Longest range recorded kill

And that was only wasting good resources! Not anything that was taught by others was worth to adopt it!

 

I wouldn't recommend using a tree as a sniping nest myself. Would be rather difficult to escape if spotted. Not to mention the movement of branches when a shot was taken. That having been said it was a tactic frequently used by the Russians & Japanese.

The Germans and the British recommended that only observation was conducted from trees, eventhough shooting from trees was taught as-well. Quite odd.

 

The Japanese, from what I've read, often used snipers to help break contact or as stay behinds. They often had extremely good comoflage and postitions but also apparently lacked escape routes or secondary positions. The result being that while they often inflicted considerable casualties they didn't last long. As others have stated rather a waste. That they did so to such an extent was a lesson that shouldn't have been lost on the forces in the Pacific.

As for firing from trees. If you've got a long enough shot and the area around you is under control or at least "no man's land" it's probably an option that's worth having in one's inventory. Not a position you want to be in when the enemy is close however. Also not a good position if the enemy is annoyed enough at snipers to use arty to counter snipe or, for that matter, if you just want to change positions fairly quickly.

 

Yes the Japanese were master of camouflaging their positions and traps. And against the German "Baumschützen" the allies used often their .50 cal´s to clean them up before they moved into the woods.

 

Well from the description of the situation I'm inclined not to rate it so. Consider that he had a clump of opponents on horses. If the point is to decrease their comfort level then a hit on a horse is as good as one on the personel. So he's got a pretty big target and they are just sitting there. Since he'd been in the area a while and been shooting at targets in the area he also probably had a pretty good idea what the range was. I would think he acutally did aim at a particular individual probably one in the center of the group but was hopeing to get a hit or even a near miss on either the people or the horses. Given the statistics the odds would favor a hit on the target aimed at as opposed to any other individual in the clump (although the sum of the probabilities might favor a hit on the others) and indeed hitting one of the horses was probably the most likely result.

It comes down to what you consider "luck" and what you consider the "target". Certainly the shot had as much or even greater effect than he hoped for.

Indeed I think I pointed this out. Indeed if you walk at a pace of 3 nautical miles per hour it translates to 100 feet/minute or a bit of 1.5 ft/sec. Hitting a moving target at that range becomes very problematic.

That's taking it a bit far. If my calculations are correct the angle he be firing at would be ~arcsin(80/1000) or ~ 4.6 degrees. Well short of a howitzer like trajectory.

 

I am sorry if it feels like I am picking on Senich, I have very similar opinions towrds the work of David Glantz and his evaluation of the Soviets during and after WW2. To make such sweeping genralizations such as : US Sniper doctrine is based on WW2 German Sniping" is just inaccurate and, to me, is indicative of researching with an agenda. I think a much more accurate approach to the statment would be that the US / Allies were influenced by German Sniping practices of WW2 when establishing postwar sniper doctrine. The same as US Carrier operations were influenced by Japan and the use of an integrated Air Ground Taskforce was influenced by the Germans. Japan and Germany proved many "theories' that had been bouncing around the US Military for many years prior to the outbreak of WW2. For instance Gen.

Billy Mitchell proposed that aircraft would be more effective than battleships in destroying and attacking enemy shipping. Does that mean the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was based on Billy Mitchell's proposed air doctrine? of course not; but, you could say it may have influenced it and proved his theory.

 

Proeliator wrote:

Sure it's my name.

Good we agree.

I don't know the ballistic coefficient of either bullet so I'll have to take your word for it in absence of better data.

The .577/.58 caliber minie weight varied greatly, I've seen 470,480,500 and 599 arsenal packed cartridges. The Sharps during the ACW also fired a minie style bullet and came in both .52 and .54 caliber, I've seen the .52 cal listed as having a 475 gr weight.

I'm sure they didn't come close, advances in materials, bullets and propellants had come a long way. That just emphasizes the skills of the marksmen that made the shots.

The 45-70 military round was adopted in the 1870's, Sharps civilian models came in a variety of calibers just like today.

This anecdote proves nothing. The shooter himself was not shooting at a single target but a mass of troops. He admits he had to adjust his windage by 150 feet! He had his sights set to maximum elevation and aimed at the tops of pine trees that in this area run on average 100-150 feet tall. I live near the area this took place at and drive through there several times a week. The Confederate positions were quite elevated. What about this is improbable?


Here's a contemporary photograph of the area. The confederates were on the high ground in the distance. This view is from where the Federal Army would be located, the main body of Gen. Johnston's Army was located on the far side of the ridgeline.
Note: I don't necessarily buy the three and a half mile claim but it was a significant distance.

 

That's a Hail Mary shot if there ever was one. Sounds like a lot of fish in a small barrel, exponentaily speaking; chances are he's going to hit something. It's not that different than the approach the German's took with launching the V1/2's at London. Point it in the right direction and let it go.

The other thing to keep in mind is that shooting wasn't something these riflemen picked up due to the war. These guys were a culture of hunters and woodsmen, they had to be able to hit what they were aiming at if they wanted to eat in most cases. Try hunting squirrels or rabbits today with modern firearms and ammunition and it's not an easy task; it's easy to appreciate the skill of the guys who did it with muzzle loaders.

 

In post #217 Lwd asked the question:

My intent, when I posted this was to answer the portion of his question in bold.

I posted the the excerpt, I did not elaborate. What I wanted it to illustrate was that scoped rifles were used in the War of Northern Aggression (1861-1865). Just off the top of my head this was the earliest use I was aware of where scoped rifles were used by the military on a large scale. Nothing definative, just illustrative that scopes were used way back. In post #233 I said as much.

Then in post #235 I brought up a well documented instance of a long range kill with a Whitworth, Gen. John Sedgewick.

Now, eyewitnesses to Sedgewick's death variously estimated the range at anywhere from 800 to 1000 yards, The National Park Service website gives the range as 500 yards and I went with that low end figure but I suspect that it was probably in the 800-1000 yard range. Some of the witnesses were veteran artillery officers and being an accurate judge of range was necessary when cutting fuse lengths for shell, so they burst over the target. Virtually all witnesses state that the confederate sharpshooters were located in a woodline near the Angle. The battle took place in May 1864, the battlefield park wasn't established until 1927. I have no doubt that the actual location of the woodline had changed over that time and the actual location of the sharpshooters was at best an educated guess by NPS historians. The actual participants are probably the better source.
I at no time intended to get the discussion off track as I have. I am sorry. It has now degenerated into trying to figure out what the longest possible shot with Civil War era firearms was, I hope we can refocus on the questions we were debating before I got us side-tracked.

 

To be fair Senich writes that elements of US sniper training & doctrine are based on lessons learned studying WW2 German sniper training & doctrine, he didn't write that they were true copies of each other. Also I can assure you that he has no agenda, his other work proves this without a doubt. But again, I'll have a look through the book once I am home again, and then I'll have a look to see wether he makes any more similar comments.

But I understand where you're coming from, I have similar issues other writers. Also one should never take the words of just one author as gospel, nomatter how objective he his in his presentation of material, esp. since no author in my experience is free of mistakes.

 

As I pointed out earlier one also has to be careful of reading more into an authors words than is actually there.

 

At 1500 yards I'd have to say that luck had a great deal to do with it though, even if the muzzle velocity was an abnorm 1500 to 2000 fps.

Assuming that the shooter is standing at sea level elevation and a 10 mph cross wind is coming from the left, a .200 BC, 500 grain bullet with a MV of 1500 fps will exhibit the following:

At 1500 yards the bullet will have been on the move for 6.7 sec, flown over an arch reaching an elevation of 64 yards from SL, blown 18 yards to the right. All the while the bullet will have slowed down to 432 fps retaining a kinetic energy of 207 ft/lbs (less than half the power of a 9mm Parabellum). You'll have to combat all this using a sight no more adjustable than that found on most WW1 rifles.

Now could you hit something at that range with the Whitworth? Yes. But could you hit a specific target at that range? Hardly.

 

I believe it was a man named Matthaus Hetzenauer a German soldier in the Nazi Army. But to be honest with everyone here, this question is so relative to the situation it's silly. Gary Gordon a REAL SPECIAL FORCES Soldier had two buddies verify a shot he took on a Motor or Tank Range out past 2300m with a 338 L. Gary Gordon is not some shabby seal. Graduated from SOTIC. SOTIC is basically where they take already incredible Soldiers who are Green Berets, Rangers, Snipers or DELTA, and essentially turn them into Olympic Level Shooters. The graduates of SOTIC can easily shoot out to 3000m+. And they currently HAVE equipment that you and I have no clue about.

Are we talking about a shot that was purposefully made. Internal, External, Terminal and Transitional Ballistics Variables Accounted FOR. Or are we talking about a guy who aimed in a direction, closed his eyes, fired, and somehow hit the target. Cause I'm sure there must have been many MANY MAANNYY cases.

 

About 400 miles when Lt Barber got Yamamoto

 

Wernher von Braun, Germany, V2, ca 200 miles.