Thread 18144225

Who are the most overrated warriors of history and why are it always Snipers?

>look up a "heroic war story"
>it is either comical enemy incompetence or some other exceptional situation where enemies could be slaughtered like sitting ducks without particular valor
Every time.

>>18144225 (OP)
The Ghost of Kiev blows that lady out of the water.

>>18144225 (OP)
Snipers are so insanely overrated when they have the WORST k/d ratio ever, I have no source but it's probably true

>>18144264
A. The majority of "heroic war stories" are not about getting an epic 100 kill streak
B. Under what circumstances do you think killing 100 enemy men would be properly heroic and not "some other exceptional situation"

>>18144270
Depending on the Soviet Sniper unit, that might be indeed the case. According to thwRussian Historian Luba Vinogradova some were used as common Infantery Units against German entrenchments. Casualties could reach 70-80%. A large part, some sources even suggest a fifth of them died.

With other countries it becomes a bit more blurry. The Germans for example didn't have many snipers and most were merely marksman (who were very low in numbers).

>>18144225 (OP)
All of the Soviet snipers who got a bajillion kills, especially the female ones, are very obviously bullshit propaganda that the communist party made up and its immediately obvious if you arent retarded.

>>18144302
What are the snipers like basically for, like, their purpose seems to be more important for political assassinations and the like instead of like useful shit

>>18144333
In the grand scheme of things, snipers (as in long-range fighters who operate alone or with a spotter) are practically useless in warfare. Even regarding assassinations they don't have a good track record, the most famous example where an American Sniper took out a Vietnamnese General for example might just be a myth.

Their application is more psychological, to cause a paranoia amongst the enemy and provide a false hero to the own troops. But there also plays the Tiger-paranoia into it (where Solfiers mistake a random infantery man with a rifle as a sniper because it sounds better than pinned down by a random conscript because he was better positioned). As previously said, the Germans didn't even have snipers until 1942/1943 and they did just fine.

Marksman on the other hand (who operate with their unit at medium distances) seem to offer at least some benefit on a tactical level, enough for officers and Medics (in theaters where they were shot regularly like the Eastern and Pacific front) to hide their insignias.

>>18144366
>Their application is more psychological, to cause a paranoia amongst the enemy and provide a false hero to the own troops. But there also plays the Tiger-paranoia into it (where Solfiers mistake a random infantery man with a rifle as a sniper because it sounds better than pinned down by a random conscript because he was better positioned). As previously said, the Germans didn't even have snipers until 1942/1943 and they did just fine.
Wait that's really smart, I didnt think about that, thank you anon
>Even regarding assassinations they don't have a good track record, the most famous example where an American Sniper took out a Vietnamnese General for example might just be a myth.
So, a sniper causes panic in a major battle, and fucks up the enemy, do commanders often change up tactics mid battle to confuse the enemies?

>>18144375
For the Germans and Western Allies, not really. The most important leading figures usually stay behind and an NCO being shot usually does not change much on the short term, because the next rank-highest soldier would just replace him. It might hurt the Unit cohesion in the long term, but not enough to influence the course of an engangement.

However, especially for the Germans whose squad tactics all revolved around a single machine gunner it is a different story. All of the Squad's firepower derives from the Machine gunner and if he is taken out, the German squad would be completelly outmatched. Of course there would be multiple Squads operating in battles, but the possibility to temporarly ,,stun" a German unit during combat might have offered some benefit. Altough that's just speculation, it didn't wasn't significant enough to be a widespread phenomena. Officers were still the preferred target and the Germans made sure to protect the Machine gunner and quickly replace him in case he died.

>>18144375
Not a change of tactics afaik. All armies usually followed a set pattern of tactics depending on the situation. That doesn't mean killing an Officer is as negligible as killing a normal grunt, the training and resources spent in a single officer alone are much greater than that of most grunts, but any decently experienced Squad will still proceed as they were trained. It wouldn't change the course of a battle per se, but degrade the capabilities of the unit in the long term.