6

I found a top 10 sniper list from 2nd world war which contains 9 soviet soldiers, and only 1 finnish soldier. Namely:

  • Stepan Vasilievich Petrenko
  • Vasilij Ivanovich Golosov
  • Fyodor Trofimovich Dyachenko
  • Fyodor Matveyevich Okhlopkov
  • Mikhail Ivanovich Budenkov
  • Vladimir Nikolaevich Pchelintsev
  • Ivan Nikolayevich Kulbertinov
  • Nikolay Yakovlevich Ilyin
  • Ivan Mihailovich Sidorenko

  • and the only Finnish man on the list: Simo Häyhä

The page claims:

The Soviet Union was the only country that had expressly trained sniper units in the decade leading up to the World War Two, and their superiority (with the obvious exception of the top-ranked sniper on this list) is clearly displayed by the numbers beside the names of its marksmen.

What were the key factors of soviet sniper warfare success? Only training? Equipment? If any of these factors matter, why other countries didn't do the same tactics?

  • 1
    I think the first thing is to decide if the Soviets really had that much success. They certainly advertise themselves and poured resources into it. But snipers had been active in every army for nearly 100 years before this. They just didn't form them into units and keep score. – Oldcat Nov 14 '14 at 17:37
  • I hate people that ask a question so that they can answer it themselves. – Tyler Durden Nov 14 '14 at 17:55
  • 1
    Technically asking so you can answer is approved SE behavior. But as I've documented in another comment, I hate questions that are asked and answered without any meaningful challenge to the proffered answer. – Mark C. Wallace Nov 14 '14 at 19:19
  • 2
    @TylerDurden This is a difference between the soft and hard stacks. In the hard stacks, blog-style Q&A posts are verifiable and not particularly prone to rhetoric or debate. They can also be voted up/down like any other content. In soft stacks, there is a risk of it being abused - but amusingly most people who post forum-style crap are too lazy to split it into a Socratic exchange. – LateralFractal Nov 14 '14 at 22:30
9

The Soviets encountered the Finnish snipers in the Winter War (the number one in your list is - Simo Häyhä - fought there) and saw their effectiveness first hand, so they heavily invested in training snipers right before and during the war. They also had (and still have) good starting material for training - the relatively large number of professional hunters (mostly in Siberia).

Other lists of snipers lists snipers from many countries, not just the Soviet ones.

  • Hmm this would be believeable and logical, since the list shows the real master of sniper rifle was the finnish one in the winter war, is there record on this impression? On wiki you linked they don't say so. – CsBalazsHungary Nov 15 '14 at 13:53
  • I just have to point out that Simo Häyhä most likely got his name in the record books because the Soviets were woefully unprepared for war (army purges!). I'm sure he's a great shot, but the Soviets did not even wear white coats for most of the Winter War! – DrZ214 Aug 1 '15 at 5:54
6

There were a number of reasons why the Soviet Union produced a large number of good snipers.

1) The Soviet Union had a population of 170 million, more than that of the United States, Germany, Japan, or Britain. They had a larger manpower pool to draw from than the other main combatants.

2) Many of the Soviet snipers came from Siberia, which was much like the American "Wild West," where people had to be wary about wild animals (and other people) all their lives, before the war began.

3) The Soviets had experienced the effect of Finnish snipers in the Winter War. Finland's population was 1/40th of the Soviet Union, so for them to have "one in ten" meant that they were "overrepresented.

4) For most of the war, the Germans were able to outfight the Soviets in combined arms operations. The Soviets had the advantage only in "urban" settings such as Stalingrad, where snipers could be used to best advantages. "Sniperism" was one of the few ways that the Soviets could reduce the long odds against them.

  • 3
    I think the fact that the Eastern Front had more sieges probably contributed to the statistics. – LateralFractal Nov 14 '14 at 22:20
  • I don't know. 400 KIA in a 5 year war hardly seems worth bothering about. One 500 pound bomb on a carrier can top that in a flash. – Oldcat Nov 14 '14 at 22:29
  • I gave a +1 for the point 2, I also saw on the list numerous siberians, but I didn't connect this fact to the efficiency, it is a good point – CsBalazsHungary Nov 15 '14 at 13:55
  • 1
    Also keep in mind that the military resources was very stretched so "one shot - one kill" would be a major advantage. – liftarn Nov 17 '14 at 12:34
  • 1
    @Oldcat yes but don't forget psychological factors. Snipers had a profound demoralizing effect over time, especially with tactics such as sniping the field leaders. No German wanted to be a field leader anymore! – DrZ214 Aug 1 '15 at 6:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.