.50 BMG's are good for shooting through panic room steel doors.
[QUOTE=Username?;18449093]I'm pretty sure nobody actually uses incendiary weapons anymore.[/QUOTE]
There are still incendiaries out there. Not as generally used and they are extremely rare, but they're there.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;18272318]The USAF uses A-10s to do CAS.[/QUOTE]
They also use F-16's a lot for CAS. F-16's are pretty versatile. But nothing will beat an A-10 when you need a line of tanks gone.
[QUOTE=Thomas849;18449249]There are still incendiaries out there. Not as generally used and they are extremely rare, but they're there.[/QUOTE]
Sabot rounds are very much the same, and are still used by the military today
I find rules of war to be very hypocritical
War in itself is brutal no matter how it's done
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;18446332]Hell, why not just tip or fill the bullets with pufferfish poison, that wya then a kill is guaranteed within seconds.[/QUOTE]
Or better yet, acidic rounds. That's right, let's melt those terrorist bitches. :downs:
[QUOTE=archangel125;18449050]Your post was good until this retarded bit. If anything, this makes you seem more of an eleven-year-old than anyone else. I'm fucking nineteen, you tool. What are you, twelve?[/QUOTE]
From your posts on this forum its hard to tell that you are nineteen.
I don't think anybody would have ANY time to suffer if they were shot with a .50 BMG.
[QUOTE=mpntball2012;18458217]I don't think anybody would have ANY time to suffer if they were shot with a .50 BMG.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much that, no matter where you are hit it will leave such a large wound you would bleed out pretty fast.
ban high caliber bullets?
that's a great idea, im sure that any enemy to the U.N, U.S, U.K, etc. will TOTALLY follow this rule
[QUOTE=archangel125;18437802]Not necessarily. The 7.62 is definitely of a higher caliber than the 5.56, but it is slower, has a lower effective range, and is more easily affected by wind and temperature. Therefore, it is less accurate. Match grade bullets perform much better because they're carefully manufactured.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think the M14 DMR and M24 (And various other precision rifles as well as some machine-guns) are chambered in 7.62x51?
[QUOTE=cheeseman52;18446653]In certain situations a weapon like that is needed, such as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes they killed around 100,000 civilians but they saved the lives of millions of both americans and japanese alike. Just look at all battle of Tarawa where our Marines landed and tried to take the island from the Japanese. By the end of the battle every single Japanese was killed. The reason why is while most were killed in combat but large portion committed suicide rather than e rather than being dishonored by being captured. If we were to invade the mainland of Japan millions of soldiers would have been killed and civilians too. Weapons like these are made to shock and awe the enemy into surrendering. My grandpa fought on Tarawa as part of the 6th battalion and in his opinion of seeing the wars in the pacific. A weapon like that was needed.
Also, don't say stupid shit like that when your an eleven year old that sits behind your computer all day playing call of duty thinking he knows what war is because of what he sees on the internet. If you have a grandparent who fought in WW2 ask them about their opinion and the things they saw as they fought. Come back and tell me then that a weapon such as that isn't needed.[/QUOTE]
You, on the other hand, ofcourse already experienced an A-Bomb being dropped on you. 1 death is a murder, but killing that much people is just a statistic. I can't believe how gruel you are.
[editline]12:30AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;18458484]ban high caliber bullets?
that's a great idea, im sure that any enemy to the U.N, U.S, U.K, etc. will TOTALLY follow this rule[/QUOTE]
Enemy of the U.N.?
Also I don't think that the people U.S. are currently fighting even have the money to buy such equipment.
If anything, ban 22's... a large caliber round, shot into your arm will go through and you can probably live.
A 22... I've seen someone get shot in the upper arm with it and it followed his bone and ended up in his heart.
[QUOTE=The Saiko;18459160]You, on the other hand, ofcourse already experienced an A-Bomb being dropped on you. 1 death is a murder, but killing that much people is just a statistic. I can't believe how gruel you are.[/QUOTE]
Wait, you mean that killing under 200,000 is worse than killing over 1,000,000?
EDIT: Snip - moving this shit
DOWN THE PAGE
[QUOTE=The Saiko;18459160]You, on the other hand, ofcourse already experienced an A-Bomb being dropped on you. 1 death is a murder, but killing that much people is just a statistic. I can't believe how gruel you are.
[editline]12:30AM[/editline]
Enemy of the U.N.?
Also I don't think that the people U.S. are currently fighting even have the money to buy such equipment.[/QUOTE]
So your saying it was better for us to not drop the bombs? Invading Japan was the only other alternative and those cities would have probably been bombed into oblivion if that happened.
[QUOTE=cheeseman52;18459431]So your saying it was better for us to not drop the bombs? Invading Japan was the only other alternative and those cities would have probably been bombed into oblivion if that happened.[/QUOTE]
This exactly. There would have been a much larger number of civilian AND military casualties, as well as destruction in general, if the allies had invaded.
[editline]11:55PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Saiko;18459160]I can't believe how [b]gruel[/b] you are.
[/QUOTE]
[b]YoU ARE GRUEL[/b]
[img]http://www.mightysweet.com/mesohungry/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/01-gravy-gruel.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=LordLoss;18439296]By who, Captain Price? :downs:
The Barret is an Anti Materiel rifle, only to be used against actual combatants in an emergency. And there's no way it has ever been used in an assassination, that's just fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]
/agree.
The IRA used some M82s in the 80s and 90s, how they managed to get their hands on them I don't bloody know.
[editline]11:43PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Saiko;18459160]You, on the other hand, ofcourse already experienced an A-Bomb being dropped on you. 1 death is a murder, but killing that much people is just a statistic. I can't believe how gruel you are.
[/QUOTE]
/facepalm
If you're gonna quote Stalin, quote him right. "A single death is a tragedy; A million deaths is a statistic". But as Cheeseman said, the use of the Atom Bombs in WW2 was pretty much justified. Would you rather the Allies had to pull another Normandy? The Japanese would've fought to the death too, and that included women and children. Levelling two cities to save hundreds of thousands, or even millions of lives (both civilian and military) is fine by me.
[quote=The Saiko;18459160]Also I don't think that the people U.S. are currently fighting even have the money to buy such equipment.[/QUOTE] You'd be surprised. The Taliban and Iraqi Insurgency have Russian 12.7mm machineguns (NSV/Ts, DShK/Ms, Kords) at their disposal. The West isn't the only side of the planet that develops .50 caliber weaponry.
On the topic of .50 calibre bullets, I heard somewhere its not a problem of suffering, its more of a problem getting the remains home to any family. Not many people want to bury a shoebox of remains, or a body missing half its limbs.
[QUOTE=Deathbyfire;18459885]On the topic of .50 calibre bullets, I heard somewhere its not a problem of suffering, its more of a problem getting the remains home to any family. Not many people want to bury a shoebox of remains, or a body missing half its limbs.[/QUOTE]
12.7mm rounds don't make people explode (Unless it's the APEI, but that sees hardly any use).
[QUOTE=iownuall;18449611]Sabot rounds are very much the same, and are still used by the military today[/QUOTE]
Kinetic energy penetrators (AKA APFSDS or just SABOT) do not burn as they use [i]kinetic energy[/i] to destroy the target. Unless the penetrator rod was made of depleted uranium. Then flakes of the stuff chip off when it penetrates and burns.
I'm not seeing any problem with torturing POWs, and never have.
Why not use a stolen pencil as a stabbing tool?
I suggest the subjects are stabbed right in the spine. *crit noise*
[QUOTE=Username?;18449093]I'm pretty sure nobody actually uses incendiary weapons anymore.[/QUOTE]
Meant that it's good they're banned. Burning people is , like, a total dick move.
Why would someone try to ban the use of 50 caliber rounds?
[QUOTE=Tac Error;18460283]Kinetic energy penetrators (AKA APFSDS or just SABOT) do not burn as they use [i]kinetic energy[/i] to destroy the target. Unless the penetrator rod was made of depleted uranium. Then flakes of the stuff chip off when it penetrates and burns.[/QUOTE]
HEAT rounds do punch through armour with super-heated metal though. Still, it won't set someone alight, it'll just blast them to bits.
[editline]12:50AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=venn177;18460313]I'm not seeing any problem with torturing POWs, and never have.[/QUOTE]
Because if you treat your prisoners like shit and the enemy know that, they'll be more inclined to fight to the death rather than surrender.
[editline]12:51AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;18460428]Why would someone try to ban the use of 50 caliber rounds?[/QUOTE]
Lack of understanding
This guy has made like 6 threads in the last 2 days.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;18460475]HEAT rounds do punch through armour with super-heated metal though. Still, it won't set someone alight, it'll just blast them to bits.[/QUOTE]
But he did say SABOT rounds. Besides, shaped charges are not specifically designed to kill crewman via burning. If we look at the [url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm]UN Convention on Conventional Weapons[/url], incendiary weapons are not:
[quote]Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities[/quote]
[QUOTE=Tac Error;18461175]But he did say SABOT rounds. Besides, shaped charges are not specifically designed to kill crewman via burning. If we look at the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons, incendiary weapons are not:[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, I'm aware of that, I was just sort of thinking aloud but in text form
[editline]01:32AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;18461044]This guy has made like 6 threads in the last 2 days.[/QUOTE]
But they do prompt interesting discussions
[QUOTE=Thomas849;18449249]There are still incendiaries out there. Not as generally used and they are extremely rare, but they're there.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about other countries, but the US doesn't use incendiary or phosphorous grenades, ammunition, or artillery because of the Geneva Conventions. The US has very large amounts of all of those, but aren't allowed to use them.
[QUOTE=rsynv5;18480713]I don't know about other countries, but the US doesn't use incendiary or phosphorous grenades, ammunition, or artillery because of the Geneva Conventions. The US has very large amounts of all of those, but aren't allowed to use them.[/QUOTE]
I don't know. I hear they used White Phosphorous artillery to shake insurgents from open positions prior to the raid on Fallujah in November 2004.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;18460475]
Because if you treat your prisoners like shit and the enemy know that, they'll be more inclined to fight to the death rather than surrender.[/QUOTE]
I agree, however; torturing POWs could also work the other way, making the enemy scared of fighting and being captured.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
