G.Driver 10thLF Posted 5 February , 2009 Share Posted 5 February , 2009 Hi can anyone tell me about this photo. i was told that the picture was took the moment the man on the right was shot by a sniper. is this accurate? who are the men? what regiment>? when and were was it taken? ive had this photo awhile and its always facinated me. any info would be great thanks graham (click to enlarge) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie4798 Posted 5 February , 2009 Share Posted 5 February , 2009 hi graham, that picure is in the book "out of nowhere" history of the millitary sniper,a great book. is that where you got it from? i cant tell you much about it apart from they were artillery. the amount of noise from the firing has masked the sound of the shot. a technique used by snipers. sound masking as its known. i couldnt tell you where it is. the pic is from the royal armouries libary. a great picture. the germans were pioneers in sniping in the first world war. hope that helps a bit james Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel9 Posted 5 February , 2009 Share Posted 5 February , 2009 An amazing photo Graham!! I was lucky enough to see it before it "shrunk"!! As to whether or not it is accurate I'll leave that to others to judge. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie4798 Posted 5 February , 2009 Share Posted 5 February , 2009 i think this photo is accurate enough, its been used in many sniper publications and has all the hallmarks from a sniper shot. ie the bodys position after taking a shot to the right side. the body is leaning to the left as the force of impact goes through the soldiers body, also the other soldiers are total oblivious to what as just happend. amazing photo. imagine being the photographer after capturing that excact moment the bullet hit. james Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.Driver 10thLF Posted 5 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 5 February , 2009 where you think hes been hit? seems you can see blood just above the gun shield, you can see black against the gun flash. or is that just discarge from the barrel? to me it looks lik headshot or neck hit. you can see that blood i metioned and close up looks like theres blood on his face. if you follow the blood above the shield you can see a sort of spirt of dark spots? what you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Morgan Posted 5 February , 2009 Share Posted 5 February , 2009 My own view is that the soldier hasn't just been shot. Here is a link to an earlier discussion. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.Driver 10thLF Posted 5 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 5 February , 2009 seems quite a debate lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie4798 Posted 5 February , 2009 Share Posted 5 February , 2009 to me that is a puff of water, the bullet has gone through his water bottle. as for the dark spots thats probally residue like you mentioned. i just read that last thread. very interesting points. i have no clue about artillery but going from my own experiences as a sniper i believe that to be a bullet strike. thats the joy of this forum, discussing and getting different views across. james Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdajd Posted 5 February , 2009 Share Posted 5 February , 2009 How close were these guns brought up to the front? Would they be close enough that a sniper would be able to take out a gunner? One way or the other I think that the caption is a mistake and that as explained in the other thread, the gunner was seated and his helmet just fell off. The guy on the left of the gun seems to be seated on something that would correspond to a seat being on the right. Also, even with the sound of the gun he at least would notice that the guy sitting/standing right next to him had been shot and there does not seem to be any reaction on his part. If not him then the guy in the back who seems to be looking in his general direction (also no alarm in his body posture) JMHO Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie4798 Posted 5 February , 2009 Share Posted 5 February , 2009 or how close did the sniper manage to get to the line of guns. if a snper is well camofauged and is at one with his surroundings then he can get as close as his likes. the germans were excellent snipers as were the turks so you cant rule out that. i think the case is still open on this photo. there are some very valid points brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.Driver 10thLF Posted 5 February , 2009 Author Share Posted 5 February , 2009 i wouldve kept quiet if i knew it'd kick off the argument again lol! anyone know what regiment, or how the photographer was, wouldnt that confirm if the man in question was shot by a sniper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev627 Posted 6 February , 2009 Share Posted 6 February , 2009 If you zoom in on the picture and look at the top of the soldiers back you can see what looks like an entry wound from a rifle shot. Could this not be the fatal wound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdajd Posted 6 February , 2009 Share Posted 6 February , 2009 If you zoom in on the photo you can see the seat he is sitting on with his feet dangling. Also based on the web gear, is he even wearing a water bottle? He is not wearing the full kit and there is no cross strap that the water bottle would hang on over his left shoulder like the gunner on the left side of the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roel22 Posted 7 February , 2009 Share Posted 7 February , 2009 I don't see any footprints in the sand, so I'd also say he is in a sitting position. Roel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian turner Posted 10 February , 2009 Share Posted 10 February , 2009 He looks to be sitting on the little seat, not swivelling on his toes. I think the smoke is from the gun's discharge. If a round had hit a water bottle why would it spray outwards from a penetrating bullet to such an extent when only just entering? And the 'spray' is on the wrong side for an exit. Afterall, the water is not stored in the bottle under pressure. If despite this idea, a bullet has penetrated a water bottle and passed through, it would be hitting him in the hips. Thus we could expect his hips/bottom to be pushed to his left and not his head, which with inertia would likely look to be moving to his right. If he had taken a head shot then there is no sign of the exiting bullet's desctructive effect (viz president Kenedy pictures). I think it is more likely the man has lost a bit of balance due to the recoil, and his helmet has slid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 10 February , 2009 Share Posted 10 February , 2009 I have read all the above. Using Ockam's Razor, and the theory of inherent military probability, I conclude that this is NOT a photograph taken of a gunner being hit. I believe that no dispassionate observer, one without his mind being made up, would believe otherwise. The onus of PROOF is on those who believe that this is not a photo of a commonplace event, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamphoto Posted 10 February , 2009 Share Posted 10 February , 2009 I think it is more likely the man has lost a bit of balance due to the recoil, and his helmet has slid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter and Ellen Posted 11 February , 2009 Share Posted 11 February , 2009 My two penneth worth. I agree that it does not add up as a sniper's hit. To keep it brief. The gun is not in action. They do not sit around like that whilst firing. At that shutter-speed the breech recoil would be a blur. The soldier on the left would not have all his gear on nor would he be sitting right behind the wheel. Those guns really "kick back" when fired, despite that it is bedded-in. The white haze by the "victim's" right hip is light coming through an opening in the face plate. If hit and he has started to fall, he has had time to start moving with the inertia of the bullet. He is essentially still vertical. His left arm is going up to catch his helment. The "blood spatter" is some leaves. Have a close look at the image, they look like leaves. Left-over from some previous camouflaging. I have seen a number of image titles over the years that do not hold with the analytical details of what is in the photo. I read the title, then looked at the image but immediately rejected it as it "did not feel right". A closer look delivered the above thoughts. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenbecker Posted 11 February , 2009 Share Posted 11 February , 2009 Mate, I surpose the question should be asked , why shoot the man behind the gun shield when there are two more easier targets out in the open? S.B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now