Sniper Role in Tank Warfare

[AndyF]

We've seen WW2 tank battles many times on documentaries, but one obvious question comes up: Why couldn't a sniper with armor piercing round lob a few rounds into the canons
of the enemy tanks prior to firing.?

It would seem plausible:

1/Scoped sniper shot groupings in yard distances have been known to be 4inches, not far from 81MM barrel width.
2/The barrel serves to contain and guide round to the target.
3/The lans of the barrel could get damaged.
3/Shaped charges are very susceptible to damage, so an AP round could make a real mess of the tank round before it leaves.
4/A damaged tank round would have a poor trajectory and flight characteristics since the nose would be distorted.
5/Turret movement is slow enough to ensure an accurate shot and lead aiming wouldn't be necessary.

Andy

 

[Waylander]

Huh? Never ever are you going to hit the muzzle of a tank gun with any accuracy over some distance.
Tank turrets are not slow and not standing still. The same applies to the tank itself.
One would need to be directly in front of an enemy tank and at the same height to be able to even look into the barrell not to talk about shooting into it.
Firing a weapon right in front of modern tank optics and TIs is not very smart.
There are trillions of better targets for precious sniper assets.

There is a reason why it was never done.

 

[AndyF]

Waylander:

Never ever are you going to hit the muzzle of a tank gun with any accuracy over some distance.

Then how can you explain the possibility that a scoped Mauser can shoot a hand off at 40 yards.? The hand is approx the size has the muzzle.

Tank turrets are not slow and not standing still.

Back then any nation's tanks were.

One would need to be directly in front of an enemy tank and at the same height to be able to even look into the barrel not to talk about shooting into it.

Not necessarily, Has I said a glancing round would be directed into it, AND damage the rifling at the same time.

Firing a weapon right in front of modern tank optics and TIs is not very smart.

Infantry was a component and accompanied tank warfare has a standard. There would have been many crouched behind mounds and shrubs, and they attacked in spite of machine gun straffing.

I don't think you have a convincing answer.

Thanks.

Andy
sp4, 30Th, 3rd 63-66, Schweinfurt

 

[kato]

This is ridiculous. You are not going to hit the muzzle of a moving barrel, even at oblique angles, without wasting at least a couple dozen shots. You are not going to just stand around aiming at a tank from in front of any of its machine guns at any range below 100 meters unless you're suicidal. And a WW2 tank will not stand still - it will either be on the move or it will move its sight/barrel/turret to acquire a target.

 

[PCShogun]

3/The lans of the barrel could get damaged

Tanks, having a smooth bore barrel, would not have lands or grooves to be damaged by an impact.

While not an optimal way to engage and disable a tank, it would be better than nothing. An open hatch or view port could also be a potential target for a sniper round. While ducking a ricochet round inside the vehicle, I'm sure the aim would be disrupted.

 

[My2Cents]

For WW2 only:
1/Scoped sniper shot groupings in yard distances have been known to be 4inches, not far from 81MM barrel width.
2/The barrel serves to contain and guide round to the target.

There were some snipers that could target a stationary object that size. Never enough though, and they had better uses.

3/The lans of the barrel could get damaged.
4/A damaged tank round would have a poor trajectory and flight characteristics since the nose would be distorted.

Not significantly. Remember, except for the German tanks with 88mm guns, in WW2 most tank combat took place at ranges less than 300m, frequently at ranges less than 40m. Accuracy was seldom an issue, penetration was the problem.

3/Shaped charges are very susceptible to damage, so an AP round could make a real mess of the tank round before it leaves.

HEAT rounds for cannons were a post war development. During WWII almost all AP rounds were APCBC. There was also a small amount of HVCR introduced as stop-gap measures to keep smaller guns tactically relevant until larger replacements could be introduced. Neither were likely to be detonated or significantly damaged by a round smaller than .50 cal.

5/Turret movement is slow enough to ensure an accurate shot and lead aiming wouldn't be necessary.

Only when the tank is stationary. Suspensions were not very good in WWII, so the barrel tip would be moving wildly when driving cross country.

Typically snipers would go after exposed tank commanders which forced the survivors to button up, reducing the tanks effectiveness by 40% to 80%. This is much more effective than shooting up the barrel.

 

[Waylander]

As said before even in WWII either the tank moves or the turret (or both).
Shooting at stationary small targets on a range is not comparable to hitting anything moving in a warzone.

Well trained snipers don't grow in trees and are precious assets. Wasting them on such golden shot adventures with limited effect is close to putting them in front of a firing squad.

As said by others, there are much more interesting targets on the battlefield. Officers, MG/AT teams, radiomen,...
Forcing a tank crew to button up by using well aimed or automatic small arms fire on them is also much more effective.

In WW2 they used everything to enhance the AT-capabilities of the forces as long as it had the slightest possible effect. Even high risk stuff like magnetic mines, grenade bundles, molotov cocktails and sticky bombs was used.
Ask yourself why nobody tried your idea...

 

[Firn]

As said before even in WWII either the tank moves or the turret (or both).
Shooting at stationary small targets on a range is not comparable to hitting anything moving in a warzone.

Well trained snipers don't grow in trees and are precious assets. Wasting them on such golden shot adventures with limited effect is close to putting them in front of a firing squad.

As said by others, there are much more interesting targets on the battlefield. Officers, MG/AT teams, radiomen,...
Forcing a tank crew to button up by using well aimed or automatic small arms fire on them is also much more effective.

In WW2 they used everything to enhance the AT-capabilities of the forces as long as it had the slightest possible effect. Even high risk stuff like magnetic mines, grenade bundles, molotov cocktails and sticky bombs was used.
Ask yourself why nobody tried your idea...

Indeed, they tried everything from the desperate (grenade bundles) to the very useful (Panzerfaust&Co) to give the individual unit or a small unit the ability to stand more of a chance against tanks.

Snipers on the defensive could play a key role by killing key elements of the enemy infantry, thus making them less effective and thus making the now less sharpsighted tanks of this combined arms group more vulnerable to the own AT-weapons.

 

[kato]

In WW2 they used everything to enhance the AT-capabilities of the forces as long as it had the slightest possible effect. Even high risk stuff like magnetic mines, grenade bundles, molotov cocktails and sticky bombs was used.

And technically, those were still considered valid approaches till the 80s - that's when training in stuff like the "let it roll over you and throw an improvised molotov at its back deck" technique stopped in the Bundeswehr (90s actually). Not because the technique became invalid though.

Snipers? Only target on a tank would be exposed crew members.

 

[Awang se]

Hollywood sure gave birth to some nasty ideas.

 

[My2Cents]

And technically, those were still considered valid approaches till the 80s - that's when training in stuff like the "let it roll over you and throw an improvised molotov at its back deck" technique stopped in the Bundeswehr (90s actually). Not because the technique became invalid though.

They dropped the training after the USSR dissolved, They were no longer had to worry about units facing huge numbers of Warsaw Pact tanks and being forced to resort to desperation tactics after running out of anti-tank weapons.

 

[kato]

They dropped the training after the USSR dissolved

Nah, not really. It was effectively dropped with the big overhaul in 2003ff, when the Territorial Army was scrapped (the Territorial Army units within the superdivisions of Heeresstruktur HNA were already cut down during the 90s, hence when the training petered out; the 2003 cut affected especially the engineer brigades). Some weapons were removed from ToE at the same time, such as the Handflammpatrone red-phosphorous rocket launcher; the old PzF44 Lanze already went away with the cuts during the 90s. ZDv 3/50, the underlaying manual, is still valid training material though.
The reason for the drop is that the Bundeswehr nowadays has enough anti-tank munitions left over to give pretty much every squadron, whether combat or not, a pair of PzF3 launchers.

 

[My2Cents]

The reason for the drop is that the Bundeswehr nowadays has enough anti-tank munitions left over to give pretty much every squadron, whether combat or not, a pair of PzF3 launchers.

Launchers are great, but how many rounds of ammo are in their basic TOE per launcher? How many rounds per year for training?

If you shoot yourself dry in the opening minutes of a battle, your PzF3 just became an expensive and not terribly effective club.

 

[kato]

Launchers are great, but how many rounds of ammo are in their basic TOE per launcher?

Standard loadout nowadays seems to be one sight/launcher and 2-3 rockets for 6 men. Quite often the same in combat support troops too.

The PzF3 sight doesn't work particularly well as a club, considering it consists only of a SMG-sized rail with fold-down grips and a sight.

 

[My2Cents]

Standard loadout nowadays seems to be one sight/launcher and 2-3 rockets for 6 men. Quite often the same in combat support troops too.

The PzF3 sight doesn't work particularly well as a club, considering it consists only of a SMG-sized rail with fold-down grips and a sight.

And the budget for training and live fire exercizes is?

 

[Waylander]

Having 3 rounds of the very potent PzFst3 per 6 men is actually alot. Add to that the ATGM capabilities of infantry units as well as potential tank, helicopter and engineer support and the AT capability of the Bundeswehr looks good enough. At least good enough not to rely on improvised sticky bombs and grenade bundles.

 

[kato]

And the budget for training and live fire exercizes is?

Enough to have non-combat personnel trained in their use. Especially as there are simulators nowadays for training handling, targeting etc in a variety of scenarios with computer-controlled mistake tracking. Beyond simple life-fire shooting from a stand.

 

[AndyF]

Ok. Appreciate the input.

I concede to the concensus, but I still have a gut feeling it would work.

I'm checking out the veteran sniper blogs. I'm hoping to get a last chapter to this thread.

Though I still can't see why some crack shot kids who could take a target on a jump (Enemy at the Gate), couldn't sight a round into an open barrel. Still just too much of what we know of, at that time, technically feasible to entirely discount it's possibility.

If I get a confirmation, you guys owe me a stein of that good 'ole German black stuff. Just off the boat at Bremerhaven at 17years old I thought I could take on anything after I got the liver used to Molson, I was wrong. :cheers

Andy (Private, demotion noted.)

 

[Waylander]

"Enemy at the Gates" is a movie and not a documentary.

I think you concentrate to much on technical side of it and ignore the other implications of you idea. Even if a sniper manages this golden shot once out of lots of tries it's still not usefull in the real world.

In order to try it he gives away his firing position. So on the one hand you have the faint hope of damaging the rifling of the barrel, which wouldn't hurt the tank much, and the even smaller hope to explode a loaded round while on the other hand you have dozens of targets which have much more effect on the enemy.

The risk/gain ratio is more than just unbalanced.

And never try to compare good old German beer to new world brews...

May I ask what you are doing here in Germany?
Student exchange?

 

[AndyF]

"Enemy at the Gates" is a movie and not a documentary.

Yes but it was based on the real life of Vasily (forget his last name). I'm not claiming to know anything about sniping, but I did some pretty remarkable "plinking" at home on my own with good results and using a scope I got 4inch shot patterns at remarkable distances.

Anyway. No not exchange. Did a stint in the US 3rd,30th Inf stationed at Schweinfurt back in 63-66. Something we agree on, you guys can make some real kick-ass rock gut.

Keep the steins cool, and has Arnie says " I'll be back".