Early Sniping Issues, 1915

[Old Forge]

Hi All,

I've searched, but don't think this question has been raised before. Looking through the 7th Division WD and their actions at Givenchy in June 1915, it's clear from the minutes of Brigade Commanders' conferences that battalions were being encouraged to form their own Sniping and Scouting Sections. Reading Hesketh-Pritchard's 'Sniping in France' suggests that these sections were probably untrained in the use of periscopic sights and that they might well have used 'sniper rifles' issued as trench stores. H-P also points out that such unregulated sights would have been very inaccurate and effectively worse than useless. They were probably also clamped on over the SMLE's standard sights in such a way as to be 'sodier proof' - i.e. impossible to remove.

Given this poor starting point, if a Sniping and Scouting Section advanced in support their battalion's rifle companies in an attack, what reversionary modes of sighting could they have used? I'm guessing that with a plentiful array of targets (the Germans reportedly lined their parapets two or three deep), they might well have realised that the periscopic sights were useless. Could they have made any effective use of the side-mounted volley fire sights?

Cheers,

Richard

[4thGordons]

Are you asking specifically about PERISCOPIC sights or TELESCOPIC sights?  It has been a while since I read HP but I don't recall much discussion of periscopic.

The long range (volley) sights were not designed for use on individual (man sized) targets but for extreme range harassing fire at bodies of troops out in the open etc, by platoons or sections of men and so were not designed for and would not have been suitable for individual marksmanship at individual targets which is usually implied by sniping/scouting.

Of to look at HP and see if I can answer my own question!

Chris

[Old Forge]

Thanks Chris, and a good question. I think I mean telescopic, but was thinking of the Periscopic Prism Company, which produced early offerings (ie 1915). I understand the basic purpose of the volley sight, but was wondering whether it could be used (in extremis) at shorter ranges. So, for 2/Wilts and 2/Yorks attacking on 15 June, their snipers would have taken over rifles in the early hours that day, when 21 Bde relieved 22 Bde. At 6 pm, they may well have pushed up with the attacking companies. But … Hesketh-Pritchard suggests they’d miss a barn door even reasonably close up. It must have been particularly galling to try to support a failing attack when the telescopic sight would let you see that you’d missed!

cheers,

Richard

[MikB]

You couldn't set volley sights for less than about 1700 yards, they weren't adjustable to an individual rifle or shooter, they were attached to a wooden fore-end subject to movement from temperature or humidity variation, and the trigonometry of the angle of descent at the extended ranges was such that a 10-yard rangefinding error could make the difference between a miss underfoot of a standing enemy and another one overhead. 

IIRC there were reports of volley fire being effective at long range at Omdurman, and there's an interesting video here:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWOw9Q6bovs

 ... where what looks like a long Lee-Enfield is being shot with volley sights at 3000 yards with some success in range conditions.

But with the bullet being well subsonic at such distances it seems likely in many cases that so far from suffering casualties, the enemy might well be left quite unaware they were under fire.

Even when opportunities for long-range engagements re-emerged during WW2 in North Africa, I don't know of any attempt to revive volley sights.

For the telescopic sight, a competent rifleman with a bit of range time and a rifle with iron sights set up correctly for a target at a known distance, should be able to set up the scope reticule to match the iron sights as a starter for a zeroing exercise.

[4thGordons]

4 hours ago, Old Forge said:

Thanks Chris, and a good question. I think I mean telescopic, but was thinking of the Periscopic Prism Company, which produced early offerings (ie 1915). I understand the basic purpose of the volley sight, but was wondering whether it could be used (in extremis) at shorter ranges. So, for 2/Wilts and 2/Yorks attacking on 15 June, their snipers would have taken over rifles in the early hours that day, when 21 Bde relieved 22 Bde. At 6 pm, they may well have pushed up with the attacking companies. But … Hesketh-Pritchard suggests they’d miss a barn door even reasonably close up. It must have been particularly galling to try to support a failing attack when the telescopic sight would let you see that you’d missed!

cheers,

Richard

I think the answer - as described above by @MikB - is no there would be no advantage.

I think HP is exaggerating a bit. This is understandable because he was making the case for centralized sniper training/doctrine etc so,even in post war memoires, is likely to stress the inadequacies of the previous approaches to which he provided the remedy. I suspect a bit of post-hoc justification/exaggeration here. (The system he set up was undeniably effective and the training and personalizing of equipment a significant improvement but.....)   A good number of the people who made up early sniper/scouts has decent marksmanship skills, familiarity with weapons and (if they had deer stalking/shooting experience) with long range shooting using various sights, so I think as long as they were given some time to test fire and zero in the rifle (which they would have known to do) they would have been able to hit targets fairly reliably.  Picking up a rifle from stores and assuming it would hit a target would be a mistake I suspect not many would make, particularly if they knew their life might depend on it. 

Chris

[Old Forge]

1 hour ago, 4thGordons said:

I think the answer - as described above by @MikB - is no there would be no advantage.

I think HP is exaggerating a bit. This is understandable because he was making the case for centralized sniper training/doctrine etc so,even in post war memoires, is likely to stress the inadequacies of the previous approaches to which he provided the remedy. I suspect a bit of post-hoc justification/exaggeration here. (The system he set up was undeniably effective and the training and personalizing of equipment a significant improvement but.....)   A good number of the people who made up early sniper/scouts has decent marksmanship skills, familiarity with weapons and (if they had deer stalking/shooting experience) with long range shooting using various sights, so I think as long as they were given some time to test fire and zero in the rifle (which they would have known to do) they would have been able to hit targets fairly reliably.  Picking up a rifle from stores and assuming it would hit a target would be a mistake I suspect not many would make, particularly if they knew their life might depend on it. 

Chris

Thanks @MikB and Chris (@4thGordons), yes, have now seen the volley sight was typically scaled from 1,500 up to 2,800 yards, so no good at 200. Rereading Hesketh-Pritchard's comment, he says the sights were handed over battalion to battalion as trench stores (I remembered it as the rifles as well). The point about 2/Wilts and 2/Yorks at Givenchy is that they completed their relief about 2am on the 15th of June, and attacked at 6pm the same day. If sights were signed over as trench stores by the outgoing battalions, there was no chance for any zeroing activity. In effect, men selected for their marksmanship were neutralised.

Many thanks for your help, much appreciated!

Richard 

[4thGordons]

I wonder about this.

If they are were telescopic sights then they would not mount on a standard rifle (without pads /tapping the receiver etc) The first contracts were signed with the gun trade to do this in 1915 (coming into widespread use by 1916)

So I suspect what is being referred to at this point in the war were versions of Galilean Sights where a separate lens was attached to the front/rear of the rifle (but with no tube)

On some patterns (Matin and Gibbs) there was a rear peep and a lens magnifying the front sight

There were several types: MARTIN, NEILL(later referred to as BARNETT), LATTEY and GIBBS patterns. Some of these weren't actually approved in the list of changes until September 1915 (para 17556, 17577) the Martin was approved  on the 1st of May 1915

In general later in the war when telescopic sights of the more familiar pattern were fitted (Aldis etc) they were generally calibrated in 100 yard increments up to 600 or 800 yards.

Chris 

 

[MikB]

A marksman handed any sort of sight without facilities or time to fit or familiarise would be better off sticking to his iron sights. He wouldn't've been selected unless he'd already shown good capability with these.