{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/5/2012 4:41:16 AM
137
I cannot find the kill radius of a 30mm round. Why?
Been watching a video called "2 APACHES KILL A PLATOON OF TALIBAN" link removed... is including the title okay?
What are those rounds actually doing to those poor blams?
I spent a good half hour trying to find data or even just non black and white gun cam videos of the affects of the 30 x 113 mm shells the Apaches fire, and literally nothing comes up.
What the hell?
Is it classified?
I don't get it....
Thoughts on apaches, this thread, the video, auto cannons, whatever; discuss below.
GOGOGOOGOGOGO!
Edit: Have not been on the flood for while, intrepid member? Cool, and if this is against the rules, which I'm pretty sure it's not, someone please tell me, or if you're a mod, well.... :(
[Edited on 10.04.2012 8:51 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] oaklandp8ntbalr To answer your question, OP; that's probably classified.[/quote] Which is ironic, as the people with the most experience on the subject are the people who "necessitated" its classification. Read: Taliban [Edited on 10.07.2012 1:53 PM PDT]
-
To answer your question, OP; that's probably classified.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scottus4 [quote]Now bring forth the "It's too damn much to kill one of them turban haeds"[/quote] You say this like it isn't a valid point of view. This is money being piled onto the national debt. I wouldn't be surprised if 3/4 of the national debt was the military. That's sad when you consider stuff like NASA and such are being cut because firing a missile is more satisfying than shooting them with a turret. [/quote] I didn't (purposely) paint any of them as valid points of view, I just like an excuse to say "turban head" That part you posted was for people that are pro war/military and very anti insurgent, thus placing very little value on their lives. You seem to be one of the other view points. [Edited on 10.07.2012 1:48 PM PDT]
-
[quote]Now bring forth the "It's too damn much to kill one of them turban haeds"[/quote] You say this like it isn't a valid point of view. This is money being piled onto the national debt. I wouldn't be surprised if 3/4 of the national debt was the military. That's sad when you consider stuff like NASA and such are being cut because firing a missile is more satisfying than shooting them with a turret.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scottus4 I thought there was some Geneva Convention restriction on shooting someone who is incapacitated? There's a guy completely down just trying to pull himself forward with one arm, then rata-tat-tat they unload on him. At another point they unload on someone completely motionless. It was basically an execution. (watching more of the video, they do this several times, that's pretty sick) And I don't give a -blam!- if they don't play fair either. We're America. We're supposed to adhere to a higher code. [/quote] Yes and no. To clarify, a combatant is free game until you have cleared through. So if you shoot a guy, so long as he's still in front of you, you can drop 3 more mags into him, hit him with a tomahawk, then stab him with a bayonet and it's fine. The moment you pass him, however, it becomes a war crime. That rule somewhat applies to aircraft, but since the Geneva Convention is outdated, it's sketchy. But, as is a loophole, they can simply claim he was still posing a threat and he's free game. Not to mention it's a bit of a mercy kill/protecting our asses. Tali is known to hide grenades under their bodies or make a last futile attempt to shoot forces as they come through. War is hell.
-
It's kill radius is ~10ft with a ~25ft blast radius. The effects of being hit by even one of those is pretty brutal, although nowhere near as brutal as an A-10's GAU-8. I have a secret crush on the A-10. As for seeing the effects, look up somebody being hit by a train or large truck, that's pretty close. EDIT: Tali operates throughout the middle east and even into Africa, although Afghanistan has always been their safe haven. [Edited on 10.07.2012 1:53 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] otterboyz My Dad showed me a video on youtube once of how an Apache used about 6 Hellfire missiles to attack 4 insurgents. Such a waist of money. [/quote] And let's do some math! AGM-114 Hellfire: 68,000 USD 68,000 X 6 = 408,000 USD Divided by 4, the number of insurgents: 102,00 Human life < 102,00$ (Although that's only the ammunition, let alone the multi million dollar helicopter, the pilots, the airbase, the mechanics, the entire command staff.... you're still assigning arbitrary value to a life) Now bring forth the "It's too damn much to kill one of them turban haeds" vs "F yeah, murica/whatever it takes" vs "we shouldn't even be killing them!" vs a bunch of other viewpoints. This thread has had surprisingly informed discussion so far, I'd like it to continue. [Edited on 10.07.2012 12:59 PM PDT]
-
My Dad showed me a video on youtube once of how an Apache used about 6 Hellfire missiles to attack 4 insurgents. Such a waist of money. [Edited on 10.06.2012 9:11 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scottus4 [quote]The Taliban are present in Afghanistan and Afghanistan only.[/quote] I was under the impression that Pakistan was also engaged in conflict with them, but it is different organization that shares a similar name and ideology. Had to look that up. [/quote]What's interesting about this is that the Taliban attack our Firebases from the pakistani mountain range then retreat across the border when they've had enough rendering any sort of pursuit useless...the Pakistani military has been fighting the Taliban on their side of the border creating a pincer.
-
[quote][i]Islamist zealots draw no distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Jihadists target women, children, and the elderly without even the pretence of discrimination. In June 2004, an Al-Qaeda affiliated group distributed a video proudly documenting the beheading of a U.S. civilian, proclaiming: "the mujahedeen from the Fallujah Squadron slaughtered the American hostage Paul Johnson.[/i][/quote] Okay, Afghanistan has signed the Geneva Convention.
-
[quote]The Taliban are present in Afghanistan and Afghanistan only.[/quote] I was under the impression that Pakistan was also engaged in conflict with them, but it is different organization that shares a similar name and ideology. Had to look that up. [Edited on 10.06.2012 8:47 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scottus4 [quote]The Taliban are not the standing power in Afghanistan...if anyone should sign the document it would have to be the controlling government at this time...I agree the document is out of date but until it changes things will carry on as they are. [/quote] Afghanistan has signed the Geneva Convention unless the internet is lying to me right now. So... I'm not sure what you're referring to. [/quote]I will verefy...though it's going to be a while... But my big thing is that if the Convention changes then the Rules of Engagement change and that's what I'm damn curious to see. Give me a bit here.
-
[quote]The Taliban are not the standing power in Afghanistan...if anyone should sign the document it would have to be the controlling government at this time...I agree the document is out of date but until it changes things will carry on as they are. [/quote] Afghanistan has signed the Geneva Convention unless the internet is lying to me right now. So... I'm not sure what you're referring to.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scottus4 I thought there was some Geneva Convention restriction on shooting someone who is incapacitated? There's a guy completely down just trying to pull himself forward with one arm, then rata-tat-tat they unload on him. At another point they unload on someone completely motionless. It was basically an execution. (watching more of the video, they do this several times, that's pretty sick) And I don't give a -blam!- if they don't play fair either. We're America. We're supposed to adhere to a higher code. [/quote] I'm glad they finished them off. It's better to kill them when they have no chance to fight than let them slowly die a painful death. I don't care what any Convention says if I see someone missing a leg or more, or clearly in a lot of pain with no hope to live, then I'll kill them. Friend or Foe. No human deserves to die a slow and painful death. At least not someone like a soldier, they're only fighting for what they believe in. (I don't mind seeing rapists die a slow painful death, I'd laugh at them while they do)
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scottus4 If it was the Afghani government fighting a local rebellion, then in that case shooting the disabled enemy would be breaking the Geneva Convention, because rebels fighting against a government body in a country that has signed the Geneva Convention are afforded basic protections. [/quote] When people fight a rebellion, they are breaking away from the established government, forming an entity within themselves. If this newly established entity makes no effort to sign, even if it is symbolic, i.e. televised message announcing that they are going to adhere to G.C., or at least follow the Geneva Convention, then I see no reason whatsoever for it to apply to them. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scottus4 It only gets more complicated when you consider that Taliban is in a number of countries as well, so even though they're not an official state, they're not a regional entity either. [/quote] The Taliban are present in Afghanistan and Afghanistan only. [Edited on 10.06.2012 8:37 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scottus4 [quote]The Convention does not apply to those who do not A. Follow it or B. Have not signed it. In this case, the insurgents have done neither.[/quote] Not exactly. However, the special exceptions don't appear to apply after digging around. I honestly think the Geneva Convention needs an update though. Some of the realities of today weren't considered by those who formed the Geneva Convention. If it was the Afghani government fighting a local rebellion, then in that case shooting the disabled enemy would be breaking the Geneva Convention, because rebels fighting against a government body in a country that has signed the Geneva Convention are afforded basic protections. However, if another country is taking police action in Afghanistan, that appears to circumvent that rule. Clearly an unintended loophole if I understand the situation. It only gets more complicated when you consider that Taliban is in a number of countries as well, so even though they're not an official state, they're not a regional entity either. [/quote]The Taliban are not the standing power in Afghanistan...if anyone should sign the document it would have to be the controlling government at this time...I agree the document is out of date but until it changes things will carry on as they are. The Geneva Convention has a lot of grey area...and honestly, so long as the Taliban continue to desecrate bodies and kill their prisoners regardless of who they are there's no stopping anyone from really returning the favor. In fact, I've seen this movie somewhere before. [Edited on 10.06.2012 8:36 PM PDT]
-
[quote]The Convention does not apply to those who do not A. Follow it or B. Have not signed it. In this case, the insurgents have done neither.[/quote] Not exactly. However, the special exceptions don't appear to apply after digging around. I honestly think the Geneva Convention needs an update though. Some of the realities of today weren't considered by those who formed the Geneva Convention. If it was the Afghani government fighting a local rebellion, then in that case shooting the disabled enemy would be breaking the Geneva Convention, because rebels fighting against a government body in a country that has signed the Geneva Convention are afforded basic protections. However, if another country is taking police action in Afghanistan, that appears to circumvent that rule. Clearly an unintended loophole if I understand the situation. It only gets more complicated when you consider that Taliban is in a number of countries as well, so even though they're not an official state, they're not a regional entity either.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scottus4 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Grimaldus [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scottus4 I thought there was some Geneva Convention restriction on shooting someone who is incapacitated? There's a guy completely down just trying to pull himself forward with one arm, then rata-tat-tat they unload on him. At another point they unload on someone completely motionless. It was basically an execution. And I don't give a -blam!- if they don't play fair either. We're America. We're supposed to adhere to a higher code. [/quote]There is but it's not really as strangling as many think. it's a bit different when a helicopter strafes a target...it's not an execution....the crew isn't screwing with them...and say that crawling guy makes it to a weapons cache and snags a rocket...then what...it's a whole lot better just to kill them right there then have it come back and bite you in the ass. [/quote] Ok... shooting the guy crawling I can see the justification there, you could argue he could be moving towards his gun or another weapon to return fire. Shooting someone completely immobile on the ground though... that's an execution. I can't think of any other word to describe it. You're killing someone not presenting any threat to you. And no, distance does not make it "ok". Shooting someone injured lying still on the ground is equivalent to beheading a captured American. You aren't allowed to "finish them off" if they're no longer able to commit to the fight. It is explicitly forbidden in the Geneva Convention. [/quote]Except evidence over the 10 years has proven that the only way these guys will no longer commit to the fight is when they're dead. The UN has been made aware of it long time ago and the rules of engagement have been amended. Also, as a member has said below, certain individuals are not protected by the Geneva Convention...A for the immobile guys...you can argue that they're playing possum.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] WyIdfyre [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MilitaryTheorist [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] WyIdfyre It saddens me how many of today's society can talk so casually and act so apathetically about taking another human's life.[/quote] This isn't anything new, Wyld. Dehumanization of the enemy has been going on for thousands of years.[/quote]I know, but you would think by now that "civilization" would've grow somewhat in that aspect over such a period.[/quote] it is because you didn't see really anything, other than that one guy getting blown to pieces. if there was blood and it was in color it would be different
-
The type of gun firing the round makes a huge difference, so it definitely isn't out of range. As for spread, gunners can usually compensate for it if they know the cause, but I doubt that it would even be an issue at that range.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scottus4 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Grimaldus [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scottus4 I thought there was some Geneva Convention restriction on shooting someone who is incapacitated? There's a guy completely down just trying to pull himself forward with one arm, then rata-tat-tat they unload on him. At another point they unload on someone completely motionless. It was basically an execution. And I don't give a -blam!- if they don't play fair either. We're America. We're supposed to adhere to a higher code. [/quote]There is but it's not really as strangling as many think. it's a bit different when a helicopter strafes a target...it's not an execution....the crew isn't screwing with them...and say that crawling guy makes it to a weapons cache and snags a rocket...then what...it's a whole lot better just to kill them right there then have it come back and bite you in the ass. [/quote] Ok... shooting the guy crawling I can see the justification there, you could argue he could be moving towards his gun or another weapon to return fire. Shooting someone completely immobile on the ground though... that's an execution. I can't think of any other word to describe it. You're killing someone not presenting any threat to you. [/quote] The Convention does not apply to those who do not A. Follow it or B. Have not signed it. In this case, the insurgents have done neither.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MilitaryTheorist [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] WyIdfyre It saddens me how many of today's society can talk so casually and act so apathetically about taking another human's life.[/quote] This isn't anything new, Wyld. Dehumanization of the enemy has been going on for thousands of years.[/quote]I know, but you would think by now that "civilization" would've grow somewhat in that aspect over such a period. [Edited on 10.06.2012 8:07 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MilitaryTheorist [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] WyIdfyre It saddens me how many of today's society can talk so casually and act so apathetically about taking another human's life.[/quote] This isn't anything new, Wyld. Dehumanization of the enemy has been going on for thousands of years.[/quote]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Grimaldus [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Scottus4 I thought there was some Geneva Convention restriction on shooting someone who is incapacitated? There's a guy completely down just trying to pull himself forward with one arm, then rata-tat-tat they unload on him. At another point they unload on someone completely motionless. It was basically an execution. And I don't give a -blam!- if they don't play fair either. We're America. We're supposed to adhere to a higher code. [/quote]There is but it's not really as strangling as many think. it's a bit different when a helicopter strafes a target...it's not an execution....the crew isn't screwing with them...and say that crawling guy makes it to a weapons cache and snags a rocket...then what...it's a whole lot better just to kill them right there then have it come back and bite you in the ass. [/quote] Ok... shooting the guy crawling I can see the justification there, you could argue he could be moving towards his gun or another weapon to return fire. Shooting someone completely immobile on the ground though... that's an execution. I can't think of any other word to describe it. You're killing someone not presenting any threat to you. And no, distance does not make it "ok". Shooting someone injured lying still on the ground is equivalent to beheading a captured American. You aren't allowed to "finish them off" if they're no longer able to commit to the fight. It is explicitly forbidden in the Geneva Convention. [Edited on 10.06.2012 8:07 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] WyIdfyre It saddens me how many of today's society can talk so casually and act so apathetically about taking another human's life.[/quote] This isn't anything new, Wyld. Dehumanization of the enemy has been going on for thousands of years.
-
It saddens me how many of today's society can talk so casually and act so apathetically about taking another human's life.
