April 1970: Trying to kill a sniper(mashable.com)
mashable.com
April 1970: Trying to kill a sniper
http://mashable.com/2017/04/29/trying-to-kill-a-sniper/
63 comments
Places you wouldn't want to be:
1. That hillside
1. That hillside
Tldr: a Vietnamese sniper hides in the hills. Americans spray the hill with gunfire. Sniper escapes, but one American shot interesting long-exposure pictures of the action.
Yes that is what the article is about, but I'm confused about your tone here. Do you have something more to say or do you prefer snark when commenting on things that don't interest you?
Or, he's just being a nice guy and providing a quick summary. If you're like me, you read the comments first. In this case, I found his comment and found the summary interesting enough to read the entire article.
Could be the case, but they seem to be downplaying the content and the last sentence reeks of attitude. I just think it's rather unnecessary. I could obviously be misinterpreting the comment but it seems rather clear to me.
It was meant as summary. I'm with GP and usually read the comments first too. I'm sorry it could be misinterpreted. In hindsight, "tldr:" may sound attitudy, and I could have written: "Summary:".
What a succinct demonstration of how asymmetric warfare works: how much did it cost to attempt to kill one person?
Its a classic glass half full / glass half empty argument.
Remember, each side killed one person.
One side can only afford to dispatch one soldier, with a non-sniper rifle, on a sniper patrol, and the pessimism shows in that he did the spray and pray technique every day and went home, knowing that his side couldn't bother even providing a proper sniper rifle. "They pretend to supply us, we pretend to fight for them". Its just bad luck that eventually a spray -n- pray weapons policy randomly hit some poor guy on our side resulting in massive retaliation.
The glass half empty way to look at $100K of small arms ammo to kill one guy is it cost $100K and that's not scalable if there's more than one guy. The other way to look at it, is this only happened once, which tells you all you really need to know about the opfor's opinion of this tactic, and furthermore we didn't appear to mind spending $100K on one opfor. That's why this kind of suicide kamikaze tactic was not super popular.
Now with backpack nukes, or maybe IEDs, maybe the scales tilt. But if all you have is an AK47 and a small amount of ammo per day, this isn't going to happen too much.
How do you win against an opponent who demonstrably doesn't care how much it costs to get you? Apparently, the only working strategy is you wait for him to leave. Which seems to be pretty much how it turned out.
As a side meta comment, times have changed on our side too. Back then the Army spent $100K on small arms ammo and they must have fired a hundred thousand rounds up at that hill, and somehow hit the opfor although they also hit roughly 99999 other things, hopefully not civilians. Now a days you get the opfor on the IR drone scope and drop a single hellfire missile costing $100K on him from the air. Its the same cost but much less visually impressive and much lower civilian casualties or general destruction.
Remember, each side killed one person.
One side can only afford to dispatch one soldier, with a non-sniper rifle, on a sniper patrol, and the pessimism shows in that he did the spray and pray technique every day and went home, knowing that his side couldn't bother even providing a proper sniper rifle. "They pretend to supply us, we pretend to fight for them". Its just bad luck that eventually a spray -n- pray weapons policy randomly hit some poor guy on our side resulting in massive retaliation.
The glass half empty way to look at $100K of small arms ammo to kill one guy is it cost $100K and that's not scalable if there's more than one guy. The other way to look at it, is this only happened once, which tells you all you really need to know about the opfor's opinion of this tactic, and furthermore we didn't appear to mind spending $100K on one opfor. That's why this kind of suicide kamikaze tactic was not super popular.
Now with backpack nukes, or maybe IEDs, maybe the scales tilt. But if all you have is an AK47 and a small amount of ammo per day, this isn't going to happen too much.
How do you win against an opponent who demonstrably doesn't care how much it costs to get you? Apparently, the only working strategy is you wait for him to leave. Which seems to be pretty much how it turned out.
As a side meta comment, times have changed on our side too. Back then the Army spent $100K on small arms ammo and they must have fired a hundred thousand rounds up at that hill, and somehow hit the opfor although they also hit roughly 99999 other things, hopefully not civilians. Now a days you get the opfor on the IR drone scope and drop a single hellfire missile costing $100K on him from the air. Its the same cost but much less visually impressive and much lower civilian casualties or general destruction.
You seem to be arguing that this is a scalability issue, and I disagree. It's a sustainability issue.
Viewed in this light, it's most certainly not a glass-half-full/glass-half-empty situation. Never in all history has a state benefitted from a prolonged state of war, and this is especially true of foreign campaigns.
Viewed in this light, it's most certainly not a glass-half-full/glass-half-empty situation. Never in all history has a state benefitted from a prolonged state of war, and this is especially true of foreign campaigns.
> Remember, each side killed one person.
They didn't - the sniper got away.
They didn't - the sniper got away.
An instance where we do know the numbers: 9/11 attacks cost the attackers $500,000 according to intelligence estimates. The government response so far has cost $2 trillion (wars, etc.). That's a 4 million to 1 ratio.
This seems to take a very inclusive account of government spending but maybe not so for the attackers. We may need to consider the recruiting costs and ongoing operation cost for years leading up to the attack - even for expenses unrelated to the attack but part of the support and growth that led to it. You could argue that every AQ expense upto 911 was in some way building towards that event. I think if we have such a broad account of the government spend, we should do likewise for the other side. But your point is still good.
Then do we count all the military R&D to develop the weapon systems used or the infrastructure for deploying a military response.
I think a better measure would be total funds that wouldn't have been spent otherwise (had 9/11 not occurred), as a measure. So for the US the costs to cleanup/rebuild Ground Zero and the Pentagon + the cost of deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan and whatever we're spending on Syria now plus whatever other operations happened as a result. For AQ it would be the cost of the attacks plus costs of expanding into Iraq and whatever involvement they had in Afghanistan.
This is to say nothing of the human costs in all this which we can all agree are the real tragedy.
I think a better measure would be total funds that wouldn't have been spent otherwise (had 9/11 not occurred), as a measure. So for the US the costs to cleanup/rebuild Ground Zero and the Pentagon + the cost of deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan and whatever we're spending on Syria now plus whatever other operations happened as a result. For AQ it would be the cost of the attacks plus costs of expanding into Iraq and whatever involvement they had in Afghanistan.
This is to say nothing of the human costs in all this which we can all agree are the real tragedy.
This book is a must read for anyone interested in the subject of asymmetric warfare and terrorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_(novel)
Amazingly, it was written in 1957. But when you read it, you'll see just how much more relevant it became since then.
Just to give a taste of it:
"Next, Mowry went to the crowded main post office, took half a dozen small but heavy parcels from his case, addressed them and mailed them. Each held an airtight can containing a cheap clock-movement and a piece of paper, nothing else. The clock-movement emitted a sinister tick – just loud enough to be heard if a suspicious-minded person listened closely. The paper bore a message short and to the point. This package could have killed you. Two different packages brought together at the right time and place could kill a hundred thousand. End this war before we end you! Dirac Angestun Gesept. Paper threats, that was all – but they were effective enough to eat still further into the enemy’s war effort. They’d alarm the recipients and give their forces something more to worry about. Doubtless the military would provide a personal bodyguard for every big wheel on Jaimec; that alone would pin down a regiment. Mail would be examined, and all suspicious parcels would be taken apart in a blast-proof room. There’d be a city-wide search with radiation-detectors for the component parts of a fission bomb. Civil defence would be alerted in readiness to cope with a mammoth explosion that might or might not take place. Anyone on the streets who walked with a secretive air and wore a slightly mad expression would be arrested and hauled in for questioning."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_(novel)
Amazingly, it was written in 1957. But when you read it, you'll see just how much more relevant it became since then.
Just to give a taste of it:
"Next, Mowry went to the crowded main post office, took half a dozen small but heavy parcels from his case, addressed them and mailed them. Each held an airtight can containing a cheap clock-movement and a piece of paper, nothing else. The clock-movement emitted a sinister tick – just loud enough to be heard if a suspicious-minded person listened closely. The paper bore a message short and to the point. This package could have killed you. Two different packages brought together at the right time and place could kill a hundred thousand. End this war before we end you! Dirac Angestun Gesept. Paper threats, that was all – but they were effective enough to eat still further into the enemy’s war effort. They’d alarm the recipients and give their forces something more to worry about. Doubtless the military would provide a personal bodyguard for every big wheel on Jaimec; that alone would pin down a regiment. Mail would be examined, and all suspicious parcels would be taken apart in a blast-proof room. There’d be a city-wide search with radiation-detectors for the component parts of a fission bomb. Civil defence would be alerted in readiness to cope with a mammoth explosion that might or might not take place. Anyone on the streets who walked with a secretive air and wore a slightly mad expression would be arrested and hauled in for questioning."
There are estimates that all in all, 250,000 rounds of ammunition are used for every person killed in the Iraq war
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...
The tone of the article, and the actions of main protagonist, makes a disturbing picture of war. In this setting war is fun for one side (protagonist is taking photos! just for the kicks) and life-death situation for other side. Who is the bad guy here?
> protagonist is taking photos! just for the kicks
Documenting this stuff is important. The photographer didn't decide to have a war, he's just there documenting it. What you take away from the images is your own interpretation, with more concrete data about what went on than you'd get from the accounts of others.
This sort of thing makes for good art as well, because it's a pretty nice looking light show -- juxtaposed with the caveat that it's all for state-sponsored murder. War is one of humanity's darkest moments, but these photos show that there can be beauty even in life-or-death situations.
Documenting this stuff is important. The photographer didn't decide to have a war, he's just there documenting it. What you take away from the images is your own interpretation, with more concrete data about what went on than you'd get from the accounts of others.
This sort of thing makes for good art as well, because it's a pretty nice looking light show -- juxtaposed with the caveat that it's all for state-sponsored murder. War is one of humanity's darkest moments, but these photos show that there can be beauty even in life-or-death situations.
You are right, it is important to have documents. The soldier obviously had passion for photography, judging by the aesthetics of the photos. I just got irritated by the asymmetry of the situation.
Are you're saying that engaging in war is somehow more just if the sides are equally matched?
If so, that strikes me as a strange criterion.
If so, that strikes me as a strange criterion.
Not more just. But when the situation is more asymetrical the more farcical the powerful side's complaints of the weaker's perfidy. (Tons of examples. The most universally accepted were Germans killing 1-10 civilians in retaliation for dishonorable uninformed partisans)
"Pick on somebody your own size" isn't particularly bizarre.
War is absurd like that. This is why it's (usually) best avoided.
> In this setting war is fun for one side (protagonist is taking photos! just for the kicks) and life-death situation for other side.
I think your comment is distorting reality on several levels.
First of all, you take the fact that one side had a journalist and jump to a conclusion that the war was "fun" for them. How does "taking photos" entail "just for the kicks", exactly?
But the second distortion, which does not pop out that much, but is much more serious, is to measure different side's moral stance in a war by their suffering. You, implicitly, say that the side that suffers the most is by default on the moral high ground.
Is it your honest opinion on ethics of war? That suffering is the measure of morality?
I'm asking it because this kind of logic entails several very curious conclusions. For example, the moment one side gains the upper hand and the other loses it, they immediately switch places, bad guys become good and vice versa. Also, the weaker side can start conflicts and break armistices and will remain a "good guy" as long as it ensures that it has higher casualties, especially civilian. And, of course, any technology that would make my soldiers or civilians safer, and, therefore, leads to less suffering on my side, makes me less moral - and, therefore, is immoral on it's own.
I think your comment is distorting reality on several levels.
First of all, you take the fact that one side had a journalist and jump to a conclusion that the war was "fun" for them. How does "taking photos" entail "just for the kicks", exactly?
But the second distortion, which does not pop out that much, but is much more serious, is to measure different side's moral stance in a war by their suffering. You, implicitly, say that the side that suffers the most is by default on the moral high ground.
Is it your honest opinion on ethics of war? That suffering is the measure of morality?
I'm asking it because this kind of logic entails several very curious conclusions. For example, the moment one side gains the upper hand and the other loses it, they immediately switch places, bad guys become good and vice versa. Also, the weaker side can start conflicts and break armistices and will remain a "good guy" as long as it ensures that it has higher casualties, especially civilian. And, of course, any technology that would make my soldiers or civilians safer, and, therefore, leads to less suffering on my side, makes me less moral - and, therefore, is immoral on it's own.
There is a rule of thumb for judging morality in wars:
If you are fighting in your country and the other side it's not, then, normally, you have the moral high ground.
As all rules of thumb, it not always work but it normally does.
A consequence of this rule is asymmetry, because you only go to another country if you have the upper hand and something to win; And a consequence of force asymmetry is more suffering for one side than the other.
So, yes, suffering is, even if not a direct one, a good proxy for moral stance.
As all rules of thumb, it not always work but it normally does.
A consequence of this rule is asymmetry, because you only go to another country if you have the upper hand and something to win; And a consequence of force asymmetry is more suffering for one side than the other.
So, yes, suffering is, even if not a direct one, a good proxy for moral stance.
But why do we have to stick to rules of thumb and causation links?
This rule has a glaring hole in it: according to it, the moment allies landed in Normandy and Soviet Union moved the fight into mainland Germany, Nazi Reich became more moral than the adversary. Can't we at least come up with better heuristics than this?
(Yes, about Godwin's law: WWII is just a classical example that has an ethical consensus about it. If it makes you more comfortable, you can replace it with Gondor's armies storming the Black Gate.)
This rule has a glaring hole in it: according to it, the moment allies landed in Normandy and Soviet Union moved the fight into mainland Germany, Nazi Reich became more moral than the adversary. Can't we at least come up with better heuristics than this?
(Yes, about Godwin's law: WWII is just a classical example that has an ethical consensus about it. If it makes you more comfortable, you can replace it with Gondor's armies storming the Black Gate.)
I think it was Borges that said 'all the discussions are about semantics.':
I could argue that the Second World War was about, you know, the world, not about Germany. They were fighting in all Europe, that in that moment the fight was in Germany was due to the development of the war but it was, yet, a global war.
We need heuristics because when somebody tell us something that goes against a developed heuristic we should be surprised and examine the evidence more carefully. A kind of comprehension algorithm if you want. Maybe it's another way of saying that if you are invading a country the burden of proof is on you.
For instance, Russian intervention in Ukraine was about protecting ethnics Russians, USA intervention in Iraq was about spreading democracy or defensive intervention or something like that.
That goes against my heuristic, so I should stop to examine the evidence more carefully.
I could argue that the Second World War was about, you know, the world, not about Germany. They were fighting in all Europe, that in that moment the fight was in Germany was due to the development of the war but it was, yet, a global war.
We need heuristics because when somebody tell us something that goes against a developed heuristic we should be surprised and examine the evidence more carefully. A kind of comprehension algorithm if you want. Maybe it's another way of saying that if you are invading a country the burden of proof is on you.
For instance, Russian intervention in Ukraine was about protecting ethnics Russians, USA intervention in Iraq was about spreading democracy or defensive intervention or something like that.
That goes against my heuristic, so I should stop to examine the evidence more carefully.
> We need heuristics because when somebody tell us something that goes against a developed heuristic we should be surprised and examine the evidence more carefully. A kind of comprehension algorithm if you want. Maybe it's another way of saying that if you are invading a country the burden of proof is on you.
That is an excellent point.
However, I too often see people treat heuristics as a rigid rule instead; case in point: original comment. Treating heuristics as heuristics and digging deeper requires untypical intellectual honesty, especially when talking about politics - where most of the arguing is an emotionally charged aggression towards out-group rather than search for the truth.
Therefore, while I perfectly understand usefulness of heuristics as a concept, I think that in this kind of topic it's useful to abstain from heuristics altogether.
That is an excellent point.
However, I too often see people treat heuristics as a rigid rule instead; case in point: original comment. Treating heuristics as heuristics and digging deeper requires untypical intellectual honesty, especially when talking about politics - where most of the arguing is an emotionally charged aggression towards out-group rather than search for the truth.
Therefore, while I perfectly understand usefulness of heuristics as a concept, I think that in this kind of topic it's useful to abstain from heuristics altogether.
I don't think either of those are counterexamples to your heuristic. Your heuristic just highlighting your biases around those two conflicts.
I can see now how adding a 'supposedly' in the 4th paragraph would make my point more clear. Sorry about that.
>There is a rule of thumb for judging morality in wars: If you are fighting in your country and the other side it's not, then, normally, you have the moral high ground.
Yes, normally. One example where it does not apply is when you are in your country and are executing a genocide. Then we can argue that an invading party with the intent to stop the genocide has higher morality.
Except when it is not really genocide but counter-activity to a local minority initiative with the intent to play a victim such a that another country where they have large majority could send in their forces.
Etc etc.
Yes, normally. One example where it does not apply is when you are in your country and are executing a genocide. Then we can argue that an invading party with the intent to stop the genocide has higher morality.
Except when it is not really genocide but counter-activity to a local minority initiative with the intent to play a victim such a that another country where they have large majority could send in their forces.
Etc etc.
"Then we can argue that an invading party with the intent to stop the genocide has higher morality."
Barring a few, normally not very successful, Blue Helmets interventions, I can't think of instances of that.
Surely, when a foreign power decide to use the force, against a less powerful country, the real reasons have little to do with stop genocides or injustices.
Barring a few, normally not very successful, Blue Helmets interventions, I can't think of instances of that.
Surely, when a foreign power decide to use the force, against a less powerful country, the real reasons have little to do with stop genocides or injustices.
World War II?!
Can you expand on that? As far as I know, no major power in WWII used prevention of genocide as their reason to join the war.
Speaking of distorting reality, you say:
- 'journalist' while article says 'an enlisted man in the U.S. Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade'
- 'just for the kicks' was sense I got from this paragraph of the article: 'Hensinger, sensing an opportunity, stuffed his Nikon camera, ...' and 'He timed his appearance for guard duty to make sure that he would be assigned to the watch tower with the widest view of the mountain and base.'
- Suffering is to some extent measure of morality. For example, recent US military operations heavily used drones. It is one thing to fly drone using XBox gamepad and kill for <insert noble cause here>, and another to shoot soldiers who invaded your country using some primitive gun. First is more similar to video game than to war. Second is more moral, and includes more suffering, no matter what mental acrobatics you use against it.
- 'journalist' while article says 'an enlisted man in the U.S. Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade'
- 'just for the kicks' was sense I got from this paragraph of the article: 'Hensinger, sensing an opportunity, stuffed his Nikon camera, ...' and 'He timed his appearance for guard duty to make sure that he would be assigned to the watch tower with the widest view of the mountain and base.'
- Suffering is to some extent measure of morality. For example, recent US military operations heavily used drones. It is one thing to fly drone using XBox gamepad and kill for <insert noble cause here>, and another to shoot soldiers who invaded your country using some primitive gun. First is more similar to video game than to war. Second is more moral, and includes more suffering, no matter what mental acrobatics you use against it.
> Suffering is to some extent measure of morality.
Can you actually back this statement up? Because what you write about drones is just a description of one particular example, which still doesn't explain the exact link between suffering and ethics.
Can you actually back this statement up? Because what you write about drones is just a description of one particular example, which still doesn't explain the exact link between suffering and ethics.
You, implicitly, say that the side that suffers the most is by default on the moral high ground.
Sadly this is very common: more Arab lives are lost than Israeli - seems line Israelis are more evil.
While the reason is very straighforward - Israeli put nore effort into defending their citizens while the other side shoot rockets out of civilian neighborhoods seemingly to attract fire and international sympathy :-/
I feel more sorry for the Arabs for they have bad leadership and is punished again and again for it. But moral high ground? No way IMO.
Sadly this is very common: more Arab lives are lost than Israeli - seems line Israelis are more evil.
While the reason is very straighforward - Israeli put nore effort into defending their citizens while the other side shoot rockets out of civilian neighborhoods seemingly to attract fire and international sympathy :-/
I feel more sorry for the Arabs for they have bad leadership and is punished again and again for it. But moral high ground? No way IMO.
Their leadership fulfills their goals perfectly. It just so happens that these goals have nothing in common with the desires of the people, but it's typical for dictatorships.
So sad for the actual humans who live there.
Suffering is better than nothing to measure morality. Higher suffering implies more helplessness to avoid it. Lower suffering implies you have the freedom to fight less.
Yes, if the balance of power suddenly changes, the morality can too. See the firebombing of Dresden, for instance. To maintain morality, you'd have to quickly scale back your attacks to match your newfound power instead of killing everyone because now you can.
Yes, if the balance of power suddenly changes, the morality can too. See the firebombing of Dresden, for instance. To maintain morality, you'd have to quickly scale back your attacks to match your newfound power instead of killing everyone because now you can.
> Suffering is better than nothing to measure morality.
You seem to imply that "something is better than nothing". I don't agree: IMO, it's much more useful to honestly say that you don't know something than to cling to a bad substitute for knowledge.
Also, "nothing" is not the only alternative here. Humanity has been figuring out ethics for a long time; there are plenty of alternative measures. Can we start with mens rea, for example?
You seem to imply that "something is better than nothing". I don't agree: IMO, it's much more useful to honestly say that you don't know something than to cling to a bad substitute for knowledge.
Also, "nothing" is not the only alternative here. Humanity has been figuring out ethics for a long time; there are plenty of alternative measures. Can we start with mens rea, for example?
[deleted]
Just found interesting comment from Jack Ma, about US strategy. He said that US had excellent strategy of focusing on IP and design while moving manufacturing and services to other countries. Large amounts of profits were generated, and then squandered on wars (instead of infrastructure). And then there was a nice analogy, in comments sections of the interview:
"When I was 12, I made 100 dollars during a summer job we all used to do, I saved 71 dollars throughout the year and then bought fireworks and spent pretty much all of the money on 4th of July. I think our government is doing the same at a larger scale."
War IS disturbing.
It's most certainly life-or-death for both sides, even when resources are asymmetric.
When young men and women are forced to war against their will, they will find small ways to keep their own sanity and humanity -- they rest of us cannot possibly hope to relate.
It's most certainly life-or-death for both sides, even when resources are asymmetric.
When young men and women are forced to war against their will, they will find small ways to keep their own sanity and humanity -- they rest of us cannot possibly hope to relate.
Why necessarily "against their will"?
Most likely because of the draft in place during the Vietnam war for American soldiers and the necessity for military service among young Vietnamese men defending their homeland.
I was under impression that this comment was talking about war in general, not only about Vietnam war.
I would argue that even voluntary service is just (or can be) as stressful as involuntary service. Many people join the military for the benefits or out of a sense of duty. You may find that sense of duty misplaced, but regardless of the reasons I'm guessing most young men don't join the military to become murderers and witness their friends getting torn apart. So yes, even voluntary servicemen must make light of the hell they're living in.
EDIT: Just realized my comment kind of comes off as argumentative but I think we're in agreement on this one judging by your other comment.
EDIT: Just realized my comment kind of comes off as argumentative but I think we're in agreement on this one judging by your other comment.
Now you're returning to another point of the comment I was replying to, which [point] I was not arguing against. I was only pointing out that a lot of people go to war out of their own free will.
[deleted]
Well, regardless of their will.
Congress (or in jacked up cases, the President) decides where and when and with whom the US military wars, and its members are bound to follow.
Congress (or in jacked up cases, the President) decides where and when and with whom the US military wars, and its members are bound to follow.
It probably wasn't very fun for the man who was originally killed by AK47 fire, or his friends.
Who is the bad guy here? Well, everyone I know who has been anywhere near a war came away worse. I don't think war turns you into a good person, whether you're firing automatic weapons at sleeping men, blasting a hilltop trying to kill someone's son, or sleeping with a machete in a town where the rule of law has collapsed.
Who is the bad guy here? Well, everyone I know who has been anywhere near a war came away worse. I don't think war turns you into a good person, whether you're firing automatic weapons at sleeping men, blasting a hilltop trying to kill someone's son, or sleeping with a machete in a town where the rule of law has collapsed.
The guy who got AKed could have burned his draft card, gone to jail for a few years and loose his SS benefits.
That's not fun either, but he wouldn't have died in a jungle half way across the world a young twenty-something to prop up the cowboy delusions of Kissinger.
That's not fun either, but he wouldn't have died in a jungle half way across the world a young twenty-something to prop up the cowboy delusions of Kissinger.
Maybe he could have claimed a heel spur.
Snipers typically have location information asymmetry, else one would not see many snipers as a useful role in the military and rather a kamikaze role which in the great majority of cases it's not --good snipers are rare and you don't want to lose them.
Is Ektachrome especially red-sensitive, or is that what the illumination actually looked like?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracer_ammunition#/media/File:...
It looks like they have a reddish hue.
It looks like they have a reddish hue.
Yeah, you tend to see trace rounds illuminate in reds (due to the peroxide/nitrate/magnesium in the munitions) and greens (when they use barium salts for them).
Im really trying to understand the snipers motivation to go to the same position twice. That sounds ridiculously dangerous.
Why not shot one shot , then run for cover behind the mountain and wait for the fireworks to end?
If you read carefully then this is what happened exactly.
His other pictures:
https://get.google.com/albumarchive/112064700171231789580/al...
https://get.google.com/albumarchive/112064700171231789580/al...