Would a real sniper favor the head as his target?

In heavy cover and city fighting often-times the head above the eyes is the only available showing target. The artistic license was showing more of the bodies than would be visable in known sniper infested areas.

There is an advantage to wounding rather than killing which is that it can take up to 4 soldiers to rescue one and this takes up available manpower from other duties, such as fighting and defending.

On the other hand if you remember the opening fountain scene headshots were very effective here because there was no scream and the shot couldn't be heard in the battle clatter. So he was able to kill many officers before anyone noticed by having a good prone position and using head shots.

It is true that for more difficult and moving targets the head is usually a very bad choice, so once again artistic license. On the other hand that doesn't mean it never happened with crack shots who were trying to instill fear in the enemy as much as kill.

You make a good point, but there is no right way in real life because the goals and environments are too varied, and there is no right way from the artistic license standpoint as well.

Great movie, on this I think we can agree.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I think it made for good entertainment but in reality I think snipers would shoot in areas of the body to allow the wounded to cry for help. This would bring more soldiers/officers to come to aid, resulting in more kills.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I'm no expert but I want to add my two cents on this...

Generally speaking a sniper would likely pick his target depending on the nature of their mission/objective/deployment/whatever. I would guess that back in WWII the target would be whatever is most practical for the situation, e.g. if you want a distraction you might just wound someone, whereas if you're wanting to get past a small patrol or something you might as well finish them off 'cos they'll continue to cause you problems.

Of course you have to remember that these days there are far more pieces of international legislation and treaties in place that so to speak, "prohibit" or at least condemn death even in wartime. Think about it: just about all Western military avoid shooting to kill as much as possible and half the time will shoot someone just to sew them back up again afterwards... to prevent civilised societies being up in arms about the military killing people on their own turf.

And as for the thing about the helmets, the protection they offered from the sniper rounds was probably negligible back then. I'm sure the construction of the helmet, the rifle & rounds used, range and a bunch of other factors would dictate if the round would penetrate the helmet or not. I'm also pretty sure that a sniper round would get through the paper thin helmets we were using in the 40's.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

There are "Snipers" and "Designated Marksman". Snipers deal with high value targets "HVTs" and designated marksman deal with immediate battlefield threats.

"May God have mercy on my enemies as I shall have none"
"George S Patton"

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I only saw this movie once at a friend's house so I don't have a copy to review but it seemed every time Vassili and Major Konig had a clean shot on an enemy soldier they always aimed for and hit the head. Even the "impossible" running target of Koulikov.

I'm assuming this is dramatic license because under the terribly unfavorable combat conditions and with a human target that was often moving I would assume a sniper would be satisfied, even lucky with a hit in the torso. Also, wouldn't the steel helmets offer some protection from a glancing rifle bullet making the head that much less desirable and not the target of first choice?

Shot placement varies considerably with the type of sniper being discussed. Military snipers, who generally do not engage targets at less than 300 m (330 yd), usually attempt body shots, aiming at the chest. These shots depend on tissue damage, organ trauma, and blood loss to make the kill.
Police snipers who generally engage at much shorter distances may attempt more precise shot at particular parts of body or particular devices: in one event in 2007 in Marseille, a GIPN sniper took a shot from 80 m (87 yd) at the pistol of a policeman threatening to commit suicide, destroying the weapon and preventing him from killing himself. Less lethal shots (at arms or legs) may also be taken at criminals to sap their will to fight or reduce their mobility.
In a high-risk or instant-death hostage situation, police snipers may take head shots to ensure an instant kill. The snipers aim for the "apricot", or the medulla oblongata, located inside the head, a part of the brain that controls involuntary movement that lies at the base of the skull.

The helmet would protect against any .30-06 bullet fired from further than 250 yards(assuming German helmets offer around the same protection as Soviet).

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/03/28/shooting-wwii-soviet-ste el-helmet-sks-mosin-nagant/
http://tinyurl.com/ltsqlzj

Two links in case IMDB breaks the long one.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

I think it makes sense to target the head not only because it means certain death IF the sniper thinks he cannot miss, but it also means that the target will not shout to others in the areas warning them about the sniper, if they might be around but not seeing the target with their eyes.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

A real sniper will "favor" whatever target he can get a bead on.

reply share

add reply

formatting help