Sniper Engagement Rules- 50 calbre BMG

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...

Thinking it holds up or not, is not the point. There are many things that just are the way they are.
I've heard the same regarding the Barrett being an anti material material armament. Historically many of the larger rifle rounds were right? tank busters? one well placed shot to the battery and up she goes.
 
knockturnal said:
Just go read some of the recently leaked wikileaks documents. You'll soon understand about roe
Click to expand...

I am sure wikileaks has some sort of "correct" info but I wouldn't bother reading it.

A good buddy of mine who was seriously injured overseas read on wikileaks about how his Sgt got killed and it was friendly fire.

He was there and beside him when it happened and it was not FF at all. Some can say well maybe he is covering it up blah blah blah.

All I can say is soldiers know when soldiers are lying about this stuff and when some one who's brain is a little rattled with what they have seen (aka PTSD) you can see it in their eyes. You can literally watch the life and colour in their eyes get taken away when they relapse about it.

But like I said im sure they might have some truth in their "leaks" but I take it with a grain of salt.
 
a buddy of mine who came back home for christmas told me some crazy stories from "The Ghan". He did his 6 months and is going back for a year in April. He was saying that when they go out on patrol, people will follow them around. He said that they arrest them and take them back for an overnight stay. The americans on the other hand, will shoot the guy in the leg and leave him there to be recovered by the CF to deal with. Who ever said that its not a war obviously doesnt know anyone over there. My friend was driving a tank when they hit an IED. His best friend beside him died, he got a broken back, shrapnel in his face which messed up his left eye and left him almost deaf in one ear. Its a war alright. and a ####ty one at that.
 
The o.p maybe has never seen the movie with charlie sheen? What was it? God was the snipers name? There is your answer right there. Much respect to all vets and those still serving.
 
mysticplayer said:
NOPE. Just look at the top of the receiver and the angle of the tripod. The rear legs is almost flat relative to the receiver top and the front leg is past 45deg.

Now if the picture was taken really off level, then that is another matter. But it is hard for the tripod to be that angled if it was sitting on level ground or aiming up.

Just measure the distance from the muzzle to the bottom of the pic vs the receiver to the bottom of the pic.

Looks like someone is sniping across a very large valley.

Jerry
Click to expand...

Well yeah.Sorry I thought it was obvious that they were shooting downhill.I am just comparing the midline of the scope with the top of the back of the receiver and the closeness of the scope bell to the receiver.To me it looks like he's got a whack of elevation cranked on there even if it is pointing down hill.Might just be my eyes though.
 
HeavyT said:
Thinking it holds up or not, is not the point. There are many things that just are the way they are.
I've heard the same regarding the Barrett being an anti material material armament. Historically many of the larger rifle rounds were right? tank busters? one well placed shot to the battery and up she goes.
Click to expand...

Consider the story of the American Tanker who Served in Operation 73 Easting as retold on TV's "Greatest Tank Battles." A bad guy with an RPG on his shoulder stands up in front of an Abrams and the gunner fires the 120mm main gun. A 5" projectile to the center of the chest seemed to work. In a fight, you aren't too concerned if the weapon at your disposal is intended to do what you are about to do with it. If you use that weapon effectively, whose going to be around to lodge a complaint?

WP is still used to mark targets, if a bad guy is in the target area, he'll get "marked." Thermobaric weapons and Fuel Air Explosives produce the most over pressure of any conventional explosive, and have made napalm obsolete; very handy for clearing caves, knocking down building, to say nothing of the effectiveness against unprotected troops. Ultimately every weapon in the modern arsenal will directly or indirectly target people. The idea that some weapons are too horrible to use on the battlefield is foolish, doing horrible things is how you break the other guy's will to fight. If we aren't prepared to accept that, we should just hire others to do our fighting.
 
jake10500 said:
When it comes to other soldiers lives and terrorists you use what ever you have at hand even if it is a .50
Click to expand...

But....some stuff has restrictions by agreement and regulation for use on enemy personnel. Tis the nature of the beast. Troops that have been overseas know what is good to go and what is not. It is not a big deal except for those on the internet!

Rather than speculating or going by what your brother's friend's uncle's roommate says...how about educate yourself:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/Training-formation/LOAC-DDCA_2004-eng.pdf
 
Snake Eyez said:
It is a Geneva Convention thing. You also can't shoot at para troopers while they are descending from the sky.

Best thing about the US boys we fight side by side with is they supported the Geneva Convention but never signed it. ( or at least thats what I was told when asked why we can't play with their rules)
Click to expand...

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750051?OpenDocument

Article 42. Airborne troops are specifically not covered.
 
Longshot said:
The gunner that fired that tank shot told me he was shooting at a fellow behind a mud wall/drying hut which is common over there.He said the wall and the guy were there one second and when he looked again there was a big hole and no dude.
Click to expand...
I know exactly what you're talking about. Apparently he actually did it twice back to back, two rounds at two separate lone targets. Same result each time.
 
personally id rather be hit with a 50 and killed right away by it than to be wounded by something smaller and to take days or hours to die. atleast the 50 is guaranteed to put a frying pan sized hole in you. :D
 
uchi said:
personally id rather be hit with a 50 and killed right away by it than to be wounded by something smaller and to take days or hours to die. atleast the 50 is guaranteed to put a frying pan sized hole in you. :D
Click to expand...

Really? Not a chance of a clean through and through? 100% yaw and fragment?
 
just personal preference. if im gonna get hit by something and im guaranteed to die, id rather it be a large caliber that ensures instant death than pain and suffering :)
 
i have a niece who believes every thing she is told, and 8 years ago she was told by an army reserest m/cpl in and armoured unit that the 50 cal machine gun is illegal under the gevenia convention. i told her bull ####, and she said qwell you have been out of the reserves a long time things change. etc, stupid woman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom