"Sniper" By Martin Pegler

[Cosmoline]

I'm wrapping up this recent history of the sniper in US military history:

http://www.amazon.com/Sniper-PB-His...=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308759985&sr=1-4

It's a good overview from Colonial times to the present, and highlights the American military's love/hate relationship with the breed. I noticed a few questionable technical points but nothing huge. The contrast during the 20th century between the approach of the Marines and the approach of the Army was a fascinating window into how these forces differ. The Army being institutionally adverse for many years, then plunging in with the latest technology towards the end of Vietnam.

 

[Matt Smith]

Thanks Cosmoline. I'll have to check it out.
-Matt

 

[RightCoastBiased]

Looks like a good read. Just ordered a copy and it'll be here friday. Thanks!

 

[1stmarine]

I didn't know that one. I am going to download it tonight.
Thanks for sharing!

 

[jotto]

Just grabbed a copy for myself. Most interested in the differences between Army and Marine Corps.

 

[Cosmoline]

What surprised me most was how shoe-string so many of these operations were. Ironically the sharpshooters in Colonial times were more embraced by the brass than they were in 20th century wars. In many cases the military didn't even have the weapons available, let alone anything resembling proper training. The Marines were better but from what I could tell it wasn't because the top brass had some great foresight. It was mostly because that branch has excellent marksmen to begin with, and is small enough so groups of like-minded NCO's and officers can carve out a little sniping operation with hunting rifles and such. And that was during *Vietnam*! Million dollar space age jet aircraft zooming overhead and these warriors are having to scrape around to try to find some outdated optics and a halfway decent rifle.

What you see overall is a tragic pattern of learning the hard lessons then promptly forgetting every single one. After the Civil War for example the federal forces had what was almost certainly the greatest group of snipers in the world. Folks who could make 1,000 yard shots and had learned the art of sniping in the field. But all of that was discarded. Not just lost but thrown away. So by WWI everything had to be relearned, then again in WWII, then again in Korea and then again in Vietnam. It's only very recently that this situation has changed, and now things have come full circle with snipers being held in the same high esteem they had during the Revolutionary War. But the slowness of the higher ups to adopt anything that runs counter to their accepted dogmas is startling. In its own way our military has been as pig-headed about this as the Soviets were about massed charges.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Some of the biggest differences I've seen between the Army and the Marine Corps is the way they use their sniper assets.

The Army uses them as an asset capable of more effective shot placement, at greater range than the average soldier.

The Marines already have good riflemen.




But seriously, the sniper assest in a Marine infantry batallion is in the Headquarters Company, not one of the three line (rifle) companies. Or even in the Weapons Company, where the heavy machinegun and mortar platoons supporting the batallion are located.

Furthermore, they're within the Intelligence Section of the HQ Company. The value to a Marine batallion isn't merely a sniper's marksmanship ability. Their ability to stealthily enter a forward area, observe it, and provide better intelligence on it than the average infantryman make them a better asset to the batallion than just a better-than-average marksman.

all of that was discarded. Not just lost but thrown away. So by WWI everything had to be relearned, then again in WWII, then again in Korea and then again in Vietnam.

There are many things that the military learns, discards, forgets, and has to relearn in the next conflict. It's just the nature of things. It's not limited to sniping.

 

[jobu07]

But seriously, the sniper assest in a Marine infantry batallion is in the Headquarters Company, not one of the three line (rifle) companies. Or even in the Weapons Company, where the heavy machinegun and mortar platoons supporting the batallion are located.

Typically the same MTOE set up in the army. Snipers are a HHC asset.

 

[Cosmoline]

I seem to recall from the book that the Army in Vietnam did not initially follow that organizational strategy but sent the newly trained snipers to a lower level of command where they were promptly used just like every other grunt. It was only after sufficient protests that they fixed that mistake.

To bring this back to hardware, the book reinforced the idea that a "military sniper rifle" is very far from the summit of the art. Particularly the ones from earlier eras. They used what they had and did the best they could.

 

[SeekHer]

You may also want to read this book, by a forum member and although I haven't read it, I've read a number of excerpts from it:
Sharpshooters (1750-1900): The Men, Their Guns, Their Story by Gary Yee

I posted a List of Sniper and related books that we had in our library a few years ago that I have to add some new purchases to:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=463698&highlight=list+of+sniper+books

Since the house fire five years ago, I've been able to replace nearly seventy percent of the titles and of course added new titles as well.

Excepting a very few, the Civil War snipers weren't 800 to 1,000 yd shooters and any shooting at that distance was plunging fire for harassment (of artillery) not accuracy...Berdan's Sharpshooters used the Sharps Model 1859 rifle (after rejecting the Colt Revolving Rifle) and the rifle lacked the accuracy, energy/velocity and the sights would hide the target totally at those distances...They had very few scopes available with all the industrial might of the Union behind them but that's because there were very few glass makers capable of creating those instruments...In actuality the South had more scoped rifles then the North did prior to the onset of war and they were mounted of very heavy barrelled, under hammer, "chunk guns".

What you're forgetting is that between the Civil War and the Spanish American War there was a major development in firearm technology--no, not the Mauser bolt action but that's way up there in importance but smokeless powder so all the tactics had to be altered to deal with the much greater range and of course, rate of fire.

Even during WW1, as in the Civil War, most of the snipers were using open sights...Why, you ask, because the telescopic sights available were horrendously expensive, of very poor quality and extremely fragile just like in the Civil War...Sure they were used, in the later years as technology improved but at the onset, the British Expeditionary Force was using all German made glass that they had prior to the war breaking out as British Optics weren't geared for scope production.

Also, comparing the tactics between Civil War to WW1 and then to WW2 necessitated a different approach...Open field massed troops vs. trench warfare of as close as 50 yds vs open field again but not massed...It was the Russians who first incorporated a semi auto rifle with scope for snipers, actual sniper platoons that were attached to a division as opposed to a single sniper attached to a company and also female snipers...The Germans (Nazis) were the ones to first start actual sniper training schools that was dedicated to trade craft and marksmanship and when Russia and them were still friends, Russia sent select marksmen to train there.

During the World Wars as also between the Korean and Vietnamese Police Actions sniping, as a trade craft, may have been shelved but marksmanship wasn't as all the branches competed regularly...The first guns that they used in Vietnam were taken from the National Match Shooting Teams and scoped--Winchester Model 70s in .30/06 but there wasn't any cadre of snipers just marksmen, who were the first instructors firstly for the Marine and later the Army sniper schools in Vietnam.

It wasn't until well after Vietnam that a US sniper designation was started with dedicated training schools and it wasn't until after Desert Storm that a super critique was incorporated with psychological testing and with actual company attachments came about...Now of course they've expanded the concept with Designated Marksmen using semi autos.

Pegler is a damn good writer and I've enjoyed all his books:
Osprey Elite 068: The Military Sniper Since 1914 -- Great series of books
Osprey General History 022: Out of Nowhere: A history of the military sniper, from the Sharpshooter to Afghanistan
Osprey Warrior 004: U.S. Cavalryman 1865-1890
Osprey Warrior 016: British Tommy 1914-18
Osprey Warrior 031: Union Infantryman 1861-65
To Live and Die in the West: The American Indian Wars
Firearms in the American West 1700-1900
Sniping in the Great War -- Absolute must read
Sniper Anthology: Snipers of the Second World War -- Coming Nov 2011
Osprey Weapons: Sniper Rifles: From the 19th to the 21st Century
Osprey Weapons: The Lee-Enfield Rifle -- Very well researched
Osprey Weapons: The Thompson Submachine Gun: From Prohibition Chicago to World War II--Haven't bought it yet but it's on the list.

 

[Cosmoline]

The Whitworths during the Civil War could reach out close to smokeless ranges. Remember poor Gen. Sedgwick. And by 1864 the war had moved into WWI type warfare. There were many lessons which could have served the Army well in WWI and WWII had they been remembered.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Comosline is right in that lessons learned from the black powder era were forgotten by the post-war army. Ditto with the experiences of WW I and WW II, and even Korean and Vietnam. However, some years after Vietnam both the Army and the Marine Corps resurrected their sniping program.

Soviet Russia has always maintained it from post WW II up to the fall of the Soviet Union. After that, they discarded long range military sniping in favor of shorter range police sniping. The Russians were unprepared in the First Chechen War but had prepared themselves in time for the second war.