7 ms·

> The simplest implementation of this trick was leaving shiny tin cans, or other enticing targets for snipers to zero their sights on at the front. Germans woul

> The simplest implementation of this trick was leaving shiny tin cans, or other enticing targets for snipers to zero their sights on at the front. Germans would leave cans on the parapet for snipers to shoot at. Due to the high contrast and easy visibility of these targets, they were attractive for naive snipers to use while adjusting their sights. A grave and often fatal error. Wait so... they just put out tin cans and the enemy snipers would shoot them because their sights needed to be tuned? That doesn't feel like it makes any sense. For one, you can't shoot the can unless your sights are tuned, so I guess they're taking multiple shots? Was it really so hard to invent a sight that could be tuned without firing to give away your position?

radiokicker 5y ago
Even modern day rifles need a handful of rounds to sight in. I assume due to the massive casualties suffered by both sides they were sending up troops to the trenches with little time to prepare.
- Mauricebranagh 5y ago
  Sniper rifles in ww1 where custom conversions of the standard infantry rifles or in the early war actual hunting rifles.
chrisseaton 5y ago
You can use a tool called a collimator to boresight a rifle in the field, but it's only so effective. And back then they didn't have technology like floating barrels.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Why didn't they shoot the other way to adjust their sights though? This feels like an obviously terrible idea?
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > Why didn't they shoot the other way to adjust their sights though? The other way? So at their own troops?
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      I mean... sure? Or to the side? Was it really so hard to find a large region in which there were obviously no allied soldiers? Like... people weren't wandering around outside the trenches right?
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        You would definitely never shoot back along your own axis, or into your flanking formations. You just can't have enough situational awareness on who may be there. This is such an absolute that even when prosecuting an active firefight you would ask for permission to fire cross-boundary.
        spywaregorilla 5y ago
        Maybe my imagination isn't up to snuff here, but I'm imagining not an active firefight, but a sleepy waiting game in the trenches. Why can't you have the situational awareness that nobody is there just by looking with your eyes? Are you saying that risk of shooting objects on your enemy's side and giving away your position is lower than the risk of accidentally shooting someone on your side when firing at a rock in an open field? It just... doesn't make any intuitive sense to me.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > Why can't you have the situational awareness that nobody is there just by looking with your eyes? The entire setup of an army, all its communication mechanisms, and systems of control and safety measures, are focused on telling you about what is happening forward along the axis. Trying to figure out if it's safe to fire backwards is going to be massively error-prone as nobody is set up to tell you this and asking it is going to cause massive confusion. Also, you can hit things that you can't see, with ricochet and fall of shot.
grugq 5y ago
There is a lot involved, but the basic idea is that your rifle and sight need to be calibrated to match from where you’re shooting to where you’re shooting. The journey to the sniper hides was long, arduous, grueling, and not exactly guaranteed to be hassle free. You might be stumbling over miles of dirt with stray wires, holes, dead bodies, broken equipment, rubble, and so on, at night, in pitch black. Then wandering through narrow trenches packed with people going both ways, again with dead bodies, stray wires, holes, and broken kit. There is a non zero chance that the scope you sighted in yesterday could get tapped or knocked, and it will be out of alignment by the time your arrive at your hide. The use of debris was a simple way to sight in. You tell your spotter that you’re gonna shoot that tin can just by the sandbag over there. They tell you where you’re hitting so you can adjust your sights. Naive snipers would fall for this trick, but later on experience taught to use puddles instead.

radiokicker 5y ago

Even modern day rifles need a handful of rounds to sight in. I assume due to the massive casualties suffered by both sides they were sending up troops to the trenches with little time to prepare.

Mauricebranagh 5y ago
Sniper rifles in ww1 where custom conversions of the standard infantry rifles or in the early war actual hunting rifles.

chrisseaton 5y ago

You can use a tool called a collimator to boresight a rifle in the field, but it's only so effective. And back then they didn't have technology like floating barrels.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
Why didn't they shoot the other way to adjust their sights though? This feels like an obviously terrible idea?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > Why didn't they shoot the other way to adjust their sights though? The other way? So at their own troops?
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    I mean... sure? Or to the side? Was it really so hard to find a large region in which there were obviously no allied soldiers? Like... people weren't wandering around outside the trenches right?
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      You would definitely never shoot back along your own axis, or into your flanking formations. You just can't have enough situational awareness on who may be there. This is such an absolute that even when prosecuting an active firefight you would ask for permission to fire cross-boundary.
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        Maybe my imagination isn't up to snuff here, but I'm imagining not an active firefight, but a sleepy waiting game in the trenches. Why can't you have the situational awareness that nobody is there just by looking with your eyes? Are you saying that risk of shooting objects on your enemy's side and giving away your position is lower than the risk of accidentally shooting someone on your side when firing at a rock in an open field? It just... doesn't make any intuitive sense to me.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > Why can't you have the situational awareness that nobody is there just by looking with your eyes? The entire setup of an army, all its communication mechanisms, and systems of control and safety measures, are focused on telling you about what is happening forward along the axis. Trying to figure out if it's safe to fire backwards is going to be massively error-prone as nobody is set up to tell you this and asking it is going to cause massive confusion. Also, you can hit things that you can't see, with ricochet and fall of shot.

grugq 5y ago

There is a lot involved, but the basic idea is that your rifle and sight need to be calibrated to match from where you’re shooting to where you’re shooting. The journey to the sniper hides was long, arduous, grueling, and not exactly guaranteed to be hassle free. You might be stumbling over miles of dirt with stray wires, holes, dead bodies, broken equipment, rubble, and so on, at night, in pitch black. Then wandering through narrow trenches packed with people going both ways, again with dead bodies, stray wires, holes, and broken kit. There is a non zero chance that the scope you sighted in yesterday could get tapped or knocked, and it will be out of alignment by the time your arrive at your hide. The use of debris was a simple way to sight in. You tell your spotter that you’re gonna shoot that tin can just by the sandbag over there. They tell you where you’re hitting so you can adjust your sights. Naive snipers would fall for this trick, but later on experience taught to use puddles instead.