Body Armour
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Yearning for sun and sea
Age: 82
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Body Armour
The words of the coroner yesterday with regard to the lack of body armour were pretty forceful and I hope they have the desired effect in the right Government quarters.
But this is a question for those that know. Why should the gun that killed Sgt.Roberts be inaccurate at short range? I can understand a degree of inaccuracy at long distance but not relatively close to.
But this is a question for those that know. Why should the gun that killed Sgt.Roberts be inaccurate at short range? I can understand a degree of inaccuracy at long distance but not relatively close to.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so much 'inaccurate' as not zeroed for close proximity. The sighting system and the muzzle are not in the same place, sights are 'harmonised' to allow for the machune gun to be used against targets some distance away.
Last edited by L1A2 discharged; 19th Dec 2006 at 09:57. Reason: spilling
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
L1A2 is of course correct. In my brief green, armoured phase ISTR that the MG sight in the Fox turret was set up for 250m, but given the terrain, it's entirely possible that they had the one referred to set up for slightly more. The gun can probably be used effectively at 500m for suppression.
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.
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.
