Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 11:31:46 08/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2003 at 11:38:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 03, 2003 at 20:04:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 03, 2003 at 17:55:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 03, 2003 at 17:27:07, Ricardo Gibert 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. >>>> >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>>When armor plating passed 1-2 inches. :) >>> >>>Today we talk of _meters_ of armor. >>> >>>ie 1.5 meters (equivalent) for steel (DU is significantly denser and >>>doesn't need to be as thick.) >>> >>>To launch something from a shoulder-fired rifle (not rocket propelled) >>>would be something no human could stand. Newton's law and all that still >>>applies. :) >> >>My knowledge from the new quasicrystal stuff isn't reaching further than the >>word in itself, but let's suppose my soldier has a new rifle. >> >>The latest military toy they publicly wrote about some time ago, in this case >>they wanted it to make to shoot with it equipments to the new space station. >> >>Just like CPU's progress in speed, of course the military isn't at a standstill >>either. >> >>So my sniper soldier friend has a big battery on his back and in his hands a 10 >>kilogram rifle which is using magnetics to shoot away projectiles. > >Vincent, get real. The "rail guns" have been reality for 20 years. They >(1) don't weigh 10 pounds; (2) they do _not_ reach orbital ranges. At least >not anything a man can carry. Newtonian physics _still_ works. As does >simple materials engineering. To reach the space station requires a >_terminal_ velocity of 26000 feet per second. The projectile melts within >500 feet of the muzzle. The recoil will be _murder_. And yes, there is >recoil on a rail-gun. > > > >> >>As you might understand there is 4 advantages of this gun. First of all the >>barrell is wearproof. It can keep shooting without losing accuracy. >> >>Secondly unlike its bigger brother that fires to the space station at 30000 >>kilometers an hour it fires at a way smaller speed for my friend but still way >>faster than any of todays sniper rifles in use. > >You don't understand rifles. Muzzle velocity is _unlimited_. In theory. >In practice, recoil is not unlimited as a human is behind the gun. And >in practice, the projectile has to arrive at the final impact point intact. >My .220 swift will, if pushed with hand-loads, vaporize the projectile before >it reaches the impact point. I've seen the "purple mist" more than once as >I experimented with new bullets and higher velocities. Forget a rifle at >those velocities. I've always wanted a .220 swift, VERY nice guns. Never heard of the purple mist.. awesome. :) Check out this loading for a .22-243... 5278fps, 2 fps short of 1 mile per second. Absolutely ridiculous IMO. http://www.reloadersnest.com/detail.asp?CaliberID=100&LoadID=1147 Here are some loads for you to tinker with for the .220 swift if you mess with it. http://www.reloadersnest.com/frontpage.asp?CaliberID=23 >> >>Third it can destroy that Hyatt tank with 'meters thick' armour. Though i doubt >>it is meters thick. It's just stronger material than they used in world war II, >>but the tank won't be much heavier than 70000 kilo's as it has to take into >>account there is bridges and small roads and such. > >Why don't you do your research? You can find the _exact_ thickness of tank >armor if you want. Today's anti-tank DU projectiles are designed to penetrate >over 1 meter of steel. Why? because new tanks have the equivalent of 1.5 >meters of steel armor plating. > > > >> >>Fourth advantage is that after you come up with some new Hyatt tank-design >>(already seen many in CCC) i can still reuse my gun and again destroy your tank >>as i just increase the speed of my gun a bit. > >Totally ignoring physics, unfortunately, but you totally ignore everything >real anyway... > > > >> >>Matter of a newer generation battery on the shoulders of my sniper :) > >Right. Ignoring recoil which will turn your soldier into "jelly". > > > >> >>As you know power of impact is a matter of how the bullet looks like and what >>hits your tank first (a small strong bullet point or a thick bullet), the >>material of the bullet, but especially the speed at which it is fired :) >> >>With the current speed even a bullet from world war II can actually destroy any >>of your tank designs :) > >If you only knew what you were talking about, of course. I'm not going to >turn this into an ammo design thread. But if you try to fire a WWII round >at 10000fps velocity, it will last about 100 feet. > > > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>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. >>>> >>> >>> >>>That's a different animal. RPG's are shoulder-fired. But they are not a >>>sniper's weapon.. But as far as tactical nukes go, we even had an "atomic >>>cannon" that shot a nuclear projectile. About as fatal to the gun crew as >>>to the target, however. >> >>Let's skip nuclear discussions. My government has forbidden any projectile >>carrying nuclear stuff. And i feel that was a good thing to do so. >> >>We'll soon hear in X year times complaints about latest gulf war where they >>again (of course) used nuclear projectiles. Let's skip all that discussions >>here. > >No nuclear projectiles used in the Gulf War, nor in Iraq, so I don't know >what you are talking about, again. > > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>It would cause problems, for sure. But that had better be a 300 yard shot >>>or less to hit that "hole". :) >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>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 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.