Posted on 04/23/2002 4:56:01 AM PDT by Clive
The United States wants to give two teams of Canadian snipers the Bronze Star, a decoration for bravery, for their work in rooting out Taliban and al-Qaeda holdouts in eastern Afghanistan, but Canadian defence officials put the medals on hold, the National Post has learned.
The five snipers spent 19 days fighting alongside the scout platoon of the United States Army's 187th "Rakkasan" brigade last month, clearing out diehard fighters from the mountains near Gardez in eastern Afghanistan.
The Americans were so impressed by the Canadian snipers that they recommended them for medals after the battle.
Sources told the Post that U.S. General Warren Edwards had already signed the recommendation for five Bronze Stars for the sniper teams, drawn from 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, last month. Gen. Edwards, deputy commanding general of coalition land forces in Afghanistan, had recommended three Canadians for a Bronze Star and two for a Bronze Star with distinction.
The night before the troops were to be awarded the medals, about three weeks ago, Canadian military officials in Ottawa put the decorations on hold, according to a U.S. Army source in Afghanistan.
The Canadian military told their U.S. counterparts to wait before awarding the medals for reasons of "Canadian protocol."
Spokesmen for the Department of National Defence would not comment on the award last night, but a source within the department said the medals are on hold while the military decides whether or not to award the men a similar Canadian decoration.
However, Dr. David Bercuson, director of the Centre of Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said the real reason for the delay was likely official squeamishness.
"Canadians don't kill -- they don't even use the word kill; that's the problem," he said. "I think the military is not sure that the government is prepared to accept the fact, let alone celebrate the fact ... that Canadian soldiers do sometimes end up killing people."
Many of the U.S. scouts who worked directly with the Canadian snipers were incensed that the Canadians did not get the Bronze Star, the medal for bravery the U.S. military usually gives foreign soldiers serving alongside its troops.
The snipers themselves, all of whom spoke on condition their names not be printed, have said they would prefer to receive a medal from their peers in the field rather than from National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa.
Dr. Bercuson said there should be no objection to Canadians receiving a U.S. decoration: As recently as the Gulf War, two Canadian CF-18 pilots were given the Bronze Star.
He said the medals would be a badly needed boost to the morale of the almost 900 Canadian soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, especially after four of their comrades were killed and eight others wounded in last week's friendly fire incident.
"Absolutely they should get it," Dr. Bercuson said. "It would be good for the morale of the guys and good for the morale of the whole unit, and they need a morale boost right now."
Canadian snipers were reportedly outstanding in the fighting around the mountainous al-Qaeda bastion east of Gardez, code-named Operation Anaconda.
The battle pitted the two Canadian sniper teams against an enemy that showered the assaulting coalition troops with mortars and machine-gun fire as soon as they jumped from their helicopters.
One member of the team, a corporal from Newfoundland, said on his first night in combat he and his partner got an al-Qaeda machine gun in their sights as it was hailing bullets down on U.S. troops below.
Crawling up into a good position, they set up their .50-calibre rifle -- the MacMillan Tac-50, a weapon the corporal compares to having superhuman power in your hands. "Firing it feels like someone slashing you on the back of your hockey helmet with a hockey stick."
When he hit his first target, an enemy gunman at a distance of 1,700 metres, he said all that ran through his mind was locating his next target.
"All I thought of was Sept. 11th and all those people who didn't have a chance and the American reporter who was taken hostage, murdered and his wife getting the videotape of the execution; that is my justification."
A master corporal from Ontario, the lead sniper of his three-man team, said when they first landed in the combat zone "our spider senses were tingling.... It was night and we didn't know what to expect."
By daylight, after coming under enemy machine-gun fire, he managed to ease his rifle barrel between two rocks and quickly located an enemy sniper hiding behind a small piece of corrugated steel between two trees. He guessed the distance at 1,700 metres and fired one shot through the metal, killing the man instantly.
He said afterward he remembered thinking: "That's one less bullet that's gonna be coming at us, one less person we have to think about."
During the next four days of fighting, the Newfoundland corporal set what is believed to be a record for a long-distance shot under combat conditions, hitting an enemy gunman at a distance of 2,430 metres.
The days of crawling, shooting and long hours waiting in cover left the Canadian snipers exhausted. "You don't realize what you've done to your body and how tired you are till it's all done. I think we slept 14 or 15 hours when we got back," the master corporal said.
Three of them, along with U.S. special forces soldiers, also rescued a company of the U.S. 101st Airborne Division that was pinned down by enemy fire on the first day of Operation Anaconda.
They also participated in Operation Harpoon, with Canadian troops on "the whale," a mountain overlooking the Shah-e-Kot valley where al-Qaeda fighters were putting up stiff resistance.
Operation Harpoon, carried out in conjunction with Operation Anaconda, consisted of 500 Canadian and 100 U.S. troops under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Pat Stogran, who leads Canadian Forces in Afghanistan in the biggest ground offensive since the Korean War.
Lieutenant Justin Overbaugh, of the American scout platoon to which the Canadian snipers were attached, said it was a pleasure to work with the Canadian troops.
"Their professionalism was amazing," Lieut. Overbaugh said. "The Canadians were a very large asset to the mission. I would have loved to have 12 Canadian sniper teams out there. I'd have no problems fighting alongside of them again."
He said the Canadian snipers had equipment far superior to theirs. Their rifles had longer range than the U.S. weapons and better high- tech sights. Lieut. Overbaugh said if another mission comes up, he will request the Canadian sniper teams be sent with his unit.
Senior military officials in Ottawa made a point of praising their work at the time. "The sniper teams suppressed enemy mortars and heavy machine-gun positions with deadly accuracy," Vice-Admiral Greg
Maddison said after Operation Harpoon ended. "Their skills are credited with likely having saved many allied lives."
By daylight, after coming under enemy machine-gun fire, he managed to ease his rifle barrel between two rocks and quickly located an enemy sniper hiding behind a small piece of corrugated steel between two trees. He guessed the distance at 1,700 metres and fired one shot through the metal, killing the man instantly.
That certainly suggests that he was under fire for that one. In any case, if he were under fire for the second shot, it does not necessarily mean that it was an enemy infantryman firing back - it could have been another sniper, or perhaps mortar fire, or the like. Nevertheless, it's still a hell of a shot, regardless of the exact conditions. I know I certainly couldn't duplicate it - could you? :^)
Change it to 2400 inches and maybe. I didn't see the part on the machine gun fire at 1700. Anway, I was just curious if there was a sniper duel sort of thing here, which would make the shot all the more incredible. I didn't see any info. on that in the article, but thought you might have seem something I didn't.
patent
Worth looking at for reference...at 2500 yards there's a 2460 inch drop or just around 100 MOA...a Loopy Mark 4 M3 has 72 MOA adjustment and not all of that up...I'm not sure what the Canucks are using...
Tom Miller's Extreme Firearms -Ballistics for the Windrunner
| Ballistics for the .50 BMG | |||||
|
The following information was given to Tom S. Miller by Mr. Skip Talbot, FCSA consultant, regarding the ballistics of the .50 BMG cartridge. This information reprinted with permission from Sierra Bullets Infinity Exterior Ballistics Software. Copyright 1999 Sierra Bullets LLC All Rights Reserved.
Atmospheric Conditions Cartridge @ 1000 yards @1750 yards @2000 yards @2500 yards @2800 yards Information about the Velocity of Sound at different air temperatures 32 degrees F.=1088 fps 68 degrees F.=1129 fps 212 degrees F.=1266 fps 932 degrees F.=1814 fps
|
|||||
|
Copyright © 2001 Hyacinth Software
|
I confess.....I've never shot anything living at over 400 yards (243 Mannlicher...3X9 Leupold). And 400 yards was rare. I know from reading Hatchcock's writings that he would pick out an NVA/VC in a line of troopers and aim at the one maybe two folks ahead of the guy or gal he wanted. But that was at 800-1000 yards with 7.62 BDL. I have no business talking about such long shooting, I might as well be talking about nuclear physics or labor pains...LOL
Regards.
Certainly the cartridge is capable, but jiminy how accurate would the gun have to be to get into a torso 24" wide at 2400yd reliably? If 1 MOA is 1" at 100yd, thats 24" at 2400yd- the absolute limit of the guns inherent accuracy, assuming its not equipped with heat seeking projectiles of some sort.
That means on a perfect day, with no wind, elevation or atmospheric issues, from a rock solid mechanical rest, the best you could expect would be a hit within a 24" circle at that range, assuming 1 moa accuracy which is pretty stinkin good for any rifle under combat conditions. Add some wind, or a less than perfect rest, or even a single click error - 1/4 moa at 2500 yards is 6", let alone the M3's 3/4 MOA adjustments, which would put you 19" off target PER CLICK - and you've missed.
Not just a tough shot, but nearly miraculous, especially considering the preparation it would take to know WHERE YOUR GUN SHOOTS AT 2430 yards in that specific environment....I'd be curious what a guy like Talbot thinks, or David Tubb, about this shot if the reporting is accurate.
I've looked through powerful rifle optics at objects over 1Km distant, and man sized objects at those ranges are EXCEEDINGLY hard to spot, let alone hit.
WOW is a pretty good summation.
IOW would altitude play much a part here? thanks
Ha, I was commenting on the deer shot at over 400 yards mentioned by wardaddy... A shot on a human target at 2400 is beyond my capabilities...
Although...Carlos Hathcock made a >2000 yard shot using a modified M2...of course he had aiming stakes and travers/elevation equipment on the M2 to improve the odds...
Wow works for me...
Incidently, shortly after joining the conversations on FR I went off on Travis concerning the abilities of a .50 at 2000+ yards on a moving target...that post sounded quite a bit like yours and gave me a chuckle...
take care,
Jim
Peter Jennings reported it, so it must be true.
Just my opinion of course.....
Stay Safe !
Absolutely, and that jibes with my limited experience as well- you can't just add magnification to a rifle sized tube, or you get too much distortion. 14-16x is about it if you expect to be able to hit anything.
And my expectation would be that 1500m or so is a pretty solid upper range limit for consistent hits on a human sized target, any further and environmental factors, along with limits to mechanical accuracy, become impossibly hard to adjust for.
A one shot kill at 2400m with any gun that weighs less than a ton seems about as likely as a 400yd hole in one.
Since bullets are unpowered, they are entirely subject to the effects of drag, and gravity. Gravity doesn't change much, as long as you stay on earth.
Drag, or the resistance imparted by air on the projectile, changes considerably with a number of factors, including air density, which can in turn be affected by both altitude and temperature. Denser air creates more drag, thus bullets will lose elevation faster. High altitude air imparts less drag due to its relatively lower density, and bullets lose elevation less rapidly.
Same reason footballs and baseballs fly farther at higher altitudes - the same velocity results in increased range, because drag is reduced and the projectile gets further downrange before it hits the ground.
Precision marksman can't just grab their rifles, zeroed and checked out at sea level, and expect them to shoot to the same point of aim at 10,000 ft, because the bullets will not have the same flight path at that altitude.
Thus the preparation comment, for this to have been successful, the shooter had to have some idea where his gun would shoot at that range, either through practice at similar ranges at that altitude, or he may have had an observer or target marker somehow "walk him in" to the target, another tough sell but not impossible.
We're assuming this was a classic "Sniper" engagement - the team infiltrates into position, waits for a target, engages it, and exfils, which was almost certainly not the case here.
This sniper must have had some time to adjust into the target area and get plenty of feedback on where he was hitting, before the target arrived.
Stay Safe !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.