4 ms·

I simply must remark on some details[brackets mine] FTFA: >"Some ammunition can [1]take out a helicopter or [2]blow straight through an armored tank followed b

I simply must remark on some details[brackets mine] FTFA: >"Some ammunition can [1]take out a helicopter or [2]blow straight through an armored tank followed by a concrete building, out the other side, then explode, hitting targets 18 football fields away."< Concerning [1]: a common .22 handgun can take out a helicopter. Even a well-placed rock can take out a helicopter: https://www.foxnews.com/story/border-patrol-chopper-forced-down-by-thrown-rocks https://www.foxnews.com/story/border-patrol-chopper-forced-d... That, and their inherent complexity and relatively low reliability, are the reasons why helicopters are my least-preferred means of transportation. Concerning [2]: Bullshit. Mostly b/c no knowledgeable person would try to shoot "through an armored tank followed by a concrete building, out the other side, then explode, hitting targets 18 football fields away." After all, to hit a target requires that you aim. You cannot aim "through an armored tank followed by a concrete building, out the other side". And I've simply got to ask: what munition, after piercing a tank and a concrete building, "then explode[s], hitting targets 18 football fields away."? This article's author is sadly uninformed: no experience, no knowledge of the physical world. Sad.

acdha 2y ago
> a common .22 handgun can take out a helicopter. Even a well-placed rock can take out a helicopter: You appear to be arguing that the DoD wasted a ton of money when all they needed to do was give the Ukrainian army lots of rocks. If that wasn’t your intent, consider that effectiveness might be the principal behind the law - there’s a huge difference between being able to get lucky with perfect circumstances and being able to reliably down aircraft. In particular, consider that the Border Patrol commonly uses helicopter rotor backwash as an improvised weapon against migrants which requires them to get much closer to their targets than would otherwise be the case - people can’t throw rocks anywhere near normal firearms distances.
- giardini 2y ago
  TFA says "Some ammunition can take out a helicopter ..." which is true enough. I merely pointed out that most anything can "take out a helicopter". Attachment of this discussion to the Ukrainian conflict and DOD is your imagination. Of course people can’t throw rocks as far as a firearm can shoot. But to state that "people can’t throw rocks anywhere near normal firearms distances" is contrary to most gunshot assault statistics, especially for handguns: "The True Distance of a Typical Gunfight" https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/the-true-distance-of-a-typical-gunfight/ https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/the-true-distance-of-a-ty... (tl;dr - 3 to 5 yards) While a firearm can shoot farther and more accurately than most persons can throw a rock, human encounters usually occur at short ("rock-throwing" or less) distances. Most conflicts occur at distances correlated more with the range of the human voice than with the range of a firearm.
  - acdha 2y ago
    TFA also specifically refers to military weaponry which is designed for the purpose of taking out equipment rather than a lucky shot. The reason I brought up Ukraine is that it’s the logical implication of your statement whether or not you recognize it: militaries don’t rely on luck, they want to stack the odds in their favor. What makes something military grade is that it can consistently perform that task, not relying on a soldier getting lucky. This is why asides about handgun distances aren’t relevant: in the context of taking out helicopters, we’re not talking about close quarters situations - 3-5 yards means people are getting hit by prop wash or the rotors themselves!
    - giardini 2y ago
      Apologies to all but acdha: just realized that, in this thread, I was speaking to the wrong end of the horse!8-((

acdha 2y ago

> a common .22 handgun can take out a helicopter. Even a well-placed rock can take out a helicopter: You appear to be arguing that the DoD wasted a ton of money when all they needed to do was give the Ukrainian army lots of rocks. If that wasn’t your intent, consider that effectiveness might be the principal behind the law - there’s a huge difference between being able to get lucky with perfect circumstances and being able to reliably down aircraft. In particular, consider that the Border Patrol commonly uses helicopter rotor backwash as an improvised weapon against migrants which requires them to get much closer to their targets than would otherwise be the case - people can’t throw rocks anywhere near normal firearms distances.

giardini 2y ago
TFA says "Some ammunition can take out a helicopter ..." which is true enough. I merely pointed out that most anything can "take out a helicopter". Attachment of this discussion to the Ukrainian conflict and DOD is your imagination. Of course people can’t throw rocks as far as a firearm can shoot. But to state that "people can’t throw rocks anywhere near normal firearms distances" is contrary to most gunshot assault statistics, especially for handguns: "The True Distance of a Typical Gunfight" https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/the-true-distance-of-a-typical-gunfight/ https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/the-true-distance-of-a-ty... (tl;dr - 3 to 5 yards) While a firearm can shoot farther and more accurately than most persons can throw a rock, human encounters usually occur at short ("rock-throwing" or less) distances. Most conflicts occur at distances correlated more with the range of the human voice than with the range of a firearm.
- acdha 2y ago
  TFA also specifically refers to military weaponry which is designed for the purpose of taking out equipment rather than a lucky shot. The reason I brought up Ukraine is that it’s the logical implication of your statement whether or not you recognize it: militaries don’t rely on luck, they want to stack the odds in their favor. What makes something military grade is that it can consistently perform that task, not relying on a soldier getting lucky. This is why asides about handgun distances aren’t relevant: in the context of taking out helicopters, we’re not talking about close quarters situations - 3-5 yards means people are getting hit by prop wash or the rotors themselves!
  - giardini 2y ago
    Apologies to all but acdha: just realized that, in this thread, I was speaking to the wrong end of the horse!8-((