The World's Best Special Forces

[Calax]

Why are Russian mercs still using black and white photography in this day and age?

That's actually a woman from WW2. She had the most kills of any sniper in Stalingrad.

 

As to the competition BS, I don't think anything will top three SEALs head shotting three Pirates off Somolia from 700 yds away on the seas during the whole hostage situation last year.

[Tale]

Why are Russian mercs still using black and white photography in this day and age?

That's actually a woman from WW2. She had the most kills of any sniper in Stalingrad.

Why is a WW2 sniper working with Russian mercs to kill Delta Force last April? Isn't she too old?

Edited June 1, 2011 by Tale

[HoonDing]

Why are Russian mercs still using black and white photography in this day and age?

That's actually a woman from WW2. She had the most kills of any sniper in Stalingrad.

I'm pretty sure Vasili Zaitsev had most kills in Stalingrad. At least, according to the movie.

 

The woman in the pic is Lyudmila Pavlichenko, she was never in Stalingrad.

Edited June 1, 2011 by virumor

[Calax]

Why are Russian mercs still using black and white photography in this day and age?

That's actually a woman from WW2. She had the most kills of any sniper in Stalingrad.

I'm pretty sure Vasili Zaitsev had most kills in Stalingrad. At least, according to the movie.

 

The woman in the pic is Lyudmila Pavlichenko, she was never in Stalingrad.

You're right. I do think that Lyudmila is considered the more successful as she got the more kills (308 to Zietsevs 242).

[Malcador]

Then there's the death machine that was Hayha.

[Drowsy Emperor]

I personally think that enemy snipers and pilots should be be executed on the spot in wartime.

 

Apart from that, nice pic.

[Malcador]

I personally think that enemy snipers and pilots should be be executed on the spot in wartime.

 

Apart from that, nice pic.

 

Why, exactly ?

[Tale]

War should be about face to face manfighting. Swords and axes only. If you can't look at a man in the eyes as his blood splurts on your kilt and his face goes pale, then you should go back to knitting!

[HoonDing]

By Crom.

[Orogun01]

I personally think that enemy snipers and pilots should be be executed on the spot in wartime.

 

Apart from that, nice pic.

 

Why, exactly ?

Most reasoning behind the snipers capture and kill is that while most soldiers can't really say in the chaos of battle who they killed or not, a sniper has a clear view of his target. I guess that there is some feeling of dread and resentment against them because of their will to kill.

Seems that Emperor just expanded that to include pilots.

[Walsingham]

Why not just go back to fighting with assegais?

[Gfted1]

Couldnt you just say spear, Mr. Fancypants.

[Drowsy Emperor]

I personally think that enemy snipers and pilots should be be executed on the spot in wartime.

 

Apart from that, nice pic.

 

Why, exactly ?

Most reasoning behind the snipers capture and kill is that while most soldiers can't really say in the chaos of battle who they killed or not, a sniper has a clear view of his target. I guess that there is some feeling of dread and resentment against them because of their will to kill.

Seems that Emperor just expanded that to include pilots.

 

 

Dishonorable fighting. Of course, there is no really honorable way to kill a man, but doing it from distance and in cold blood has nothing good going for it.

 

Pilot's in today's modern warfare that is, before it wasn't such a disgusting one sided affair.

Today's fighter-bomber pilots, in the way they are used by the west, against countries and people that can offer no real resistance are no better than miserable murderers.

 

Some of them might not even disagree. A few days ago I listened to a former (US army?) pilot apologize in clunky Serbian for his participation in the 1999 bombing. Apparently, he came and settled here after the war out of a personal need to set things right.

 

That's protestant ethics for you. Dunno how he's working here though with the economy being a disaster and all.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[HoonDing]

War stopped being honorable at Agincourt.

 

Thanks, Brits.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Lol, might be on to something there.

[Gorgon]

They used to regard crossbows as cowardly and unchivalrous because they could take down a knight in plate. The main concern here was that a lowly peasant should not have a practical way of killing those above his station, it might give him ideas.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Gorgon

[Rosbjerg]

They used to regard crossbows as cowardly and unchivalrous because they could take down a knight in plate. The main concern here was that a lowly peasant should not have a practical way of killing those above his station, it might give him ideas.

 

No wonder they were freaked - turned out they had a reason to as well..

[Nepenthe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_Order

[Walsingham]

No offence meant, sleepy fellah, but you're talking balls. War is not a sport. It's a matter of life and death. Barring war crimes, I wouldn't order anyone to endanger their own life so someone else has a 'fair shot' at them, and by inference I wouldn't do it myself. If you think you'd do otherwise I can only imagine it's because you've never faced the imminent possibility of dying.

 

If you absolutely insist that opponents should be allowed a fair crack at our pilots then perhaps you should encourage them to run their countries and economies in a more sensible way so they can afford proper air defences.

[Orogun01]

They used to regard crossbows as cowardly and unchivalrous because they could take down a knight in plate. The main concern here was that a lowly peasant should not have a practical way of killing those above his station, it might give him ideas.

Yeah because the Pope didn't like nobles dying, and that rule that only knights could engage other knights. But **** the peasants they can go in and die first for their betters

[Walsingham]

They used to regard crossbows as cowardly and unchivalrous because they could take down a knight in plate. The main concern here was that a lowly peasant should not have a practical way of killing those above his station, it might give him ideas.

Yeah because the Pope didn't like nobles dying, and that rule that only knights could engage other knights. But **** the peasants they can go in and die first for their betters

 

If it's reasonable for a peasant to not want to die, then it's also reasonable for a noble to want the same.

 

Actually, reminds me of this recent business(es) where it's 'legal' to bomb some country because of what their leader is doing, but 'illegal' to bomb the leader. Plus ca change plus ca meme chose, ne c'est pas?

[Drowsy Emperor]

No offence meant, sleepy fellah, but you're talking balls. War is not a sport. It's a matter of life and death. Barring war crimes, I wouldn't order anyone to endanger their own life so someone else has a 'fair shot' at them, and by inference I wouldn't do it myself. If you think you'd do otherwise I can only imagine it's because you've never faced the imminent possibility of dying.

 

If you absolutely insist that opponents should be allowed a fair crack at our pilots then perhaps you should encourage them to run their countries and economies in a more sensible way so they can afford proper air defences.

 

I never said war is fair, I said there are some things in it that shouldn't be done and are monstrous no matter how you try to spin it.

 

Bombing is garbage against military forces. Everyone knows this. The Serbian army left Kosovo with 95% of its armor and manpower intact. The brunt of the casualties were civillians, and infrastructure used primarily by them. Thats because armies can adapt to bombardment even in the long run and civillians can't.

 

The real goal of the bombing is the psychological submission of the civilian population and its leadership, by attrition.

 

You can rationalise and justify all day long, but we can see it happening now as we speak. Since the armed forces (the supposed targets) won't be destroyed by the means used that means the war is waged against the people and not their armed forces. Therefore, its not a war but an organized campaign of terror.

 

I agree with you on war crimes: since when are personal residences and family members of leaders viable targets? That's a war crime, no?

Three children died in that airstrike, the oldest was, what, 4?

Edited June 2, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[Hurlshort]

Pilots don't exactly have a say in what they bomb. If you want to hold someone accountable, it is the person who orders the bombing.

 

And I haven't heard of many stories about snipers picking off children, so I'm not sure why they get the death sentence. They are typically given a specific target or group to focus on.

[Walsingham]

Bombing is garbage against military forces. Everyone knows this. The Serbian army left Kosovo with 95% of its armor and manpower intact. The brunt of the casualties were civillians, and infrastructure used primarily by them. Thats because armies can adapt to bombardment even in the long run and civillians can't.

 

The real goal of the bombing is the psychological submission of the civilian population and its leadership, by attrition.

 

You can rationalise and justify all day long, but we can see it happening now as we speak. Since the armed forces (the supposed targets) won't be destroyed by the means used that means the war is waged against the people and not their armed forces. Therefore, its not a war but an organized campaign of terror.

 

I agree with you on war crimes: since when are personal residences and family members of leaders viable targets? That's a war crime, no?

Three children died in that airstrike, the oldest was, what, 4?

 

1. The use of air power is not garbage. I'd give examples but I think it would be more dignified if you conceded this on reflection.

 

2. I would agree that the use of air power as a weapon of terror, indeed all weapons of terror, are garbage. Because they function like a drug. You need ever increasing doses to achieve the same 'hit'.

 

3. A guiding principle of civilised warfare is that it use of force should be proportionate. If a single strike can decapitate a regime and end a policy of atrocity, you prefer a campaign of military bombing which may or may not end that same violence at a cost of thousands of lives?

 

Achieving this without killing a 'great leader's children is only going to be achievable if the great leader does not hide amongst them. But we will no doubt agree to disagree on who bears the chief responsibility there. Ditto reporst that Ghaddafi has been concealing himself in hospitals, which are of course protected under the Geneva conventions.

[Gorgon]

Pilots don't exactly have a say in what they bomb. If you want to hold someone accountable, it is the person who orders the bombing.

 

And I haven't heard of many stories about snipers picking off children, so I'm not sure why they get the death sentence. They are typically given a specific target or group to focus on.

They can be used as a terror weapon though, and one of their primary functions historically was to affect enemy morale. Whether killing enemy civilians breaks the morale of the defenders or actually strengthens their resolve, that's an open question

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_Alley

Edited June 2, 2011 by Gorgon