About german snipers accuracy etc

[GAZ NZ]

I thought id post this up

I found it interesting the ranges mentioned for successful sniping shots and i thought i might share and let you compare to the accuracy in the game across CMBB and CMAK

THE GERMAN SNIPERS

The following article first appeared in the official Austrian military publication called TRUPPSNDEINST (Troop Service) in the year 1967 and was written by an Austrian Army Officer, Captain Hans Widhofner. Among persons questioned were the two most proficient German snipers of the war with the comments of another good sniper added to obtain a well-rounded picture concerning the use of snipers in the German army.

Questions asked of the Snipers

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. Matthais 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 Allerberger 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.

8. If you had a choice, what weapon would you use and why?

A. K98. Of all weapons available at that time it had the highest accuracy for permanent use, besides it did not jam easily. G43 was only suitable to about 400 meters. It also had inferior precision.

B. K98 was best. The G43 was to heavy.

C. The G43 would be good if it did not jam easily and its capacity was as good as K98.

9. Today if you had the choice between the K98 and a semi-automatic rifle that does not easily jam and has the same capacity as the K98, which weapon would you take and why?

A. Snipers do not need a semi-automatic weapon if they are correctly used as snipers.

B. Semi-automatic loader, if its weight does not increase.

C. Semi-automatic loader. Faster firing possible when attacked by the enemy.

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".

11. Strategy and Targets?

a. Attack:

A, B, C, Always two snipers at a time; one shoots, the other spots. Usual general order:- Elimination of observers, of the enemy's heavy weapons and of commanders, or special order, when all important or worthwhile targets were eliminated; for example! Anti-tank gun positions, machine gun positions. Etc. Snipers followed closely the attacking units and whenever necessary. Eliminated enemies who operated. Heavy weapons and those who were dangerous to our advance.

A added: In a few cases, I had to penetrate the enemies main line of resistance at night before our own attack. When our own artillery had opened fire. I had to shoot at enemy commanders and gunners because our own forces would have been too weak in number and ammunition without this support.

B. Attack during night:

A, B, C, As far as we can remember, no major attacks during night were conducted, snipers were not used at night; they were too valuable.

C. Winter attacks:

A. Clothed in winter camouflage I followed behind the front units. When the attack slowed down had to help by engaging machine gunners and Anti tank guns etc.

B, C, Good camouflage and protection against cold was necessary. No extensive ambushing possible.

b. Defense:

A, B, C, Usually on my own within company detachment; order fire at any target or only worthwhile targets. Great success during enemy attacks since commanders can often be recognized and shot at long range due to their special clothing and gear such as belts crossed on chest, white camouflage in winter, etc. As a consequence, enemy's attack was prevented in most cases. Shot the respective leaders of enemys attack eight times during one attack. As soon as enemy snipers appeared we fought them until they were eliminated; we also suffered great losses. As a rule, the sniper watched for worthwhile targets at the break of dawn and remained in position until dusk with few interruptions. We were often in position in front of our own lines in order to fight the enemy more successfully. When enemy knew our position, we were forced to remain without provisions or reinforcements at such advanced position. During alarm or enemy attack, a good sniper did not shoot at just any target, but only at the most important ones such as commanders, gunners, etc.

e. Defense during night:

A, B, C, Snipers not used during night; not even assigned to guard duty or other duties. If necessary he had to take position in front of own lines in order to fight the enemy more effectively during the day.

12. Did you score successful hits by moonlight?

A. I was often called to action when there was sufficient moonlight since reasonably accurate hitting is possible with a six-power telescopic sight, but not with point and rear sight.

B. C. No.

g. Delaying action:

A, C, In most cases four to six snipers were ordered to rear guard and eliminate any enemy appearing; very good results. Use machine guns for rear guard only in emergencies since snipers delayed enemy's advance by one or two hits without easily revealing his own position.

B. No actual use of snipers, actual sniping not possible in mobile warfare since anybody shoots at appearing enemy.

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.

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.

B. Information is applicable to all snipers known to me in person.

C. Information is applicable to myself as well as to the majority of snipers.

15. On the average, how many shots were fired from one position ?

a. Attack:

A, B, C. As many as necessary.

b. Defence from secure position:

A, B, C, One to three at most.

c. Enemy attack:

A, B, C, Depending on worthwhile targets.

d. Combat against enemy snipers:

A, B, C, One to two at most.

e. Delaying action:

A, B, C, One to two was sufficient since sniper was not alone.

B added: During own attack as well as enemy's attack, hits were not confirmed.

16. What else is especially important in addition to excellent marksmanship?

A: Besides the generally known quality of a sniper it is especially important to be able to outsit the enemy. The better "Tactician at detail" wins in combat against enemy snipes. The exemption from commitment to any other duties contributes essentially to the achievement of high scores.

B. Calmness, good judgment courage.

C. Patience and Perseverance, excellent sense of observation.

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.

18. In what sniper training courses did you participate?

A, B, C: Sniper courses at the training area Seetaleralpe.

C. I was later assigned to the same course as an instructor.

19. Was it advisable to equip the sniper with a double telescope? 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.

22. What type of camouflage was used?

A,B,C. I have never used a fake tree stump, but I have used camouflage clothing. Camouflage of my face and hands and camouflage of my weapon in winter. (White cover, white wrapping, white paint)

B added: For two years I used an umbrella which was painted to match the terrain. In the beginning I always camouflaged face and hands well. Later on, less often.

23. Did you use technical means to mislead the enemy?

A. Yes, stuffed dummies, etc.

B. Yes; for example, dummy position with installed carbines which could be fired by means of a wirepull.

C. No.

24. Did you use protective shields in positional warfare?

A, B, C. No.

25. What is your opinion on the use of tracer ammunition?

A, B, C. If possible, they should not be used at all in combat since they have easily revealed the position of the sniper. Tracer ammunition was mainly used for practice shooting as well as ranging at various distances. For this purpose every sniper carried with him a few tracer cartridges.

26. Did you use observation ammunition, i.e. cartridges that fired projectiles, which detonate upon impact?

A, B, C. Yes; upon impact a small flame as well as a small puff of smoke could be seen which allowed good observation of impact. By this method we could force the enemy to leave wooden houses, etc by setting tire to them.

Observation cartridges were used up to a range of about 600 meters; their dispersion was somewhat larger than that of heavy pointed cartridges (heavy pointed bullet).

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.

29. Do you have any experience with armor piercing rifles?

A. Yes, several times I have fought against a "machine-gunner with a protective shield". I could hit small targets only up to 300 meters since dispersion was considerably larger than with K98. Besides, it was very heavy and clumsy and was not suitable as a sniper weapon. I did not use it against unarmored targets.

B, C. No.

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.

[Salkin]

Cool info !!!

[Wisbech_lad]

Good info, especially like the fact that needed either one officer or TWO soldiers for confirmed kill!

Of course, we know that snipers aren't in either CMAK or CMBB - by design

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting to see they could set fire to wooden buildings. Very good article. Thanks

[folke]

Originally posted by GAZ:

I thought id post this up

I found it interesting the ranges mentioned for successful sniping shots and i thought i might share and let you compare to the accuracy in the game across CMBB and CMAK.....

Great info GAZ..

Can I put this info on the cmwiki?

If it is ok? Or perhaps you would like to insert the text, it would be great

[Michael Emrys]

Good article. Very interesting. I notice that the author makes the distinction between sniper and marksman, the latter of which is represented in CM. Also interesing to me is that apparently marksmen were available in about the same numbers as in the US army: approximately one per platoon. Can anyone tell us what the comparable situation was in British/Commonwealth armies?

Michael

[slysniper]

Well then, lets get some real snipers added into the next version of this game, even if they cost 1000 points, because I am tired of marksman only.

This is a poor excuse for bad modeling, there were more snipers trained for their field than there were marksmen that were given a rifle and asked to play sniper during ww2. Most markmen had the habit of not leaving the protection of their squad either. So the game "sucks" at present because marksman would not be as independent as shown in the game, the game has snipers that cannot shoot. period. Battlefront get it right next time, would you.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by folke:

Can I put this info on the cmwiki?

If it is ok? Or perhaps you would like to insert the text, it would be great

Folke, how can I contact you? This is slightly off topic but I think I have some maps you can use for your website? Also, I have a few questions about the wiki.

Cheers

Paul

[folke]

Originally posted by jacobs_ladder2:

Folke, how can I contact you? This is slightly off topic but I think I have some maps you can use for your website? Also, I have a few questions about the wiki.

Cheers

Paul

Mail incoming.

[MikeyD]

It was interesting reading about their dislike for using the anti-tank rifle for sniping. Sometimes bigger isn't better!

I'm also surprised by the ranges, though being an American I'm probably mentally substituting 400m for 400 yards, short-changing the distance by a good 35m.

[mPisi]

I believe it was Hesketh-Prichard's book Sniping in France that described the use of heavy game rifles to pierce armor plates in the trenches of WWI. But like these guys, it was a special case and not used in normal practice. This account was interesting, thanks for posting it. I've only seen it from the other side in books such as the above and A Rifleman Went to War for WWI and With British Snipers to the Reich for WWII. Especially the WWI accounts are very detailed and worth reading.

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by GAZ:

TRUPPSNDEINST

This is not an Austrian title. Looks... I don't know, like a drunk person from Vorarlberg at best.

What units did these men serve in? One of them claims he had a trained sniper group of 22 men in a battallion. I am interested in what battallion this was. Infantry battallions were only issued with 9-12 scopes of 2.5x. For use by the corps of marksmen, who were specially trained platoon level functions and not hasty replacements for army level snipers. So this must be some specialist battallion and obscure units interest me greatly. Any reference to this in the book?

One of the guys claims to have used 1.5x scopes. Very brave is it not? Great field of vision but not a lot of zoom, is it now. Maybe he knifed them

But seriously - the unit, I do want to know.

Regards

Dandelion

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

One of the guys claims to have used 1.5x scopes. Very brave is it not? Great field of vision but not a lot of zoom, is it now.

I noticed that too. It may have been a typo. OTOH, a scope of that power but with a large objective lens would be a great light gatherer in poor illumination conditions.

Michael

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä got 500+ kills in 100 days and he didn't use a scope at all. he said using open sights gave an advantage especially against enemy snipers.

[Dandelion]

I noticed that too. It may have been a typo. OTOH, a scope of that power but with a large objective lens would be a great light gatherer in poor illumination conditions.

Michael

That's very true I think. Though perhaps more so with modern scope with illumination enhancement? Deer hunters not infatuated with scopes as such seem to prefer low power, high illumination scopes. Even though fogging becomes a problem with those. Well, that's the general impression I get anyway, no statstics to support it. Maybe it is just an issue of costs.

Another advantage of the low power scope versus power scope is (an advantage open sights also does not have) - again just an opinion with no basis in science - that you see figures rather than small fragments of animals (or people I guess). Easier to aim at a spot of choice on a moving target, easier to predict movement. To have just a brown spot of fur all over the sights does not really help locating the spot on a moving beast.

Well. Doesn't help me that is. Then again I never was no sniper

Queer lot, the Finns.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Finns thought scopes sucked because you had to rise your head up higher when aiming, thus making yourself easier target for the enemy.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä got 500+ kills in 100 days and he didn't use a scope at all. he said using open sights gave an advantage especially against enemy snipers.

How were his hits confirmed?

According to the above text during the best occasions (defense & attack) the hits of those 3 Austrians were not confirmed.

Just imagined the amount of the confirmed hits for 88s on the Western front vs. claims of having been destroyed by an 88. Then compare the amount of confirmed hits with PaK40 vs those Allied tank losses caused by ATGs remaining.

Gruß

Joachim

[Sergei]

In the case of Häyhä, I believe it is known now that he didn't rack half as many kills before he was wounded. Then somehow, while he was in hospital, he was credited for all those kills.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

In the case of Häyhä, I believe it is known now that he didn't rack half as many kills before he was wounded. Then somehow, while he was in hospital, he was credited for all those kills.

Hmmm, pretty good shooting from a hospital bed. But wouldn't that violate some Hague convention or other?

Michael

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Hmmm, pretty good shooting from a hospital bed. But wouldn't that violate some Hague convention or other?

Michael

No. All of his targets had signed living wills.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Sergei:

In the case of Häyhä, I believe it is known now that he didn't rack half as many kills before he was wounded. Then somehow, while he was in hospital, he was credited for all those kills.

there is a definite source for this? if so, i don't know what it is.

what about other famous Finnish snipers like e.g. Sulo Kolkka - were his numbers screwed as well? he scored 400+ kills in three months and used Mosin Nagant with no scope like Höyhä.

[GAZ NZ]

Folke its ok for you to post the information.

Get it out there.

As for alot of your other questions i will try and find out more although it was rather tricky finding this information itself.

The source was a very obscure sniper page where the author of the page had some old military contacts.

Ill try and re find the link.

Ill also post up more sniper information where I can find it for both German and Russian snipers.

Some of your questions like what unit where they with? is interesting and would be good to find out - although given the time the interview was taken maybe they did not want to say with many SS and other members still being hunted by the various police and also russian KGB.

Maybe there unit was dodgey or simply had a branded SS name - innocent or not they were marked men.

[GAZ NZ]

The PU telescopic Sight. (Soviet and Satellites)

I have very little historical information on the 3.5 power PU telescopic sight. They were used primarily on the Russian Mosin-Nagant 91/30 sniper rifle system. The PU was also used on the Hungarian 91/30 sniper rifle as well as just about every other 91/30-based sniper rifle utilized by nations employing Soviet equipment. One of the more interesting uses of this scope was on the Finnish M39, a much-improved variant of the original Mosin-Nagant design and considered by many to be arguably the best bolt-action service rifle ever made. This particular usage is interesting in that these telescopic sights were typically removed from captured Russian 91/30's when the parent rifles became less than reliable or their accuracy began to decay. It is somewhat historically satisfying to know that the Finns were able to use the invading Russian's own specialized equipment against them.

First introduced in a slightly different model for the M1938 and then M1940 Tokarev (SVT) rifles, the PU in its final form, as found on the M91/30, measures 6-5/8th inches long and has a 30mm tube. It had an eye relief of approximately 70mm and the field of view is 4 degrees, 30 minutes. The PU telescopic sight, along with the longer 4 power PE, was the principal optical device used throughout WWII by Soviet forces. A simple design, it lasted in front line use right through the 1960's and can still be found in use in several third world nations. The recent influx of Soviet paraphernalia has brought many of these sights into the world market. These scopes are typically in excellent condition and make a nice conversation piece for any collection.

While simple, the PU seems to be quite well made and robust. There is no means for focusing the sight so corrected vision is a must. The low magnification allows some leeway, but if you were not blessed with perfect vision, you would not have been issued this sight as a Soviet sniper. The reticle is typically European; a three-post system consisting of a sharply pointed vertical post and equally thick square side posts that end just short of the vertical post. The gap between the horizontal posts can be used for range estimation and leads. The PU has a BDC style elevation turret calibrated to the 7.62x54R cartridge utilizing the .310 caliber bullet. The elevation turret is marked from 0 to an optimistic 1300 meters. There is no clicker plate and the turret may be turned smoothly between markings. One has to pay attention when dialing in an elevation change, as there is no positive feedback. Adjustment is strictly visual and in low light, a problem. Like the No. 32 Mk1, the BDC is rather gross in adjustment but in this case, the PU has a little "guestimation" room as you can infinitely adjust the turret between ranges. Of course this is anything but precise. Again, I believe the sniper would resort to holds to correct for changes due to weather. The lateral adjustment (windage) turret is similar to the BDC. There are no positive clicks and one must rely solely on vision to set the drum. The turret is marked from 0 to 10 in either direction. I can only assume this represents minutes of angle, but until I can shoot this scope, I have little to go by but faith.

As an interesting aside, the Germans were so impressed with the PU that they based their ill-fated Gw ZF4 telescopic sight on it. The idea of a mass-produced sniper scope must have been overwhelming to the hard-pressed German military. They had to rely on what essentially amounted to high quality sporting scopes, which where both expensive and hard to come by. The lure of a small and easily produced telescopic sight soon had them creating a copy of the PU with the intent of massive distribution. I'll cover this in the following text.

The glass in the PU is fairly clear but appears to be uncoated. Tested against the Zeiss Test Pattern, I found an interesting anomaly that I am unsure how to classify. The scope was capable of resolving down to the number 4 block. At times I felt I could resolve to the number 5 block, but not with any consistency. The odd anomaly I spoke of still has me stumped. When viewing the center of the field of view, the Zeiss pattern appears sufficiently crisp, but it actually sharpens as I move toward the edge of the image area! This is exactly opposite of what you would expect. The closer I looked toward the edge, the better the resolution. This held up right up to the edge, where the image darkened slightly and lost a little focus. I have never experienced this before. Typically the sharpest image is at the center of the scope and one usually loses that clarity out near the edge of the glass. This anomaly could be the result of not being able to focus the sight to the individual's eye. In the field, I could not notice any difference in the image, but under close examination with the Test Pattern, it was easily discerned. On the plus side, I could discern no noticeable distortion. Straight lines remained straight right to the edge.

Zeroing the PU scope is quite simple. Verify zero on paper. Loosen the two large screws found on the top of the turret and gently slide the marked outer drum to the correct range indicator. Gently tighten the screws again and re-verify the zero. This is a quantum leap ahead of the No. 32 Mk1. Bore sighting the PU is relatively easy. The turrets provide enough resistance to stay at the desired setting, yet are easily displaced when needed. While I would much prefer a positive clicker, the smooth action of the PU turret works sufficiently for its intended purpose.

I would have to rate the PU quite acceptable for its purpose. While simple, it provided a mass-produced means of arming the Soviets and her satellites with an efficient and reliable telescopic sight. By no means a precision instrument by today's standards, it was sufficient to net kills in excess of 800 yards in capable hands.

The Gw ZF4-fach (WWII Germany, some post war use)

The Gewehr-Zielfernrohr 4-fach (Gw ZF-4-fach) or 4 power telescopic rifle sight was the great white hope of the beleaguered German sniper. Faced with increasingly skilled Soviet snipers, as well as massive numbers of regular troops, the military leaders pressed for a sniper rifle and scope combination capable of mass production. After a thorough examination of the Soviet PU telescopic sight and the semi-automatic M1940 Tokarev rifle, it has been indicated that the German military wanted a copy as fast as possible. This new scope was to be mated with the newly produced G-43 semi-automatic rifle. The general idea was to produce every single G-43 with the capability of having a telescopic sight mounted on an integral rail milled into the receiver. I believe the end result was meant to field a designated marksman's rifle as opposed to a dedicated sniper rifle. In practice, skilled snipers employed the G-43 system. Production levels never reached the point where every good marksman could be equipped with one.

When carefully produced, the Gw ZF-4 was quite capable as a sniper sight. Unfortunately for the Germans and subsequently fortunate for the allies, the quality control on the ZF-4 was anything but consistent. It never saw the mass production requested in the original orders and workmanship tapered off under the constant bombing raids by the allies. Voigtlaender u. Sohn AG, Braunschweig (ddx), the company that designed the sight, seemed to have the most problems. Sights made by Opticotechna GmbH, Werk Prerau (dow) and J. G. Farbenindustrie, Camerawerk Muenchen (code: bzz) seem to have experienced less problems. Compounding the problems, the accuracy of the G-43 rifle never met expectations, which when combined with the ZF-4 made for little hope of first round hits at longer sniping ranges. It is interesting however, that even today the theory of having two distinct types of sharp shooting equipment available is still being experimented with. Several large armies have experimented with placing optics on accurized infantry rifles and placing them into the hands of above average but regular shooters. Even so, many forces prefer to retain truly skilled and trained snipers as a separate occupational specialty. The US Marines are even now fielding the Designated Marksman. Whether the original German attempt at fielding optics for the average grunt succeeded or not, the idea lives on strongly today.

In capable hands and when constructed properly, the Gw ZF-4 was sufficiently successful in its role. Measuring 6" long (not including the removable sun shade and rubber eye cup), it was made of stampings to save production time and material. It had flat sides that flared out to round cylinders at the objective and ocular ends. Elevation adjustment was via a turret mounted on the right side of the telescope body. It was a BDC-type turret marked in 50-meter increments from 100 to 800 meters. Each positive click approximated one half moa. This was somewhat better than the No. 32 Mk1 and the PU. Unfortunately, I understand that the BDC did not exactly track the ballistic curve of the issue 7.92x57mm round that it was calibrated for, being off a click or two at the farther ranges. Windage was adjusted via a turret mounted on the top of the telescope. This arrangement seems rather odd to those of us born in the United States but when compared to its contemporaries, it was not all that unusual.

Turret adjustment was simple. Each turret has three locking screws. To zero the rifle, one first removed the screws from one turret, either elevation or windage. A small circular cover is then removed from the turret top, exposing the center adjuster and thereby allowing the shooter to adjust the reticle as needed. The adjuster moves quite smoothly and is easy to align. Once the reticle is in the proper position, the circular plate is placed back in position and the locking screws are reinstalled. Again, this system makes the early No. 32 Mk1 look like a monkey on crack designed its turret. As in the PU, the ZF-4 does not have an optically centered reticle. You can observe it moving downward as you dial in longer ranges.

The turret clicks feel fairly precise, however any ham-fisted operator could easily overshoot his mark. The clicks are positive but the distance between each click is quite small. For instance, if you wanted to dial in 450 meters, it would be very easy to overshoot and click in 500 or even 550 meters. The windage turret is a bit of an odd ball in that there are no numerical markings on it. It has nine vertical hash marks consisting of a center mark with four marks on each side for left or right adjustment. There are two clicks between each mark. I am guessing that these represent half moa movements. The windage turret seems useless for adjusting fire in the field as you might with a modern sniper scope. I believe it was only used to zero the rifle and then covered with the provided sheet metal cap. One can adjust fire horizontally via the gaps in the reticle, but I just cannot see a troop dialing in this windage turret under stress and in windy conditions. I am sure it was done, but my feeling is that one set up for a condition and didn't mess with the turret from that point on. Further, it seems to me that all of these scopes are best utilized by holds as opposed to actual adjustments. But this, I must admit, is probably a result of my being spoiled by our modern sighting systems and their easily tracked windage turrets.

The reticle is the typical German Three-Post system. Ranges can be accurately estimated out to maybe 500 yards with this system, possibly beyond. The posts are very heavy and the aiming point, while triangular, is fat and slightly flat on top. This is quite unlike the sharp point in the PU scope and moderately sharp point on the No. 2. I believe that in this case, it is a function of the ranging system as you could use the width of the center post as a ranging tool as well as the point of aim. Typically point of impact was zeroed to be just above the actual physical point. The posts as stated are quite heavy and stand out well in low light. However, the low light ability of this scope is typical of its stable mates and nothing to scream about.

Optically this particular ZF-4 is fairly clear. The lenses appear to be coated which would not surprise me considering who made the scope. The glass has a slight tint to it and importantly, the scope is charged with nitrogen for anti-fogging in inclement weather. The body of the ZF-4 was always marked with a stamped triangle. This was filled with colored paint to indicate what climate the particular sight was capable of operating in. The particular scope, made by Opticotechnica (dow), was stamped with a blue triangle, indicating severe weather. Tested against the Zeiss Test Pattern, the scope resolved down to number 5 on the scale. I could almost resolve the 6.5 block. This seems fairly good and beats the PU handily. The image appeared crisp to the edge of the glass with only a hint of compression on one side right at the very edge. Interestingly, the image stayed crisp everywhere else. I did not notice any discernable distortion.

Had the Germans been able to produce this sight under ideal conditions and in the numbers originally required, I have no doubt that the damage would have been telling on the allies. While the G-43 was hardly an ideal weapon system, it was capable of hits to 400 yards and beyond. Thankfully for the allies, they were not able to put into effect the theory of the designated marksman. Having a telescoped rifle in each platoon certainly has its advantages, and with every G-43 capable of mounting a scope, the average grunt may well have been able to really reach out and touch someone. A later version of the ZF-4, the ZFK 43/1 closely matched the PU scope and was quite excellent considering how badly Germany was being pounded by the allied air campaign.

The history of Gw ZF-4 and its subsequent marks can hardly be considered a success story. Be that as it may, it was a good attempt at a universal sight. Had production issues been resolved, the sight was slated for mounting on the K98k, the G.43/K43 systems and the StG44 assault rifle. It was also used on the FG-42. As Germany's first attempt at a standardized sighting device it made a lot of sense. At the time, its parent nation was using countless commercial sighting devices and standardization was at best, a dream. In this light, the Gw ZF-4 must be viewed as a worthy attempt at ending a logistic and maintenance nightmare.

[GAZ NZ]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/snipers.pdf

Read this its about russian snipers WW1 - WW2 + modern Sniper information

Im still seeking the older original articles information and validity

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting article. To see that in Afghanistan the Canadians had the better kit than the Yanks. Bet that went down well.