Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: cmd_jackryan@***.net (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:45:44 +0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Derek Hyde wrote:

> I understand....I'm merely pointing out that "as close as possible" isn't
> always feasible, and, it's also a matter of preference

Ah, well, flexibility of language. Let me rephrase what I meant: "as
close as possible": To get as close to the target to ensure a safe kill,
while still getting away with it.
Otherwise: WE seem to agree on this one.


> The M24's in no different class from the MA-2100/WA-2100 or the ranger arms
> SM-3, and the Barret Model 121 from SR is a .50 sniper rifle, just like the
> M82A1

Hm, I'd have to look into the CC and do some reasearch on the web, so
I'm writing this down kind of fuzzy in the details:
With classes I mean the (basically, of course there are shades of grey)
two kinds of long range rifles: On the one hand weapons like the M24 or
M22 (sic? The M16 with sound suprressor and scope), meant to be used
against soldiers/Corporate security guards/VIPs and similar soft
targets, with basically shorter ranges (depending on length of barrel,
cartridge, shape of the projectile and the like).
On the other hand (as you put it) "heavy sniper rifles" like the Hecate
or M82, wich are capabale to destroy/disable satellite dishes, car
motors, and the like.

I think, though, that SR gives a good differenciation of these weapons,
while still keeping them in one spot.

> This is true, but, most snipers are trained to do those calculations very
> quickly or they've got a spotter to do them for them while they're tracking
> the target, adjusting sights, and then pulling the trigger.

Yes. But there are still factors, that cannot be figured in: Wind is
rarely constant on the whole length, drag is different, so you's have to
work with averages (or even educated guesses), limiting the effective
range. Of course, that doesn't stop particularly skilled snipers to use
the full range potential of a weapon, as our examples below show.

>>It has been a while that I heard it: An Australian sniper got some very
>>high classed medal, for eliminating a Taliban at the maximum range of
>>his M92. So, it is possible, in the Real World(TM) as well as in SR (A
>>sniper in my group hit his target at Extreme Range, decapacitating the
>>target. He could keep the rifle as payment.), just to get the thread
>>back on topic.
>
>
> And a canadian sniper team set the world record over in Iraq recently by
> obtaining a confirmed kill at 1500 meters

^^^^^The examples I meant. (I keep them for reference).

> Nope, you don't, the Barret Model 121 is a .50 sniper rifle, and would be in
> reality considered an Anti-Material rifle) the only thing you'd have to
> tweak was the damage and range if you wanted to introduce something like the
> AW-Magnum which is a .338 Lapua, which can reliably hit nearly as far out as
> the .50 BMG sniper rifles and hits with considerable force at that range,
> you'd have to introduce a class of "heavy sniper rifles" with longer range
> and more damage, then make the AWM one of those with more recoil reduction
> than the rest of them.

Huh? I'm not sure if I understand that paragraph, and ask you to clarify
it a bit (English is my second language).

> (not trying to be argumentative, but, 90% of my old gaming group were all
> army or ex-army and we all spent plenty of time debating guns and this kind
> of stuff with the people that were civilians in the group because they have
> preconceptions of how things work, and once you've been around it, it's
> pretty tough not to try to correct those preconceptions)

I understand that. I can get quite, er, irritated if someone uses the
term "hacker", when "cracker" would be more appropiate.
the difference being, that hackers are, well, computer geeks, hacking
away on keyboards, and crackers being those, who break into cmputer
systems. (Most deckers fall into the latter category).

- --
Phillip Gawlowski

Bastard Gamemaster from Hell

"We are proud to deliver any round in under 24 hours"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDCRImkbmIhbNRDo0RAvbmAJ0eYUoAsifdUo0nkizgi7IY+WzCwACfYMkv
bTXrzChot4c505PlysLvpxY=FyBk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message no. 2
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:52:55 -0500
> Hm, I'd have to look into the CC and do some reasearch on the web, so
> I'm writing this down kind of fuzzy in the details:
> With classes I mean the (basically, of course there are shades of grey)
> two kinds of long range rifles: On the one hand weapons like the M24 or
> M22 (sic? The M16 with sound suprressor and scope), meant to be used
> against soldiers/Corporate security guards/VIPs and similar soft
> targets, with basically shorter ranges (depending on length of barrel,
> cartridge, shape of the projectile and the like).
> On the other hand (as you put it) "heavy sniper rifles" like the Hecate
> or M82, wich are capabale to destroy/disable satellite dishes, car
> motors, and the like.
>
> I think, though, that SR gives a good differenciation of these weapons,
> while still keeping them in one spot.

Kinda.....the reason that the barrets and other .50 or larger sniper rifles
are considered anti-material is because of the geneva convention (per the
explanation we get in the army) because it's "inhumane" to shoot a person
with something of that size, and technically with the barrets you're
supposed to be aiming at their equipment ;) a .308 or .338 Lapua are both
quite capable of taking out most equipment too ;)

>
>> This is true, but, most snipers are trained to do those calculations very
>> quickly or they've got a spotter to do them for them while they're tracking
>> the target, adjusting sights, and then pulling the trigger.
>
> Yes. But there are still factors, that cannot be figured in: Wind is
> rarely constant on the whole length, drag is different, so you's have to
> work with averages (or even educated guesses), limiting the effective
> range. Of course, that doesn't stop particularly skilled snipers to use
> the full range potential of a weapon, as our examples below show.
>

Agreed fully ;)

>>> It has been a while that I heard it: An Australian sniper got some very
>>> high classed medal, for eliminating a Taliban at the maximum range of
>>> his M92. So, it is possible, in the Real World(TM) as well as in SR (A
>>> sniper in my group hit his target at Extreme Range, decapacitating the
>>> target. He could keep the rifle as payment.), just to get the thread
>>> back on topic.
>>
>>
>> And a canadian sniper team set the world record over in Iraq recently by
>> obtaining a confirmed kill at 1500 meters
>
> ^^^^^The examples I meant. (I keep them for reference).
>
>> Nope, you don't, the Barret Model 121 is a .50 sniper rifle, and would be in
>> reality considered an Anti-Material rifle) the only thing you'd have to
>> tweak was the damage and range if you wanted to introduce something like the
>> AW-Magnum which is a .338 Lapua, which can reliably hit nearly as far out as
>> the .50 BMG sniper rifles and hits with considerable force at that range,
>> you'd have to introduce a class of "heavy sniper rifles" with longer
range
>> and more damage, then make the AWM one of those with more recoil reduction
>> than the rest of them.
>
> Huh? I'm not sure if I understand that paragraph, and ask you to clarify
> it a bit (English is my second language).

You don't need to introduce a second category unless you want to get
nitpicky and add some range, just put in an add in on the notes of the
specific weapon that it increases standard sniper rifle ranges by
100/200/300/500 meters or whatever the realistic modification is on there

The Barrett already compensates partially by stating that the standard ammo
for it is considered APDS.

>
>> (not trying to be argumentative, but, 90% of my old gaming group were all
>> army or ex-army and we all spent plenty of time debating guns and this kind
>> of stuff with the people that were civilians in the group because they have
>> preconceptions of how things work, and once you've been around it, it's
>> pretty tough not to try to correct those preconceptions)
>
> I understand that. I can get quite, er, irritated if someone uses the
> term "hacker", when "cracker" would be more appropiate.
> the difference being, that hackers are, well, computer geeks, hacking
> away on keyboards, and crackers being those, who break into cmputer
> systems. (Most deckers fall into the latter category).
>
Yup, and the term "Computer Tech" encompasses both quite often ;)
Message no. 3
From: cmd_jackryan@***.net (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:38:48 +0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Derek Hyde wrote:

> Kinda.....the reason that the barrets and other .50 or larger sniper rifles
> are considered anti-material is because of the geneva convention (per the
> explanation we get in the army) because it's "inhumane" to shoot a person
> with something of that size, and technically with the barrets you're
> supposed to be aiming at their equipment ;) a .308 or .338 Lapua are both
> quite capable of taking out most equipment too ;)

Hm. Yeah, the geneva convention.
Considering that most soldiers dry from being shot in the guts, it is
very inhumane to kill somebody fast.
Morals of war set a side, though.

> You don't need to introduce a second category unless you want to get
> nitpicky and add some range, just put in an add in on the notes of the
> specific weapon that it increases standard sniper rifle ranges by
> 100/200/300/500 meters or whatever the realistic modification is on there
>
> The Barrett already compensates partially by stating that the standard ammo
> for it is considered APDS.

Ah, now I see. And you are right. That is what I thought about, too, but
instead moving all the "heavy rifles" into their own category.
Would be less work, methinks.


> Yup, and the term "Computer Tech" encompasses both quite often ;)

Yes, and we aren't even differenciating between "white hats", "grey
hats" or "black hats". Now, *that* is confusing the average (l)user.

- --
Phillip Gawlowski

Bastard Gamemaster from Hell

"We are proud to deliver any round in under 24 hours"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDCR6XkbmIhbNRDo0RAgLGAJ0Yjo9nojBCeH83NYa2VKhzyZySwwCeJ/TV
vCeXiLUUBTSAlxiC/ZHPLo8=8k/9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message no. 4
From: arclight@*********.de (Arclight)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:09:01 +0200
At 02:38 22.08.2005, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:

>Derek Hyde wrote:
>
> > Kinda.....the reason that the barrets and other .50 or larger sniper rifles
> > are considered anti-material is because of the geneva convention (per the
> > explanation we get in the army) because it's "inhumane" to shoot a
person
> > with something of that size, and technically with the barrets you're
> > supposed to be aiming at their equipment ;) a .308 or .338 Lapua are both
> > quite capable of taking out most equipment too ;)
>
>Hm. Yeah, the geneva convention.
>Considering that most soldiers dry from being shot in the guts, it is
>very inhumane to kill somebody fast.
>Morals of war set a side, though.

Sorry folks, but that's just bullsh1tting... only thing forbidden are
certain types of expanding ammunition. That's it.


--
Arclight

Quitters never win, winners never quit,
but those who never quit and never win are idiots
Message no. 5
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:36:15 -0500
>
> Sorry folks, but that's just bullsh1tting... only thing forbidden are
> certain types of expanding ammunition. That's it.
>

Are you calling bullshit based upon the fact that you've actually read the
geneva convention or based upon the way it was explained to you, or what? I
spent a total of 8 years of service with the us army and army reserve, been
overseas to hot zones more than once, and the answer that the US Army gives
it's troops is that it's against the convention to use over a certain
caliber to fire directly to kill the person, you must fire at their personal
equipment. Just as troops using the MK19 automatic grenade launcher are
told they're not allowed to fire at a person but rather must fire at
something near them to cause the explosion to hit them rather than the 40mm
HE grenade.
Message no. 6
From: keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:03:17 -0700
>>Hm. Yeah, the geneva convention.
>>Considering that most soldiers dry from being
>>shot in the guts, it is very inhumane to kill
>>somebody fast. Morals of war set a side, though.
>
>Sorry folks, but that's just bullsh1tting... only thing
>forbidden are certain types of expanding ammunition.
>That's it.

Lets not forget glass, fibreglass, and other 'non-xrayable'
materials due to the "you've got to be able to find the wound
causing agent in a medical facility so it can be removed"
humanitarian section of Geneva...

Then there's the 'no poison weapons' thing and 'no mercury
filled rounds' (this one actually comes under the 'expanding
ammo' category as well as the 'poison weapon' thingie).

Lastly I recall a 'no misshapen rounds' thing... We weren't
allowed to file the tips off of our rounds, dent them, or
engrave our CO's name in them. I think this came under the
'certain types of expanding rounds' thing as such changes
to the round caused major unpredictability wound channels.

Those are the ones I remember from my service days...
sheesh... sixteen years ago...

man I'm old,

-keith

PS favorite sniper rifle: Sako's TRG-42 in .338 Lapua Magnum
paired with a Leupold Long Range Tactical Target scope...
man-sized targets are good out to around 1650m, vehicle
targets at ranges over 2000m... the round packs almost as much
energy at 600m as an 7.62mm NATO (.308 Winchester) does as
at the muzzle!
Message no. 7
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:15:16 -0500
>> Sorry folks, but that's just bullsh1tting... only thing forbidden are
>> certain types of expanding ammunition. That's it.
>>
>
> Are you calling bullshit based upon the fact that you've actually read the
> geneva convention or based upon the way it was explained to you, or what? I
> spent a total of 8 years of service with the us army and army reserve, been
> overseas to hot zones more than once, and the answer that the US Army gives
> it's troops is that it's against the convention to use over a certain
> caliber to fire directly to kill the person, you must fire at their personal
> equipment. Just as troops using the MK19 automatic grenade launcher are
> told they're not allowed to fire at a person but rather must fire at
> something near them to cause the explosion to hit them rather than the 40mm
> HE grenade.
>
Actually, I'll save you the trouble of digging and replying to that one as I
dug for it myself, according to many sites I found after doing a search for
".50 caliber sniper geneva convention" I found plenty of documentation
stating that it is infact a myth that it's in the geneva convention,
however, most of them do state that the us military does inform all of its
troops that it's illegal/unacceptable to use a .50BMG on personnel directly,
however not unacceptable/illegal for use on their personal equipment.

One such example of this is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Machine_gun
where the following is found

"Ah, yes. My apologies. It turns out to be a common myth; there is indeed no
problem with them under the Geneva conventions, and some armies do teach
snipers that this is a reasonable use. (The myth goes on to claim,
colorfully, that the USMC teaches snipers that aiming at personnel is
verboten but aiming at equipment is okay - and dog tags, helmets, and
uniforms qualify as equipment. Cute but counterfactual.) In my defense, it
was a member of the Canadian Forces that told me so, and I had the sense to
look it up before putting it on any page. --Andrew 20:45, Apr 11, 2005
(UTC)"

And in further checking, I've also looked into the Hague Accords, which are
typically the documentation to limit the usage of certain munitions and
such, and there's no information in their either on restrictions, so, it
appears that the us military is fond of telling its troops that things
aren't legal that are...who would have possibly guessed that?
Message no. 8
From: snicker@*********.net (snicker@*********.net)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:39:26 +0000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derek Hyde [mailto:derek@***************.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 07:15 AM
>
> Actually, I'll save you the trouble of digging and replying to that one as I
> dug for it myself, according to many sites I found after doing a search for
> ".50 caliber sniper geneva convention" I found plenty of documentation
> stating that it is infact a myth that it's in the geneva convention,
> however, most of them do state that the us military does inform all of its
> troops that it's illegal/unacceptable to use a .50BMG on personnel directly,
> however not unacceptable/illegal for use on their personal equipment.
>
> One such example of this is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Machine_gun
> where the following is found
>
> "Ah, yes. My apologies. It turns out to be a common myth; there is indeed no
> problem with them under the Geneva conventions, and some armies do teach
> snipers that this is a reasonable use. (The myth goes on to claim,
> colorfully, that the USMC teaches snipers that aiming at personnel is
> verboten but aiming at equipment is okay - and dog tags, helmets, and
> uniforms qualify as equipment. Cute but counterfactual.) In my defense, it
> was a member of the Canadian Forces that told me so, and I had the sense to
> look it up before putting it on any page. --Andrew 20:45, Apr 11, 2005
> (UTC)"
>
> And in further checking, I've also looked into the Hague Accords, which are
> typically the documentation to limit the usage of certain munitions and
> such, and there's no information in their either on restrictions, so, it
> appears that the us military is fond of telling its troops that things
> aren't legal that are...who would have possibly guessed that?

Refresh my memory - what caliber is mounted on an apache helicopter? 'cause the military
certainly has no compunction against using that against personnel. Lots of videos on the
net to show that. They don't just go for incapacitate, either. Wounded men got shot
again for good measure. Don't think that's approved, but then why there are
"rules" for war has always baffled me. Seems like the only rule in war is
"don't be on the losing side."

Oh - and Derek - paint your minis. There's no real "collector" market for
minis, other than the intrinsic of having them. If there were, I could go to college on
my early 80's era Ral Partha collection.

Snicker
Message no. 9
From: keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:50:45 -0700
> Refresh my memory - what caliber is mounted on an apache
> helicopter?

25mm chain gun
Message no. 10
From: allen.versfeld@*****.com (Allen Versfeld)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:18:15 +0200
On 8/22/05, snicker@*********.net <snicker@*********.net> wrote:
>

> Wounded men got shot again for good measure. Don't think that's approved, but
> then why there are "rules" for war has always baffled me. Seems like the
only
> rule in war is "don't be on the losing side."
>

> Snicker
>

The 'rules' are, like most international treaties, a sort of
Gentleman's Agreement - "I won't kick you in the nuts if you don't
kick me in the nuts". It's kind of like a bar-fight where everybody
could potentially grab a bottle and arm themselves (or pull a knife,
or a gun, or...), but nobody does because that raises the stakes from
'broken nose' to 'cut throat'.

The real reason you stick to the geneva convention and don't torture
your POW's to death is because if you DO, then your enemy will do the
same to theirs in retaliation.

It's analogous to the old Mutually Assured Destruction idea: The
reason neither side launched nukes in the cold war was because the
enemy would have launched their own in retaliation, and then everybody
loses.
Message no. 11
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:46:19 +0200
According to Derek Hyde, on 22-8-05 01:52 the word on the street was...

> Kinda.....the reason that the barrets and other .50 or larger sniper rifles
> are considered anti-material is because of the geneva convention (per the
> explanation we get in the army) because it's "inhumane" to shoot a person
> with something of that size

This is a US Army myth, AFAIK -- the "You can't shoot a guy with a
50-caliber, so aim for his webbing" line is nonsense, to the best of my
knowledge.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 12
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:51:11 +0200
According to Derek Hyde, on 22-8-05 08:36 the word on the street was...

> Just as troops using the MK19 automatic grenade launcher are
> told they're not allowed to fire at a person but rather must fire at
> something near them to cause the explosion to hit them rather than the 40mm
> HE grenade.

This is, AFAIK, correct -- it is illegal to use ammunition that causes
undue suffering to the victim. Exploding rounds are considered to fall
into this class, so you probably can't legally shoot a 40-mm HE grenade
to hit someone. However, hitting the wall a meter behind them, for
example, would be legal.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 13
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:53:51 +0200
According to Keith Johnson, on 22-8-05 09:50 the word on the street was...

>>Refresh my memory - what caliber is mounted on an apache
>>helicopter?
>
> 25mm chain gun

30 mm :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 14
From: keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:46:23 -0700
> >>Refresh my memory - what caliber is mounted on an apache
> >>helicopter?
> >
> > 25mm chain gun
>
> 30 mm :)

Whatever... it's an Army weapon system...
Message no. 15
From: arclight@*********.de (Arclight)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:00:52 +0200
At 09:03 22.08.2005, Keith Johnson wrote:

<snip>

>Then there's the 'no poison weapons' thing and 'no mercury
>filled rounds' (this one actually comes under the 'expanding
>ammo' category as well as the 'poison weapon' thingie).
>
>Lastly I recall a 'no misshapen rounds' thing... We weren't
>allowed to file the tips off of our rounds, dent them, or
>engrave our CO's name in them. I think this came under the
>'certain types of expanding rounds' thing as such changes
>to the round caused major unpredictability wound channels.

To be precise, any type of ammo which by nature of construction causes the
bullet to rip apart or expand when hitting the target. The british forces
started to use those kind of rounds during WW1, which were called "dum-dum"
rounds after a city in india, where these were manufactured. My dad owns a
old german war propaganda leaflat which protests against these bullets.
This AFAIK lead to "FMJ only" for most armed forces worldwide.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/dumdum.htm

http://www.cybertorpedo.com/africanhunter/classcart/303british_02.htm


--
Arclight

Quitters never win, winners never quit,
but those who never quit and never win are idiots
Message no. 16
From: arclight@*********.de (Arclight)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:59:55 +0200
At 11:51 22.08.2005, Gurth wrote:

<snip>

>This is, AFAIK, correct -- it is illegal to use ammunition that causes
>undue suffering to the victim. Exploding rounds are considered to fall
>into this class, so you probably can't legally shoot a 40-mm HE grenade to
>hit someone. However, hitting the wall a meter behind them, for example,
>would be legal.

Exploding *inside* the soldiers body - yes. But a 40mm HE is really nothing
more than a frag grenade...


--
Arclight

Quitters never win, winners never quit,
but those who never quit and never win are idiots
Message no. 17
From: arclight@*********.de (Arclight)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:04:42 +0200
At 09:15 22.08.2005, Derek Hyde wrote:

<snip>

>Actually, I'll save you the trouble of digging and replying to that one as I
>dug for it myself

I would've replied earlier, but I was off to work ;)

<snip>

>And in further checking, I've also looked into the Hague Accords, which are
>typically the documentation to limit the usage of certain munitions and
>such, and there's no information in their either on restrictions, so, it
>appears that the us military is fond of telling its troops that things
>aren't legal that are...who would have possibly guessed that?

IMO there are so many myth out there, especially in armed forces, that
there's no chance to get rid of any of them ;)


--
Arclight

Quitters never win, winners never quit,
but those who never quit and never win are idiots
Message no. 18
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:22:12 -0500
> > Just as troops using the MK19 automatic grenade launcher are
> > told they're not allowed to fire at a person but rather must fire at
> > something near them to cause the explosion to hit them rather than the
> 40mm
> > HE grenade.
>
> This is, AFAIK, correct -- it is illegal to use ammunition that causes
> undue suffering to the victim. Exploding rounds are considered to fall
> into this class, so you probably can't legally shoot a 40-mm HE grenade
> to hit someone. However, hitting the wall a meter behind them, for
> example, would be legal.

Or the door that he's grabbing the handle of to try to get away from you ;)
Message no. 19
From: sp@*****.gr (Stefanos Patelis)
Subject: Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers))
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:33:44 +0300
Derek Hyde wrote:

>>>Just as troops using the MK19 automatic grenade launcher are
>>>told they're not allowed to fire at a person but rather must fire at
>>>something near them to cause the explosion to hit them rather than the
>>>
>>>
>>40mm
>>
>>
>>>HE grenade.
>>>
>>>
>>This is, AFAIK, correct -- it is illegal to use ammunition that causes
>>undue suffering to the victim. Exploding rounds are considered to fall
>>into this class, so you probably can't legally shoot a 40-mm HE grenade
>>to hit someone. However, hitting the wall a meter behind them, for
>>example, would be legal.
>>
>>
>
>Or the door that he's grabbing the handle of to try to get away from you ;)
>
>
>
>
"I swear judge,sir I was aimming for the door! But the damn thing gets
at least -6 on recoil and with the Merc Infantry not dolling out nuyens
for recoil compensation ....oh well he was just an orc scu..." *nudge by
defense lawyer* "Wha? wha?Did I say somit wrong?"

--
Πατέλης
ΣτέφαΜος

EWORX S.A.
22 Rodou Street - Maroussi 15122 - Greece
tel: +30 210 61 48 380, +30 210 61 48 360
mob: +30 6978853066 - fax +30 210 6148381
mailto:sp@*****.gr -- http://www.eworx.gr

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Sniper rifles (Was: Re: The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!