Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 14:27:07 08/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 2003 at 16:33:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 03, 2003 at 15:05:23, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 03, 2003 at 00:33:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 01, 2003 at 22:53:17, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On August 01, 2003 at 22:51:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 01, 2003 at 19:07:21, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 29, 2003 at 00:31:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Distances they shot at in world war 1 and 2 with sniper rifles must have been a >>>>>>>>few hundreds of meters. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In WW1 my grandfather was a sniper. He shot at ranges up to 1000 yards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In WW2 my father was a sniper. He shot at ranges up to 1000 yards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Today, a neighbor down the street is a sniper. He shoots at ranges up to 1000 >>>>>>>yards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>_nobody_ shoots a sniper rifle at ranges of "kilometers" today. "kilometer" >>>>>>>perhaps. With an occasional attempt at up to 2km with a big 50 cal "rifle". >>>>>> >>>>>>I have to disagree here. I read in the news back at the time that in the war in >>>>>>Afghanistan a Canadian military sniper got the world record for a sniper >>>>>>distance kill. He picked off some al-Qaeda guy from over 2.5 kilometers (over >>>>>>2700 yards) away. >>>>>> >>>>>>Dave >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What are you disagreeing with. I said "with an occasional attempt at up to 2km >>>>>with a 50 cal." >>>>> >>>>>You just said that. :) It _is_ rare. And no sniper would say "I can produce >>>>>a 50% kill rate at 2KM+." >>>> >>>> >>>>I guess I'm disagreeing with "up to 2km". :-) But then, I don't know what a 50 >>>>cal. is, and it's not a big deal to me. >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>>It's a gun that fires the 50-cal BMG (Browning Machine Gun) round, something >>>not much smaller than a coke bottle. Next best long-distance round is the >>>.338 Lapua round, but it is a _long_ way from the BMG round. >> >>i'm not sure when you did your tour of duty. > >I didn't. But I _do_ shoot with former military types at our local range. And >as I said, my Grandfather was a sniper in WW1. And my dad in WW2. And I have >an active military neighbor that is a marine sniper, right down the street. It >was his .50 barrett that I shot and talked about. And they do _not_ practice >sniping at "many kilometers." There are _no_ optics to support that, for >example. > >> >>But here 10 kilometers from here where the tanks and air mobile regiment is >>training they used to train with sniper rifles up to a few kilometers. > >To 1000 yards, I'll agree with you. That is about a Km. Even to 2Km, I'll >agree although they _never_ shoot that far in real situations as it is simply >impossible to guarantee a hit. MOA accuracy is very tough to produce, that >means 1" at 100 yards, 10" at 1000 yards. 10" is not a "sure kill" target >size. > >> >>in cold war, assuming sovjet invasion, assumed killing ranges of 2 kilometers >>here from snipers. > >One shot out of 5-10, maybe. Snipers want "sure kills". And beyond 1000 >yards, there is no "sure kill" unless you drop a bomb with a bit larger kill >radius than a single projectile from a rifle/machine-gun. > >> >>Note that in world war II, they fought bigtime around here. the bullets didn't >>even get that far back then from snipers. This with exception of course from the >>heavy machine guns which already in WW1 could spread bullets to a kilometer or 2 >>when put on a hill. For WWII and actual fightings taking place here see for >>example 'operation market garden' which happened not too far from here and the >>movies belonging to it like: "a bridge too far". Majority of victims fell here >>however when the germans conquered netherlands. I'm 5 kilometers away from >>'Grebbeberg'. The only hill in Netherlands close to the Rhine river... > >That's all well and good. .50's have been around forever. And they have a >staggering range. But not for single-shot look-through-a-scope sniper >operations. > >> >>My uncle who just died a few months ago, fought heavy at the Grebbeberg and his >>troops killed germans back there from distances up to a few inches. They used >>rifles made in 1895 for that with fixed bajonets, because accurate fire with >>rifles from those days wasn't very well possible. The german SS, but also the >>regular german army forces, who drove dutch civilians and prisoners in front of >>them when trying to conquer the Grebbeberg, only managed to conquer a few of the >>many kilometer deep positions because the defending forces had to shoot their >>own people first, before being able to shoot at the germans, which in that way >>they could get closer to the positions. >> >>I don't need to mention that every so many meters there was machine guns in the >>'grebbeberg' >> >>The distances at which was fought in those first days of the second world war >>are in big contrast with nowadays. > >No idea what you are talking about. Wars aren't fought by snipers today, >either. > >> >>Not that the germans never conquered it. >> >>Only by threatening to bomb the cities they forced a surrender of Netherlands. >> >>When they would develop bullets for sniper rifles which can penetrate tank >>armour, then a few snipers would in 2003 be able to keep that Grebbeberg out of >>hands of the enemy. > > >There is _no_ sniper round that will penetrate a tank. a 50 will barely >pockmark a modern tank using depleted uranium armor plating that is the >equivalent of over a _meter_ of steel. _no_ shoulder-fired weapon will >touch that. Very few projectiles will touch that. Moving up to rockets >or bombs is the best hope. I know that a large caliber rifle was developed during wWI as an anti-tank weapon. I couldn't tell you when this approach was obsoleted. BTW #1: during the coldwar, the US developed a tactical nuclear weapon that was shoulder fired. A bazooka type of weapon that was operated by 2 men. Before it was fired, they might have to dig a ditch to take cover in so that they could survive the blast should an equivalent type of protection not be available. I doubt if it was ever deployed. It sounds like dumb idea to me. In any case, I would imagine such a shoulder fired weapon could dispatch a score of tanks with one shot. BTW #2: I wonder what would happen if a sniper fired a large caliber DU (DU=Depleted Uranium) round at the tank barrel. Would this effectively prevent the tank from being able to fire? Or perhaps firing a DU round *into* the muzzle of the tank would do it. I rare opportunity, but perhaps it would work? Hmmm. > > > > > > >> >>In 1940 it took thousands of deaths, despite having machine guns and hundreds of >>fixed bunker positions which no airplane bomb could take out in 1940. >> >>Most tend to forget simply the advances in hardware not to mention computing >>power and software nowadays. >> >>Back in the old days it wasn't the same as it is today. >> >>The accurate range of the german hand held machine gun in world war II was for >>example 150 meters. After that it was firing too inaccurate. Note that the >>majority of the german soldiers just like the dutch soldiers, came by foot there >>and carried their own rifle which could fire 1 bullet at a time. Not 5 in a row >>or something. >> >>It is the end of world war II where things were changed really a lot. >> >>But that was of course after several tens of millions of deaths. >> >>Hardware guys learn quickly then. > > >Yes, but there are _physical_ limits to firing a projectile. MOA is very >good accuracy. at 2000 yards that is 20". Not including wind, mirage, and >the shooter/target movement. 20" is not a sure kill zone. In fact, that >will result in many complete misses at a human target.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.