Juba Sniper anyone?

Alkers

Anyone heard of this guy? An Iraqi sniper who picks off US troops one by one. shoot once then leaves. From what I've read, the US guys were saying he's amazing, shooting through gaps in body armour etc... and he's racked himself up a fair amount of kills. Some skill. He mounts a camera on his rifle too as a propoganda weapon or whatever. Link here (violent but not gore)
http://www.teorijazavere.info/upload/video/juba.wmv

jonnybadd

Not to be too pedantic but if that video is real, that's a lot of people being filmed Dieing. Is that not Illegal or at least immoral?

KdjaCL

jonnybadd wrote:

Not to be too pedantic but if that video is real, that's a lot of people being filmed Dieing. Is that not Illegal or at least immoral?

yeah it sucks, shouldnt be watching these type of things, im going to watch some rioters with a cause instead.


kdjac

Pigman II

And.... Star wipe!

Honestly! Why are the graphics on iraqi clips always so lame?

aidan_walsh

Pigman II wrote:

And.... Star wipe!

Honestly! Why are the graphics on iraqi clips always so lame?

George Lucas has exclusive editing rights.

Alkers

jonnybadd wrote:

Not to be too pedantic but if that video is real, that's a lot of people being filmed Dieing. Is that not Illegal or at least immoral?

I've seen far worse here, and I did describe what it was before giving the link so if you read the post you should know what you're about to watch.

wheres me jumpa

Pigman II wrote:

And.... Star wipe!

Honestly! Why are the graphics on iraqi clips always so lame?

Ill have you Baghdad Institute of Technology offers a fine media production course!

Pigman II

wheres me jumpa wrote:

Ill have you Baghdad Institute of Technology offers a fine media production course!

Yes they produce very good 'technical' directors .... but wheres the storytelling, the emotion? It's all craft and very little art.

wheres me jumpa

Pigman II wrote:

Yes they produce very good 'technical' directors .... but wheres the storytelling, the emotion? It's all craft and very little art.

Ah now I understand, thanks for explaining that one, I better go get CAO change of mind form!

Pigman II

wheres me jumpa wrote:

Ah now I understand, thanks for explaining that one, I better go get CAO change of mind form!

No worries.

Take our example there. It looked ok, the camera framed the shot reasonably I suppose. But did it take us inside the mind of the sniper? Not really. Perhaps our friend was having a bad day? The wife and kids nagging at him before he gets to work only to be followed by the boss warning him he'd better reach his quota by the end of the month or he wasn't getting those steak-knifes, let alone the new bmw.

A B C = Always Be Corpsifying

wheres me jumpa

Pigman II wrote:

No worries.

Take our example there. It looked ok, the camera framed the shot reasonably I suppose. But did it take us inside the mind of the sniper? Not really. Perhaps the snipers was having a bad day? The wife and kids nagging at him and the boss warning him he'd better reach his quote by the end of the month or he wasn't getting those steak-knifes, let alone the new beemer.

Or the burger he got didnt look like the burger in the picture.

biko

One shot Paddy, Iraqi edition

Sleepy

Guys, ffs, what are you doing joking about this? Anti-war or not, a little tact and respect for the fact that the images you're seeing of those kids (and most of the soldiers in Iraq are still teenagers) are in many of the cases in that clip the last seconds of their lives. It's real people dying, not fvcking Counter-Strike.

It would be interesting to see translations of the arabic(?) captions on the video but if what Simona1986 has been reading is correct about that being the work of a single sniper it really is 'Enemy at the Gates' stuff.

Can you link to the articles Simona?

wheres me jumpa

Sleepy wrote:

Guys, ffs, what are you doing joking about this? Anti-war or not, a little tact and respect for the fact that the images you're seeing of those kids (and most of the soldiers in Iraq are still teenagers) are in many of the cases in that clip the last seconds of their lives. It's real people dying, not fvcking Counter-Strike.

It would be interesting to see translations of the arabic(?) captions on the video but if what Simona1986 has been reading is correct about that being the work of a single sniper it really is 'Enemy at the Gates' stuff.

Can you link to the articles Simona?

My apologies.

Pigman II

Sleepy wrote:

Guys, ffs, what are you doing joking about this? Anti-war or not, a little tact and respect for the fact that the images you're seeing of those kids (and most of the soldiers in Iraq are still teenagers) are in many of the cases in that clip the last seconds of their lives. It's real people dying

I know! and those pictures have affected me deeply. So deeply in fact that I found the only way of dealing with theis torrent of emotions it stirred up in me was thru the calming power of humour.

Manic Moran

There is some dispute within the US as to if Juba is a real person or not. There is no indicator that says that this is not merely a collection of sniper videos taken by different people. There also is no indication of the level of injury caused to the casualties: The SAPI plates in the body armour is effective against all anti-personnel sniper rounds, to include armour piercing 7.62mm. With the exception of the face and side of the torso, hits with small arms anywhere else are not going to be fatal. Note how almost all the clips stop as soon as the round is fired, giving no indication of the results (Or lack thereof). Even a hit to the SAPI plate will generally result in someone dropping. There are quite a few misses in that video too.

I've no great quarrel on moral grounds with people watching the footage, as long as they keep everything into perspective. After all, it's what's going on. (I say this as a chap who had a sniper miss him by about three inches, the round impacted my periscope instead of my torso). There's not very much you can do against that sort of thing, you can't go around looking like you're in fear of your life every second, it gives a not particularly reassuring impression to the natives. Best thing to deal with a sniper is another sniper. They have had some successes.

NTM

Manic Moran

Pigman II wrote:

I know! and those pictures have affected me deeply. So deeply in fact that I found the only way of dealing with theis torrent of emotions it stirred up in me was thru the calming power of humour.

That worked for me as well, actually. We viewed the whole year as a year-long running gag.. :-)

NTM

Dooom

Manic Moran wrote:

The SAPI plates in the body armour is effective against all anti-personnel sniper rounds, to include armour piercing 7.62mm.

Really? Christ, they'd have to be some strong plates. Soldier'd have one hell of a bruise after that. Any chance you can drop a link for my own interest? I'd google but I'm not sure what I'm looking for exactly..

Manic Moran wrote:

Best thing to deal with a sniper is another sniper

Another sniper...with a Barrett M82A1. That'd sort this Juba lad out fairly lively.

Manic Moran

Spike wrote:

Soldier'd have one hell of a bruise after that. Any chance you can drop a link for my own interest?

They do, but it's a hell of a lot better than a hole.

The plates are marked "M-80" proof which is a NATO ball round, stronger than an AK round, and a little better than the long 7.62mm used in Druganovs.

http://gojackarmy.blogspot.com/2005/07/plate-and-bruise-body-armor-works.html

This is the bloke in the video that went around a few months ago where he was shot, dropped, got back up again, and later ended up capturing (And giving aid to) the sniper that shot him. Note the bruise, and reference to AP rounds. The last link from that page shows the Druganov used. It's an excellent rifle, just won't get through the SAPI plate.

NTM

Davei141

ManicMoran wrote:

There are quite a few misses in that video too.

Yeah it kind of makes a mockery of the whole "elite iraqi sniper juba" bull**** when hes taking shots at people's arms.

Manic Moran

No, I mean incidents such as he hits a tree instead of the bloke dragging a chap he just shot, hitting the wall above and behind a HMMWV gunner, and hitting the hatch behind a Bradley TC. However, if they went down, even by ducking as opposed to being hit, and nobody looks too hard, it's good enough for government work. I did see some arm/leg/ass hits though.

NTM

MooseJam

Anyone see the mythbusters episode when they checked the "dive under water if you are being shot at" myth. Pretty much nothing penetrated more than a couple of dozen inches, even the .50 rifle just made a big splash but the bullet didn't penetrate.
Moral of the story if those yankie troops wanna survive taking a hit from juba they should wear a fishtank on their chest and another one on their back,would increase morale too, you know what they say about fish beeing soothing.

Sleepy

MooseJam, you missed the part of that mythbusters episode where the lower calibre rounds actually went a few metres under water.

TerrorFirmer

Spike wrote:

Another sniper...with a Barrett M82A1. That'd sort this Juba lad out fairly lively.

Not only would take shear his head clean off, it'd probably take down half the wall he was hiding behind as well :cool:

Can't watch the video at work, no BB at home for the moment - have a feeling I may have seen it before however.

Dooom

HavoK wrote:

Not only would take shear his head clean off, it'd probably take down half the wall he was hiding behind as well :cool:

Exactly. Just have to aim in his general direction.

Although take his head off? More like shove it down into his foot.

Alkers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1542824,00.html
Here's one such article, makes him sound fairly good anyway.

Manic Moran

Simona1986 wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1542824,00.html
Here's one such article, makes him sound fairly good anyway.

If that article is accurate, then it also provides proof that the video is not Juba, or at least not exclusively Juba: Reference the multiple statements that Juba never fires a second shot, then note that a second shot is fired on (rare) occasions in the video. Shooting/scooting is definitely a good idea and an adherence to the principle helps survival.

There are certainly some good snipers out there. Particularly up North, where some Chechen lads showed up, they've been practising on Russians for years.

NTM

Alkers

Yeah, the video is probably a bit of a copycat alright, I only noticed once where he fires twice in that video? Some good shots through moving traffic and what not though.

jaggeh

Davei141 wrote:

Yeah it kind of makes a mockery of the whole "elite iraqi sniper juba" bull**** when hes taking shots at people's arms.

shoot a man in the arm means he has no plates and you have the possibility of hitting an artery, not only that but he goes down and his squad have 2 options, go to his aid and risk taking a follow up round or try to return fire as their friend bleeds out.

seems like a valid tactic to me.

Manic Moran

It's a valid tactic, but that doesn't mean to say that he wasn't aiming center mass and just missed the torso and hit the various other parts instead. If he's good enough to hit an arm, he can damed well take a head shot and get a definite kill. The video shows doesn't seem to show any headshots at all.

The thing about a sniper isn't that he kills people. The psychological effect is the greatest. As one of my lads (Sniper who saw the light and converted to tanks) put it, he can be as successful in his job by shooting a mug of coffee if it gets the point across. Unless the guy is LA SWAT material, he'll be aiming center mass to at least ensure a hit, armor plate or otherwise. The shot dispersion on the video appears to back this up.

NTM

thelordofcheese

Maybe I’m wrong on this, but I always thought that a sniper in a guerrilla warfare type scenario often went for a wound as opposed to a kill. The reason being that an injured man uses up allot more resources than a dead one [has to be carried away for medical attention, has to be tended to in the hospital] and as Manic Moran said the psychological effect is worth more than a kill.

Kernel

Spike wrote:

Another sniper...with a Barrett M82A1. That'd sort this Juba lad out fairly lively.

As far as I know, it's against the Geneva Convention to use the Barrett .50 calibre sniper rifle to shoot directly at a target. It's only given to US snipers to take out fuel tanks and things like that - unless they've changed the rules since the original Desert Storm/Shield.

Not that Juba would follow the Geneva Convention anyway in fairness!

Kernel

thelordofcheese wrote:

Maybe I’m wrong on this, but I always thought that a sniper in a guerrilla warfare type scenario often went for a wound as opposed to a kill. The reason being that an injured man uses up allot more resources than a dead one [has to be carried away for medical attention, has to be tended to in the hospital] and as Manic Moran said the psychological effect is worth more than a kill.

Unless it's an officer, then killing him is the way to go.

Manic Moran

Kernel wrote:

As far as I know, it's against the Geneva Convention to use the Barrett .50 calibre sniper rifle to shoot directly at a target.

BZZZT!!

Wrong answer.

The .50 cal vs troops myth has been going around for years. Complete with quotes like "I'm not shooting at troops, I'm shooting at equipment: Helmets, flak jackets, webbing, etc"

It has its roots in the Hague Declaration on Expanding Bullets of 1899 which states it is forbidden to use hollow-points or other expanding rounds. This was developed into Art 23e of the IVth Hague Convention in 1907, which prohibits 'superfluous injury' (Also referred to as un-necessary suffering), finally entered into the Geneva Conventions in 1977 which uses both terms.

Generally, for non-expanding rounds, this is held to mean rounds with an explosive content and calibre of less than 20mm. (.50 cal is 12.7mm). As a result, ball and API .50 cal are quite acceptable by the 'rules.' to shoot at people, and .50 cals have been used for that role for about 70 years now. The .50 cal sniper rifle is in use with a few militaries now (To include Ireland), the theory started out in Vietnam when Hathcock stuck a scope on an M2 in single shot mode. The current distance record for a sniper kill is held by Canadians with their .50 cal in Afghanistan.

but I always thought that a sniper in a guerrilla warfare type scenario often went for a wound as opposed to a kill. The reason being that an injured man uses up allot more resources than a dead one [has to be carried away for medical attention, has to be tended to in the hospital]

You're confusing one of the arguments for 5.56mm vs 7.62mm. Given that a sniper is a quick-engagement asset, the resources used to drag a target out of the area is irrelevant: By the time the sniper is set in a new position for the next engagement, those who have been rendering first aid have almost certainly handed him over to the medical staff and are back on the line. The issue is more important in conventional engagements when taking multiple opponents out will result in an increase in firepower superiority when it matters. Consequently, I would emphasise to my guys that if any of us were hit, those next to him were not to render aid until either the firefight was won, or the issue no longer in doubt. Best way to avoid further casualties.

NTM

Dooom

The British SA80's (can't remember if it was on the old or new versions), didn't they have an open crosshair in the scope?
The point being that it would most likely involuntarily wound the target. Under the pretence that one wounded soldier, requires two to take him off the field, and hence reducing the number of combatants by three?

Also, isn't there a production 12.7mm HE round? This is all vaguley familiar, I can't remember where I heard it though.

But think on it..a Barrett M82, with it's recorded hit range in somewhere around 2000 metres, throw some HE rounds into the mix...

Remind me to have those rifles on my side next time I'm in a war.

Manic Moran wrote:

or the issue no longer in doubt

*coughparticalionbeamcannoninthesnipersgeneralareacough*

Manic Moran

Spike wrote:

The British SA80's (can't remember if it was on the old or new versions), didn't they have an open crosshair in the scope?

SUSAT has what can probably best be a pointed post-type indicator. The Irish-use AUG has a circular reticle, put the target in the middle of the circle and pull the trigger. Close enough for government work, and doesn't obscure/overlay the target.

The point being that it would most likely involuntarily wound the target. Under the pretence that one wounded soldier, requires two to take him off the field, and hence reducing the number of combatants by three?

Again, that's one of the arguments made in favour of the 5.56mm round. It's actually not the reason it was adopted, but it's a good story, makes a bit of sense, and so is a useful post-facto argument.

Also, isn't there a production 12.7mm HE round? This is all vaguley familiar, I can't remember where I heard it though.

Not in US service, anyway. We use ball, API, AP, SLAP.

*coughparticalionbeamcannoninthesnipersgeneralareacough*

There have been systems around for a couple of years, the US is now only just entering them into service (finally) which basically have a whole bunch of microphones scattered around a vehicle, the computer takes into account the difference in timing between the noise hitting the different mikes, figures out where the shot came from, and can immediately swing the mounted weapon up top and fire back a few rounds. Use a Mk19, and it'll really ruin someone's day.

NTM

Dooom

Ah, thanks for clearing those up.
One final question I have that I heard a while back (could be a load of BS) - there was some bullet produced (blue-tips?) that moved at such a high velocity, that they penetrated the target, and kept on moving.
The thing was, they moved so quickly, the target didn't actually realise he'd been hit and so was still in combat. Obviously if the bullet had hit a fatal point, it'd be game over.
I can't remember where I heard it, but it's been stuck in my head for the past while.

Any ideas on it?
IIRC it was used by a European army, could've been the British.

Manic Moran

You're thinking of the M855 5.56mm round, the green-tips. They have an armour piercing core, and the legend has it (it started in Somalia, mainly) that the rounds would just go right through the body, and the Somalis, high on a narcotic called 'Khat' would just keep on fighting. Such complaints are coming through from Iraq as well.

Personally, I think a lot of it is to do with the fact that the US shoots more and more from short-barreled carbines which lacks the muzzle velocity to properly make the round fragment at the other end. Users of long barrels such as the British are reporting few if any such complaints. Also, I think people are watching too much Hollywood. They now expect that anyone hit by a round is supposed to go flying back through the air, arms and legs splayed. Well, that doesn't happen, no matter what the movies say.

NTM

Davei141

jaggeh wrote:

shoot a man in the arm means he has no plates and you have the possibility of hitting an artery, not only that but he goes down and his squad have 2 options, go to his aid and risk taking a follow up round or try to return fire as their friend bleeds out.

seems like a valid tactic to me.

The guy shot in the arm was perfectly capable of moving after the shot, which leads me to believe the arm shot was a mistake. If he really wanted to put the guy on the ground and have his colleagues come to his aid, surely a bullet to the leg would of done it? And the headlines "another soldier killed" would advance the guys cause tenfold than "soldier wounded".

R0ot

I have to say this is the most interesting post ive ever read on boards. Im a big sniper enthusiast when it comes to games, but obviously id be useless in a real life situation as FPS Doug says "...there's no respawn points in RL." Manic Moran thanks for all this info.

Zapp Brannigan

I can honestly say I'd hate to be a sniper. Think about it you would see the face of every man you kill, twould be horrible!

R0ot

Slurms wrote:

I can honestly say I'd hate to be a sniper. Think about it you would see the face of every man you kill, twould be horrible!

wouldn't be that bad, but im obviously not speaking from experience

100gSoma

doesn't look like much of a sniper... in WW2 the kill figure for wounded soldiers was 65%. In Vietnam it was 45%. Its now 18% such is the body armour and onsite medical care. All of those shots bar a couple looked like body shots or limb shots.

Dooom

100gSoma wrote:

doesn't look like much of a sniper... in WW2 the kill figure for wounded soldiers was 65%. In Vietnam it was 45%. Its now 18% such is the body armour and onsite medical care. All of those shots bar a couple looked like body shots or limb shots.

Going back to what Manic Moran said, it's the psychological effect the sniper has.

I mean think about it, you're in a fireteam walking into a town. Suddenly, you hear a shot and one member of your team goes down screaming (I've never been shot, but I'm taking a guess and assuming it'd hurt like the bejesus above).
Regardless of where he was hit, you now know there is a sniper somewhere nearby, that has clear shots at you and the rest of the team. Next shot could be a headshot, next shot could hit you.
Or even in a humvee, and the gunner suddenly slumps forward in the turret. Who's going to want to be the first outside?

MooseJam

Manic Moran wrote:

They now expect that anyone hit by a round is supposed to go flying back through the air, arms and legs splayed. Well, that doesn't happen, no matter what the movies say.

NTM

Mythbusters also did a piece on this, and its true it doesn't happen, they hit a dummy with a .50 cal and it didn't fall over

Kernel

Manic Moran wrote:

BZZZT!!

Wrong answer.

The .50 cal vs troops myth has been going around for years. Complete with quotes like "I'm not shooting at troops, I'm shooting at equipment: Helmets, flak jackets, webbing, etc"

It has its roots in the Hague Declaration on Expanding Bullets of 1899 which states it is forbidden to use hollow-points or other expanding rounds. This was developed into Art 23e of the IVth Hague Convention in 1907, which prohibits 'superfluous injury' (Also referred to as un-necessary suffering), finally entered into the Geneva Conventions in 1977 which uses both terms.

Generally, for non-expanding rounds, this is held to mean rounds with an explosive content and calibre of less than 20mm. (.50 cal is 12.7mm). As a result, ball and API .50 cal are quite acceptable by the 'rules.' to shoot at people, and .50 cals have been used for that role for about 70 years now. The .50 cal sniper rifle is in use with a few militaries now (To include Ireland), the theory started out in Vietnam when Hathcock stuck a scope on an M2 in single shot mode. The current distance record for a sniper kill is held by Canadians with their .50 cal in Afghanistan.

Fair enough, you would know more about this than I would. The reason I thought it was the case was because I read Anthony Swofford's book Jarhead recently, and during the first gulf war they were one of the first to get the Barrett .50cal sniper rifle (using old scopes which couldn't be used at a distance equal to the effective range of the rifle!), but were instructed not to shoot directly at enemy personnel with it. Maybe it was an unofficial type of instruction though.

Dooom

Kernel wrote:

Fair enough, you would know more about this than I would. The reason I thought it was the case was because I read Anthony Swofford's book Jarhead recently, and during the first gulf war they were one of the first to get the Barrett .50cal sniper rifle (using old scopes which couldn't be used at a distance equal to the effective range of the rifle!), but were instructed not to shoot directly at enemy personnel with it. Maybe it was an unofficial type of instruction though.

IIRC the Barrett is used primarily as an anti-materials rifle. Tbh, I don't think it'd be a nice sight to see a person be hit by it.

I also seem to recall some figure that the lethal range of a .50 round was something ridiculous like 8 miles. But take gravity, trajectory, velocity and a whole load of other factors into account and it's reduced by a fairly huge amount.

As for the Hollywood depiction of someone being hit by a bullet, I'd be pretty confident in saying that nearly everyone knows that those depictions are highly exaggerated.

Manic Moran

The .50s are indeed categorised as anti-material rifles, but that's not to say that they can't take pot shots at people anyway. I don't know about Jarhead, I've only read the (atrocious) book, but it may have been due to the distances involved that the superiors only wanted the .50 cal teams to shoot at things they knew they could hit. Radars and vehicles are much bigger than man-sized targets.

Mythbusters also did a piece on this, and its true it doesn't happen, they hit a dummy with a .50 cal and it didn't fall over

Not surprising. Simple Newtonian physics. If the bullet had enough force at the one end to knock the target over, an equal and opposite force would be acting at the other end to knock the shooter over. 5.56mm rifles can be fired with one hand if necessary.

Who's going to want to be the first outside?

Start bunnyhopping.

NTM

SpAcEd OuT

ive always wondered why they dont make full helmets with small gaps for eyes,mouth and nostrils, im sure theres a lot of issues like cost and comfort but it would make troops a lot harder to kill??

Archytas

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

ive always wondered why they dont make full helmets with small gaps for eyes,mouth and nostrils, im sure theres a lot of issues like cost and comfort but it would make troops a lot harder to kill??

But reduces your field of vision. Troops dont even like using gas masks cos they reduce the vision so much. I read about full helmets(they were bein tested.. cant remeber where though) there recently and the extra protection they gave was tiny compared to the loss of field of vision(and thus combat effectiveness). And they were expensive. Very expensive. So the trade offs weren't worth it for the amount of headshots there are out there.

I watched the video and all the troops are on guard duty. Like cops standing around at junctions and the like. Its like takin a shot at the garda that stands at the gpo all day. Very heroic. All very well - your defending your country(the sniper is probably Syrian anyway(heard that somewhere)) - but if the people all the way to the top gave up without a fight, your lonely actions aren't doin much but scarin the few people around that humvee.

Gautama

jonnybadd wrote:

Not to be too pedantic but if that video is real, that's a lot of people being filmed Dieing. Is that not Illegal or at least immoral?

It's neither illegal nor immoral: it's war.
The US troops are paid for their dirty services.
Go Juba.