Longest range recorded kill

We're talking WW2 sniper training here, not modern sniper training. Ofcourse today almost every country uses the same or a similar program to train its' snipers.

Are you seriously getting your panties up in bunch because of one misplaced letter?

I have read up on all sides Jaeger, I have Shore's book too, it does fail to mention the heavy casualties suffered amongst British & Canadian snipers in NW europe however. Otherwise it's a good book. And I have Sepp's book as-well.

 

I'm not sure how this proves Senich wrong. After the war the US army & marine corps adopted a lot of lessons learned from studying German sniper tactics used during WWII.

 

That goes against the facts.

First of there were active German sniping schools way before the war started, so I believe you are refering to the additional 30 or so training companies created during the war.

Also you need to remember that there is a big difference between the trained Scharfschützen and the platoon marksmen sometimes found in German units.

The trained German Scharfschützen inflicted very heavy casualties to US, British & Canadian sniper units from the day they landed in Normandy and till they stood in the streets of Berlin. Furthermore the Scharfschützen also sometimes worked in pairs with a spotter, which is mentioned in both Senich's & Sepp's book.

German Scharfschützen returning from a hunt:


"US Army's lack of familiarity with sniping tactics resulted in disastrous effects in Normandy and the campaign in Western Europe where they encountered well trained German snipers. In Normandy, German snipers remained hidden in the dense vegetation and were able to encircle American units, firing at them from all sides. The American and British forces were surprised by how near the German snipers could safely come and attack them, as well as by their ability to hit targets at up to 1,000m. A notable mistake made by the green American soldiers was to lie down and wait when targeted by German snipers, thus allowing the snipers to pick them off one after another. German snipers often infiltrated Allied lines and sometimes when the front-lines moved, they fought from their sniping positions, refusing to surrender until their rations and munitions were exhausted. After World War II, many elements of German sniper training and doctrine were copied by other countries."

 

I said parts of it were based on techniques developed by the Germans in WWII, and I already cited my sources for that statement, read them please.

 

Seems like the thread has stopped working....

EDIT: Now it's working again.

 

The only thing I saw was a list of German Sharp Shooting Schools that you provided and some You Tube videos. To Clarify what I am asking you to provide would you please list where you got the information in your post #203.
This portion of post #188:

This portion of post #191

You have provided nothing to substantiate these claims; please do so before posting further.

 

Proeliator,

It is against some facts and not. It depends on what you take as an fact. There were some training companies created and some were known as an sort of " I can see through the scope so i´m a sniper!" that were the cheap made snipers with the useless ZF41 for an example. Any of them who survived longer as a few months was good. There were some really well trained snipers and they had an different status to the others. In the Normandy was at the beginning an problem for the GI´s and the others. The advantage to know the territory was on the Germans side and the "Green Soldiers" where often not well trained and unexperienced, no they were "Greenhorns" after an speedy training. Lets look to later actions, the british and canadian sniper learned very fast. Another reason for their success was the training and the good rifles. I don´t know if you have the book ".303 No.4(T)Sniper rifle: An Armourer´s Perspective" from Capt. Peter Laidler ( an nice Gent) good to read to that topic. I didn´t meant that German snipers been worthless, but the most of them had to fight with bad tactics and ignorant Officers. I talked to a few of the WW2 snipers and some of the older instructors and they said that the training program for snipers came to late and that they were often send as "Lone Wolfs" and had to deal with orders that weren´t made for snipers and some felt misused as armed observers. The sniper tactics of the new Armies are the essence of the experiences they made during WW2 and later wars and all the good things that the "others" made. Coming back to the pic in your thread. The reason why the Green boys had so much losses is to find in their bad training. If you get into snipers fire in an flat aera, you have to spilt and move quick over that area with using all the cover you can find while the others will fire into the snipers direction. And if you´re pinned down on the ground the fire must come from an higher position. Not easy to locate but a solvable problem. The facts in books are normally good and correct, but first hand informations are sometimes different depending on that what the persons experiences are.

 

I would suspect that the Western Allies, lacking direct access to German doctrine, would develop their techniques and procedures independently of their adversaries. Since the number of sound tactics is limited, the end result would appear similar. Similarity does not prove lineage.

 

Are you unable to read? I've cited Peter R. Senich as my primary source more than just once by now.

Here's a list of books he's written:

1. Complete Book of US sniping
2. German Sniper: 1914-1945
3. The long-range war
4. US Marine Corps Scout Sniper
5. The One Round War
6. The Pictorial history of US sniping
7. Limited war sniping
8. The German assualt rifle: 1935-1945

If he says that the US army & marine corps copied many aspects of the WWII German sniper doctrine & training programs whilst making their own, I believe it.

 

Well first of all the Germans were the first to use the tactic of working in pairs with a spotter, starting this practice already in WW1. Infact the Russians not having any previous experience with sniping (they had none in WW1), imitated WW1 German sniper tactics whilst making their own in WW2, reintroducing the practice of working in pairs.

Secondly the Germans hadn't stopped training snipers since WW1, and so by the start of WW2 they already had a good number of trained snipers available, not to mention dedicated sniping schools. In following 20+ years they had been perfecting the tactics and equipment needed to become the most effective in the art of sniping.

The Scharfschützen were also probably the most pampered soldiers in the German army, recieving extra rations, officers boots & gloves on top of all the extra special combat equipment they already recieved, such as camouflage suits for all seasons.

The British & Canadian snipers sadly weren't this well equipped, and although they had a great piece of kit in their Lee Enfield No.4 (T) sniper rifle, they lacked the training, experience, special ammunition & equipment of their German counterparts, and this cost them dearly during the war. But this should come as no surprise seeing as they had to catch up to over 20 years of uninterrupted development. That having been said they were better prepared than the US.

 

And I gave you Maj. Edward "Jim" Land and Lt.Col. Norman Chandler, that contradict that. Now Land started the Marine Corps Sniper program during Vietnam and both Land and Chandler were instrumental in starting the modern/post-Vietnam program. Let's see.... who do I believe, the two men with the greatest involvement or Senich?

I see Senich's list of books but it is no more impressive than Chandler's:

Books by Chandler (partial)
Chandler..... Norman A., Lt. Col...... The One Shot Brotherhood (I have a personally autographed copy of this book).
Chandler..... Norman A., Lt. Col...... USMC Sniping: Death From Afar - Volume l
Chandler..... Norman A., Lt. Col...... USMC Sniping: Death From Afar - Volume ll
Chandler..... Norman A., Lt. Col...... USMC Sniping: Death From Afar - Volume lll
Chandler..... Norman A., Lt. Col...... USMC Sniping: Death From Afar - Volume lV
Chandler..... Norman A., Lt. Col...... USMC Sniping: Death From Afar - Volume V
Chandler..... Norman A., Lt. Col...... USMC Sniping: Death From Afar - Volume Vl
Chandler..... Norman A., Lt. Col...... USMC Sniping: Death From Afar - Volume Vll
Chandler..... Norman A., Lt. Col...& "White Feather: Carlos Hathcock USMC ScoutSniper"
Chandler..... Roy F.,

Nahh, I don't believe him. Do you really?

 

USMCPrice, where exactly does Maj. Edward Land or Lt.Col. Norman Chandler contradict what Senich writes?? Infact none of what you quoted contradicts the fact that after the war the USMC took to them a lot of tactics used by the German snipers during WWII.

The US army & marine corps had in no way acquired themselves a fully developed sniper training program until well after the war, and a lot of lessons learned studying the tactics & doctrine used by snipers in Europe during WWII (namely the Germans), were used creating these programs.

 

That's sometimes refered to as "shotgun" referencing. Exactly which book(s) does he say this in and where (i.e chapter and page)?

 

You're right Proeliator, they don't directly state that they didn't adopt WWII German sniper tactics. They do however go quite indepth in describing how the program developed. They also freely attribute what they adopted and from whom, they just don't mention the German's or German sniper program. They mention the Brits, they mention the Russians, they mention U.S. WWI and WWII experiences, they just don't mention the Germans. Land's, Hathcock's and other marine sniper's work during Vietnam is mentioned as greatly influencing the modern program. Was it an omission or a non-factor? Well they discussed it in depth so I doubt it was an omission.

I will agree with the first part of your statement. Due to massive cuts in personnel and budgets, American sniper programs disappeared immediately after WWII. In fact most conventional capabilities greatly decreased, so specialized fields such as snipers received no attention.
As I stated earlier:

So once Korea broke out I do not know how the Army's program developed. I do know how the Marine Corps program developed and it is not as you assert.

 

USMCPrice, maybe the good Maj. Edwards attributes lessons learned to studying British & Russian tactics used during the war without realizing that these countries themselves were imitating tactics originally developed by the Germans. I wouldn't know what he wrote however as I don't own the books you listed.

 

Watch your tone.

You should learn to consider your source and your argument is indicative of single source thought. Senich is fine researcher; however, he is not a sniper nor has he gone through any sniper training. Senich's first book : German Sniper 1914-1945 has tainted the rest of his research and publications in as much that he draws similarities between that thome and subsequent research. He also very often refers to his other works as 'Primary Source', which they are not.

You have failed to prove your argument.

 

As a matter of curiosity when did scoped sniper rifles first make their appearance in the German army? Or snipers in general (as opposed to skirmishers)?

 

It's Major Edward "Jim" Land not Maj. Edwards. As for your presumtion that Maj. Land possibly copied German tactics without realizing it, not true in regards to Vietnam. As for the modern/post Vietnam sniper program that would be impossible to prove one way or the other, because you couldn't seperate the original source from the natural evolution of warfare. That is not however what you originally stated, you said:

That is quite a bit different from:

 

Huh? What is this based on? Do you actually own any of these books? Without having actually read any of his books you can't even begin to come with an observation like that.

Your statement about his usage of sources also only goes to show you haven't read his books, cause if there ever was a man who was thurough at listing his references then it was Senich. I suggest you pick up his books and start reading them.

Quite the opposite, you have failed to bring it into question.

 

Sir Joseph Whitworth of England created a rifle with a twisted hexagonal bore and then shaped bullets to match this bore. (1) He patented his hexagonal bore in 1854. (2) A Confederate weapon in the Civil War, when outfitted with a telescopic sight this firearm had an effective range of 1,500 yards. The twisted hexagonal bore imparted a steadiness of flight to its .45 caliber bullet, and made this rifle the favorite of Confederate sharpshooters.