Snipers - how reliable are the huge claims?

Sniping activity often had a psychological objective other than individual kills. It is very un-nerving to be individually targeted by an opponent that is difficult to strike back at.

Also good snipers can be effective in countering the enemies sniping activity.

Perversely the psychological benefit is most effective against an enemy that is already losing and/or poorly trained troops. But knock down the morale of the opponent far enough and you might reap mass surrenders in the future.

Along with strategic bombing, it's all in the perverse logic of humans at war.

 

It all depends on not how many a sniper shoots, but WHOM he shoots. A sniper won't just shoot anybody. The reason for the scope is not just for accuracy, but to determine whether or not the target they have is important enough to both expend ammunition and give away their position. Obviously, an enemy colonel, sniper, or radio operator is going to be a prime target.

Forgive me if this post sounds offensive; nobody is really "worth" the killing (unless you're talking about Hitler ;D). I was simply trying to make a point that a sniper in most cases has to wait for the right target to show up.

A sniper's job is not only to kill enemy figures; it involves reconnaisance, map reading, figuring out where the enemy is and what they are doing, directing friendly artillery fire, and making sure that infantry and/or other units flanks are secure.

Saying, that a sniper's duty is any regard is 'easy,' is a joke. And I've not even mentioned the psychological aspect that someone out there might be trying to end your life without you knowing it, simultaneously. The fear must be unbelievable.

 

A retired US sniper I talked to once said the most deadly weapon he ever used was a radio. With technological advances in modern communications and precision guided munitions, a sniper team would sometimes eschew their rifles and focus on directing air strikes with their radios. In Operation Anaconda, three special operations reconnaissance sniper teams accounted as much as half of the enemies KIA by remaining unseen and calling down air strikes on the al-Qaeda.

 

Obviously, it is impossible to verify epic stories about snipers of Stalingrad but it is clear beyond any doubt that Soviet snipers along with other Soviet soldiers forced the Germans to fight a battle they could not win: a battle of a man against a man. This explains how an army of ordinary shepherds, peasants and workers has defeated the most formidable military force of its time.

 

We should not lose track that the SU had a vested interest in promoting the lethality of the Russian Sniper.

 

It's not sniperism that explains the Russian victory....although it was a major cause of morale disappearing down the gurgler. The problem for the Sivth Army was the RANGE at which most of these engagements were fought.

On the steppe, it was not unusual for most engagements to begin with heavy, automated weapons firing from ranges of 1,200 meters. Here, the German Army had a decisive advantage with their family of auto weapons capable of being added to for fixed positions, (tripods, telescopic sites etc).

In the city, range was frequently 'across the street, and here, Russian infantry weaponry was the equal of anyone. Add to this a good measure of animal cunning in tactical decisions, and a plan by Chuikov to keep German forces off balance with constant and spirited attacks right into the teeth of the German offensive, and you have an entire Army of German soldiers complaining of 'gangster methods". It was very similar in principle to the alternative methods that american colonists used on regular British soldiers. On the steppe, irregular method was taken up by partisans. Leon Degrelle makes it clear that these people had "No method that we could study". The Red Army could be relied upon to stick to their doctrine. Partisans had no doctrine.

In Stalingrad, Soviet units were writing their own version of tactical principles, and educating the German Army, trading off peasants and workers for highly trained and experienced soldiers and, eventually, Pioneer Corps specialists.

That was an expensive trade.

The Germans imparted all of their Stalingrad 'training' to the western Allies, particularly at Cassino.

Sniperism was an acknowledged CULT in the Red Army. They were the poster boys of their generation, and it caused a wave of imitators, who ended up getting in the way of the trained professionals, and getting a lot of them shot. When your carefully camouflaged and sited 'nest' is unoccupied, and some Goldilocks with a rifle bangs away from it while you are not occupying it, the result is DEATH when you go back to the same position. the 62nd Army lost many a good sniper to the worship of this 'cult' by the ordinary Ivan.

I don't see anything wrong with some of these claim sheets. And for every sucessful sniper, there were many others not so skilled that got nix to nothing.

Just recall what the Germans themselves were calling this battle, "Verdun on the Volga", or "The New Verdun". Hoffman's diary claims that dogs would run away in terror from the city at great speed, and "The hardest stones cannot bear the strain....only men endure"

The average Landser must have felt that those dogs were far more intelligent than they, and lucky enough to escape the place.

 

Bourgeois manners aren't of great help if you have to fight with entrenching tool survive or when just going to toilet may end up with a hole in your skull. I wouldn't say that the German soldiers in Stalingrad were weaklings but the Russian soldiers were better prepared to bear inconveniences of life in Stalingrad 1942.

The Zaitsev myth should be viewed as a common practice of “Socialist” countries to interfere in every aspect of human life where exposing “extraordinary achievements” of individuals was used to urge people to follow the example. Pure propaganda.

 

I don't see the relevance of this, seems to me this same statement could describe infantry combat in every theater of WWII.

I'm no fan boy of the German Army in WWII. In fact I feel their capabilities are greatly over stated. That being said I also don't see that the Russian soldier was any more capable at bearing up to the hardships than their German counterparts.

 

I've heard many Russian veterans of the battle say that their trench spades were "better than a machine gun" when clearing out trenches or buildings.

As for the Germans, I don't think they were prepared, of course, for the winter and the fact that the Russians ended up surrounding them. Nobody expects the latter, really.

But the Russians obviously were far better equipped for the winter. Even though they might not have been supplied adequately and conditions still would have been miserable, the Russians have some very nice ways of dealing with the cold that the Germans wouldn't have been utilizing.

 

Seems like a Russian propaganda site. The others, non-Russian sites have different listings.

Häyhä's kills were confirmed by designated observers or fellow soldiers.

 

Take any claim of kill (sniper, air) and subtract 25%-30% and you will get a more realistic figures.

In Stalingrad Soviet snipers were also shooting Russian civilians behind German lines who were helping the Germans. If they saw boys getting water from Volga, water could be for Germans, they could take that shot. A woman washing German uniforms could also get shot.

My Grandfather was a Sniper in the Red Army 1941-1944 with 88 kills.

 

Amazingly I found a Book "Notes of a Russian Sniper" a translation from the original Russian version written by Vassili Zaitsev in 1956, costing me the huge price of £1 in a local charity shop.

Can't wait to read it but will bear in mind the reservations expressed in this thread.

Has anyone else read the book?