It's worth mentioning that in addition to the skill of the sniper, successful sniping depends on correct employment and a target rich environment.  That means the numbers are not the sole indicator of how good a sniper is.  Having said that, here are some stats from Vietnam:

 

Chuck Mawhinney is credited with 103 confirmed and 216 probables.  Eric England is credited with 98 confirmed.  Carlos Hathcock is credited with 93 confirmed and somewhere around 200 probables, maybe more; Hathcock once said that he thought he had "around 300" kills.  All these men were USMC scout/snipers.

 

Adelbert F. Waldron III is credited with 109 confirmed kills.  Waldron was a US Army sniper with the 9th Infantry Division.

 

I posted a little that I was able to find about Waldon on the Vietnam military history page here.  Another poster, who served as a 9th ID sniper, responded that Waldron's record was inflated by the 9th IDs commander to make his sniper program look more successful.  At this point, I don't know how you could confirm that one way or another.

DropBear,

 

When your mission is to kill people, I consider killing lots of people an achievment.  I am neither offended, shocked, or repulsed by it in the least. 

 

I know you were not implying that there was anything immoral about it.  I'm just saying this because there's still people out there who elevate pilots and submarine commanders to hero status, yet make villains out of snipers.  I just wanted to get that in incase any of them stumble across this thread.

I wouldn't say simply killing lots of people is much of an achievement for a sniper.  Snipers are useful, excluding their role as a recce element, in causing failures in the enemies leadership through assasinating officers, redicing the enemies combat effectiveness in assasinating specialists, and through generally reducing enemy moral.  They are a precision weapon, just as is a "sniper" designator pod on a strike aircraft.

 

I wouldn't say I view snipers as vilains, however they are not useful assets for vanquishing the enemy or taking and holding ground (the role of the infantry).  The actual attrition they cause in war is not enough to make a worthwhile difference.  Similar sentiments are voiced in Jareys "18 Platoon".

"I wouldn't say simply killing lots of people is much of an achievement for a sniper." 

 

I would - if that was the mission you were given; if that was what was expected of you; if that was how mission accompolishment was judged and evaluated in your particular war.  For the most part, Vietnam was a bodycount war.  It doesn't have to be wise or even make sense to be true - that's beside the point.  It was whether it should have been or not.

 

 

Yes, I understand that, yet that's not always (sometimes, but not always) relevant to the Vietnam sniper experience that I was talking about.  When I posted, I was not posting about snipers and sniping; I was posting about snipers and sniping in Vietnam.  I probably didn't make that clear. 

 

 

Key word is asset.  Like mortars, engineers and other assets that help a rifle company vanquish the enemy and take and hold ground.

 

 

Agree for the most part: they don't cause enough attrition to make a worthwhile difference in a war; however, there have been cases when they have caused enough attrition to make a worthwhile difference in a battle.  At least in small battles.  Chuck Mawhinney made 16 headshots in one night on an NVA unit that was trying to cross the Phu Bon Song river to get into position to attack the rifle company he was attached to.  The attack never came because of 16 shots made by one USMC scout/sniper.  Sixteen is "lots of people" for one night.  The young Marines in that rifle company that didn't get hit would probably say that "simply killing" those 16 NVA was an achievment.   

I agree that the Vietnam war is a case in itself where sniping had merrits directly relating to the body count war. 

In general however I think any importance given to enemy body counts is foolish at best, and is only of any importance when dealing with the combat effectiveness of enemy formations.  Body counts only matter to the enemy, as our public support will founder if we take too many casualties, whatever the soldiers duties, while the enemy (in Afghanistan and Iraq) can lose fighters while suffering no real loss.

 

I don't believe snipers offer the same degree of support to the infantry, as a supporting asset, as compared to mortars or machineguns et al.  Especially now when a high degree of marksmanship can be expected from the infantry.

Been looking at Galliploi Sniper by John Hamilton, and it mentions that Qld Light Horseman, Billy Sing had over 200 kills to his name.

Curious as to what numbers other famous snipers have accumulated over the years?

Anyone know of any decent links to track any down?

Curious.

When you count the fact that high-value targets are eliminated, units disorganized, and morale chiped away at, a good sniper causes more attrition then a typical line infantryman.

Not only was WWI more target rich it also less risky to be a sniper. WWI sniping was basically getting a vantage point of the enemy line and your only worry was other marksmen spotting you. You did not have to worry about being overrun.

 

People like Hathcock inserted into enemy territory and stalking their targets for days got a kill and slipped away. 

 

The guy was a natural.