Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
The 600 yard kill
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 20th August 2010
There was a piece in one of the Nationals suggesting that the Taleban have brought in a pro. sniper, and he killed a British soldier through a 9 inch hole in the armoured glass at 600 yards. While I condem the killing of any allied troops, as a onetime shooter, I have to admire the skill to not only make the shot, but time it just right to hit the soldier inside. I would suggest that even today with all the weapons of mass destruction in the world, the sniper must still be the most feared killing machine on any battlefield.
-
Message 2
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 20th August 2010
Grumpfred,
There was a documentry on the discovery channel that featured an American snipers rifle that could consistently smash a melon at 1500 yards with bone chilling accuracy. The thing looked like it should have been mounted in the wing of a spitfire as opposed to being an infantry weapon,it was huge. -
Message 3
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 20th August 2010
the Taleban have brought in a pro. sniperÌý
By 'brought in' does this mean that this is a mercenary? If so then this is intriguing considering that one element to the war in Afghanistan is religious, which one might think would preclude the involvement of mercenaries.
But then again the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War were also religious wars to a greater or lesser extent and yet they too involved mercenaries. For example in the English Civil War there was a Croatian mercenary, a Captain Carlo Fantom who joined the Parliamentary forces under the Earl of Essex but then went over to join the Royalist forces. John Aubrey quotes him as saying:
"I care not for your cause. I come to fight for your half-crown and your handsome women. My father was a Roman Catholic and so was my grandfather. I have fought for the Christians against the Turks and for the Turks against the Christians." -
Message 4
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 20th August 2010
The US use the 50 cal. Barret Light, and indeed it looks like it belongs on a Spitfire. There is also a 20 mil mounted weapon. I remember reading that during the Second World War,the Germans feared the Russian snipers (As seen in enemy at the Gate) The US marines hated the Japanse snipers, and in every war film, there is always the sniper in the church tower (Stupid place to shoot from)
-
Message 5
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Saturday, 21st August 2010
So, when did sniping begin...
In the American Civil War, with the development of specialist sniping rifles?
Within the context of the 'petit guerre' in the eighteenth century?
When a particular Scotch dragoon is recorded as having tried to knock off Cromwell on the Dunbar Campaign?
When Richard I was shot and mortally wounded by a crossbowman from within a castle?
When Achilles was shot in the heel?
-
Message 6
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 21st August 2010
It really came into its own with the invention of the Sharps rifle, bringing in the words Sharp Shooter,The cartridgerifle gave the man range and fast reloading,although the Baker Rifle gave the British the edge over the French who refused to use issue a rifle to their skimishers. During the Great War, the British used Gillies from the Highlands as snipers.
-
Message 7
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 21st August 2010
There were certainly snipers (on both sides) during the Second Boer War and (as Grumpyfred rightly points out) sharp-shooters were already evident during the American Civil War if not earlier.
-
Message 8
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Sunday, 22nd August 2010
In the Battle of Saratoga, General Benedict Arnold (then still with the rebels) pointed General Fraser out to General Morgan and said "That man is worth a regiment". Morgan turned to Timothy Murphy of the "Sharpshooter's Corp" and told him "That gallant officer is General Fraser. I admire him, but it is necessary that he should die, do you duty." Which he did.
Not an infamously long shot, but an early example of the value of selective sniping that rifles opened up. -
Message 9
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Sunday, 22nd August 2010
hi grumpy
you may well be correct about your taliban sniper- buts thats one person
have a look on the bbc news website - it details every single one of the british deaths - 80 % of which are ied deaths - they are laying bombs to kill us but we arent killing them
very few are gunshot deaths so a taliban sniper is irrelevant no matter how good he is !!
st -
Message 10
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 22nd August 2010
St, I would guess that both the sniper and the layer of the I E Ds are high on the hate list of the average soldier.
Fred -
Message 11
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Monday, 23rd August 2010
hi GF
yes you are absolutely correct - and in combat situations the sniper is the worst enemy you can imagine
my point is that no matter how good the taliban sniper is - no matter how fearsome the taliban infantryman is - an u have to believe - he is good ( read APACHE for further details ) - it no longer matters about combat situations in afghanistan - we will win all the time
our young lads and usa young lads are getting killed by IEDs and they will continue to be killed by this weapon
if we can engage the taliban we can kill them - we can track down a sniper - that is not our problem though
st -
Message 12
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 23rd August 2010
it no longer matters about combat situations in afghanistan - we will win all the timeÌý
A bit like when the UK won on the (not 1 but 2) occasions when Afghanistan was invaded in the 19th century. Or a bit like when the USSR won there in the 1980s. Or a bit like when the US won in Vietnam. -
Message 13
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 23rd August 2010
The press have been reporting for the last week or so that foreign mercenaries have been used by the Taliban.
But at the weekend they reported that an air strike was directed by Special Forces and four foreign snipers killed.
We will just have to hope that this is true.
-
Message 14
Posted by Hastur1 (U14272072) on Tuesday, 24th August 2010
I believe that the word "sharpshooter" is derived from a German word rather than the Sharps rifle itself.
In the ACW many regiments used the term sharpshooter in their title, not only the two famous regiments raised by Hiram Berdan. It was the nature of the war that a wide variety of rifled musket was in use even in the same regiments
Certainly the almost static nature of the later years led to an increase in aggressive skirmishing that also highlighted several talented lone marksmen who we would now term snipers, revelling in names such as "Coonskin"(after his hat) to "One Eye" a Chippewa brave fighting for the union outside Petersburg. -
Message 15
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Tuesday, 24th August 2010
vizzer
exactly in every occasion you mention the invaders won every set piece battle
us in the 2 afghan wars - russia in the 1980s - the USA in vietnam
when the vitnamese launched their attack during tet - the usa won in the end - but their victory was the final nail in the coffin of us involvement in vietnam
the ussr destroyed the afghanis wherever they stood - it was the guerilla invovement that made them back out
the usa detroyed the taliban after 911 - its the aftermath that is making them back out
in every combat situation we have won easily - still do
its the real stuff we cant do
st -
Message 16
Posted by MB (U177470) on Wednesday, 25th August 2010
The OED has the earliest usage of "Sharpshooter" as 1802 referring to the Tirolians in Austrian service. It gives the etymology as from German "scharfschütz"
-
Message 17
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 25th August 2010
Snipping as a tactic existed for 10s of millenia since the advent of weapons like the spear and the bow. Of course the bow had been the snipping weapon by excellence. Sniper archers were one of the main tactic when defending a walled city, a fortress or a fortified position along with common archers and slingers. While for most armies, the unit of archers was not supposed to aim but rather shower arrows on the enemy prior to the final clash fo the cavalry/infantry units, it is known that archers were also trained to aim with precision for those cases when that was needed - i.e. cases of snipping.
One has to note that bows were much more precise at longer distances than any pre-19th century rifle and in fact the advent of muskets and rifles actually refuced the snipping activity since even during cases of fortified defense, people would not sit and aim with the good old musquet but rather fire roughly. In cases of ambushes rifles again were used roughly, i.e. not for aiming with precision a particular man but rather aiming on the mass of opponents.
If we take the term of snipper in the more general sense of a lone rifle man being covered and shooting at distance at others then the first battle that comes to my mind is the not so well known to you 2 battles of the Gravia Inn and Dervenakia passage during the second major Greek revolution against the Ottomans of 1821 (first was in 1770, others preexisted).
In the battle of Gravia Inn - one of the most amazing battles in human warfare history since dawn of history - 117 men + the leader, Oddyseas Androutsos, barricaded themselves inside a common road inn (imagine a Mexican hacienda-like villa of the early 1800s) to... delay the Ottoman general Omer Bryoni's advancing army of 8,000 infantry knowing that the accompagning cavalry of 1000 and artillery of several canons would take about 2 days more to come. The men had all the walls of the inn closed and reinforced and the door barricaded and they had filled the inn with extraordinary amounts of guns, ammunition as well as a bit of food and drink. Out of the 118 men about 80 of them were shooters-only and were positioned around the the perimeter while the rest, obviously the younger and/or less skilled ones were charged to re-arm the rifles (in 1821 still filled by the thus enabling the shooters to shoot multiple shots in one minute. Rifle men were also eating and drinking during battle (this was a habbit for Greek rebels so that they could withstand fighting the whole day on - a demand since their numbers were always smaller thus had not the luxury of having guards or replacements).
The result was that the initial attack of more than 1000 Ottoman soldiers was met by a volley of fire shot by the Greek rebels in a snipping+volleyfire fashion, the second attack of about 1500 men was again bathed in blood with famously only 2 of them being able to climb up the wall where they were killed with swords by the Greek rebels. Till the fall of the night, about 400 Ottoman soldiers laid dead around the Inn, other 800 were taken back seriously injured out of which it is deducted that half of them died or remained permanently crippled in the following days (the Ottoman army units like many armies of the time lacked any medical service)... so much in pain fell that people were occupied with their dead and wounded that the Greek rebels found the chance to escape in the night having lost on the overall 7 men all that while Omer Bryoni got so shocked that he retired the whole army (cavalry and canons included) in the island of Euvoia to get some water protection from the rebels!
Which of course makes it the most effective battle in human history (118 men against 8,000 killing 400, wounding 800, losing 7).
In the following battle of Dervenakia passage the following year of 1822, rebel leader Kolokotronis lead a rebel army that totalled at the end a 8,000 but whose largest useable part in one battle was around 5,000 (most often in the skirmishes and ambushes the average size where 2,000 men) against a 40,000 (out of which not less than 6,000 cavalry) strong + artillery Ottoman army led by one of the supposedly best Ottoman generals of the time, Dramalis, an army sworn to bath the whole of Peloponesus in blood to take revenge for the Gravia Inn battle and the loss of Tripoli to the rebels. Yet once again, the rebels used snipping tactics ambusing the enemy and day after day managed not only to reduced their numbers and will to "bath in blood the infidels" but actually they managed to encircle an army 5 times their size and exterminate nearly the 80% of it with only 6,000 Ottomans being able to survive... all that by using primarily snipping tactics followed by ambushe-attacks.
I ignore prior to these two battles any other battles in Europe or elsewhere where snipping-like tactics were used by an army in the course of war. The first battles were snippers were employed I am aware are the battles during the Franco-German war of the 1870s during which the French defended several towns with soldiers hidden inside houses aiming at the invading German soldiers. From there on WWI warfare saw a lot of snipping due to the style of warfare of course. -
Message 18
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 25th August 2010
Nic, I've not heard of this one. Thanks.
GF -
Message 19
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 29th August 2010
The greatest sniper of all time,Simo Hayha
A4 -
Message 20
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 29th August 2010
exactly in every occasion you mention the invaders won every set piece battle
us in the 2 afghan wars - russia in the 1980s - the USA in vietnamÌý
That may be true with regard to the US in Vietnam and also to the USSR in Afghanistan but not so for the UK forces in Afghanistan. In the case of the First Afghan-British War, for example, then the UK forces were annihilated at the Battle of Gandamak in 1842. And in the Second Afghan-British War the UK forces were also routed at the Battle of Maiwand in 1880.
its the real stuff we cant doÌý
This is intriguing stalti and (I think) I'm in agreement but it needs expanded on. -
Message 21
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 29th August 2010
Vizzer. In the Second Afghan battle of Maiwand, In theory the British force of mostly Indian troops and the 66th Regiment of Foot, were there to show the flag while the Afghan army put down a rebel force. Then the Afghans changed sides leaving the Anglo British force to try and fight their way to safety.
-
Message 22
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 1st September 2010
hi vizzer
its the real stuff we cant do
Quoted from this message
This is intriguing stalti and (I think) I'm in agreement but it needs expanded on.
Ìý
the real stuff - to me - is after the set pice battles
in iraq we smashed their military but couldnt live with the people being against us
so - they have had an election - how long will this government last when we have gone
the insurgents KNOW we will withdraw as soon as the going gets bad
afghanistan - the us has already told the Taleban when we will bottle out
how good do they feel right now - before, given the example of vietnam they just knew they had to wait for a few years - how good is it that they now have a date
the initial war is the easy bit - we never have the will to win the peace
hope i am clear ??
st -
Message 23
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Thursday, 2nd September 2010
Yes - we have the technology, but that is not enough.
If the enemy will fight a battle, then we will win it, because we have the tanks, the planes, the guns. If they do not, we cannot fight guerilla wars with technology alone. The US is particularly bad at this, as the Brits learned something of the things NOT to do in Malaya, N.Ireland, etc.
You must understand the country, and the people, and treat them with respect, and be willing to give them something they want in exchange for them not killing you.
Accept that your way may not be the best way for them.
Accept that 'freedom and democracy' is a state of mind, not a words on a new constitutional document.
Accept that 50cal mg or white phosphorus is not the best reply to a lone rifleman in a village.
Accept that 'making money for ENRON' is not the best reason for invading somewhere.
And above all, learn that getting into a war is a lot easier than getting out of it!
I blame 'Gladiators'.
All those big blokes yelling about how brilliant they are, and than getting whipped by some fella half their size. . . . -
Message 24
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 2nd September 2010
We Brits learned that policing the world meant commitment for hundreds of years, not just a few then walk away. If the US insist on taking over that role, they will have to learn it. They will also have to learn the world policing needs to be done like Dixon of Dock Green Firm frendly but fair. Not like Matt Dillion US Marshal.
-
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 2nd September 2010
The greatest sniper of all time,Simo HayhaÌý
Had not heard of him, read the related wikipedia article. Impressive.
At the end it says much later in his life he had been asked by some (I presume) Finnish journalists how it felt to be responsible for the death of more than 500 people, be it of opposite camp. He answered laconically by saying that this was a war, he had a duty and he tried to do it as good as he could.
Decent and very civilised answer for something I esteem as a dump if not insulting question. In his position I would answer that I had taken an immense pleasure in killing people and that if impunity was the case I would continue to do it with even greater pleasure, by preference shooting Finnish journalists this time!
If anything, the man is a hero for his country, and had to be treated with that respect.
My grandfather took part in the Greek-Italian 1940 -41 war and was an sergeant in the light mountain artillery. He was sitting day and night behind 3 little canons along with other 5 (3 of them shooters) and 3 conscripted donkeys, sceletic and dying of hunger while being shot by 9 Italian canons shooting them 1 day from morning to late afternoon trying to find their position bombing 10 meter after 10 meter (they were hidden and immersed on the snow) and not being able to shoot back for not revealing their position (he still suffers of horrible back-pain due to that). A horrible experience knowing that boom after boom your life can finish without you being able to do anything about it. Some of the shells fell only some 10s of meters below or behind their position.
Next day, Italians had thought they had raised the opposite hills and cleared all Greek defense (evidently not the case), and they packed everything on trucks, joined by infantry, and started to move downhill then back to get their motorised phalanx ready and then forward following one of those zig-zag mountainous paths.
The 3 shooters insisted to shoot back (Greek soldiers have ideas of their own, don't just follow orders blindly) and loaded their canons, however my grandfather hesited since it would be suicidal in case they failed the first line of shots (they would reveal their position and the time for Italians to set again 1 of their canons (of longer range) would be faster than they could take their canons and flee, otherwise they would just have to flee leaving their canons). On the other hand , remain and do nothing hoping that they won't pass detected or that they will be mercifully treated as POWs was out of the question. Hence my grandfather decided to take the risk and shoot as soon as the first Italian truck enterred the radius so as to make them stop at least and from there on see what they are up to. The best shooter took the task. He waited, calculated and shot right when Italians enterred in the radius. This very first shot fell directly on the very first truck of the Italian phalanx. Not just on the very first truck but on the very petrol tank of the first truck of the Italian phalanx - a precision that was testament to the ability of the shooter. My grandfather watched it all live through his binoculars and he clearly saw the vehicle explode to all directions and what it seemed as several men (or parts of men) flying on the air, the second truck also took fire, the whole phalanx was halted, soldiers were running in complete panick trying to cover and one by one the Italian tracks from the last up to the 3rd front truck the trucks went on reverse.
This was a fine example of a sniper-like shot with light artillery! But still even if this can be a case of pride, my grandfather still describes what he saw without taking any pleasure or inflated pride. He refers to Italians as poor bodies and that the only thing they were happy was that they were still alive and had made the phalanx to put the reverse. I guess that for many trained snipers, that is the case, more of relief you got the target without further complications than really taking particular pleasure out of it (without not having the second case too). -
Message 26
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Thursday, 2nd September 2010
....they are laying bombs to kill us but we arent killing themÌý
I suspect we're actually killing loads of them still. Certainly we were a few years back - I spoke to someone who'd been out there and he said you wouldn't believe the sheer numbers of dead Taleban. The problem is that there's a steady supply of replacements swarming in all the time. -
Message 27
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 4th September 2010
hi mike
i dont think we are - everytime we move forward they have gone (into the villages)
all they do is leave us the ieds
look at the bbc list of how our troops die - ieds for 90 %
st -
Message 28
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 5th September 2010
You have to ask yourself which is worse. Our troops fighting and dying for a Afghan government that is corrupt and will never do anything for its people. Or let them be ruled by a bunch of religous nuts.Whichever way it goes the people lose.
-
Message 29
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 8th September 2010
GF (OP)
9 inch hole in the armoured glass at 600 yardsÌý
This would have been a fairly straightforward shot for any UK Army marksman going back to the days of the Lee Enfield Mk 4.
That standard of shooting would be a bare minimum for further training as a sniper.
I've regularly scored five-shot groupings, within that diameter, at that range. Two blokes in my training platoon were better shots.
With a heavy, stabilised, modern rifle with a good 'scope' and plenty of adjustment time, plus a spotter to relay wind data, accuracies of that sort should be easily and reliably achievable at I kilometre, or more.
This is what can be done in near-perfect conditions at 600 yds:
-
Message 30
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 8th September 2010
As I've said in the past, with a 303, I've put 17 shots into a two inch grouping at 300 yards. (Covered with a old half crown) It wasn't the range. (600 yards with a Lee Enfield for any reasonable shot is OK) It was timing the shot to go through the gap at the moment the soldier crossed the gap.
-
Message 31
Posted by bathb0y (U1850195) on Thursday, 9th September 2010
Hi all.
This is not out to offend anyone and is suggested only as an observation. It is strange how we human's ""admire"" the skill of someone's ability to kill someone and someone else is considered the ""greatest"" sniper of all time. Whilst the original message (quite rightly) does not condone the death of British soldier, it is strange how people ""admire"" the skill of killing a fellow human being (because they originally ""did the job"" themselves). The words ""greatest"" and ""admire"" should be voiced in the saving of lives, not the killing of one. The individual had the ""ability"" to kill someone. They did a professional job in the dirtiest business on Earth. Try telling the parents that the ""shot"" was one to admire. I am not condeming the original message, it was said in good faith, it just fascinates me how we ""see"" things in certain ways. That is all, a good thread nonetheless regards Justin. -
Message 32
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 10th September 2010
I caught a programe on Sky (History?) that covered the history of the sniper. Most interesting, although being US made, it tended to be more US. They whitewashed the Gilly suit as such not mentioning the idea was taken from the Scotish gillys. They did point out that soldiers on all sides would kill a sniper out of hand if they took one prisoner, not considering his actions that of a soldier, and that even soldiers on their own side shunned them. It aso gave time to the Russian snipers, both men and women.
-
Message 33
Posted by MB (U177470) on Friday, 10th September 2010
There was a report earlier in the year of a British sniper who saw a member of the Taliban preparing a heavy machine gun to fire on one of his officers who I think had been wounded. He shot the Taliban at a range well in excess of 600 yards. Another Taliban then tried to prepare the machine gun to fire on the officer so he shot him also. He then put a round into the machine gun to hopefully put it out of action.
It seems quite reasonable to admire him for his actions. -
Message 34
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 10th September 2010
But isn't that the way? During both World Wars, the German U Boat crews were sharks and animals attacking our brave sailors without warning, Where as our brave submariners were heros risking their lives to sink German ot Japanese merchant men. Although strangely in all the films made about British and US Sabmariners, hardly one film shows them sinking merchant ships.
-
Message 35
Posted by MB (U177470) on Friday, 10th September 2010
I don't think many British WWI submarines deliberately drowned crews of torpedoed ships as in the case of the SS Belgian Prince. There were many others but I came across the grave of one of the crew members "cruelly murdered by the Hun" to quote the headstone.
-
Message 36
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 10th September 2010
It seems quite reasonable to admire him for his actions.Ìý
It would be easier to admire that UK sniper if he were defending his own country from invaders rather than invading and occupying someone else's country. -
Message 37
Posted by MB (U177470) on Friday, 10th September 2010
"It would be easier to admire that UK sniper if he were defending his own country from invaders rather than invading and occupying someone else's country."
Can you be sure that the Taliban killed were Afghans? Many are said to be foreigners and the NATO forces can claim to be helping defend the majority of the Afghan population from the Taliban. -
Message 38
Posted by QuakerPete (U14080784) on Sunday, 12th September 2010
The incident you're talking about is actually over a much greater distance -
using a sniper weapon even the Americans are impressed with
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.