :

David L. Robbins grimly recounts the merciless determination of the German and Soviet combatants of the battle of Stalingrad in War of the Rats. Drawing from real events, Robbins tells the story of one of the battle's most pivotal contests: the famous sniper duel between Chief Master Sergeant Vasily Zaitsev and S.S. Colonel Heinz Thorvald. Zaitsev, a cunning Siberian hunter hardened by Stalingrad's butchery, has formed an impromptu sniper school in the midst of the battle, training his comrades to kill with implacable efficiency. The hundreds of bodies left in their wake prompt the Nazi leadership to send Thorvald, the cold-blooded master of the Wehrmacht's elite sniper academy, to assassinate the Soviet prodigy. Robbins's nerve-wracking prose depicts the two adversaries as they pursue their private war across a twisted hellscape of burning tanks and gutted factories. In the novel's most impressive section, Robbins leaps between the thoughts of Zaitsev and Thorvald as they struggle, in their final battle, to put the crosshairs on each other's head. A war novel that reveals the shrewd savagery in human nature, War of the Rats vividly reveals why the Germans referred to the fighting at Stalingrad as Der Rattenkrieg. --James Highfill

[This message has been edited by frag (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Schugger]

Thanks IntelWeeny

I'm really out of knowledge about the new stuff ( sigh! Am I getting old?)