Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The do nothing desk jock who got turned into an uber-sniper and super hero by propaganda? Nope. Doesn't count.
Do you have any sources for that?
Off top of my head no.
Off top of my head; pretty much everything attributed to Zaytsev after 1943 is certainly fiction. After sustaining injuries to his eyes there no way medicine of that time could restore his sight to a level he could continue sniping. From that point on he was nothing more than a political hero/poster boy for the Red Army and the Communist Party. Much of the claims attributed to him prior to his injuries are highly questionable in themselves, most famously his duel with a sniper school instructor completely absent from all German records.
I don't think there's anyplace else for this thread to go. OP seems to have a pretty vague and moving definition of what constitutes "an assassin", and I don't see us generating a end result that isn't a A,) a high profile guy with a big impact (Gavrilo), or B.) professional sniper (Simo), or C.) some guy whose name no one knows.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/04 08:27:34
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
The do nothing desk jock who got turned into an uber-sniper and super hero by propaganda? Nope. Doesn't count.
Do you have any sources for that?
Off top of my head no.
Off top of my head; pretty much everything attributed to Zaytsev after 1943 is certainly fiction. After sustaining injuries to his eyes there no way medicine of that time could restore his sight to a level he could continue sniping. From that point on he was nothing more than a political hero/poster boy for the Red Army and the Communist Party. Much of the claims attributed to him prior to his injuries are highly questionable in themselves, most famously his duel with a sniper school instructor completely absent from all German records.
Okay, I was just curious. I had heard about him losing his sight but don't really know much beyond that.
The most that can be given to Zaytsev is the 32 kills attributed to him prior to his injuries (which is a respectable tally by even modern standards). But the claim that he killed as many as 400 Germans from 1943-1945 is complete bull on its face. Even the famous Simo Hayha is unlikely to have killed anywhere near as many people as he's attributed to killing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/04 08:30:40
I'd agree that Simo Häyhä is the best in records for being a sniper. That's a lot of kills...
For those nay sayers out there, a sniper only gets credit for kills when observed by another soldier, and if possible an investigation as to the confirmations will be made, partially not just to credit him so much as to ensure the target is deceased if it is more of a individual military target vs targets of opportunity. Targets of opportunity still need to be confirmed by others.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/04 08:43:59
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of the women.
Ouze wrote: I don't think there's anyplace else for this thread to go. OP seems to have a pretty vague and moving definition of what constitutes "an assassin", and I don't see us generating a end result that isn't a A,) a high profile guy with a big impact (Gavrilo), or B.) professional sniper (Simo), or C.) some guy whose name no one knows.
I agree.
While "assassin" can be a rather nebulous term, snipers in the armed forces are not assassins.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
For those nay sayers out there, a sniper only gets credit for kills when observed by another soldier, and if possible an investigation as to the confirmations will be made, partially not just to credit him so much as to ensure the target is deceased if it is more of a individual military target vs targets of opportunity. Targets of opportunity still need to be confirmed by others.
Except this isn't true in the case of Hayha. Hayha himself has never claimed a specific number, nor did the Finnish military at the end of the Winter War (cause shockingly, in a bitter life and death struggle of the state, no one was keeping track). His kill count of 505 comes from Soviet records, not Finnish. The men who commanded the disastrous Winter War seemed ready and willing to blame their failures on anything from gremlins to the ghost of Hannibal, Hayha included. The Finns seemed happy to buy into the Red Army's talk after the war, propelling Hayha even higher than he had been during.
I don't doubt Hayha killed a lot of dudes. He was famous even before the war ended for doing it. But I do doubt the number often sighted for numerous reasons. We might have a fancy system now, but no one was this meticulous in WWII, certainly not when there was propaganda to be thinking about and certainly not when Hayha was famous for being alone in the Finnish Wilderness killing folks left and right.
In Zaytsev's case is a bit more clear cut. Zaytsev suffered a sever injury in Stalingrad in 1943 when a mortar literally blew up in his face. The story that he miraculously regained his sight a month later and went on to kill hundreds of more Germans isn't just questionable for it's innate facts but by documentation. Many of his kills were named by the political office and most of the names are fake (as in German records don't have people by the names existing). The most famous is Err Konig, though to Zaytsev's credit he never actually named the sniper he allegedly dueled in Stalingrad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/04 09:01:17
Ouze wrote: I don't think there's anyplace else for this thread to go. OP seems to have a pretty vague and moving definition of what constitutes "an assassin", and I don't see us generating a end result that isn't a A,) a high profile guy with a big impact (Gavrilo), or B.) professional sniper (Simo), or C.) some guy whose name no one knows.
LordofHats wrote: The most that can be given to Zaytsev is the 32 kills attributed to him prior to his injuries (which is a respectable tally by even modern standards). But the claim that he killed as many as 400 Germans from 1943-1945 is complete bull on its face. Even the famous Simo Hayha is unlikely to have killed anywhere near as many people as he's attributed to killing.
Agreed... here's the wiki page for one of the US's most prolific snipers:
I time traveled back to samurai japan where I drop kicked Hanzo in the face before feeding him his own balls and beheading him. I stole all his quickening powers then time traveled to Dallas and shot Kennedy in plain sight from the grassy knoll and pinned it on Oswald. Then to celebrate I went back to ancient Rome and befriended Caesar before I stabbed him in the face. Then I went to the future and bro fisted Jesus at judgement day, true story.
But because I'm so great you've never heard of me but that's the drawback of being the worlds best time travelling assassin.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/04 18:20:50
Probably not -even if a military sniper is asked to take out a specific target he's not an assassin, is he? Just as soldiers aren't murderers for killing (active) enemy soldiers.
I'd say there's a lot of overlap in what Snipers do and what Assassins do, and depending on how you define assassin, a sniper could count as one. We often send Snipers off into the wilderness with the task of taking out specific targets (though that role is kind of being taken over by drone operators).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/04 20:51:20
LordofHats wrote: I'd say there's a lot of overlap in what Snipers do and what Assassins do, and depending on how you define assassin, a sniper could count as one. We often send Snipers off into the wilderness with the task of taking out specific targets (though that role is kind of being taken over by drone operators).
Maaybe I should define it.
Assassin - an Individual who is successfully taken out a person of interest due to either political affiliations, or beliefs or military asset through stealth, or covert options, and has successfully escaped the initial assassination.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
I would say that is a workable definition, though the last part seems unnecessary. Assassin's don't need to escape. In fact, by their nature their escape is irrelevant. All that matters is the successful elimination of the target.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/04 20:55:34
LordofHats wrote: I would say that is a workable definition, though the last part seems unnecessary. Assassin's don't need to escape. In fact, by their nature their escape is irrelevant. All that matters is the successful elimination of the target.
its also good to be not taken alive when you have killed your target. You know actually avoid capture. meaning you can die. Maybe that should be the ending. Your goal should be to assassinate and avoid being captured for information.
The world is basically filled with information just your name could be connected to just about anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/04 21:01:57
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
LordofHats wrote: I would say that is a workable definition, though the last part seems unnecessary. Assassin's don't need to escape. In fact, by their nature their escape is irrelevant. All that matters is the successful elimination of the target.
its also good to be not taken alive when you have killed your target. You know actually avoid capture. meaning you can die. Maybe that should be the ending. Your goal should be to assassinate and avoid being captured for information.
The world is basically filled with information just your name could be connected to just about anything.
But, again, avoiding capture is not necessarily important, especially in the context of political assassinations.
As I said earlier, the primary concern is the elimination of the target. Escape is secondary and, in many cases throughout history, not even really considered by some of the most famous political assassins.
A hitman who kills for a living will consider it but they will also only take those jobs where escape would be feasibly possible.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/04 21:12:36
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Assassination is defined as 'the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons', therefore an assassin is simply someone who carries out said murder. Nowhere is it mentioned that escape is at all criteria for success, and as mentioned earlier in this thread, many of the most prominent and impactful assassins have been caught, or even made little to no attempt at escape. The idea of assassins stealthily slipping in and silently killing before a flawless escape is a romanticised one, as assassinations are often short and violent, Leon Trotsky was killed with an ice axe, Caesar was stabbed to death, etc.
This is a signature. It contains words of an important or meaningful nature.
TheRobotLol wrote: Assassination is defined as 'the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons', therefore an assassin is simply someone who carries out said murder. Nowhere is it mentioned that escape is at all criteria for success, and as mentioned earlier in this thread, many of the most prominent and impactful assassins have been caught, or even made little to no attempt at escape. The idea of assassins stealthily slipping in and silently killing before a flawless escape is a romanticised one, as assassinations are often short and violent, Leon Trotsky was killed with an ice axe, Caesar was stabbed to death, etc.
There are many assassinations that go array and have the assassin die as well.
And how is an Assassin romanticized?
People keep saying romanticized and I keep thinking....
I know what romanticized means -deal with or describe in an idealized or unrealistic fashion; make (something) seem better or more appealing than it really is.
Your thinking of Fantasized. It is in no way made more appealing or 'better'.
An Assassin is a basically a tool a knife of a political leader. Which reminds me of the KGB and CIA who were techinically Assassins at one point.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Well Asherian, it is rather hard to see your views throughout this thread as anything other than romantisized when you say things such as 'Hanzo Hataroi is quite awesome' and that 'Its probably one of the coolest moments in feudal japan. ' Yes, the events are also fantasized, but your ideas of them are often veering in and out of being romantisized, to the point of admiration and seeing it as 'better' or 'more appealing' as evident though your earlier posts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/04 22:18:54
This is a signature. It contains words of an important or meaningful nature.
TheRobotLol wrote: Well Asherian, it is rather hard to see your views throughout this thread as anything other than romantisized when you say things such as 'Hanzo Hataroi is quite awesome' and that 'Its probably one of the coolest moments in feudal japan. ' Yes, the events are also fantasized, but your ideas of them are often veering in and out of being romantisized, to the point of admiration and seeing it as 'better' or 'more appealing' as evident though your earlier posts.
Well anything from Europe or Japan are bound to be Romanticized in terms of their history.
We are pretty sure that the Siege he participated in did actually happen, and the battle he participated in is very well known and recorded.
I don't think being assassin is appeal or better. Your killing someone. Knights are Romanticized to no end.
Committing acts of murder are in no way romanticized.
There are many acts in history that seem romanticized when they actually happened that way. Such as the Third Crusade and First Crusade.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Whoever killed Alexander Litvinenko with a radiation dose/injection/something crazy dealing with radiation
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
