Snipers, Japanese and allied

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
User avatar
asiaticus
Member
Posts: 923
Joined: 03 Mar 2004, 05:53
Location: Lake Elsinore CA USA

Snipers, Japanese and allied

#1

Post by asiaticus » 05 Feb 2005, 08:24

I am curious when the Japanese began using snipers? In the Pacific theater of WW2 they caused a lot of havoc, I am wondering if they were a relatively new development or were they around prior to 1937?


My understanding is that the USA did not have them until 1943 (Marines) or 1944 (Army). Dont know about the British, French, Dutch or others.

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

#2

Post by Peter H » 09 Feb 2005, 12:57

The Japanese Type 97 sniper rifle was introduced in 1937:there was also a Model 99 version later introduced.

Image

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/I ... B-9-2.html

Your query about the situation though pre-1937 is still valid.


User avatar
oneshooter
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 02:24
Location: TEXAS, by God!

#3

Post by oneshooter » 10 Feb 2005, 06:00

ALL Marines are riflemen first. The concept of sniping is known as precision markmanship. This was learned by ALL Marines from the start. There were "snipers" or marksmen on both sides of the War Between the States, Berdans Sharpshooters comes to mind. The marines at Belleau Wood and the "Lost Battalion" were picking off Germans at 300-400 yds! And this was not using any special rifles.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

Goldfish
Member
Posts: 410
Joined: 31 May 2004, 14:51
Location: Atlanta, USA

#4

Post by Goldfish » 10 Feb 2005, 15:51

I think the movie "Full Metal Jacket" accurately mentions former Marine Lee Harvey Oswald's skill with a rifle. On the other hand, most Japanese "snipers" encountered by the Allies were simply marksmen laft behind to harrass the enemy and were not specifically trained as snipers, although some were.

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

#5

Post by asiaticus » 10 Feb 2005, 21:18

Gleened from a discussion on Japanese snipers on another forum with Taki, who has a IJA website, some info on the Japanese snipers.


In China, the Japanese were being annoyed by Chinese snipers and decided to develop snipers for themselves. The first Japanese sniper rifle was developed in 1937. The Japanese were equipped with a number of different rifles, the earliest, a 6.5mm Type 38, dating back to 1905. Under the guidance of Colonel Namio Tatsumi, the 6.5mm Type 97 and 7.7mm Type 99 rifles were developed, being equipped with 2.5x or 4x power telescopic sights. One advantage of the smaller 6.5mm cartridge was that there was almost no smoke from the discharge, and the sound of the rifle-a distinctive high-pitched "crack"-made it very difficult to locate. Training in camoflage, feildcraft and other such techniques were common to normal Japanese infantry, so a Japanese sniper was specially trained only in shooting and given a sniper rifle. Snipers were trained together with normal riflemen in an infantry unit. Usually, there was one sniper in one rifle platoon. Sometimes, snipers were gathered and formed a sniper team.

See discussion here:
http://www.f16.parsimony.net/forum27947 ... s/5916.htm

temujin77
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 10 Nov 2004, 03:18
Location: USA
Contact:

#6

Post by temujin77 » 12 Feb 2005, 23:47

The Japanese used snipers during the Malaya campaign, where snipers would take down British, Austrian, and Indian troops while dressing in local native attire to disappear into the population after attacks.

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

#7

Post by Barrett » 13 Feb 2005, 20:38

For an excellent history of sniping, see "Out of Nowhere" recently released by Osprey. It includes Japanese material.

Unfortunately, many writers (some extremely successful) do not understand the distinction between riflemen and snipers. The huge majority of alleged sniping incidents in combat were the result of skillful (or just plain lucky) infantrymen. "A sniper is a rifleman but few riflemen are snipers."

(BTW, some folks might not believe the pitiful state of sniper training in the US Army and Air Force. I've shot with men who have only trained off bipods, who don't know how to use a sling or shoot from any position but prone. Some are not allowed to load more than one round at a time. There's not enough rifles, ammo, or trainng facilities to meet the need. Fortuantely, NRA and other civilian instructors are taking up much of the slack, for which unit commanders are grateful.)

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

NRA

#8

Post by asiaticus » 13 Feb 2005, 22:26

Really that bad? Automatic weapons have degraded the skills I guess.

An NRA gun club is were I learned to shoot as a kid. Club instructors taught all those positions and techniques. I was ok. A rifleman, not a sniper. :^)

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

#9

Post by Barrett » 14 Feb 2005, 01:12

It's not so much the adoption of automatic rifles (3-round burst control, ya know!) as lack of interest in marksmanship generally. Many ossifers feel that it takes too much time and expense (my lord: how much to they suppose funerals cost?), and there's an institutionalized mindset that qualification = training. I know national guard troops preparing to deploy to combat who had zero-zip-nada training ammo. Qualification only, and in the army that means the 1,000-inch (25 meter) course on reduced targets. Guys & gals shoot "expert" on that arcade game and think they're ready to rock 'n' roll.

I can't say about now, but a few years back a sniper instructor told me that the army resisted expanding marksmanship training "because it tends to personalize killing." Honest. Some of the time devoted to combat skills was taken over by diversity awareness & sensitivity training. :cry:

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

#10

Post by asiaticus » 14 Feb 2005, 02:41

Jeez, I wish I could say I found that unbeleivable. PC lunacy on parade!!! Grrr

Is the Bush administration changing this?

The Army used to promote citizen marksmanship when I was a kid.

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

#11

Post by Barrett » 14 Feb 2005, 03:03

A coupla years ago the army chief of staff said that the service will adopt the marine philosophy of "every soldier a rifleman." It's not true in the marines and hasn't been for decades but that's a separate issue. Far as I can tell from shooting with several soldiers and talking to others, any change is going to be glacial. Rumsfeld's philosophy of fewer troops relying on more gear seems contradictory in the global anti-terror war. We need MORE people (i.e., shooters) not fewer, especially in special operations. However, that's a slippery slope 'cause it easily could mean lowering standards to make the numbers. (Evidently a policy endoresed by Colin powell.) This month I talked to a SEAL instructor in San Diego: the teams are totally against lower standards but of course they don't make policy.

As far as funding, the Bush admin. convinced congress to build 2 (IIRC) new ammo plants in this country so we won't have to continue buying 5.56mm from overseas. But that'll take some years to implement.

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

#12

Post by asiaticus » 17 Feb 2005, 23:09

Well I ordered Out of Nowhere. Thanks for the tip Barrett.

Temujin77 thanks for that Malayan campaign detail.

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

Photos of Chinese snipers and Japanese hunting them.

#13

Post by asiaticus » 22 Feb 2005, 09:25

Going thru the photos on this site:

http://pro.corbis.com/default.aspx

of the fighting around Shanghai I found one showing a Japanese patrol seaching for snipers breaking into a house and another of a patrol hustleing off some Chinese in civilian dress that were said to be snipers. Another from another front showed them burning down some buildings to flush out snipers. So there is some indications that the Japanese may have learned the costume change trick used in Malaya from the Chinese in the 1930's.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

#14

Post by Delta Tank » 23 Feb 2005, 20:17

(BTW, some folks might not believe the pitiful state of sniper training in the US Army and Air Force. I've shot with men who have only trained off bipods, who don't know how to use a sling or shoot from any position but prone. Some are not allowed to load more than one round at a time. There's not enough rifles, ammo, or trainng facilities to meet the need. Fortuantely, NRA and other civilian instructors are taking up much of the slack, for which unit commanders are grateful.)

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:03 am    Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A coupla years ago the army chief of staff said that the service will adopt the marine philosophy of "every soldier a rifleman." It's not true in the marines and hasn't been for decades but that's a separate issue. Far as I can tell from shooting with several soldiers and talking to others, any change is going to be glacial. Rumsfeld's philosophy of fewer troops relying on more gear seems contradictory in the global anti-terror war. We need MORE people (i.e., shooters) not fewer, especially in special operations. However, that's a slippery slope 'cause it easily could mean lowering standards to make the numbers. (Evidently a policy endoresed by Colin powell.) This month I talked to a SEAL instructor in San Diego: the teams are totally against lower standards but of course they don't make policy.

As far as funding, the Bush admin. convinced congress to build 2 (IIRC) new ammo plants in this country so we won't have to continue buying 5.56mm from overseas. But that'll take some years to implement.[quote]

Let me see if I can help with some of the "stuff" going on in the US Army. I retired after 20 years of active service in 1997. I was an Armor Officer and had formerly been been enlisted in the Field Artillery before earning my commission. I still have quite a few friends in the Army and we talk about this stuff all the time.

Apparently there is a shortage of rifles, M16's and M-4's. The reason is that the Army is putting tankers on the ground conducting dismounted patrols. They are changing National Guard artillery battalion into MP battalions, and there are a bunch of other changes going on, but you get the idea. Everyone is basically getting a rifle. A friend of mine who just returned from Iraq stated that after the column he was in was ambushed and he was in a ditch with a 9mm pistol he decided to get a rifle and also carry his pistol.
Training ammunition expenditure has gone through the roof. Not only are the combat arms guys shooting more ammunition than before, but all the Combat Support (CS) and Combat Service Support (CSS) troops are firing more ammunition than ever before. They are spending more time on the ranges and than they conduct live fire training exercises mostly dealing with reacting to an ambush on their convoy. As far as I know we only have one arsenal making small arms ammunition and they can not keep up with the demand. So we have contracted with some overseas firms (in Israel, I believe) to produce more training ammunition. Apparently the domestic small arms manufacturers could not meet the requirements.

The National Guard and Army Reserve units are activated for active service they spend 4-6 months at an installation training before deployment. I am sure that there are active Army cadre assigned to ensure that the training is being done or at least there is supervision of the training. I am sure they get all the help they need and I am almost positive that they go through a training evaluation before deployment.

Snipers. From everything that I have heard Army Snipers are doing a great job and you will probably see more of them in the future. I believe that most snipers assigned to units did not complete the Army Sniper School at FT Benning. However divisions run sniper training courses to ensure a basic level of sniping. Shooting is the aspect everyone talks about but there is more to sniping than making the shot. Before you make the shot, you have to be a good shot, must know field craft (ie. movement techniques, camouflage, selecting routes in and out of your position, security, cache of water and equipment, etc.) As far as I know there is no shortage of sniper systems M-24's and most infantry units have M-21 snipers systems out on patrol with them. The M-21 if you recall is the National Match version of the M-14 with a set up for snipers. We used them in Vietnam and it was the standard Army sniper system before the M-21. Why does the Air Force need snipers? I know they had them in Vietnam, but I can not understand why they need them now.
Also of note and interest is the number of scopes that the Army has put on regular rifleman's M-16s and M-4s. I was at FT Campbell not to long ago visiting a friend and I was talking to his driver a young corporal who stated that his platoon were making 500 yard shots on Iraqi's with their scoped rifles! This scope is of low power 1x or 2x with a ballistic reticle illuminated by fiber optics. Another point of interest is that the 5.56mm round is just not doing the job when it comes to knocking people down when hit in the torso. But that is a little off topic, but there is great discussion about going to a larger caliber rifle. My vote is to go back to the 7.62 X51mm but I don't get to vote on this issue.

The problem with Special Forces is that it takes about 5 years to train a guy to standard and about 2/3 of all those attempting the course fail. There is just no way to grow that branch any faster. It just takes time. If I recall correctly Special Forces did not get cut during the "draconian" cuts of the US Army in the 90's

The Army is going to get much larger over the next few years (1-5?). Currently we have 33 maneuver brigades and that is scheduled to grow to 45 or so brigades over the next 5 years. Currently a brigade has 3 manuever battalions and when it deploys to combat it gets a "divisional slice" of assets, ie. battalion of arty, company of engineers, maybe a cavalry troop, some military intelligence assets, a forward support battalion. The "new" brigade structure (called a unit of action, and maybe just called a brigade combat team, I think they are still arguing over this) will have two maneuver battalions and a 350 man cavalry squadron. The divisional slice will be permantly assingned to the brigade.

Hope this informs more than it confuses. Any questions that I can't answer I can try to get an answer from my buddies.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

#15

Post by Delta Tank » 16 Apr 2006, 20:57

I cut and pasted this response from the section entitled:Japanese Snipers in World War II. I want to ensure that everyone understands that opinions and facts are two different things and I want to get out what I believe to be the FACTS about US Army snipers are presented, which should trump OPINION!

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.


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

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”