PDA

View Full Version : Another 3 in 1


Pontius Navigator
22nd Jan 2017, 21:14
OK, apart from the bullet in the air, little aviation content but of interest never the less:

An SAS sniper killed three ISIS terrorists with a single bullet, it has been claimed.
The expert shooter slaughtered the militants after his bullet passed through two of them before it ricocheted and hitting another in the neck.
His bullet hit the first terrorist in the head killing him instantly and travelled through to hit another in the chest.
It then bounced off a wall and hit the third in the neck, reports the Daily Star Sunday .

MACH2NUMBER
22nd Jan 2017, 21:20
PN
I assume he has not been charged and gaoled under the Human Rights Act?

pr00ne
22nd Jan 2017, 22:10
Mach2number,

No, and nor has any member of the forces been, ever.

You might be mixing it up with deception and murder, easy mistake to make.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
23rd Jan 2017, 03:17
"..slaughtered.."?

ImageGear
23rd Jan 2017, 03:22
"Slaughtered" looks better than "executed" in the red rag.

Pontius Navigator
23rd Jan 2017, 10:53
What is wrong with SHOT and KILLED. Or did they wish to describe the ISIS as animals?

the killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, etc

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
23rd Jan 2017, 23:07
Traffic_Is_Er_Was
Probably a Typo for "slotted"
:}

SRFred
24th Jan 2017, 07:58
Really, why use a can at 1.8 km? Suspect a bit of journalistic waffle!

Hangarshuffle
26th Jan 2017, 06:27
Thread drift but last nights long feature about the fighting, about the retaking of Mosul was profoundly moving. This was on Channel 4's evening news. All the fighters featured were Iraqi Army, slowly fighting inch by inch through the town. To say people were glad to see them, to be freed by them from Daesh or Isil or whatever, would be an understatement.
What an utter mess its all been since 9/11.

onetrack
26th Jan 2017, 07:15
Give that man a medal for military efficiency, and for outstanding economy in the use of military property. :)

"Slaughter" is most certainly not the correct word. As well as referring to killing animals, "slaughter" refers to the "indiscriminate killing of human beings".

There was nothing indiscriminate about this action, it was particularly discriminating, I would wager.

barnstormer1968
26th Jan 2017, 11:38
I worry than bean ccounters will now demand all rounds kill three enemy to save money on rounds.

Give it a while and the 'bouncing bomb' will come back into service as a way of hitting multiple ground targets with one weapon. ;)

ORAC
26th Jan 2017, 11:44
Pedantically speaking, he "slaughtered" the first - numbers two and three were collateral damage.....

NutLoose
26th Jan 2017, 13:49
ORAC Pedantically speaking, he "slaughtered" the first - numbers two and three were collateral damage.....

And probably very unhappy.

Did two and three count as being shot with a biological weapon?

Danny42C
26th Jan 2017, 17:25
MACH2NUMBER (#2) et al,

Many moons ago I Posted a story, culled from the "Daily Telegraph", about a case in Afghanistan where a Taliban pick-up truck had been spotted in a wadi and was preparing to fire a rocket (RPG?) into one of our protected bases.

A Tornado was in the air at the time: they were alerted and "buzzed" the terrorists low-level at high speed, frightening them off (instead of blowing them, their truck and "rocket" to kingdom come with the cannon which I understand the Tornado is provided with - and which I fear would've been my reaction).

Seems the ROE specified that "minimum force to achieve the objective" was the order of the day. The crew (both Pilot and WSO) were ladies - but that is irrelevant - and (according to the D.T.) regarded this 'operation' as the high spot of their tour.

I believe the WSO went on to command a FJ Squadron.

Can anyone point me to the Thread (and my Post). IIRC, it was in Spring '16 (or '15 ?)

Generally, what do you think about this ?

Danny42C.

GlobalNav
26th Jan 2017, 17:34
So the "minimum force to achieve the objective" is to soil the underwear of those with a rocket to fire at friendlies? I suppose the objective is strictly limited to preventing the impending launch - not to launching it ever, nor the next ones they get their hands on?

Danny42C
26th Jan 2017, 20:09
GlobalNav,

As I put it at the time: "So they can come back tomorrow and try again?" Makes no sense to me !

Danny.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
26th Jan 2017, 23:42
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/554344-first-woman-command-raf-fj-sqn-2.html#post8819662


First woman to command an RAF FJ sqn
Post #45

Is that the one Danny?

Danny42C
27th Jan 2017, 17:19
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY (who was this cruel martinet, btw ?) #17.

The same ! Thanks ! ("Search this Forum" [predictably] much use as sick headache).

Have resurrected Thread and put in few words to help get going again.

Thanks again - Cheers - Danny.