cassh Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Steve - Los knows what he is talking about. Reread his last post again you will see that he isn't saying that they love to have their pictures taken without obscuring their identity, rather he is saying that it is a fool's game to think that one can control such a thing in the real world.Actually, you can control it to a certain degree. Avoiding having your picture taken clearly is relatively simple. First off, you can avoid scenarios in which photojournalists might be happy snapping. If caught on the hop you can practice many basic methods such as dipping your head, turning away, scratching your nose, talking on a phone/radio... the list goes on. However, Spec Ops guys shouldn't really be standing around at VCP anyway so there are few opportunities for the above type photos. So if there is nothing to ID a soldier as SF in a picture, then chances are it does no actual harm.No, that's not the case. To trained intel agencies (friendly and hostile) media channels and other open source material is filtered for data. That includes images. If you have an image of a soldier with no unit flash/insignia and interesting weapons/equipment the chances are it will be flagged and sent to the relevant section for interpretation and then a potential ID can be made. If you want to get serious about it you can tie this in with a biometric facial pattern recognition database and you can put together an accurate SF Orbat and players list which tells you which units/elements are where, intel on the deployment length/rotations, area of operation, chain of command etc. This is standard practice in intelligence work - specifically Orbat profiles. If the PIRA could run basic counter-intelligence and counter-surveillance operations then I'm sure Al Qadea and Iraqi insurgent militias can do the same. Never underestimate your enemy. In a war on terror it is naive to think the enemy might not be employing basic counter-intelligence and counter-COIN tactics - even if they don't have access to sophisticated software and data systems they can still glean useful intel that over time can become actionable. It only takes the right photo of someone in theatre to be married up with a family shopping in Fort Bragg six months later to put a family or soldier at risk. That's why you control the chances of someone taking your photo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Note that the M107B is semi auto, the M107 is bolt action. Huh? "The M107 is an anti-materiel/counter sniper, semi-automatic, direct-line-of-sight weapon system." https://peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/SW_CSW_M107.pdf No mention of a B model on Barrett's website either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 I don't know if it's going to be standard issue in '07, but will CM:SF feature the N Strike Longshot? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 RMC, Hmmm.... I could have sworn the official nomenclature was 107 for the bolt action (also XM107) and M107B for semi-auto. But yeah, I don't see many people using it on the Web and none of the ones that do are reliable souces. Hmmm... wonder where I picked up on that? Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Barrett does have something on their site called a 95M which is a bolt-action derivative of the M107 type gun. No indication that it is in service with the Army or is being considered for it either. If you've got a semi-auto that can reliably hit things out to 2000M, what does going to a bolt action get you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Well, apparently the bolt action Barrett M95 actually beat out the Barrett M82A1 for the XM107 project. However, the military decided on going with the M82A1 (then M82A3) instead. I've seen no explanation as to why. It makes sense to me from the standpoint that you can get subsequent shots off quicker and (theoretically) more accurately, but if that is the case then how did the M95 model beat the M82A1 in trials? The M95 is a bit smaller and lighter, but since both are equally impractical for other missions it doesn't seem that important. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 The conventional wisdom on siper rifles says that bolt-action gets your more accuracy, but a semi-auto gets you tactical flexibility. I am not sure this really holds true for this caliber of weapon though. Mind you I have no direct experience with the weapons, but based on how the M82 is modeled in America's Army it seems that the semi-auto action doesn't bring the expected advantage. The recoil is such that there is no hope of keeping the weapon aligned with the target so rapid reengagement isn't possible the way it is for a smaller weapon. Which means that you might as well go bolt action. But...I vaguely recall seeing video of a marine using one and firing fairly rapidly...hmmm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassh Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 RMC - But...I vaguely recall seeing video of a marine using one and firing fairly rapidly...hmmmThen your recollection is correct (it was an M107 I am assuming?). For rifles with an anti-material role semi-auto fire is almost sine qua non. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Originally posted by cassh: Then your recollection is correct (it was an M107 I am assuming?). For rifles with an anti-material role semi-auto fire is almost sine qua non. Well, yeah. But my concern was about the efficacy of rapid fire and whether it pays off to have the capability with the recoil of the weapon since Steve was under the impression there was a bolt-action variant in service. I found a Video that shows the rapid fire (around 5 min mark) sequence of the USMC M82 (adopted as the M107 by the Army). The recoil appeared controllable and the grouping was decent. The model in America's Army is clearly wrong because in that game the recoil is so jarring that you completely lose the target. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Cassh, Thanks for the great lecture on Special Forces and picture taking, I find your vast knowledge to be quite informative! Los 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassh Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 well if you make bone statements, expect patronising responses 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Gents, Personally, I have always found it interesting to note the doctrinal differences between US and UK forces. Some things that you Brits swear by US forces swear at, and vice versa. Hard to say if one is right and the other is wrong. Usually there isn't one right way to do something in the empirical sense so arguing as if there is doesn't serve much of a purpose. With that in mind, I think this discussion would best be dropped. Clearly we have two different philosophies being discussed and since neither the British nor the US armed service members are ignorant or reckeless with things like this, it must be that there is more than one right answer about photographic policies. Steve 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.