Possibly the best sniper ?

[General Pain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Hayha

[Muti]

Yes, it's him

http://www.snipercentral.com/snipers.htm

[Eddie]

I always hate claims like this for one simple reason.

It's inaccurate to label someone "the best" because they operated in the most target rich environment ever.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Eddie

I always hate claims like this for one simple reason.

It's inaccurate to label someone "the best" because they operated in the most target rich environment ever.

At what point do you stop discounting a sniper's accomplishments then? If you don't consider the sniper with the highest kill total the best, how do you determine the best? Remember Simo was using a standard-issue rifle without a scope and without benefit of a spotter -- and he did it all in 100 days. It's not his fault he made the best of the situation.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by General Pain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Hayha

Possibly.

But I am skeptical to the accuracy of the claims. Not saying he wasn't very successful, but it isn't unheard of for nations to inflate things to create heroes. The references don't help confirm anything either, with most of them being news or television outlets (which also include contradictory information).

[jester]

Read it before and other accounts as well. I do wonder what if any role he had in the "Continuation War?"

And then the label of "BEST" it all depends on what criteria is being used for that label. Just like the discussion of "ELITE." If you are going by sheet numbers okay. Or, what about shooting ability long or difficult shots? Or infiltration to very secure areas to make the shot? Or stalking the target until you can make the shot? There are so many criteria that can be considered. Just like the game, alot of the players who have no clue think its just a high rifle score. To be a good sniper takes intelligence as well as a shooting ability and then you learn lots and lots of fieldcraft.

I mean, some countries or organizations call people who are snipers because they sit on a tower or atop a building and can put a round through the bullseye with a long barreled custom rifle and glass. Other organizations, it is about camo, stalking and the ability to shoot. I guess what I am saying is, its more than just having the skill pulling a trigger from my perspective.

So, what is the criteria for the best, that is the thing to decide.

In that case, the guy was a good shot and had a good amount of fieldcraft due to his background, <it seems similiar to a couple other snipers I have read too> But one also must admit, not only was that time and conflict one where it was target rich. Really, there were cases of units not having enough rifles or ammo for all its personel. But also, the Russians were from many of the accounts I have read well, words like bumbling and incompetent could be used. It was really just by sheer weight of numbers that they prevailed....oh yeah, and the complete failure of the league of nations and the betrayal of the European Powers at that era of history to do anything to stop expansionism by two certain nations of Europe.

[Trooper]

To be honest Simo Häyhä is not famous in Finland. Finish army didn’t like idea of “kills” and snipers were not popular heroes during WW II. There wasn’t even an official training for snipers before 1940. Häyhä was member of civil guard where he received some crude training for sniping and he was also local rifle champion. He also didn’t have any career at military. Before winter 39/40 he was an farmer and reserve corporal like so many other men in Finland.

Häyhä evaded nearly certain death at several occasions and there were fierce battles at Kollaa front. Russian had proper equipment and armament but they were poorly lead. There is even finish saying “Kollaa kestää” – meaning something like “we will not give up”.

[HorseSoldier]

"Best" is always a topic that invites hair splitting and such. Guy was definitely hard as a coffin nail and someone I'd rather have on my side than the other one, though.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by copeab

At what point do you stop discounting a sniper's accomplishments then? If you don't consider the sniper with the highest kill total the best, how do you determine the best? Remember Simo was using a standard-issue rifle without a scope and without benefit of a spotter -- and he did it all in 100 days. It's not his fault he made the best of the situation.

Read through Jester's reply. You could add in the ability to get a consistent sight picture, grouping size, any number of other metrics besides a target is up, now it's down.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Read through Jester's reply. You could add in the ability to get a consistent sight picture, grouping size, any number of other metrics besides a target is up, now it's down.

In the end, all that really matters is "sniper kills target, sniper gets away to kill another target".

[copeab]

Originally Posted by jester

Read it before and other accounts as well. I do wonder what if any role he had in the "Continuation War?"

It's my understanding he never saw action after getting shot in the face -- which I can forgive him for

And then the label of "BEST" it all depends on what criteria is being used for that label. Just like the discussion of "ELITE." If you are going by sheet numbers okay. Or, what about shooting ability long or difficult shots? Or infiltration to very secure areas to make the shot? Or stalking the target until you can make the shot? There are so many criteria that can be considered. Just like the game, alot of the players who have no clue think its just a high rifle score. To be a good sniper takes intelligence as well as a shooting ability and then you learn lots and lots of fieldcraft.

In threads on creating a sniper in other game systems, I've argued that Stealth and Camouflage are slightly more important to a military sniper than Rifle (a police sniper is a different matter).

[Eddie]

Yeah, but any member of the XBox generation can bet taught to shoot a target and crawl away. But skill comes in with the ability to do it without relying on luck, i.e., the ability to hit the same spot over and over and over. Or realistically speaking, relatively close to the same spot. Or being able to hit the part that you want and not just hoping for a hit. Because when you're shooting at a person versus a paper target, that extremity shot doesn't achieve the same effect. Your opinion obviously varies.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Yeah, but any member of the XBox generation can bet taught to shoot a target and crawl away. But skill comes in with the ability to do it without relying on luck

I'd hardly call killing over five Russians a day for 100 days with an unscoped infantry rifle "relying on luck"

As he was a hunter for many, many years, I'm sure most of his sniper kills came from fairly short range (100-200m) while well-hidden from the enemy.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by copeab

I'd hardly call killing over five Russians a day for 100 days with an unscoped infantry rifle "relying on luck"

The point is that body count is not the only metric.

As he was a hunter for many, many years, I'm sure most of his sniper kills came from fairly short range (100-200m) while well-hidden from the enemy.

If he shot from that close then it was nothing but luck that kept him from being compromised despite all the camouflage in the world.

Like I said, your opinion obviously varies.

[HorseSoldier]

Given the terrain he was in, and the equipment he was using they would have to have been at very close range by sniping standards. My recollection is that some of his kills were actually with a submachinegun, so perhaps his accomplishments shouldn't be considered in the 'great sniper' category at all, but rather put him on the 'greatest gunfighters' list.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

Given the terrain he was in, and the equipment he was using they would have to have been at very close range by sniping standards. My recollection is that some of his kills were actually with a submachinegun, so perhaps his accomplishments shouldn't be considered in the 'great sniper' category at all, but rather put him on the 'greatest gunfighters' list.

IIRC, his ~540 kills are as a sniper. He apparently had another 150 or so with an SMG.

Here's another article on him.

[Eddie]

All I know is the AO he was operating in was about 20-25 linear km and the Soviets had 160,000 troops in that area. One battle had 4000 attack 32 Finns reportedly.

It doesn't get much more target rich than that and you could set back 600m and fire into a crowd and rack up the kills. With iron sights. It's also important to note that he averaged 5 kills per day, he didn't get 5 per day. He could have gotten a bunch in a classic Soviet charge and then gone a couple of days with nothing.

That's why I'm saying you have to look beyond just numbers because you can take any statistic and make it say what you want it to if you frame it right. Isn't that what a member of this board said to me a few weeks ago? Maybe that was 93 Games board, but I heard it on one or the other recently.

[pmulcahy11b]

The "best sniper" argument is kind of like the "best <anything>" argument. It's all circumstance and situation-related, and depends upon measurement. There's nothing really absolute about it.

[Webstral]

Regardless of the criteria one wants to establish for "best", this guy clearly provided superior service to his country as a combat rifleman. Unless 4,000 men are lined up shoulder-to-shoulder, there's some empty space between men in a frontal attack. If they are firing suppressive fires as they come, our Finnish sniper's accomplishments may have less to do with long-range marksmanship than sheer nerve. In any event, he did his job and did it well.

Webstral

[jester]

Not to bash the guy. But, the thing is to determine if what he did was as a sniper as they really operate, or as a rifleman who did an outstanding job?

As I attempted to lay out and Eddie did as well and others. The role of a sniper compared to what alot of people think one is, and even alot of the people who play this game think one is is a big difference.

We have a police sniper, arm chair sniper and military sniper, then we also have just a damn good rifleman who is sharpshooting the enemy,

Another thing to consider is, a sniper is a battlefield predator really. They go out and hunt. A rifleman of that time and place held a position and repelled the enemys attacks, and attacked when ordered to. A good rifleman sitting in the defense could pick off a good number of enemy especialy in the way the Soviets used errr waisted their men. Again, it all goes with the criteria that is being used to determine sniper I guess.

I mean, Carlos Hathcock was considered one of the best Marine Snipers second only to Chuck Mawinny <sp> in the number of kills. But, Hathcock was a machinegunner. So, would we consider Hathcocks kills with a M2 .50 or an M60 firing a defensive fire durring an enemy attack as part of his sniper tally? They had nothing to do with sniping.

A good discussion though.

Here is a question to all:

What is your concept of a sniper and their role on the battlefield?

[headquarters]

As Eddie says - variables do apply .What sort of battlefield you are in etc etc .The best in one category maybe isnt the best in another .I for one start loosing interest when the palm computers come out and factors like air humidity and ambient temperature are to be fed into the equation .

( We had a saying in our unit back in the 90s -assaulting enemy trenches in LFX, " it isnt the bullseyes that win the day but total amount of pounds of lead on target" )

Simo was a great soldier and sniper no doubt . His exploits were no doubt also exploited by the Finns to whip up some "sisu".Who really knows what the real tally was anyways ? Getting any real numbers would have been impossible.


His enviroment on the battlefield was target rich -but that also means that it was full of enemies with that "red " urge to kill the feudal minded.

So to get back to the discussion - if using body count as the main criteria he mighty be the worlds no#1 .

In other technical aspects of the modern snipers job he might not be .

.

[jester]

My reason for asking the question was to get an idea of the range of answers on peoples idea of what one is. And of course what one is, varys with ones organization and nation and I would even wager the time in which a person lived. POOF! And that is where we may be in error, judging a person who lived and acted 70 years ago by the standards of today. Something I usualy pride myself in not doing and yet in this instance it is exactly what I did do.

But still, it would be cool to get an idea of the various members here idea of what a sniper is, or what a "elite" or other type of person or character is. A different view so we can run our games and characters as players and GMs much better and in a way that is apealing and doesn't alienate others.

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Possibly.

But I am skeptical to the accuracy of the claims. Not saying he wasn't very successful, but it isn't unheard of for nations to inflate things to create heroes. The references don't help confirm anything either, with most of them being news or television outlets (which also include contradictory information).

I'm skeptical too. Alot of these numbers seem very unlikely. I mean who is to say snipers can't lie a little. Do you know for sure the guy you shot is dead? I mean I bet the russian that shot Simo in the face thought he was dead. Until you can walk up and check the body or their head got ripped off, it's unconfirmed in my opion. In the heat of battle how the hell do you really keep a accurate tally? I'm really skeptical when it comes to the high numbers of kills made by russian snipers in WW2, they needed all the good press they could get. These numbers just seem a little to high.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think some of the problem here may be with the way the term "sniper" has changed over the years. Once upon a time, what was called a sniper at the time was for the most part simply a highly-skilled marksman -- someone who could put a bullet through your eye consistently at 1000 meters or suchlike.

Nowdays, being a sniper is a profession -- it is a person with a specific skills set not only in marksmanship, but in camouflage, fieldcraft, reconnaissance and observation, discerning high-value targets, and most importantly, not being caught in the act. He's also a technician as much as a shooter, adept with a wide variety of weapons, optics, and observation and designation devices.

By the definition of older times (sometime during World War 2, it seems, is when the definition started to change), a modern sniper would be considered a special ops soldier. Now, a sniper is a more highly-skilled subset of an infantryman, unless he is actually assigned to a special ops unit and has that special training as per that unit. The kind of soldier that was once termed a sniper would be now termed as more a Designated Marksman or suchlike. By today's terms, Simo Häyhä is simply a highly-skilled marksman. By the terms of his day, he was a sniper.

[copeab]

Oddly enough, this reminds me of arguments over who is the best athlete in a certain sport when the players were in quite different era. Baseball is the best (worst) at this inventing many statistics to allow cross-era comparisons (which generally fail).

So, due to the evolution of sniper training and equipment, I'll revise my position and say you simply can't claim anyone is an overall "best sniper". Simo was probably the best for his era (say, WWI through Korea), though.