[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Carlos Hathcock: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 112: Line 112:
::That was that publishing company when it was founded. It evolved and was an imprint of [[Penguin Books]] and after the 70s specialized in military titles, read more than just the first sentence of an article.--~~~~
::That was that publishing company when it was founded. It evolved and was an imprint of [[Penguin Books]] and after the 70s specialized in military titles, read more than just the first sentence of an article.--~~~~
:::Apparently you didn't read the source. It has a disclaimer right in the beginning that it's a work of fiction! ~~~~
:::Apparently you didn't read the source. It has a disclaimer right in the beginning that it's a work of fiction! ~~~~
::::I read it before the best part of you ran down your mother's leg.--~~~~

Revision as of 18:59, 29 December 2014

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]

Feats and Miracles

WHO signed their names attesting to Carlos Hathcock's 93 great feats...LET ME GUESS? How come there are no listings of his confirmed kills with dates and signatures in his books? Are we supposed to believe in these 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 the books about Jesus Christ as they do in 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”.

THE BIG QUESTION: How come Carlos Hathcock never received any medals for act's of bravery as a sniper and WHY? You would think he and Corporal John Burke would have received the “Medal of Honor” or have at least merited a "Bronze Star" for killing a whole Company of NVA regulars (80 men) in Elephant Valley...OVER A PERIOD OF 5 DAYS. I know people who have received the Bronze Star for a Hell of a lot less! You would also think he would have received some kind of recognition for crawling 1000 yards in enemy territory over a 4 day period to kill an NVA General…WITH ONLY A QUART OF WATER! The stories of killing Apache and Cobra were noteworthy of medals themselves. Carlos did receive a Silver Star in 1996 some 37 years after saving fellow marines from a burning AMTRACK in 1969, not for his feats as a sniper. I question WHY the Marine Corp waited so long to present this medal?

With the technology we have today and had in Vietnam, CONFIRMED KILLS should be accompanied with a photograph or a video to be considered credible. They have small video cameras today that can be attached to a spotter's scope and used in the field. This would help dispute any matters with snipers who are glory hunters tallying up numbers. If a sniper does not have a video camera and 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 then be reported as a PROBABLE or a WIA. 21:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)74.98.172.8 (talk)George B. Norman[2]


Haters gonna hate!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it controversy Mike, not hate...some people close their eyes to the truth and don't want to know the truth. Mike Searson, I imagine you were in the Marine Corp. I am not trying to put down the marines and I am sorry if what I said hurt your feelings. I live in Virginia Beach, Virginia and talked with Carlos Hathcock on several occasions. As you can tell I question his feats and I only listed a few. There are many questions that went unanswered when I talked with him! 74.98.172.8 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)George "Ben" Norman - Vietnam Sniper 1970 -1971[reply]

Well, you're not making yourself look good, sir. You can't hurt my feelings, because I have none...my mother was n M16, my father was the devil, himself! In all seriousness, though, the confirmed kills and dates should be in Gunny's SRB (Service Record Book). Back in the day for a USMC Sniper kill to be confirmed, it had to be witnessed by n officer and a kill sheet filled out, with description of the target, etc. (Gunny always said their were many more than the 93)If you are so concerned do a Freedom of Info Requwst or contact Charles Henderson, Charles Sasser, or any of the other authors directly who may have copies. Henderson is a very good source for this kind of information. It's certainly more viable than attempting to go back in time with gun cams s your last paragraph seems to suggest. Have a Merry Christmas and thank you for your service.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the kind of response I expected Mike. Thank you for your service and Merry Christmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.172.8 (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, guys like you did the heavy lifting to make it easier on guys like me when I served, you guys literally paved the way for us and through lessons built on your experiences made us better soldiers, Marines and sailors! Take care!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy

The article is full of embellishments and factual inaccuracies, especially regarding the purported assassination of the NVA "general". None of the sources given can name who the general is. What kind of source is that? This supposedly happened in the 20th century, not the middle ages. A general being assassinated would be news; the only sources mentioning this are not independent from Hathcock himself. If some NVA sniper claimed to have assassinated a US general without naming names, they'd put him in the loony bin. As Carl Sagan once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." DHN (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least 7 sources name the fact. Who gives a shit what his fucking name was, he's worm food.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People who cares about the truth does. This "worm food" is supposedly a general, someone much more notable than some random person like this Carlos Hathcock. Isn't part of his notability based on this supposed feat of killing a general? At least have the decency to name him. All the seven "sources" given just repeat the claim from Hathcock himself about this supposed feat - are there any independent sources that verify this? You claim to have killed someone but can't pinpoint who, when, and where and you expect people to swallow this? DHN (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed to have killed anyone. No, his notability does not come from killing a general, it was the three day stalk, fieldcraft, etc that was notable in that instance. His notability comes from the creation of the official USMC Scout Sniper School and his influence on training and tactics that continue to this day. In that instance, the end result of a dead officer means little in comparison to the methods used to achieve it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But how are a sniper's kills confirmed and cataloged with any precision? For the record, the U.S. Army "does not keep any official, or unofficial for that matter, record of confirmed kills," said Wayne V. Hall, a spokesman for the Army. SIMILARLY, U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND treats that tally as "unofficial," said Ken McGraw, a spokesman for the command. "If anything, we shy away from reporting numbers like that. It’s so difficult to prove. And what does it mean?" McGraw said. 74.98.172.8 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Vietnam Sniper - George "Ben" Norman<ref> Briggs, Bill (2014-07-30). "Confirmed kills: A solemn secret for military snipers is becoming a pop-culture hit". NBC News. Retrieved 5 September 2014./ref>[reply]

Use of works of fiction as sources

It's very telling about the questionable nature of the claims in this article that it makes extensive use of the Henderson books, which are published by a publisher specializing in erotica and romance. There is no fact-checking at all, and the entire book is a romanticized retelling of Carlos Hathcock's supposed feats. The book itself has a disclaimer "this is a work of fiction". DHN (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was that publishing company when it was founded. It evolved and was an imprint of Penguin Books and after the 70s specialized in military titles, read more than just the first sentence of an article.--~~~~
Apparently you didn't read the source. It has a disclaimer right in the beginning that it's a work of fiction! ~~~~
I read it before the best part of you ran down your mother's leg.--~~~~
  1. ^ Henderson, Charles. Marine Sniper/93 confirmed Kills.Stein and Day. Berkley edition. 1988. print
  2. ^ Vietnam Sniper - 25th Infantry Division, 3rd of the 22nd and the 2nd of the 12th {George "Ben" Norman}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carlos_Hathcock&oldid=640126600"