Originally Posted by
tucumseh
While L1A2 is absolutely right, I'd like to know if what we read is poor, uninformed reporting, or has the deputy coroner (Mr Walker) just accepted a statement that the weapon was inaccurate at short range? If the latter, he should perhaps now ask why he was apparently misled. Mr Walker has an onerous enough job, and this would not be the first time he has made adverse comments, but not asked the next logical question because he wasn't aware of the full facts. Tornado/Patriot is the most obvious example. However, I'd never condemn the shooter - I can only imagine the stress he was under. The main issue is, and always will be, they didn't have the correct kit.
Undoubtedly the shooter was under sress, however, the MG and the gunner's sight are significantly displaced from each other, both horizontally and vertically. As a consequence, he could not have been aware, in the time available and at the engagement range in question that the MG was pointing at Sgt Roberts, as his own line of sight was pointing at the Iraqi he was seeking to kill. The MG is designed for longer range use - there is an MG fitted to the top of Challenger that is better for closer-in use as it is fired over its own iron sights. This was obviously not an option at the time.