A British Army sniper has earned a place in military history by killing two taliban machine gunners from more then a mile and a half away.

 

The record breaking shots felled the insurgents with consecutive bullets - even though they were 3,200 feet beyond the official range of the rifle....

 

Each bullet took approximately 3 seconds to reach their target.

 

Super Sniper

The Talibs really REALLY brick it over our snipers. Although according to many accounts they don't give a **** about any machinegun fire below 7.62.

Holy ****ing ****.

I thought the world record was still held by Adolphus, from the Baron von M

I quite liked the

To compensate for the spin and drift of the bullets as they flew the length of 25 football pitches, Cpl of Horse Harrison reportedly had to aim 6ft high and 20ins to the left

 

White Death says hello.

White Death says hello.

I didn't know the Finnish could be such badasses.

I dunno, sounds like one of those stories that grows with every retelling. 705 people in under 100 days? C'mon. Were they all standing in a straight line or something allowing him to get 2-3 with every shot?

Thank you, Jesus! He beat that Canadian.l

^ But this doesn't detract from the all-round awesomeness of the Canadian sniper's shot.

I dunno, sounds like one of those stories that grows with every retelling. 705 people in under 100 days? C'mon. Were they all standing in a straight line or something allowing him to get 2-3 with every shot?

 

I haven't time to read the piece right now, but the preferred density of troops in WW2 was something like a division to a few miles of front. That's what? 20,000 men to choose from?

I dunno, sounds like one of those stories that grows with every retelling. 705 people in under 100 days? C'mon. Were they all standing in a straight line or something allowing him to get 2-3 with every shot?

 

I haven't time to read the piece right now, but the preferred density of troops in WW2 was something like a division to a few miles of front. That's what? 20,000 men to choose from?

 

Yeah, it just sounds so fantastical. He averages killing 7.5 people per day, but how? He was using WWII technology so what was his effective range, maybe 500 yards? So now your a Soviet grunt standing there and your buddy next to you gets the right side of his head blown off. It doesnt seem like too much of a stretch to determine that the sniper is within 1500 feet to your left, lets send the other 19,999 men swarming over there to kill him. Im sure he was awesome, Im just not sure he was that awesome.

*waits for the Finns to rush here*

Mother Russia should have sent Vasily Zaytsev to smoke out the Finn.

^ I'm pretty sure that the Eastern Front snipers on both sides were in that range of kills, including Ludmilla whatsername the Russian sniper-chick.

 

Awesome sniper of the day for you all to look up: Carlos Hathco*ck (sorry, language filter is crazy on that one)

I dunno, sounds like one of those stories that grows with every retelling. 705 people in under 100 days? C'mon. Were they all standing in a straight line or something allowing him to get 2-3 with every shot?

 

I haven't time to read the piece right now, but the preferred density of troops in WW2 was something like a division to a few miles of front. That's what? 20,000 men to choose from?

 

 

Well, the Soviets invaded Finland with around 450,000 men in 21 divisions... So yes, roughly around 21,000 men a division.

 

Soviet military commander Kirill Meretskov reported at the start of the hostilities: "The terrain of coming operations is split by lakes, rivers, swamps, and is almost entirely covered by forests... The proper use of our forces will be difficult."

 

Throw in the fact that they invaded just after Stalin had done one of his "officer purges", and the Soviet forces weren't exactly hopping with experienced officers..

 

Weather conditions hit record lows of around -43 C... and the Soviets tried using blitzkrieg tactics on countryside where there were few to no roads, and an abundance of bad terrain... and troops outfitted with regular khaki uniforms, so I'm guessing they kind of stood out...

 

Now the White Death served at the Battle of Kollaa which lasted from around December '39 to March '40 , and Kollaa is a stream surrounded by lots of ridges, and the Soviets had no skis and had trouble going cross-country so were stuck to using the limited number of actual roads in the area....

 

So I'm guessing a good sniper working in those conditions....

^ I'm pretty sure that the Eastern Front snipers on both sides were in that range of kills, including Ludmilla whatsername the Russian sniper-chick.

Pavlichenko? She bagged 309.

The Soviet invasion of Finland showed up the Soviet army for what it was at that time - an ill-trained agrarian rabble devoid of any decent commanders, doctrine or equipment. It made the Nazis even more confident that they could whup the Commies in a quick one-summer Blitzkreig.

 

Stalin didn't get a grip of the Red Army (having had all the general staff executed) until the Winter of 1941.

Edited May 3, 201015 yr by Monte Carlo

I dunno, sounds like one of those stories that grows with every retelling. 705 people in under 100 days? C'mon. Were they all standing in a straight line or something allowing him to get 2-3 with every shot?

 

I haven't time to read the piece right now, but the preferred density of troops in WW2 was something like a division to a few miles of front. That's what? 20,000 men to choose from?

 

Yeah, it just sounds so fantastical. He averages killing 7.5 people per day, but how? He was using WWII technology so what was his effective range, maybe 500 yards? So now your a Soviet grunt standing there and your buddy next to you gets the right side of his head blown off. It doesnt seem like too much of a stretch to determine that the sniper is within 1500 feet to your left, lets send the other 19,999 men swarming over there to kill him. Im sure he was awesome, Im just not sure he was that awesome.

 

WW2 rifle technology was actually pretty much aimed at long range fire, because most rifles were pre WW1 vintage designs. Picking one I know a little about, the SMLE was considered effective to a few hundred yards, but had a far greater killing range, out to 1,000 plus.

 

Besides, while I agree that inflation of those figures seems plausible for propaganda, picking off terrified conscripts in high densities seems equally plausible. I'm just saying I wouldn't like to slander a prolific sniper like that just because Stalin was thughtfull enough to throw badly trained, disastrously motivated, and ignorantly lead cannon fodder at him.

Lyudmila Pavlichenko had 309 confirmed kills

 

EDIT: and I see I was beat to it (that's what I get for being distracted by reading the fate of Tanya Baramzina)

Edited May 3, 201015 yr by Amentep

The obsession with snipers and highest scores is kind of a disturbing thing if you think about it.

The obsession with snipers and highest scores is kind of a disturbing thing if you think about it.

 

Appreciation for the skills of a craftsman (or woman) under dangerous circumstances...

 

People quote baseball stats, soccer scores, all sorts of sports related trivia... and there's that old saying about sport being practice for war...

 

What's interesting is that a lot of those "high score snipers" when asked years later how they felt about the number of people they killed in their military careers.. they all tend to have some variation of "it was a job they told me to do, so I did it to the best of my ability."

The obsession with snipers and highest scores is kind of a disturbing thing if you think about it.

 

Yes, it is odd but we are fascinated with experiences we are unlikely to ever have.

 

I know two men who have served as snipers - one in the Falklands in 1982 and one in Iraq. Neither will talk about it, politely pointing out that killing is a personal, unpleasant experience and not to be boasted about. That, to me, makes them impressive individuals.

The obsession with snipers and highest scores is kind of a disturbing thing if you think about it.

 

I don't know - while I don't keep track of it myself (had to look up the information) - I don't suppose its that weirder than aviation buffs who keep track of air kills in WWI or WWII.

 

I suppose its a bit morbid, but I guess its somewhat understandable in our fascination with man vs man or man vs nature (I know people who talk about famous explorers and their exploits - even those that got them and their entire group killed - with affection due to the man vs nature aspect of the attempt they were making).

The obsession with snipers and highest scores is kind of a disturbing thing if you think about it.

 

Yes, it is odd but we are fascinated with experiences we are unlikely to ever have.

 

I know two men who have served as snipers - one in the Falklands in 1982 and one in Iraq. Neither will talk about it, politely pointing out that killing is a personal, unpleasant experience and not to be boasted about. That, to me, makes them impressive individuals.

 

True. Or at least I agree. The only person I've ever spoken to who had actually killed anyone and was proud of it was a hit man. And I've spoken to soldiers, terrorists, police, you name it...

 

OK, not dinosaurs.