Who do you think was more of a hero, Chris Kyle or Simo Hayha?

[adquidorator]

Chris Kyle:
-160 kills
-Racked up kills over the course of 7 years
-Fought in foreign land for corporate interests
-Capitalized on his fame (and lied about his accomplishments)
-Was killed by a pistol on a firing range
-Used high powered designated sniper rifles
-Used a modern scope with ballistics computers

Simo Hayha
-500+ kills
-Acquired kills over the course of >100 days (with >8 hours of light per day)
-Fought for his countries freedom against a ruthless tyrant
-Lived a humble life afterward
-Survived an explosive bullet to the jaw in combat
-Used a standard issue rifle
-NO SCOPE
Someone should make a movie about him

Chris Kyle

Simo Hayha

[NovaLS]

During the winter war right? I agree Simo Hayha was a hero and fought the way he knew how against the invading Russians. However I think it is rather pointless and somewhat insensitive to pick who is the better "hero" I am sure the soldiers who Chris Kyle fought with and helped protect think he is a hero. The difference is Chris Kyle fought an enemy who hides among civilians, who wears no uniforms, Simo Hayha fought an enemy who wore uniforms and according to war time rules were fair game to shoot and kill. As far as using modern rifles and scopes, why not use modern technology when available? All this being said back to point number 1, why does it matter?

[SilenceMeansPatience]

The reason he didn't use a scope was to not give away his position through reflection of the scope.

Also iron sight allowed him to keep his head a bit lower maybe making the crucial difference.

Finland has a lot of forests so often the scope wasn't that useful (not that much open space)

[NovaLS]

@SilenceMeansPatience... I agree with a lot of this but also the scopes of the time were pretty primitive at that time and maybe not a necessity, and people still hunt with low power or no scope in places like the south US where forests are thick, but in the type of war Chris Kyle fought where their must be reason to kill a scope was necessary, I mostly meant why some of these points are here and what they are supposed to mean. Like Chris Kyle shot at a firing range, was that his fault somehow? I think both men were skilled snipers and used what they had and were used to, to kill. What is the point of comparing them?

[SilenceMeansPatience]

@NovaLS This is a good point, the scope thing is often used to bring publicity about Häyhä vs Kyle. Also people like to mention what Kyle said in some interview:

"I definitely cheated. I used a ballistic computer that tells me everything to do. So, I was just a monkey on a gun."

In the opinion I posted I didn't really bring up the tools they had but more the condition. I think the question is bit meh tho. I don't know how to compare heroism, so I just mainly named the one I was more impressed about.

[SilenceMeansPatience]

Simo Häyhä, I might be biased cus im a finn.

Häyhä fought in a lot harder conditions,
temperatures reached as low as -37,6C (35,7F). Sometimes he stayed in place for hours so that he wouldn't give away his location to the Russians. You need to eat and especially drink more during cold than hot temperature, he used to put some sugar cubes to his pockets before heading to his sniping location for the day.

You can say that Häyhä had easier time getting higher number because of always defending the incoming enemy, but still Chris Kyle is a baby compared to Häyhä.

[adquidorator]

yeah, and I'm an American and I agree with you

[Gommers]

Both are murders. There is no respect to be earned from killing. Both of them were guys doing a job, that doesn't make you a hero.

[adquidorator]

I have to disagree, I think there are times that it's right to fight.

[anonman32]

lol they are both assassins not heros.