Originally Posted by JamesJr
Originally Posted by Jim_Conrad
Originally Posted by JamesJr
Not to dismiss any of the work that Hathcock, or any of the more "modern day" snipers have done, but they pretty much pale in comparison to what the German and Russian snipers did in WW2, and the conditions under which they had to fight. Same way with the Finn, Simo Hayha, who just might have been the best of the lot.


How is that?


As Americans, we like to think that "our" side is always the best at whatever we're discussing. If you take it by the numbers, no one comes to close to the kills made by the WW2 Soviet snipers, and the Finn. Although war is Hell no matter where it's fought, WW2 was fought under much harsher conditions that most wars, and the equipment used was much inferior to modern day weapons.

I'm not taking anything away from any American sniper, they did very good work, and deserve a lot of credit. But, my vote goes to other soldiers who did even greater work.



Not sure I agree actually.

The Soviets were in a extremely target rich environment. Same as the Murderous Finn. He had the advantage of Russians being led ineptly, poorly equipped, hungry and cold.


Makes for good shooting.




I guess its maybe a quality vs quantity thing.


From what I have heard, these modern sand box fights were pretty [bleep] hairy too! It would sure be difficult to pick a "toughest" war.


I am MAGA.