War of the Rats

[El Guero]

"The War of the Rats" is a great book, can't remember the author right this minute, but it's about the famous Russian and German snipers of Stalingrad. It doesn't have a lot of time devoted to specifically talking about their rifles, more how they used them, but there was one part of the book that confused me a little.

Near the end of the book, the star German sniper retrieves a Mosin from one of his Russian sniper-victims, and decides to ditch his Mauser to use it. The book is mostly from the Russian perspective, and it puts the Mosin on a pedestal and sort of treats the Mauser like an inferior enough piece, maybe a little more accurate but not as tough as the Mosin.

I wasn't much into firearms like I am now when I read the book, but now when I go to a gun store and see the surplus Mausers and the surplus Mosins, for some reason I feel like I would be more confidant in the Mauser. Is the Mosin-Nagant a more stronger-built rifle than the Mauser or was the book mostly using this for dramatic affect? The Mausers just feel so much more sturdy to me.

Austin

 

[444]

I never read the book, nor am I an expert in WWII rifles, but I do own both rifles. I would say that the Mauser is far superior to the Moisin Nagant 91/30. It is far more refined and the quality control is much better. There is nothing wrong with the 91/30, but it is a much more crude instrument.

 

[natedog]

Both are rock solid-reliable. An original, unissued K-98 would probably have a better finish and stock than an unissued Mosin-Nagant. But, if you chose examples of rifles made during the war you would probably find lesser quality than pre or post war rifles.

 

[Kor]

FYI, the author of War of the Rats is David L. Robbins - I actually got my copy just before Enemy at the Gates came out, and I read it thinking that it was the source material for the movie, instead of a fictionalized account of the same events that the movie was based on. Jolly good read, especially the chapters on sniper training and the debate on Mosin vs. Mauser in Chapter 8.

I don't remember anything about Col. Thorvald discarding his Mauser for a Mosin, although Cpl. Nikki Mond may have done so - I guess I've got an excuse to re-read the book, now. The only reasons for doing so would have boiled down to pure logistics - after several months of combat at Stalingrad, the Germans were running low on 8mm ammo, and without resupply, it would have actually been easier to obtain 7.62X54R ammo by capture or looting. Also, from a shooter's standpoint, the rear-mounted Mosin sniper scope is somewhat easier to use for precision sniper-type shooting than the scout-type long-eye-relief scope found on some Mauser sniper rifles - neither one is half as good as a decent Burris or Tasco scope nowadays, but given the limits of 1940-era optics, the Mosin's scope was just a little bit better.

 

[Mulliga]

I don't know much about the real events, BUT -

No sniper worth his salt would trade his rifle (with known zero/known handling characteristics/etc.) for an unknown rifle. Seems awfully unrealistic to me, unless there was absolutely ZERO 8mm left in the German line (in which case you retreat). And knowing that the Mauser 98 was probably one of the best bolt designs in history, that makes it more unlikely - not that Mosins are bad (quite the contrary).

"War of the Rats" was good. Too bad the movie "Enemy at the Gates" sensationalized such a great story. Good acting by Jude Law, though.

 

[El Guero]

My Dad and I both read "War of the Rats" right before the movie came out too and we were both quite disappointed with the ending... Correct me if I wrong but I'm 99% sure that WOTR had the correct conclusion, and EATG had about the most ridiculous end possible for a sniper movie, especially considering they made it up anyways.

The real Thorvald wouldn't have dumped his Mauser I'm sure, but I was wondering if there really would be a reason to do so. The things they talk about in that book are amazing, and I wish I could know how much of it is even vaguely accurate. All those perfect hits at 400+ yards, with just 4x scopes, amazing.

 

[JohnKSa]

Enemy at the Gates was based upon the book of the same name by William Craig.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

I was shooting my MN 91/30 PU (replica ) at steel pig targets at 300 yards and with Wolf 148 grain if I missed, I did something wrong , not the gun. The steel pig was about the size of my torso and shoulders (except shaped like a pig ) so I am counting that as COM accurate at 300 yards. I got a few hits at 400 yards on a bell, but can't say I can do it at will (at least not yet ). And IINM, the scope is a 3.5x power scope and very easy to use.

Some day I will try to shoot a telephone wire (one I set up especially for the purpose, not one connecting from telephone pole to telephone pole ) at either 155 yards or 160 yards or whatever just like in the movie to see how tough it will be. I know I can do it if I hang the wire vertically, but in the movie it was horizontal and that seems tougher .

 

[natedog]

For the "sniper" variations, armorers would test fire many service rifles and try to find the most accurate one, so the original "sniper" variations are most likely a bit more accurate than your Mosin. How accurate was the average scoped Mauser or Mosin? What about scoped Lee Enfields, Garands, and Springfields?

 

[Kor]

Yeah, after all the tricky, sneaky sniper-vs.-sniper stuff in the rest of the movie, Maj. Konig walks out of his sniper hide, and doesn't see Vassili Zaitsev standing up in the open, in broad daylight, about 25-30m away. Waaaay Hollywood - even I could head-shoot the dude at that distance offhand, with my iron-sighted 91/30.

The book, Enemy at the Gates, predates the movie by several years, and encompasses the entire Battle of Stalingrad, not just the exploits of Zaitsev and his duel with Konig. It's a serious historical book, and is factually more accurate than either the movie or War of the Rats. Zaitsev sees another soldier get shot by Konig, and that clues him to Konig's location so he can shoot him properly, from his own hide - NOT standing up in the open, from 75 feet away.

BTW, another Hollywood "mini-fad" seems to be showing snipers shooting other snipers through their scopes - I saw it in Saving Private Ryan, and I think it was in Enemy at the Gates(the movie), as well. Yeah, it's a very cool thing to see on screen, and a quick way to show the audience how badass the sniper is, but as far as I know, the only recorded instance of this actually happening was when GySgt. Carlos Hathcock took out an VC sniper that way.

Edit: Thanks for reminding me who Gunny Hathcock was shooting at! Also, I went back over the book a little, and the only reason I see for Konig using the M-N is that he looted one of his sniper victims' rifles, kind of liked how it handled, and apparently was using it to plink at unarmed medical personnel in order to draw Zaitsev out. The author, Robbins, implies that Konig actually used the Mosin to engage Zaitsev and his buddy Kulikov, but that seems more like a dramatic device if not an unintended breach of continuity.

 

[Kor]

Deleted - double-tap.

 

[4v50 Gary]

I think in read in either Law's Sniper Variations of the Mauser 98 Rifle or Senich German Snipers that the Germans had trouble making the Mauser 98k shoot right. It's not so an indictment against the rifle but rather that the Germans did not seem to get the qaulity control on their bullets right (or they were trying to make the rifle shoot all sorts of available ammo excellently).

For the $ and ruggedness, I'd take the Russian M91/30 w/the PU 3.5 power scope first over a Mauser. Mind you, if it was collecting purposes (and I had the $), I'd jump on a real Mauser. About the only rifle I think was more accurate and reliable than the M91/30 was the British MK IV No. 1 (T) Sniper rifle.

 

[JShirley]

There is some debate as to the veracity of WW II sniper reports from Russian.

------------
Perverted and demented acts that are of little or limited harm are one thing. Killing and lunching on people are a whole other thing and go well beyond what any normal society should allow.

 

[keederdag]

I think it would be a givin that both sides of that conflict used sniper exploits as propaganda. If I understand the role of the sniper corectly, one of the main functions is to create a sense of vuneralability and axiety among the enemy. This would dovetail perfectly with overblown sniper exploits.

 

[squibload]

the only recorded instance of this actually happening was when GySgt. Carlos Hathcock took out an ARVN sniper that way.

Tell me more about this. There has to be a reason that a USMC sniper would take out an ally.

Or did you mean NVA or VC?

 

[444]

Yes, it was a VC.
The event is in the book: Marine Sniper.
Obviously the point to the story isn't his tremendous shooting ability but the fact that the winner of that battle was just a fraction of a second quicker on the trigger than the other guy since they were both looking at each other through their scopes.
This particular sniper had been shooting Marines at a firebase, Hathcock and his spotter went out hunting him. They found a trial the enemy sniper had made and set up their own position. Hathcock at one point saw a glint of light and shot it. Turned out to be the enemy snipers scope lens reflecting light.
If I remember correctly, the rifle the enemy sniper was using was one of the very rifles we are talking about: a MN 91/30. The rifle is on display at some Marine Corps. base or museum.

 

[Joe Demko]

There is some debate as to the veracity of WW II sniper reports from Russian

I've read several articles that indicated the famed sniper duel likely never took place. Zaitsev is real, and he was a sniper. There doesn't seem to be any verifiable record of the Germans dispatching a Major Konig (or anybody else) specifically to eliminate Zaitsev. The Soviets were big on propaganda and they knew full well the value of a hero, even if they had to manufacture that hero. The Nazis, of course, were no better and did similar things at their end.

 

[Dr.Rob]

The Mauser vs. Mosin-Nagant debate detailed several things:

1. the Mauser could be fired faster
2. the Nagant was more reliable


By today's standards, NONE of the WW2 issue scopes were very good, but in the days when riflemen went to war 3.5 scope was good enough.

In the "real" account of Zaitsev, the political officer who goes out on patrol draws Koenig's fire and Zaitsev drops him. Koenig's hide was under a flattened piece of metal and the shot was under 200 yards.

Even John Pilaster sites the Stalingrad sniper's duel as fact... and it remains a fact to this day that the Russians take sniping very seriously.

Have you guys seen the pics of troops in Chechnya or the recent Theatre takeover? There seem to be as many SVD's as AK's in some of those units.

I'd bet, like any good war story, it has basis in fact.

 

[Ktulu]

BTW, another "mini-fad" seems to be showing snipers shooting other snipers through their scopes - I saw it in Saving Private Ryan, and I think it was in Enemy at the Gates, as well. Yeah, it's a very cool thing to see on screen, and a quick way to show the audience how badass the sniper is, but as far as I know, the only recorded instance of this actually happening was when GySgt. Carlos Hathcock took out an ARVN sniper that way.

Kor, I don't think that happens in Enemy at the Gates. I distinctly remember saying, "If someone gets shot through their own scope, I'm walking out," when I saw it at the show.

 

[Al Thompson]

Just checked Plaster's The Ultimate Sniper. No mention of the "alleged" sniper dual. IMHO, War of the Rats is fiction.

 

[Badger Arms]

I've read of the duel in at least two sources... sniper type books, one of which I own. Can't recall which one and I don't plan on looking through it. Yes, show was around 200 yards and German sniper was hiding under a flat piece of metal. Beyond that, I don't know.

As for the through-the-scope shot, I know that Hathcock relates the story. In fact, he states that he saw the glint of the scope and shot at the glint. He couldn't see the sniper, he was shooting at an anomoly. He was AIMING FOR THE SCOPE! It just so happens, the head of the person he was intending to kill was behind that scope. What luck!

I always wondered if that particular scoped rifle had been saved as a war trophy or if its disposition is unknown? Gunny Hathcock was a stand-up individual, a regular guy, and perhaps the best person for the job he was tasked with doing. If anybody deserves to be immortalized for his selfless exploits, that Marine has my first vote. I guarantee that Marines and snipers hundreds of years from now will speak his name in respectful tones.

 

[Detritus]

Zeitsev "german Ubersniper duel"

my oppinions on "what the actual facts are" in this case, backed up by some reasearch i helped a friend do a few of years ago, i probably summed up pretty well in a reply to a post about the EATG dvd (which ironicly i posted exactly a year ago).......

Here's what we found evidence for.

there is no mention of the name Koenig or any other specific name, but a top german sniper (probably an officer/instructor for the main school outside berlin) WAS sent to hunt/study Stalingrad. as far as i could find info there isn't any direct german reference to specificly sending anyone out after Zeitsev . but due to heightened losses amoung the german "snipers" sent into Stalingrad, an Instructor from the school of marksmanship (or whatever they called it) was sent to observe, instruct, ect. the conditions and troops in that h*llhole.

the russians became aware of this man's presence and sent Zeitsev out to hunt him. whether or not the german "instructor" ever chose to reciprocate i do not know. but we have matching time periods for the germans deploying the "ubersniper" and zeitsev's account of the arrival of a german who the high command wanted him to find and eliminate. there is even an aproximate correlation between the cessation of reports (or at least RECORDS of such reports) from the German sniper to Berlin (and also his disappearence from german records period), and the date on which Zeitsev places his killing of a "german sniper of high rank" that had built a hide under a piece of scrap metal, near the train yard.

so yes the german officer represented by "koenig" is real, but the "reality" of the zeitsv/german ubersniper duel is questionable. Zeitsev's kill record is legit, his killing of a german officer of the sniper corps is legit. but no one knows if the officer in question was sent to "kill zeitsev", for all we know he could have been there to simply gather data for how to better use Snipers in such an enviroment. but the Russians made it a great personal duel, for propaganda purposes regardless of whether it was legit or not.

In fact the one source i would be willing to trust as to whether or not the german was "after Zeitsev" ie zeitsev himself (in the interveiw that appeared in a finnish publication some years after teh war was over), never did conclusively say if he believed the officer in that pit hide was there in an effort to kill HIM (zeitsev) or just happened to be there at the same time zeitsev was in another position 200 yards away, etc.
all he ever said on that subject was that the russian leadership in Stailingrad, which of course means the "political officers" in large part, TOLD him that the german had been sent to hunt him down adn kill him b/c he was "such a good killer of germans".
i

 

[Gabe]

Zeitsev wasn't just a shooter in Stalingrad however, he also headed a makeshift sniper school and turned out probably over a hundred snipers. So killing him would be more than just a propaganda victory.

The Germans also have a history of sending instructors to do difficult missions. At Anzio Hitler sent an infantry training unit to lead the attack. So the story of the German sniper instructor has a hint of plausibility given German MO.

Whatever really happened we may never know. Truth is the first casualty of war. Interestingly Zeitsev isn't even on the top ten list of Soviet snipers in WWII. He just happens to be the most famous and most propagandized.

 

[JohnKSa]

William Craig describes the sniper duel in his book Enemy at the Gates.

He quotes as his source "V. Zaitsev's Notes of a Sniper and V. Yuriev's The Great Victory of Stalingrad also Chuikov's The Battle for Stalingrad"

However, most telling is that the story was confirmed by an interview with Tania Chernova, one of Zaitsev's students. According to Chernova, she and Zaitsev were also lovers at one point. They were separated toward the end of the war, and for years she believed that he had been killed.

Whether or not there was a Konings (Craig's spelling), it seems that Zaitsev and Chernova both believed that there was. Also it seems fairly clear from the story that Zaitsev was sent out to kill an enemy sniper of unusual skill and succeeded. As pointed out, it seems likely that they were told that it was Konings and were told his background--they then simply repeated what they had been told.

Charles W. Sasser and Craig Roberts in their book "One Shot-One Kill" relate a very similar story but fail to note their sources.

Anthony Beevor in his book "Stalingrad The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943" is unconvinced. While he tells the story of Zaitsev's sniper school, he states the following: "Some Soviet sources claim that the Germans brought in the chief of their sniper school to hunt down Zaitsev, but that Zaitsev outwitted him. Zaitsev, after a hunt of several days, apparently spotted his hide under a shed of corrugated iron, and shot him dead. The telescopic sight off his prey's rifle, allegedly Zaitsev's most treasured trophy, is still exhibited in the Moscow armed forces museum, but this dramatic story remains essentially unconvincing. It is worth noting that there is absolutely on mention of it in any of the reports to Scherbakov (Aleksander Scherbakov--head of the political department of the Red Army in Moscow), even though almost every aspect of 'sniperism' was reported with relish."

 

[dadman]

'War of the Rats' author also did a book titled 'The End of War'(I think). About the Battle of Berlin in 1945.