https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...USArmy03-1.jpg
---------- Post added at 10:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 AM ----------
ot bonus
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...infantry-1.jpg
Printable View
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...USArmy03-1.jpg
---------- Post added at 10:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 AM ----------
ot bonus
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...infantry-1.jpg
Lots of Reeves cans on hand for the 1917...they're doing fire support at a distance.
Didn't seem to make much difference...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve762
At the end of the day the MG firing is going to be more noticeable than a white belt like Jim said did not make much difference
Maybe you wanted to give us Axis guys some advantage;-D
I can't remember but didn't the tracer light up after a little ways out so the position is not exposed or are we just seeing fired hot bullets in the twilight? Anyway, can't count on my memory any more,
Attachment 82347
Nah, they ignite in the barrel, they are just traveling faster relative to the geometry of observation; as they recede they become more visible as they no longer appear to traverse. Some heavy artillery can also be observed but you have to be close to (but not directly) behind the cannon to do it.
From the receiver point of view, active MG positions can be actually easy to find (if you don't mind keeping your head up when it is firing), dust, debris, flash and tracers can give it away.
Was/is it a good idea to mark the medics helmet up with a big red cross? Wouldn't it make him vulnerable to enemy fire, especially that of a sniper?
It would, but we were fighting an enemy who was a signer of the Geneva accords. By and large both sides didn't fire at medics.
Bob
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayg
That's correct. They eye is too slow to pick it up is all. We all taught it didn't light until 125 Yds out or some garbage. A night shoot puts that to bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by matthanne1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
That's right too, by agreement you weren't ALLOWED to fire on any red cross symbol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack
Yeah that works if they did sign but I am quite sue that one certain enemydid not give a toss and shot anyone and everybody and to be captured was a disgrace, the others well induviduals probably shot them so as to deny the wounded aid. After la drang with the LZ ALBANY fiasco the VC shot wounded GI s and in return the favour was reciprocated by the US troops to the VC.
It is a fact of war and depends on the forces involved I am sure that our troops gave the japanese in NG curry.
A book I am reading at the moment is about how the waterside workers union derailed our war effort and that of the US forces by stealing, damaging equipment, strikes and refusing to load materials along with go slows.
They were paid 10 shillings an hour where as the troops were getting 6/6 shillings a day if our troops were to be let loose against the wharfies they would have shot them as it was they were thrown into the sea from tne wharf, at one point the US troops threw stun granades down a hold of the ship The book,
Australias Secret War, how the unionists sabotaged our troops in World War II.
It is not likely that the soldier with the red cross helmet was a medic. It was common practice to detail soldiers on a rotating basis as stretcher bearers. The medics provided immediate treatment and usually didn't transport the casualty to the aid station. The stretcher bearers were sometimes provided with marked helmets and evacuated the casualties, while the medics stayed with the company.
One of my high school ROTC instructor sergeants had the Combat Medic Badge and related how a German machine gun nearly got him as he ran up a embankment the bullets nipping at his heels. He didn't mention whether he was wearing any kind of identification (helmet or arm band) but in a combat situation sorting out medics from the riflemen was probably difficult.
In the ETO, not in the Pacific.
I believe that I am correct in stating that during WW2 Germany was not a signatory of the Geneva Convention but often abided by it when fighting against the allies in the West.
A total of 53 countries signed and ratified the convention, among them Germany and the United States. Most notably, the Soviet Union did not sign the Convention. Japan did sign, but did not ratify it. During World War II, there were several major violations of the Geneva Convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - States Parties - Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929.