This series of photographslargely taken from the P.O.V. of a sniper are interesting, almost like a real world recreation of a video game.
posted by jonson (85 comments total)
d'oh! V/T agreement. This series IS interesting, these photographs ARE interesting. I'm dumb. posted by jonson at 10:33 AM on July 11, 2005
I find these profoundly disturbing; particularly the image featuring crosshairs perfectly centered on an individuals head. The idea of instantly killing someone from a distance is chilling.
How are snipers psychologically prepared for this sort of thing? I can envision the experience as being positively traumatic for some, and frighteningly empowering for others. posted by aladfar at 10:41 AM on July 11, 2005
I liked the commentary on targeting the guy with an RPG:
I hope that that sniper pulled the trigger on that guy as he looks like one of the terrorists in Iraq targeting our troops and one less of them is a good thing...
[...next poster...]
the sniper was toying around, the individual in the scope was a good guy.
Bah - this kind of pedantic distinction between "good guys" and "terrorists" is exactly what's keeping us from winning the War On Terror. posted by freebird at 10:48 AM on July 11, 2005
How are snipers psychologically prepared for this sort of thing?
I don't have a linkable source, but allegedly snipers from the Vietnam/Korea era have among the highest rates of PTSD of any group deployed. I'm not sure how many snipers there were in those situations (ie, might be a small sample), and how self-selecting the incoming snipers were, but it's an interesting stat. The theory I heard was that snipers are forced to be immensely "cool" and isolated during battle, but still see each and every kill they make in gruesome detail. The contrast was to infrantry which fight in groups with "heated" emotions, and to bombers who never see their kills. posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:49 AM on July 11, 2005
I don't know, the idea of instantly killing someone up close is pretty disturbing as well. But I get your point. These are a little too gritty and real for me, I prefer my warzone imagery to reinforce my sense of outrage and hatred of the enemy not to sympathize with them. posted by fenriq at 10:50 AM on July 11, 2005
still see each and every kill they make in gruesome detail
There's the rub. It's one thing to drob a bomb from miles up, but quite another to watch a bullet you fired destroy someone's face.
almost like a real world recreation of a video game.
Looks way better (and more boring) than any game I've ever seen. posted by mrgrimm at 10:53 AM on July 11, 2005
aladfar, excellent points. posted by nickyskye at 10:56 AM on July 11, 2005
Looks way better (and more boring) than any game I've ever seen.
That's because in the game you get to pull the trigger when you feel like it and not face any consequences legally or morally. posted by Pollomacho at 10:58 AM on July 11, 2005
"How are snipers psychologically prepared for this sort of thing?"
Psych tests. One of the questions is: You are ordered to shoot the first person that comes over the hill. The first person that comes over the hill is your mother. What do you feel?
If you answer "Recoil" you are qualified.
(Yes, I'm joking)
Being a sniper is one of those things you have to go to extra schooling for. No one is simply told they are a sniper.
And it's just a job that has to be done. Certainly you can dwell on the kill and drive yourself nuts. Certainly there are differences between bombers who never see those they kill, infantry who catch glimpses and snipers who get full color.
But it's better to consider that as a sniper your not rolling dice. Your are not killing innocent civilians perhaps by accident. Different people have different temperments. I like chess. I like deliberate acts. The war and politics might be ambiguous, but pulling the trigger on a man shooting at your brothers in arms is not.
Personally sitting in a plane dropping bombs on people who maybe have nothing to do with anything would be far more traumatic for me. posted by Smedleyman at 10:59 AM on July 11, 2005
fleetmouse - pedialite is better. But who wants a bottle with a little pink teddy bear on it? posted by Smedleyman at 11:01 AM on July 11, 2005
I'm not seeing the point of posting this here. I would be curious as to what your reason was in making this post here at meta. What exactly did you hope we would discuss about this? The comparison between gaming and real life? If so, then I find taking photos of such graphic nature depicting (potential) acts of violence and discussing them in terms of "gee, isn't that cool, just like the game...!" is very disturbing. But, as I said, I would be interested to hear your reason for posting before I go to that place in detail. posted by HuronBob at 11:01 AM on July 11, 2005
how did the pictures from the scope's view get taken do you think?
I too find this a bit disturbing, kinda gives me the chills. posted by freudianslipper at 11:01 AM on July 11, 2005
And it's just a job that has to be done. ... But it's better to consider that as a sniper your not rolling dice. Your are [sic] not killing innocent civilians perhaps by accident.
No doubt. A one-shot, one-kill carefully targeted sniper does a lot less damage than dropping bombs from aboive. That said, it's perhaps a perverse facet of human psychology that the most exacting form of warfare with the lowest (but still non-zero) risk of innocent death and collateral damage exacts such a brutal toll on the psyche. posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:06 AM on July 11, 2005
HuronBob wrote:If so, then I find taking photos of such graphic nature depicting (potential) acts of violence and discussing them in terms of "gee, isn't that cool, just like the game...!"
You know.. I play a lot of the Battlefield games, along with a number of similar games where one plays a sniper, and I have to say... I found this extremely disturbing. For me, it really brought home the difference between playing a game and doing it for real.
I don't think there is any way I could really do something like this. Freaky. posted by tittergrrl at 11:06 AM on July 11, 2005
Which of course is how some friendly fire incidents happen. posted by Mitheral at 11:08 AM on July 11, 2005
They'll send just about anyone to the US Army Sniper School. There's a mandatory psych-eval, but mine was given to me by a Specialist as in E-4, not a Specialist as in mental health professional. They give you a few "what if" questions, like "what if you found an addressed letter with a stamp on it?"
There is an ethics session at the school. Ours consisted of two points. The first is that no one is really sure how they're going to react the first time they shoot a completely unsuspecting (and perhaps unarmed) human being. The second, repeated ad nauseam, is that "everyone deserves a bullet." There's less concern about the philosophical ethics than the instinctive nausea.
Most importantly, you never, ever shoot a guy. You reduce a target. posted by Nahum Tate at 11:11 AM on July 11, 2005
Seems to me that if the camera is up to the scope, the sniper's hardly in a position to fire. But maybe I'm wrong. posted by ColdChef at 11:12 AM on July 11, 2005
Interesting photos. posted by dazed_one at 11:15 AM on July 11, 2005
I've seen a show on the History or Discovery channel on the history of snipers. For quite a while, snipers were considered cowards and a lower form of fighter, even by the guys on the same side as the sniper by the US army. It wasn't until Vietnam that snipers began to get any widespread acceptance by their peers. To this day there are those in the military that really don't like snipers, according to the show.
I found these pictures really chilling. Mainly because the site seems like such a teenage boy, gee isn't war fuckin' cool thing. Blech. posted by teece at 11:19 AM on July 11, 2005
Stephen Hunter has delved into the psychology of snipers in a couple of his thrillers, Time to Hunt and Point of Impact. Worth a look if you like the nuts and bolts of sniping. posted by QuietDesperation at 11:21 AM on July 11, 2005
Freaky. But, IIRC the recoil on the gun means that once you pull the trigger, you no longer see what happens. posted by delmoi at 11:25 AM on July 11, 2005
Interesting, but as others have pointed out these images are not exactly in the best context.
I remember reading a biography of one of the most heralded snipers of Vietnam, it was absolutely fascinating. The psychological aspects alone would be grueling, and that's before you even get the target in your sights.
Wierd pictures, and a wierd site all around. Are the pictures photoshopped? I can't figure out how they would focus what's in the scope and what's proximate (like the gun and the ground) at the same time. Yes, I'm interested in discussing that in order to avoid some of the ramifications of the shots (pun intended.) posted by OmieWise at 11:34 AM on July 11, 2005
OmieWise: wide angle lens, and a small aperture can create a very great depth of field. posted by teece at 11:41 AM on July 11, 2005
yeah, but the technical problem seems greater than that, basically focusing into the sight would seem to preclude getting what's around it. I'm such a photo dummy that I'm having a hard time saying what I mean. I guess, it isn't just a depth of field problem, after all, human eyes have pretty good depth of field. But if you were far enough back from the sight to see what was around the gun, you wouldn't be able to see what was in the sight. posted by OmieWise at 11:52 AM on July 11, 2005
I am fascinated by the idea of the pictures, and I started thinking of doing a series of these types of (high angle, crosshairs and a bit grainy) images in everyday "normal" life. You know kids leaving a school buildings, suits leaving a bank, random street scenes.
Then...well I thought sitting on top of a building with a rifle taking pictures may not be the best idea I had today. Photoshop was choice two.
I am done making any other decisions today.
...thanks for the book suggestions. posted by fluffycreature at 11:52 AM on July 11, 2005
Which of course is how some friendly fire incidents happen.
If these really are pictures of 'good guys' then it is probably reasonable to assume that the weapon was unloaded at the time of the photo and the sniper had time to set-up such a shot, no pun intended.
Wallcamp?
First Person Shooter reference. Camping is typically looked down upon as a tactic, although I have maintained it is perfectly legitimate as long as it is not happening to me. posted by tweak at 12:02 PM on July 11, 2005
Jack Coughlin's new book, Shooter, should (haven't read it yet) provide insight into the training, mentality, and coping mechanisms of a Marine sniper; he is a retired 20-year veteran. He was interviewed June 16th about his life as a Marine and the book by Terri Gross on NPR. posted by MarvinTheCat at 12:09 PM on July 11, 2005
First Person Shooter reference...
Yeah, I know... I was being pedantic. posted by prostyle at 12:16 PM on July 11, 2005
almost like a real world recreation of a video game.
everything's a copy of a copy of a copy... posted by ori at 12:19 PM on July 11, 2005
My understanding is that soldiers entering the military can generally no longer choose to be snipers. Rather, they are selected by commanders after having shown weapons proficiency and passing psychological screening.
From what I had read, part of the reason for this change to help alleviate problems like PTSD in snipers. posted by DWRoelands at 12:19 PM on July 11, 2005
Marine Sniper is another excellent book about the life of a Vietnam-era sniper. It details the experiences of Carlos Hathcock, who became something of a legend during the Vietnam War. It includes the details of a confirmed kill where his bullet went down the scope of an enemy sniper stalking him. posted by DWRoelands at 12:22 PM on July 11, 2005
(p. 340) Modern snipers are enabled by group processes, since they are almost always teamed with a spotter who provides mutual accountability and turns the sniper into a crew-served weapon. in addition, snipers are enabled by (1) the physical distance at which they fire, (2) the mechanical distance created by viewing the enemy through a scope, and (3) a temperament predisposed to the job, due to their careful selection by command and self-selection through their willingness to volunteer for the job.
(p. 254) "In addition to traditional marksmanship, what is being taught... is the ability to shoot reflexively and instantly...." (conditioned stimulus, target behavior, positive reinforcement--just like Pavlov's dogs.)
The author notes that both fighter pilots and snipers are prone to "combat addiction"--(from Jack Thompson "Hidden Enemies"): "caused when, during a firefight, the body releases a large amount of adrenaline into your system and you get what is referred to as a 'combat high.' This combat high is like getting an injection of morphine--you float around, laughing, joking, having a great time, totally oblivious to the dangers around you. The experience is very intense if you live to tell about it. Problems arise when you begin to want another fix...and another, and another and, before you know it, you're hooked." posted by RedEmma at 12:26 PM on July 11, 2005
Fucking disturbing.
...it's just a job that has to be done.
That's open for debate, for sure.
"Why has it got to be built?" "Look, you've got to build bypasses."
Certainly you can dwell on the kill and drive yourself nuts.
Perhaps if more people actually did 'dwell on the kill' there'd simply be less killing in general.
*patiently waits for humanity to grow up and learn non-violent conflict resolution skills* posted by loquacious at 12:33 PM on July 11, 2005
Prostyle, you remember the name of that biography? posted by kenko at 12:34 PM on July 11, 2005
teece writes"It wasn't until Vietnam that snipers began to get any widespread acceptance by their peers."
I wonder how realistic the movie "Enemy at the Gates" is in this regard. The Russian sniper is protrayed as a hero and the German as some kind of super soldier. posted by Mitheral at 12:36 PM on July 11, 2005
Perhaps if more people actually did 'dwell on the kill' there'd simply be less killing in general.
*patiently waits for humanity to grow up and learn non-violent conflict resolution skills*
tweak writes"probably reasonable to assume that the weapon was unloaded at the time of the photo and the sniper had time to set-up such a shot"
Yep that assumption is exactly how guys get shot with "unloaded" weapons. Happened to a local police officer here in 2001. posted by Mitheral at 12:45 PM on July 11, 2005
I meant reasonable for me to assume that the guy taking the pictures was smart enough to make sure he had not chambered a round. People who actually own guns should never make such assumptions. posted by tweak at 12:50 PM on July 11, 2005
You know if we've got to have war it would seem like the best war would be that exclusively between sniper teams. Only actual combatants would be targeted, their wouldn't be wide spread infrastructure damage, and we wouldn't need to spend obscene amounts of cash on munitions. posted by Mitheral at 12:51 PM on July 11, 2005
no, the best war would be having the gov't leaders who are insistent upon fomenting war being thrust into a death chamber and allowed to duke it out bare hands until one cries uncle or is beaten to a bloody pulp. but see, then they wouldn't make all that cash. poor things. posted by RedEmma at 12:56 PM on July 11, 2005
I wonder how realistic the movie "Enemy at the Gates" is in this regard.
Mitheral, if I'm remembering right (and it's been a few years), the show I saw was specifically about US troops, and may have even used other Armies to contrast the US opposition.
I seem to remember them saying that the sniper wasn't really well regarded during WWII by the US. But I don't remember about other armies. posted by teece at 12:57 PM on July 11, 2005
The most disturbing pic is the one pointed at the restaurant patron's head. He appears to be sitting there at a table with some other guys... it looks like the waiter is taking their order. Maybe they're "suspected militants" or something? I suspect it's just pointed at his head to take a photo, which is reprehensible in my view. Hope I'm wrong. posted by TreeHugger at 12:58 PM on July 11, 2005
If we could agree to such a war, we could agree to 'fight' out our differences in a video game. I'd love to see the latter. While I'm patient, I'm also not holding my breath.
But I'm not going to participate, either.
Also, what RedEmma said. Simplistically, most wars happen because politicians/rulers say so. Then they stay as far away from the action as they can while the serfs duke it out with each other.
Again, simplistically - all the serfs really want to do is try the local brew and maybe dance with the women. Fuck "the burden of leadership". Go out and get shot at and pull the trigger if you're going to declare war. Maybe we can hasten the process of breeding war out of the genepool. posted by loquacious at 1:04 PM on July 11, 2005
same book i refer to, p. 109 references a Peter Staff book on snipers. ... there is a strange revulsion and resistance toward this very personal, one-on-one killing by snipers. [Staff notes...] that after every war, "the United States military rushes to distance itself from its snipers. The same men called upon to perform impossible missions during combat quickly find themselves to be peacetime pariahs. World War I, World War II, Korea. It was the same." posted by RedEmma at 1:05 PM on July 11, 2005
"'..it's just a job that has to be done.'
That's open for debate, for sure."
Yes, loquacious. Clearly I was stating that wars must occur and that they are good. That's what I meant. Obviously. Clearly I was gloryfying war and asserting everyone should shoot everyone else and that such things are even in the Kantian sense good.
"What is the first formulation of universal law? Blood blood blood! What is our categorical imperative? Kill kill kill! Gung ho!" - Immanuel Kant
"Perhaps if more people actually did 'dwell on the kill' there'd simply be less killing in general."
"*patiently waits for humanity to grow up and learn non-violent conflict resolution skills*"
Perhaps if we didn't eat we wouldn't shit. I'm with you. It shouldn't happen. But it does. That sucks.
I'm saying (by analogy) that once your car is skidding it makes sense to turn into the skid and try to avoid hitting bystanders.
But perhaps if we didn't drive cars they wouldn't kill more people than most wars, whatcha think?
+ what Mitheral said.
"Problems arise when you begin to want another fix...and another, and another and, before you know it, you're hooked."
Heh heh. Yeah. Extreme sportz by comparison are for sissys. posted by Smedleyman at 1:16 PM on July 11, 2005
wallcamp lol nub wtf is wallcamp lol mbbe u meant wallh4x rofl
But, even though those guys are all campers, I think the pictures are pretty neat. They were kinda startling, but not so disturbing. I don't think you have to be stupid or irresponsible or crazy to put your sights on someone you don't intend to shoot. Maybe I am desensitized by my video games though. posted by thirteenkiller at 1:37 PM on July 11, 2005
I don't think you have to be stupid or irresponsible or crazy to put your sights on someone you don't intend to shoot. Maybe I am desensitized by my video games though.
Well, considering that in most parts of the civilized world such an action would lead to charges and potential jail time, regardless of whether you pull the trigger, I'd say, hell yeah, you're desensitized.
A sniper rifle is not a toy. You point it at a human being when you intend to kill them. You never do so otherwise. posted by teece at 1:53 PM on July 11, 2005
teece, the History Channel actually had three or four shows on snipers that they showed back to back. It was really fascinating because they covered every aspect of it. These are some random things I remember about it:
The first snipers were American hunters who had joined the army during the Revolutionary War. They killed many an English officer -- a practice which the British found totally dastardly and "unsportsmanlike"-- using the Kentucky long rifle. An English officer once had George Washington in the sights of his long rifle (he probably didn't know it was Washington, but he gathered it was a high ranking commander), but thought it would be unfair to shoot an unsuspecting man.
The word "sniper", however, was coined by the English. The snipe is a small fast flying bird from India that British colonial officers hunted. If you were such a great shot that you could bring down a snipe, you were called a sniper.
The gillie suit (highly camouflaged suits that snipers wear) is named after "gillies" who were Scottish hunting guides.
A SWAT sniper claimed that on a good day he could put three rounds in a circle the size of a nickel from a distance (of around 100 feet, I think). On a BAD day he could place the rounds in a circle the size of a quarter.
The US army had snipers during WWII, but they shut down their sniper training program after the war due to the stigma attached to snipers and poor public opinion of the practice. They did not train more snipers until Vietnam.
As I said the program was fascinating, and I was riveted to the tv for the three or four hours it lasted.
I wonder how realistic the movie "Enemy at the Gates" is in this regard
Vassili Zaitsev and Major Konig were real people. The thing I found disingenuous about the film was that there were just a handful of Soviet snipers and only one German sniper -- Major Konig -- when in fact there were hundreds if not thousands of snipers on both sides during the battle of Stalingrad.
Vassilij: "He doesn't know you exist, but at that moment you're closer to him than anyone else on earth. You see his face through the sign. You see whether he shaved or not. You can see whether he's married if he's got a wedding ring. It's not like firing at a distant shape. It's not just a uniform. It's a man's face. Those faces don't go away. They come back and they get replaced by more faces." posted by Devils Slide at 2:08 PM on July 11, 2005
I would be curious as to what your reason was in making this post here at meta
I had never seen photos from this POV before... In fact, not being a soldier, I had never seen this POV before at all, except in videogames & war movies. Was mildly interesting, at least for me, to see it in real life. Assumed it might be mildly interesting to others... hope I didn't cause you to lose sleep. posted by jonson at 2:10 PM on July 11, 2005
And certainly a good post, too, jonson. Maybe gruesome to think about, but one that opened up a new world for people and led to a lot of thoughtful comment.
An English officer once had George Washington in the sights of his long rifle
That was an incredible non-turning point in history. The officer was Patrick Ferguson, considered by many as the finest shot in the British army, and one who most surely would not have missed. Imagine the course of U.S. history if Washington had been killed in September 1777! Ferguson himself was shot multiple times and killed three years later at the battle of Kings Mountain, where he was the only non-American on both sides of the fight. posted by LeLiLo at 3:07 PM on July 11, 2005
I recommend Jarhead by Anthony Swofford, a very personal account of the First Gulf War told by an ex-marine sniper.
I also found the mood of the site (militaryphotos) very disturbing. They really do seem to think that war is a good thing, a noble goal and something to look forward to.
Nationalism+militarism=something ugly is bound to happen. posted by hoskala at 3:16 PM on July 11, 2005
although I have maintained it is perfectly legitimate as long as it is not happening to me.
Imagine the course of U.S. history if Washington had been killed in September 1777!
I did actually think about that for a while. Something as mundane as a one inch movement of a human finger and a tiny piece of lead could have changed the course of world history.
Thanks for expanding on that lelilo. It's a good day when I learn something interesting, and it's the reason I visit Metafilter...well, that and watching the flame wars from a safe distance. posted by Devils Slide at 3:31 PM on July 11, 2005
that the most exacting form of warfare with the lowest (but still non-zero) risk of innocent death and collateral damage exacts such a brutal toll on the psyche
reminds me of my favorite quote from John Paul Vann, an american advisor to Vietnam 1962-63?, 66?-72:
"The best weapon for killing is a knife, but I'm afraid we can't do it that way. The next best is a rifle. The worst is an airplane, and after that the worst is artillery. You have to know who you are killing."
From a website:
Nagl understands the message Vann tried to impart to the generals he served under: counterinsurgency requires an excruciatingly fine calibration of lethal force. Not enough of it means you will cede the offensive to your enemy, yet too much means you will alienate the noncombatants whose support you need. posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:41 PM on July 11, 2005
I used to think that it was a worthless thing to end a life by a twich of a finger from 300 yards, untill I thought how cool it would be to own a rifle with a scope that can zero into a target at 500 yards, then I bought one. posted by Balisong at 3:53 PM on July 11, 2005
Although I still prefer the knife.
If you are going to terminate another life, get right up in their face, and let them know it's happening.
Feel their last breath on your cheek, see their eyes glaze over onto some distant speck in the distance. It helps the feelings flow. posted by Balisong at 3:56 PM on July 11, 2005
I have great preference for knives in CQB as well Balisong. But I disagree with the "feel their last breath" thing.
They should be in the afterlife by the time you've already moved on. posted by Smedleyman at 4:15 PM on July 11, 2005
There was a rumor about a tumor
Nestled at the base of his brain.
He was sitting up there with his .36 Magnum
Laughing wildly as he bagged 'em.
Who are we to say the boy's insane ? Kinky Friedman posted by realcountrymusic at 5:06 PM on July 11, 2005
kirkachara, that was an interesting account of the incident. It's not definitive, but it certainly looks like Ferguson did come across George Washington and the Hussar. posted by Devils Slide at 5:12 PM on July 11, 2005
I used to know a Spetznaz who'd seen some action in the early part of Chechnya. He was a little too young to have made it to Afghanistan. He was a devoted family man with two pre-teen daughters and a good job here in the States fixing computers, and apart from the usual hunting, fishing, and high-power competitive rifle shooting, he didn't seem all that warriorlike. As far as I knew, he sleeps sounder at night than I do. And I've seen photos of him with a couple of his combat kills. posted by alumshubby at 5:14 PM on July 11, 2005
The one thing that bugs me about that site: in the first post of pictures, the 3rd and 5th photos are pics of a guy with a high powered rifle in some foreign seeming land, but he does not look like a soldier.
He doesn't have standard issue boots (he has some off-the-shelf shoes), his clothes don't look military, he's got a Gatorade.
What the hell is that guy? Is he a merc? Some sick bastard that plays with sniper rifles for fun in a foreign land in their towns? A hunter that likes to look paramilitary in the desert? A special forces guy (I doubt that, it would seem to be a no-no to take pictures and post 'em on the 'net)?
My first instinct was private security in Iraq, but private security should not be having any need for a sniper unless what they were doing was very illegal.
Anybody have any insight? Images here and here. (Assuming the quasi-hot-link works). posted by teece at 5:32 PM on July 11, 2005
What the hell is that guy? Is he a merc? ... Anybody have any insight? Images here and here. (Assuming the quasi-hot-link works).
The exact photos you linked are found here, without much information. The title of one of the pics (Diwaniyah) does imply the Iraqi city of Ad Diwaniyah. (tangential note, apparently Ad Diwaniyah is a "marketplace for dates", much like a bad singles bar) posted by thedevildancedlightly at 5:43 PM on July 11, 2005
I guess one of their intstructors was on sabbatical, or maybe conducting field research? posted by alumshubby at 5:50 PM on July 11, 2005
I think that there are probably 2/3'ds more private security or 'mercs' than there are US Army. If the army is at...132,000? then there are a lot more 'private' security forces moving around, that are:
Better paid, by a factor of 10+
Better equipt, from non-military issue guns, to non-military spec communications hardware, vehicles, armor, and, yes, backup support, including snipers set up on watch.
If they make a kill, or get killed, it rarely makes a headline, especially in America. Well, only when things get really bad and can be (something, something partisan). posted by Balisong at 5:52 PM on July 11, 2005
Thanks, tddl.
I was thinking that a sniper would have to be offensive, which would seem to be a complete no-no for private security. But I suppose one could envision a defensive role for a sniper in security. posted by teece at 6:21 PM on July 11, 2005
But I suppose one could envision a defensive role for a sniper in security.
I have no way to know if that's the case in the pictures, but guarding a fixed installation against guerilla attacks would involve a sharpshooter or two in my book. The idea being that if some idiot jumped out of a car with an RPG then they would be on the ground before they had time to fire it. Again, I have no knowledge and the site isn't exactly informative, but that's one possibility.
The "training" nature of the service makes it also possible that they were training Iraqi or US sharpshooters in the theater. Again, no way to know. posted by thedevildancedlightly at 6:48 PM on July 11, 2005
My limited experience with would-be snipers in the Guard was that they tended to be guys with a strong fantasy life, with little desire to learn the basics of fire and maneuver. For what we were learning at the time, it wouldn't have been too helpful. It looks like they would be now. posted by atchafalaya at 7:37 PM on July 11, 2005
There were two eulogies for Carlos Hathcock II definitely worth a read: Washington Post's and LA Times. I encourage you to read through them, as they tell you a bit about the sort of mentality required.
In a man who for many exemplified the concept of a sniper, there seemed to be little in the way of the element of playing God that someone mentioned above:
"Although he once told a fellow Marine that he never looked at his work "as a shooting match, where the man with the most kills wins the gold medal," he told the Post reporter that he "did enjoy it once. And it scared me. Bad.""
The man went out on mission after mission - taking down an entire VC platoon one at a time over 24 hours at one point, until eventually they had to confine him because he was skeletal.
While he is perhaps 'the' role model of modern snipers, he was far from the sniper with the highest kill count. A Finnish sniper in WW2 counted no less than 542 *confirmed* kills. posted by Ryvar at 7:52 PM on July 11, 2005
Thanks for the post, jonson... Some interesting pictures, and slightly disturbing, but no more so (in fact, far less) than the site on which they were posted.
Ryvar, that's pretty crazy, it reminds me of the chart i saw of fighter pilot confirmed downs in WWI and II, with the Red Baron and a couple other guys having shot down like more than 300 planes each or something.
Can you imagine knowing that you have, for sure, killed more than 500 people individually and deliberately? I don't think I would be able to handle it. I feel bad when I squish spiders. posted by BlackLeotardFront at 8:15 PM on July 11, 2005
BlackLeotardFront: That's why in addition to the shooting accuracy and psychological examination requirements, there's (usually) the much bigger requirement of self-selection. If you can't stay motionless in one spot for two days with nothing to do, pissing in your ghillie suit, only to execute one perfect shot within a split second - and on top of all that handle the psychological factors involved, you shouldn't be applying for the job. posted by Ryvar at 8:33 PM on July 11, 2005
Anyone ever play America's Army? It's the official US army game (for PCs only) and incredibly realistic, not to mention a damn good game. It's an online tactical squad-based first-person shooter.
Anyway, playing a sniper in that game is pretty difficult. Your shots are very accurate but your aiming is affected by your breathing, you need to be prone to get good aim, and you're a sitting duck on the battlefield. Gives you a good virtual impression of what it must feel like. posted by aerify at 11:15 PM on July 11, 2005
Blackleotard, the sniper in question, Simo Häyhä had actually a higher "bodycount"; those are only the soldiers he killed with his rifle. He used a submachine gun too. And he killed those enemies in three months.
BlackLeotardFront, 300 is a little high -- Adolf Galland managed only a measly 103. posted by alumshubby at 3:21 AM on July 12, 2005
Interesting that no-one has mentioned Washington/Beltway sniper.
Just sayin'. posted by asok at 5:09 AM on July 12, 2005
teece writes"A sniper rifle is not a toy. You point it at a human being when you intend to kill them."
Applies to all guns. The second rule is never point a gun at anything you don't want dead.
asok writes"Interesting that no-one has mentioned Washington/Beltway sniper."
The guy had what, a dozen kills? In peace time at fairly short range as sniping goes. Hardly a outstanding or even notable example of the profession. posted by Mitheral at 6:52 AM on July 12, 2005
Ryvar writes"While he is perhaps 'the' role model of modern snipers, he was far from the sniper with the highest kill count. A Finnish sniper in WW2 counted no less than 542 *confirmed* kills."
That's a really informative table. Who knew Canadians were the bad ass snipers of the first world war including Francis Pegahmagabow with 378? posted by Mitheral at 7:39 AM on July 12, 2005
I'd like to mention that while everyone is talking about how difficult it would be to watch a bullet "destroy somebody's face", the fact is, the man on the rifle doesn't see this. It may take a second for the bullet to impact (although a .50 BMG isn't used here, only 308's, they're still travelling in excess of 2200 feet per second, nominal sniping distance being 300-600 yards for that type of rifle), but the immediate recoil (even with the cheekrest, bipod, monopod, etc) is going to move the gun and optics off target. Snipers work in pairs, however, and it is the spotter's job to observe point of impact on the target. I don't know whether it's any worse or better to observe point of impact secondhand.
As respects the focus on the lens, usual sight relief from the scope is around four inches. I find it improbable that a camera is focusing at 4 inches and at 400 yards.
Lastly, the first few shots seem to be a picture of a Sako or Accuracy International weapon, which isn't a US-Military issued firearm (although most of the rest of their equipment resembles USMC). Later, they're using a Remington 700 body, which is the basis of the USMC DMR (see wikipedia). These folks could just as easily be contractors. posted by avriette at 8:48 AM on July 12, 2005
Lastly, the first few shots seem to be a picture of a Sako or Accuracy International weapon, which isn't a US-Military issued firearm (although most of the rest of their equipment resembles USMC). Later, they're using a Remington 700 body, which is the basis of the USMC DMR (see wikipedia). These folks could just as easily be contractors.
See above... some of the shots are confirmed to be from a private training program. posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:04 AM on July 12, 2005
avriette:As respects the focus on the lens, usual sight relief from the scope is around four inches. I find it improbable that a camera is focusing at 4 inches and at 400 yards.
Most compact digital cameras have tiny, tiny image sensors, requiring extremely short focal lengths to get any sort of reasonable field-of-view - 5mm or even less, especially in phone cameras. As a consequence, they tend to have huge depth-of-field, quite a bit deeper than is typical for almost any run-of-the-mill film camera, spotting scope, binocular, etc. In bright sunlight, the auto-exposure system of such cameras could be expected to stop the aperature down quite a bit, deepening the depth of field even more.
Despite this, close examination of the larger pictures shows that the focus on the far scene is actually pretty bad. Only the picture through the scope is clear. There is so much depth-of-field that there are recognizable images in the far scene, but they're not well focused by any means. Even a picture that poorly focused can look sharper if the size is reduced; I bet the smaller pictures are probably just as fuzzy, but they're not shown large enough here to make it obvious. posted by Western Infidels at 10:29 AM on July 12, 2005
"Anyway, playing a sniper in that game is pretty difficult. Your shots are very accurate but your aiming is affected by your breathing, "
I'd direct you to Ryvar's comments. If you sat at the keyboard for days with nothing going on, it'd be a bit more real. Making your own suit though - seems like a bitch, but it's a real perk. Martial arts study and meditation help for breath control. Don't know how you'd replicate the feeling of everything blending together (environment, weapon, breathing, etc) in a game. posted by Smedleyman at 11:48 AM on July 12, 2005
We care a lot about you people, about your guns
We care a lot about the wars you’re fighting, gee, that looks like fun posted by signal at 1:16 PM on July 12, 2005
« Older
FT changes headline on Blair's statement....
| The Unheard Beethoven...
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Subscribe
posted by jonson at 10:33 AM on July 11, 2005