illegal to use 20mm on humans?

i saw a vid on you tube where a us apache blasts some iraquis for attempting to hide an rpg they were transporting ,the chin cannon chops the arabs to peices of course ,,one guy posting in comments states that is illegal under geneva code to use the chain gun against human targets ...is this true ,and if so ,why?

 

It's false.

 

surprised they put that up there tho...(the video)

 

I had an argument with a guy at work along similar lines recently. He was convinced that 7.62mm had been outlawed under the Geneva convention and that's why the UK had adopted the SA-80 :roll: .

False, completely and utterly. Even if it were true, what would be to stop nations using 20.01mm or 19.99mm instead? It makes no practical difference and is an easy way of avoiding such legalities.

Calibres are not outlawed, types of ammunition such as hollowpoints or none-jacketed bullets are (Which is the reason for the demise of the apparently excellent British .455 revolver of WWI vintage), since they are considered particularly cruel, but why would 20mm be banned when say 37mm or even 125mm isn't?

The GC is widely available on the internet (I've used it myself in debates on this fourm), if you want to catch this guy out, simply ask him to point out the paragraph that explicity forbids using such a weapon against a human target. Expect to be deafened by his silence.

 

Not exactly fair, considering the fire rate (and the fact they never had a chance against an Apache without the RPG) , but hardly illegal.

How come hollow-point and non-jacketed are illegal? (what does non-jacketed mean come to think of it)

I think we hunt with hollow points.......

 

I'd much rather be killed with a 20 or 30 mm mini- or gatlin-gun, and not see it coming, than being hit with a 5,56 mm round and die from gangrene.

Hollow-point and none-jacketed ammunition tend to mushroom, which is fine for hunting (where you have to kill with every shot), but will cause terrible wounds if you hit someone and he doesn't die.

A type of ammunition was developed some time ago, which was a standard bullet with a slit cut down one side of the projectile from the tip. It would act like a normal bullet unti lit entered the body, at which point it would turn inside the body, travelling in unpredictable directions and potentially causing massive internal damage. While not technically illegal, the company decided that it was too inhumane to pursue.

 

nasty.....makes sense for a regular infantryman. Are you allowed to use your own ammunition in the military? (I'm guessing not but it never hurst to ask.)

Isn't the chaingun on the Apache 30mm? (not sure anymore, was told by a guy in the Canadian Forces it was 20mm but read it was 30mm somewhere.)

 

On the other hand, I'd rather be hit by a 5.56mm and have to put up with surgery than a 30mm and not even have that chance...

I'm not sure, it may have been the Haig convention that decided on the issue of hollowpoint or jacketless ammunition (Bullets as military ball ammunition basically consist of a lead core encased in a copper jacket, you remember the movie "Full Metal Jacket", well the copper completely encasing the lead is the Full Metal Jacket).

On the whole bullets deform, fragment or mushroom when they hit resistance. At some point (Post WWI but prior to WWII) it was decided that it was unnescessarily cruel to use jacketless or hollowpoint bullets in military small arms, since these are far more likely to fragment and cause problems in later life far beyond the original wounding. The British .455 for example was a jacketless lead slug, a particularly effective manstopper as far as pistol ammunition went but overly cruel since the bullet would be more likely to break into small pieces compared to a copper jacketed bullet. Far more likely to stay in the individual's body for longer and cause poisoning or other complications assuming he survived the initial shot. It's not so much that they turn, just are far more likely to fragment or mushroom to a much greater degree causing a much greater wound cavity. I've seen pictures of some particularly nasty looking ammunition that was a hollowpoint pistol round with tiny shot imbedded in resin in the hollow, not only would the bullet apparently reliably break into a number of pieces, but the resin would disintegrate and the shot disperse into the body too. Assuming the target survived it would be practically impossible for a surgeon to remove all the pieces of this bullet from the body.

AFAIK no single company produces the wide variety of ammunition outside of FMJ, ie. JSP, JHP, HP, etc, so it's not the case that the company concerned ceased persuing the ammunition and many types are widely available to civilian shooters.

The legalities of warfare do not impact on national law however, so for example whilst you may hunt using whatever ammunition best suits your rifle, and US police forces (among others) may arm themselves with whatever ammunition they wish AFAIK, the same ammunition in an identical weapon would be considered excessively cruel under accepted international conventions if used by a member of the armed forces.

Of course designing a round to tumble on contact with a body and rip out chunks of tissue is perfectly acceptable, just providing it isn't a "Dum-dum". :roll:

 

Fair has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

 

All's fair in war?

 

Guerilla and sabotoge is hardly fair.

 

well ,no ...all is not fair, we have agreed on some rules which make perfect sense to all parties and especially to the troops , ,no hollow points ,gas ,chem weapons ,no brutalizeing pows ect....we in the west have rules of engagement , even ,trying to not shoot civillians ect...but war is never fought as in lets make sure we have a level playing field , and both sides are evenly matched ect... modern war is not a sporting event ,ever

 

Let me get this straight.

We're in a war, trying to kill the enemy soldiers, but we can't use a bullet that cause a grievous wound?

What am I missing?

 

Using explosive ammunition weighting under 400 g was forbidden by The St.Petersburg Declaration. It has been dead letter since WW1.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec08...dbe0afb2065e0d7ec125641e0031f38c?OpenDocument

 

its not illigal to use 20 mm or higher cal. on humans, otherwise use of 155 mm artillery against infantry would also be illigal

 

I think that it is all to do with being humane... it's not nice to deliberately inflict wounds that will cause a lifetime of suffering.

Mind you, most legal weaponry will almost certainly have a less-than-happy affect on your life too...

 

I've heard tales from a Korean-War tanker who claims a "Red" rose-up to fire a bazooka at their M-26 Pershing and was taken-out by a round from their main-gun.
Now THAT'S overkill.

Tim

 

good news, i guess its a moot point wether 20mm is illegal because i found out that chain gun on the apache is a 30mm cannon...see ,no harm ,no foul..

 

No it wouldn't. The St Petersburg Declaration banned the use of explosive projectiles weighing less than 400g. So explosive shells weighing more than 400g are fine.

When this agreement was reached, the appropriate calibre for 400g shells was 37mm, which is why this calibre became so popular for so long.

The Declaration was adhered to up to WW1, when it was broken because of the need to shoot down balloons and airships. After the war, an international convention of lawyers met and agreed that the Declaration should no longer apply to weapons designed to shoot at, or be shot from, aircraft, but remained in force for other purposes. This was never formally ratified, but everyone behaved as if it had been.

I think that the last time a gun design took the Declaration into account was the USN's 1.1 inch AA gun of WW2, which fired shells of 416g. The calibre seems to have chosen to stay above the 400g limit.

During WW2 the Declaration was generally ignored, and has been almost dead since then. However, it has never been formally revoked. You can of course get explosive ammo in .50 calibre and it is frequently used, but the defence is that it is designed for use against vehicles and other inert objects, and only kills people by accident :-?

It is worth noting that in recent years the Red Cross has criticised the .50 cal Raufoss Multipurpose explosive ammo, used by the US and many other armies, because they claim it can explode in contact with a person - so the Declaration isn't entirely forgotten. It is also worth noting that the defence against this criticism was that the bullet would not normally explode in those circumstances - which itself acknowledged that the issue is still sensitive.

So the exact answer is: yes, it is still technically illegal to use explosive shells of 400g or less (equivalent to about 30mm calibre) against people, but hardly anybody worries about it any more, mainly because this ammunition isn't designed for use against people.

I think that if someone produced an explosive rifle bullet, specifically for use against people, there would be a huge controversy about it and I don't believe that any western nation would adopt it.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

I was referring to the size of the cal. not if it could explode or not, is there is a upper limit on the size of the cal. that is allowed to be used then cal. above that limit would be illigal as well, so if cal. of 20 mm is illigal to use against humans then cal. of larger size would be illigal as well, there is no upper limit on size of cal. that is legal to use