1933 Soviet Sniper Manual and other things

[Riter]

Other than the cinematic evidence I have not seen any documentation on the White Russians being supplied with scoped rifles; but I find it hard to believe that the Soviets would resort to providing a film producer with a dummied-up scoped M91/30 when foreign scoped rifles were readily available. The Soviets certainly had machinists who could make mounts or prop makers who could fabricate a prop mount & scope (and glue it on) for non close-up views. If prototypes were being developed at th time of the filming, it is unlikely that the Soviets would allow it to be have a cinematic debut. Second, would the Soviets spend time and money to make German style mounts for a foreign rifle? Limited resources in the Soviet Union mandates that any skills would have been used to develop mount prototypes for a M91/30 and besides, they had German mounts that could have reverse engineered. I'm certain those scoped Ross rifles were real. 1931 predated the unsuccessful Soviet primsatic PT scope's debut and before the PE was developed. In the typical Soviet pechant for secrecy, use the Ross and keep any potential foe in the dark about Soviet sniper rifle development.

Ross rifles were very accurate, but why send a SMLE with scope when the jam prone (when dirty) Ross would do? I doubt if the Canadian War Ministry would allow top line SMLEs to go to Russia instead of the Ross. Recall that Canada like the US supported the White Russians. I already mentioned the other German equipment and mounts the Soviets bought before Timoshenko's film, but it is highly unlikely that the secretive NKVD would share with a film production.

By 1942, there is no need for Gen. Morozoff to be deceptive about sniping. The Soviets were already making grandiose & unsubstantiated claims of one shot, one dead nazi and bragging how effective their snipers were. They asserted that a sniper killed "Field Marshal" von Kleist in 1942 (never mind that von Kleist wasn't a field marshal yet & he died post-war in Soviet capivity). Also in 1942 two snipers and political organizer Nikolai Krasvachenko were sent to represent the oviet Union at the International Student Conference. One sniper was Lt. Vladimir Pchelintsev (156 kills) and the other was Jr. Lt. Lyudmila Pavlichenko (309 kills).

There is one scene in that film that puzzles me. Check out the P14 at 11:20. Scope seems offset and what is that band behind the distance dial? Prop? Your thoughts please?

[Riter]

Upon further reflection, those Ross sniper rifles may have been either captured or abandoned when the Canadians withdrew from the Polar Bear Expedition in Siberia. I don't know enough about Canadian involvement but do know that the US forces there did fight the Reds.

[Surpmil]

Other than the cinematic evidence I have not seen any documentation on the White Russians being supplied with scoped rifles; but I find it hard to believe that the Soviets would resort to providing a film producer with a dummied-up scoped M91/30 when foreign scoped rifles were readily available. The Soviets certainly had machinists who could make mounts or prop makers who could fabricate a prop mount & scope (and glue it on) for non close-up views. If prototypes were being developed at th time of the filming, it is unlikely that the Soviets would allow it to be have a cinematic debut. Second, would the Soviets spend time and money to make German style mounts for a foreign rifle? Limited resources in the Soviet Union mandates that any skills would have been used to develop mount prototypes for a M91/30 and besides, they had German mounts that could have reverse engineered. I'm certain those scoped Ross rifles were real. 1931 predated the unsuccessful Soviet primsatic PT scope's debut and before the PE was developed. In the typical Soviet pechant for secrecy, use the Ross and keep any potential foe in the dark about Soviet sniper rifle development.

It seems pretty clear that these rifles represent experimentation that was going on. By 1931 had the Soviets not settled on using the Mosin-Nagant as their sniping rifle? I'm not a student of the M-N, but IIRC the first PE/PEM scopes we see are dated 1931? So perhaps by the time the movie was made, these Ross and P14 models were no longer under consideration and effectively just experimental "left-overs" which could be used without divulging any secrets.

As in my previous, we don't know exactly why they were using Rosses (and P14s), but we can hypothesize. One other reason the Ross is suitable for sniping is that the straight-pull action requires less obvious movement to operate the bolt, in particular no need to raise the hand/arm to rotate the bolt. A good deal of work was done at RSAF Enfield to develop a straight-pull sniping rifle, apparently just for this reason. To use the Ross action was of course "politically unacceptable"

Ross rifles were very accurate, but why send a SMLE with scope when the jam prone (when dirty) Ross would do? I doubt if the Canadian War Ministry would allow top line SMLEs to go to Russia instead of the Ross. Recall that Canada like the US supported the White Russians. I already mentioned the other German equipment and mounts the Soviets bought before Timoshenko's film, but it is highly unlikely that the secretive NKVD would share with a film production.

IIRC the CEF turned in most of their small arms before leaving the Continent or the U.K. in 1919. Probably some SMLE's and Rosses were brought back to Canada, but I suspect all the SMLE snipers were returned to U.K. stores from where they had been issued. There is no record of them being in Canada post-WWI, unlike the Ross-Warner & Swasey rifles and scopes which were in store here until WWII (except for WWI losses of course). Most of the sniping rifles used by the C.E.F./Canadian Corps were Rosses fitted with Winchester A5 scopes by Canadian armourers; the scopes being purchased directly and possibly supplied from UK purchases as well. AFAWK, except for some examples in museums, the Rosses with A5 scopes were scrapped after WWI.

The Canadian Dept. of Militia & Defence would have had no part in deciding what the British War Department sent to Russia unless such weapons came from Canadian sources and there is no evidence that any did.

It is unlikely that any Ross sniper rifles accompanied the Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force, (sent at British request) and even more unlikely that any such arms were handed over to the White Army. Certainly not the Warner & Swasey rifles as we have precise counts for those.

By 1942, there is no need for Gen. Morozoff to be deceptive about sniping. The Soviets were already making grandiose & unsubstantiated claims of one shot, one dead nazi and bragging how effective their snipers were. They asserted that a sniper killed "Field Marshal" von Kleist in 1942 (never mind that von Kleist wasn't a field marshal yet & he died post-war in Soviet capivity). Also in 1942 two snipers and political organizer Nikolai Krasvachenko were sent to represent the oviet Union at the International Student Conference. One sniper was Lt. Vladimir Pchelintsev (156 kills) and the other was Jr. Lt. Lyudmila Pavlichenko (309 kills).

There is one scene in that film that puzzles me. Check out the P14 at 11:20. Scope seems offset and what is that band behind the distance dial? Prop? Your thoughts please?

Well, let's think about this: if the Red Army began to study sniping in the early 1920s, and received training or at least training materials from the Reichswehr, we can be pretty sure they being both thorough and untrusting of "imperialist" states like Weimar Germany, would also do their own research. That research would naturally involve first all the open-source material available, of which H-P's book was the most well-known and detailed, though not the only by any means. So logically they had those books in hand by the mid-20s at the latest. As I mentioned, it's quite possible that materials on sniping were provided to Imperial Russian military missions and attachés during WWI. Touring sniping schools was a popular diversion for senior officers and foreign guests etc. after all. Considerable effort was put into helping the Russian Army before the Bolshevik coup in October 1917; I expect we provided them with all sorts of training and tactical materials and instructional manuals etc. Quite possible that the Bolsheviks acquired those materials after they took over, and by the early 1920s would have had time to start digesting such materials.

As you may know, Stalin's purges more or less destroyed the officer corps of the Red Army in the late 1930s, so those who oversaw developments in the 1920s and up to the mid 1930s, were mostly dead or imprisoned after 1937. True, some survivors were released from the Gulag to fight, such as Marshal Rokossovsky who emerged minus some finger nails, but I'm not sure how many overall. As far as I can tell, Gen. Morozov/Morozoff may have been a senior officer on the Northern Front in 1942, and he may have been cited in the article because he had something to do with the development of Red Army sniper doctrines, or just because he had an aristocratic sounding name that might have been thought to resonate better in the West

H-P's book may have played a notable part in the development of Red Army sniping doctrines, but the Red Army hung by a Lend-Lease thread in 1942 and it was wise to be polite to temporary allies like us. It was never Soviet custom to admit any technical debt to "imperialists", so it's doubtful such an "interview" was ever published in the Russian-language press in the USSR. No one in the West would quibble about that in 1942 either.

Not to say that H-P's book was of no value, but it is a general interest review of the subject after all. As much or more interesting material is found in Eric Parker's biography of H-P, which the Soviet's "friends" in the West had also no doubt purchased on their behalf, along with whatever else was thought potentially useful. One point that suggests some influence is the Red Army doctrine of snipers working in pairs, which AFAIK was never the German practice.

As for the P14 in the movie it appears the scope is a long eye-relief model set forward of the boltway perhaps to address the perpetual problem of loading the magazine with a scope in the way, but looking more closely it is probably just something made up for the movie to contrast with what the hero using. Straps have never worked well as a method of holding scopes onto rifles!

One of the few advantages of the Winchester A5 was that it could be slid forward in the mounts to allow the Ross to be clip loaded.

[Riter]

It seems pretty clear that these rifles represent experimentation that was going on. By 1931 had the Soviets not settled on using the Mosin-Nagant as their sniping rifle? I'm not a student of the M-N, but IIRC the first PE/PEM scopes we see are dated 1931? So perhaps by the time the movie was made, these Ross and P14 models were no longer under consideration and effectively just experimental "left-overs" which could be used without divulging any secrets.

As in my previous, we don't know exactly why they were using Rosses (and P14s), but we can hypothesize. One other reason the Ross is suitable for sniping is that the straight-pull action requires less obvious movement to operate the bolt, in particular no need to raise the hand/arm to rotate the bolt. A good deal of work was done at RSAF Enfield to develop a straight-pull sniping rifle, apparently just for this reason. To use the Ross action was of course "politically unacceptable"

I doubt if the Soviets would consider any rifle for sniping other than the M91/30. They would have to tool up to produce a foreign rifle and why bother when they were happy with the M91/30? They had the tooling, jigs and trained workforce. Look at the simplicity of the bolt compared to the rifles used by other armies. If anything, it could have been modernized to have an internal staggered magazine but that would mean they would have two types of M91 rifles (logistics nightmare). The use of the Ross in Timoshenko's flick was only as a prop as a scoped rifle.

IIRC the CEF turned in most of their small arms before leaving the Continent or the U.K. in 1919. Probably some SMLE's and Rosses were brought back to Canada, but I suspect all the SMLE snipers were returned to U.K. stores from where they had been issued. There is no record of them being in Canada post-WWI, unlike the Ross-Warner & Swasey rifles and scopes which were in store here until WWII (except for WWI losses of course). Most of the sniping rifles used by the C.E.F./Canadian Corps were Rosses fitted with Winchester A5 scopes by Canadian armourers; the scopes being purchased directly and possibly supplied from UK purchases as well. AFAWK, except for some examples in museums, the Rosses with A5 scopes were scrapped after WWI.

The Canadian Dept. of Militia & Defence would have had no part in deciding what the British War Department sent to Russia unless such weapons came from Canadian sources and there is no evidence that any did.

It is unlikely that any Ross sniper rifles accompanied the Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force, (sent at British request) and even more unlikely that any such arms were handed over to the White Army. Certainly not the Warner & Swasey rifles as we have precise counts for those.

By 1916 the Canadians replaced the Ross with SMLEs. The exception were the sniper rifles. Snipers were trained or expected to take care of their rifles and could be entrusted with the Ross which remained in limited service as a sniper rifle. As mentioned in an earlier post, upon reflection it is more likely that the Ross sniper rifles were not supplied to the White Russians but used by the Canadians themselves in Siberia. The British War Ministry would have no say on what the Canadians used or could take to Siberia.

Too bad Clive Law crossed the Styx. I'd love to hear his insights.

Well, let's think about this: if the Red Army began to study sniping in the early 1920s, and received training or at least training materials from the Reichswehr, we can be pretty sure they being both thorough and untrusting of "imperialist" states like Weimar Germany, would also do their own research. That research would naturally involve first all the open-source material available, of which H-P's book was the most well-known and detailed, though not the only by any means. So logically they had those books in hand by the mid-20s at the latest. As I mentioned, it's quite possible that materials on sniping were provided to Imperial Russian military missions and attachés during WWI. Touring sniping schools was a popular diversion for senior officers and foreign guests etc. after all. Considerable effort was put into helping the Russian Army before the Bolshevik coup in October 1917; I expect we provided them with all sorts of training and tactical materials and instructional manuals etc. Quite possible that the Bolsheviks acquired those materials after they took over, and by the early 1920s would have had time to start digesting such materials.

While we both agree that there was plenty of exchange between the Reichswehr and the People's and Peasant's Army of the Soviet Union, there is still no evidence that the Reichswher provided sniping instruction. Besides lack of documentation, sniping itself was not taught in the Reichswher for which its own infantry emphasized marksmanship with iron sights. Budget for the Reichswehr was limited so sniping was a low priority. Additionally we see Soviet modernization effort in aviation and armor (and very little in the way of naval development in the '20s) and chemical warfare. The Soviet Union was poor nation and modernization for the Soviets meant more so in bigger equipment. Infantry training certainly improved with German assistance, but would the Germans teach sniping when they weren't teaching it to their own soldats? Unlikely. Last it was Yagoda's NKVD that provided the funds for scoped rifle development and not the Red Army. Yagoda could tell us about NKVD interest in sniping but he himself was executed so he had no memoirs and left only a confession (probably beatened out of him). Those scoped rifles went to the NKVD border guards.

Sniping wasn't considered important in the post-war Reichswher and if there was no program, why would they instruct the Soviets? The lack of post-war interest in sniping is evident in the Germans, like the Western Allies, decommissioning of sniper rifles by removing the scopes and scope bases and restoring them to original configurations. The Reichswehr sold the scopes to soldiers and the West to civilians. Some WW I rifles did survive (in both Germany and the West) that were pressed into service in WW II. Hans von Seeckt was more interested in improving the individual quality of the soldier such that it would allow for rapid expansion.

Touring of sniping schools did not happen in the inter-war periods. I don't think anyone operated a sniper school in the interwar era (except in the '30s when the Soviets operated their own training program). Great Depression was a global thing and even the US Army's ammunition budget was halved one year. The Soviets were a pariah nation and no military would cooperate with them. However, as you suggested, it is likely that happened during WW I with the possibility of Tsarist Russian Officers observers being sent to the West.

While I concur that the Soviets could have gotten Hesketh Prichard's book in the '20s, there wasn't much published in the way of Great War sniping literature. McBride's A Rifleman Went to War wasn't published until 1935 so that it could not have been used to write the first manual. It may have been picked up subsequently and studied. I wonder if the Russian Army has a library where sniping literature may be hidden at? The Russian State Library is in St. Petersburg but darn if I'm going there. Like our Library of Congress, it's a very pretty place.

As you may know, Stalin's purges more or less destroyed the officer corps of the Red Army in the late 1930s, so those who oversaw developments in the 1920s and up to the mid 1930s, were mostly dead or imprisoned after 1937. True, some survivors were released from the Gulag to fight, such as Marshal Rokossovsky who emerged minus some finger nails, but I'm not sure how many overall. As far as I can tell, Gen. Morozov/Morozoff may have been a senior officer on the Northern Front in 1942, and he may have been cited in the article because he had something to do with the development of Red Army sniper doctrines, or just because he had an aristocratic sounding name that might have been thought to resonate better in the West.

Concur that the purges harmed the Red Army's professional officer class. What Churchill says still applies to them: a riddle wrapped in an enigma. I'm unsure what role Morozov may have played if any in sniper development. His name doesn't appear on the first manual (1933). In 1942 the Soviets were hanging on by their fingernails and wanted desperately for the British and Americans to open a second front to relieve them. Propaganda was used to buoy morale, encourage the Western Allies and to demoralize the enemy.

H-P's book may have played a notable part in the development of Red Army sniping doctrines, but the Red Army hung by a Lend-Lease thread in 1942 and it was wise to be polite to temporary allies like us. It was never Soviet custom to admit any technical debt to "imperialists", so it's doubtful such an "interview" was ever published in the Russian-language press in the USSR. No one in the West would quibble about that in 1942 either.

Not to say that H-P's book was of no value, but it is a general interest review of the subject after all. As much or more interesting material is found in Eric Parker's biography of H-P, which the Soviet's "friends" in the West had also no doubt purchased on their behalf, along with whatever else was thought potentially useful. One point that suggests some influence is the Red Army doctrine of snipers working in pairs, which AFAIK was never the German practice.

Quite right that the Soviets were loathe to attribute anything useful to the decadent Western capitalist society (how they viewed us). They could have obtained Parker's biography of Hesketh Prichard and their own manual does promote snipers to work in teams. Hesketh-Prichard's book is valuable for the "mindset" it teaches a sniper.

As for the P14 in the movie it appears the scope is a long eye-relief model set forward of the boltway perhaps to address the perpetual problem of loading the magazine with a scope in the way, but looking more closely it is probably just something made up for the movie to contrast with what the hero using. Straps have never worked well as a method of holding scopes onto rifles!

One of the few advantages of the Winchester A5 was that it could be slid forward in the mounts to allow the Ross to be clip loaded.

I agree that P14 used in the movie was a real prop gun. That band/strap on the stock doesn't exist on the normal P-14. Also the range knob is canted, suggesting that the scope is offset. IMO, it was Mikhail-Mouse installation built by a prop maker. For props, they would have been better off making wood mounting blocks and gluing it onto the receiver but the Soviet viewer is unlikely to have known enough back then to discern the difference.

We need a foreign scope expert to ID that scope or at least verify that a long eye relief scope of that type was available in 1931. I bet it wasn't a long eye relief scope though and if it was, it was the prototype to Jeff Cooper's Scout Rifle concept.

I also suspect that the movie may have been released to the West (for propaganda purposes). I read one memoir where the soldier said he saw a movie and critiqued the sniper bringing a friend with him.

Are you a member of The Company of Military Historians and if so inclined to join, I'd be happy to sponsor such a well read person.

[Surpmil]

The forum’s response coding has reached its limit now, so I’ll just put my previous in italics, your replies in normal font, and my lastest responses in bold.

It seems pretty clear that these rifles represent experimentation that was going on. By 1931 had the Soviets not settled on using the Mosin-Nagant as their sniping rifle? I'm not a student of the M-N, but IIRC the first PE/PEM scopes we see are dated 1931? So perhaps by the time the movie was made, these Ross and P14 models were no longer under consideration and effectively just experimental "left-overs" which could be used without divulging any secrets.

As in my previous, we don't know exactly why they were using Rosses (and P14s), but we can hypothesize. One other reason the Ross is suitable for sniping is that the straight-pull action requires less obvious movement to operate the bolt, in particular no need to raise the hand/arm to rotate the bolt. A good deal of work was done at RSAF Enfield to develop a straight-pull sniping rifle, apparently just for this reason. To use the Ross action was of course "politically unacceptable"

I doubt if the Soviets would consider any rifle for sniping other than the M91/30. They would have to tool up to produce a foreign rifle and why bother when they were happy with the M91/30? They had the tooling, jigs and trained workforce. Look at the simplicity of the bolt compared to the rifles used by other armies. If anything, it could have been modernized to have an internal staggered magazine but that would mean they would have two types of M91 rifles (logistics nightmare). The use of the Ross in Timoshenko's flick was only as a prop as a scoped rifle.

Yes, ostensibly it would not seem wise to use a rifle for which they had no domestic supply of parts etc. On the other hand, we don’t know how many Rosses or P14s they had! It may have been tens of thousands. We don’t know a lot about where many of the Ross Mk.III rifles went after WWI; that is those that were in British service. Many went to India, but apparently not all.

Regardless, there are two questions: were the Soviets considering using the Ross officially as a sniper’s rifle in any capacity, and if they were, was it in the Red Army or only the MVD internal security forces (which were under NKVD control) The MVD constituted an elite force that AFAIK was never deployed in front line combat operations; they were the Praetorian Guard of the regime in a sense. Their needs in terms of quantities would be much smaller than the Red Army’s, and like most elite formations, their options in terms of equipment were probably wider.

I expect the Ross would have been of much more interest than the P14 for sniping purposes if only because the turn-bolt of the P14 made it no better than the M-N from a functional point of view, though the rifle’s stock design and iron sights were far superior to the M-N. (And the stock superior to the Ross as well)

But, it could well be that for the Soviets the Ross was simply a convenient and highly accurate “test-bed” on which to evaluate and develop their scope and mount designs; witness the grainy illustration which appears to show an early side rail mount, but with a Zeiss Zeilvier instead of a PE series scope. That would tend to suggest work done before the PE scopes were available, but the mount is not one imported from Germany, though it could be said to be inspired by German designs.

Apparently the Rosses didn’t all go in the smelters or to the front during WWII, even though old junk like Berdan rifles did in late 1941. And as we all recall Rosses showed up again as the Soviet running deer rifles in the 1956 Olympics, so they certainly weren’t entirely forgotten either.

Can’t say I’ve ever seen the bolt of the M-N as “simple” compared to the Lee Enfield or P14!

IIRC the CEF turned in most of their small arms before leaving the Continent or the U.K. in 1919. Probably some SMLE's and Rosses were brought back to Canadaicon, but I suspect all the SMLE snipers were returned to U.K. stores from where they had been issued. There is no record of them being in Canada post-WWI, unlike the Ross-Warner & Swasey rifles and scopes which were in store here until WWII (except for WWI losses of course). Most of the sniping rifles used by the C.E.F./Canadian Corps were Rosses fitted with Winchester A5 scopes by Canadian armourers; the scopes being purchased directly and possibly supplied from UK purchases as well. AFAWK, except for some examples in museums, the Rosses with A5 scopes were scrapped after WWI.

The Canadian Dept. of Militia & Defence would have had no part in deciding what the British War Department sent to Russia unless such weapons came from Canadian sources and there is no evidence that any did.

It is unlikely that any Ross sniper rifles accompanied the Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force, (sent at British request) and even more unlikely that any such arms were handed over to the White Army. Certainly not the Warner & Swasey rifles as we have precise counts for those.

By 1916 the Canadians replaced the Ross with SMLEs. The exception were the sniper rifles. Snipers were trained or expected to take care of their rifles and could be entrusted with the Ross which remained in limited service as a sniper rifle. As mentioned in an earlier post, upon reflection it is more likely that the Ross sniper rifles were not supplied to the White Russians but used by the Canadians themselves in Siberia. The British War Ministry would have no say on what the Canadians used or could take to Siberia.

Too bad Clive Law crossed the Styx. I'd love to hear his insights.
R.I.P.

Well, let's think about this: if the Red Army began to study sniping in the early 1920s, and received training or at least training materials from the Reichswehr, we can be pretty sure they being both thorough and untrusting of "imperialist" states like Weimar Germany, would also do their own research. That research would naturally involve first all the open-source material available, of which H-P's book was the most well-known and detailed, though not the only by any means. So logically they had those books in hand by the mid-20s at the latest. As I mentioned, it's quite possible that materials on sniping were provided to Imperial Russian military missions and attachés during WWI. Touring sniping schools was a popular diversion for senior officers and foreign guests etc. after all. Considerable effort was put into helping the Russian Army before the Bolshevik coup in October 1917; I expect we provided them with all sorts of training and tactical materials and instructional manuals etc. Quite possible that the Bolsheviks acquired those materials after they took over, and by the early 1920s would have had time to start digesting such materials.

While we both agree that there was plenty of exchange between the Reichswehr and the People's and Peasant's Army of the Soviet Union, there is still no evidence that the Reichswher provided sniping instruction. Besides lack of documentation, sniping itself was not taught in the Reichswher for which its own infantry emphasized marksmanship with iron sights. Budget for the Reichswehr was limited so sniping was a low priority. Additionally we see Soviet modernization effort in aviation and armor (and very little in the way of naval development in the '20s) and chemical warfare. The Soviet Union was poor nation and modernization for the Soviets meant more so in bigger equipment. Infantry training certainly improved with German assistance, but would the Germans teach sniping when they weren't teaching it to their own soldats? Unlikely. Last it was Yagoda's NKVD that provided the funds for scoped rifle development and not the Red Army. Yagoda could tell us about NKVD interest in sniping but he himself was executed so he had no memoirs and left only a confession (probably beatened out of him). Those scoped rifles went to the NKVD border guards.

No definitive proof as yet that is true; only logical deduction. Doubtful that swine such a Yagoda had much interest in such matters; they were too busy manoeuvring within the state and party apparatus. Besides, these developments were well underway before Yagoda had any role in the OGPU/NKVD. Incidentally, have a look at his wiki biography and note his taste for pornography etc. and the strange bruises and marks on his "adopted daughter"!

What evidence is there that sniping was not taught in the Reichswehr? The rifles were there, we know that from photos if nothing else. It was an army known for thoroughness; are we to believe rifles were issued without the men being trained to use them? Its priority level is debatable, but I doubt the German Army had forgotten the lessons it taught the Allies in WWI.

One should remember that for example, the mechanized and armoured forces of the German Army were the creation of a small group of “tank enthusiasts” such as Guderian, who frankly admitted their intellectual debt to Fuller and the other British “tank enthusiasts” of WWI and the interwar period; not the German General Staff as a whole. The difference was that Hitler soon forced the army leadership to allocate resources to armoured warfare, whereas Fuller and those like him in the British Army had no such advocate, or at least not one who could overcome the fanatical resistance of the “Equine Tammany Hall” who in Fuller's phrase, dominated the senior officer corps.

The Reichswehr remained a highly conservative organization, philosophically and militarily, but not to the extent of obtusity. It is to the credit of the German senior officer corps that having seen the armour advocates proved right in 1939/40, almost all of them became convinced and cooperative, unlike the ____________s who continued to predominate in the British high commands, who despite being decisively defeated in 1940, and having the lesson repeated several times by Rommel in the desert made a sort of perverse virtue out of muddling on in the usual way as though refusing to adapt to circumstances, at the cost of uncounted thousands of lives and very nearly the war itself, was evidence of some sort of moral victory. Not for nothing did Fuller remark that “there are two truly conservative institutions in the world: the Catholic Church and the British Army”! Not that other armies in the Anglosphere don’t have such people as well, to say nothing of the French Army, though Fuller thought them very quick to adapt new ideas so that may be an unfair comment.

The point of all that is, that the high command of the Reichswehr were not the types to be hypnotized by mechanization and automatic weapons to the exclusion of sniping, nor did they have any philosophical reasons for abandoning the lessons of the Great War; quite the reverse in fact. Their highly developed training and instinctive thoroughness predisposed them to use whatever was useful, and sniping which every officer who served at the front in WWI would remember was highly effective, would be as much a part of that as mortars, machine guns etc. If anything they might have been predisposed to exaggerate its effectiveness, given that trench warfare was almost an ideal scenario for sniping. Armies are perpetually and inevitably preparing to fight the previous war as we know.

As for the poverty of the Soviets in the 20s and 30s, they were well able to find money for what the regime wanted, even at the cost of millions of lives. Sniping is a force-multiplier, perhaps the most potent conventional one to this very day in terms of efficacy and economy. That alone could explain much of the Soviet interest.

Sniping wasn't considered important in the post-war Reichswher and if there was no program, why would they instruct the Soviets? The lack of post-war interest in sniping is evident in the Germans, like the Western Allies, decommissioning of sniper rifles by removing the scopes and scope bases and restoring them to original configurations. The Reichswehr sold the scopes to soldiers and the West to civilians. Some WW I rifles did survive (in both Germany and the West) that were pressed into service in WW II. Hans von Seeckt was more interested in improving the individual quality of the soldier such that it would allow for rapid expansion.

I see no evidence of any loss of interest; merely a possible conflict of resources and the dramatic force and weapon reductions mandated by the Treaty of Versailles. There are photos of optical equipment being broken up post-war for example. But anyone who knows the Germans knows they found as many ways as possible to evade and conceal, and which country would not in that situation?

Do we see a sudden influx of ex-military scopes on the German market in the 1920s? Such scopes are seen in civilian mounts, but no more than one could ascribe to soldier souvenirs etc. Many a sniper took his scope home with him if he could in every country - except of course for those who never wanted to see such things again...

Touring of sniping schools did not happen in the inter-war periods. I don't think anyone operated a sniper school in the interwar era (except in the '30s when the Soviets operated their own training program). Great Depression was a global thing and even the US Army's ammunition budget was halved one year. The Soviets were a pariah nation and no military would cooperate with them. However, as you suggested, it is likely that happened during WW I with the possibility of Tsarist Russian Officers observers being sent to the West.

I’m not making any reference there to the inter-war period; the schools were long gone as most were in France, though there were some in the USA and Britain, but highly unlikely that any survived the massive demob and force reductions in the UK. As we know from subsequent histories, most of the innovative minds left the services in the interwar period and the usual mental rut-runners made haste to put things back as they were before the war. There are books written about these people and the harm they do. “Memoirs of an Unconventional Soldier”, and “On the Psychology of Military Incompetence” for example.

While I concur that the Soviets could have gotten Hesketh Prichard's book in the '20s, there wasn't much published in the way of Great War sniping literature. McBride's A Rifleman Went to War wasn't published until 1935 so that it could not have been used to write the first manual. It may have been picked up subsequently and studied. I wonder if the Russian Army has a library where sniping literature may be hidden at? The Russian State Library is in St. Petersburg but darn if I'm going there. Like our Library of Congress, it's a very pretty place.

As you may know, Stalin's purges more or less destroyed the officer corps of the Red Army in the late 1930s, so those who oversaw developments in the 1920s and up to the mid 1930s, were mostly dead or imprisoned after 1937. True, some survivors were released from the Gulag to fight, such as Marshal Rokossovsky who emerged minus some finger nails, but I'm not sure how many overall. As far as I can tell, Gen. Morozov/Morozoff may have been a senior officer on the Northern Front in 1942, and he may have been cited in the article because he had something to do with the development of Red Army sniper doctrines, or just because he had an aristocratic sounding name that might have been thought to resonate better in the West.

Concur that the purges harmed the Red Army's professional officer class. What Churchill says still applies to them: a riddle wrapped in an enigma. I'm unsure what role Morozov may have played if any in sniper development. His name doesn't appear on the first manual (1933). In 1942 the Soviets were hanging on by their fingernails and wanted desperately for the British and Americans to open a second front to relieve them. Propaganda was used to buoy morale, encourage the Western Allies and to demoralize the enemy.

Yes, that was my point there. A Morozov may have played some part as a relatively junior officer in Red Army sniping developments, but without access to their archives we’ll never know.

As for Churchill’s comment, it reflects two things, an incapacity or lack of interest in understanding the history and psychology of the country and their reflexive secrecy. And perhaps also a certain inconsistency in policy seeing as it was always largely at the arbitrary whim of a more or less absolute ruler and could therefore change abruptly and dramatically in ways that appeared "mysterious" to the outsider.

H-P's book may have played a notable part in the development of Red Army sniping doctrines, but the Red Army hung by a Lend-Lease thread in 1942 and it was wise to be polite to temporary allies like us. It was never Soviet custom to admit any technical debt to "imperialists", so it's doubtful such an "interview" was ever published in the Russian-language press in the USSR. No one in the West would quibble about that in 1942 either.

Not to say that H-P's book was of no value, but it is a general interest review of the subject after all. As much or more interesting material is found in Eric Parker's biography of H-P, which the Soviet's "friends" in the West had also no doubt purchased on their behalf, along with whatever else was thought potentially useful. One point that suggests some influence is the Red Army doctrine of snipers working in pairs, which AFAIK was never the German practice.

Quite right that the Soviets were loathe to attribute anything useful to the decadent Western capitalist society (how they viewed us). They could have obtained Parker's biography of Hesketh Prichard and their own manual does promote snipers to work in teams. Hesketh-Prichard's book is valuable for the "mindset" it teaches a sniper.

As for the P14 in the movie it appears the scope is a long eye-relief model set forward of the boltway perhaps to address the perpetual problem of loading the magazine with a scope in the way, but looking more closely it is probably just something made up for the movie to contrast with what the hero using. Straps have never worked well as a method of holding scopes onto rifles!

One of the few advantages of the Winchester A5 was that it could be slid forward in the mounts to allow the Ross to be clip loaded.

I agree that P14 used in the movie was a real prop gun. That band/strap on the stock doesn't exist on the normal P-14. Also the range knob is canted, suggesting that the scope is offset. IMO, it was Mikhail-Mouse installation built by a prop maker. For props, they would have been better off making wood mounting blocks and gluing it onto the receiver but the Soviet viewer is unlikely to have known enough back then to discern the difference.

We need a foreign scope expert to ID that scope or at least verify that a long eye relief scope of that type was available in 1931. I bet it wasn't a long eye relief scope though and if it was, it was the prototype to Jeff Cooper's Scout Rifle concept.

As it’s only a movie, the actor doesn’t even need to be able to see through it, much less get a proper field of view.

I also suspect that the movie may have been released to the West (for propaganda purposes). I read one memoir where the soldier said he saw a movie and critiqued the sniper bringing a friend with him.

Was it released in the West and if so when? Doesn’t seem like the sort of thing likely to have been in the theatres here.

Are you a member of The Company of Military Historians and if so inclined to join, I'd be happy to sponsor such a well read person.

No, but thanks for the offer. Will look into that idea.

There is one other possible source of Russian/Soviet interest in this matter and that is among those Russians who served in the Russian expeditionary force in France in WWI and may have received training or at least visited schools etc. They certainly would have experienced German sniping in the West, but then they did to a perhaps even greater degree on what we call the Eastern Front, since the Germans and Austrians had no serious counter-snipers to contend with and tended to “get away with murder” from what I’ve read, though the impact of that experience on the military leadership is debatable given their well-known indifference to losses, and the fatalism and endurance of the soldiery.

[Riter]

Regardless, there are two questions: were the Soviets considering using the Ross officially as a sniper’s rifle in any capacity, and if they were, was it in the Red Army or only the MVD internal security forces (which were under NKVD control) The MVD constituted an elite force that AFAIK was never deployed in front line combat operations; they were the Praetorian Guard of the regime in a sense. Their needs in terms of quantities would be much smaller than the Red Army’s, and like most elite formations, their options in terms of equipment were probably wider.

I expect the Ross would have been of much more interest than the P14 for sniping purposes if only because the turn-bolt of the P14 made it no better than the M-N from a functional point of view, though the rifle’s stock design and iron sights were far superior to the M-N. (And the stock superior to the Ross as well)

But, it could well be that for the Soviets the Ross was simply a convenient and highly accurate “test-bed” on which to evaluate and develop their scope and mount designs; witness the grainy illustration which appears to show an early side rail mount, but with a Zeiss Zeilvier instead of a PE series scope. That would tend to suggest work done before the PE scopes were available, but the mount is not one imported from Germanyicon, though it could be said to be inspired by German designs.

Apparently the Rosses didn’t all go in the smelters or to the front during WWII, even though old junk like Berdan rifles did in late 1941. And as we all recall Rosses showed up again as the Soviet running deer rifles in the 1956 Olympics, so they certainly weren’t entirely forgotten either.

Can’t say I’ve ever seen the bolt of the M-N as “simple” compared to the Lee Enfield or P14!

I seriously doubt if any consideration was given to the Ross rifle. While its straight pull bolt was easy to operate, that it jammed made it less reliable. As for the P14 rifle, why bother even considering it? Retooling, manufacture of jigs, training of workforce all mitigate against a new foreign design instead of the M91/30.

The PE scope was not available when Sniper was filmed in 1931. Even if the PE scope was developed earlier and in time for the film, I question whether the Soviets would allow new technology to make a screen debut. State secret? Finally regarding the movie, you do raise a valid question as to the film's distribution outside of the Soviet Union. Are you aware of any other WW I or interwar movie about snipers; especially those in the West?

As to simplicity of the M91/30 bolt to the P14, just look at the number of parts and ability of the soldier to disassemble it. I've disassembled the K98 and 03 bolt but never tried a Lee-Enfield (lemme check the manuals).

No definitive proof as yet that is true; only logical deduction. Doubtful that swine such a Yagoda had much interest in such matters; they were too busy manoeuvring within the state and party apparatus. Besides, these developments were well underway before Yagoda had any role in the OGPU/NKVD. Incidentally, have a look at his wiki biography and note his taste for pornography etc. and the strange bruises and marks on his "adopted daughter"!

What evidence is there that sniping was not taught in the Reichswehr? The rifles were there, we know that from photos if nothing else. It was an army known for thoroughness; are we to believe rifles were issued without the men being trained to use them? Its priority level is debatable, but I doubt the German Army had forgotten the lessons it taught the Allies in WWI.

Logical deduction and hard evidence are two different things. You may well be correct but per Whacker's book, German Sniper Rifles, there were no Reichswehr sniping schools in the interwar era. The old tradition of giving the scoped rifle to the best shot in the company prevailed. The only thing the soldier was taught was how to maintain it and to adjust it for distances.

While the Soviets may have had enthusiasm, they lacked equipment and they'd have to be iron sighted snipers since Soviet optics were not available until the PE scope was developed. Similarly, a shortage of rifles in the early World War II compelled the United States, Britain and Australia to resort to iron sighted rifles for training purposes. The aforementioned acquisition of German scopes allowed the NKVD Border Guards to have scoped rifles, but not the Red Army. That had to wait.

One should remember that for example, the mechanized and armoured forces of the German Army were the creation of a small group of “tank enthusiasts” such as Guderian, who frankly admitted their intellectual debt to Fuller and the other British “tank enthusiasts” of WWI and the interwar period; not the German General Staff as a whole. The difference was that Hitler soon forced the army leadership to allocate resources to armoured warfare, whereas Fuller and those like him in the British Army had no such advocate, or at least not one who could overcome the fanatical resistance of the “Equine Tammany Hall” who in Fuller's phrase, dominated the senior officer corps.

The Reichswehr remained a highly conservative organization, philosophically and militarily, but not to the extent of obtusity. It is to the credit of the German senior officer corps that having seen the armour advocates proved right in 1939/40, almost all of them became convinced and cooperative, unlike the ____________s who continued to predominate in the British high commands, who despite being decisively defeated in 1940, and having the lesson repeated several times by Rommel in the desert made a sort of perverse virtue out of muddling on in the usual way as though refusing to adapt to circumstances, at the cost of uncounted thousands of lives and very nearly the war itself, was evidence of some sort of moral victory. Not for nothing did Fuller remark that “there are two truly conservative institutions in the world: the Catholic Church and the British Army”! Not that other armies in the Anglosphere don’t have such people as well, to say nothing of the Frenchicon Army, though Fuller thought them very quick to adapt new ideas so that may be an unfair comment.

The point of all that is, that the high command of the Reichswehr were not the types to be hypnotized by mechanization and automatic weapons to the exclusion of sniping, nor did they have any philosophical reasons for abandoning the lessons of the Great War; quite the reverse in fact. Their highly developed training and instinctive thoroughness predisposed them to use whatever was useful, and sniping which every officer who served at the front in WWI would remember was highly effective, would be as much a part of that as mortars, machine guns etc. If anything they might have been predisposed to exaggerate its effectiveness, given that trench warfare was almost an ideal scenario for sniping. Armies are perpetually and inevitably preparing to fight the previous war as we know.

As for the poverty of the Soviets in the 20s and 30s, they were well able to find money for what the regime wanted, even at the cost of millions of lives. Sniping is a force-multiplier, perhaps the most potent conventional one to this very day in terms of efficacy and economy. That alone could explain much of the Soviet interest.

Absent a memoir or documentation proving contrary to that, I'll stand by Whacker that the Reichswehr did not operate sniping schools. The Reichswher had more important things to do. Von Seeckt wanted every private to be able to function as a sergeant, every sergeant to be able to perform the duties of a Hauptman, etc.

We had talked about foreign designs and the Soviets earlier. In hindsight, the Soviets did not automatically reject foreign designs. The Vickers 6 ton tank became the T-26, the Christie fast tank became the BT series of tanks (later evolving into the A20, T-32 and later T-34), Some of those multi-turret Soviets tanks were influenced by British designs. For ships, the Tsarist Russians relied on Italian designs (those Marat type four triple turret battleships) and for the Soviets, Italian designs for cruisers.

I don't disagree with you that the Soviets were enthusiastic about sniping. They were and produced the first post WW I sniping manual in 1933 and were screening recruits for snipers during the basic induction process. This was during a period that the Western Allies (of WW I) were removing scopes and selling them for surplus. Soviets may have had a sniping program that preceded the manual, but I've found no evidence and it was only until the PE scopes were produced that they could equip their snipers with optically equipped rifles.

I see no evidence of any loss of interest; merely a possible conflict of resources and the dramatic force and weapon reductions mandated by the Treaty of Versailles. There are photos of optical equipment being broken up post-war for example. But anyone who knows the Germans knows they found as many ways as possible to evade and conceal, and which country would not in that situation?

Do we see a sudden influx of ex-military scopes on the German market in the 1920s? Such scopes are seen in civilian mounts, but no more than one could ascribe to soldier souvenirs etc. Many a sniper took his scope home with him if he could in every country - except of course for those who never wanted to such things again...

A. J. Whacker in his book on German Sniper Rifles asserts that while some sniper rifles were retained by the Reichswher, there was no specialized training. It was thought by the Reichswehr that sniping arose because of trench warfare and that the Reichswher did not anticipate trench warfare in the near future.

The scopes were sold as surplus in the 1930s, not the '20s when the Reichswher began converting then back to normal configuration. Instructions were issued on how unit armorers were to accomplish this. This practice was stopped in 1935.

There is one other possible source of Russian/Soviet interest in this matter and that is among those Russians who served in the Russian expeditionary force in France in WWI and may have received training or at least visited schools etc. They certainly would have experienced German sniping in the West, but then they did to a perhaps even greater degree on what we call the Eastern Front, since the Germans and Austrians had no serious counter-snipers to contend with and tended to “get away with murder” from what I’ve read, though the impact of that experience on the military leadership is debatable given their well-known indifference to losses, and the fatalism and endurance of the soldiery.

Very possible for Tsarist officers to visit the Western Front and see the schools, but lets not discount that the Tsarist Russians experienced German sniping on their own front too. Hence their development of their own periscope rifle. This is largely a counter measure and the nature of a periscope rifle makes it less steady than a nornal scoped rifle. Even if Tsarist officers did learn about sniping from visiting a school, would any of them survive the purge of the Tsarist officers or later White Russian officers after the revolution? Unless they defected to the Reds, their chances of survival was slim. Heck, even if they turned Red, their chances of surviving a pre-war purge was also slim. Purges, it's what the commies do well.

[Surpmil]

I seriously doubt if any consideration was given to the Ross rifle. While its straight pull bolt was easy to operate, that it jammed made it less reliable. As for the P14 rifle, why bother even considering it? Retooling, manufacture of jigs, training of workforce all mitigate against a new foreign design instead of the M91/30.

The PE scope was not available when Sniper was filmed in 1931. Even if the PE scope was developed earlier and in time for the film, I question whether the Soviets would allow new technology to make a screen debut. State secret? Finally regarding the movie, you do raise a valid question as to the film's distribution outside of the Soviet Union. Are you aware of any other WW I or interwar movie about snipers; especially those in the West?

As to simplicity of the M91/30 bolt to the P14, just look at the number of parts and ability of the soldier to disassemble it. I've disassembled the K98 and 03 bolt but never tried a Lee-Enfield (lemme check the manuals).

Jamming issue is a subject in itself; no space for that here except to say the design like all straight pulls lacks the leverage advantage of a turn-bolt, but as long as dimensions and case quality are maintained it's not a problem. The Soviets would have had no trouble figuring all that out; they were already well familiar with captured Steyr-Mannlichers. The rifles were retained for sniping in the CEF right to the end of the war, and according to Frank Iriam whose book you would probably find interesting, Ross Mk.IIIs were supplied new from the factory into 1918. We know from photos they were used with and without scopes as the factory iron sights were considered good enough by some.

The Lee Enfield is even simpler than the Mauser actions such as the Springfield. Ross Mk.III is pretty simple too, though machining is somewhat complex. Not that it matters much as soldiers were not supposed to take them apart in any case.

No, am not aware of any movies or docs dealing with the subject in the interwar period.

Logical deduction and hard evidence are two different things. You may well be correct but per Whacker's book, German Sniper Rifles, there were no Reichswehr sniping schools in the interwar era. The old tradition of giving the scoped rifle to the best shot in the company prevailed. The only thing the soldier was taught was how to maintain it and to adjust it for distances.

Does Whacker make a definite statement to that effect based on records he cites?

While the Soviets may have had enthusiasm, they lacked equipment and they'd have to be iron sighted snipers since Soviet optics were not available until the PE scope was developed. Similarly, a shortage of rifles in the early World War II compelled the United States, Britain and Australia to resort to iron sighted rifles for training purposes. The aforementioned acquisition of German scopes allowed the NKVD Border Guards to have scoped rifles, but not the Red Army. That had to wait.

When you say "were not available" you mean they were not on issue to the Red Army? Probably not beyond experimental purposes, as the OGPU/NKVD would get priority if they wanted it. Probably there was a certain amount of overlap between the Red Army and "the Organs [of state security]" as they were called. What the Red Army may have begun, may have been adopted by the Organs or vice-versa. That all remains to be determined.

Yes, I was suggesting the PEM scopes would not appear in film being new and secret and therefore the experimental stuff could be used as it was now effectively obsolete.

Absent a memoir or documentation proving contrary to that, I'll stand by Whacker that the Reichswehr did not operate sniping schools. The Reichswher had more important things to do. Von Seeckt wanted every private to be able to function as a sergeant, every sergeant to be able to perform the duties of a Hauptman, etc.

Whacker may be right, but of course, but even if there is some documentary evidence that such schools were not operated, one has to remember that until the repudiation of Versailles, a degree of duality or pretense was maintained internally as well as externally that Germany was conforming to the Treaty requirements, when in fact of course she was not; the bases in Russia being the most glaring example. What happened in Russia (probably) stayed in Russia" That would be no more than obvious and customary military secrecy. Those who need to know do, and the rest don't, at least not officially. Just something to bear in mind.

We had talked about foreign designs and the Soviets earlier. In hindsight, the Soviets did not automatically reject foreign designs. The Vickers 6 ton tank became the T-26, the Christie fast tank became the BT series of tanks (later evolving into the A20, T-32 and later T-34), Some of those multi-turret Soviets tanks were influenced by British designs. For ships, the Tsarist Russians relied on Italian designs (those Marat type four triple turret battleships) and for the Soviets, Italian designs for cruisers.

I don't disagree with you that the Soviets were enthusiastic about sniping. They were and produced the first post WW I sniping manual in 1933 and were screening recruits for snipers during the basic induction process. This was during a period that the Western Allies (of WW I) were removing scopes and selling them for surplus. Soviets may have had a sniping program that preceded the manual, but I've found no evidence and it was only until the PE scopes were produced that they could equip their snipers with optically equipped rifles.

Who was removing and selling scopes in the 1930s? The British Empire and Commonwealth was fielding the P14 with Patt.18 scope in limited numbers, and the selling off of the UK's WWI scopes was long over by then. You'll see that Skennertion refers to the proposal that the better WWI Aldis scopes be kept in store for possible future reuse, but we can see from the miscellaneous scopes fitted to the 421 Alex Martin P14 conversions done in 1940-41 that they almost certainly were not. And if further evidence was needed, many of those better Aldis No.3 and 4 scopes showed up in the 1920s and 30s being fitted to sporting rifles by leading gunmakers.

I believe the USA dumped the Warner & Swasey scopes in the 1920s judging by the advertising of them for sale, though they probably were available from dealers into the 1930s as even at $7.50 a piece they apparently didn't sell very well!

A. J. Whacker in his book on German Sniper Rifles asserts that while some sniper rifles were retained by the Reichswher, there was no specialized training. It was thought by the Reichswehr that sniping arose because of trench warfare and that the Reichswher did not anticipate trench warfare in the near future.

The scopes were sold as surplus in the 1930s, not the '20s when the Reichswher began converting then back to normal configuration. Instructions were issued on how unit armorers were to accomplish this. This practice was stopped in 1935.

I haven't read Whacker, but if he documents that then that is an interesting angle, perhaps suggesting that by the early 30s sniping was indeed being forgotten and considered passé in the Reichswehr. Is there any evidence that the scope and mount combination fielded by the Reichswehr after WWI was being disposed of at that time? If not, that might suggest merely that WWI rifles, or just scopes, that had been kept hidden from Versailles-mandated destruction through the 1920s, were by the early 30s considered to be no longer needed and could therefore be sold off? Sometimes such decisions are made by "one hand" while "the other hand" doesn't know what is going on, and depression-era economy or fund-raising may have been a part of that as the Depression hit Germany very hard in the early 1930s. Could be that some were sold from some military districts/departments and not from others. One would have to know exactly how such things were organized and controlled in Germany at that time. We do know that at least some Gew98 SSG's were still in store well into WWII because Waffen SS formations were equipped with them at that time..

Very possible for Tsarist officers to visit the Western Front and see the schools, but lets not discount that the Tsarist Russians experienced German sniping on their own front too. Hence their development of their own periscope rifle. This is largely a counter measure and the nature of a periscope rifle makes it less steady than a nornal scoped rifle. Even if Tsarist officers did learn about sniping from visiting a school, would any of them survive the purge of the Tsarist officers or later White Russian officers after the revolution? Unless they defected to the Reds, their chances of survival was slim. Heck, even if they turned Red, their chances of surviving a pre-war purge was also slim. Purges, it's what the commies do well.

I was referring to those Russians who actually served in the Russian force sent to fight in France - it's not a well known episode of the war in the Anglosphere. Russian Expeditionary Force in France - Wikipedia

[Riter]

Does Whacker make a definite statement to that effect based on records he cites?

He does make that statement, but unfortunately does not cite his sources.

When you say "were not available" you mean they were not on issue to the Red Army? Probably not beyond experimental purposes, as the OGPU/NKVD would get priority if they wanted it. Probably there was a certain amount of overlap between the Red Army and "the Organs [of state security]" as they were called. What the Red Army may have begun, may have been adopted by the Organs or vice-versa. That all remains to be determined.

Until the PE was produced, there were no issued scope or scopes in the Red Army. Only the NKVD had scopes and all of them were ordered from Germany.

Yes, I was suggesting the PEM scopes would not appear in film being new and secret and therefore the experimental stuff could be used as it was now effectively obsolete.

Concur, but the PE and later PEM scopes weren't in production until after the film was made.

Whacker may be right, but of course, but even if there is some documentary evidence that such schools were not operated, one has to remember that until the repudiation of Versailles, a degree of duality or pretense was maintained internally as well as externally that Germanyicon was conforming to the Treaty requirements, when in fact of course she was not; the bases in Russiaicon being the most glaring example. What happened in Russia (probably) stayed in Russia" That would be no more than obvious and customary military secrecy. Those who need to know do, and the rest don't, at least not officially. Just something to bear in mind.

Who was removing and selling scopes in the 1930s? The British Empire and Commonwealth was fielding the P14 with Patt.18 scope in limited numbers, and the selling off of the UK's WWI scopes was long over by then. You'll see that Skennertion refers to the proposal that the better WWI Aldis scopes be kept in store for possible future reuse, but we can see from the miscellaneous scopes fitted to the 421 Alex Martin P14 conversions done in 1940-41 that they almost certainly were not. And if further evidence was needed, many of those better Aldis No.3 and 4 scopes showed up in the 1920s and 30s being fitted to sporting rifles by leading gunmakers.

I believe the USAicon dumped the Warner & Swasey scopes in the 1920s judging by the advertising of them for sale, though they probably were available from dealers into the 1930s as even at $7.50 a piece they apparently didn't sell very well!

Great Depression. Who had $7.50 for an old surplus scope back then? Feed the family first.

Re-check Skennerton. The British & Australians were removing scopes. We know the US Army was discarding their Warner & Swasey too. The cash strapped USMC didn't get rid of sh*t and pressed those Winchester A5 and Lyman 5As into service during WW II).

I haven't read Whacker, but if he documents that then that is an interesting angle, perhaps suggesting that by the early 30s sniping was indeed being forgotten and considered passé in the Reichswehr. Is there any evidence that the scope and mount combination fielded by the Reichswehr after WWI was being disposed of at that time? If not, that might suggest merely that WWI rifles, or just scopes, that had been kept hidden from Versailles-mandated destruction through the 1920s, were by the early 30s considered to be no longer needed and could therefore be sold off? Sometimes such decisions are made by "one hand" while "the other hand" doesn't know what is going on, and depression-era economy or fund-raising may have been a part of that as the Depression hit Germany very hard in the early 1930s. Could be that some were sold from some military districts/departments and not from others. One would have to know exactly how such things were organized and controlled in Germany at that time. We do know that at least some Gew98 SSG's were still in store well into WWII because Waffen SS formations were equipped with them at that time..

Yes. I happen to have a receiver where the scope was removed and a dovetail piece of metal installed in the space. It was re-proofed afterward. I'll check with Kareen & Steves if they say anything about it. It should be noted that like in the British and Canadian and American Marine Corps, there were survivors that were pressed into service in WW 2.

I was referring to those Russians who actually served in the Russian force sent to fight in Franceicon - it's not a well known episode of the war in the Anglosphere. Russian Expeditionary Force in France - Wikipedia

Thanks. Unware of Russians being sent to the West.

Whacker may be right, but of course, but even if there is some documentary evidence that such schools were not operated, one has to remember that until the repudiation of Versailles, a degree of duality or pretense was maintained internally as well as externally that Germanyicon was conforming to the Treaty requirements, when in fact of course she was not; the bases in Russiaicon being the most glaring example. What happened in Russia (probably) stayed in Russia" That would be no more than obvious and customary military secrecy. Those who need to know do, and the rest don't, at least not officially. Just something to bear in mind.

OK.

[Daan Kemp]

The information about the Russian and Polish forces on the Western front was really interesting.

[Surpmil]

Until the PE was produced, there were no issued scope or scopes in the Red Army. Only the NKVD had scopes and all of them were ordered from Germany.

Of course, AFAWK we're only talking about experimental work until the PE is settled on circa 1931

Re-check Skennerton. The British & Australians were removing scopes. We know the US Army was discarding their Warner & Swasey too. The cash strapped USMC didn't get rid of sh*t and pressed those Winchester A5 and Lyman 5As into service during WW II).

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 USA 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. Remember how the Ordnance Department approached Goerz in about 1915 asking permission to copy one of their designs, but when refused they seemed to lose all interest and just carried on with those bizarre W&S door-stops!? (Give them their due though: they fielded the first range-estimating reticule AFAIK)

I can only ascribe the neglect to cultural factors in the end; defects might be a better term, same as the U.K., though the No.32 had the great advantage over all competitors of positive indexing of the drums. Why the PE series never had that I don't know, but can only guess they felt it would not function well in extreme cold., though there is no evidence in the remaining early scopes of the idea ever being tried except for those silly little thumb screws copied from Zeiss. Maybe something in the Russian-language literature on that? The spring-loaded lever acting on the drum knurling that Busch used might have been the best: simple and easily defrosted being external; bit tricky to use one-handed though. Best might have been something that could have been disengaged completely if desired. The advantage of the No.32 no one else seemed to grasp at the time was putting the markings where they could be seen from the prone position! Did the Germans ever learn that lesson? Soviets got it for the PU, and indexing finally came with the PSO-1 circa 1960. But then the No32 never had to function at -30 with windchill either.

Yes. I happen to have a receiver where the scope was removed and a dovetail piece of metal installed in the space. It was re-proofed afterward. I'll check with Kareen & Steves if they say anything about it. It should be noted that like in the British and Canadian and American Marine Corps, there were survivors that were pressed into service in WW 2.

You mean a WWI fitting or a Reichswehr one?