Reply to post:

Canadian sniper makes kill shot at distance of 3.5 KILOMETRES

lone ranger

Anonymous Coward,

I think you have some details mixed up regarding the Canadian mission. I quote:

"The Canadian military said in a statement that members of the nation’s Special Operations Task Force “do not accompany leading combat elements, but enable the Iraqi security forces who are in a tough combat mission. This takes the form of advice in planning their operations and assistance to defeat Daesh through the use of coalition resources.”

Resources, obviously in reference to the use of snipers rather than regular ground troops. This is as opposed to the U.S. involvement with both regular ground troops AND SUPPORT for the Iraqi Army. This indicates several potential concepts of fighting, not the least of which is the range of engagement. House-to-house and street-to-street by the U.S troops is significantly different from sitting in an elevated position lobbing .50 caliber bullets from +2 miles away at an unsuspecting target.

Also, please be aware that it is the U.S arms and ultimately the ammunition which has allowed the Canadian sniper's actions to shine. But it also adds another aspect to the story which is often forgotten or just plain left out. The sniper's spotter is routinely the resource which actually makes the shot a success. It is his assessment of all of the variables (math and meteorology) which contribute to the ability of the shooter to make these shots. He is part of the team which makes all of this possible.

But it should be pointed out again that the sniper's spotter was not the only spotter on call. The stories all state that there were at least two other resources using video equipment for confirmation of the kill. Now, this begs the question of why video confirmation is required of a supposed low level ISIS soldier being killed? Justification of the mission to the commanders of the forces? Or making sure that the attempt stands for the record books? Either one leaves me a little cold with the thoughts of justification. It makes me question why the sniper team was not closer in with the video team since the quality of video requires a closer proximity to the activity? The only sub answer I could conceive is that the command selected, maybe by a suggestion from the sniper, the elevation of the high rise at +2 miles away, in order to increase the potential for a successful shot. All-in-all though, this begins to smell of more RP than an actual required military activity.

Best regards.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020