hoolaman Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Whether they are illegal and whether the US used them in vietnam are not neccesarily related issues . I thought I had seen footage of US troops in Iraq now with shotguns as well. I was pretty sure they were not used in WW2 due to treaty issues. But I am always willing to entertain the possibility that I am totally wrong! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Shotguns, illegal. Some people claim so but then Senator Kerry claims that the 50cal HMG is illegal and made him a war criminal. I am very dubious of this "this weapon is illegal" business until I read the whatever convention is being quoted. I recently started reading the Genera convention about Prisoners of war and who is covered. Very interesting. MikeT 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Shotguns, illegal. Some people claim so but then Senator Kerry claims that the 50cal HMG is illegal and made him a war criminal. I am very dubious of this "this weapon is illegal" business until I read the whatever convention is being quoted. I recently started reading the Genera convention about Prisoners of war and who is covered. Very interesting. MikeT 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Originally posted by Hoolaman: Whether they are illegal and whether the US used them in vietnam are not neccesarily related issues . Smiley apart, I think they are -- don't forget that when the US used CW in VN it had not yet signed the Geneva gas protocol. If there is any international law prohibiting the use of shotguns, I don't know what it is. The Germans tried, in WW1, to claim that US use of shotguns was illegal. They made a formal diplomatic protest dated 15th Sept 1918 through the Swiss chargé d'affaires in Washington, claiming that the use of shotguns violated the Hague Convention by causing "unnecessary suffering", and threatening to execute any American prisoners taken in possession of shotguns or shotgun ammunition. This nonsense was soon settled by a robust US response from the Judge Advocate General, which pointed out that shotguns were not mentioned in the convention (although numerous weapons are detailed), that the US delegation at the Hague conference had argued for a more precise definition of the exact weapons covered but been overruled by other participants (including Germany), and that shotgun wounds produced no greater suffering than bullets or shell fragments. He concluded that the German case was entirely without legal merit, and that the US would carry out effective reprisals if the German threat of executions was carried out. The Germans then wisely let the matter rest, and no such executions ever occurred. To return to the original question, there have been designed a variety of multi-barrel, rotary-feed, mag-fed and even belt-fed shotguns capable of rapid rates of fire, including full auto, and variously known as assault shotguns, automatic shotguns, sub-machine shotguns and machine-shotguns. Given the short range and relatively small number of projectiles one could fire in an engagement, none AFAIK have ever had changeable barrels or bipods built in to them, but shotguns capable of automatic fire most certainly exist as a weapon type. For more information on the topic than a reasonable person could want, see my source for all this, "The World's Fighting Shotguns", by Thomas F. Swearengen, Chesa Ltd., 1978. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Originally posted by Hoolaman: Whether they are illegal and whether the US used them in vietnam are not neccesarily related issues . Smiley apart, I think they are -- don't forget that when the US used CW in VN it had not yet signed the Geneva gas protocol. If there is any international law prohibiting the use of shotguns, I don't know what it is. The Germans tried, in WW1, to claim that US use of shotguns was illegal. They made a formal diplomatic protest dated 15th Sept 1918 through the Swiss chargé d'affaires in Washington, claiming that the use of shotguns violated the Hague Convention by causing "unnecessary suffering", and threatening to execute any American prisoners taken in possession of shotguns or shotgun ammunition. This nonsense was soon settled by a robust US response from the Judge Advocate General, which pointed out that shotguns were not mentioned in the convention (although numerous weapons are detailed), that the US delegation at the Hague conference had argued for a more precise definition of the exact weapons covered but been overruled by other participants (including Germany), and that shotgun wounds produced no greater suffering than bullets or shell fragments. He concluded that the German case was entirely without legal merit, and that the US would carry out effective reprisals if the German threat of executions was carried out. The Germans then wisely let the matter rest, and no such executions ever occurred. To return to the original question, there have been designed a variety of multi-barrel, rotary-feed, mag-fed and even belt-fed shotguns capable of rapid rates of fire, including full auto, and variously known as assault shotguns, automatic shotguns, sub-machine shotguns and machine-shotguns. Given the short range and relatively small number of projectiles one could fire in an engagement, none AFAIK have ever had changeable barrels or bipods built in to them, but shotguns capable of automatic fire most certainly exist as a weapon type. For more information on the topic than a reasonable person could want, see my source for all this, "The World's Fighting Shotguns", by Thomas F. Swearengen, Chesa Ltd., 1978. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Oh gawds! If my 11-year old son ever finds about these things I'll never here the end of it at the dinner table :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Oh gawds! If my 11-year old son ever finds about these things I'll never here the end of it at the dinner table :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebulon Pleasure Beast Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 What about the nukes? Come on, anyone? I MEAN WHY NOT!? :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebulon Pleasure Beast Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 What about the nukes? Come on, anyone? I MEAN WHY NOT!? :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Weapons with a minimum safe distance less than the maximum range it can fire the projectile are bad ideas. That doesn't mean that they do not exist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Weapons with a minimum safe distance less than the maximum range it can fire the projectile are bad ideas. That doesn't mean that they do not exist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Originally posted by Brent Pollock: Oh gawds! If my 11-year old son ever finds about these things I'll never here the end of it at the dinner table :eek: Like what? "Dad, is Santa gonna get me a SPAS-15 for X-mas?" "No, son. He won't." "BUT DAAAAA-AAD!!! I want some fully automatic gas operated shotgun action!!!" "No means NO! Now eat your veggies or it's no dessert for you!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Originally posted by Brent Pollock: Oh gawds! If my 11-year old son ever finds about these things I'll never here the end of it at the dinner table :eek: Like what? "Dad, is Santa gonna get me a SPAS-15 for X-mas?" "No, son. He won't." "BUT DAAAAA-AAD!!! I want some fully automatic gas operated shotgun action!!!" "No means NO! Now eat your veggies or it's no dessert for you!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hoolaman: Whether they are illegal and whether the US used them in vietnam are not neccesarily related issues . Smiley apart, I think they are -- don't forget that when the US used CW in VN it had not yet signed the Geneva gas protocol. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hoolaman: Whether they are illegal and whether the US used them in vietnam are not neccesarily related issues . Smiley apart, I think they are -- don't forget that when the US used CW in VN it had not yet signed the Geneva gas protocol. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Originally posted by Hoolaman: Shotguns are illegal in wartime applications are they not? They are permissible for guarding prisoners of war and in other situations. Incidentally, the Geneva Conventions are only a small part of the international laws covering the conduct of land warfare. There are Ottawa Convention, Hague Convention, etc. and et. al. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Originally posted by Hoolaman: Shotguns are illegal in wartime applications are they not? They are permissible for guarding prisoners of war and in other situations. Incidentally, the Geneva Conventions are only a small part of the international laws covering the conduct of land warfare. There are Ottawa Convention, Hague Convention, etc. and et. al. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 I thought the USMC was trying to get its TOE changed for Iraq from 2 per Bn to 2 per Squad due to their usefullness in MOUT / FIBA etc.? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 I thought the USMC was trying to get its TOE changed for Iraq from 2 per Bn to 2 per Squad due to their usefullness in MOUT / FIBA etc.? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throwdjohn Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 i might be mistaken as i am certainly no grog, but i recall a "tales of the gun" or similar show on history channel on guns of the pacific theatre, and it distincly mentioned the use of pump action shotguns. Also, is the US required to follow geneva conventions even if their enemy does not? i am referring to armed medics, i mean japanese and VC both shot at medics, were they justified in carrying weapons for protection? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throwdjohn Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 i might be mistaken as i am certainly no grog, but i recall a "tales of the gun" or similar show on history channel on guns of the pacific theatre, and it distincly mentioned the use of pump action shotguns. Also, is the US required to follow geneva conventions even if their enemy does not? i am referring to armed medics, i mean japanese and VC both shot at medics, were they justified in carrying weapons for protection? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 A medic is allowed to be armed for personal protection and is protected as long as they display the Red Cross or Red Crescent. So a side arm or rifle is fine. Manning a MG42 on a tripod isn’t. As soon as they start using their personal weapon to contribute to the unit’s activities (attack or defence) then they waive the protection extended to them by wearing the arm band. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 A medic is allowed to be armed for personal protection and is protected as long as they display the Red Cross or Red Crescent. So a side arm or rifle is fine. Manning a MG42 on a tripod isn’t. As soon as they start using their personal weapon to contribute to the unit’s activities (attack or defence) then they waive the protection extended to them by wearing the arm band. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarquon Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Originally posted by oneirogen: What about the nukes? Come on, anyone? I MEAN WHY NOT!? MX accuracy (CEP) is stated as 50% landing in a 400 feet circle. Incredibly inaccurate, even compared to a shotgun. It means you can't use it in close combat or you risk hitting yourself! As soon as the enemy learns that, he'll just hug you close and the weapon becomes virtually useless. Also, it would have a very notable signature, making it mostly unusable for night combat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarquon Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Originally posted by oneirogen: What about the nukes? Come on, anyone? I MEAN WHY NOT!? MX accuracy (CEP) is stated as 50% landing in a 400 feet circle. Incredibly inaccurate, even compared to a shotgun. It means you can't use it in close combat or you risk hitting yourself! As soon as the enemy learns that, he'll just hug you close and the weapon becomes virtually useless. Also, it would have a very notable signature, making it mostly unusable for night combat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.