Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Carlos Hathcock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.98.172.8 (talk) at 16:24, 19 December 2014 (→Carlos Hathcock - Feats & Miracles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:USMCportal

Why?

Why is it that Hathcock has so caught the interest of people? He isn't the sniper out there with the highest tally, by far. He doesn't even have the highest tally among US snipers in VIETNAM...but still, he is the one everyone talk about or refer to. 85.230.45.221 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because he was mentioned first and was known as the Top Sniper for so long. I remember reading Henderson's book about him 25 years ago, he was the Guest of Honor at my first Marine Corps Ball, and when Ward's book came out listing Chuck with more confirmed kills, I (and many others) thought it was a typo. That and his legacy to the USMC Sniper community with establishing the first non-wartime Scout/Sniper school gave him his fame.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned first by who? I can see him aiding in the Scout/Sniper school being relevant...but, everyone always refer to those 93 confirmed kills...Simo Häyhä had over 500. In less than 100 days, in temperatures rainging from -20 to -40 C, using a rifle without a scope. And for some reason, this man is barely even talked about. I'm not disparaging Hathcock, but by comparison, Häyhä should be a GOD to snipers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.47.111 (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Henderson's book in 1986, for one. Yes, there have been other stories of other Snipers, but for whatever reason, Hathcock's was the most compelling and for lack of a better term, complete. From the "record of 93" (which we now know was bested while he was still active) to his injuries saving the other Marines, to using the .50 BMG and the book coming out at a time when there was an audience for it. Hathcock was a legend in the Corps and there was and has been more coverage of Hathcock than just about any other Sniper in the US press/media ever since. Not only were the books about his career, but about his early life and even his legacy. It's a bit like the controversy over the radio, Tesla may have come up with it first, but Marconi gets the credit. I can look at other articles on wiki and make similar arguments, often the difference between coverage of two topics in the same vein is the amount of significant and reliable sources of one over another.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about confirmed kills! Thousands of kills were not confirmed in the war, since confirmation required the witness of an officer. The greatest snipers often worked far out in the boonies, alone or with only their enlisted spotter. The true greatest were those who took the most difficult shots and faced the most harrowing risks to get the shot - not the most prolific that could be witnessed by officers. The only reason Carlos's four day crawl-in to kill an NVA general got confirmed was because a US officer was put on a hidden observation hill, by helicopter, specifically to watch for and hopefully witness the general's death; because it was so important. They picked CH for the kill, because the NVA/VC were terrified of him; they had a better idea of how many he actually killed than the Americans did. Also, according to the information in Henderson's first book about CH, the interest and respect CH received from so many people has even more to do with the more personal factors: First, CH's extreme courage and determination were displayed when he continued in the Corps after being horrifically burned while saving others in Nam. Thereafter, when he would shoot at the range he would end with bleeding hands, arms and sometimes torso due to the delicate skin/scar tissue that covered most of his body. He collapsed more than once. He was ill with MS, but pushed on. Second, he was considered not just a great sniper, but a truly exceptional instructor, which when it comes to building a true and lasting legacy, is more important. Thus he became the first Senior Sniper of the Marine Corp when the Corps-wide sniper program was established. (previously, snipers were taught at independent sniper schools.) It was as an exceptional man, not just a sniper, that CH was so admirable. I'm not positive how to cite sources, I hope I got it right. Info came from the book: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.66.198 (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Why, indeed? The more this fable is examined, the less there is to it. At the time Hathcock was just starting his sniping career, the Army had a sniper with over a hundred kills in Vietnam (per Henderson's own book) so Hathcock's place as top sniper is unjustified. The legend becomes even more questionable when one actually examines the contemporary official documents. In his first month of sniping (covering parts of Oct and Nov '66) Hathcock claimed more than 30 confirmed kills, not to mention 'probables' (pg 101 in Henderson's book). The fact is that the entire 1st MarDiv's reports (which included the scout-sniper school Hathcock was assigned to) for both Oct and Nov contradict this claim. The daily SITREPs for those months include descriptions of every action, down to and including suspected sympathizers detained and even stray incoming rifle fire that caused no casualties. There was even a section of the SITREPs dedicated to the activities of the division's scout-sniper teams. For the entire two months covering the 30 days of Hathcock's supposed tally, the 1st MarDiv employed sniper teams 390 times yet claimed just 4 confirmed enemy KIA for all of the scout-snipers, and 1 probable WIA. [There were two additional entries - a '1' and a '2' - but the SITREP failed to note if they were KIA, WIA, confirmed or probable. The accompanying narratives failed to elaborate on the circumstances of these two; the two entries appear to be typos duplicated from the previous column indicating the number of teams employed that day for that unit.] So, if the entire Division's sniping effort - including Hathcock - accounted for just 4 confirmed KIA over a 60 day period, it becomes clear Hathcock's claim of "more than 30" KIA for a 30 day portion of those two months is flat out false. Which should call the rest of the legend into question as well. Keep in mind, those two months covered fully one third of Hathcock's six month tour as a sniper in 66-67. Remove those 30 unsubstantiated 'confirmed' kills he claimed for that period, and his supposed kill tally falls into the 60s - a far less impressive total hardly worth a book, much less two. And since the Division claimed just one probable during this period (and just a WIA at that), that would cause a critical thinker to discount the absurdly high estimates of Hathcock's 'probables', as well. Worse, if one were to take this gross exaggeration and extrapolate it across Hathcock's other 4 months as a sniper on his first tour, even a total in the 60s appears vastly over-stated.

The fact is that no record can be found in the 1st MarDiv's Command Chronologies of any of Hathcock's stupendous feats, not even the action in Elephant valley - an action which would have the been largest combat action of the division for that month. Yet there is no mention of it at all.

The closest the official record comes to confirming any of Hathcock's stories involves the alleged Chinese colonel. Hathcock/Henderson have this taking place 1 Jan 67, while the official report places it on 29 Dec 66; one is tempted to accept this as the same incident. Except . . . that the incident took place over 70 kilometers from Hathcock's position, the oddly dressed enemy's uniform did not match the color Hathcock described, the oddly dressed occupant was not judged to be Chinese or a colonel, and per the Div's report, the sniper ended up killing a VC in the boat, NOT the oddly dressed occupant. There are no other incidents resembling the book's tale in this period. It is impossible to believe the classified SITREPs and INTSUMs would include an incident in which a possible Chinese officer was missed, yet exclude reports for one actually being killed. It appears this incident was conveniently lifted from another sniper's exploits, moved to Hathcock's location and sexed up for better reading.

What is more stupefying are the many technical errors in the book. The book claims Hathcock "pioneered" the use of the M2 in the sniping role, which could not be farther from the truth. It was used in this role in the Korean War, some 15 years previously. In fact, there are a couple pictures of Army troops in the middle of a Korea War winter employing an M2 - complete with Unertl scope - in the sniping role. Also, the Dec 1955 Field Manual 23-65 on the M2 has an entire appendix (APP III) dedicated to the topic of using scopes on M2s for sniping. Yet Henderson claims Hathcock "pioneered" the employment of the weapon in this role 11 years later? Far from it, he was, at best, merely reading his manual and following its directions. Another leg of the legend destroyed. In yet another astounding error, Henderson notes that the gunner could squeeze off single shots because the weapon's cyclic rate was so slow. Since the M2 actually has a single shot mode, controlled by the bolt latch release lock, Hathcock and Henderson (who was himself a Marine) certainly ought to have been aware of this fundamental feature of the weapon, but curiously seem oblivious. The feature is discussed at multiple points in the FM, so it is no secret. It's an astounding error for someone who "pioneered" the use of the weapon in that role. The sad thing is that these are just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many obvious technical and tactical mistakes in the telling of the tale that it boggles the mind.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Yet Hathcock/Henderson's tales have no proof at all. A vast literature on the subject is based on nothing but circular citations, all of which eventually trace back to Hathcock/Henderson's own tales. It is a shaky basis for a legend, and well worth questioning. 98.255.89.22 (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

his son is C.H. III, but he's not a Jr?

His name is Carlos Hathcock (no middle name given), but his son's name is given as Carlos Norman Hathcock III. Is this a mistake; should one of them be named Junior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.180.109 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His Father deliberately named him Carlos Hathcock the Second, not Junior. A parent can chose to make that distinction on a birth certificate. He probably intended not just to have a son named for himself, but to instill a sense of lineage and establish it as a family tradition, which many cultures cherish more than Americans. Also, being named third does not necessarily mean your father was second. A grandchild or much later child can be named 'the second' or 'the third.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.66.198 (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of an NVA general

Which general did he assassinate? Wouldn't the fact that a general had been assassinated be recorded in Vietnamese or American history? The fact that this guy's name is known but the so-called "general"'s name is not known makes me suspect that this story is a load of crock. DHN (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Hathcock - Feats & Miracles

George B. Norman (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Where is the proof to Carlos Hathcocks feats? Are we supposed to believe in his miracles with our faith? I once read a sign on a polygraph testers desk that read, “IN GOD WE TRUST” everyone else gets tested. People should put as much faith in books about Jesus Christ as they have in the books about Carlos Hathcock. Jesus had more credible witnesses to confirm his miracles and his feats were recorded in the official documents of the SITREPs, (Supreme Commander Situation Reports) “THE NEW TESTAMENT”.[reply]

With the technology we have today and had in Vietnam, CONFIRMED KILLS should be accompanied with a photograph to be considered credible. This would help dispute any matters with snipers who are glory hunting and tallying up their numbers. If a sniper cannot get close enough to take a picture, they make what is called a zoom lens for cameras…IT"S LIKE A SCOPE! I am sure a sniper who wanted to add to his tally would find a way to zero in a camera to get another shot. If there is no vivid proof of a kill, the kill in question should be required to have a witness and be reported as probable or WIA. George B. Norman (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[2][reply]

  1. ^ Henderson, Charles. Marine Sniper/93 confirmed Kills.Stein and Day. Berkley edition. 1988. print
  2. ^ Vietnam Sniper - George "Ben" Norman
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carlos_Hathcock&oldid=638793650"