1933 Soviet Sniper Manual and other things

[Riter]

My copy is well-thumbed; no mention of scopes being sold in the 1930s that I can recall. Do you have a reference?

It's really a shame the US didn't do better for scopes in both wars and Korea: B&L had a fairly close relationship with Zeiss until the USAicon entered WWI and afterwards they produced good stuff. It wasn't like the basic design of a good straight tube scope was any great mystery, nor protected by patents etc. Noske was producing a good product that could have been brought up to milspec, and of course the Lymans could easily have been improved as well.

"In 1921, the Small Arms Commitee ordered that all SMLE rifles be sent to Weedon for parts cannibalisation and scrapping. It is recorded that 9,788 of these rifles were stripped, their telescopes and mounts removed. Many sighs were sold surplus and adopted for sporting rifles; these may be encoutnered with range drums re-graduated for another cartridge."

On the same page Skennerton writes:

"Because the SMLE sniper rifle had all been broken up after the Great War, assorted sights from store were reconditioned and fitted to the No. 3 Mk 1* rifles by Alexander Martin in Glasgow, Scotland. These became known as the Rifle No. 3 Mk 1* T(A), the 'A' suffix indicating 'Aldis'

Quotes are from Skennerton, British Empire Sniper Rifles (Small Arms Identification Series No. 22), page 13.

You're quite right in that a nation with over a century and a half experience with scoped rifles did so poorly in WW II. The USMC was broke and pressed the Winchester A5/Lyman 5A into service along with some Unertls. Fear of the return spring catching in the brush meant they were removed, requiring the user to pull the scope back for a follow up shot; unnecessary movement kills. The Army liked the Lyman Alaskan better but the Weaver 330 was available and adopted solely on that basis. Lyman weren't plentiful enough. Concur that the Noske was a better scope and came in 4X (hooray for Noske in San Pablo) and at one point it was proposed that the USMC adopt it. They didn't (as we know).

The War Department adopted the W&S pre WW I but were not the first to issue scoped rifles. The Confederacy did that with the Davidson scoped equipped British Whitworth.

My information hows the PE being adopted in 1932-3, not 1931. It was not out in time for the film. I don't see why Timoshenko couldn't have the prop department make fake scopes. Turning a lathe isn't that hard.

It was from WW I and the dovetail cut into the receiver for the front scope base was filled. It was afterwards reproofed.

[Surpmil]

Yes, that's what I referring to when I mentioned the U.K. sell-off as happening in the early 20s; all gone by probably mid-20s at the latest. A few survivors have turned up over the years just as they were apparently sold: with the mounts on and the matching bases dropped into the scope cases.

All done on the cheerful assumption that war either would not come again, or if it did something much better would either already be in hand, or could be improvised at the last minute. It has been said that insanity is the doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

What they should have done was junk the Purdey fittings and rebarrel the rest with new heavy barrels of the CLLE profile and put the rifles back into store, or else issue them to the Territorial Army units that had to make do with the P14 and fine adjustment backsight. Either way, things would have gone very differently with those 8000 odd rifles on hand in 1939-43. And it was 1943 before many units received scope-sighted rifles.

Yes, we're on the same page regarding the PE adoption and the movie etc.

So your Gew98 is a WWI fitting and the date of re-conversion is unknown?

[Riter]

I'll have to find the action.

[Surpmil]

I'll add a caveat to what I said in my last: instead of rebuilding the SMLE snipers with heavy barrels, another and perhaps better option would have been to refit the scopes to more P14s.

Of course stepping back even further, one could say that what was needed was a scope like Dr. Common's circa 1900 design: short, sealed and with external adjustments.

The Japanese figured this out with typical thoroughness on their Arisaka scopes: an etched reticule with aiming marks up to 1300m on the reticule; no need for any adjustments. A bit less useful in low light than thick posts and crossbars, but overall worth it for the gains probably.

Give the Soviets their due on the PE/PEM/PU they also realized you might as well put on range markings until you run out of space on the dials! What thinking was behind leaving it blank after 1000m/yds as so many scopes did? Looks more tidy maybe?

Something like Dr. Common's scope with a proper reticule, a spring steel front attachment and simple zeroing screws at the rear would have been cheaper and better in every way and could have been fielded in far greater numbers, with commensurate effect on the battlefield.

Holland & Holland appear to have designed a "swing-away" type mount for the SMLE during WWI, presumably to allow clip loading of the SMLE, and that was even more necessary for the P14 of course with a five round fixed mag. I've only seen one example and don't have permission to post photos of it, so that's all that can be said about it. I may be wrong as no base has turned up: it might have been just a design intended to simplify manufacture and fitting by having a one-piece base and one-piece mount. Not sure!

[Riter]

In the post-WW I era, Australia made some heavy barrel target rifles with nicer sights for civilian competition. These were pressed into service as sniper rifles (unscoped) and Winchester produced P14s were retrofitted with scopes (though not as nice as the very late (or too late to see service) WW I scoped P14s. Skennerton covers this in his book (don't ask me which one this time b/c I have to go to the library and that means getting up from my arse).

Chapter 13 of World War II Snipers: The Men, Their Guns, Their Story covers a lot of the sniper rifles. You are correct in the Japanese having a great reticle; easily the most advance of the era. Images of it from the National Infantry Museum and Collection (Fort Benning) are included in it. Night shooting is always difficult and the advantage of the scope is amplification for low light shooting. I read an incident where a German coporal/squad leader was shot under very dim light conditions. According to the soldier who told me, it was likely done by a Soviet equipped a scoped rifle (I had wondered if it was done with the WW II infrared SMG that the Soviets had).

1,000 yard shots weren't that common back then. Sniping up to 400-600 meters is; something today's snipers consider as medium range. There were some long range hits, some of which were done with iron sights by old time soldiers who learned how to use their sights. I remember reading of one German officer who got his hands on a 98 Mauser (not the shorter K98k) and was having fun lobbing long range shots at the Soviets. While a comrade watched with binoculars, he figured if he aimed for the roof, bullets would be somewhat close to the unwary Soviet. It keep the Soviets from exposing themselves at one door. Not sniping but pure harassment.

[Riter]

@Surpmil - check out Voices of Russian Snipers by Drabkin. Andrey Ulanov writes a very good essay, Stalkers of the Enemy that constitutes Chapter 1. It covers early attempts to learn sniping in the Soviet Union.

Per Paul Tammony (who translated a couple of sniper manuals) Czarist Russia did make a handful of scopes which were issued to one regiment in WW I. They just didn't have the resources or training program to raise the proficiency of the men.

[ssgross]

I know the Soviets and the Germans had a secret military pact, but can you please cite your source that sniping instruction was included?

I have read what could be called a "first hand anecdote" of Russian snipers being trained in Germany. I think it was either in Sepp Allerberger's memoir or Roza Shanina's diary where there is a comment to the irony of some Soviets having been previously trained in Germany. I cannot comment about hardware, technology, etc. If it's not in the two sources I gave above, it's in a similar source. But as I said - a first hand anecdote isn't the same as documentary evidence.

[Riter]

Page 72 of Allerberger only mentions that an optics factory was supplied during the era of Weimar-Soviet cooperation. Generally the Germans went to the Soviet Union to instruct the Soviets and not the other way around. It mentions snipers working individually, in pairs and company strong units. However, these are things that the Soviets could have learned from Hesketh-Prichard (at least up to squad strength in the infantry battalion).

Re: Shanina, what copy did you read? Mogan or Walter? Please direct me to where in her diary.

[ssgross]

what copy did you read?

I read the English translation I linked to above. It might not be there since your page 72 reference in Allerberger could very well be what I was remembering.

Generally the Germans went to the Soviet Union to instruct the Soviets and not the other way around.

equally interesting.

[Riter]

I read the English translation I linked to above. It might not be there since your page 72 reference in Allerberger could very well be what I was remembering.

LOL @ myself. I thought you underlined and didn't realize it was a link. We read the same one then. There's actually information in her diary if you know how to interpret it. I mentioned it in my own writing and includes:

1) units she served with (bounced around so they were not a division asset)
2) joined in infantry assualts (sometimes a no-no)
3) Girls didn't have sex but women did (distinction they made among themselves)
etc.