Counter sniper ops, Iraqi style... interesting weapon on the ground... is it a McMillan .50 or a .308 with a compensator???
Drawing Sniper Fire...
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
Hm, I'd sandbag that wall...
While there may be tough, hard-fighting insurgents in Iraq, I doubt long-range marksmanship is their forte...and that wall's not going to provide much cover against a large cartridge. So, if he's smart and shoots for the "head's" body behind the wall, or just shoots low if he's aiming at the head, there's a decent chance he's gonna hit the man with the stick... (Ever see Miller's Crossing? There's a great scene where a hitman shoots a guy through an interior wall he's trying to hide behind.)
I'd have said the rifle on the ground is a Barrett .50 SASR, but that guy's in the Army, and I have no idea what heavy sniper rifle they use.
While there may be tough, hard-fighting insurgents in Iraq, I doubt long-range marksmanship is their forte...and that wall's not going to provide much cover against a large cartridge. So, if he's smart and shoots for the "head's" body behind the wall, or just shoots low if he's aiming at the head, there's a decent chance he's gonna hit the man with the stick... (Ever see Miller's Crossing? There's a great scene where a hitman shoots a guy through an interior wall he's trying to hide behind.)
I'd have said the rifle on the ground is a Barrett .50 SASR, but that guy's in the Army, and I have no idea what heavy sniper rifle they use.
Are you technically allowed to use a .50 against a human target, or are they supposed to be anti-material only?
In theory it is just a anti equipment round, so you have to aim for someones uniform or their helmet.Silver said:
That's an old wive's (Marines'?) tale. You can use any weapon against any human target according to the Geneva covention, which recognizes that in combat, lethal force is necessary, and that combatants will use the maximum available force against each other.
The convention only restricts weapons specifically designed to cause "undue suffering," in that they cause pain and/or permanent damage in excess of their capability to kill or destroy. This sounds ridiculous and paradoxical, but it refers to such items as glass or fiberglass fragmentation weapons designed to make the fragments invisible to X-rays, or poison weapons. Both cause agony without real military purpose. Although you could make the argument that by preventing rehabilitation to combat effectiveness, you're therefore preventing that combatant from returning to attack you again, the convention was specifically worded to defuse this logic.
You can 'legally' attack a single enemy soldier with a 2000 lb bomb or 120mm tank round if you want. It's just not militarily efficient, so it's not often done. And it's perfectly acceptable to shoot a person with a .50 cal round. The .50 sniper rifle is designated an anti-material weapon only due to it being literal 'overkill' for use against people. (Although for long-range antipersonnel work, it can't be beaten...and this was the original purpose behind developingthe .50 rifle anyhow. Carlos Hathcock used a M2 machinegun with a scope in Vietnam to kill at 1800m or so...) Doesn't mean it can't be used against people, or that we don't train to do that, just that it's not semantically designated in the manual to do so.
There was an article in the Marine Corps Gazette about this last year, and I found some info via google search on it, too, when I researched it originally.
MD
The convention only restricts weapons specifically designed to cause "undue suffering," in that they cause pain and/or permanent damage in excess of their capability to kill or destroy. This sounds ridiculous and paradoxical, but it refers to such items as glass or fiberglass fragmentation weapons designed to make the fragments invisible to X-rays, or poison weapons. Both cause agony without real military purpose. Although you could make the argument that by preventing rehabilitation to combat effectiveness, you're therefore preventing that combatant from returning to attack you again, the convention was specifically worded to defuse this logic.
You can 'legally' attack a single enemy soldier with a 2000 lb bomb or 120mm tank round if you want. It's just not militarily efficient, so it's not often done. And it's perfectly acceptable to shoot a person with a .50 cal round. The .50 sniper rifle is designated an anti-material weapon only due to it being literal 'overkill' for use against people. (Although for long-range antipersonnel work, it can't be beaten...and this was the original purpose behind developingthe .50 rifle anyhow. Carlos Hathcock used a M2 machinegun with a scope in Vietnam to kill at 1800m or so...) Doesn't mean it can't be used against people, or that we don't train to do that, just that it's not semantically designated in the manual to do so.
There was an article in the Marine Corps Gazette about this last year, and I found some info via google search on it, too, when I researched it originally.
MD
Thanks Mike. Always wanted to know about that one.
the best anti personel weapon imho (sniper class) is the psg-1, although i am more than happy to see a barret, good weapon, and good sniper that dude in the pic. I just hope he survives the war as any other soldier.
Snipers are lethal, but they run high risks as well.
Snipers are lethal, but they run high risks as well.