- Devices in the pic are silencers. Probably Gemtech.
- Mission will dictate which equipment to bring. Silencers are always available and part of their equipment, but that doesn’t mean they have to be used for everything or all the time.
- The suggestion about the new weapons not being shown with a silencer is kinda irrelevant. Silencers are bought aftermarket from other manufacturers anyway. For example, the Army would buy M4s from Colt, but silencers from someone else.
So the new weapon will likely have a traditional threaded or lugged barrel that will allow the attachment of already available silencers.
. . . Just checked the picture of that new SCAR rifle. It does indeed have a traditional threaded barrel. There will be no shortage of silencers available for those weapons.
Much appreciated, Testy.
This is the point I was trying to make, but evidently rather poorly. Apologies for any confusion.
Some photos from the official Navy website of SEALs training sans silencers.
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/040525-N-3953L-246.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/040106-N-3953L-262.jpg (Crew served weapon, there)
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/031214-N-3953L-591.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/040717-F-6340W-404.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/040717-F-6340W-183.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/030822-N-3642E-017.jpg (Another heavy weapon, can’t make out the M-4s too well)
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/020602-O-0000X-001.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/030117-N-0000K-003.jpg
And conversely a pic also showing some type of suppressor:
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/070605-N-3642E-586.jpg
Is that legal by the Geneva Conventions or a good idea? Isn’t that why we’ve got people locked up in Guantanamo right now for?
Nice looking optics! Is the weapon “just” an M2 or could it possibly be an XM312 or a variation thereof?
Not quite. We have arrested and have folks in GitMo because they were taken in arms against the US and allied forces. In theory.
Also note that the gentleman referenced in ExTanks tale was off duty, and not really “in the field”, so to speak. He could have worn a speedo and a pink t-shirt, if he had wanted to.
And ExTank is also correct in their usage and the fact that they don’t talk much. A guy I went to school with is good friends with someone from his class who joined the army, did jump school, became a ranger and then… moved up, I guess. I’m not real sure what he does anymore.
In September 2001 he was at the Defense Language School. The morning of the 11th, he got to make a fast phone call to his wife, and said he would be gone for a while. Nobody heard hide nore hair from him after that for about 4 months.
We’re still not sure what he was doing, as he won’t tell us, but he said that the war in Afghanistan started about 48 hours after the towers were hit.
He’s a cool guy, and surprised the hell out of me. Wasn’t what I was expecting when I finally got to meet him.
Okay, but to clarify, members of our armed forces that are taking part in warfare most certainly need to be readily identified by uniforms, and it’s my recollection that didn’t happen in many cases in Afghanistan. Wearing beards to, “blend in with the locals,” and altering the uniform to be less obviously American doesn’t exactly strike me as the open wearing of a uniform.
Also, IIRC, part of the legal justification for Guantanamo and the, “enemy combatant,” status of the people confined there is that they were taken in arms against the United States, but critically not openly wearing a uniform. And that’s part of what makes them such horrible people, etc.
Here’s a NYTimes article from the invasion of Afghanistan on the issue.
I do not claim in any way shape or form to be an expert on this issue.
But it’s pretty clear from reading your linked article that the US soldiers in Afghanistan were still clearly wearing US military gear, but may have been augmenting them with, for example, a shemagh or local headwear, as well as growing beards.
This in contrast to someone who may have looked like they stepped out of an American Mall, except for the AK-47 they were carrying when captured.
It’s a complex issue.
Can someone define “Snake Eater” and “Wind Dummy” for those of us normal schmoes sitting here in our underwear reading the internets?
ding ding ding, exactly what I was going to post. But I’m pretty sure Snake Eater is a spec-ops guy who is trained to eat snakes (well, trained to eat anything that will not kill them rather) while alone in the woods or jungle.
A “snake eater” is a colloquial term for any deep penetration SpecOps troop, i.e. these are guys who go to ground with minimal logistical support and will eat bugs and snakes to survive. A “wind dummy” is a paratrooper, name taken from the weighted parachute dummies that are sometimes thrown out before a jump to estimate wind drift.
Stranger
Here’s a few more for ya; try and figure them out (don’t give them any help, Stranger, until they throw in the towel):
DAT
C-DAT
Dirt Monkey (Both self-propelled and wind-up)
Cannon Cocker or Gun Monkey
Bubble Head
Duck Hunter
ETA: Scoots or Scooters
They eat bugs too, don’t they?
Peace
mangeorge
You’ll have to ask one when you meet one.
Just about anything is better than C-rats.
Stranger
Actually, I’ve met a couple. Old school Seals, back in the Vietnam era. Aboard my ship, they were disguised as Marines.
And yes, they were ready to eat a bug or two if there were no cheeseburgers handy.
My question was rhetorical. Sorry about the “?”. Force of habit, I guess.