Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:27:48 08/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 2003 at 19:31:57, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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.\ But apparently you don't, but that's not new.. > >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. It is _more_ heavily dependent on the weight of the bullet. Heavier is better, as it is less affected by wind. That's why the 50 is so popular for extreme range sniping/target practice. > >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. I have no idea what you mean by "finer barrel". If you mean smaller caliber but faster muzzle velocity, you are wrong. I have a .220 swift that fires a round with a higher muzzle velocity than any other caliber on the planet I know of, around 4200 FPS. It is great to 400 yards as it shoots _very_ flat. At 1000 yards the wind affects the bullet so far it is impossible to even hit a door-sized target, while at 400 yards on a calm day I can hit an egg about 1/2 the time. > 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. So? 150 yards has _never_ been a challenge. But 1000 is a whole new ballgame. I've done it. You haven't. So your credibility is way down here. Just _ask_ a real sniper. > >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 :) I'm not sure where _some_ live today. Apparently in wonderland or something fantasyland...
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.