Slinging.org Forum | |
https://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl
General >> Other Topics >> civil unrest https://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1126748071 Message started by sv on Sep 14th, 2005 at 9:34pm |
Title: civil unrest Post by sv on Sep 14th, 2005 at 9:34pm
in northern ireland recently there has been severe rioting, by so-called loyalists. one man has a crossbow shot from his hands by an army sniper (he was shot through the arm in fact) the question is, if slings were used instead of the traditional stones and petrol bombs, would the casualty list be greater? if so, isn't there a case for keeping the sling out of public awareness?
sv |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 14th, 2005 at 9:35pm
errr idont know.....but thats one hell of a shot!
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by sv on Sep 14th, 2005 at 9:40pm
it was at 150 yards no less - but i could hit a cigarette packet at 300 yards when i was in the territorial army - with open sights too!
sv |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 14th, 2005 at 10:15pm
in a crowd of people?
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Sep 15th, 2005 at 12:15am
The record for longest sniper shot in combat right now is held by a Canadian sniper would killed a taliban insurgent in Afghanistan at a distance of over 2400 yards with a .50 caliber sniper rifle. The previous record was held by Carlos Hathcock in the Vietnam war who killed a member of the NVA at around 2250 yards using a modified M-2 machine gun designed by John Browning.
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Sep 15th, 2005 at 12:22am
Also, snipers almost always have spotters. The sniper himself is uaually armed with a slow-firing rifle such as a Winchester model 700 or Remington model 70 in the 30-06 caliber or larger. The spotter would tell the sniper where to take a follow-up shot if he was unlucky enough to miss the target and would be armed with a rifle that functioned as both a sniper rifle but could function in close quarters (such as the M-14). A lone sniper is almost an expendable soldier, as they were sure to die if the enemy flanked their position.
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 15th, 2005 at 4:48pm wrote on Sep 15th, 2005 at 12:15am:
where did you hear that i dont think thats right its in the geneva convention that you can not hit people with a .50 cal sniper rifle |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Sep 15th, 2005 at 6:19pm
Funslinger, go to your local library or bookstore and get your hands on the book Whitefeather or any other information on snipers. A sniper would not necessarily need a spotter on an assasination mission, but for jungle or open desert combat they were needed. I've even heard of three-man sniper teams in Iraq. And ben_banned, why in the world would .50 cal rifles be banned by the Geneva Convention? They kill a person just as fast as a 30-06 and possibly even more humanely than an M-16's .223. Go to Answers.com and type in Sniper or Carlos Hathcock. Not only is the .50 cal the standard anti-vehicle and anti-personnel cartridge used by the world's armies today, some armies in Europe use an even bigger cartridge. Also, the .50 cal is the only cartridge whose bullet would have enough knockdown force to take out a person reliably after traveling 2000+ yards.
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 15th, 2005 at 7:11pm
yea its only used for knocking out vehichiles and such at least during desert storm it was against the geneva convention i dont know why they would change it
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by sv on Sep 15th, 2005 at 7:18pm
with regards to rifle range, "Pre-1916 Lee-Enfields were also equipped with interesting device, called the "volley" sights. This device was mounted at the left side of the stock, ahead of the magazine, and was used to provide an indirect fire capability at the ranges from 2 000 and up to outstanding 3 900 yards (1800 - 3550 meters).
i think that the lee enfields i shot with in the army cadets were sighted up to 2000 yards. 1000 yards for a reasonably proficient shooter is not a difficult shot, at a man-sized target. terrorists in ireland have sniped at soldiers with a barret light 50 "anti-tank" rifle, which is .50 cal. the bullet is the same calibre as some fighter aircraft guns, including the sabre jet fighter. i have never been in any military action and am now too old for service, but i would not have been a sniper, despite the fact that i was an above-average shot. i lack the necessary patience and would not enjoy that kind of soldiering, it seems a bit too cold-blooded . the best ever book on sniping is "sniping in france" by hestketh pritchard, an officer who single-handedly developed british sniping tactics in world war 1. sv |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 15th, 2005 at 7:33pm
I did some research and i got two answers "its forbidden" and, "thats a myth" Ill as my DI tomorrow
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Sep 15th, 2005 at 7:39pm
The point is why would it be against any law? You have an enraged group of Muslim holy war fighters that are hell-bent to kill you with their AK-47's and RPG's. So why would it be against the Geneva Convention to shoot them? You're not really damaging the environment or anything of that sort, you're just using a really powerful cartridge to reach out and tap them. I can't believe I'm even arguing about this. Look it up online.
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 15th, 2005 at 7:55pm
how many innocent families walls do you think a .50 cal bullet would go through?
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 15th, 2005 at 8:38pm
yeah ive seen that i just wonder if its real it almost seems as if it was manipulated
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 15th, 2005 at 9:02pm
what do you mean contents? lol
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Sep 15th, 2005 at 9:02pm
Wow, I am shocked. We can't shoot a military insurgent with a .50 cal rifle but it is perfectly fine to turn them into hamburger with a 20mm chaingun on a helicopter or an M-2 machine-gun ::). Besides, who really follows the geneva convention? ;)
P.S. How many houses are there in the mountains of Afganistan? |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Sep 15th, 2005 at 9:33pm |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Dale on Sep 16th, 2005 at 4:12pm
I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever been a soldier. So I have never studied the Geneva Conventions. However, I just tried to quickly look at them on the Web. There are four Conventions, last amended in 1949. Then there are two additional Protocols added in 1977. Then ... they had to cut down a FOREST to make the paper to print all the additional conventions and protocols and specific prohibitions and exceptions. Like, you can't use a laser specifically to blind someone (if he gets blinded while he's being burned in half, tough luck). You can't use bullets that expand or flatten on entry, they cause unnecessary injury and suffering. Likewise any explosive or incendiary munition weighing less than about a pound (400 grams, to be precise).
But I did not see anything specifically prohibiting (or even mentioning) any particular calibre of bullet. Nor did I find anything prohibiting use of any projectile (except the aforementioned dum-dums) against people (soldiers). I did find an article by a former Air Force member, who says he studied the Conventions, instructed others concerning them, and acted in accord with them as part of his duties as a fire control officer in Iraq. He states that the idea that the Conventions prohibit use of .50-calibre weapons against people, is a long-standing and widely-spread rumor, and that the Conventions contain no such prohibition. His article also dispels several other misconceptions about military terms such as "free-fire area" and explains what they actually mean. So. That's two sources: my own (admittedly cursory) research, and someone who does know the Conventions in detail. Standard disclaimer about double-checking anything you find on the Web, applies here of course. That's why I looked up the Conventions myself. BTW, I also ran into an anecdote about Marine Corps training, where the soldiers are told that the Geneva Conventions prohibit using a .50 on people, .50's are for equipment, and for those who are wondering, helmets and uniforms are equipment. This story also appears aprocryphal. |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by TechStuf on Sep 16th, 2005 at 4:35pm
War is hell.
Which, by obvious implication, includes the use of whatever is available either to defend or offend, regardless of what is written. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2004/01/284087.mpg Peace, TS |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Matt_C on Sep 16th, 2005 at 5:32pm
Any attempt to put restraints on war will fail. It is probably a either a misunderstanding about control, or an attempt to construe some kind of authority that lead to the Geneva conventions. Trying to enunciate clearly the fairest way of committing to total chaos and disorder just doesn't make sense in my book.
Everyone knows an atrocity when they see one, no matter from where it was, and leaders that have committed such acts have always been villianized or dealt with by direct influence or history. What is written won't stop a man from doing awful things when he is put in a situation where he has control over the enemy, or the means to get that control (IE, a .50 BMG sniper round). Anyway, back onto the technicalities of it. I don't see what is so inhumane. I once read that if you get hit anywhere in the upper body by one of those rounds, your heart is likely to stop due to the shockwave. |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 16th, 2005 at 6:00pm
like i said before. How many innocent peoples walls do you think a shot would fly through before it stopped?
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 16th, 2005 at 6:13pm |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Sep 16th, 2005 at 9:30pm
There aren't many houses in the mountains of Afghanistan and an American sniper with a .50 cal won't do nearly as much damage as a heavy machine gun would. Plus, snipers are not used in the urban regions of Iraq.
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 16th, 2005 at 10:48pm
actually they definately are
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Sep 16th, 2005 at 11:20pm
You're full of it (just kidding). ;)
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 17th, 2005 at 11:01am
no really they areill see if i can find the article theyve been on top of roof tops
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050828/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestmedialead http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/042503_us_deploys.htm |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Sep 17th, 2005 at 3:20pm
Ben_banned, I can see our problem of communication. The media and everyone today loves to call anybody that aims a weapon at another person a sniper. This is not the case. A true sniper is someone who is out in the wild and killing targets at 500+ yards. These urban soldiers are actually "precision marksmen". The police forces use them as does the military. Their longest shot may be only 150 yards and sometimes they don't even need scopes. Also in cities like Fallujah, when any person might be a terrorist, I think that the military would be less worried about a large bullet traveling through an old building than letting a suicide bomber kill 20 or so people.
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 17th, 2005 at 4:30pm |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Sep 17th, 2005 at 10:31pm
Like I said, my definition of a sniper is not the loose term that people apply it to today. Any nut can shoot a person in the city with a handgun from a concealed place, but would you call them a sniper?
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Sep 17th, 2005 at 10:35pm
Sniper versus Sharpshooter or Marksman
Some doctrines distinguish a "sniper" from a "sharpshooter" or "designated marksman". While snipers are intensively trained to master field craft and camouflage, these skills are not required for sharpshooters. Snipers often perform valuable reconnaissance and have a psychological impact on the enemy. A sharpshooter's role is mainly to extend the reach of the squad to which he is attached. These differences in role and training affect doctrines and equipment. Snipers rely almost exclusively on stealthy bolt-action rifles while a sharpshooter can effectively utilize a faster-firing, but more conspicuous semi-automatic rifle. In some military doctrines, a two-man sniper team consists of a designated marksman who uses a bolt-action rifle, and a sniper support (usually the spotter) who uses a semiautomatic sniper rifle, or at times an assault rifle or carbine. A sniper's intensive training, forward placement and surveillance duties make the role more strategic than a squad-level sharpshooter. Thus, sharpshooters are often attached at the squad level while snipers are often attached at higher levels such as battalion. -I pulled this off of Answers.com |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Gun on Sep 17th, 2005 at 10:47pm
You not a sniper unless you have done everything that Smudge said and have a rifle that is worth more than most peoples cars.
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Douglas_The_Black on Sep 18th, 2005 at 9:36am
and even then you may not make it... :)
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Dale on Sep 18th, 2005 at 12:54pm
A little late into the game, but here is something to consider.
Most occupations have their own technical jargons. It is apparent from the preceding discussion that the word "sniper" has two meanings: one that is common usage, and one that is part of military technical jargon. Appealing to Answers.com, or even the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of the English Language, does not give the "civilian" definition any more authority than the "military" definition. Two people arguing over whether someone else is, or is not, a sniper, cannot possibly come to an agreement or even decide who "won" the argument, when one is using one definition and the other is using the other definition. The only possible winners of such an argument are those who choose not to participate. |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Sep 18th, 2005 at 2:04pm
^^^
wiseness |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by curious_aardvark on Oct 1st, 2005 at 2:40pm
what in the nine hells has a discussion about snipers got to do with civil unrest in northern ireland ?
And yes it's a bloody good job they don't use slings as cobble stones are a favourite hand thrown ammunition. Add a sling and you've got cobble stones coming in from several streets away. nasty. Wonder how far you could sling a northen ireland molotov ? Also scary thought. When I was growing up people I knew were frequently sent on tours of NI - and you never knew if they were coming back or not - bad days. So lets keep slings out of NI :-) Mind you living in germany the baader meinhof were also pretty active when I was a kid, wonder why all of a sudden terrorists have to be islamic ? |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Oct 4th, 2005 at 8:20am
Because it seems to me that the Islamic terrorists are a new breed of terrorist, just as there are different types of the same disease, there are different types of terrorists. The Islamic militants are the people who are literaly willing, or possibly overjoyed, to strap a bomb on their chest for "god" and kill or maim the people they claim to be fighting for. Remember the casualties are made up of little kids and women too.
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by curious_aardvark on Oct 6th, 2005 at 12:02pm
The baader meinhof were a bunch of nutters who were around in germany in the 70's. I mainly remember the posters in the post office and shops with (obviously in german) most wanted on them. They were unusual in that one of them - meinhof - was a woman - I'm sure any search on dogpile will bring up a lot more than I can remember.
Possibly communist, but also probably just unpleasant individuals with a grudge against everything. http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists/baader/ this seems to tell you more than you'll ever want to know. I do remember going shopping one day and there was a policeman sat on the bonnet of his car in the pedestrianised area of the town with a sub machine gun cradled across his lap - trust me you didn't see this often in heinsberg :-). Apparently one of the gang were being chased in the area and he was waiting for them to come down that street. The german police don't mess about. I suppose with the general demise of marxism, which seemed to fuel the majority of terrorism in the 70's and 80's islam has taken a front seat. But if you look at actual numbers of incidents, islamic terrorism is still fairly low. Apart from the world trade centre in the us, the greatest act of terrorism to date was by Timothy McVeigh. A home grown old fashioned anti-government terrorist. Then of course you've got the una bomber - did fairly well for quite a long time. Then more recently there was the washington sniper. Now simply because these people aren't part of some global religious crusade, does not make them any the less terrorists. Admittedly al-quiada have committed the single largest attack. But it's the only one to date. America's own home grown terrorists have over the years inflicted more terror in quite a large number of incidents. I suppose I'm saying don't get too great a case of tunnel vision. And look on the bright side, suicide bombers - by definition - only ever commit one bombing. Whereas most other terrorists manage to commit several, at least, before they are caught/shot. |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Oct 6th, 2005 at 6:35pm wrote on Oct 6th, 2005 at 12:02pm:
Yeah but they're still making 90% of the deaths of Baghdad civilians. |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Gun on Oct 6th, 2005 at 8:23pm Quote:
It seams to be working. Everyone wants out of Iraq now. |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Oct 6th, 2005 at 8:44pm
because their wimps
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Gun on Oct 7th, 2005 at 8:34pm
I really didn't mean the people there, event though they may want out now to since the government can extended a person tour over there listed time. I mean the people here in usa. It seams everyday more and more people want to just get out of there right a way. If we left know we would be doing the iraqies worse.
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Oct 7th, 2005 at 8:43pm
like i said, wimps
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Oct 7th, 2005 at 11:09pm
I won't shed any tears if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, its not as if the terrorists have any plan of what to do once they overun a government. Also, did anyone hear Bush's speech on what he thinks would happen if we pulled out of Iraq? He basically believes that a domino effect will occur, staring in Iraq, and spreading to the rest of the middle-east. He then says that a radical Islamic state spreading from Spain to Indonesia will form. Didn't we find out with Vietnam and communism that the domino effect can not happen? We thought that communism would spread throughout the countries of southeast Asia like wildfire, and it did not. History disagrees with Mr. Bush's reasoning.
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Oct 7th, 2005 at 11:26pm
who was allies with the veitkong?
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Oct 8th, 2005 at 12:04am
The NVA.
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by curious_aardvark on Oct 8th, 2005 at 10:46am
Hmm, prone to calling people wimps myself I tend to draw the line at calling someone a wimp simply because they wish to live and not get shot by ill-prepared american servicemen, bombed by american planes, shot by their own police or blown up by extremists.
My term for people like that is generally sensible :-) |
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by ben_banned on Oct 8th, 2005 at 3:48pm
actually buddy we where talkin about people in the u.s. maybe you should actually read before you write something
|
Title: Re: civil unrest Post by Smudge on Oct 8th, 2005 at 5:01pm
Yeah, I can understand the Iraqi people wanting to leave, but the Americans walked into it and now they want to leave!
|
Slinging.org Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |