Nana
I'm suspicious of anyone with a car.Originally Posted by scumdog
I don't own a car so be suspicious.
I support capital punishment for for gross stupidity leading to death on or off the road.
Last but not least, you have just described the people who do drive the buses except they make them wear a uniform.
Nana
would reduce instances of unnecessary driving.
Nana
And there is the heart of the success the people with guns have had adequate professional training.
Kiwi back at home!
how often do they re qualify though?
Nana
Movies are not really evidence, that's why its called poetic license.
In a full on fire fight - I suspect anything that stops the them shooting back will do.
in a Sniper role it will depend largely on the morals of the General giving the order.
On a sortie a wounded soldier is definatley a bigger liability but in fire base people dropping dead without a trace would offer more damage to the morale of the battalion than the same number going home early.
Horses for courses. Primary role of anassualt weapon is to suppress the ememy in as short an order as possible. Also hardly the point of the thread.
e mare libertas
Well, I'm no sniper, never even served in the military, so what would I know. But at any range over 200m in a battle situation I imagine you'd just be shooting for central mass and consequent disablement. Whether the target dies or not simply wouldn't be a consideration. For that matter, I imagine the majority of military snipers are relatively civilised and would prefer to have their targets get away with a ticket home and a hospital stay, all other things being equal. It may be war, but there's no point being nasty about it...
Obviously law-enforcement snipers tend to have somewhat more specialised mission requirements and shoot at shorter ranges, so the selection of a disabling or instant-kill shot could come into play in that situation, with very different motives than an enemy's resource allocation or unit demoralisation.
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
Nana
i don't have the foggiest - I was just stating that the statement made previously was supported by that quoted statement because, the major differential factor is that training is required.
I'm betting the chap running the till your corner dairy has never had weapons training on any scale.
I have only spent enough time around firearms to know that even as a responsible person with good manners above average intellect and enough patience to make a practice I am not a suitable person to carry a concealed weapon.
I do not have professional training.
I do not have close quarters experience.
I am responsible enough to put a gun away properly, but I am to easily sidetracked to have the responsibility of ensuring that the safety is always on, there is never a bullet in the chamber except when ready to fire and to keep the trigger clear when putting said firearm into my pants. Hence I do not and will not carry a firearm.
In my less than humble opinion the people that the law needs to control are those who are not self aware enough to know that they do not need a gun and or that they are not responsible enough to carry one.
If you have genuine reason to carry a concealed weapon do so, but do so after you have demonstrated a need and ability to do so safely.
I have during a gun safety seminar had the person beside me accidentaly discharge a rifle when they were "clearing the weapon". Said discharge made a .22 whole in the floor between my feet.
Forum whore
If they are in the reserves until they're 40, I would imagine once a year at least.
“- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”
Forum whore
But.....war is nasty!
A sniper will shoot to TOTALLY incapacitate - which normally means a kill!
George Hulme (Denny Hulmes old man) was real good at it in Crete - killed 17 German snipers I beleive - an anti-sniper, sniper!
“- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”
e mare libertas
Killing other snipers is a sniper's canonical primary mission.
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
Why can I hear those words emanating from the mouths of WW1 English Generals?
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
e mare libertas
WW1 was plenty nasty, and the generals of the time arguably cared less for the niceties of human wellbeing than those directing later 20th-century conflicts.
How about all those Commonwealth soldiers who've only just recently been posthumously pardoned after being shot for 'cowardice', eh?
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
You are quite correct on that point. Generals were appointed on their social standings and their position in "society" rather than any mental aptitude in things "military" (strategy/tactics, etc).
"10,000 dead on our first attack on the "hun's" fortified postions... dash it all, what a shame, pour me another Gin & tonic!"
Kiwis wonder why there were so many (un-necessary) deaths under the leadersip of the british.
General Melchett portrays that mentality so very well... "what a barren, featureless desert out there!"
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Kiwi back at home!
Should be able to kill out to 600m with a standard rifle kills of 1000m are common with .50cals
and
The current record for longest range sniper kill is 2,430 meters (7,972 feet), accomplished by a Canadian sniper, Corporal Rob Furlong, of the third battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI), during the invasion of Afghanistan, using a .50 BMG (12.7 mm) McMillan bolt-action rifle. This meant that the round had a flight time of four seconds, and a drop of 78.4 meters (257 feet).
Forum whore
Not always. Bobs is the classic counter to that statement. He certainly had no social position until he established himself as a competant general . And a competant general he MOST certainly was. There were many others.
It was only after the slaughter of the first year or so of WW1 that the attrition rate amongst officers made it necessary to drag out the second raters who would not normaly have been entrusted with senior command.
Many of the later C19 and early C20 officers were competant professional soldiers, the British Army in India (and, indeed , the British Indian Army also) in particular. Just because someone came fro, the British upper classes didn't mean they weren't competant.
Incidentally , social rank was actually a far more important determinator of high rank in the Imperial German army than the British - because of the lack of a German equivalent of the BAI.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks