Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:03:29 08/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2003 at 14:31:46, Aaron Gordon wrote: >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. I've never seen any rifle shoot that fast. Amazing. The .220's problem was rate of twist. At 4200fps (the velocity I hand-loaded to) that turns into something over 5000 revolutions per second. Push it much beyond that and the .22 caliber projectile simply could not take the spin forces and it would disintegrate in the air. The claim to fame for this round was both flat shooting and _zero_ ricochets. At 400 yards, the mid-range trajectory was something like +4-5 inches, which means you can almost hold dead-on out to 450-500 yards. We used to eradicate crows with this gun, and when there were no crows, we'd take out tomatoes at 400 yards. Neat to hear the "BLAM". then a second or two later "PLOP" when the tomato exploded and the sound made its way back. Watermelons were another good target (they explode at 300-400 yards) but they were too easy. :) > >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. I strictly hand-load for this gun but I haven't shot it much lately. Barrel life is bad (throat erodes badly). I spend more time with my trusty .270 or a .308 that is deadly accurate to 400 yards (and beyond if you don't mind a big hold-over at 500-1000 yards). > >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.