How to defeat the SOF/STAR
-
Hmm! Aren't very flexible are they?Originally posted by chunyong:here is fixed cos the vest position is fixed, and its a standard vest, divers and snipers different liao though and i not so sure abt SOF
-
well....the police here dun really have major cases to attend to, unlike US and HK where SWAT or SDU respond to cases a few times a dayOriginally posted by John Ching:Hmm! Aren't very flexible are they? -
Uh, John, they identified the bugger as having hit Netanyahu on the tarmac from the control tower. Somehow I doubt this counts as a sucker shot.Originally posted by John Ching:Ever notice that even a sucker-shot is always reported as a sniper shot.
I'm wondering why don't they call it as rifle-shot, marksman-shot, et cetra. Then again I guess it sounds cooler to be shot at by a sniper then by some punk huh.
-
Did they verify that the shooter was ideed a sniper trained shooter or simply saw that the shooter had a rifle with a scope mounted & assumed the shooter to be a sniper? Currently, most MARINEs are carrying M4 with scope mounted. Would you consider them as snipers too? My point is why can't a shot by a rifle be named other then that of a sniper shot?Originally posted by Gedanken:Uh, John, they identified the bugger as having hit Netanyahu on the tarmac from the control tower. Somehow I doubt this counts as a sucker shot.
Personally, I think any shot under 300m should be referred to as a marksman shot. But as always, its debatable since police sniper usually shoot under 300m in an actual situation.
-
C'mon, John, what were they going to do, go to the tower and interview the guy? Besides, this was Idi Amin's army - they'd be lucky if they got rifles that could hit a target at 300 metres, much less scopes.Originally posted by John Ching:Did they verify that the shooter was ideed a sniper trained shooter or simply saw that the shooter had a rifle with a scope mounted & assumed the shooter to be a sniper? Currently, most MARINEs are carrying M4 with scope mounted. Would you consider them as snipers too? My point is why can't a shot by a rifle be named other then that of a sniper shot?
Personally, I think any shot under 300m should be referred to as a marksman shot. But as always, its debatable since police sniper usually shoot under 300m in an actual situation.
As you've already pointed out, there are plenty of problems defining the type of shooter. We could always call it a remote shot or something of the sort, based upon the shooter's not being within short range. -
Sharpshooter = shooter which can hit accurately over long distance
Sniper = Sharpshooter + skill of stalking, surviving and remaining unseen in hostile environment -
Sharpshooter need not be long distance shooters. In fact, any shooter who can get a tight grouping, of at least 3 shots, on a target at 100m onwards. Can be called a sharpshooter.Originally posted by chunyong:Sharpshooter = shooter which can hit accurately over long distance
Sniper = Sharpshooter + skill of stalking, surviving and remaining unseen in hostile environment
Currently theres a non-official new cat of shooters/snipers known as LDS, Long Distance Snipers. Its got something to do with the fact that this cat of shooters uses .50 cal rifles.
-
short range is called marksmen most of the time.... .50 calibre ? most snipers are trained using it also. normally use it to smoke out people hiding in armoured cars...Originally posted by John Ching:Sharpshooter need not be long distance shooters. In fact, any shooter who can get a tight grouping, of at least 3 shots, on a target at 100m onwards. Can be called a sharpshooter.
Currently theres a non-official new cat of shooters/snipers known as LDS, Long Distance Snipers. Its got something to do with the fact that this cat of shooters uses .50 cal rifles. -
The reason I'm making an issue about defining the type of shooter is the fact that everytime a soldier hears a warnining that another soldier had been shot by a sniper, fear sets in eventhough the shooter might not have been an actual sniper. Take the situation in Iraq during the fight in Fallujah, Marines were CF in a position the momment they heard another Marines was shot by a "sniper". On the other hand, when they saw a fellow Marine shot by an AK, they were quick to react against the shooter. So, you should understand the problem better now.Originally posted by Gedanken:C'mon, John, what were they going to do, go to the tower and interview the guy? Besides, this was Idi Amin's army - they'd be lucky if they got rifles that could hit a target at 300 metres, much less scopes.
As you've already pointed out, there are plenty of problems defining the type of shooter. We could always call it a remote shot or something of the sort, based upon the shooter's not being within short range. -
Originally posted by John Ching:
The difference between the two situations is that they saw the shooter in the second case. It doesn't matter if the shooter is a sniper, a sharpshooter or a punk with a pistol - if you can't see the bugger, you hit the deck and don't charge until you figure out where he is.
The reason I'm making an issue about defining the type of shooter is the fact that everytime a soldier hears a warnining that another soldier had been shot by a [b]sniper, fear sets in eventhough the shooter might not have been an actual sniper. Take the situation in Iraq during the fight in Fallujah, Marines were CF in a position the momment they heard another Marines was shot by a "sniper". On the other hand, when they saw a fellow Marine shot by an AK, they were quick to react against the shooter. So, you should understand the problem better now. [/b] -
Yup, the record for a confirmed kill is 2250 metres, held by GySgt Carlos Hathcock, USMC, in Vietnam in 1967 - he used a Browning .50 HMG with an Unertl 8X sight. There are reports of an unconfirmed kill by a Canadian sniper at 2400 metres in Kandahar, also using .50 ammunition.Originally posted by chunyong:short range is called marksmen most of the time.... .50 calibre ? most snipers are trained using it also. normally use it to smoke out people hiding in armoured cars... -
The report on the Canadian sniper's .50 cal kill, has been confirmed. However, the Canadian government would not talk about it for political reasons. The kill range was from 2,430 metres, or nearly 2 1/2 kilometres, on the second shot. The first shot blew a bag from the hand of their target, an Al Qaeda fighter walking on a road. A Canadian Corporal known only as "Bill", for security reasons, used a McMillan Tac-50 cal rifle.Originally posted by Gedanken:Yup, the record for a confirmed kill is 2250 metres, held by GySgt Carlos Hathcock, USMC, in Vietnam in 1967 - he used a Browning .50 HMG with an Unertl 8X sight. There are reports of an unconfirmed kill by a Canadian sniper at 2400 metres in Kandahar, also using .50 ammunition. -
Ah! The actions of the inexperience shows, those Marines should have returned fire, in any direction if necessary, before going for cover. A pro sniper would be able to take out 3 more targets if the targets reaction is to move for cover instead of threatening the snipers position with heavy fire.Originally posted by Gedanken:The difference between the two situations is that they saw the shooter in the second case. It doesn't matter if the shooter is a sniper, a sharpshooter or a punk with a pistol - if you can't see the bugger, you hit the deck and don't charge until you figure out where he is. -
if it didnt happen in an urban area....volley after volley of arty and air strikes would make short work of anyone hiding....Originally posted by John Ching:Ah! The actions of the inexperience shows, those Marines should have returned fire, in any direction if necessary, before going for cover. A pro sniper would be able to take out 3 more targets if the targets reaction is to move for cover instead of threatening the snipers position with heavy fire. -
Isn't blindly firing dangerous, futile and a waste of ammo....i dunno coz that never happened to me b4...
Anyway have you guys seen a BBC program whereby a reporter follows the marines in fallujah sniper hunting?
Very good footage - difficulties of fighiting in FIBUA really came across.
Will try to find the link. -
I wouldn't call it inexperience - anything else is just Hollywood. If you play Audie Murphy and end up becoming a Figure 11, you'd feel pretty stupid, wouldn't you? Don't know how you were trained, but I learned right quick to hit the deck before doing returning fire, and that kind of common sense works just fine by me. If you don't know where the shot came from and stick around to shoot in the wrong direction, the bugger would get 10 targets instead of 3. If you take a second to figure out what's going on, you can return accurate fire and advance towards the shooter - or would you call the boys from Hereford inexperienced?Originally posted by John Ching:Ah! The actions of the inexperience shows, those Marines should have returned fire, in any direction if necessary, before going for cover. A pro sniper would be able to take out 3 more targets if the targets reaction is to move for cover instead of threatening the snipers position with heavy fire. -
I am getting sick of seeing lines like these.Originally posted by lwflee:I was clarifying the position. Stop whining. And dun go all "secret"....
So when Uncle Lees comes aknocking, you gonna answer for all of us?
A public forum may be an avenue for expressing toughts relatively freely, but it is not the place to compromise national safety and interests. -
Well, actually, you've to have seen the picture to understand what I had been saying about the Marines that were caught in a "sniper"s trap. But since you can't see it, I can't explain it clearer.Originally posted by Gedanken:I wouldn't call it inexperience - anything else is just Hollywood. If you play Audie Murphy and end up becoming a Figure 11, you'd feel pretty stupid, wouldn't you? Don't know how you were trained, but I learned right quick to hit the deck before doing returning fire, and that kind of common sense works just fine by me. If you don't know where the shot came from and stick around to shoot in the wrong direction, the bugger would get 10 targets instead of 3. If you take a second to figure out what's going on, you can return accurate fire and advance towards the shooter - or would you call the boys from Hereford inexperienced?
When a shot is fired at you, its more then likely you'll know where the shot is coming from unless your deaf. Your 1st reaction is to fire in the general direction of the shooter while at the sametime moving for cover. This is done in an attempt to disrupt the shooter/sniper from getting a clear shot.
Of course, if you'ven't attended any counter ambush or anti-sniper course, also conducted in Hereford, you won't learn about it. But Marines have.
Its because you won't have a second to think about anything, you've got to react regardless of whether or not a civilian is in the way. Its war & the civilain should know better then to be in a line of fire. In an ambush situation, the reaction of the ambushed soldier is not wronged. Its war & not shooting in kill house.
By the way, SAS are the ones who 1st suggest shooting through a hostage to kill a terrorist, in their anti-hostage shooting. Are they wrong? -
Firing in the general direction of a shooter is part of an anti-ambush & counter sniper drill thats taught to most soldiers as part of the fire & movement. If you're able to fire off more firepower against an ambush party or sniper, you stand a chance of getting to a cover position. So its not really a waste of ammo.Originally posted by lwflee:Isn't blindly firing dangerous, futile and a waste of ammo....i dunno coz that never happened to me b4...
Anyway have you guys seen a BBC program whereby a reporter follows the marines in fallujah sniper hunting?
Very good footage - difficulties of fighiting in FIBUA really came across.
Will try to find the link. -
The objective of such a reaction is to provide suppression fire so that your guys have a chance to find cover, and in any case, you get into prone position before you squeeze the trigger.Originally posted by John Ching:Firing in the general direction of a shooter is part of an anti-ambush & counter sniper drill thats taught to most soldiers as part of the fire & movement. If you're able to fire off more firepower against an ambush party or sniper, you stand a chance of getting to a cover position. So its not really a waste of ammo.
It's pretty obvious that the objective of suppression is not served at all if a whole bunch of guys are firing blindly at a spot that's nowhere near the sniper. Instead, what you end up with is a bunch of guys sticking their heads up asking to be shot. -
if the sniper is more than 800m or so away, .223 also won't hurt him. now got devices to pinpoint the sniper location, whether the device really works is another matter and....by the time u handle it u will most likely dio shot liao...Originally posted by Gedanken:The objective of such a reaction is to provide suppression fire so that your guys have a chance to find cover, and in any case, you get into prone position before you squeeze the trigger.
It's pretty obvious that the objective of suppression is not served at all if a whole bunch of guys are firing blindly at a spot that's nowhere near the sniper. Instead, what you end up with is a bunch of guys sticking their heads up asking to be shot. -
Well,actually to return fire upon being shot at is a natural human instinct if one is armed.But however,be sure to control your fire.AS if return of constant fire may help the enemy snper pin-point your location by its muzzle flashes and sound.So best to return fire and instantly take cover before seeking the enemy and returning accurate deadly fire.
-
5.56mm effective range is 400+ m or 430+ yards. Max range of 5.56 is 2600+m or 2800+ yards. Till date, snipers in urban area haven't got the chance to shoot at target more then 300+m unless the sniper is facing a long stretch of road without other building blocking.Originally posted by chunyong:if the sniper is more than 800m or so away, .223 also won't hurt him. now got devices to pinpoint the sniper location, whether the device really works is another matter and....by the time u handle it u will most likely dio shot liao... -
If you're caught in an open area or road & the ambush party or sniper is located 2 or 3 floors up, the last thing you should do is proning in an open area. If your only spot of cover is located half a football field away, are you going to run all the way there before firing off suppression fire?Originally posted by Gedanken:The objective of such a reaction is to provide suppression fire so that your guys have a chance to find cover, and in any case, you get into prone position before you squeeze the trigger.
It's pretty obvious that the objective of suppression is not served at all if a whole bunch of guys are firing blindly at a spot that's nowhere near the sniper. Instead, what you end up with is a bunch of guys sticking their heads up asking to be shot.
The ideal of suppression fire is to fire off blindly & then look for cover or until a fellow soldier sound off the direction of where the fire should be aimed at.
By the way, I'm sure even in a small man team of 7 to 14 men, not all of them are just carrying M4s. So the responding fire power would be impressive enough to temporary scare off the opposing party. If you still think this drill is rediculars, you've got to ask the IDF why they too practice such drill? -
So you're telling me that the Israelis stand around like John Wayne returning fire? I have experience with senior IDF staff that is the complete opposite of what you've just written, but unfortunately that stuff's covered by OSA.
You overestimate the effect of suppressing fire. It only scares the sniper off if it's too close for comfort. If your guys are missing him by 25 metres and he runs, he's not much of a sniper, is he?
Besides, while if the bugger's three floors up, you're going to present the same-sized target if you're standing or proning, you present a smaller target proning if he's on the same level as you. Common sense, isn't it?
Between trying to find the sniper and making less of a target of myself, I'll pick being scarce as a target, thank you very much.