(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

Bing -> (2/14/2002 9:24:00 AM)
I don't know who put forth the idea that ANY weapon wouldn't be used against infantry. You kill the other guy with anything you have is the way it has always been in warfare - and it is rather likely that will be the case for a long, long time to come. As said, no, average grunts wouldn't be toting a Browning 50 around, that's why the heavy weapons company in the US infantry battalion TO&E. But I don't remember sayng he would. So far as 50 cal equipped jeeps go in the game, its shoot and scoot. Strictly. The enemy find you real quick and you are only slightly less vulnerable than a sitting duck. Use'em cautiously , they will last a fairly long time. I"ve pretty much dropped that sort of recon, though, in favor of armored cars. They tend to have a somewhat higher battlefield survival rate than jeeps and scout cars. Bing

Mojo -> (2/14/2002 10:27:00 AM)
Truckeye, I seem to remember reading that at one time it was considered "unfair" to use a 50 cal against infantry. I can't find a source for that though. There is a clause in the Hague Conventions about the use of weapons that cause "unnecessary suffering" whatever that means. While searching I did notice that in 1899 there was a moratorium on the dropping of bombs and similar devices from balloons

Truckeye -> (2/14/2002 11:01:00 AM)
bing, it was early on this thread. i once was told a .50 could only be used to defeat body armor like canteens, belt buckles, and helmets. but that seems farcical as well. if there is truely a rule in warfare about it, seems that would still violate the spirit of the law. anyway, i was trained in the army to use the Ma-duece against anyone trying to kill me.

Jeff_Ewing -> (2/14/2002 11:19:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Truckeye: ok, kinda off topic, but my 2 cents. i served as a US Army officer and was told several times that the .50 cal being against the rules to use against infantry was a myth. can anyone quote a Field Manual or treaty that says it cant be used? No, they cannot, because it's a ridiculous, though amazingly persistent, fable. I wish I knew how this got started. I suspect it's a bit of black humor. The fact of the matter is, that while the weapon is supposed to be used against vehicles and materiel, that's more in the way of a money-saving tip rather than international law. Usually, people will tell you it's against the Geneva Conventions. This is entirely untrue, and can easily be checked by actually reading the GC at http://www.icrc.org. It may be that people are thinking of the Hague Conventions of 1900, which ban weapons like explosive bullets, dum-dums and the like. But the .50 does not fall into this category. It's my personal jihad to extirpate this bit of misinformation. Jeff

Bing -> (2/14/2002 11:31:00 PM)
Jeff - Thank you. The historians among us will appreciate your efforts. As to the Hague Conventons, I suspect as I think you do that almost no one who talks about them has actually read them - or understands the background. They were created in a very different world, the one that existed prior to the turn of the 20th century. Per Breaker Morant, from the movie of the same name, "This is a new war ... for a new century." Another problem with the Hague Conventions business is it would be difficult to find any nation that did any real fighting during WW2 that "honored" it in any way. War is about killing, we know that. You kill the other guy before he kills you. You do it any way you can. Poison gas wasn't used in WW2 for several reasons, none of them so far as I know having anything to do with a "humane" approach to war fighting. The last idea is kind of funny, in a sarcastic way. Bing

Lost Lieutenant -> (2/15/2002 10:55:00 AM)
And remember - it is ILLEGAL by the rules of war to engage personnel with the Ma-deuce. However, engaging their equipment is permissible.

Truckeye -> (2/15/2002 11:25:00 AM)
Lost, i once again challenge you to find this "rule of warfare" in a FM-anything or a link to any treaty or convention. above, jeff posted a link to the geneva convention where it does NOT list that as a "rule" of war. it is a very popular myth. if you can provide evidence, i will humbly apologise and promote you to lost 1LT!

Lost Lieutenant -> (2/15/2002 3:14:00 PM)
D'oh! I only read the first page and it seems I've been ambushed by the other half of the thread. I'll read more thoroughly next time! (But just had to throw in the anecdote all my buddies love to quote - it's classic military humor.) But seriously, you're probably right. My unit uses the M2 prolifically vs anything that moves, be it crunchies or vehicles. However, I've found that one thing they aren't too effective against is the front glacis of M1A1's though - at least in the MILES game . Sure does make that TC keep his head down, though.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.234375