Falklands/Malvinas slagging match

Other Wars Falklands/Malvinas War
#101

Well, I’m not certain of the accuracy of that info. Which would cause me to question whether the comments on wounded men being hit again. It might be true, but the other information seems a bit scanty.

The Argentines were successful in holding up the Para’s on account of the siting and preperation of their positions. The attack went in at night and, therefore, would not have provided the Argentine snipers with targets during the day.

Of the British 23 killled, eight were killed during the battle and fifteen during artillery bombardment over the following two or three days.

Below is an extract from the Sunday Time Insight Team, which ought to give a feel of things:

One enemy bunker, defended by a heavy 0.5 machine gun –gun and a number of Argentinean riflemen, was pouring down a stream of deadly fire onto ‘B’ Company’s position below it. A platoon, led by Lt Andrew Bickerdike, move forward to silence it. Bickerdike was almost immediately shot through the leg. Sergeant Ian McKay took command. He found himself in a little valley of dead ground, his position raked with heavy fire from a number of positions. Rallying his remaining men, he launched an attack on the bunker which was fifty yards ahead of him.
One of his corporals, Ian Bailey, shot through the legs and stomach, tumbled in the bunker itself, still firing. McKay worked his way round to a position behind the enemy bunker, threw two grenades into it, and then fell dead across the mouth, the Argentinean fire silenced.
Around them their platoons were engaged in similar actions. ‘A’ Company found itself in a narrow defile with the Argentineans tossing grenades down into it. There was no chance of outflanking the pass because of the snipers with their night-sights. ‘The only thing to do was to pass a platoon one at time, more or less frontally, fighting along just a bite at a time.’ (Hew Pike).
It took ten hours to take the positions on Longdon. By the end the fighting had become hand-to-hand, and it was as dawn came up in thick all-enveloping mist at about 07.00hrs that Pike witnessed the almost surreal site of men moving grimly forward towards yet another position, their bayonets fixed.

3 Para had lost twenty three killed and forty-seven wounded. The Argentineans, many of them bayoneted, lost more than fifty. There were thirty nine Argentinean prisoners but only ten wounded.

#102

What weapon is the Argentinian holding?

Bolt action or semi-auto?

Why is the sight so big?

Night scope?

I used cheap civilian scopes about 30 to 40 years ago, which probably wouldn’t qualify on fairground air rifles these days, about the size of the British one in the picture.

They were still useful out to a couple of hundred yards.

What does the big fat Argentinian scope do that the slim British one doesn’t?

Except maybe give a bigger target picture so that average marksmen are seemingly more dangerous, but that still doesn’t overcome basic deficiencies in marksmanship. More likely to accentuate them.

#103

It’s a night-sight.

The rifle is a semi-automatic.

If he had been a sniper, he wouldn’t remove his day-scope from the weapon as it would interrfere with the zeroing. The mount he has for the night-scope is not homogenous. They were able to enfilade the Para’s because of the closed-in nature of the ground and the siting of their positions. The accuracy came on account of the close-quarter nature of the assault.

#104

I disagree also, but posting a few pictures of Argentine soldiers proves nothing, nor does it disprove anything.

Uh ? I have no idea what you mean with that. Tha Argentine army didnt use mercenaries in 1982.

My opinion is the the “sharpshooter” of the RI (E) 25 were simply people with training in the use of the night vision device but not particular sniper training.

Is sniping a crime ? No it is not.

#105

It might be if one Snipes around Washington.

In the strictly legal, politically correct sense sniping, per se, may not be a crime. However, is it morally right and proper to shoot men that are merely retrieving their wounded comrades?

Arguably, the true restraint on barbaric behaviour in battle, is moral courage. I doubt that many soldiers hav read the Geneva Convention, and probably not many of their officers. In the absence of moral courage, it descends into the abyss. The fundamental essence is knowing the difference between what is right and wrong.

#106

All British soldiers receive training on the Geneva Convention at least once a year and would have done during the 80’s also.

Sniping is not illegal, nor is it wrong. Unless the targets engaged are non-combatents.

However I would say shooting wounded or those attempting to aid wounded is wrong, however. Snipers and marksmen are selected for their respective skills, they should not need to engage such targets of chance, but wait for targets worthy of their time.

The Argentine “sharpshooters” (rather than the true sense of snipers) were equipped with the Starlight scoped rifle, if I recall it is a Argentine built M-14 or similar, with a 20 round mag. The fact it is Automatic alludes to the sharpshooter role of the firer rather than sniper.

The night sight was probably the best night sight available at the time, and American built.

http://www.morovision.com/weapons_sights/ANPVS2.htm

I think it is possible to use it during the day also, they come with daylight filters and cope with flares at night, etc.

#107

Even if we accept that, how do we define non-combatants or, my preferred term, legitimate targets?

Officers assembled at an orders group aren’t combatants at the time. Should a sniper ignore the opportunity to kill the CO explaining the battle plan to his officers? Or disrupt the orders group and delay or prevent the attack on the sniper’s side?

Cooks in a field kitchen aren’t combatants (although they can cause casualties, but only on their own side :D) but if they’re stopped from cooking the men aren’t fed and the unit’s morale and efficiency is reduced. Why not shoot the cooks? (This is proposed only in relation to shooting enemy cooks. The answer for own side cooks is entirely predictable. :smiley: )

A nerdy and bespectacled clerk in the distant rear operating an encoding or targeting device isn’t a combatant, and probably hasn’t held a rifle since basic training. Wipe him out and a large unit at battalion, brigade or even divisional level may lose one of its most important links. He’s not a combatant. Why can’t we shoot him?

I’m inclined to the view that, if they’re not clearly identified as medical personnel, then if they’re in uniform they’re legitimate targets for a sniper. Or any other soldier, whose duty and function is to kill the enemy and keep killing him until the war is won.

#108

Non-combatents are clearly laid down in the Geneva Convention.

Specifically Medics (including nurses, doctors and military bandsman) and religious personnel ie padres.

All are Non-combatents by law, and are marked as such. They carry ID also to confirm their status when captured and have specific orders to follow when captured or in battle. They (apart from Padres who are not armed) can defend themselves and casualties.

Everyone else is a fair target.

My exclusions would include enemy combatents conducting casualty retreival.

#109

That’s stretching it.

I reckon the Salvation Army bands that used to wake me up on Sunday mornings were legitimate targets, never mind military brass bands. :smiley:

#110

Military Bandsmen in the British Army used to have a medical role, I think they have lost that now.

They were stretcher bearers for their respective battalions and regiments. To collect wounded form Coy Aid Posts and take them back to the Regimental Aid Posts.

Sometimes they would operate further forward.

They wear official red cross arm bands and carry id taht they are non-combatents.

#111

Do they still go into action or are they kept home for ceremonial roles?

The USMC among others in WWII used to use some front line troops as stretcher bearers if not required in action, e.g. mortar crew if not manning their gun. Don’t know about other armies.

ID cards don’t give any protection against a sniper.

Much more so in modern armies where badges of rank are not worn or are very small and everyone can look the same.

A medical officer giving instructions to his staff about field hygiene can look the same as a company commander running an orders group for his platoon and section commanders. Hard for a sniper to tell the difference in a lot of cases.

#112

Apart from the rather large red cross on a white arm band worn by a Doc.

This is the whole point of a sniper. He doesn’t shoot at a target that he doesn’t think is worth it.

The shot will give him away also, it is part of the training to identify the targets that the snipers wish to shoot. Also in this case the MO would be near a RAP or ambulance that would be marked up.

During the Falklands the British had to use chefs and others to act as stretcher bearers on account that the bands were left behind to stag on.

These men, unless protected by a red cross, would technically be fair game.

The thing about snipers that you ahve to realise is taht they do not shoot indescriminatly. They have to choose their targets, as they will undoubtedly be required to move from thier perch after a few, if not one, shots.

#113

Not necessarily.

One Australian sniper in Korea, with a very large but unknown number of kills, used to get into position on an open hillside before dawn and move out after dark. It doesn’t come out clearly in the article but I saw him interviewed some years ago where he mentioned it.

He still has too much field craft to leave himself exposed. He won’t bare his soul - deflecting questions with half-answers and digressions. He handles the subject his way, telling a story about what he calls his “private war” at a place they called Hill 614.

It was late winter, early 1951. He followed the same routine he had dozens of times. At dawn he crawled into the open, forward and to one side of the Australian line. He found a depression away from any landmark or reference point - “never get behind a tree or a big rock” - and fired an incendiary round across the valley so he could adjust his rifle sights to the distance, about 1000 metres. Then he inched to another spot nearby. He was filthy with mud, and blended in with rocks and patches of melted snow. He rested his rifle on his pack and waited his chance.

Through the telescopic sight he could see enemy soldiers with binoculars scanning his hillside. He aimed at one - putting the vertical “post” of the sight on the point of the chin - but did not fire until they turned to talk to each other, in case they saw a movement or rifle flash that would give him away.

The rifle’s recoil meant he didn’t see a bullet strike, so he could not be dead certain he had hit a particular target. A near miss meant his quarry would duck and hide, anyway. He was never sure which bullet was fatal. He found this element of doubt oddly comforting.

At Hill 614, in between scouting sorties, he spent hours alone on the hillside, methodically picking off his marks, one by one. He called it “switching them off”. After each shot he would work the bolt gently to lever in another round, then lie stock still.

The Chinese had a proverb: Kill one man, terrorise a thousand. It was true, and it meant that each day, with each death, his job grew more dangerous.

All snipers were hated, good ones were feared. The better he shot, the more desperate enemy officers would be to kill him to stop the loss of morale. This is the sniper’s dilemma: the more enemies you hit, the more return fire you attract and the more likely you are to die. Call it a Catch .303.

His only chance was to melt into the landscape. To make sure his muzzle blast didn’t disturb grass, leaves or dirt. To avoid any quick movement. To resist the temptation to hide among trees and rocks that would attract artillery fire designed to deafen or maim if it didn’t kill outright. If you held your nerve, it was safer in the open.

Sometimes he wondered what they called him. Feared snipers were given names by the enemy…

At the end of a week, the Australians took the hill with a bayonet charge, led by a heroic figure called Len Opie, who took several strongholds single-handedly. Robertson ran up to the enemy position he’d been shooting at earlier that day, and saw something he never forgot. Where he had been firing, there were 30 bodies. One morning’s bloody work.

“Just one morning,” he repeats, shaking his head. "And I’d been there all week. I got a feeling of horror. I never did the arithmetic.

I still don’t want to."

The Chinese did do the arithmetic.

A few months later, in April 1951, a mortar opened fire with pinpoint precision at the spot where Robertson and his sniper partner were. It was obvious the mortar had worked out where the snipers should be in relation to their platoon.

First the explosions burst his eardrums, then shrapnel ripped through his right hand. By next day it was “the size of a pumpkin”.

Before they shipped him to hospital in Japan two days later, he handed in his binoculars, compass, watch and rifle to the quartermaster. He would return to Korea much later, as a platoon sergeant, but his sniping days were over."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/26/1082831474340.html

It’s an article worth reading for other reasons as well.

#114

A few months later, in April 1951, a mortar opened fire with pinpoint precision at the spot where Robertson and his sniper partner were. It was obvious the mortar had worked out where the snipers should be in relation to their platoon.

This being the reason snipers “shoot and scoot”.

He was really putting it on the line if he was shooting up to 30 men from one position. I would guess 60 in the day!!! and moving only after 12hrs in loc.

#115

When interviewed, he reckoned the secret to surviving so long was going into open country and not moving. He was obviously very good at comouflage and setting up his position. Given the terrain, he reckoned he’d be at more risk of being discovered if he tried to move. The proof was in the pudding for a long time.

Plenty of snipers wouldn’t last a couple of hours at the rate he was dropping them, although I have a recollection that he had a more modest rate of fire at other times. The enemy must have been frantic after a couple of days of his effort. Probably thought there were a number of snipers. Even if he averaged about 40 a day, after a week he’s wiped out two companies. A very productive soldier.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he got careless in the end and was sighted. Or was shooting at widely dispersed targets that allowed his position to be triangulated for accurate mortar fire. Or maybe he left a dew or snow trail coming in, although I think he said he timed his movements or did something else to avoid this.

#116

If he was shooting for that long, I am sure his methods would have eventually been recorded.

If he was able to hide his position well shooting from a shielded area (not obvious cover but say a dip where people to the left can’t see the report) in to a specific zone, it is highly likely he would not have been spotted.

#117

It’s like the old thing about flying.

The more time you spend in the air, the closer you get to a prang.

He did bloody well to survive for what he did.

Not like the Japanese who had so-called snipers who were just riflemen, or maybe marksmen, who stayed in position until they died, usually in predictable and fairly quickly located positions. They had to be the most wasteful army in WWII so far as intelligent use of soldiers.

#118

Correction.

Excluding the Soviets in their early phases.

#119

http://www.clarin.com/diario/96/05/26/infrec1.html

A rough translation on Gary Sturge.

Crime without punishment

The killer assumption.

The end Gary Sturge, that executed to a prisoner military Argentine front to the common grave where the deads were piled up “Lunático” for some companions of its own regiment, a “pariah”, for others, the end Gary Sturge went the one who executed to a prisoner military Argentine front to the common grave where other deads were piled up, in battle Longdon the Mount.

The Argentinean fell with the firing of a pistol of captured national industry in bunker of an Argentine official.
Twelve witnesses agree in the story; eight of them were with the pariah, the lunático of Sturge, next to the grave.

When its voice takes the telephone is serious, glacial. Behind the voice the parloteo of the television is listened to. “I dont want to speak of the old times - Sturge says to Bugler -. Neither of the old book nor of the new book, nothing. By me, all the books can write that they want. The only thing that I mean to him is: good night.” And cut communications. Sturge either did not accept to speak with the authors of the book that denounces it, from its own decision and its consultation with a lawyer. Anyway, it read the manuscripts that accuse it, sent by Adrian Weale to his address.

The author says: “Sturge did not deny nor denied the information”. Two years back the Sturge end left the army after 22 years in the force, and in spite of to have received two promotions after the incident. The 13 of 1994 July, after receiving the report of the police investigation, the solicitor of Corona, Barbara Mills, decided not to process to no involved in the case.

At the present time, Sturge lives in the Southeast of England and works in a company of alarms of security and electronic doors.

Nobody saw nothing Maquinas to kill Human ears The hug and the execution A mysterious judgment The British parachutists never gave to precisions on the nature of the martial cut or the sanction that fitted to him to the Sturge end in the Falklands islands after the incident. Some of their own companions think that strictly speaking there was no judgment some. Officially any registry of the execution in documents of the parachutists does not exist. But the “authorized version” of the facts, accepted by the British police, is that Sturge was arrested, accused and had a summary judgment in charge of its commanders in Argentine Port, when finalizing the conflict. In legal terms, a military commandant has the capacity to impose the halting to a soldier, to apply to reprimands and other punishments. Also he can discredit the positions.

The process is equivalent to one cuts martial and has the same force in which to the law it talks about. Sturge could not be judged twice by a same cause. The punishment that received Sturge by its action is a mystery. But it is known that it was sent to Great Britain in a boat aside from the rest of his companions parachutists. In agreement with the book “Boys of green eyes”, David Collett, that commanded the company of Sturge and must have been present in the summary, does not think that the judgment has taken place. Collett has suggested was made to facilitate the investigation of the British police

#120

Do you want to know if there were war crimes in the South Atlantic War?
Just read “Travel to the Hell” (in Spanish translated as “Viaje al Infierno”) of Vincent Bramley, who served on the PARA-3 during the war.

In his book he explains with absolutely normality how he and his partners humiliated, damaged and executed harmless Argentine prisoners.