German Sniper Rifles

[History Buff]

What type of rifles would the German Snipers / Sharshooters of used in 1941-42. Did this change in the later years? How effective were they? Specs?

Cheers in advance.

[Panzer76]

As far as I know the used the Kar98 with scope.

[YankeeDog]

According to some materials I have read, much of the rather small production of Gewehr 43s (a semi-automatic rifle similar in specs to the M1 Garand) was reserved mostly for use by German sharpshooters and snipers. I have always found this odd because a semi-automatic is really not much better than a bolt-action for long-range shooting.

In fact, bolt-actions are usually slightly more accurate than gas-operated semi-autos. The gas port connection on the semi-auto messes up the harmonics of the barrel and results in a slightly wider spread.

While I've never fired a K98 or a G43, I have fired the equivalent U.S. pair (Springfield 1903 and M1 Garand). While I was able to shoot a slightly higher score with the Springfield's bolt action, we're talking about a couple of inches here. Most of the time, I don't think the additional incaccuracy introduced by the semi-auto mechanism would be significant enough to make a real difference in on-battlefield performance. As a result, I'd take the semi-auto over the bolt action, even for long-range shooting as the semi-auto makes it easier for me maintain sight picture between shots.

I'm just an average shooter, though, and I was shooting over iron sights. I'm also left-handed, which makes bolt-actions a royal pain in the @ss for me. Maybe for a well-trained (and right-handed!) military sniper with a good scope, a bolt-action would be significantly better for long-range shooting. The fact that most modern militaries use bolt-actions for their sniper team would seem to suggest so.

I'd be curious to know if there's any information out the about what proportion of late war German Sharpshooters were actually equipped with G43s.

Cheers,

YD

[Sirocco]

I think they were also issued the scoped Gewehr 43 when it became available later.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

According to some materials I have read, much of the rather small production of Gewehr 43s (a semi-automatic rifle similar in specs to the M1 Garand) was reserved mostly for use by German sharpshooters and snipers. I have always found this odd because a semi-automatic is really not much better than a bolt-action for long-range shooting.

I believe the reason the Gewehr 43 was issued to more specialised personnel was because it was more difficult to maintain. Distributing the small number to infantry units would also have created supply problems.

[Jack Carr]

The Germans primarily used K98's. The rifle platform itself is not a bad one for sniping purposes however the actual round they were using back then, 8mm Mauser, was not a particularly good one for sniping. The bullet was a bit heavy and a little slow for a good sniper round.

There is a good book by Peter Senich entitled, "The German Sniper - 1914 - 1945". My copy is a big hardcover. It contains a wealth of information regarding all of the weapon platforms that the Germans used for sniping purposes. Good photos and good info. There are even some brief interviews of actual German snipers and their experiences.

They did use the G-43 for sniping but semi-auto's are generally not well suited for sniping. Too many moving parts inside the rifle tends to throw accuracy off even if just a little bit. These guys were shooting at targets several hundred yards away and a small hair off meant you missed.

Good luck in your search for info.

[flamingknives]

Plus a semi-auto is heavier and throws the spent case out the side with each shot. Fast moving, bright metal by the shooter is not conducive to battlefield survival if there are enemy snipers operating.

On the positive side, a semi-auto would provide a fast second shot with which you could correct on the first.

[JasonC]

The rationale for semi-autos for snipers was not needing to disturb the sight picture to work the bolt, between shots. Especially with more powerful scopes, it is harder to re-acquire the target after each shot with a scoped rifle than with iron sights.

As for effectiveness, I am glad somebody brought it up. In my opinion, sharpshooters are seriously underpowered in CM today. Especially their ability to actually hit things, as opposed to just scaring people. And in relation to their cost. Yes, I am well aware they do some things quite well (TCs). But their actual lethality for their cost is pretty dismal, and I don't think that reflects historical reality.

Trying to be constructive, I've come up with the following suggested system of sniper hits. The basic idea is to bypass "firepower" as a concept entirely, and just get a flat chance of a hit, which if it occurs gets 1 man. And then to have target exposure, range, and shooter experience alter this hit chance, in ways specific to sharpshooters. I think the result would be to make them a more distinctive part of the combined arms toolkit, and a far more useful one. Which I think would be much more realistic.

To start with, a base hit chance of 40% is given to a regular sharpshooter at 250m against a 100% exposed target. Then the hit chance modifiers at as multipliers to the base chance, as follows -

each experience level of the shooter away from "regular" - 1.2 times up, .8 times down.

each 100 meters of range away from "250m" - .8 times up, 1.1 times down (prorate for interim ranges)

target exposure - multiply by *the square root* of the exposure number

Some sample shots, therefore - regular at 250 vs. open ground 75% exposed - 34.6% chance of hit.

veteran at 150m vs. 25% exposed (wood building) 26.4%

crack at 450m vs. 10% exposed (trench) - 11.7%

Compare what an MG does to the above system. The more exposed the target, the less the sharpshooter's cover-reducing ability helps. The closer the range, the faster the MG firepower rises, in a much more pronounced fashion than the scoped rifle. The MG can hit multiple men when conditions are highly favorable. Result - open areas and close by and against full squads, the MG is superior. Hard distant targets where hit 1-2 guys can make a difference, the scoped rifle is better.

If you look at the damage you can expect to do people with the above system, over the whole load of sniper shots available, you will find it is not at all out of line with the cost of sharpshooters today, and the kind of damage other units typically manage to inflict for their cost.

As for the pinning effect, I suggest that full hits and near misses (within a flat 10% of the hit roll e.g.) have pinning effect, with the amount of it dependent on the target morale and a random roll. The typical result against regulars would be "pinned", with some chance of panic etc and some of just cautious etc.

For what it is worth...

[DevilDog]

Good idea, but still underpowered. Only a 40% chance to hit at 250 m? That should be an automatic hit. I can hit a man sized target at 500 m with my first shot and I'm no sniper.

[JasonC]

It is enough to make them effective. You could make a case for 70% as the base chance. (With the 40% base that is what an -elite- one would get, not a regular). But with that, you expect a single regular sharpshooter to be able to hit 6 men in the open, or 3-4 men in decent cover, over his whole load.

With a vet or crack (more like a "sniper" in quality terms), that would rise to 5 men in decent cover. That is probably a bit overpowered. With the 40% base, that becomes 2 for a regular and 3 for a crack shot, who lives long enough to fire off his ammo.

While successful snipers racked up scores in the hundreds, they did so over years of successful, lopsided engagements, not by hitting everything all day in single fights. Shooting a moving man in and out of cover on a battlefield is not at all the same as shooting a paper target on a firing range.

If a sharpshooter can be counted on to hit a man or two in every fight, and to survive (used properly, of course), then the historical level of success of the weapon seems to me to have been met. If the shooting conditions are favorable, perhaps more. But people should not be buying platoons worth of them to shoot up ordinary squads. HMGs ought to be better at that.

I don't think there is any doubt, however, that some increase in their effectiveness is required to reflect history. I can see arguments for 70% as the base chance. But I follow the maxim that small changes are less likely to introduce their own balance problems than large ones are.

They are woefully underpowered for their cost today. They would be significantly less underpowered with 40% base hit chance. If experience showed they still were not being used, perhaps it would need tweaking higher.

A 70% base, incidentally, means an elite guy can't miss a target in open ground at 300m or less. Bullet drop is not too serious at that range, and through a 4 power scope (as most had) the apparent target size is like a 75m shot through iron sights. Which I know from personal experience is, indeed, pretty hard to miss.

The system would give an elite sharpshooter a 1/5 chance of a kill at 550m against men in a stone building, if a 70% base chance were used. That seems a bit high to me. I wouldn't expect 2 kills per engagement for such unfavorable shooting, even for a "sniper" quality shooter. At the 600m maximum range, vs. maximum cover (stone or trench e.g), an elite sharpshooter is expected to hit only 1 guy over his whole ammo load using the 40% base.

It is the right range of values, anyway - 40 to 70% that is. Right now, I've routinely seen crack sharpshooters take all 10 shots, some at TCs, some at men 200m away in scattered tree or wood building cover, a few at men moving in the open at 300m or so - and not get a single actual hit. Pinned a few units, buttoned a few tanks. No one actually hit.

Taking TC cover as like a foxhole, and allocating 3 shots at TCs at 200m, 2 at 300m men in the open, 5 at scattered trees of woods infantry, I'd expect with the new system -

TCs - 5% hit 3, 25% hit 2, 50% hit 1, 20% miss

Cover - 3% hit 4, 13% hit 3, 31% hit 2, 36% hit 1, 17% miss

Open - 15% hit 2, 50% hit 1, 35% miss

Overall, 3-4 hits expected (1 TC and 2-3 infantry the most likely outcome). Only ~1% chance of missing every shot, which is a routine event as things are now. I think that is much closer to what one could actually expect from a crack shot with a sniper rifle, getting multiple opportunities at ranges of 200-300m.

[coe]

btw, why is it easier to spot snipers but not antitank rifle crews?

C.

[Gaylord Focker]

*bump*

[Snorri]

no complains bout the scope/K98..

it had a heavy punch, even on longer distance. and for it`s time-line-companions was a very accurate one too. (no?)

question: how where sharpshooters deployed, wasn`t there one per `infantrie-companie?

(i mean early war (41/42) in particular..

[LurkoMan]

Good book on K98

The German K98k Rifle, Backbone of the Wehrmacht by: Richard D. Law

Good book on the G43, and it’s variants.

Darrin Weaver, Hitler's Garands

Sniper G43, shamelessly taken from http://www.gewehr43.com/

And that is about it.