225 Confirmed kills: The deadliest American sniper in history

[rye1 21]

Interesting read.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081430/255-confirmed-kills-Meet-Navy-SEAL-Chris-Kyle--deadliest-sniper-US-history.html

Chris Kyle, the new Hathcock?

[eble 3]

Interesting read.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081430/255-confirmed-kills-Meet-Navy-SEAL-Chris-Kyle--deadliest-sniper-US-history.html

Chris Kyle, the new Hathcock?

Deadliest sniper in 'US' history, but he is far away from the deadliest 'in' history.

Simo Häyhä - 505 confirmed kills

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

Lyudmila Pavlichenko - 309 confirmed kills

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

and not forgetting our own:

Billy Sing - 150 confirmed kills in WW1 with a standard Lee-Enfield .303 rifle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Sing

Edited January 5, 2012 by Eble

[sudayev 27]

Why didn't you add 'US' to thread name? It's really confusing. I clicked because I thought there is a sniper with more kills than Simo Hayha.

[Comrade Chaos 10]

Why didn't you add 'US' to thread name? It's really confusing. I clicked because I thought there is a sniper with more kills than Simo Hayha.

>American

[Hans Ludwig 0]

>American

There is South America, Central America and North America.

[GRS 10]

And yet we all knew what he was talking about. Moving on.

[max power 21]

>American

To be fair, I added that after the complaint was made. There was no indication of nationality before I added 'American'.

[celery 8]

As much as I smirked a bit at the "new Hathcock" remark (Carlos had "only" 93 confirmed kills), the truth is that none of the famous and glorified snipers can be directly compared to one another unless they were serving in the same war, area, side and circumstances. Häyhä's massive tally, while testament to his superior skills and procedures, can also be largely attributed to the relative abundance and training level of his opposition and very good prerequisites to kill them en masse. Who knows how Kyle or someone else might have fared in the same conflict, or what Häyhä would have done in Vietnam or Iraq.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Mmm... are those guys heroes, or serial killers ?

[ACPL Jon 68]

Depends on point of view. Or if You want it even simplier, both.

[mr burns 132]

Mmm... are those guys heroes, or serial killers ?

Depends on point of view. Or if You want it even simplier, both.

Why is it that if a man kills another man in battle, it's called heroic, yet if he kills a man in the heat of passion, it's called murder?

:p

Ontopic: Good job, i guess.

Writing a book entitled "Americuhs uberSniper" aiming to make $´s of some 100 dead sons, uncles and fathers makes it look stupid though.

[dekster 1]

Mmm... are those guys heroes, or serial killers ?

I would just say he's a good soldier/warrior.

[NacroxNicke 11]

I would just say he's a good soldier/warrior.

A good soldier? Then a good soldier is the one that kills more than the others soldiers?

[dysta 10]

There's no such thing call good or bad soldier; there's only soldier or dead soldier.

[sakura_chan 9]

He left the service in 2009, deciding not to enlist in order to 'save his marriage' he told his publisher.

So does his wife get the $20,000 bounty?

[Beagle 684]

A good soldier? Then a good soldier is the one that kills more than the others soldiers?

Contrary to common belive military service and good conduct has nothing to do in the first place with killing people. Just look at current campaigns, killing is only the last resort to fullfill a mission. Contrary to games like ArmA a mission is fullfiled when you are in the OA and opponent is not...by what measures this is fullfilled does not matter much as long as the mission is acomplished.

Usually an military order never involved something like "kill'em all" but has precise objectives. you can have a lot of kills but still miss the objective...Korea, Vietnam, Rusians in Afghanistan etc.

in second Iraq war this was achieved quite often by intimidation...advancing US forces often saw white flags waving at arrival to enemy positions.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Beagle

[maturin 12]

I would just say he's a good soldier/warrior.

Nope, he's not normal, or the role model for a 'good soldier.' He's in the very small minority of talented killers that will inflict most of the casualties in any unit. Most people can't or don't do what he did, regardless of training.

[rye1 21]

And yet we all knew what he was talking about. Moving on.

Haha, you have to feed them exacts and specifics. Or do what I do.. ignore every one of the gobshites.

This book is a must, added it onto my reading list. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 PM ----------

As much as I smirked a bit at the "new Hathcock" remark (Carlos had "only" 93 confirmed kills), the truth is that none of the famous and glorified snipers can be directly compared to one another unless they were serving in the same war, area, side and circumstances./QUOTE]

:rolleyes: Cheeky but whatever. Not like I expected anymore off the BIS forums. Now, away to snipers hide or m4carbine for some real discussion... without an attitude. ;)

[ACPL Jon 68]

Oh, you're so cool for being "above" BIS forums discussions.

Beagle said it well, btw.

Edited January 7, 2012 by JonPL

[Dosenmais 10]

Is this some kind of cock comparison? How fucked up are you people arguing and jerking off about how many people a man killed?

killing is only the last resort to fullfill a mission.

Military isn't about nice questioning, its about killing people and destroy property.

Usually an military order never involved somthing like "kill'em all"

What the hell do you think 'shock and awe' means? They give a damn about civilian casulties or even friendly fire, they destroy everything that could be usefull to the enemy. The Military isn't a scalpel, its a Broadsword.

Seriosly, what the hell is wrong with you people?

[celery 8]

:rolleyes: Cheeky but whatever. Not like I expected anymore off the BIS forums. Now, away to snipers hide or m4carbine for some real discussion... without an attitude. ;)

Sorry but where exactly did I give you any attitude? My intention was to dissolve any kill tally arguments before it happened in a larger scale.

[Daniel 0]

Seriosly, what the hell is wrong with you people?

Nothing, we're just capable of discussing it without feeling the need to state how awful and terrible everything is every post. It's fairly apparent to most people.

Military isn't about nice questioning, its about killing people and destroy property.

The subject wasn't "military" in general, it was about how to go about fulfilling an objective. In which case Beagle is completely right in saying that "killing all opponents in the AO" isn't necessarily a victory.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Daniel

[nodunit 397]

The Military isn't a scalpel, its a Broadsword.

What movie is that from? I remember the scene but can't recall any names..

[maturin 12]

The Military isn't a scalpel, its a Broadsword.

If I had a nickel every time someone described the 'surgical precision' of a military unit or weapon, I would bail out the USMC pension program.

So no. Depends on the mission.

[JdB 151]

Military isn't about nice questioning, its about killing people and destroy property.

And you base this on your lengthy military career? Todays wars are about fulfilling political objectives with as few casualties as possible on all sides. Whatever side the dead belonged to, the general public doesn't want them. Westerners without political or industrial interests have started to shy away from the use of violence starting from around the end of the 19th and start of the 20th century. The book "On Killing - The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by Dave Grossman has imo a very good explanation for this, which I'll mention briefly (for those interested, the book is very much worth reading).

Before the general population started to reap the rewards of the industrial revolution through better wages, basic education for everyone and better healthcare, families lived together, quite often in houses consisting of a single room. They shared everything together including sex and death (one interesting thing the author mentioned is that pedophilia happened less because of the social control) in that tiny space. People of all ages would have been present when someone died, and because of high mortality rates, also among children and young adults, everyone was far more familiar with death and viewed it as a part of life, unlike the trend today where people sometimes even need counseling when a family member dies without them even having been a witness to the process leading up to death. Back then it was usual for people to be a witness to all sorts of things, things that became very hush-hush in the Victorian era (especially sex and nudity). They slaughtered their own animals, even the children were taught on how to do it at a very young age. It was normal for them. Later on when people were able to buy houses for themselves with multiple rooms, our society started to become estranged with family matters, especially sex and death. Since every adult gained the right to vote, politicians have had to take the opinions of their voters seriously (whether they will always act on it is a different matter though ...). The people have become ever more opposed to violence and therefore war, and the politicians have had to adapt. Today it's almost impossible for any government in the Western world to start a war, let alone an all-out war, unless attacked first (Afghanistan) or because of false-flag intelligence (Iraq) by people that stand to gain from the conflict.

The modern military is a political and industrial tool that is scrutinized in everything it does by the media and general public. If objectives can be achieved without destroying anything and anyone, that is the preferred method as the potential for political fallout through public outcry is almost zero unlike pictures on the evening news of dead people dressed in civilian clothes who may or may not have been insurgents, and obliterated houses. Killing the enemy isn't a solution for everything, and all NATO members know that. The military is a versatile force that can operate in the spectrum of force, from handing out food parcels and administer medical aid to sneaking in and arresting insurgent leaders to neutralizing the infrastructure of a country, defeating it's military forces and taking control of the territory. The ruthless army that invades and lays waste to the country and it's people through the indiscriminate use of force no longer exists in the Western world. We aren't living in the middle ages or the age of traditional imperialism anymore, politicians might still want to play the same games, but the general public has become much more aware and influential.

You could kill every male and boy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and you'd still lose. Not because of a military defeat but because the public wouldn't stand for it. Vietnam showed this more than any other recent conflict. Battles are won in the field, but the war is lost in the living room in front of the tv. Modern media has radically changed the nature of war. The kill-em-all military that you think of is no longer acceptable.

The Military isn't a scalpel, its a Broadsword.

I don't see what that has to do with the subject of this topic, who was a sniper of a special forces unit. Units like the Seals are the scalpel of the military.

Edited January 7, 2012 by JdB