We were hacked. Several times over the past two weeks, in fact.
While all passwords are encrypted and salted, it's recommended that you change your password here when you can.
Re: The sniper rifle that should have been in SF...
Originally posted by blackwindseminole
Uh...shows how much you know. LOL
It is NOT urban myth. It would have taken you only a few minutes of searching the information and you would found proof enough. The use of the .50 caliber as a weapon used against human targets was and has been challenged several times. In 1999 the ICRC (The Swiss) attempted yet again after being successful with laws against laser blinding weapons and anti-personnel mines, to out law the .50 caliber as a weapon against human targets. In particular they were focused on the Raufoss round. In January 2000, U.S. legal review reconfirmed legality of Raufoss .50 cal. Multipurpose round for anti-materiel and anti-personnel purposes. This is where the confusion comes from. In particular what was used as the course for this objection to .50's being used against humans was:
1907 Hague IV (Article 23e, Annex) prohibition on unnecessary suffering.
As someone noted earlier, the damage from a .50 can be defined as causing the exact above statement. While it is not a "LAW" persay, it is the morality issues that come with it. THAT is why according to US military legal departments it is deployed carefully. Has it been used against human targets? Yup...does not mean it hasn't been challenged.
To boot, I ought to be in the know.
Marine Corps 90-96. We were the first Marine's Issued Barrett .50 sniper rifles to use in the sandbox. They are lawful weapons, although rules of engagement (policy and tactics) may limit their use.
Um...the Tango 51 is a bit better then a M24. They are guaranteed to shoot .25 MOA. M24's are tuned to shoot 1 MOA. That translates to some serious difference on point of impact. :p Tactical Operations makes some of the DAMN best rifles out there and the care show in building their rifles.
SK has a valid point, the .50 in itself, is not illegal to use against personnel, and certainly not metioned in the Geneva conventions, and many ppl always mention the Geneva convention (alothoug there are more than one), as the convention that outlaws the use of the .50 cal. The Geneva conventions deal with the victims of war and non-combatants.
So in that sense, it is a urban myth, because the .50 isn't prohibited to use against personnel and not covered by the Geneva Conventions.
The Raufoss .50 cal. multipurpose round is another matter because it is explosive and incindary, and that would apply to any round not just the .50 cal, but any ammunition below the weight of 400 grams.
Explosive and incendiary are not allowed, as set by the St. Petersbug declaration of 1868, where it mentions ammunition with weigth less than 400 grams that are explosive and incindary or expanding on impact.
This was later added to the Hauge conventions of 1899 and 1907, in more general terms.
Re: The sniper rifle that should have been in SF...
Originally posted by B.U.R.N_Eazy-E72
Yeah, and no matter where you hit someone with it, that person would be done. I don't care if you hit him in the arm. Chances are he would no longer have that arm hence taking him out of the fight. The .50 cal round was not made to take out personel, it is designed to take out equipment. Per the "Laws of war" (which we seem to be the only country that follows them) drawn up during the Geneva convention, it is illegal to fire at personel with a .50 cal weapon.....so if you do happen to mow someone down with one all you have to say is that you were aiming at his canteen or ammo pouch.
You are actually 100% wrong. Period. In regards to this ridiculous .50 cal law.
Originally posted by [URL="http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/member.php?u=888"
Gunny Highway[/url]]
So in short, yes you can use a .50 cal round agains personnel, as long as it isn't explosive and incendiary.
you are also wrong. I know that the standard sniper round is a high explosive armor piercing incendiary round. at least for the m82 barret.
USMC Scout Sniper Instructor School Terminal Ballistics Demonstration of the Barrett M82A1A SASR showing the explosive rounds off. courtesy US. House Rep. Waxman
The contents of this film demonstrate the military effectiveness of this rifle, but also use highly exotic ammunition not available to the general public.
Re: The sniper rifle that should have been in SF...
For all of those who feel like quoting the Geneva Convention, based purely on what they THINK it contains, then if your so sure it forbids .50 weapons against people please find & post a quote/link to this.
There is an article (23e) in the Hague Regulations of 1907, that says "it is especially forbidden...to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering". The .50 would most likely cause a quick death, so no problem there.
Re: The sniper rifle that should have been in SF...
The DMR was intended for a differ class of soldier, the DM(Designated Marksman). The DMgives the infantry a better chance when dealing with enemy snipers and bad guys hiding in crowds. The DMR might be a better unlock for the Assualt trooper then the Sniper.
The DMR also comes in 2 flavors M14 and M16 based. The M14 was pressed into service because they could not build the accurate M16 DMR fast enough and the better ammo for the M16 was readily available.
The .50 as antipersonnel might be a bad thing, so I aim at the rifle. Bad thing is I'm not the best at reading the wind, I usually hit 2 inches to the right of the rifle(headshot...oops, sorry)
Re: The sniper rifle that should have been in SF...
Originally posted by SHADOW2492
you are also wrong. I know that the standard sniper round is a high explosive armor piercing incendiary round. at least for the m82 barret.
How does that make me wrong?? The .50 is a widely used for a wide range of weapons not just the M82, but lot of dirrerent weapons including machine guns.
The M82 primary role is Anti-Material so if it comes with an explosive round as standard doesn't change anything. You can replace the barrel so it fires different types of ammunitions.
Re: The sniper rifle that should have been in SF...
I'm looking forward to the new sniper unlock, and it will definitely have a silencer....if EA/Dice added the F2000 for assault with a scope(and a flashbang)---they won't hesitate to add a silencer---it will differentiate it from the M-95( the worst unlock of them all in my opinion)
Re: The sniper rifle that should have been in SF...
Originally posted by blackwindseminole
Urban legends are a kind of folklore consisting of stories often thought to be factual by those circulating them. This not merely folklore but based on hard actual facts. Simply because the it is not a statement within the Geneva or Hague ...does not make it or not make it a law.
So where are your "hard facts"? Laws people have to abide to are written down most of the time, so show me those hard facts and I´ll shut up.
Hard Facts we have so far:
-there is no ban of .50 Cal ammunition in the hague and geneva conventions.
-there is one passage in the hague convention you could interpret in a way as to relate to .50 Cal ammo.
- .50 Cal ammo has been used against "soft targets" by US and numerous other countries' forces since more than 60 years, without a fuss.
Clearly you have no conceptual idea how legal interpretation works in the military so I will leave you to your attempt of thinking you are correct in your statements semantically.
That´s so kind of you
Unfortunately I don´t see how your conceptual idea of a military that operates based on ROE/laws nowhere defined clearly on paper is anymore realistic than what I´m stating.
Trust me when I say Rules of Engagement are LAW.
Trust me when I say that ROE aren´t equal to some kind of "international law" that bans .50 Cal vs people. It´s ok if someone in 1991 was reluctant of .50 use, but that doesn´t mean .50 is generally banned. See above's hard facts.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment