Do miltary units use rapidly deployable shooting aids other than bipods attached to a rifle.. like sticks or tripods?
I imagine they would be handy for distance shots but idk
Do miltary units use rapidly deployable shooting aids other than bipods attached to a rifle.. like sticks or tripods?
Yes. Snipers sometimes carry sticks/monopods and tripods are mandatory for machinegun teams.
Mostly however they use a wall, tree, rock or something.
That mother fricker is peak performance
High speed low drag killing machine
His shooting position is untenable over a long period of time.
Sarcasm is not easily conveyed through text
It doesn't need to be because of his high speed tactics. He gets in, does the job and gets out.
Convenient of the target to wait for him like that.
I trained using ski-poles for stabilization as you've described, and like the other anon said, snipers often use a variety of stabilizing aids, and machine gunners almost always use the tripod.
t. USMC
I'd imagine teams operating out of buildings could use a tripod if they had it available, shrouded in those black flashider mesh drapes. Las Vegas dude had his ARs on a tripod with a crank action of some kind iirc.
I broke a monopod and someone else lost a tripod, so yeah.
Frickers made us pay for them too.
US military snipers are tripod obsessed in a way that would make the biggest PRS gamer or sheep hunter embarrased.
Generally US snipers aren't expecting accurate return fire. I suspect they'd have that tendency beaten out of them pretty quick in a real war.
Even at the height of the GWOT, no one trained as if they could just fire with impunity. You can expect to pull off, at most, a shot and a quick reengagement shot from your position before you're forced to move, regardless of whether you face terrorists with AKs or a Chinese mechanized battalion. The speed at which enemy forces will react to your shot, find the direction it came from, and engage varies depending on who they are and where you are, but either way it still happens.
No but the reality is they were firing with impunity, and reality sinks in eventually. Hence the tripods.
That doesn't make any sense. Whether you use a tripod or not has nothing to do with whether you'll receive return fire. What are you trying to say?
I'm trying to say that the reality of doing nothing but dunk on durkadurkas has colored their and apparently your expectations of reality.
Imagine if you will a guy setting up a tripod in WW1 trenches. He's going to be more accurate than the guy with the periscope rifle, but how long do you think he'd last?
I can't find it now for some reason but years back they were mounting microphones on hummers that would connect to a computer in the vehicle telling the occupants what direction enemy fire was coming.
It would not be a big step at all to make that system better and hook it up to an automatic turret. In the future, if not already, sniping at the wrong target will instantaneous and accurate return fire.
Of course by that same logic, a high resolution camera and AI should be able to spot snipers before they fire. Technology is a b***h.
Technology isn't magic. A suppressed gunshot from 800+ meters away is tricky to locate precisely under good conditions, especially in an urban area or in a large-scale combat environment where there's loud crazy shit going on all the time. Curved glass detectors have existed since the mid-2000s, but they can be defeated with simple veg application if you know what you're doing. And unless you mean to continuously monitor the battlefield in 4k 24/7 you're not going to spot a well-concealed sniper position using an AI camera.
If technology really was an insta-sniper-delete button nobody would field snipers in actual conflicts like Ukraine, but they still do.
Read my post again. I'm not sure what you're picturing when I say "using a tripod" but if it's just a dude standing up in the open with one then think again. The utility of a tripod is its ability to stabilize the gun in a variety of positions, from prone to standing behind cover.
I'm also not sure why you think "dunking on durkadurkas" was any less dangerous for snipers than shooting at real militaries would be - getting spotted and hosed with 4 AKs kills you no matter if you're Delta Force or not, which is why so much of sniper work revolves around not being spotted before the shot and avoiding detection afterwards.
Gee thanks for the explanation that it isn't magic. Since you apparently think it hears the bang, I will explain to that it actually hears the bullet whiz by and uses an array of microphones to compare the difference. It isn't complicated. Well, maybe for your condescending ass it is.
You didn't read what I wrote.
If this is in a large scale combat situation, how is the sensor meant to tell the difference between the round you want it to track and the thousands of other rounds on the battlefield, to say nothing of shrapnel or explosions from artillery? If it works as claimed, why aren't such systems commonly used on battlefields in Ukraine right now? You think I'm being "condescending" but I'm just pointing out the leaps in your logic which make you believe that any one technology makes snipers a non-threat for those who deploy it, which is neither reasonable nor true to reality.
three wooden brush handles, a small bungee cord and a sand sock.
For machine guns there's no way to employ them effectively without a tripod.
For snipers a tripod is indispensable. You can stabilize the gun in lots of weird positions using one, and (arguably) more importantly, you can stabilize all kinds of spotting and observation gear, like the spotting scope, a LRF, a TLM, an aiming laser, and so on. It would be very tricky to run an urban shooting position without one. That's not to say that no one uses bipods anymore - if worst comes to worst you can almost always find a bipod shot that will work for your needs - but they're a great capability multiplier.
t. former machine gunner and sniper
i don't see why they wouldn't. i use this for hunting and it fricking rocks.
https://newatlas.com/vehicle-mounted-acoustic-sniper-detection-system/4497/
>Vehicle mounted microphone array from 2005
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/934861
>Technical paper is even older
>10 year old video showing cameras we were using on drones
I'm saying these systems have surely advanced over the last 20 years and that they can be linked through computers and recognition software. The microphone hears the bullet whiz by and points the camera in the direction. The camera uses recognition software to spot the shooter and point the turret. A controller hits the fire button. Now, go ahead and tell me all the reasons this can't work since you're sooooo much smarter than everyone else.
Like I've been saying the whole time, you're considering this system as a magic sniper-delete button without considering the realities of deploying it.
You can't give one of these systems to everyone on the battlefield due to cost restrictions, other equipment being of a higher priority, and weight concerns, even if they were all man-portable. You can't deploy it to all vehicles either due to similar concerns. However you do deploy it, you're assuming that 1) it's capable of accurately tracking shots perfectly and 2) that your camera/recognition system will be able to spot the shooter perfectly. The issues with point 1 are obvious on a busy battlefield, like I said earlier, and the issue with point 2 is that no one is fielding AI recognition models capable of such a feat yet (and there may be none for quite some time) due to the nature of how camouflage and concealed firing positions work and the complexity of model training. Even during the GWOT, when the US Army did in fact deploy countersniper radar systems like you're describing, guess what? They still took casualties because of sniper fire, because there are limitations and narrow use cases and tradeoffs for all technology ever designed, including this.
> Now, go ahead and tell me all the reasons this can't work since you're sooooo much smarter than everyone else
When did I say that it wouldn't work at all? This is the same kind of myopic thinking that makes people say outlandish shit like "tanks are outdated" and "drones will replace foot soldiers." Systems like shot spotters and glass detectors exist and make it harder for snipers to pull off their missions, but they in turn adapt and come up with countermeasures, just like tanks and ATGMs adapt to each other, just like drones and counterdrone systems adapt to each other.
I don't understand why you seem to be so personally invested in and even angry about this topic.
Look dude, I only read about half that dribble. It would be mounted on 1 vehicle per convoy and maybe a couple at outposts with the intent of deterring killing single snipers. You're vision is limited and you're assuming something that isn't perfect lacks value.