Longest range recorded kill

In many internet forums (indeed most I'm on) simply listing half a dozen books is not considred as really providing a reference. In the earlier section on purgeing it might be a bit of an exception as you would be stating that it appeared in none of the books listed, if that was indeed the case. However your contention is that the books supported a specific position. If that's the case you should be able to provide the location and for that matter a quote supporting your position. So far you have not thus the book list provides only a rather tenuous support of your position.

 

I remember reading of the use of snipers during the ACW. I was wondering however when the Germans started using them. There have been references to thier use in WWI on this thread but I haven't seen anything mentioned previous to that.

 

USMCPrice, here's something worth noting:

Going through Senich's book The One-Round War: USMC Scout-Snipers In Vietnam I noticed the following under acknowledgements to people having assisted him in writing the book:

 

lwd, it is mentioned in the book German Sniper: 1914-1945, something I thought I had made rather clear by now.

I'm not just throwing names of books at your face, I actually own the books.

 

IMO you should all be able to backup your opinions, I have found that reading one book by an auther then read another book on the same subject by another aurther the outcome is sometimes different. We all have our favourate aurthers but you have to take them all with a pinch of salt,thats there thoiery not necesserilly correct but only how they see it.

I don't know enough about this subject to get involved but if I did I probably wouldn't, because of all the bickering going on!

 

Just thought that I'd make clear to lwd that the 1500 yard effective range naturally refers to the lethality range of the bullet and not the accuracy of the weapon, which at 1500 yards would have been unable to hit a human sized target reliably.

 

Then you shouldn't have any trouble giving us a chapter and page and possibly even a short quote supporting your position.

 

Quite the opposite actually, just because I haven't purchased them doesn't mean I haven't read them. I do not hold the opinions and interpetations of Senich in high regard. My impression is that he is a 'Historical Reference Novelist', not unlike Tom Clancey.

He has done a fine job in presenting materiall; but, his interpetations of the applications is what is faulty as he has no basis for his opinion other than the opinions of others. His interpetations are mere regurgitation of a single sided account. He may present similarities in technique and development; but, he assumes too much when he credits similarities to a single source. I personally think that his research is flawed in that it is singularly focused and only presents things that support his focus or belief.

Germany did not invent sniping. American Sniper Doctrine and Training is not 'based' on German conduct of snipers during WW1 or WW2. With that said, the question remains: "Did German Snipers of WW2 have an affect on US Sniper employment since WW2 ?" Yes it did. So did Russian, Japanese, British and Italian Snipers. Vietnamese, Iraqi and Afghan snipers also have had an affect on current US Sniper doctrine. The same can be said about the US Doctrine having an affect on the Sniper Doctrine of those countries.

That does not mean current Sniper Doctrine is based on WW2 German Doctrine as Scottish Ghillies employed the same methods during WW1 and the Japanese did the same in the Pacific during WW2.

Here is a quick run down of the US Sniper History:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Murphy_(sniper)
Daniel Morgan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marksman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
66th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hiram Berdan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The German 'Blitzkreig' is an example of an Expeditionary Air/ Ground Task Force; does that mean the conduct of the current MEU Battle Force is based on WW2 Germany? or does it mean that the Blitkrieg was based on tactics postulated and employed by the Navy and Marines in Haiti during the 1920's?

Crediting a single source for advancement and doctrine is a very slippery slope and is poor practice to base an argument on. Military tactics and doctrine are an ever evolving complex web of experience based on previous encounters. You take what you learn and use it to increase your base of knowledge.

In it's base form Sniping consists of a marksman and a rifle with enhanced accuracy charecteristics.

By your definition then all scoped shooting is based on an American design?

 

And just what do you base this on? Not that I'm in total disagreement but you've done nothing to support your contention.

*** doing a bit of research in this I found http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/1860TargetRifle.asp
Which states:

That's roughly the equivalant of 7 inches at 1,500 yards. Now one would expect a cross wind to have more effect at that range but it's certainly enough to bring your conclusion into question.
And there's a248.e.akamai.net/f/248/17859/.../0505_Civil_War_Snipers.pdf
Which states

And later in that document it states:

 

You clearly haven't read his books, and as such you can't make an observation like that. Senich isn't a historical reference novelist, he has employed the help of many from within military branches such as the USMC to help with research for his books, as-well as interviewing many veteran snipers; including Carlos N. Hathcock and Edward J. Land.

You really need to read the books before you start bashing them...

 

I have read his books. My opinion is that he is the same ilk as Tom Clancey, Clancey just has the courtesy to call his own work fiction or opinion, Senich does not impress me. Hustler Magazine also presented interviews with Carlos Hatcock, does that make Larry Flint an expert in field craft and sniping?

 

Proeliator is correct about the 1500 yard range Lwd, I merely cut and pasted information from an ACW website because the question was about early use of scopes. 1860 is the earliest I am personally aware of but, I am not an expert on this, there could be earlier uses of scopes for sniping/sharpshooting. As for the range question (which I was not addressing with the excerpt) there were a fairly good number of confirmed 800 yard kills during the American Civil War. Not really bad for a black powder rifle.

 

Wasn´t there an English sharpshooter at the Spanish War of Succession, who made an excellent shoot at an General at an longer distance? Don´t know the distance but it was an amazing shot.

 

I'd remembered that Gen. John Sedgwick was killed, at Spotsylvania, by Confederate sharpshooters at a good distance (I wasn't sure the range). His famous last words were, "They can't hit an elephant at this range"....and he falls from his horse dead. I have found various sources that claim the Confederate sharpshooters were about a thousand yards away. The official NPS website says approximately 500 yards distance with a Whitworth. I'll go with that range. The round struck him directly below the eye. It is also stated that an aide had warned him that everyone that had gone to that position had been killed by sharpshooters so they must have been fairly effective.

 

And definitely zeroed in as well.

 

The Death Of General John Sedgwick





ON May 8th, 1864, the Sixth Corps made a rapid march to the support of Warren, near Spotsylvania, about 5 P.M., and passed the rest of the day in getting into position on Warren's left. After nightfall General Sedgwick rode back into an open field near General Warren's headquarters and, with his staff, lay down on the grass and slept until daylight. Shortly after daylight he moved out upon his line of battle.
We had no tents or breakfast during that night or morning. The general made some necessary changes in the line and gave a few unimportant orders, and sat down with me upon a hard-tack box, with his back resting against a tree. The men, one hundred feet in front, were just finishing a line of rifle-pits, which ran to the right of a section of artillery that occupied an angle in our line. The 1st New Jersey brigade was in avarice of this line.
After this brigade, by Sedgwick's direction, had been withdrawn through a little opening to the left of the pieces of artillery, the general, who had watched the operation, resumed his seat on the hard-tack box and commenced talking about members of his staff in very complimentary terms.
He was an inveterate tease, and I at once suspected that he had some joke on the staff which he was leading up to. He was interrupted in his comments by observing that the troops, who during this time had been filing from the left into the rifle-pits, had come to a halt and were lying down, while the left of the line partly overlapped the position of the section of artillery. He stopped abruptly and said, " That is wrong. Those troops must be moved farther to the right ; I don't wish them to overlap that battery." I started out to execute the order, and he rose at the same moment, and we sauntered out slowly to the gun on the right. About an hour before, I had remarked to the general, pointing to the two pieces in a half-jesting manner, which he well understood, " General, do you see that section of artillery? Well, you are not to go near it today." He answered good-naturedly, "McMahon, I would like to know who commands this corps, you or I? " I said, playfully, "Sometimes I am in doubt myself"; but added, " Seriously, General, I beg of you not to go to that angle; every officer who has shown himself there has been hit, both yesterday and to-day." He answered quietly, " Well, I don't know that there is any reason for my going there." ' When afterward we walked out to the position indicated, this conversation had entirely escaped the memory of both.
I gave the necessary order to move the troops to the right, and as they rose to execute the movement the enemy opened a sprinkling fire, partly from sharp-shooters. As the bullets whistled by, some of the men dodged. The general said laughingly, " What! what! men, dodging this way for single bullets! What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." A few seconds after, a man who had been separated from his regiment passed directly in front of the general, and at the same moment a sharp-shooter's bullet passed with a long shrill whistle very close, and the soldier, who was then just in front of the general, dodged to the ground. The general touched him gently with his foot, and said, " Why, my man, I am ashamed of you, dodging that way," and repeated the remark, " They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." The man rose and saluted and said good-naturedly, " General, I dodged a shell once, and if I hadn't, it would have taken my head off. I believe in dodging." The general laughed and replied, "All right, my man; go to your place."
For a third time the same shrill whistle, closing with a dull, heavy stroke, interrupted our talk; when, as I was about to resume, the general's face turned slowly to me, the blood spurting from his left cheek under the eye im a steady stream. He fell in my direction ; I was so close to him that my effort to support him failed, and I fell with him.
Colonel Charles H. Tompkins, chief of the artillery, standing a few feet away, heard my exclamation as the general fell, and, turning, shouted to his brigade-surgeon, Dr. Ohlenschlager. Major Charles A. Whittier, Major T. W. Hyde; and Lieutenant Colonel Kent, who had been grouped near by, surrounded the general as he lay. A smile remained upon his lips but he did not speak. The doctor poured water from a canteen over the general's face. The blood still poured upward in a little fountain. The men in the long line of rifle-pits, retaining their places from force of discipline, were all kneeling with heads raised and faces turned toward the scene ; for the news had already passed along the line.
I was recalled to a sense of duty by General Ricketts, next in command, who had arrived on the spot, and informed me, as chief-of-staff, that he declined to assume command of the corps, inasmuch as he knew that it was General Sedgwick's desire, if anything should happen to him, that General Horatio G. Wright, of the Third Division, should succeed him. General Ricketts, therefore, suggested that I communicate at once with General Meade, in order that the necessary order should be issued. When I found General Meade he had already heard the sad intelligence, and had issued the order placing General Wright in command.
Returning I met the ambulance bringing the dead general's body, followed by his sorrowing staff.
The body was taken back to General Meade's headquarters, and not into any house. A bower was built for it of evergreens, where, upon a rustic bier, it lay until nightfall, mourned over by officers and soldiers. The interment was at Cornwall Hollow, Connecticut.

 

Fair enough, when I get back home I will provide the requested page number and paragraph. I have no requests myself, except maybe for formerjughead to cite where Senich comes to incorrect conclusions in his opinion, and proof of him being a historical reference novelist and fiction writer would be welcome too, cause he is neither.

Senich is considered an expert on the history of sniping and firearms, and rightly so, as the material he presents in his books consists of primary information gleaned from original reports, documents, letters, archive microfilm, direct observations and individuals having served within or in close proximity to the military branch being covered.

 

Indeed, reliably hitting a human sized target 1500 yards away with a muzzle loader will be quite a challenge, esp. considering that they had no accurate way of measuring powder charges in the field. Add to this that black powder rifles get fowled up after each shot, and you are definitely not going to get uniform performance at such ranges, to expect otherwise would be foolish.

Next lets remember ballistic coefficient of projectiles at that point in time was very low at best, so energy retention over long range was naturally not very good, leading to quite an arching trajectory; esp. when considering the muzzle velocities of these weapons as-well: ~450 m/s ?? (anyone got an approx. figure?)

I think you should consider this lwd before you start believing that 1500 yard hits on human sized targets were made reliably back in the 1800's.

 

I've already pointed it out. Let's just sufice it to say that I do not agree with Senich's opinions regarding the US Sniper Doctrine being based on that of WW2 Germany.