Sniper Engagement Rules- 50 calbre BMG

hiredgun

hiredgun

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Location
GTA/Toronto
A book by a US sniper during the first Gulf War stated that snipers were told they could not engage individual human targets with their 50 BMG sniper rifles. Apparently such weapons (perhaps then?) were only to be used against "material" - trucks. APC's etc. Yet there are lots of published reports of 50 BMG sniper rifle use against individuals. Can anyone shed any light on this matter? Perhaps there is something in the Geneva Conventions or ??? Thanks for any advice.
 
Sounds like a fairy tale to me. Something you'd hear from and pacifist-liberal-extremist's mouth.

msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=48;t=000195;p=0

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090105120548AADQZGw
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071006074852AAQLlMW

professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1573

208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=30878

Enjoy!
 
well, if the target was standing in the company of material, the use is JUSTIFIED- it doesn't say WHAT kind of material- that COULD be anything from personal webbing to a vehicle of some sort- where do you think they got the fact that they could engage a 6 foot iraqi target at 2000 yard range and make the shot?- SOMEBODY TRIED IT- it's just UNECONOMICAL to use a .50 on one guy unless he's of 'special intrest"
 
Early .50BMG rifles were used for EOD and anti-material work and weren't really accurate enough for true sniping. That of course has changed.

Other origins of this myth could come from a 'save the 50 ammo for enemy vehicles or hard targets' mentality which over time evolves into a 'Geneva Convention' thing.

Also another possibility is specialty .50bmg ammo like AP or incinderary being passed out (again, usually for taking out UXO, or assets like vehicles or static aircraft or SCUDs, etc) and the practical application gets misconstrued as some humanitarian restraint to be cleverly circumvented with belt buckle jokes.
 
Consider the logic; you can drop napalm or phosphorus on someone but not shoot him with a .50. Do you really think that holds up?

"Its a horrendous weapon, but then all weapons are horrendous!"
Sydney Alford
Alford Technologies.
 
When i was in the military, I was told it was a violation of the Geneva convention to use shotguns and 50 calibers on humans. I took it at face value.

I have since read the Hague and Geneva Conventions from cover to cover and never found anything that says that. Declaration III of the 1907 Hague convention prohibits expanding bullets... that's all I could find
 
Current Rules of Engagement are not a thing to be discussed on an open forum. So you will not get the answer you are looking for, as anyone that does know will not talk about it. Especially since we are currently at war.

Shawn
 
The biggest reason not to use the 50 cal. M-82 to engage enemy personel was that the early m-82's that were issued to the Gulf, was "Accuracy"!!!
These early rifles shot between 2 to 3 MOA depending on the ammo (No match ammo available! When it was it was very scarce! Mostly issued to the Seal's, Marine's never got it! delinked only! This was the same for the M-40's, delinked ammo!). So to engage targets beyond 1000 yards they had to Minute of Tank size.

To compare Rob Furlongs shot's in the Afgan. to Carlos Hathcock shot's in Vietnam!

Well let's look at them!

Carlos, shooting a M-2 from a "fixed" tripod, an area weapon, aimed at a specific point within the area, pre-shot to confirm zero, all he had to do was wait until the target reached a certin point within the cross hair, compensate for the wind and engage.
Rob on the other hand used a very job specific hand built Precision Rifle with Match grade ammo, with no chance to "practice shoot" the target. He had to engage his targets with the aid of his spotter's.

Both shooters produced amazing accomplishments with his given rifle, but given an early M-82 at the distance's they engaged their target's, chances are they probably would not have set these records.

Bottomline to your question, "Accuracy" was the reason!! Nothing more than that!


Hope this helps! Not trying to start any slinging!

Cheers
 
hiredgun said:
A book by a US sniper during the first Gulf War stated that snipers were told they could not engage individual human targets with their 50 BMG sniper rifles. Apparently such weapons (perhaps then?) were only to be used against "material" - trucks. APC's etc. Yet there are lots of published reports of 50 BMG sniper rifle use against individuals. Can anyone shed any light on this matter? Perhaps there is something in the Geneva Conventions or ??? Thanks for any advice.
Click to expand...

"I was aiming for his canteen with my anti-material weapon."
 
Boomer said:
Consider the logic; you can drop napalm or phosphorus on someone but not shoot him with a .50. Do you really think that holds up?

"Its a horrendous weapon, but then all weapons are horrendous!"
Sydney Alford
Alford Technologies.
Click to expand...

Actually you can't use napalm and phosphorus on someone by convention and international agreement. You point is valid however as you can drop a JDAM on two Taliban manning a machine gun. The equivalent of smashing a mosquito with a sledge hammer...

Don't ask about current ROE, it can not be discussed in the open for a whole bunch of really good reasons.
 
Murphy's laws of Armoured operations: "Gunner, 300m, Sniper, Sabot" "Firing NOW!" is not an effective use of ammunition. :p, There are many myths surrounding the big 50, maybe that's why you see it on Mythbusters ever 4 episodes or so?
 
50

ROE's are fluid, political and evrchanging as well as quite unlikely to be dissemanated freely.

I engaged the hard target wit the 50 and successfully destroyed it. Unfortunatley the insurgent was carrying the hard target in a backpack which resulted in some collateral damage. End report.
 
deagle2008 said:
uhhh weird question cus US army has 50cal MG mounted on their humvee and they do shoot at individuals
Click to expand...
And they are called "snipers?".

I would imagine the 50BMG snipers were assigned primarily to anti-materiel duties because that was their role.
JadgPanthers weren't suppose to engage infantry for the same reason. Obviously they did when things got hairy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom