Japanese Snipers in WW2

Discussions on all aspects of the Japanese Empire, from the capture of Taiwan until the end of the Second World War.
Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

#16

Post by Mark V » 30 Dec 2005, 20:18

Barrett wrote:Mark V: Simo Hajha (sp?), the Finnish rifleman? Far as I know, he was in fact the most prolific shootist of WW II though I think he ran up a large tally in the 1939-40 Winter War.
Yep. The point being that telescopic sights are many times overvalued. The shooting ranges of WW2 snipers, even those that used telescopic sights were much shorter than most people belief. 100-300 metres was common range. Shots beyond that were possible, and were taken (till 400-500 metres i belief) but were exceptions.

Mark V

User avatar
Barrett
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: 12 Dec 2004, 22:57
Location: Western US
Contact:

#17

Post by Barrett » 30 Dec 2005, 21:01

Something to consider is that observation is a huge part of the sniper's trade. Now, rifle scopes usually have too narrow a field of view to replace binoculars, but any optic is useful. It's interesting to note the vastly increased use of red-dot and optic sights on infantry rifles these days. A single focal plane makes fast sight/target alignment easier than conventional "iron" sights, and today's products seem rugged enough to be "GI proof."


User avatar
Imad
Member
Posts: 1412
Joined: 21 Nov 2004, 04:15
Location: Toronto

#18

Post by Imad » 30 Dec 2005, 21:07

Barrett wrote:A partial explanation for such heavy Japanese losses could be the army's recent institutional experience. The IJA "grew up" whipping the Chinese and handed the Soviets a bloody nose in '39. Sort of the same way that the first six months of the Pacific War led to the Navy's serious tumble at Midway, partly the result of "victory disease."

More specifically, however, Japan had never fought a thoroughly capable, modern enemy. (The Red Army had recently been purged of its most competent leaders, a factor in the humiliating showing in Finland that same year.) Guadalcanal was a major-major wakeup: what worked in China was near-suicide against Americans who understood interlocking fields of fire and co-ordation between infantry & arty. Confronted with such a dilemma, the institutional computer defaulted to its base program: Banzai! Didn't work worth a dang...
My point precisely. Banzai charges' main ingredient was hand to hand combat with bayonet and sword, something that would never work against Americans with their firepower, hence the heavy casualties.
All the best, look forward to reading your book
Imad

User avatar
Mehmet Fatih
Member
Posts: 832
Joined: 29 Jul 2004, 15:11
Location: Ankara/Turkiye

#19

Post by Mehmet Fatih » 03 Jan 2006, 09:22

Thank you guys for your valuable answers.
As far as I understand from what I have read, IJA didn't consider sniping very seriously but they trained snipers and equipped them.
Isn't there any known Japanese snipers with the most confirmed kills?

Regards

User avatar
Barrett
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: 12 Dec 2004, 22:57
Location: Western US
Contact:

#20

Post by Barrett » 03 Jan 2006, 18:14

I've never seen/heard the name of one Japanese sniper. Except for the Asian mainland (where they probably were seldom deployed) VERY few likely survived. The KIA rate on most Pacific islands ran well over 90%. Additionally, Japan's culture varied drastically from the west, and individual records were nowhere as common. Most people don't ralize that the Japanese aces' scores mainly have been calculated by postwar researchers (which is a separate issue from the huge overclaiming common to Japanese battle reports.)

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

#21

Post by fredleander » 03 Jan 2006, 18:42

Mark V wrote:
Barrett wrote:Mark V: Simo Hajha (sp?), the Finnish rifleman? Far as I know, he was in fact the most prolific shootist of WW II though I think he ran up a large tally in the 1939-40 Winter War.
Yep. The point being that telescopic sights are many times overvalued. The shooting ranges of WW2 snipers, even those that used telescopic sights were much shorter than most people belief. 100-300 metres was common range. Shots beyond that were possible, and were taken (till 400-500 metres i belief) but were exceptions.

Mark V
Which might explain the development of the SAKO sniper in the eighties. The Finns went in the opposite direction of the now so popular .50 caliber "snipers". They built a rifle in 7.62 with an integrated silencer and subsonic ammunition. In 7.62! I don't know if it was ever introduced into service. As one can understand such a weapon would have inferior ballistics, but supreme stealth characteristics. Absolutely in the Pekka spirit!

Sorry for going off-topic!

User avatar
Barrett
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: 12 Dec 2004, 22:57
Location: Western US
Contact:

#22

Post by Barrett » 03 Jan 2006, 20:11

Integral suppressors for sniper rifles have become more common. The best snipers I've seen are Singapore's special forces, which won an international competition a few years ago. Their "B Team" was at least as good as anybody else. They had custom-built AWCs with suppressors mated to the barrel, a really slick installation.

Separate issue, but you'd be sorely disappointed at the state of sniper training in the US Army these days. I've worked with graduates of Ft. Benning and elsewhere: really good kids, highly motivated. But they think a sling is for carrying the piece; they seldom shoot without a bipod, and they're only allowed to single-load. Many of them had never conducted a live-fire stalk, and not one had ever checked his zero inside 100 meters. The upside is, they're getting excellent support from NRA certified instructors who aren't bound by service policies and bureaucracies.

User avatar
asiaticus
Member
Posts: 923
Joined: 03 Mar 2004, 05:53
Location: Lake Elsinore CA USA

Some comments to prior posts

#23

Post by asiaticus » 04 Jan 2006, 06:27

Vis a vis the comment:
"The IJA "grew up" whipping the Chinese and handed the Soviets a bloody nose in '39. "

I think that was the other way around with the Soviets giving Japan the bloody nose. BTW the Soviets harassed the Japanese there with snipers in the Khalkhin Gol fighting.

I think that snipers in the jungle fighing in the Pacific and elsewhere would not need a scope very often because the ranges in such a place would be so short in the thick cover.

User avatar
Barrett
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: 12 Dec 2004, 22:57
Location: Western US
Contact:

#24

Post by Barrett » 04 Jan 2006, 07:15

Asiaticus is right, of course. I got the Khalkin Gol results reversed in my haste to post. (There's a lesson there!)
The Russians of course had a well developed sniping program before the war, in large part based on youth shooting clubs. Their equipment wasn't terrific but they certainly got results.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2513
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

#25

Post by Delta Tank » 08 Apr 2006, 13:28

Barrett,
Barrett wrote: Separate issue, but you'd be sorely disappointed at the state of sniper training in the US Army these days. I've worked with graduates of Ft. Benning and elsewhere: really good kids, highly motivated. But they think a sling is for carrying the piece; they seldom shoot without a bipod, and they're only allowed to single-load. Many of them had never conducted a live-fire stalk, and not one had ever checked his zero inside 100 meters. The upside is, they're getting excellent support from NRA certified instructors who aren't bound by service policies and bureaucracies.
Below are the results of the most recent sniper competition from 4 November 2005. They don't mention the use of the sling or all the other things that you claim the US Army is screwing up in your most humble opinion, but results are what counts. In Iraq the snipers from the US Army are killing the enemy with the use or non-use of the sling! Killing the bad guys is what it is all about!
The problem with snipers in the US Army today is that it is not a separate MOS (Military Occupational Skill). Once they decide to make it a career track then we will get snipers that have been in the "trade" for 20 years instead of the current situation. But, from the results listed below the United States Army must be doing something right, with or without slings!
Since this thread was on Japanese snipers, did they use slings or did they mostly use the mon-pod that was installed on some of their rifles?

Mike
Yea I spent over 20 years in the United States Army and I only used my sling to carry my rifle 99.9% of the time!

From the Air Force Times:

Sniper Competition Results

The highest-scoring Air Force team finished fourth among the 31 teams at the 5th Annual International Sniper Competition, which wrapped up Nov. 4 at Fort Benning, Ga. Competitors included troops from all U.S. military branches as well as Britain, Canada, Ireland, Israel and Scotland. Here’s how they placed.

1 Staff Sgt. Jason Pedro (All Guard Sniper) and Staff Sgt. Randy Schnell (National Guard Sniper School).

2 Staff Sgt. Nicholas Howard and Sgt. Sean Clark of 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division.

3 Cpl. Zack Miller and Staff Sgt. Mathew Atkison of 2nd Battalion, 5th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division.

4 Tech. Sgt. Ray Kelly and Tech. Sgt. Mike Walker of Air Force Close Precision Engagement Course.

5 2nd Battalion, The Royal 22e Regiment• of Canada.

6 Staff Sgt. Derek Wise and Staff Sgt. Michael Spear of 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division.

7 Spc. Gilbert Fernandez and Spc. Mark Peters of 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division.

8 Marine Corps Scout Sniper School•.

9 Staff Sgt. Michael Rach and Spc. Robert Shoup of 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment.

10 Sgt. John Hawes Jr. and Staff Sgt. Christopher Cunningham of 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division.

11 1st Battalion, The Royal 22e Regiment• of Canada.

12 3rd Battalion, The Royal 22e Regiment• of Canada.

13 Spc. Derek Bennet and Sgt. Michael Hensely of 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 172nd Infantry Brigade.

14 Staff Sgt. Richard Crim and Senior Airman Terrick Turner of 786th Security Forces Squadron (Air Force).

15 Sgt. James Brown and Sgt. Colin Handy of 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.

16 1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment• of Canada.

17 1st Battalion, The Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry• of Canada.

18 Elchanan Zucker and Doron Shamgar of Israeli Defense Forces .

19 1st Battalion, The Royal 22e Regiment• of Canada.

20 2nd Battalion, The Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry• of Canada.

21 Tech. Sgt. Todd Reed and Master Sgt. Timothy Reed of Air Force Close Precision Engagement Course.

22 Sgt. Joel Michlock and Spc. Isaiah Burkhart of 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment.

23 Spc. Daniel Lobine and Sgt. Manykhampha Douangmala of 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division.

24 Capt. Ollie Clear and 1st Lt. Nick Hosback of Ireland.

25 Sgt. Kevin French and Sgt. Joseph Fernandez of 3-325 82nd Airborne Division.

26 Gregg Johnson and Ryan Massey of U.S. Border Patrol.

27 Lt. Cpl. Joathan De Courcy and Lt. Cpl. Dwayne Thompson of 1st Battalion, Royal Scots (U.K.).

28 Spc. Trevor Morgan and Spc. Ryan Metcalf of 3rd Battalion, 505th Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division.

29 3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment• of Canada.

30 Cpl. Jason Tilstone and Lt. Cpl. Ray Capila of 2nd Battalion, Royal Green Jackets (U.K.).

31 3rd Battalion, The Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry• of Canada.

• Team members asked not to be identified by name.

Source: U.S. Army Sniper School

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2513
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

#26

Post by Delta Tank » 16 Apr 2006, 15:25

Barrett,

I sent your statement about the poor state of training of the US Army snipers to two guys that KNOW the true state of Army sniping! If you wish to educate yourself please read the following below. I have changed the place names in the e-mails I received from my friends by their request to protect unit identities. The two individuals I contacted are in positions to know the TRUE state of sniper training in the US Army. One is a retired Colonel who spent some time in Vietnam as a enlisted man and now does some work for the US Army as you will see from his statement below. The other guy is an active duty Colonel who has completed two tours (25 months) in Iraq as a commander and other positions of responsibility.
Quote:
Barrett wrote: Separate issue, but you'd be sorely disappointed at the state of sniper training in the US Army these days. I've worked with graduates of Ft. Benning and elsewhere: really good kids, highly motivated. But they think a sling is for carrying the piece; they seldom shoot without a bipod, and they're only allowed to single-load. Many of them had never conducted a live-fire stalk, and not one had ever checked his zero inside 100 meters. The upside is, they're getting excellent support from NRA certified instructors who aren't bound by service policies and bureaucracies.
I don't know who the guy is that made that statement, or what his
opportunity to observe US sniper teams in action has been. I have
interviewed snipers in six different battalions, in five different Iraqi
cities, during three different trips to Iraq and I have observed deadly
effectiveness.

Remember, the point of having a sniper isn't to have him use the sling or
not use the bipod...the purpose of having them is to kill the enemy, and our
snipers have proven they can do that.

It sounds to me like he is more enamored of the "process" and not the
"product".

The sniper team from the last battalion I was with in ********** (six guys)
had from 15 to 35 confirmed kills each. Not too shabby. I don't really care
if they used the sling or not, do you?

One thing that he might possibly be seeing is sniper wannabees that the unit
has created out of hide, using off-the-rack M14s, some sexy-looking Wal Mart
scope, taking some soldiers who shot expert on the M16 range and then
calling them "snipers".

Some of these guys can actually shoot, in a rough and ready sort of way, but
some can't even do that. Some can shoot but have rifles you and I wouldn't
use to shoot nuisance ground hogs out of the back garden. Everyone wants to
be a sniper these days. Just 'cause you use the name doesn't mean you have
been professionally trained for the profession.

It's a big army, in a war that sprawls across the world. I'm sure there are
some soldiers out there that don't shoot well...and some of them might even
have been given sniper training. You can lead a horse to water sometimes,
but you can't make them drink.

The US Army Sniper School might not be perfect, few large training programs
are, but it consistantly turns out soldiers who are deadly shots and who
have the fieldcraft skills needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the wars du jour.

There are some dedicated instructors there. You should have seen the level
of proficiency exhibited at the recently completed International Sniper Team
competition. US snipers from across the services distinquished themselves
during the match, even though most of the instructors from the Sniper School
were deployed supporting Mobile Training Teams around the world.

LTC Luawanig, the Commander of the Army Marksmanship Unit, has done a
tremendous amount of excellent work to use his instructors to improve the
Army's marksmanship skills. He has taught extra courses, built specialty
ranges using his own funds, had his expert gunsmiths build and maintain
accurized weapons for the snipers and designated marksmen from the 3rd Bde,
3rd ID, stationed here at Fort Benning.

All in all, I think the marksmanship skills of the American Army are the
highest right now of any time since I joined it back in 1966. I know that
the Infantryman of today gets more good, practical, product-oriented
shooting training than I ever got, even during four years in the 82nd
Airborne Division as an Infantry platoon leader. I had to go out and do
that training on my own, with my own weapon.

Separate e-mail a few days later:

There was an article today in the local paper, part of a series of articles
about the brigade that is stationed here at Benning, that was on the brigade
snipers. According to the brigade, its snipers accounted for over 200 enemy
kills. Not too shabby. It pretty much discounts the comments that guy
made, doesn't it?

End of their comments!

Mike

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#27

Post by Peter H » 13 Apr 2007, 04:17

Picture from The Military Sniper since 1914,Martin Pegler

Note spiked steel overshoes strapped to his rubber shoes,making tree climbing easier.
..Japanese snipers were masters of camouflage,with trees and spider holes being favourite sniping positions..
Attachments
snlf_sniper.jpg
snlf_sniper.jpg (125.81 KiB) Viewed 3631 times

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

#28

Post by Peter H » 13 Apr 2007, 04:24

The Japanese Sniper

Out of Nowhere:A history of the Military Sniper,Martin Pegler, Osprey 2004
Attachments
sniper_3.jpg
sniper_3.jpg (147.52 KiB) Viewed 3525 times
sniper_2.jpg
sniper_2.jpg (159.44 KiB) Viewed 3525 times
sniper_1.jpg
sniper_1.jpg (208.66 KiB) Viewed 3527 times

User avatar
ketoujin23
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 26 Oct 2006, 05:26
Location: Oregon, US

#29

Post by ketoujin23 » 25 Apr 2007, 02:43

I did an article on Japanese sniper rifles for Militaria International last year. The forum won't allow me to attach word files on here and I don't like the idea of deluging my clip-board so you might just want to pick-up a copy.

*Shameless self-promotion now ended*

Best,
Gunnar

User avatar
Anzac
Member
Posts: 264
Joined: 01 Jun 2004, 16:54
Location: Australia

#30

Post by Anzac » 29 Apr 2007, 09:29

i think you meant australian, rather then austrian...

Post Reply

Return to “Japan at War 1895-1945”