WWII Pacific USMC Snipers

[Jim Tarleton]

I found this in an article I recently read. The use of dogs was sheer genius.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[cplstevennorton]

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.

[ssgross]

I would also not agree entirely that the Unertl scope was deemed not effective in combat.

"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".

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.

[cplstevennorton]

"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".

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.

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.

[Jim Tarleton]

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.

[cplstevennorton]

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.




[/img][/IMG]

[Jim Tarleton]

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.

[Jim Tarleton]

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?

[champ0608]

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

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.

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.

[cplstevennorton]

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.

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.

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.