I found this in an article I recently read. The use of dogs was sheer genius.
Attachment 128673
Printable View
I found this in an article I recently read. The use of dogs was sheer genius.
Attachment 128673
It is interesting to me that I have said the exact same points as stated in the article above, but was told how wrong I was.... :)
I keep on saying that the emphasis of training of a WWII Marine Sniper was on scouting and patrolling, and not that much on actually shooting. Usually school trained snipers were top shooters before they ever entered sniper school, so that was not the emphasis on training. I also keep on saying that many school trained snipers never saw a sniper rifle in the field.
The author above has for sure done some research, I can tell. But I do think he has some area's of opportunity to expand upon. I would add I've never seen an instance where a scout sniper was the actual dog handler himself. But I've seen where the Sniper was attached to a dog handler for patrol. Since usually both the Sniper and Dog Handler's were part of Headquarters, they worked along side each other a lot. As I keep on saying over and over, the WWII Marine Snipers were used for their patrolling, scouting, and intelligence gathering capabilities more than they ever were used for traditional role we think of a Sniper today.
Dog Handlers were most often armed with a M12 or 1897 Trench Gun.
I would also add I think the author make it appear they were used as Dog Handlers often, but I haven't found that to be correct. Okinawa seems to be the place I see it mentioned the most. But you usually see Snipers attached to Machine Gun or Mortar teams much more than Dog Handlers.
The real major correction I see is the author's mention of the Lyman A5 scope. This is a clerical error. Almost all knowledge that is public, other than the info Tim, Andrew, or I put out, is based on about a hundred pages that Frank Mallory released back in the day. In those docs, there are mentions that the Marines used the Lyman 5A sight. Which from those docs I could see how someone could make that error as it was a very limited snap shot.
But when you get into the Depot files, which aren't published, you find the actual counts of all the scopes they had. They only had a handful of lyman 5A they bought in 1940 for the Sniper trials. I have the Lyman purchase orders and also verified it from the Lyman side as well. But the Marines never used or adopted the Lyman 5A in WWII. Every count makes it very clear the Marines only had the Winchester A5 scopes they acquired in WWI, and they also acquired some used ones off the Army in between the wars.
Since the lyman 5a and WRA A5 were nearly identical in appearance, someone at some point confused the scopes during the war and whoever was typing up reports at headquarters incorrectly identified the scope. It's just when you research more in the Archives you realize this was a mistake.
I would also not agree entirely that the Unertl scope was deemed not effective in combat. There was a lot of confusion between the WRA A5 and the Unertl Scope in the Pacific, but that is a topic for another day.
But the author above did a decent job and I commend him. I can tell he has done research and did a much better job than most of the people who claim to have knowledge on the subject.
You used the personal pronoun "I" 20-times in a single post. Absolutely amazing.
The excerpt posted previously, along with the one below from the same source, appear to be the opposite of what you have been saying. Perhaps you are confused? ;)
Attachment 128677
It's still interesting to me as again this is more info that I have stated that I was told I was wrong about.
I had stated WWII Marine Snipers were assigned by the Marine Corps to become snipers, they did not choose to become snipers. All Jobs in the Marine Corps during WWII were assigned by the needs of the Marine Corps. You could put down a wish list of a few jobs, but the Marines chose your job for you. I was told I was wrong about that....
But for those reading this. This is the info from the Marine Corps Docs and not a google search.
Sniper school was 36 days long. It was from 0600 and went till 2030 every night. Almost all time was spent in a classroom format. They did not fire a 30 CAL M1903 Springfield until Training Day 21. They actually only fired the .30 CAL M1903's a total of SIX times in those 35 days. Which they only fired a total of 250 rounds out of the 30CAL M1903's for the whole school.
Before that they were limited to the M2's/1922's with iron and telescopic sights. On Day 31 they actually shot their longest distance with 20 rounds out of the 1903's out to 1000 yards on the C course. For the six times they shot the .30 CAL M1903's in sniper school they shot different style targets at 200, 300, 500, & 600 yards. On day 35 their last class was on boobytraps and they spent the rest of the day cleaning all the weapons and equipment for the next class. On day 36 they were secured and released.
The Majority of their time were on classes. Which included patrolling, camouflage, intelligence gathering, map reading, arm signals, and aerial photo reading.
The Marines did not have the weaver scope. They bought a few 330's and 440's to trial with the Lyman 5's for the 1940 trials. But the 1903's in the two official Snipers courses had the 5X Winchester A5's.
Unfortunately memories fade. I can barely remember details of my training 20 years ago in the Marines. I can't imagine trying to remember something 50 or more years later. I would have to research the Marine too, as I've seen quite a few state they were snipers and they did not attend a formal school. There were some unofficial makeshift courses I've seen described in the docs. Some NCO's who were snipers early in the war threw together unoffiical classes but that training was never sanctioned and regulated.
For what it's worth, this second excerpt is an interview with a soldier, not a Marine (99th Division, Camp Maxey, Weaver scope, etc) and has nothing to do with Marine snipers, or the Pacific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Tarleton
That said, the 99th Division did utilize snipers (at least on a documented basis) to a higher degree than many other Divisions in the ETO.
Nice catch Jamie! I didn't even see the Camp Maxey until now. Yeah that was Army, not the Marines. I guess I didn't think anyone would seriously post an Army Sniper's statement as evidence that I'm wrong about Marine Snipers. But I'm honestly not surprised. The first thing I do before I take anyone's statement into my research, is research the individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by champ0608
But back to the WWII Marine Snipers. In the official Marine Sniper School, the Marines only shot the 30 CAL M1903's six times in the 35 training days, for a total of 250 rounds. This is from the official school syllabus that was wrote out by Walter Walsh who was the father of the WWII Marine Sniper program.
"Effective" I think covers many different things. The unertl was obviously an effective scope from a shooters perspective. Heck, I've used several, original and repro, and they are very effective. That said, there are reports of interior fogging in the tropical climate being the issue, as well as the fragility of the setup during "normal" use. The latter alone would be enough for someone at the time to say "not effective in combat".Quote:
Originally Posted by cplstevennorton
Keep the original documents coming. Can we not though descend into the chaos of "I said you said I'm right you're wrong..." attacks again? I would really like to see this topic continued without getting closed by the moderators yet again.
Every WWII Marine division had a Recon Company (408 Marines), in latter days battalion, separate from the Scout-Snipers attached to Headquarters Company. There was also an aerial reconnaissance group that essentially flew non-stop aerial reconnaissance. There was never any need to use Scout-Snipers primarily for reconnaissance, and such action would not benefit anyone. Their primary role was to eliminate the enemy, and recon was secondary. In Vietnam, we had Force Recon and Scout-Snipers. Recon did the reconnaissance, preferably without firing a shot, and the Scout-Snipers took people out. Someone is confusing the two entities.
Having never seen the WWII sniper school curriculum, but having seen both the WWI sniper school curriculum and the Vietnam sniper school curriculum, what was described as the WWII Marine sniper school curriculum bears no resemblance to either and sounds bogus.
The second excerpt in the original post was from the experience of Thor Ronningen, of the 99th Infantry Division, from the same book.
Almost everything Jim just stated above is factually not correct. He's confusing different era's of Marine history and lumping them all together. Which almost none of it is correct for WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Tarleton
Again for the tenth time I've said this and I've been told I am wrong. This is straight from Marine docs for 1943. Jim just said the Marines didn't use Scout Snipers for Reconnaissance. This Marine Document from the Archives, spells out clearly they did.
The Marines relied heavily on their scouting, patrolling, reconnaissance, and intelligence gathering. The Scout Snipers being able to take an accurate shot, was just another skill, but shooting was not their focus.
So when I said above that the Scout Snipers spent a good portion of their time in Sniper School learning about patrolling, camouflage, intelligence gathering, map reading, arm signals, and aerial photograph reading. You see why in the statement's below.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...k9O1qOph-1.jpg
See this is the issue with all this. I think there is a lot of internet lore on Marine Snipers. For instance on your comment that the Unertl Scopes fogged up. I have heard this stated a lot. But when I get into the actual Marine Corps Docs, I cannot find one mention where they said that was a problem. Now I can find mentions that the WRA A5 scope had a terrible time with fogging up, but I cannot find anything on that for the Unertl.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssgross
I think there has been a lot of info just repeated over the years, and no one really fact checked to see if it was accurate. I mean it does sound logical and maybe there are Marines who used the scope and said that. But in the official Marine Docs from WWII, Korea, or Vietnam, I just don't see that mentioned. But I think it's like in this post where Jim said the WWII Marine Snipers weren't used in Reconnaissance. If you didn't know any better, you would read that and repeat it to others. So that story would be out there getting spread, but it's not in anyway factual. I think a lot of the reputation on these rifles, is because of situations such as this where something is said and it's not based on any real research.
There was also a lot of confusion between the different Marine Sniper rifle platforms in WWII. The Marines had 3 different Sniper rifles in the Pacific. The Winchester A5 snipers, the Unertl Snipers, and the 03A4 snipers. All three of the files were just called "1903 Sniper." They were all lumped into one term, and they didn't distinguish between them in the field reports. So from what I see in the docs, I think the Majority of the negative press on the Unertl in WWII, was actually the WRA A5's. It's just everyone called all three rifles the "1903 Sniper." For some reason Headquarters Marine Corps just assumed anytime they saw "1903 Sniper" that it was the Unertl only. The Marines themselves even admitted this in 1945. They stated that the earlier negative reports that cancelled the Unertl contract, were most likely on the A5 scope and not the Unertl.
In the documents for WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, when the Unertl scope was identified by name, it was highly praised. Really the only thing negative I see mentioned is the field of view. Since it was made as a target scope, the field of view at a 100 yards was like 11'. So it did not have a big field of view. Which made it hard to scan for targets as you got tunnel vision. But that really the main negative thing I see stated on the scope.
I wonder if Steve has ever seen a T&O table. A quick reference from Wikipedia:
"The United States Marine Corps's Amphibious Reconnaissance Battalion, formerly Company, was a specialized team of Marines and Navy Corpsmen that performed clandestine preliminary pre–D-Day amphibious reconnaissance of planned beachheads and their littoral area within uncharted enemy territory for the joint-Navy/Marine force commanders of the Pacific Fleet during World War II. Often accompanied by Navy Underwater Demolition Teams and the early division recon companies, these amphib recon platoons performed more reconnaissance missions (over 150) than any other single recon unit during the Pacific campaigns[1]".
Note ""early division recon companies", so they did indeed exist. I hope this clears up Steve's mental confusion.
"But I think it's like in this post where Jim said the WWII Marine Snipers weren't used in Reconnaissance." I never said any such thing. Steve tends to see things that don't exist. I clearly said snipers did recon, but I also said their PRIMARY job was to eliminate the enemy.
The Marines didn't create three sniper schools because they didn't use snipers as snipers. Intel gathering applies to every Marine. That does not change the focus of the tasks assigned various units, such as Scout-Snipers.
The Amfib Recon Battalion performed pre D-Day recon. I use the reference only to show the existence of division recon companies. I urge each reader to do their own data search.
Scout-Snipers do relate any intel they can, but their core value is the elimination of the enemy The core value of Force Recon is to gather intel without detection. Anyone who spent any time at Camp Geiger should be very knowledgeable of Force Recon. They are one tough bunch of Marines.
Steve, while you are pontificating to such an extent, this is a good time for you to give us the name of that 98 year old WWII Marine sniper/runner you spoke to. Thanks in advance.
Where did I ever say that Recon Companies did not exist? I haven't even touched on the subject at all. Jim said and I quote, "There was never any need to use Scout-Snipers for reconnaissance, and such action would not benefit anyone." I said that was not correct and that is all I have stated. I then provide actual docs from 1943 showing clearly this is wrong.
Wikipedia is not a scholarly source, and very little I see on it is correct. What you see online, and what you see in the original documents are two very different things. That is why so much of this info is wrong out there.
In WWII the actual title was a SCOUT. There were Scouts who provided Reconnaissance, which also included Scout Snipers. Today there is a MOS 0321 which is titled a Recon Marine. There was not an 0321 Recon Marine in WWII. The correct terminology was a Scout. But unless you actually read the documents from this era you would incorrectly identify them as Recon.
There was no Force Recon in WWII, so you cannot make assumptions of what Force Recon's job role was in comparison to the WWII Scout Sniper. Because Force Recon did not exist.
Also I have seen the T&O table, I copied it from the Archives. This is the actual T&O on Scouts from WWII.
https://www.milsurps.com/[/img][/IMG]
You must have overlooked my question. Since you are so forthcoming with information, please give us the name of the 98-year old WWII sniper/runner you spoke to. Thanks in advance.
For some reason my link to the T&E table for Scouts didn't load right. Here it is again.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...pSdZbD6h-1.jpg
Steve's documents fail yet again. Steve's confusion is understandable. The following is from the USMC MOS Manual from 1945. The Scout-Sniper MOS was 8541 prior to this manual, as the Marines used Army MOS numbers, and 317 prior to that. As one can see, the official title was Scout Sniper, not Scout as Steve mistakenly suggests.
Documents are nice, if you know the origin and context. Steve posted a heavily cropped document, as he typically does; but I don't see USMC or Marines or anything else that indicates the origin of that snippet of an unknown document.
Attachment 128692Attachment 128693
Ok, I'm seriously lost. What Jim just posted is proving what I keep on stating over and over is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Tarleton
Jim is not understanding what he is reading. Because he doesn't know what the 761 in the corner means.
MOS 761 was an Marine Scout Sniper in WWII.
MOS 745 is a standard Infantry Rifleman.
A 745 Rifleman when specially trained as a Scout Sniper becomes MOS 761.
Every Scout Sniper I have researched started out as a 745 Rifleman first, and earned the 761 MOS once they completed Sniper School.
Which this literally says MOS 761 is a Scout Sniper, a specially trained MOS 745 Rifleman, who engages in scouting and patrolling and well you can read the rest.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...vpiPst2h-1.jpg
---------- Post added at 01:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 PM ----------
If anyone wants to see how the 745 Rifleman is distinguished to Snipers, you only have to look at the rosters.
745 is the standard Rifleman.
761 is a Scout Sniper.
746 is a BAR Automatic Rifleman.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9L20xMTh-1.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Tarleton
I removed the 745 number because it's confusing him. But it's very clear that MOS 761, a Scout Sniper's role was scouting and providing reconnaissance and not just shooting. Which is exactly what I keep on saying and he keeps on telling me I am wrong. But he just posted where it clearly says that.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../CnZsNjU-1.jpg
Who does Steve think he is kidding? I posted the manual for him, and he accuses me of not knowing what is in the manual? More smoke and mirrors. This all started when Steve stated that the Marine snipers in WWII did little sniping, but spent most of their time doing recon. I stated that their primary purpose was sniping, but did recon, as did all Marines. He then states that the official title of the Scout-Sniper was Scout. I posted the excerpt from the official USMC manual that showed he was mistaken. He then makes the silly claim that I don't know the difference between a primary MOS and a secondary MOS (all Scout-Snipers have to have a rifleman MOS and pass a physical to get into the school, then and now). How he would know what I know is beyond me, unless he can also read minds. Note that he didn't admit he was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by cplstevennorton
He still hasn't told us the name of that old Marine sniper/runner. There was no MOS for a Marine Runner in WWII. You can download that manual and see for yourself.
Let's move on, Steve. We have beat this horse to death. I know why you can't provide the name of that old Marine sniper/runner, and so does everyone else, so let's drop it.
Jim is rambling at this point.
I'm out unless someone has something intellectual to talk about.
@Jim Tarleton - source please? I'd also like the source on the 2nd post re: Checkerboard 99th ID. Checkerboard or 99th ID was also known as Battle Babies. They arrived to Luxembourg about two weeks before the Battle of the Bulge. Here's a link to one former 99th Div sniper: https://donmooreswartales.com/2013/03/29/clyde-housel/ Another 99th Div sniper was Max Gendelman who was captured. As a Jew, he discarded his tags and hid his ethnicity to survive. His buddies didn't rat him out. He eventually escaped b/c he was befriended by a Luftwaffe Lt. who wanted out of the war. His story is told in A Tale of Two Soldiers. It's movie quality stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Tarleton
USMC Lt. William Putney help train the 2nd and 3rd War Dog Platoon. His book is Always Faithful: A Memoirs of Marine Dogs in WW II. He made no mention of scout-snipers being trained as dog handlers.
I do not remember the source of that excerpt. I apologize, as I should have noted the source. I was expecting a discussion on the use of dogs, but got sidelined by Steve's nonsense.
I will try to find the source again, and if I do, I will PM you.
Thanks. I think I figured out the 99th Div Source and have it somewhere in my library. The first one still puzzles me.
Are you familiar with the dog training camp in either Louisiana or Mississippi (WWII era) where they trained dogs to sniff out Japanese people with live men? It was an unsuccessful venture, and a bit of a scam on the part of some weird dude.
No. Lt. William Putney trained the Marines' 2nd & 3rd War Dog platoon in Quantico. The first War Dog Platoon was trained by a Hollywood trainer (presumably in California). If there was a LA or MS school, it could be US Army which is pure speculation. I'm unaware of any US Navy or Marine Corps training camp in those states (but I'm no expert on that subject matter). As for training to sniff out people, part of it is genetics (my belief) and part of it is diet. To sniff out Japanese, they would require people of Japanese descent who are fed a traditional or Japanese military diet. I'm unaware of any Nisei who played search dummy either.
The project took place on Cat Island in Mississippi. They used Nisei from the 100th Infantry Battalion. It was the Army. Sorry about that.
Japanese Americans on Cat Island (U.S. National Park Service)
Well shucks, I lurned somethin new today. Thanks!
Very cool WWII Sniper photo I ran across. I'm looking at some archives to see if I can find the uncropped version. Cool just the same.
Attachment 130523
This pic was on Guam likely taken at the end of the war. This Marine was one of the workers at the Depot. He wasn't an armorer or anything school trained. He was just assigned to the Depot for working parties and such. He either was just looking at the rifle and has his picture taken, or possibly maybe he was assigned to clean weapons or some duty such as that. Who knows. It does look there is a cleaning rod to his right. But he actually wasn't a sniper, just one of the workers stationed at the Depot.Quote:
Originally Posted by usabaker
It's a great pic though. There are color versions of it out there but the detail isn't as good as this black and white version.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../6K215AK-1.jpg
there is a very nice war dog memorial along the trail outside the museum at Quantico. ill take a picture next time I'm there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riter
Is that a stamped lower band on that rifle?
Doesn't look like it. I see a groove.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssgross
Recently guessing whether this particular rifle has finger grooves or not I did the attached crop portion with better light. Also did a second variant approximately marking where the finger groove would start/end.
Would anyone dare to make a guess if this is a finger groove stock or C stock?
Georg this is how I came to my conclusion on this one. When I analyze pics I always duplicate them and then study what I find. As MUCH as I want this to be a S stock, I do think it's a C. I know what you mean though, I studied this pic for hrs hoping it was a S stock. But once I put everything in comparison I think it's a C.
Here it is compared to an S stock sniper. The S stock has a wrist that is longer and more straight.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...QN9EC3Yh-1.jpg
Here it is compared to a C stock sniper. The wrist is shorter and matches this pic.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...iYYn63yh-1.jpg
Here is the original pic inverted with heat mode.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4BJSSOjh-1.jpg
Here is my Finger Groove with heat mode compared to the original pic. Mine is on bottom.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...WUbRvixh-1.jpg
Could this be a snipers field mod in putting a groove in there as a personal thing in the last pic it gives the impression of there being a shallow groove that starts about and inch from the rear band.
Or are field mods not allowed due to what may be perceived as damaging military equipment.
Just asking!
I've never found any evidence of the Marines doing that. But the Marines did modify weapons. For Example you see evidence of pistol grips added to fore-grip of the BAR.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
No, not allowed but as Steve points out they did happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
The stock in the original picture is a Type C (or scant) stock. This is conclusively indicated by the angle of the stock bottom as depicted around the butt swivel.
J.B.
A5s fogged up for the simple reason that there are two elongated holes in the scope tube which give access to tiny screws with conical heads which when turned counter-clockwise push against the inside edges of those slots and lock the adjustments, more or less. Mostly less in fact! :D
So the A5 wins the prize as the best ventilated scope ever put into service. :rolleyes:
Don't forget all the stippled buttplates.Quote:
Originally Posted by cplstevennorton
I agree with John it looks like a scant stock...likely a field replacement. You can still find these field replacement stocks NOS.
I don't think I own a Scant stock. Does anyone own one that would be willing to take a pic of it at the angle of the rifle in that pic? I think the pistol grip is a different shape on the scant vs the C stock. So I do not personally believe the stock in the pic is a Scant. But to be sure, I would love to put a Scant in a picture side by side with the WWII pic, just how I showed the S and C stock.
If someone would post a pic of a scant at that angle, I will combine the pics side by side like I did earlier. That's how I always research all of this.
Steve, I believe it to be a scant as well. I have both on rifles, but unforturnately many miles away now. Would love to take pics to help. The C is more pronounced and would show in a similar picture I believe.
These...Quote:
Originally Posted by cplstevennorton
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3/917740-1.jpg
Brad that would be awesome if you could copy that position. If you can, try to get the bolt in the open position as close to the pic as you can. Since that is a known length, it can help show how long the pistol grip area is.
I had my 13yr old son who is the standard size of the WWII Marine, fill in as a test subject. The position of the Marine's leg and the sling, could certainly cover the bottom of the C pistol grip.
I still think it's a C, but I would like to see a Scant in the same position just in case I'm wrong.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DcbOp3hh-1.jpg
Yeah I'm just hoping to get one that is in the same position as the rifle in the pic. I just want to see how it looks in the same position.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssgross
This is how I examine a lot of pics. I re-create them looking for details.
like across a leg and all? I'll try to get a similar lap picture with my A4 this week. A bit of photo flip and rotate gives an idea with the stock photo. I'm pretty sold the original photo is a scant stock.Quote:
Originally Posted by cplstevennorton
Attachment 130666
I'd be surprised to learn the picture shows a scant stock. Mainly for or not recalling to ever having seen a period picture of an Unertl USMC sniper with scant stock. I doubt though that there is enough difference from a C stock to be able to tell.
Steve, I won't make my annual trip to Maine from FLa. until mid May when it thaws up there.
Quite a wait, but would be glad ro do it if no one beats me to it.
No you don't have to worry about posing it across someone's lap. If you can just get them in the same position I'm mostly curious on the shape of the pistol grip.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssgross
What Goerg says is correct though, not only on Sniper rifles but Marine M1903's in general. I have only ever seen one Scant stock in any Marine photo and several of us looked for years trying to find one. There is never a mention of ordering any of the Semi Pistol Grip stocks (Scant) in the Marine docs either. Other than the one pic, I have never found any other evidence of a Scant in the Marines. The pic we found was actually in a mid 1950's boot camp photo. It was just a stripped barreled action in a scant stock used as a bayonet trainer.
I did see this one pic online that is somewhat close. This one to me seems like the pistol grip area has more of a curve to it that the WWII pic. But it's not the best pic and not in the exact position to say 100%.
But yeah if you could post one in the same position that would be great. I appreciate everyone's help. :)
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...VVvMTGKh-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...BGa3veLh-1.jpg
Looks like a C stock to me. The scant stock seems to have a softer notch (at the base of the top wrist, just before the comb) compared to a C stock. The knee of the marine and the sling would block the view of the pistol grip of a C stock