-
Originally posted by bgstew6
Unless something changed after I got out, Thought it is against Geneova Convention to shoot personnel with 50 Cals, only equiptment. The joke in the Corps was well if you shoot someone then just tell higher that you were aiming at their pack, canteen etc.
Stew - you're not the only one who thought this. I think most senior NCOs still believe this to be true. L
34. Employment of Arms Causing Unnecessary Injury
a. Treaty Provision.
It is especially forbidden * * * to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. (HR, art. 23, par. (e).)
b. Interpretation. What weapons cause "unnecessary injury" can only be determined in light of the practice of States in refraining from the use of a given weapon because it is believed to have that effect. The prohibition certainly does not extend to the use of explosives contained in artillery projectiles, mines, rockets, or hand grenades. Usage has, however, established the illegality of the use of lances with barbed heads, irregular-shaped bullets, and projectiles filled with glass, the use of any substance on bullets that would tend unnecessarily to inflame a wound inflicted by them, and the scoring of the surface or the filing off of the ends of the hard cases of bullets.
Everyone knows that firing a battery of HE or HEDP at troops in the open is fine. Firing WP at them is not. Using a .50 cal projo at personnel is also fine. We have a lot of new kids on the team, so I had a Law of Land Warfare trainer give us the standard brief. He specifically mentioned the .50 cal rumor, and has never been able to figure out how long ago it got started. Maybe it's because conventional units are trained to use it as an anti-material weapon only.
We will receive the new M107s next week, and with our new equipment training is a block of instruction specifically on employment agains personnel.
Hope this helps all you killers out there!
-
VIDEO
SEND TO MEEZ PLEEZZ...
CABELLOJO@C-B.COM
-
-
#4954, 12APR01
Name:
Re: VIDEO
you've got mail!
-
-
My other car is a GT500
Name:
Last edited by LA_03HD; 11-10-2005 at 06:50 PM.
-
-
#4954, 12APR01
Name:
Originally posted by LA_03HD
I'd like to view a copy, please. - mr_gp1300r@yahoo.com
Don't know how I missed this post when it first went up.
Thanks,
Jim
on your way, JIM!
-
-
My other car is a GT500
Name:
Thanks, Kromie! Cool Sh!t
-
-
Sumo Blue
Name:
Originally posted by jpanchalk
Stew - you're not the only one who thought this. I think most senior NCOs still believe this to be true. L
34. Employment of Arms Causing Unnecessary Injury
a. Treaty Provision.
It is especially forbidden * * * to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. (HR, art. 23, par. (e).)
b. Interpretation. What weapons cause "unnecessary injury" can only be determined in light of the practice of States in refraining from the use of a given weapon because it is believed to have that effect. The prohibition certainly does not extend to the use of explosives contained in artillery projectiles, mines, rockets, or hand grenades. Usage has, however, established the illegality of the use of lances with barbed heads, irregular-shaped bullets, and projectiles filled with glass, the use of any substance on bullets that would tend unnecessarily to inflame a wound inflicted by them, and the scoring of the surface or the filing off of the ends of the hard cases of bullets.
Everyone knows that firing a battery of HE or HEDP at troops in the open is fine. Firing WP at them is not. Using a .50 cal projo at personnel is also fine. We have a lot of new kids on the team, so I had a Law of Land Warfare trainer give us the standard brief. He specifically mentioned the .50 cal rumor, and has never been able to figure out how long ago it got started. Maybe it's because conventional units are trained to use it as an anti-material weapon only.
We will receive the new M107s next week, and with our new equipment training is a block of instruction specifically on employment agains personnel.
Hope this helps all you killers out there!
Made me think of the HE/WP mix we'd shoot in artillery. Informally called a "shake-n-bake."
I coined a term for when we were putting illum rounds out there with WP: "blind-n-burn."
-
-
Hey - it's not your fault there were people under an illum airburst. It's all about intent. He he he.....
-
-
Sumo Blue
Name:
<scratching head> Airburst? We were putting 'em on the deck! They were, um, marking rounds (yeah, that's it) for close air support.
-
-
Moderator
Name:
Ok I heard about these whilst in the forces so hit me up with a copy if ya would thanks
-
-
553-558 14lbs
Name:
-
-
#4954, 12APR01
Name:
Originally posted by hemiuk
Ok I heard about these whilst in the forces so hit me up with a copy if ya would thanks
need your e-mail addy
-
-
#4954, 12APR01
Name:
done!
-
-
553-558 14lbs
Name:
cool video kromie thanks!
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules