Creeping Incrementalism
Member
While I can't find a URL link, I know that while the USA did not sign the first Hague (1899), it did sign the second one (1907). The second was essentially an expansion of the first.
.50BMG Against Geneva Convention?
- Thread starter EvisceratorSrB
- Start date
- Status
While I can't find a URL link, I know that while the USA did not sign the first Hague (1899), it did sign the second one (1907). The second was essentially an expansion of the first.
The Deer Hunter
Member
Why would it be against geneva conventions?
Its not cruel and unusual, its going to kill the person.
Its not cruel and unusual, its going to kill the person.
MD_Willington
Member
Ethiopia VS Eritrea
I've been told of personal accounts of Zu-23 being used against personel... And all other crazy stuff...
Thats 23mm VS 12.7mm
The person that told me this this was in the thick of it during the 80's (IIRC) when it happened.
I've been told of personal accounts of Zu-23 being used against personel... And all other crazy stuff...
Thats 23mm VS 12.7mm
The person that told me this this was in the thick of it during the 80's (IIRC) when it happened.
U.S.SFC_RET
Member
Doesn't violate one Iota of anything! Total BS. That stuff circulated and passed around and probably passed around for as long as the .50 has been around. My Drill instructor said the same thing to me and his Drill instructor probably said the same thing to him. Malarky! What about 20mm rounds, 25mm rounds. 81mm mortars? Multiple rocket launchers with thousands of antipersonnel explosive balls the Iraqis dubbed "Metal Rain"
carebear
Member
Again, those who told you that .50 can't be used on personnel were wrong. End of story. No law, no treaty, nothing prevents it.
Your DI, your buddy, the guy at the gunstore... all wrong. :banghead:
Your DI, your buddy, the guy at the gunstore... all wrong. :banghead:
Strings
Member
I've heard the same line from EVERY member of the Ary or Marines I've ever met: "use of the .50BMG is against the Geneva Convention". And I always explain that the Geneva Convention has NOTHING to do with what weapons or calibers can be used, and NOTHING is said anywhere about use of the .50 against personel. I have yet to convince one serviceman...
goosegunner
Member
Have not been able to find any information of this in English 
, but 12,7 mm by itself is not "illegeal" in anny international law. What *might* be illegal is the Norwegian "Raufoss Multipurpose" amunition if used against personel. This ammunition is exploding and possibly in violation of the "St. Petersburg declaration" (of 1868) where exploding projectiles of wieght under 400g is illegal against individual troops. But as many have pointed out so is 20mm, 40mm some mortars and many other weapons, and have been that way for 100+ years. The manufacturer of multipurpose ammunition (Nammo) have in cooperation with the Red Cross (and others) altered the design of this amunition to make it not explode inside humans, with a delayed fuse so it explodes after it is on the other side of you and other methods. Nammo claims their ammunition passes the criterias of international law, and therefor is legal. The Red Cross says that only the 1994 design meets the criterias and that whitout more testing earlier and newer designs are "illegal". Will try to find the documents in English ass well, but for what it is worth here they are in Norwegian:
Norwegian article from norwegian Red Cros
Norwegian link from "the norwegian millitary journal"
Edit to add: http://www.prio.no/files/file47911_bwb.pdf?PHPSESSID=b8a30ac#search=%22multipurpose%20red%20cross%20petersburg%22
, but 12,7 mm by itself is not "illegeal" in anny international law. What *might* be illegal is the Norwegian "Raufoss Multipurpose" amunition if used against personel. This ammunition is exploding and possibly in violation of the "St. Petersburg declaration" (of 1868) where exploding projectiles of wieght under 400g is illegal against individual troops. But as many have pointed out so is 20mm, 40mm some mortars and many other weapons, and have been that way for 100+ years. The manufacturer of multipurpose ammunition (Nammo) have in cooperation with the Red Cross (and others) altered the design of this amunition to make it not explode inside humans, with a delayed fuse so it explodes after it is on the other side of you and other methods. Nammo claims their ammunition passes the criterias of international law, and therefor is legal. The Red Cross says that only the 1994 design meets the criterias and that whitout more testing earlier and newer designs are "illegal". Will try to find the documents in English ass well, but for what it is worth here they are in Norwegian:Norwegian article from norwegian Red Cros
Norwegian link from "the norwegian millitary journal"
Edit to add: http://www.prio.no/files/file47911_bwb.pdf?PHPSESSID=b8a30ac#search=%22multipurpose%20red%20cross%20petersburg%22
Cosmoline
Member
Complete and utter myth. I blame the respective JAG officers for failing to quash the boot camp mythology. There needs to be a day of instruction to clarify these matters. I hate to think US servicemen have died because some bonehead thought he had to hold his fire over this bravo sierra, but chances are some have.
hub
Member
edited
Last edited:
dragongoddess
member
So from what I'm reading is that my Drills just made this up. That the Army's classes on the Geneva Convention were just made up. Guess TRADOC was out to lunch that day. All made up. Wow. Yet somehow if I had to pick who to believe.. Well I guess you get my drift.
Yes, we get it....
We understand you perfectly.
Despite the ample evidence provided herein, including express reference to the treaties themselves, medal citations expressly referring to the use of .50 BMG against personnel and the obvious opportunity for you to Google the documents and read them first-hand, you choose to believe myths and misinformation.
Which further explains why these nonsensical stories keep making the rounds.
We understand you perfectly.
Despite the ample evidence provided herein, including express reference to the treaties themselves, medal citations expressly referring to the use of .50 BMG against personnel and the obvious opportunity for you to Google the documents and read them first-hand, you choose to believe myths and misinformation.
Which further explains why these nonsensical stories keep making the rounds.
Cliff47
Member
Referring back to post #34, a couple of thoughts:
1. The fellow on the recieving end of the round did NOT suffer (he never knew what hit him).
2. That is an excellent example of gun control. One round, one kill.
3. Anybody near the recipient probably left a BIG pucker mark in their uniform (or what passes for a uniform).
1. The fellow on the recieving end of the round did NOT suffer (he never knew what hit him).
2. That is an excellent example of gun control. One round, one kill.
3. Anybody near the recipient probably left a BIG pucker mark in their uniform (or what passes for a uniform).
Strings
Member
>So from what I'm reading is that my Drills just made this up. That the Army's classes on the Geneva Convention were just made up. Guess TRADOC was out to lunch that day. All made up. Wow. Yet somehow if I had to pick who to believe.. Well I guess you get my drift.<
Ahh yes... "this was how I was trained, so it must be true". Which also explains the other wonderful bits of weapons knowledge that I gained from military friends:
- the AR series of rifles, in all variations, are absolutely worthless jamomatics (funny... I still haven't been able to MAKE mine jam, and I've tried)
- the 1911 is only good for as far as you can throw it, having absolutely no accuracy (odd that all the comp shooters use 1911s)
- the AK series of rifles has no accuracy, relying entirely on "spray and pray" (again odd: I've seen some damn fine shots made with AKs)
Should we also go into all the bs about "tumbling bullets" and such, that get "taught" in basic?
It's been my understanding that the whole "no .50s against personel" comes from a supply issue: commanders in Vietnam didn't want to "waste" .50 ammo on troops, fearing to run out while out of pocket...
Ahh yes... "this was how I was trained, so it must be true". Which also explains the other wonderful bits of weapons knowledge that I gained from military friends:
- the AR series of rifles, in all variations, are absolutely worthless jamomatics (funny... I still haven't been able to MAKE mine jam, and I've tried)
- the 1911 is only good for as far as you can throw it, having absolutely no accuracy (odd that all the comp shooters use 1911s)
- the AK series of rifles has no accuracy, relying entirely on "spray and pray" (again odd: I've seen some damn fine shots made with AKs)
Should we also go into all the bs about "tumbling bullets" and such, that get "taught" in basic?
It's been my understanding that the whole "no .50s against personel" comes from a supply issue: commanders in Vietnam didn't want to "waste" .50 ammo on troops, fearing to run out while out of pocket...
Fosbery
Member
Can anyone say Armchair Warrior?
tanksoldier
Member
The use of the .50 BMG round, in either rifles or machineguns, against personnel targets is not against the Geneva or Hague conventions. You hear this all the time, even in the military, but it is not true. Even if it were true the conventions only have to be followed when fighting another signatory nation. Al Queda, AFAIK, isn't a signatory to either convention.
You never had a TRADOC approved class in any component of the US Army stating that the .50 BMG is illegal for use against personnel. You have never had a block of instruction citing the conventions, US Army or DOD regulations or policies that indicate using the .50 against personnel was in any way illegal, because there are none such. I promise.
You MAY have been subjected to a poorly-prepared ad hoc hip-pocket class where the instructor stated that this was so, but he was talking out his @ss and without documentation. You MAY have heard an NCO such as a Drill Sergeant state that this is so in conversation or during a BS session. He was wrong.
Soldiers "hear" things as they progress thru their careers, then pass that "information" on when THEY become the senior man without really researching to see if what they "heard" was true. Drill Sergeants are not exempt. Trust me. Every single thing about the Army, from the Geneva conventions to how military pay and allowances work to how promotions work to how the military justice system works, SOMEBODY has the wrong idea about it and passes it on to his troops instead of finding the expert in that particular thing or doing the research and getting his troops the straight word. Sometimes it's laziness, sometimes it's just being mistaken, but it happens all the time.
You never had a TRADOC approved class in any component of the US Army stating that the .50 BMG is illegal for use against personnel. You have never had a block of instruction citing the conventions, US Army or DOD regulations or policies that indicate using the .50 against personnel was in any way illegal, because there are none such. I promise.
You MAY have been subjected to a poorly-prepared ad hoc hip-pocket class where the instructor stated that this was so, but he was talking out his @ss and without documentation. You MAY have heard an NCO such as a Drill Sergeant state that this is so in conversation or during a BS session. He was wrong.
Soldiers "hear" things as they progress thru their careers, then pass that "information" on when THEY become the senior man without really researching to see if what they "heard" was true. Drill Sergeants are not exempt. Trust me. Every single thing about the Army, from the Geneva conventions to how military pay and allowances work to how promotions work to how the military justice system works, SOMEBODY has the wrong idea about it and passes it on to his troops instead of finding the expert in that particular thing or doing the research and getting his troops the straight word. Sometimes it's laziness, sometimes it's just being mistaken, but it happens all the time.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Go to Google for "50th AAA Bn". We had M-16 halftracks with a Quad-.50 mount in back. During my occupation duty in 1954/55 in S. Korea, guys who'd been in combat spoke of the utility against the Chinese Army's human-wave attacks. Somebody bossing the 2nd Inf. Div. must not have heard about Conventions...
Not all military folks really know what they're spouting. During my first eight weeks of Basic, in January of 1954, a Sgt. explained the Garand: "The chamber pressure is 50,000 pounds per square inch. That means there's 25,000 pounds pushing the bullet, and 25,000 pounds pushing back for reloading." (Well, awful danged close.)
"Everybody knows." No, he sure as (bleep) doesn't. I've never met Mr. Everybody; don't think I want to. Dumb (bleep).
Art
Not all military folks really know what they're spouting. During my first eight weeks of Basic, in January of 1954, a Sgt. explained the Garand: "The chamber pressure is 50,000 pounds per square inch. That means there's 25,000 pounds pushing the bullet, and 25,000 pounds pushing back for reloading." (Well, awful danged close.)
"Everybody knows." No, he sure as (bleep) doesn't. I've never met Mr. Everybody; don't think I want to. Dumb (bleep).
Art
I have to wonder if there is more than ignorance and myth going on here.
Is it possible that the actual concern has more to do with your HMGs wasting ammo and time engaging the softest targets when they should be hitting the harder ones? In other words, maybe one of the original purposes of the myth was actually to make the gunners concentrate their fire on trucks, APCs, buildings and so forth that a rifle would have more trouble killing.
When things are at their worst you are going to do what you need to do - one way or another. People who believe wholeheartedly that their .50 can only legally engage enemy materiel aren't going to go take a smoke break when 1,500 naked enemy troops come charging at their position. On the other hand, in another situation, the fear of breaking international law might cause the same gunner to pass on the easy shot on a lone guy crawling for cover in order to engage the BRDM-2 rolling by.
Just an idea.
Is it possible that the actual concern has more to do with your HMGs wasting ammo and time engaging the softest targets when they should be hitting the harder ones? In other words, maybe one of the original purposes of the myth was actually to make the gunners concentrate their fire on trucks, APCs, buildings and so forth that a rifle would have more trouble killing.
When things are at their worst you are going to do what you need to do - one way or another. People who believe wholeheartedly that their .50 can only legally engage enemy materiel aren't going to go take a smoke break when 1,500 naked enemy troops come charging at their position. On the other hand, in another situation, the fear of breaking international law might cause the same gunner to pass on the easy shot on a lone guy crawling for cover in order to engage the BRDM-2 rolling by.
Just an idea.
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
Well, this started as a reply to dragongoddess, but kind of grew larger than that. However, hopefully this will put this thread to rest. At least until someone brings it up next week.
Please show us where TRADOC published this information. There is a ton of TRADOC information available online. Yet, no one can provide a link to the infamous TRADOC manual where this information is outlined.
While it's quite easy to find something as obscure what the Army suggests for a garrison menu during a periods of brownouts (FM 10-23-2, Chapter 7), this supposedly well known rule against violations of international law is impossible for anyone to cite.
However, it seems that TRADOC isn't always out to lunch. From page 6-79 of TRADOC PAMPHLET 600-4:
CALIBER .50 M2 MACHINE GUN
DESCRIPTION
This weapon provides automatic weapon suppression fire for offensive and defensive purposes. This weapon can be used effectively against personnel, light armored vehicles, and low flying/slow flying aircraft. (emphasis mine)
They are myths. But don't take our word for it.
Sniper rifles, .50 caliber machine guns, and shotguns. Much “mythology” exists about the lawfulness of these weapon systems. Bottom line: they are lawful weapons, although rules of engagement (policy and tactics) may limit their use. (US Army Operational Law Handbook, 1 Jan 2000.)
For example r[sic] many people erroneously believed that the use of a .50 caliber machine gun against individual enemy combatants was a violation of the Law of War. (INTERNATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL LAW DEPARTMENT THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S SCHOOL, U.S. ARMY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA LAW OF WAR WORKSHOP
DESKBOOK)
The use of the .50 caliber machine-gun is perfectly lawful under treaty law and the customary practice of states. (ibid)
Use of .50 caliber weapons against individual enemy combatants does not constitute a violation of this proscription against unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. (Navy Warfare Publication (NWP) 1-14M, 9.1.1)
50 Caliber legal to use against personnel.(Col. Robert Maguire USMC , Laws of War presentation)
For example, many of our soldiers have been taught that the law of war prohibits firing a .50-caliber machine gun at personnel. That is wrong. The law of war does not prohibit the use of .50-caliber or other large caliber weapons against personnel. It is true that many soldiers have been taught otherwise, and because a supposed rule like that does not make sense, it has left these soldiers with a bad feeling about the law of war in general, with a feeling that it ties our hands behind our backs and gets in the way of mission accomplishment. The Office of The Judge Advocate General of the Army recently attempted to discover how this misconception about large caliber weapons made its way into law of war instruction. It appears that the confusion arose from application of the principle of war, economy of force, to the employment of large caliber weapons. Application of the economy of force principle to the use of the .50-caliber machine gun results in the conclusion that it is usually wasteful to employ such weapons against people. This is a weapon intended for bigger targets. Additionally, such wasteful use of the weapon can give away its position in our deployment. Thus, we can see that rules of tactics, not rules of law, dictate the use of the .50-caliber machine gun. (LAW OF WAR, Subcourse Number MP1023, EDITION B, United States Army Military Police School, Fort McClellan, Alabama, June 1994) (emphasis mine)
_____________________________________________________________
Here is the pièce de résistance (or the coup de grâce, depending on how you look at it). This is from "The Army Laywer, Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-50-172, April 1987, pp. 36-37, http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/04-1987.pdf. It is a scan and as such, doesn't cut and paste properly. I fixed it as best as I could for the time I was willing to invest. However, for the most accurate version, use the preceeding link. All emphasis is mine.
International Law Note
Use of the .50-Caliber Machinegun
One of the recurring myths surrounding the law of war involves a supposed prohibition against the use of the .50 caliber machinegun against enemy personnel. The following opinion, DAJA-IA 1986/8044,21 Nov. 1986, issued by the International Law Division, Office of The Judge Advocate General, dispels this myth, definitively demonstrating that use of the weapon against personnel in the field is consistent with both customary and codified international law:
There is a long history of employment of infantry weapons up to .70 caliber against enemy personnel. The first U.S.musket, made in 1795, was .70 caliber. The first U.S. percussion musket, the Model 1842, was calibber .69, as was an 1847 musketoon developed for use by cavalry, artillery, and sappers. In 1855 the U.S.Army standardized the Caliber 58; the Navy chose to retain the larger caliber .69. Larger wall pieces-up to caliber .75-were manufactured as long range sniper rifles for defense of frontier posts. Muskets and rifles used by other nations during this time also ranged up to .70 caliber.
With the introduction of better grade steel, the breech lock system, rifling, and more powerful propellants, calibers decreased. By 1900, projectiles ranging from calibers .236 to .3 15 had been adopted by the major nations of the world. In contrast with the issue at hand, some argued that this decrease in caliber (and a commensurate increase in muzzle velocity) caused greater suffering than previous larger-caliber weapons, an argument similar to that proffered by Sweden in the 1970s against the 5.56mm (.223 caliber) M-16 rifle. This argument was not supported by medical evidence on either occasion, and was rejected at the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 and the 1978-1980 United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects [hereinafter UNCCWJ].
Larger-caliber weapons have remained in the inventories of virtually every nation. For example, the Soviet Union mounts the NSV .50 caliber machinegun on its tanks; it can be removed and employed on a tripod in a ground mode. Nations generally employ 50-caliber machineguns 8s antiaircraft, antimateriel, -and antipersonnel weapons. On occasion, they have been employed specifically as longrange sniper weapons. The Soviet PTRD was a 14.5mm (.58 caliber) bolt-action, single-shot antitank weapon employed during World War II; because of its long-range accuracy, it was frequently employed as a sniper weapon against German troops. Similarly, the Browning Machinegun Caliber .50 HB, M2 currently in use by U.S. forces, was employed as a single-shot sniper rifle during the Vietnam War.
Doctrine for the Browning Machinegun Caliber .50 HB, M2, is contained in U.S.Army Field Manual 23-65 (May 1972). Paragraph 80 provides in part:
Types of targets. Targets presented to the machinegunners during combat will in most cases consist of enemy soldiers in various formations which require distribution and concentration of fire .
a. Point targets are targets which require the use of a single aiming-point. Enemy bunkers, weapons emplacements, vehicles, small groups of soldiers, and aerial targets such as helicopters or descending paratroopers are examples of point targets. . . .
During the 1978 to 1980 UNCCW, as well as at separate conferences of government experts held at Lucerne and Lugano in 1974 and 1976, respectively, discussions of small-caliber weapons included all weapons up to .50 caliber. There were no proposals to restrict the use of the larger small-caliber weapons against personnel. In addition to their universal employment as antipersonnel weapons, there was the practical realization that in firing .50caliber projectiles at other legitimate targets (for example, enemy vehicles), some rounds inevitably would strike exposed enemy personnel. Hence it would have been impossible 'to attempt to limit the intentional attack of enemy personnel with .50 caliber weapons when those personnel could be struck by the same projectiles as the result of the lawful attack of materiel targets.
Employment of the .50 caliber machinegun or other .50 caliberweapons against enemy personnel does not violate the law of war. There remains the question of how the misperception arose as to its purported illegality. There appears one plausible explanation.
During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps had in their inventories the M40 106mm recoilless die. Designed primarily for antiarmor use,the M40 was equipped with the M8C .50 caliber spotting gun. The M8C was used to assist the gunner in determining range and leads to the target. It fired a spotter-tracer round containing a tracer element and an incendiary filler. On impact, the incendiary filler produced a puff of white smoke intended to aid in adjusting fire. The spotter-tracer round was designed so that its trajectory matched the trajectory of the 106mm recoilless rifle service ammunition. The spotter-tracer round was designed to be used in the spotting gun only.
Although the M40 could be utilized against enemy personnel (using the flechette-loaded M581 APERS-T round), the M40 essentially was a single shot antitank weapon that relied on concealment and surprise in order to attack enemy armor and survive on the battlefield. Utilization of the M8C .50 caliber spotting gun against an individual soldier would have compromised the position of the M40,making it and its crew vulnerable to attack. Hence tactical, not legal, limitations were placed on the employment of the M8C .50 caliber spotting gun against enemy personnel. It appears that this practical limitation on the use of the M8C somehow was transferred to all 50 caliber weapons, and that in time it was assumed that the restriction was based on some aspect of the law of war. Such transfer of this tactical limitation and the assumption of a law of war basis are incorrect.
Current Army doctrine providing for the use of the .50 caliber machinegun as an antipersonnel weapon is consistent with the law of war obligations of the United States. No treaty language exists (either generally or specifically) to support a limitation on its use against personnel, and its widespread, long-standing use in this role suggests that such antipersonnel employment is the customary practice of nations.
_____________________________________________________________
I was told the same thing as many here. The people who told me were wrong.
While rules of engagement or other tactical concerns may restrict the use of .50 caliber weapons, anyone who says engaging personnel is with .50 caliber weapons is against the Geneva Convention is 100% wrong for multiple reasons. Period. Anyone who says they are against the Hague Conventions is wrong. Period.
Edited: a couple of typos and formatting errors.
I doubt that your drills made it up. I'm sure they heard it from some who heard it from someone who heard it from someone. See the article below for the possible origin of this myth.
If they told you not to shoot .50 calibers at people in your class on the Geneva Conventions, they obviously went outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions. The full text of the Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions are available online. You can see for yourself if the Army's training class made it up as there is nothing regarding the use of .50 caliber weapons in either one.
Please show us where TRADOC published this information. There is a ton of TRADOC information available online. Yet, no one can provide a link to the infamous TRADOC manual where this information is outlined.
While it's quite easy to find something as obscure what the Army suggests for a garrison menu during a periods of brownouts (FM 10-23-2, Chapter 7), this supposedly well known rule against violations of international law is impossible for anyone to cite.
However, it seems that TRADOC isn't always out to lunch. From page 6-79 of TRADOC PAMPHLET 600-4:
CALIBER .50 M2 MACHINE GUN
DESCRIPTION
This weapon provides automatic weapon suppression fire for offensive and defensive purposes. This weapon can be used effectively against personnel, light armored vehicles, and low flying/slow flying aircraft. (emphasis mine)
They are myths. But don't take our word for it.
Sniper rifles, .50 caliber machine guns, and shotguns. Much “mythology” exists about the lawfulness of these weapon systems. Bottom line: they are lawful weapons, although rules of engagement (policy and tactics) may limit their use. (US Army Operational Law Handbook, 1 Jan 2000.)
For example r[sic] many people erroneously believed that the use of a .50 caliber machine gun against individual enemy combatants was a violation of the Law of War. (INTERNATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL LAW DEPARTMENT THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S SCHOOL, U.S. ARMY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA LAW OF WAR WORKSHOP
DESKBOOK)
The use of the .50 caliber machine-gun is perfectly lawful under treaty law and the customary practice of states. (ibid)
Use of .50 caliber weapons against individual enemy combatants does not constitute a violation of this proscription against unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. (Navy Warfare Publication (NWP) 1-14M, 9.1.1)
50 Caliber legal to use against personnel.(Col. Robert Maguire USMC , Laws of War presentation)
For example, many of our soldiers have been taught that the law of war prohibits firing a .50-caliber machine gun at personnel. That is wrong. The law of war does not prohibit the use of .50-caliber or other large caliber weapons against personnel. It is true that many soldiers have been taught otherwise, and because a supposed rule like that does not make sense, it has left these soldiers with a bad feeling about the law of war in general, with a feeling that it ties our hands behind our backs and gets in the way of mission accomplishment. The Office of The Judge Advocate General of the Army recently attempted to discover how this misconception about large caliber weapons made its way into law of war instruction. It appears that the confusion arose from application of the principle of war, economy of force, to the employment of large caliber weapons. Application of the economy of force principle to the use of the .50-caliber machine gun results in the conclusion that it is usually wasteful to employ such weapons against people. This is a weapon intended for bigger targets. Additionally, such wasteful use of the weapon can give away its position in our deployment. Thus, we can see that rules of tactics, not rules of law, dictate the use of the .50-caliber machine gun. (LAW OF WAR, Subcourse Number MP1023, EDITION B, United States Army Military Police School, Fort McClellan, Alabama, June 1994) (emphasis mine)
_____________________________________________________________
Here is the pièce de résistance (or the coup de grâce, depending on how you look at it). This is from "The Army Laywer, Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-50-172, April 1987, pp. 36-37, http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/04-1987.pdf. It is a scan and as such, doesn't cut and paste properly. I fixed it as best as I could for the time I was willing to invest. However, for the most accurate version, use the preceeding link. All emphasis is mine.
International Law Note
Use of the .50-Caliber Machinegun
One of the recurring myths surrounding the law of war involves a supposed prohibition against the use of the .50 caliber machinegun against enemy personnel. The following opinion, DAJA-IA 1986/8044,21 Nov. 1986, issued by the International Law Division, Office of The Judge Advocate General, dispels this myth, definitively demonstrating that use of the weapon against personnel in the field is consistent with both customary and codified international law:
There is a long history of employment of infantry weapons up to .70 caliber against enemy personnel. The first U.S.musket, made in 1795, was .70 caliber. The first U.S. percussion musket, the Model 1842, was calibber .69, as was an 1847 musketoon developed for use by cavalry, artillery, and sappers. In 1855 the U.S.Army standardized the Caliber 58; the Navy chose to retain the larger caliber .69. Larger wall pieces-up to caliber .75-were manufactured as long range sniper rifles for defense of frontier posts. Muskets and rifles used by other nations during this time also ranged up to .70 caliber.
With the introduction of better grade steel, the breech lock system, rifling, and more powerful propellants, calibers decreased. By 1900, projectiles ranging from calibers .236 to .3 15 had been adopted by the major nations of the world. In contrast with the issue at hand, some argued that this decrease in caliber (and a commensurate increase in muzzle velocity) caused greater suffering than previous larger-caliber weapons, an argument similar to that proffered by Sweden in the 1970s against the 5.56mm (.223 caliber) M-16 rifle. This argument was not supported by medical evidence on either occasion, and was rejected at the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 and the 1978-1980 United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects [hereinafter UNCCWJ].
Larger-caliber weapons have remained in the inventories of virtually every nation. For example, the Soviet Union mounts the NSV .50 caliber machinegun on its tanks; it can be removed and employed on a tripod in a ground mode. Nations generally employ 50-caliber machineguns 8s antiaircraft, antimateriel, -and antipersonnel weapons. On occasion, they have been employed specifically as longrange sniper weapons. The Soviet PTRD was a 14.5mm (.58 caliber) bolt-action, single-shot antitank weapon employed during World War II; because of its long-range accuracy, it was frequently employed as a sniper weapon against German troops. Similarly, the Browning Machinegun Caliber .50 HB, M2 currently in use by U.S. forces, was employed as a single-shot sniper rifle during the Vietnam War.
Doctrine for the Browning Machinegun Caliber .50 HB, M2, is contained in U.S.Army Field Manual 23-65 (May 1972). Paragraph 80 provides in part:
Types of targets. Targets presented to the machinegunners during combat will in most cases consist of enemy soldiers in various formations which require distribution and concentration of fire .
a. Point targets are targets which require the use of a single aiming-point. Enemy bunkers, weapons emplacements, vehicles, small groups of soldiers, and aerial targets such as helicopters or descending paratroopers are examples of point targets. . . .
During the 1978 to 1980 UNCCW, as well as at separate conferences of government experts held at Lucerne and Lugano in 1974 and 1976, respectively, discussions of small-caliber weapons included all weapons up to .50 caliber. There were no proposals to restrict the use of the larger small-caliber weapons against personnel. In addition to their universal employment as antipersonnel weapons, there was the practical realization that in firing .50caliber projectiles at other legitimate targets (for example, enemy vehicles), some rounds inevitably would strike exposed enemy personnel. Hence it would have been impossible 'to attempt to limit the intentional attack of enemy personnel with .50 caliber weapons when those personnel could be struck by the same projectiles as the result of the lawful attack of materiel targets.
Employment of the .50 caliber machinegun or other .50 caliberweapons against enemy personnel does not violate the law of war. There remains the question of how the misperception arose as to its purported illegality. There appears one plausible explanation.
During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps had in their inventories the M40 106mm recoilless die. Designed primarily for antiarmor use,the M40 was equipped with the M8C .50 caliber spotting gun. The M8C was used to assist the gunner in determining range and leads to the target. It fired a spotter-tracer round containing a tracer element and an incendiary filler. On impact, the incendiary filler produced a puff of white smoke intended to aid in adjusting fire. The spotter-tracer round was designed so that its trajectory matched the trajectory of the 106mm recoilless rifle service ammunition. The spotter-tracer round was designed to be used in the spotting gun only.
Although the M40 could be utilized against enemy personnel (using the flechette-loaded M581 APERS-T round), the M40 essentially was a single shot antitank weapon that relied on concealment and surprise in order to attack enemy armor and survive on the battlefield. Utilization of the M8C .50 caliber spotting gun against an individual soldier would have compromised the position of the M40,making it and its crew vulnerable to attack. Hence tactical, not legal, limitations were placed on the employment of the M8C .50 caliber spotting gun against enemy personnel. It appears that this practical limitation on the use of the M8C somehow was transferred to all 50 caliber weapons, and that in time it was assumed that the restriction was based on some aspect of the law of war. Such transfer of this tactical limitation and the assumption of a law of war basis are incorrect.
Current Army doctrine providing for the use of the .50 caliber machinegun as an antipersonnel weapon is consistent with the law of war obligations of the United States. No treaty language exists (either generally or specifically) to support a limitation on its use against personnel, and its widespread, long-standing use in this role suggests that such antipersonnel employment is the customary practice of nations.
_____________________________________________________________
Still choose to believe your Drill Sgts?
I was told the same thing as many here. The people who told me were wrong.
While rules of engagement or other tactical concerns may restrict the use of .50 caliber weapons, anyone who says engaging personnel is with .50 caliber weapons is against the Geneva Convention is 100% wrong for multiple reasons. Period. Anyone who says they are against the Hague Conventions is wrong. Period.
Edited: a couple of typos and formatting errors.
Last edited:
A thoroughly documented, irrefutable rebuttal of
the "Geneva Convention prohibits .50 BMG against personnel" myth.
Notwithstanding that sterling piece of research and writing, I am sure many reading this thread will ignore that post and continue to regurgitate the lie.
the "Geneva Convention prohibits .50 BMG against personnel" myth.
Notwithstanding that sterling piece of research and writing, I am sure many reading this thread will ignore that post and continue to regurgitate the lie.
U.S.SFC_RET
Member
Guess what else I heard while I was on Active duty. You couldn't shoot at a paratrooper while he was floating down strapped to a parachute. BS! He still is a combatant and as a combatant I certainly would have engaged with a .50 cal.
- Status
