Bullets?

[Tyicgerman]

Why are dum- dums forbidden?

[XS]

Because they are an expanding round, and these were judged as being inhumane.

[Mark Salvati]

Against the Geneva convention. Incidentialy, so is firing on personell with a .50BMG

[JY]

That's a BIG NEGATIVE about the .50BMG, it is perfectly legal to shoot enemy "personell" with the big .50. Threat personnel are fair game for the Maw Duce, and various sniper weapon systems chambered for the .50BMG round. The round of choice is the MK 211 Raufoss HEIAP (high explosive incid. armor piercing) because of it's great accuracy..and nice explosive effect. This round along with the SLAP work great at long range on threat critters.

Take care...Jim

[JSOCMarine]

JY is correct. Shooting people with the .50 cal is not against the Geneva Convention. I have sat in many Law of War classes and this always comes up. It is simply an old myth that has no basis in truth. Semper Fi.

[reconsweden]

Must be a myth over there because here they teach us to hit ´em with everything you´ve got http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/smile.gif

Would be kinda stupid to mount weapons on vehicles that you can´t shoot the enemy with...doesn´t people think?

JY,

Where can I find info on ammunition types and ballistics, because what I´ve been taught is pretty far from complete.
For instance, I wasn´t aware that they make HEIAP in .50 cal, I was under the impression that it only was used in larger cal´s. But then again, we have HEI ammo in that cal but maybe we just don´t think it deserves the AP part.



------------------
Videre Non Videri

[kalashnikov]

This is a common confusion: it's the Hague convention, not the Geneva convention, that forbids expanding rounds in military actions.

[recce_o]

There is a reason why the M2 is not supposed to be used on personnel: it is a waste of ammunition. In a conventional infantry defensive position, the role of the .50's is primarily anti-armour. They are supposed to be set up such they are providing fire to the sides of armoured personnel carriers. The GPMG's are then interspersed amoungst the .50's to provide anti-personnel fire.

.50 ammo is expensive, heavy and bulky. Even when mechanized there is a limit as to how much can be carried. In a defensive, it would be a real shame to use up all the .50 ammo on the first wave of an attack, on infantry targets that could just as easily be neutralized with 7.62 rounds (which are available in much greater quantities), and then have no .50 ammo left to deal with more threatening targets like APC's in the next wave.

[recce_o]

There is a reason why the M2 is not supposed to be used on personnel: it is a waste of ammunition. In a conventional infantry defensive position, the role of the .50's is primarily anti-armour. They are supposed to be set up such they are providing fire to the sides of armoured personnel carriers. The GPMG's are then interspersed amoungst the .50's to provide anti-personnel fire.

.50 ammo is expensive, heavy and bulky. Even when mechanized there is a limit as to how much can be carried. In a defensive, it would be a real shame to use up all the .50 ammo on the first wave of an attack, on infantry targets that could just as easily be neutralized with 7.62 rounds (which are available in much greater quantities), and then have no .50 ammo left to deal with more threatening targets like APC's in the next wave.

Now, in the Spec Ops context, the concern isn't generally about defending against combined arms attacks, so different rules apply, as the situation dictates. I'm just trying to shed some light on the source of this myth.

[recce_o]

There is a reason why the M2 is not supposed to be used on personnel: it is a waste of ammunition. In a conventional infantry defensive position, the role of the .50's is primarily anti-armour. They are supposed to be set up such they are providing fire to the sides of armoured personnel carriers. The GPMG's are then interspersed amoungst the .50's to provide anti-personnel fire.

.50 ammo is expensive, heavy and bulky. Even when mechanized there is a limit as to how much can be carried. In a defensive, it would be a real shame to use up all the .50 ammo on the first wave of an attack, on infantry targets that could just as easily be neutralized with 7.62 rounds (which are available in much greater quantities), and then have no .50 ammo left to deal with more threatening targets like APC's in the next wave.

Now, in the Spec Ops context, the concern isn't generally about defending against combined arms attacks, so different rules apply, as the situation dictates. I'm just trying to shed some light on the source of this myth.

[Mark Salvati]

Well dammit. Geneva, Hauge, Europe, whatever, I got the second part screwed up anyway...oh well, now I know.

[D.E. Watters]

The main treaties relating to military ammunition are the Declaration of St Petersburg in 1868 and the Hague Accords of 1899 and 1907. The Declaration of St. Petersburg states:

"The progress of civilization should have the effect of alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war and the only legitimate object which States should set themselves during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy. For this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest number of men. This object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which would uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable. The employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity."

In the details of the Declaration, the signing nations agreed not to use projectiles weighing less than 400 grains that were either explosive or incinerary. (As a side note, typical .50 BMG (12.7x99mm) projectiles easily exceed this weight restriction.)

The Hague Accords specifically mention small arms ammunition in the Second Convention and the Third Declaration. In Section II, Chapter I of the Second Convention, we find:

"Article 22 - The rights of belligerents as to the choice of means to injure an enemy is not unlimited."

"Article 23 - Besides the prohibitions established by special conventions, it is more particularly forbidden:

(a) To employ poisons or poisoned arms.
(b) To kill or wound treacherously.
(c) To kill or wound a person who has surrendered.
(d) To declare that no quarter will be given.
(e) To employ arms, projectiles or other objects of a nature to inflict unnecessary injury."

The Third Declaration states:

"The undersigned, as plenipotentiary delegate, hereby declares that the contracting parties prohibit themselves from making use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body as, for instance, bullets with a hard case which does not cover the whole of the enclosed mass, or contains incisions."

The US and British delegates voted against the Third Declaration because it was aimed primarily at the British due to the soft-point ammunition made by the Indian Army's Dum Dum Arsenal near Calcutta and the hollow-point Mark III and Mark IV .303 service cartridges created by Woolwich Arsenal. The Portuguese abstained due to their usage of a similar projectile. All three of the nations refused to sign and ratify the Third Declaration.

The British position was criticized heavily by its rivals and enemies: the Germans, Dutch, French, Irish Nationalists, and the Boers of South Africa all joined in condemnation. Despite the transparency of the critics' motives, the ploy seemed to have an effect politically. When the Boers declared their independence in 1899, thus starting the Boer War, the British decided not to use its latest hollowpoint Mark V ammunition against them. All stocks of hollowpoint ammunition were to be shipped back to Britain to be replaced with the obsolete Mark II FMJ.

Research continued on trying to create a full-metal jacket projectile which would have superior wounding effects. Thinner jackets (Mark VI) were tried to no avail, but it was soon found that a new spitzer bullet shape combined with the clever distribution of weight within the bullet's core resulted in the bullet yawing/tumbling upon impact within flesh. With this design (Mark VII) being perfected, the British returned to the Hague Peace Conference in 1907 ready to adhere to the Third Declaration. The US also signed the Fourth Convention which reiterated the Article 23(e) mentioned earlier.

While not a signatory of the complete Hague Accords, the US has respected their guidelines in organized warfare (for the most part). However, terrorists, guerrillas, and other irregular forces are not offered the same protection. On September 23, 1985, W. Hays Park, Chief of the Judge Advocate General's International Law Branch issued an opinion which stated: "...expanding point ammunition is legally permissible in counterterrorist operations not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State."

Finally, ignore references to the Geneva Convention. The International Red Cross-sponsored Geneva Conventions of 1864, 1906, 1929, and 1949 relate to the treatment and repatriation of Enemy Prisoners of War (EPW), the care of wounded soldiers, the neutrality of hospitals and others bearing the symbol of the Red Cross/Crescent, and the protection of civilian populations.