Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 16:31:57 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. > > > > > > >> >>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 Ok here is what they tell soldiers, it really is highschool math. But even low level gunners understand it. a) Earth is rotating with a certain speed (from memory i remember around 3000KM/h) so for long range projectiles (as you know modern guns go till 50+KM and with an alfabeta search you can even figure out the chance that it will hit the target; you have about 100 meter to the left and right accuracy for that in case; latest russian tank gets destroyed within 100M distance) When not talking about large projectiles: b) time needed to fall down on earth is more or less independant from the distance a bullet travels. c) of course the speed of a projectile is dependant upon a lot of different influences but the influence whether it goes to the right or left is heavily dependant upon the speed at which it is fired. d) very important is the impact of a bullet. If we just care for making a hole in a body then that's no fun. Suppose i must hit you 5 times before you're dead because my small bullet only penetrated first a part of the neck (half a centimeter from the left or right and just missed nerves and blood vessels). Hitting someone is easy. Killing or wounding 'em such that he can't fight or perform a terrorrist action is a different thing. So logical conclusion from b is that a shot fired at a higher speed from a finer barrel will hit ranges with higher accuracy. Of course the high speeds they had already long period of time ago, but that accuracy to hit something and to predict the accurate path of a bullet they didn't have. They do now and for cheapo prizes. Not to mention nightvision. >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. Comon, nowadays anti-terrorrist forces shoot the eye out of a card from 150 meter distances in 95+% of the cases within seconds. Those guns aren't even close to what snipers can use nowadays. The question is not whether they can do it. Only whether they can do it instantly. As you can see in western movies that wasn't the case in the 1880s, the hero can have 10 hits from 10 meter distances and still win :) I guess some still live in those days :)
This page took 0 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.