Snipers of the Eastern front

[Indrid]

I was amazed years ago when i found out about a Finnish soldier, Simo Hayha, who, and i quote "Using nothing more than an iron sighted Mosin-Nagant Model 28, Simo is credited with killing 505 Russians during a nine month period - a feat still unmatched today by any sniper in any conflict."

this was of course during the Russion invasion of Finland, and surprisingly, he was not alone. another one, Suko Kolkka is also credited with 400+ victims in the same period. !

Later on, i'm sure all of you know the story of Zaitzev from the Stalingrad front. the question that naturally emerges is : are these exceptionally gifted individuals or are they just soldiers that used very efficiently a defensive flaw?

for those of you interested, a very in teresting link:

http://www.snipercountry.com/sniphistory.htm#SimoHayha

[Alexandru H.]

Response No.1 : From my experience as a great sniper, I can tell you that being one demands a certain amount of genius...

Response No.2 : I have never fired a weapon. How should I know?

Pick whatever response you want

[Indrid]

thank you oh great warrior for this illuminating , thrilling , extraordinary.....

[Dr_V]

I do have some experience in fiering with rifles, but only in hunting and target shooting (I have not made my military stage yet, I was at colledge). Hunting is one of my gratest passions, so I can talk a bit about this topic.

My opinion is that for one to be a successfull sniper he needs mostly 3 things:
1. to have a passion for shooting
2. to have a good rifle
3. to be in the right conditions

Talking about the conditions, in WW2 there were many ocasions when snipers could be very effective. In any situation when the enemy gets static (in tranches, for example), whenever the sniper can shoot without being seen or when the enemy is on the move passing through places where a sniper can hide safely, etc.
There were many "defence flaws" in that war. From the fact that the officers were very easy to distinguish by their uniform to the obsolete tactics of the infantry that frequently attacked over open areas, very exposed. For a good sniper standing in the deffensive position was the ideal ocasion to shoot them as they were running in the open. There was also the fact that when the front became static (opposing trances) the soldiers stayed down only in the range they've considered dangerous and the distance a sniper can cover was usually gater that they were thinking.


I asked myself very often why were the snipers not used more intensively in WW2. They could have compensated numeric superiority of the enemy in many ocasions and they were not difficult to mantain or deploy. The armament and ammo required were not a problem, and if needed the snipers could act as common infantry troops. The impact of a good sniper on the enemy is not limitated to the number of casualties he inflicts, the psichologic impact is probably more important.

As a hunter, I usually shoot small moving targets (as a rabbit or a fox) and with some practice you can kill a running rabbit with the rifle at 100m. You must consider that a rabbit offers a target of about 15x30 cm (6x12") and is not moving with the same speed all the time and not in a straight line. I believe that the target offered by a man would be about the size of the one that a deer makes(about 1x0.5m or 1x3 feet), if not larger, plus it doesn't move very fast. A good shooter should be able to hit it at 200-300m without using a scope. And with a powerfull rifle and a scope, the range can grow to 400-500 meters if the target is static (using the scope on a moving target is very difficult, but not impossible). Plus that you must not necesarely kill the target to take it out in a war, a wounded soldier rarely can fight.

Well, if you like talking about those things maybe we'll develop the disscution further.

[Indrid]

well first of all thank ypu for the long answer. i personally even if i am 23 ears old i have never fired a shot . maybe that`s where the amazement comes from. however you spoke of distances of 400-500 metres with a scope. i heard of crazy snipers hitting a moving target ( in a car) from over a mile away and on a rainy day! that seems fantastic! this happened during the vietnam war and the sniper was an american.

i am very interested in rifles and pistols and i am looking forward to geting one. i was wondering if you could give me any info about the type of rifle i could trust.
thank you!

[Alexandru H.]

Ok, I hope you won't use it on someone you know and respect... :?

[Dr_V]

QUOTE

however you spoke of distances of 400-500 metres with a scope. i heard of crazy snipers hitting a moving target ( in a car) from over a mile away and on a rainy day! that seems fantastic! this happened during the vietnam war and the sniper was an american.

When I said 400-500 meters I ment the average distance I belive a sniper can cover whith most chanses of success. Longer shots are possible, thaugh a mile is probabli an exageration. I've heared that the limit would be about 900 meters and a stationary target (Discovery channel - English snipers). Of course that from 5 or 10 shots you can hit the target at 1 km., but a sniper must hit the target with only one shot, the 1st one. Otherwise I consider it as failed. Maybe that American in Vietnam registered a lucky shot or it was just propaganda.

There is one more thing to be considerated: the progress in weapons manufacturing and design. In WW2 the rifles were much less accurate and powerfull than they are now. Even between Vietnam and today is a long distance in that area.

The maximum range a sniper can cover depends on many other things than his skills, as the power and accuracy of the rifle, the ammo he uses, the wind, the air temperature, etc. And if the max. range of a rifle is 3 miles, that means a shot at 45 degrees angle (ballistic max. range, before the bullet hits the ground), has nothing to do with using that gun in combat. The effective range is much smaller, as the shot is almost horrisontal and the bullet drops faster. There are too many factors involved to describe them here.

I'll give you an example of my own rifle, a 5.6 mm 22cal. Hornet. The ballistic max. range of the ammo is 3 km. The max. range fiered horisontally is only 600 m and the effective hunting range is 400m with a scope and under 200m without one.
For my fathers 7.62 mm magnum SB, the ballistic range is between 5 and 6 km (depends on the ammo), the max. horrisontal range is 900m. and the effective range with a scope about 6-700m.
[ the horrisontal range is measured from the average height of a mans shoulder, 1.5 meters ]

QUOTE

am very interested in rifles and pistols and i am looking forward to geting one. i was wondering if you could give me any info about the type of rifle i could trust.

I don't believe you'll be able to buy a pistol in Romania, at least not legally. Only police, PIs and military personnel can have them. But a rifle is legal if you're a hunter.

My advice is to start with a Hornet (5.6mm, 22cal.). It's easy to handle, very accurate and very usefull at hunting. The manufacturer can be Romanian Cugir, Check SB or Amerrican Winchester. Maybe the Romanian ones are preferable, even if they are heavyer, the Winchester wears quicker. And preferably shot-by-shot, the semi-automatic ones can be tricky if the ammo is not the best kind.

A Hornet will force you to shoot very accurately, as the small bullet doesn't do much damage. To kill a boar (wild pig) you must hit its heart, a shot through the abdomen will only enjur it and you'll lose the trofee. Also the ammo is reasonably cheap, so you can shoot much at target practice. The weapon is light in weight, easy to handle fast and usefull even without a scope. Oh, and for the scope, I strongly recomand you a Romanian one, it's very good. If you can't find one (they're rare), a German Zeiss will be better. And it must be a medium size one, about 9x magnification, you don't need more on a Hornet.

After a few years you should buy a heavyer calibre weapon for the big animals. I'd say a 6.5 mm magnum. A 7.62 is too big, if you shoot a deer you'll almost brake it in half. And a bigger scope, of course.

[Indrid]

are you still willing to talk about guns and stuff? cause i'm interested.

for Dr_V

[C-2]

The Russians exagerated for propaganda reasons the importance of the sniper.In Stalingrad the distances were of a few m.It was more sence to use a pistol (like we can see in many documantaries about Stalingrad)or a submachine gun.I'm not sure if this Zaitev existed...
The Germans gave no special importance to the snipers ,and the story of the duel between a major ss and Zaitev didn't happened.(there were no ss troups in Stalingrad).
About the Fin sniper,500 looks to much.About 2 per day.He shoud have endless hiding places ,very good weather(staying still for many hours in sub zero temp is imposible)and no responce from the Russians with motrers and guns in the direction of sniper?????

[C-2]

About hunting rifles:I met 5-6 years ago ,an ex dental tehnician(From the military hospital or Elias hospital) who had for sale an FN 12 calibare made for the German ambasador in Bucharest ,Von Killinger,with dedication and ornaments.In perfect condition,for 1000$.
I was sort of money then ,but I should have bought it :evil:

[mabadesc]

[quote]sale an FN 12 calibare made for the German ambasador in Bucharest ,Von Killinger,with dedication and ornaments.In perfect condition,for 1000$.
I was sort of money then ,but I should have bought it [/quote]

That was an amazing deal - a once in a lifetime opportunity. You definitely should have bought it...

[Florin]

The following is the end of a quote I posted on October 28, 2003 in WorldWar2.ro Forum Index -> Romanian Army -> Romanian opinion on German weaponry:

......When they started the invasion in June, every Russian platoon had a sniper. The Germans and the Romanians had not. The price was paid by the Romanian officers who attacked in their parade uniforms, with all their medals hanging. (The colonel commanding his unit arrived at dawn of June 22nd in soldier uniform, with no medals. The colonel had the World War I experience. My grandfather was a fast learner, and immediately took himself an ordinary uniform, with no medals.)

[Indrid]

Zautsev existed. his rifle is still shown at the history museum at volvograd. and about the finnish sniper, just imgine the legions or russians sent there. two per day is not too much. maybe some days he got 20 , who knows

[mg 42]

zaitsev existed, for sure. But his duel with maj. Konig is contested by historians. As a matter of fact, no record such a maj. existed can be found in german archives ( and the germans were fanatical about keeping records ). And Zaitsev himself never said he killed a german sniper officer.

However, Stalingrad was a sniper's paradise, with all the ruins and wreckage lying around.

and the finnish snipers are really credited to be the top 2 in the world.
But the intresting fact is that the 2nd one ( with 400+ kills) also had 200+ kills with his submachine gun. :smg:
from what I know , both of them were not professional snipers ( they had no special trainig), but were simple farmers with lots of hunting experience.

The current record for longest range sniper kill is 2430 m, accomplished by a Canadian sniper in 2002, during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
( according to http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper)

[cuski]

QUOTE

and the finnish snipers are really credited to be the top 2  in the world. But the intresting fact is that the 2nd one ( with 400+ kills) also had 200+ kills with his submachine gun. :smg:   from what I know , both of them were not professional snipers ( they had no special trainig), but were simple farmers with lots of hunting experience.

Not just the second one, same thing for Simo Häyhä... he was also an expert with the Suomi SMG.

For the ones that haven't seen this yet:

http://www.mosin-nagant.net/simohayha.htm