Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 19:01:46 08/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2003 at 01:25:00, Aaron Gordon wrote: >On August 03, 2003 at 22:51:10, Matthew Hull 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. >> >>There is a Finnish 20mm anti-tank rifle on display here at the J.M. Davis Gun >>Mueseum (actually up HWY 66 in Claremore, OK) that was used in the Russo-Finnish >>war. Quite a nice peice of personal artillery. > >Here is a few of the rifles that was used for anti-tank stuff. Now, these >couldn't touch any modern tank from the front.. but could possibly take out some >of the older tanks from the rear (taking out engine, hitting gas tank, etc. w/ >API). > >http://www.obscure-reference.com/guns/lahti20mm/ Hi Aaron, Thanks for the links. That Lahti looks very much like the weapon I remember seeing at the JM Davis Museum (great museum BTW, 1000s of guns and other stuff). Regards, MH >http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1200/1272.htm >http://members.aol.com/fiftyguy/ptrd20mm.htm > > >>> >>>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. >> >>One of the perils of firing a TOW missile at a tank is that if your missile >>blast is spotted by the tank (or another tank), and there is enough distance, >>they can get a round off and in your face before you can guide your relatively >>slow missile to the tank. >> >>Also, there are tac-nuke aritillery rounds (155mm or 203mm?). Basically, you >>sling one of those out 8 or ten miles or whatever, hunker down for the initial >>blast, then bug out, if you survive. >> >>Matt >> >> >>> >>> >>>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 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.