The Forum › Everything Else FileCabi.net Forum (2007–2008)

sniper v tank

1. Cymru am bythSalvaged from archive23 Jan 2007, 05:22
   NEVER bring a rifle to a tank battle http://www.filecabi.net/view.php?file=Dontbringrifle2tank…
2. fasterspiderSalvaged from archive23 Jan 2007, 08:56
   That is as brilliant as bringing a knife to a gun fight, sweet.
3. BrixtonSalvaged from archive23 Jan 2007, 09:33
   This shows a total disregard for rules on engagement in combat. its called, PROPORTIONATE FIRE Im thnking this is an act by the americans in iraq perhaps. I have heard from UK soldiers that have been and they say the use of proportionate fire isnt enforced by the americans out there, its actually illegal in the rules of combat. For example, if you receive small arms fire from a rifle, you reply with proprtionate fire i.e small arms fire. You dont blow the fucking hell out of the place - whats the point in blowing up that building aswell as the Iraqi? Also, think about the cost, that shell would have cost around $1000, when he could have been dropped using one bullet. Its disgusting.
4. fasterspiderSalvaged from archive23 Jan 2007, 10:23
   Also, think about the cost, that shell would have cost around $1000, when he could have been dropped using one bullet. Its disgusting. It would be so much cheaper to drop a nuc and clean them out for good.
5. BrixtonSalvaged from archive23 Jan 2007, 10:35
   It would be so much cheaper to drop a nuc and clean them out for good. or they could drop a nuke. But seriously, this vid stinks. Any Army folk out there will know what Im on about - rules of engagement etc etc.
6. nixrevolSalvaged from archive23 Jan 2007, 11:59
   Also, think about the cost, that shell would have cost around $1000, when he could have been dropped using one bullet. Its disgusting. It would be so much cheaper to drop a nuc and clean them out for good. could say the same for another country...
7. Cymru am bythSalvaged from archive29 Jan 2007, 03:44
   This shows a total disregard for rules on engagement in combat. its called, PROPORTIONATE FIRE Im thnking this is an act by the americans in iraq perhaps. I have heard from UK soldiers that have been and they say the use of proportionate fire isnt enforced by the americans out there, its actually illegal in the rules of combat. For example, if you receive small arms fire from a rifle, you reply with proprtionate fire i.e small arms fire. You dont blow the fucking hell out of the place - whats the point in blowing up that building aswell as the Iraqi? Also, think about the cost, that shell would have cost around $1000, when he could have been dropped using one bullet. Its disgusting. thats bollocks man, at the end of the day it's kill or be killed
8. asdfSalvaged from archive29 Jan 2007, 03:58
   It wasn't a tank, it was a ruptured gas line. You can see the line burning near the end of the video. A tank would've sucked just as bad though.
9. asdfSalvaged from archive29 Jan 2007, 04:01
   This shows a total disregard for rules on engagement in combat. its called, PROPORTIONATE FIRE Im thnking this is an act by the americans in iraq perhaps. I have heard from UK soldiers that have been and they say the use of proportionate fire isnt enforced by the americans out there, its actually illegal in the rules of combat. For example, if you receive small arms fire from a rifle, you reply with proprtionate fire i.e small arms fire. You dont blow the fucking hell out of the place - whats the point in blowing up that building aswell as the Iraqi? Also, think about the cost, that shell would have cost around $1000, when he could have been dropped using one bullet. Its disgusting. No worries, that guy was dropped with a few dollars worth of propane. ;)
10. TurkeybasterSalvaged from archive30 Jan 2007, 00:02
    or they could drop a nuke. But seriously, this vid stinks. Any Army folk out there will know what Im on about - rules of engagement etc etc. your wrong. You are correct about rules of engagement, which the U.S. follows to a T. The proportionate fire thing is B.S. though. I am an ARMY officer and had 2 weeks of classes on this subject alone. I also had that misconception going into the class, that you could not use a .50 cal on personell, only equipment and vehicles, and other such nonsence. That was all a load of shit. You can do whatever you deem necesary to neautralize the threat, especially if you are in a tank and don't have any other option. It would be dumb of you to think that they would have to step out of the safety of their tank and try to shoot him with a rifle. What you do try to avoid is collateral damage, but like I said, i doubt that there was a platoon of infantry jogging behind the tank to take the job. And as far as rules of engagement goes, we take extreme caution and take every measure possible to ensure that we fire at the proper target and the awe are allowed to fire. I'm sure you have seen the video of the appache copter firing on the Iraqi's making an RPG sale in the field. Just listen to all the radio transmissions asking if they have permission to fire. Or the AC-130 firing on the training camp, but not firing on the mosque right next to it even though many terrorists are hiding there. Anyway, I just wanted to enlighten everyone, because what you said is a common misconception
11. Cymru am bythSalvaged from archive30 Jan 2007, 16:29
    It wasn't a tank, it was a ruptured gas line. You can see the line burning near the end of the video. A tank would've sucked just as bad though. if you look carfully the gas is ignited by the tank shell exploding, the gas isn't burning until the guy is splattered all over the wall
12. scrape98Salvaged from archive31 Jan 2007, 12:59
    This shows a total disregard for rules on engagement in combat. its called, PROPORTIONATE FIRE Im thnking this is an act by the americans in iraq perhaps. I have heard from UK soldiers that have been and they say the use of proportionate fire isnt enforced by the americans out there, its actually illegal in the rules of combat. For example, if you receive small arms fire from a rifle, you reply with proprtionate fire i.e small arms fire. You dont blow the fucking hell out of the place - whats the point in blowing up that building aswell as the Iraqi? Also, think about the cost, that shell would have cost around $1000, when he could have been dropped using one bullet. Its disgusting. read the hague and geneva conventions. when fighting an un-uniformed, militia like army, like what the insurgents are, the rules of war are basically thrown out of the window. anything goes when fighting against guerilla style warfare. yet like also like turkeybaster posted in most cases they ask for permission to fire, and according to the conventions, they really dont have to. which personally i think a tank round was a little bit of overkill, but whatever it takes to get the job done.

Reply

Sign in or create an account to reply to this old topic.

Want your old post taken down? Get in touch.