-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Re: One shot.. to multiple targets.. what changed?
Snipers throughout the times, 2nd WW and such, also engaged multiple targets, but at a slower rate than someone with a SA DMR.
My feeling of the "one shot-one kill" thing, is that it is/was a solution to a VIP issue that in todays political climate is considered incorrect.
Instead of "assasinations" the trend seems to lean towards capturing your target alive and bringing him/her to court.
The need for well aimed fire in a regular combat situation have always been present, but lately it has gained more focus with the deployment of designated marksmen.
Todays battlefields in hectic and often crowded environments with risk of colatteral damage and more media cover if such has probably increased this need as well.
Just my personal thoughts anyway.
Snipers throughout the times, 2nd WW and such, also engaged multiple targets, but at a slower rate than someone with a SA DMR.
My feeling of the "one shot-one kill" thing, is that it is/was a solution to a VIP issue that in todays political climate is considered incorrect.
Instead of "assasinations" the trend seems to lean towards capturing your target alive and bringing him/her to court.
The need for well aimed fire in a regular combat situation have always been present, but lately it has gained more focus with the deployment of designated marksmen.
Todays battlefields in hectic and often crowded environments with risk of colatteral damage and more media cover if such has probably increased this need as well.
Just my personal thoughts anyway.
Re: One shot.. to multiple targets.. what changed?
My point is, flexibility and agility are the strength of small units. When a rifleman has the opportunity to influence the outcome by maximizing his lethality by engaging multiple targets this is opportunity indeed. We are all soldiers/marines/combatants if you're having a good day and your c.k.'s exceeds that of the the Air Force, drive on we all do what we can to contribute. War is definitly a team sport. You may be isolated but you are never alone in your efforts.
My point is, flexibility and agility are the strength of small units. When a rifleman has the opportunity to influence the outcome by maximizing his lethality by engaging multiple targets this is opportunity indeed. We are all soldiers/marines/combatants if you're having a good day and your c.k.'s exceeds that of the the Air Force, drive on we all do what we can to contribute. War is definitly a team sport. You may be isolated but you are never alone in your efforts.
Re: One shot.. to multiple targets.. what changed?
One Shot One Kill is a USMC Recruitment slogan... it was made up by the marketing department to recruit future snipers.
think:
The Few the Proud
Army of One
Aim High
stuff like that, you don't think a grunt on the line made that stuff up... neither did Hathcock, he had a sales and marketing team in Ed Land, who "sold' his exploits, along with others.
Sounds great on the TV but not some much in real life. Why would you leave dinner on the plate when you can eat it all. That's just silly. If 5 guys are setting up an IED do you shoot one and leave, or work on all 5 ? That one (or 4) missed opportunity could mean someone's life the next day.
One Shot One Kill is a USMC Recruitment slogan... it was made up by the marketing department to recruit future snipers.
think:
The Few the Proud
Army of One
Aim High
stuff like that, you don't think a grunt on the line made that stuff up... neither did Hathcock, he had a sales and marketing team in Ed Land, who "sold' his exploits, along with others.
Sounds great on the TV but not some much in real life. Why would you leave dinner on the plate when you can eat it all. That's just silly. If 5 guys are setting up an IED do you shoot one and leave, or work on all 5 ? That one (or 4) missed opportunity could mean someone's life the next day.
Re: One shot.. to multiple targets.. what changed?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One Shot One Kill is a USMC Recruitment slogan... it was made up by the marketing department to recruit future snipers.
think:
The Few the Proud
Army of One
Aim High
stuff like that, you don't think a grunt on the line made that stuff up... neither did Hathcock, he had a sales and marketing team in Ed Land, who "sold' his exploits, along with others.
Sounds great on the TV but not some much in real life. Why would you leave dinner on the plate when you can eat it all. That's just silly. If 5 guys are setting up an IED do you shoot one and leave, or work on all 5 ? That one (or 4) missed opportunity could mean someone's life the next day. </div></div>
Well put.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One Shot One Kill is a USMC Recruitment slogan... it was made up by the marketing department to recruit future snipers.
think:
The Few the Proud
Army of One
Aim High
stuff like that, you don't think a grunt on the line made that stuff up... neither did Hathcock, he had a sales and marketing team in Ed Land, who "sold' his exploits, along with others.
Sounds great on the TV but not some much in real life. Why would you leave dinner on the plate when you can eat it all. That's just silly. If 5 guys are setting up an IED do you shoot one and leave, or work on all 5 ? That one (or 4) missed opportunity could mean someone's life the next day. </div></div>
Well put.
Re: One shot.. to multiple targets.. what changed?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: John lima_mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Snipers throughout the times, 2nd WW and such, also engaged multiple targets, but at a slower rate than someone with a SA DMR.
My feeling of the "one shot-one kill" thing, is that it is/was a solution to a VIP issue that in todays political climate is considered incorrect.
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Instead of "assasinations" the trend seems to lean towards capturing your target alive and bringing him/her to court.</span></span>
The need for well aimed fire in a regular combat situation have always been present, but lately it has gained more focus with the deployment of designated marksmen.
Todays battlefields in hectic and often crowded environments with risk of colatteral damage and more media cover if such has probably increased this need as well.
Just my personal thoughts anyway.
</div></div>
That's the problem now a day. It costs a lot more money to put on a "public show--trial" and then feed the damn prisoner. A bullet is much cheaper, even when it's purchased at DOD's price. JMHO.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: John lima_mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Snipers throughout the times, 2nd WW and such, also engaged multiple targets, but at a slower rate than someone with a SA DMR.
My feeling of the "one shot-one kill" thing, is that it is/was a solution to a VIP issue that in todays political climate is considered incorrect.
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Instead of "assasinations" the trend seems to lean towards capturing your target alive and bringing him/her to court.</span></span>
The need for well aimed fire in a regular combat situation have always been present, but lately it has gained more focus with the deployment of designated marksmen.
Todays battlefields in hectic and often crowded environments with risk of colatteral damage and more media cover if such has probably increased this need as well.
Just my personal thoughts anyway.
</div></div>
That's the problem now a day. It costs a lot more money to put on a "public show--trial" and then feed the damn prisoner. A bullet is much cheaper, even when it's purchased at DOD's price. JMHO.
Re: One shot.. to multiple targets.. what changed?
Not to add more over simplifications...but,
1) To use one "round" per target engaged.
2) To not miss.
3) To not waste ammo.
4) To make each "round" count.
These are but a few of the "reasons" simply summed up by saying, One shot- One Kill.
Not to add more over simplifications...but,
1) To use one "round" per target engaged.
2) To not miss.
3) To not waste ammo.
4) To make each "round" count.
These are but a few of the "reasons" simply summed up by saying, One shot- One Kill.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: One shot.. to multiple targets.. what changed?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Northman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When did the snipers role go from One shot, then retreat.. to engaging multiple targets?
Is it the resent war in Iraq that changed the focus of the snipers role? Now we see more rifles with magazines or semi-automatic ones. </div></div>\
8rd American Gas Guns, were used in WWII, Korea, an V/N in the form of modified M1 Garands. Then along came the M14 Family they were 20rd, reachers. A few AR10's were tried as well in select units.
The sales pitch that Lowlight made comment to is most likely what your talking about?
No one in their right mind would pass on a Gas Gun if, it would preform, out there, as good as a bolt.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Northman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When did the snipers role go from One shot, then retreat.. to engaging multiple targets?
Is it the resent war in Iraq that changed the focus of the snipers role? Now we see more rifles with magazines or semi-automatic ones. </div></div>\
8rd American Gas Guns, were used in WWII, Korea, an V/N in the form of modified M1 Garands. Then along came the M14 Family they were 20rd, reachers. A few AR10's were tried as well in select units.
The sales pitch that Lowlight made comment to is most likely what your talking about?
No one in their right mind would pass on a Gas Gun if, it would preform, out there, as good as a bolt.
Re: One shot.. to multiple targets.. what changed?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Northman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When did the snipers role go from One shot, then retreat.. to engaging multiple targets?
</div></div>
Because sometimes more than one target presents itself. Better to kill an entire IED emplacement team then let someone escape so you can walk into an ambush next time.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Northman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When did the snipers role go from One shot, then retreat.. to engaging multiple targets?
</div></div>
Because sometimes more than one target presents itself. Better to kill an entire IED emplacement team then let someone escape so you can walk into an ambush next time.
Re: One shot.. to multiple targets.. what changed?
I think the interpretation of "One shot, one kill" is a little off. The way I see it, it means don't miss. If you fire 10 rounds, there should be 10 corpses. Kind of like "aim small, miss small"
I think the interpretation of "One shot, one kill" is a little off. The way I see it, it means don't miss. If you fire 10 rounds, there should be 10 corpses. Kind of like "aim small, miss small"
Re: One shot.. to multiple targets.. what changed?
Every mission is different. As stated, multiple targets may be presented. Another possibility is the need for firepower when stealth fails; no matter how stealthy a sniper may be, things over which he has no control could blow his cover. We have a better grade of gas gun available today for precision work, and one would be well advised to equip oneself for unforseen contingencies. Carrying two long guns gets old.
Every mission is different. As stated, multiple targets may be presented. Another possibility is the need for firepower when stealth fails; no matter how stealthy a sniper may be, things over which he has no control could blow his cover. We have a better grade of gas gun available today for precision work, and one would be well advised to equip oneself for unforseen contingencies. Carrying two long guns gets old.
Re: One shot.. to multiple targets.. what changed?
The nature of warfare constantly changes. It has from the beginning. Technology, terrain, and tactics are huge factors.
The nature of warfare constantly changes. It has from the beginning. Technology, terrain, and tactics are huge factors.
Re: One shot.. to multiple targets.. what changed?
Nothing has changed, except maybe the myth of the 'sniper' which resides in the public consciousness.
People change slowly; societies even slower. And militaries don't change until long after it would have been a good idea to do so.
The evolution of conflict this century has been moving steadily toward today's confused and irregular kind of warfare. Accordingly, the way our military uses 'snipers' and what it sees as a 'sniper' role has shifted somewhat away from Air-Land Battle scenarios and toward more mobile and urban warfare.
But, for the actor, the object is the same as it always was: the engagement of multiple targets has never been off the table.
Remember, irregular warfare didn't start in 2001. The roots of the current war on terror can probably be drawn back to the Napoleonic Pact. The dynamic of well-equipped armies (and their riflemen) in the Middle East has been a constant since, to my memory at least, British attempts to remove regimes in Egypt and the Sudan in 1874. Don't forget, as Many Arab nationalists haven't, that by 1885 the Mahdi uprising had taken Khartoum. What I saw of the first stages of the Iraq War reminded me a lot of what I had read about the battle of Omdurman when, in 1898, a young officer named Winston Churchill helped win an overwhelming victory in mobile (cavalry) warfare against a lesser-equipped force of what quickly became irregulars. Sound familiar?
Nothing has changed, except maybe the myth of the 'sniper' which resides in the public consciousness.
People change slowly; societies even slower. And militaries don't change until long after it would have been a good idea to do so.
The evolution of conflict this century has been moving steadily toward today's confused and irregular kind of warfare. Accordingly, the way our military uses 'snipers' and what it sees as a 'sniper' role has shifted somewhat away from Air-Land Battle scenarios and toward more mobile and urban warfare.
But, for the actor, the object is the same as it always was: the engagement of multiple targets has never been off the table.
Remember, irregular warfare didn't start in 2001. The roots of the current war on terror can probably be drawn back to the Napoleonic Pact. The dynamic of well-equipped armies (and their riflemen) in the Middle East has been a constant since, to my memory at least, British attempts to remove regimes in Egypt and the Sudan in 1874. Don't forget, as Many Arab nationalists haven't, that by 1885 the Mahdi uprising had taken Khartoum. What I saw of the first stages of the Iraq War reminded me a lot of what I had read about the battle of Omdurman when, in 1898, a young officer named Winston Churchill helped win an overwhelming victory in mobile (cavalry) warfare against a lesser-equipped force of what quickly became irregulars. Sound familiar?
