THERE is something about the methods of the sniper which provokes a particularly hostile reaction, even from those fortunate enough never to have had to live with the fear of being lined up in one's sights.

It seems somehow illogical that it should be so, when modern war encompasses such extremes of mass human suffering, such as those inflicted by artillery bombardment or indiscriminate bombing campaigns.

Yet author Andy Dougan relates how the British were slow to take to sniping on the Western Front in the First World War, because it wasn't considered fair play.

The result was that the Germans inflicted draining losses in "ones and twos" on their British enemies when they popped their heads too far above the trenches, until the Brits abandoned fair play and trained their own specialist snipers to prey on the Germans.

He also points out that snipers were regularly executed by all sides during the Second World War, because they were so loathed by their fellow soldiers. In this far-flung conflict the most successful snipers appear to have been Finns, who accounted for large numbers of Soviet troops, perhaps helping to inspire the cult of the sniper which grew up in the Red Army.

Tank commanders in post-D Day Normandy risked being shot through the head if they looked out of their turrets, while Japanese snipers had their own kamikaze style, tying themselves to jungle trees so they could shoot down at their enemies - yet rendering themselves easy targets to their victim's vengeful comrades.

Perhaps the element soldiers find so repulsive about the sniper is that the killing is quite personal - the sniper selects and observes a victim before firing - and yet done at a distance.

They continue to do their deadly work in our modern world, from Northern Ireland to Iraq, and let's not forget arguably the most famous of the lot, the US military trained Lee Harvey Oswald, whose success, or otherwise, with his rifle continues to spark debate and controversy.

Updated: 09:01 Wednesday, April 14, 2004