Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Much of the European animosity toward the US during that era
was a consequence of the US operating in a matter that violated
the laws of war that were accepted by the Europeans.

Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against troops in
SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there.

I'll take your word for that. What ammo was used?

Europe's issue with
the U.S. was political, not legal.


Non sequitor. Just because the French did it too doesn't mean
it wasn't against the laws of war as generally recognized by
Europeans nor does it mean that they can't hate us for doing
the same.

Aside from which, France is not the only nation in Europe.

--

FF

In message , Fred the
Red Shirt writes
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message
...
Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against
troops in
SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there.

I'll take your word for that. What ammo was used?

20mm HE from Bearcats, at the very least.

Explosive rounds with a mass under a certain limit (Hague or St.
Petersburg, can't recall offhand): technical war crime. (One of those
ignored issues because everyone found 20mm+ cannon so useful for
shooting at "stuff" and therefore also fired them at people _outside_
trucks, trains, cars, tanks, ships etc.)


There was a prohibition against firing rounds weighing less than, IIRC,
400g (just under a pound) at people. This led to the interwar selection
of 1.1" for the US light antiaircraft gun, to keep the shell 'legal' for
firing at manned aircraft. It appears to have been gently allowed to
fall into abeyance, like only-recently-rescinded laws about it being
legal to shoot Welshmen with bow and arrow in certain British towns
after the hours of darkness, when everyone discovered how useful 20mm
cannon were.

But more relevant, there is no reason at all why firing ball rounds from
a .50 machine gun at enemy combatants should be less than lawful.
There's a persistent myth that it's illegal to fire .50" at people, and
it just isn't true.

It might be possible to claim that firing 'explosive bullets' of under
the proscribed weight is a war crime, which would make every 20mm
strafing run an atrocity: but by the time of Vietnam this fell into
"long-accepted custom" with every nation that could strafe troops having
done so with 20-23mm cannon.

The law was written around the idea that undersized low-velocity
explosive bullets with a few grains of black powder as burster and
unreliable fuzes were excessively injurious to people and ineffective
against hardware. Time rapidly produced much more effective
small-calibre rounds that *were* effective against machinery and
vehicles.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Fred the
Red Shirt writes
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message
...
Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against
troops in
SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there.

I'll take your word for that. What ammo was used?

20mm HE from Bearcats, at the very least.

Explosive rounds with a [explosive, FF] mass under a certain limit
(Hague or St. Petersburg, can't recall offhand): technical war crime.

St Petersburg was the first such prohibition though the US Army
decided, as a matter of policy, to eschew them as well for the
same reasons, they exacerbated the injuries to men who would
have been disabled by the plain ammunition of the day.

The mass limit was 400 gms, approximately the mass of a 37 mm
cannon.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1914m/gene68.html

My previous statement about the St Pete not being reciprocal was
incorrect, though there is a tendency for alleged crimes to be
tried according to the laws of the nations holding the trial,
regardless of what laws were accepted by the defendant's nation.
Entirely justified, IMHO, so long as it is the decision makers
and not the soldiers in the field who are on trial.

(One of those
ignored issues because everyone found 20mm+ cannon so useful for
shooting at "stuff" and therefore also fired them at people _outside_
trucks, trains, cars, tanks, ships etc.)

It appears that the Prohibition was observed without controversy
from 1868 until WWI when the British began using incindiery (also
banned) ammunition in their aircraft. The Germans protested, but
then withdrew their protest apparently decided they preferred
to use the same themselves.

It would seem that tracers are also banned, but it is hard to
imagine a .50 cal tracer exacerbating injuries to a person,
compared to .50 cal hardball. Is there a difference, historically,
between ammuniton designated as tracer and that designated as
incindiery?


... It appears to have been gently allowed to
fall into abeyance, like only-recently-rescinded laws about it being
legal to shoot Welshmen with bow and arrow in certain British towns
after the hours of darkness, when everyone discovered how useful 20mm
cannon were.

So the British have discovered that the 20mm is useful for shooting
Welshmen after dark?


But more relevant, there is no reason at all why firing ball rounds from
a .50 machine gun at enemy combatants should be less than lawful.
There's a persistent myth that it's illegal to fire .50" at people, and
it just isn't true.

Agreed. The only basis I can find for that myth is the St Petersburg
(and subsequent) declarations, coupled with the assumption that the
ammunition is incindiery or explosive. I found one Usenet article
by a Norwegian named Per who said the standard ammuniton for a
12.7 mm HMG in Norway was HE, and intended for use against helicopters.


It might be possible to claim that firing 'explosive bullets' of under
the proscribed weight is a war crime, which would make every 20mm
strafing run an atrocity: but by the time of Vietnam this fell into
"long-accepted custom" with every nation that could strafe troops having
done so with 20-23mm cannon.


IMHO the prohibition became unworkable as soon as it became lawful
to issue weapons with the previously proscribed ammunition for
any purpose. You simply cannot expect a soldier in combat to
decline to use any weapon at his disposal.

....

Mr Rasimus, in another ng, says that he is unaware that explosive
ammunition has ever been used in .50 cal. Here and there over the
years I have seen references to explosive .50 cal or 12.7 mm ammuntion.
What is the history here?


--

FF

In message , Fred the
Red Shirt writes
Mr Rasimus, in another ng, says that he is unaware that explosive
ammunition has ever been used in .50 cal. Here and there over the
years I have seen references to explosive .50 cal or 12.7 mm ammuntion.
What is the history here?

There was an explosive round developed in .50" for spotting rifles and
ranging machine guns, usually mounted coaxially with tank guns or above
the barrel of recoilless rifles: ballistically matched to the main gun,
you could aim and fire, and be rewarded with a bright flash if you were
on target (thus cueing you to fire a 106mm or 120mm shell rather than a
..50" bullet). Don't think it was used in machine guns, though. (It might
be the source of the "can't shoot .50 at people" story)




More recently, Raufoss in Norway developed a multipurpose round that
didn't require a mechanical fuze and scaled down as far as 12.7mm, and
it's now quite widely used (by the UK and US among many others). It's a
relatively (10-15 years) recent development, but extremely effective.

http://www.nammo.com/medium_calibre/...Anchor-MP-8889
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ions/mk211.htm

"The standard design of Multipurpose ammunition (20 - 40 mm) consist of
an aluminium nose cap press filled with an incendiary charge on top of
the shell body (heat treated steel) which again is press filled with a
HE charge and an incendiary charge. The projectile can also be equipped
with a tracer and a self-destruct element.

The 12.7 mm Multipurpose projectile differs from the standard design by
using a tungsten carbide hardcore to increase penetration capabilities
and being encased in a copper jacket. Since Multipurpose ammunition is a
fuse-less design and do not have any sensitive primary high explosive
components (only secondary high explosive) it does not have the safety
risk associated with fused projectiles and does not produce dangerous
duds.

Functioning of the Multipurpose projectile is obtained by hitting the
target (light or heavy) inducing a fast deformation of the nose cap
which is press filled with the incendiary charge. Upon reaching the
ignition criteria for the incendiary charge the charge will start
burning and subsequently ignite the HE charge resulting in the
fragmentation of the shell body. Sensitivity is dependent on the
deformation speed of the nose cap and the high speed associated with a
projectile travelling down the trajectory is needed to obtain the
necessary sensitivity. "




--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk