World War II platoon, company, battalion question.
- Thread starter 4v50 Gary
- Start date
- Status
Red Wind
Member
Vern Humphrey
Member
None.
http://www.armysniper.org/history/
It was only in Viet Nam that the United States Army became serious about snipers.
PBR Streetgang
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 413
My dad was a paratrooper in the 82nd ABN in WW2 C company 505 PIR.......on numerous occasions he was assigned to his companys G2 unit where he had the option to carry a a 03-A4 with a Weaver scope.....he brought the scope home and it had amber glass if I remember correctly..........
It's hard for most people to understand unless they served in the military but during WWII there was no such thing as a U.S. Army trained sniper. Snipers were simply scouts that were assigned the duties of a sniper as needed by the commander, that's why the quoted text shows 9 scout/snipers, they (scouts and snipers) are the same thing.
That quote is from a field manual (FM) and that's an important distinction because filed manuals were used to promulgate Army doctrine to individual units, schools or training units also use FMs but they have their own training doctrine that identifies which FMs they are to use, that doctrine takes precedence. Battalions and below are supposed to use FMs as the only doctrinal guide for teaching their personnel.
This all adds up to the fact that there were no formal snipers or sniper units during WWII, there were only hand picked people that were assigned sniper duties when necessary.
That quote is from a field manual (FM) and that's an important distinction because filed manuals were used to promulgate Army doctrine to individual units, schools or training units also use FMs but they have their own training doctrine that identifies which FMs they are to use, that doctrine takes precedence. Battalions and below are supposed to use FMs as the only doctrinal guide for teaching their personnel.
This all adds up to the fact that there were no formal snipers or sniper units during WWII, there were only hand picked people that were assigned sniper duties when necessary.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,475
macgrumpy - I tend to agree with you and others that there was no specifically trained snipers (USMC excepted) and I know there were 03A4s rifles out there. There's no shortage of evidence (documentation and photographic) that guys used them. I'm wondering how many per unit.
BTW, I was going over Sgt. Fulcher's statement in Craig Roberts' book and with all due respect, Fulcher is wrong when he says he got the M1D during WW II. Apart from prototypes, the M1D wasn't produced until after the war. M1Cs came very late in the war.
BTW, I was going over Sgt. Fulcher's statement in Craig Roberts' book and with all due respect, Fulcher is wrong when he says he got the M1D during WW II. Apart from prototypes, the M1D wasn't produced until after the war. M1Cs came very late in the war.
Vern Humphrey
Member
One of the problems was lack of doctrine for higher levels. Imagine you were a division commander -- how would you use snipers? What orders would you give them? What instructions would you give your subordinate commanders regarding snipers?
If commanders don't know how to use snipers, snipers will be very rarely employed.
If commanders don't know how to use snipers, snipers will be very rarely employed.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I do not believe there was a Basis Of Issue Plan (BOIP) for the M1903A4 -- they could be requisitioned, but, like snipers, were based on the commander's whim.
lysanderxiii
Member
As many as nine, as few as zero....
JohnBiltz
Member
Going by that, there were probably 9 rifles per Bn on the Table of Organization. If you had a Bn Commander who did not like the idea of snipers, and there were plenty back then, there were no rifles issued, ever. If you had one that liked snipers and knew how to employ them then there probably were 9. Lack of doctrine leads to that kind of employment. Also at best, they were picked marksmen, not trained snipers. Which is really a very different thing. Which is why saying there were no snipers is the correct answer. There may have been men with sniper rifles but no snipers.
Acera
Member
I hate to see these threads fall into the trap that a label brings. Is a 'sniper' a position that can only be filled by a specifically trained person filling a designated slot? Or is it a job that was performed?
You can have a sniper that never had a day of formal training, not filling a role of any organizational chart or job title. It is a person performing the task.
I like how the OP wants to know the rifle count.
.
threoh8
Member
Units weren't strictly tied to BOIP's or TO&E (Table of Organization and Equipment), and even now seldom have everything or everyone listed in those documents. Just because you need it, doesn't mean you get it.
Higher commands often pull certain types of people/equipment from subordinate units, to redistribute as the commander sees fit. Trucks and drivers, clerks, and sometimes snipers often get pooled at Battalion or higher.
Add to that the needs of different theaters, the attrition and "the fog of war", and few units with the same technical description - say, "light infantry company" - actually had the same make up after a month in a combat zone.
Higher commands often pull certain types of people/equipment from subordinate units, to redistribute as the commander sees fit. Trucks and drivers, clerks, and sometimes snipers often get pooled at Battalion or higher.
Add to that the needs of different theaters, the attrition and "the fog of war", and few units with the same technical description - say, "light infantry company" - actually had the same make up after a month in a combat zone.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Is a 'fighter pilot' a position that can only be filled by a specifically trained person filling a designated slot? Or is it a job that was performed?
Answer, both fighter pilots and snipers require special training.
lysanderxiii
Member
The USAF in Vietnam had a different opinion on that...
With the "everybody goes once before anyone goes twice" policy coupled with the higher percentage of pilots in other than fighters, Air Force-wide, but the higher percentage of fighter slots in theater, they were transitioning C-130, C-141, and KC-135 drivers to F-4s and F-105s with a truncated 3 week transition course...
It was a policy that none of the in-theater commanders, nor the rank-and-file fighter jocks liked, not to mention the guys in the transition course.
PBR Streetgang
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 413
The WW2 term was scout /sniper and the rifle scope was utilized more so to give more accurate ranging distances when scouting forward areas than eliminating enemy combatants.....there were no sniping schools and the option was taken more often by the farm boys that were raised on rifle shooting................If anyone is interested try to find a copy of "A Rifleman Went to War" by H.McBride...........he Wrote quite a bit about experimenting with sniping in WW1
Last edited:
Sunray
Member
According to this, 3 '03A4's to a PBI Company. 9 to a Batt. None at all prior to 1943. The '03A4 didn't exist and wasn't adopted until January of 1943. Probably not widely distributed until everybody was waiting around in England.
http://www.militaryresearch.org/7-15 26Feb44.pdf
No snipers on the U.S. Army TOE of combat units until 1985. No Army school until then. No Marine school until 1977. And sniper training has far more to do with concealed movement than shooting.
http://www.militaryresearch.org/7-15 26Feb44.pdf
No snipers on the U.S. Army TOE of combat units until 1985. No Army school until then. No Marine school until 1977. And sniper training has far more to do with concealed movement than shooting.
entropy
Member
There was a Divisional Sniper School that had been in operation for some time before I arrived at Ft. Ord in Apr.'86. I applied, but as I was in a Medical BN, wasn't admitted.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,475
I've an account of one guy was ordered by his Lt. to get a 03A4 and to climb a tree to kill Germans. Fortunately his captain caught him in time, told him to put it away and tell the lieutenant to come and see him.
Another guy got an 03A4 because he asked for it.
My own research into WW I shows that some guys were told to "snipe" without any training. They climbed trees, sniped until shot down. Then again, some guys were trained by British and Canadian sniper instructors and our first sniping manual was copied verbatim from the British one.
Thanks JohnBlitz and Sunray.
Another guy got an 03A4 because he asked for it.
My own research into WW I shows that some guys were told to "snipe" without any training. They climbed trees, sniped until shot down. Then again, some guys were trained by British and Canadian sniper instructors and our first sniping manual was copied verbatim from the British one.
Thanks JohnBlitz and Sunray.
Steel Horse Rider
Member
I would rather of had a BAR than an 03 in those days.....
Acera
Member
Nope, wrong.
The act of sniping requires no special training, and definitely does not require a slot on some organizational chart or position.
It's an act, and thus the person performing the act of sniping is a sniper.
I believe for most people to become a good sniper, you need specialized training. However, a lot of good snipers have been self taught or received no formal training. Think of the thousands of Russians that were thrust into those situations during the Great Patriotic War.
.
lysanderxiii
Member
My father commanded Task Force Julian during the Myitkyina-Mogaung phase of the Second Arakan Campaign in Burma in mid-1944. He is still alive, so I posed your question to him. In short, his answer was that he never saw a sniper rifle while he was in Burma.
I think the need for snipers probably depended on the unit, its tactical situation and whether the equipment was available rather anything formulaic.
Dad was Sixth Armored, a tanker. He was his platoons designated sniper. Which meant he was issued an A3-04. Said rifle rode around in his tank taking up valuable space.
He did not use it until after the war when he was in the Army of Occupation. It was used for sporting purposes.
His personal weapon of preference was a Thompson. Although late in the war he used an M-3. The M-3 was easier in and out of the tank hatches.
Right about now someone is wondering why a tanker needs a personal weapon. Well, if a Ronson wasn't killed outright (along with the crew) you apparently departed it in a very short order when disabled as they were wonderfully large targets.
He did not use it until after the war when he was in the Army of Occupation. It was used for sporting purposes.
His personal weapon of preference was a Thompson. Although late in the war he used an M-3. The M-3 was easier in and out of the tank hatches.
Right about now someone is wondering why a tanker needs a personal weapon. Well, if a Ronson wasn't killed outright (along with the crew) you apparently departed it in a very short order when disabled as they were wonderfully large targets.
Red Wind
Member
Being adjunct to Tankers in a APC for several years, this is it.
Last edited:
- Status
