Walther War Machines big book of Soldier Knowledge

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#1

I realise IRONINGPAN is an amusement and we havent got a thread for his best quotes, this might become a thread of its own but for the time, Ill continue adding to it here - check back for your favourites!!!
this one being the best of course!

Well my friend, it was I who educated you. You see

Let me put this in terms easier to understand, if you are a gamer. Ever played the game Call of Duty? If so, do you know the map called Kursk? If the big hill was not in the middle of the map, if the map were flat, the distance from the farthest ponts on the map is like the distance you are talking about. You might as well be shooting into the sky without a fine rifle and a powerful scope. And a man at that distance would appear as a dot to the unaided human eye

Sorry. Nobody uses AR’s at 600m for anything. If you are refering to that DOC file on the Net where some idiot states otherwise, you have fallen prey to a military “wannabe”'s ludicous opinion. Don’t be gullible.

AR at 600m is worthless my friend

Obviously, you are a soldier as you claim either. A soldier would know this. You do not, even after reading it. Just more lies.

When the enemy gets 40 yards and less away, you would be a war machine if you could magically switch your carbine to a Thompson!

Boy, you are full of lies and wannabe crap. You have no idea what you are talking about, you are not a soldier, you lie, you’re wannabe, and you’re an idiot as well.

If the weapon fits the characteristics of an assult rifle because it is effective in that role, it can be effectively as an “assult rifle” when it IS used in that role. And the M1 Carbine fits that role.

It has been. But just because a weapon is classified as an assult weapon does not mean it is fully automatic, now does it? No, it does not. The AR15 is an assult rifle, but it is not automatic. For that matter, the M1 Carbine is an assult rifle, but it is not automatic either

And you are not a soldier as you claimed, else you would know that you cannot carry your automatic weapon concealed in your car when not on duty. If you want to lie and post garbage to fill the threads with arguments, please do it on another forum. Look how much crap has been added to this thread alone because of your lies and the false information you post.

Assult situations with rifles take place at 0-100\200 yards, but not not at 600m

That story does not sound plausible. But then again, if it happened, it is obviously because they reached for or had their weapons in their hands and would not drop them when ordered to do so by the cop. No way did the cop simply see them and start firing without ordering them to drop their weapons,

And Cuts is not a soldier as he states. He has yet to post what service he is in

While the M1 Carbine is not technically an assult rifle because by modern definition of the term the M1 did not have selective fire, it was used in that capacity numerous times.

They had to put alcohol-based hair tonic on the action of their M1 Carbines rifles to keep the action loose by stopping the ice build-up.

Despite the fact the the M1 Carbine rifle was not technically an assult rifle by definition because it lacked selective fire,

2nd of foot wrote:
Your orbat is from a GAME and is no reference, Dylan!!!

I don’t speak street slang and I went to college, but if you mean that you think my understanding is from games, you’re wack

It was not originally intended for front-line troops, but more as a self-defence weapon for second-line units, on the sensible grounds that it was much easier to shoot accurately than a pistol

[b][u]

Mr. Expert: An assult weapon does not need an effective range of 600 meters to be an assult rifle! He thinks assult rifles are going to be used at ranges of more than 300 yards? Assult rifles are used at ranges from virtually point blank to perhaps 200 yards, possible more in rare circumstances. Seldom is one used near or beyond it’s effective range. At 300 yards, the M1\M2 Carbine will kill without a headshot. It’s range is 300 yards. Show me a battle where assult rifles were used at distances beyond their effective range or as far as 300 meters. He bases his definition of an assult rifle on conditions that are almost or never met in warfare, and whether or not it uses ammo that is as effective as some other weapon?
[/u][/b] that is a good one found herehttp://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=165 Thu May 12, 2005 8:21 pm

His “important” opinion

I believe also that the M1 Carbine is an assult rifle also, because…

…it was used quite a bit in that role, and it has proven to be effective in that role, in two wars no less

No. They are never used at that distance. They are carbines. You can’t even make out the shape of a human body without a scope at 600m. It’s a dot at best at that range. Humans are not Eagles. You’re lost, again. …Oh? Well you just said that assult rifles need a range of 600m, and then you say that you would not be required to hit anything, which you almost assuredly would not…you would need telescopic eyes

Have you any idea how small things appear at 600m? Obviously not. If you could hit a man with an assult rifle at 600 meters with open sights, you need to take up match rifles.

I gave you one reference - the word of a vet who faught at Chosin with an M1 Carbine at 10 to 200-250+ yards range. Going into that in subject in depth would be off topic, but you can find some info on it on the Net

  • It was actually the Hair tonic reference from Call of Duty!!!

I cannot imagine anyone who has ever fired a rifle at targets 200-300m away with open sights would never consider shooting a semi-auto or fully-auto (assult rifle) carbine at a target 600m away. It would be utterly pointless to do so

I learned this many years ago as a boy with my 1st rifle while hunting squirrels

T

hat may be true, but there were plenty who wore coats too - my father saw plenty of them. The temperature reached -40 below. The soldiers were wearing something, because a man cannot be sent into battle at -40 F (Chosin) without a coat. He would die of frostbite in less than 1 hour at -20 F. He would not even be there. I lived in Montana for a few years, and spit on the ground when it was -42 F. My spittle shattered when it hit the ground!

#2

That was largely to do with the
Carbine, M1, Pistol theme

the part below is largely section fire related,

But jsut like our great Walther these posts can be a bit “here and there” so I apologise if its not coherent and if certain Gems have been missed!

Remember kids - this is the truth dont let the British army confuse you, Only IRONMAN knows whats really happeing out there!

#3

I know it aches you, some of you, to finally admit, after many pages of squirming toward the truth, that you bogus claims are untrue. but it serves the young and impressionable that we clear them up so they don’t read the crap and go away saying to their friends,

“Hey dude! I read that assult rifles are effective at 600 freaking meters! I also read that the M1 Carbine used pistol ammo! I even learned that the M1 Carbine was only issued to support personel and was never used as an assult weapon! Man I learned so much!”

Let’s not teach the kiddies such falicies anymore. Let’s be more responsible, ok?

As I have said… provide the link to an official government website or military vet who states on their site that assult rifles are effective at 600m.

If you posted that assult rifles are effective at 600m on a web site you’d likely be surprised at the number of emails you’d get from knowledgable people that tell you how far from reality you are

However, your original contention was that an AR was effective at 600m, which it is not. And 8 men shooting an AR at someone 600m away is 8 men wasting ammo. Section fire at 600m is done with MG’s and cannon

No military weapons instructor would say such an idiotic thing. It’s just in your head. Be careful about making ridiculouis claims about firearms to people who are experienced with firearms.

Once more my Dense One, shooting 1 thousand billion of them at the enemy does not increase the effectiveness of the weapon itself. The debate was that someone stated that they could shoot a man with an assult rifle at 600m with open sights, and I and Pretorian proved that this is so unlikely as to be unplausible.

It’s simple: Assult rigles are not effective at 600m. Period. Shooting 1 million of them simultaneously does not make them effective either. it only means you have a better change of hitting the target, and hopefully somewhere like the eyeball, so you can kill him with a single round, which is the “desired effect” of the maximum effective range. lol

You see my confused friend, section fire is several men firing at an anemy, usually up to 300m, to try to kill him. Surpressing fire is several men firing at a man to make the bastard stay put.

I could care less about “section fire”. Section fire does not change the ballistics of the weapon.
He taught you that assult rifles are used for section fire at 600m? Yea, he is definately was wrong. AR’s are not used at 600m, ever. As for your attempt to change the discussion by claiming that AR’s are good for section fire at 600m (because you have learned that they are no good for singular fore at 600m) is worthless too. Section fire at 600m does not include AR’s. Maybe at 400m, but not 600m. Section fire at 600m is what MG’s and cannon are for.

I am also a former hunter with hundreds of hours experience in the field firing everything from a .22 to a Remington bolt action 30-06 at various ranges. I have probably fired more rounds than you by 3 times over

We are all weapon affectionados here. Some of us are even highly experienced hunters with a great deal of firearms experience. Everyone here knows that an AR is worthless at 600m. And section fire at 600m does not include assult rifles. Assult rifles are designed for close range combat

Just because multiple men can shoot one at a something 100m beyond thier effective maximum range does not make the weapon effective at that range.

I agree that by the modern definition of an assult rifle, the M1 Carbine is technically not an assult rifle. However, it has all of the characteristics of an assult rifle circa WWII era except selective fire

I’ve already expressed my opinion on those pages. Please stay with us here. We’re talking about how assult rifles are not effective at 600m because they are not accurate at that range.

BDL wrote:

[quote]That is a single rifle (and is also different to current British Army training that say that a single rifle is only effective to 300m).

OK, so we have established that assult rifles are not effective at 600m. And it only to you 15 pages of bullcrapping and trying to change the subject of the debate to come around and admit it.

Next time you make a bogus claim just jump to the admission part right off and you will save yourself all that trouble, eh? [/quote]

What kind of weapon is good for such an assult in WWII? An M1 Carbine is, that is for sure. But then, most assults don’t take place at over 100 yards, do they? Ofcourse they don’t. Something I have already stated: It is my opinion that the M1 Carbine is an assult rifle when used in assult situations because it has the characteristics of an assult rifle.

the M1 Carbine was used extensively as an assult rifle in both WWII and Korea
…assult rifles are worthless at 600m
…section fire at 600m does not include assult rifles

ASSULT RIFLES ARE CARBINES. Great Scots! A dude argues about assult rifles and does not even know what one is.

Tubbyboy wrote:
Section fire with an assault rifle (note: no mention of carbine) is effective to 600m. That is standard British military doctrine. This statement is fact not speculation.

Post us the link that states it, an official one. You can’t? Oh. I didn’t think you could. But it’s NOT effective. Nothing coming from the barrel of a carbine (oooh! That word you hate so!) is effective at 600m

[quote]Show us the website of a current military instructor or official military website of a nation which states that section fire at 600m is done with carbine assult rifles. Then you can stop choking on it.
DID HE EVER SHOW UP ON ARRSE? WHERE IS HE?

BTW, the M16 has been replaced. One of the reasons for the development of it’s replacement is that the barrel length does not lend itself well to close range combat. Hence, the M4 Carbine and the XM8… are carbines. Traditionally, assult rifles are short-barreled (carbines). Ooops!

All current assult rifles of recent design are carbines. Every one. Assult rifles do not have sniper rifle length barrels. Sorry.

Must I say it yet again? Assult rifles are short-batrreled rifles. They are carbines. Variants of assult rifles are not short-barreled rifles (none with a long barrel anyway). Are you comprehending?

Now you want to try to change the debate to what constitutes a carbine because you have made an idiot of yourself by saying that assult rifles are effective at 600m. They are not.

Section fire has nothing to do with weather or not an AR is effective at 600m or not

Nonetheless, your contention that assult rifles are effective at 600m is incorrect
[b][u]

You are a little kid who knows nothing and constantly insults. You have nothing to offer here except ridiculous claims
[/u][/b] HE IS A MAN OF HIS WORD, I MISSED THAT, THIS IS WHY HE IGNORED ME

Let’s recap shall we?

“I can make out the leg of a man with unaided eyes at 600m.”

No. You cannot.

“The M1 Carbine uses pistol ammunition.”

No, it does not. The ammo fits no pistol in the US WWII arsenal.

“The M1 Carbine was not used to kill numerous men at Chosin.”

Yes, it cetrtainly was.

“The M1 Carbine was not used as an assult rifle in WWII and Korea.”

Yes, it most certainly was, quite extensively.

“Assult rifles are effective at 600m.”

2nd of foot wrote:
We have told you that a rang of 200-250m is not suitable for AR.

No. They are not.

“Assult rifles are used for section fire at 600m.”

No, they are not. Not in any army in the world. You are confusing AR’s with MG’s

I have indeed spoken to my father about it. I told him that someone in a forum contends that assult rifles are effective at 600m. She shook his head as he set his coffee mug down and said plainly, "No. You couldn’t hit a thing with one at that range. And if you did, you probably would not do much damage either

if the effective maximum range of a weapon is 500m, at 600 meters the weapon is no longer effective,

Perhaps. But not with assult rifles. They are not used for section fire at 600m. That’s what MG’s do. At 300m, yea, maybe with assult rifles. But not at 600m. They are not used that way.

section fire with assult rifles is not done at 600m. You are confusing surpressing fire with section fire.
??? SUPPOSEDLY SECTION FIRE CANNOT BE USED TO SUPPRESS???

Now section fire, that typically takes place at up to 300m too. Surpressing fire? I guess any range is game if you can land rounds all over the freaking place.

Again, my friend, you are confusing surpressing fire with section fire.

#4

ALL OF THAT WAS GLEAMED FROM THE BEST MACHINE GUN THREAD - I AM SURE THERE ARE OTHERS FEEL FREE TO CONTRIBUTE

WALTHER WE THANKYOU FOR YOUR WISDOM

#5

The M1 carbine is spring operated

Even a civilian knows that a revolver or bolt action weapon is more powerful per se because the energy from the exploding gases of the cartridge is not used to power the action of such a weapon.

LMAO - I spat my cornflakes at that one

#6

Please stop my sides are aching! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I like the one about you chaps not being real brit soldiers and especailly about not being able to engage the enemy at 600m, did you ever show him the weapon’ ranges from that phamplet from HQ Land which explicitily states that the SA80’s range was 600m at section level?

#7

It should be noted that nearly all of the posts in the classification thread refer to Chosin, The coherent forces asserting that although it was used there it was not grounds to call it an assault rifle.
the TWAT claiming that it killed an aweful lot of people and is therefore an assault rifle, ignoring the qualities an assault rifle needs to display entirely.

oh for those of you that missed it earlier, Chosin was not nice!

You should simply kindly admit your error, as I have on a couple of occasions, and let it go. It does not serve you in any way to not do so. You are not, with your childish arguments, going to change those facts or the proof that has been provided and read by all
.

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/reviews/mp44/mp44_review.htm
.

In a pistol, the 9mm was good, but in 1940’s era SMG’s it was not so good. The energy from the smaller round must be used to operate the hammer, and that can lead to jamming and weak hit power.

Dude, you’ve already proven that you are not in the military, but are instead an wee imposter

Well, there you have it. The M1 Carbine had no penetration problems when used in it’s perspective range, which is up to 300 yards. BTW, the perspective range for the weapon, given by it’s manufacturer (300 yards) is the maximum distance at which the weapon will provide good penetration.
what the fuck is a "perspective range? - is it like respective range?, or is to do with the fact the bullet looks smalle rfarther away? (if he means “respective” then their should be another weapon mentioned to compare it with, surely!)

Although there are guidelines used to define an assult rifle, to all of which the M2 Carbine complies, it is more accurate to say that a rifle is an assult weapon by the manner of it’s use so long as it fits the description.

So from this we can summize that the M1 Carbine was an assult rifle, like the M2 Carbine, not because the M2 had selective fire or because the M1 Carbine did not have selective fire, but because it was used extensively in that role by US troops, and most importantly, because it was very well suited to that role.

This is the same reason that the US troops in Europe used M1 Carbines so much as they did - in assult and search-and-destroy roles -because the fighting had become more urban than rural, and in city fighting, a long rifle is less desired - so the M1 Carbine
assult?
search-and-destroy missions, never heard of one of those, might be me!
WWII in Europe was an urban battle!

Today we use the term “assult weapon” because SMG’s are used more for assults than they were in the WWII era. So now we have changed the term to fit the description of the way the weapon is used, not stricly because of the characteristics of the weapon. In that light, looking back on the weapons usage, the M1 Carbine is surely an assult rifle

that to be an assult weapon, or for a weapon to be used as an assult weapon, it should meet at least the most critical criteria for the role, such as having a carbine length barell, short, (preferably light weight) fast firing, and effective at the intended range. The M1 Carbine meets all of those requirements for that role. The fact that it was without selective fire is far less important than the greater number of characteristics of a weapon well suited to an assult role

The intended range? - well what was it? I think we have told you it was 600! and as you have pointed out the term was created in WWII and has not changed since! so…CUNT

However, on that note, since the range is given as 300 yards, I’d still say that it was effective at up to that range, since that is what ballistics shows it was effective to. I think MV is less important than effective range anyway, even though they are related by some measure.
well when IRONMAN goes into arms procurement that will be important.

judging by how well the M1 Carbine was used to kill at 200+ yards, I think it does OK. I’m not saying it has the same effectiveness at 250-350 yards as the pointed bullet AR’s, but it has proven to do very well at 200-250+ yards in battle.
Not too sure on this, can someone explain to me just what the exact spec of “pointed bullet” ammunition is.

some of that fight was that close. I agree that using such weapons in one way does not make them assult weapons, but if they are suited to that role, and selected for use because that is the role to be filled at the time, then you have a situation where the weapon is being actively chosen for use in an assult situation
EH…? MLLLLLLAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRR

I believe more than anything there are 2 things which define an assult weapon:

  1. it’s characteristics - which make it suited to the role
  2. being actively selected for the assult role because it suites the role, so long as it meets the characteristics of an assult weapon.

You have not yet offered an explaination fo why you believe the m2 Carbine was not an assult weapon, other than to say that:

A) it was not designed or intended for that purpose
B) it does not have a range of gak 600m - which no assult rifle does
I have no Idea what “gak” meanks and yet again we see the official walter, calling on the walther definition of…“I think it is”… thats a credible source if ever there was one… still better than ARNIESAIRSOFT though

This one is for you cuts!!!

When you have fired a case or two of ammo from an M1 Carbine, let me know. Then you can say such a thing without being a hypocrite. I have respectable experience with firearms of different calibres different ranges. I have also endeavored to provide only the most authoratative references when applicable.

" the commanding officer said -OH MY FREAKING GOD! Fu*k the Garand! Start passing out carbines ASAP!".

surely as a military man he would have said
FUCKING HELL!
and as we all know all infantry units carry around a big barrow of weapons so that they can change weapons when they find where htey are going to be fighting…Oh whats that, they do? ok thanks.

The Garand was simply too slow and cumbersome to load (it was not uncommon to get one’s fingers pinched in the process), held too few rounds, was too long and heavy for such close encounters.
bloody hell! a weapon that pinches your fingers, diddums, good thing there are only hardcore fighting men on Call Of Duty.

Who said the M1 Carbine was a weapon of choice for combat at ranges over 200 yards? Nobody. You are in dreamland. Talk about a need for “reality”! However, at it’s intended range, the cabine performed well.
no-one did but you did call it an assault weapon and assault weapons are effective at over 200 yards, pistols on the other hand…
Its intended range is not comapable to an assauly rifle

For professed military types, you guys don’t know jack sh*t do you? I mean, some of the claims you guys are making… Holy guano Bayboy!
Did you get your training from a comic book offer? Mad magazine perhaps? You got out of boot camp not knowing what the characteristics of an assult rifle circa WWII are?

#8

This one is a good one.

Bluffcove wrote:
who would you count as a verifiable source, we have shown you British Army Pams,
we have shown you USMC pams

we have set up a forum for you to discuss this with the British Military, yet you insist on asking us to verify it,
ask your questions
we have;

armourers,
infantrymen,
Quarter Masters,
officers
training wing staff
instructors
even cooks,

All of whom would love to answer any questions you might feel the need to ask!

unfortunately we have no game designers!

Dorkomatic,

when you can prove any of the things I stated are untrue instead of simply posting nonsensical insults in terrible grammar, you get $10,000! The question is, how badly do you want to make a fool of yourself in front of the world?

#9

He owes me 10 grand then (although can I have it in the Queen’s currency? I’m afraid your devalued rebel money isn’t worth that much these days :wink: ), I proved that you can fire assault rifles at 600m and hit a target about a week ago.

#10

Largely from the fighter plane thread, We need to find South African Military, the man is the fucking DON and got more sense out of IRONMAN than any of us!
IRONMAN didnt avoid any of his uestions 25 times! I think I have been snubbed

The M1 Carbine fits all but the selective fire. However, as I have said before, thse criteria did not exist during WWII
wel Surely if they designed the first one, then the criteria from the first one, is the mark by which all otehrs would be marked, only my Tuppence.

Furthermore, in your attempt to declare the M1 Carbine as not being an assult rifle (which, admittedly, it is not by definition because it lacks selective fire) you are omitting the most important factor of all. And this is simply - Does the weapon fit the role? Has it proved itself effective in that role?
just as the coat hanger I used to get into my car is now a “key”

First, as a point of mere interest, my father is arguably an heir to Tullock Castle near Dingwall - his family owned it before it was stolen from them by the English Crown. He visited Dingwall in 1999 to see it.
Yes and some Apache, or siousxie or padfoot tribe probably wants your house too, whats you point - Incidentally on winning the west, I hear those arrows were really… pointy, good thing you had a winchester hey!

it remains my opinion and always will, that the British actively recruiting foreigners from poor third-world nations to be their front line soldiers in highly distassteful to me and to many others. If the US were to do the same, I would find that distasteful as well! But then, the US does not send in groups of Mexicans to do their fighting for them,

BAY OF …, now what was it called?
Bay of dogs

BAY OF PIGS MASSACRE - thats the one!

Sorry, but the “Commonwealth” as it existed and came to be known in it’s true nature no longer exists. Just like the Queen is a figurehead only, and Canada, Aurstalia, and New Zealand have an “alliance” to the “Crown” which is a pleasantry only. None of those states are under British rule. They are independant nations, politically and economically.

Wanker,
Wrong
and corrected himself all in one easy sentence!

OK. So that is supposed to make me think it’s a good thing to actively recuuit foreigners from third-world nations and send them into battle ahead of British citizens in groups?
because we are all aware of the great pay deal cubans were given when they went back to the bay of pigs, the length of time they and there officers were trained for and how many White american citizens were stood beside them at teh bay of pigs. Incidentally the RGR have existed under some guise or another for nearly as long as your nation. Do the Battlions of the Bay of Pigs still exist, or have they been swept under the carpet?

Learn to admit it when you have made an error. It is one of the marks of manhood. Let’s hope your understanding of things outside the British military improves. BTW, let’s hope you aren’t using one of these:

http://www.not5150.com/movies/linkster.php?LID=361&URL=http://www.not5150.com/movies/cool/new19/sa80_machinegun_wmv.zip
a Swedish soldier got a stoppage on an SA80, not the A2, he failed to forward assist from what I can work out and “hit” the magazine into place instead of rocking it, I cant see waht his problem is, a soldier without full training on the weapon had failed to seat the mag correctly and hitting it caused the top round to misfeed! FUCK OFF

Reiver is Gen. Sandworm
so what, even if he is you getting your bellend in your flies isnt going to stop him thinking youre a nob.

He became totally paranoid about bacteria and allergens. I have heard, but don’t know if it’s true, that he died of tuberculosis partly because he became a recluse and lived in a filthy room
about howard hughes, but I have a funny image in my head!

Mustang was the fastest aircraft in WWII

  • sorry chaps the Spitfire didnt get a mention, not a whisker. And of course the only good mustang was one that he Garry’d

[quote]There has not been one machine that ever came from Russia prior to 1965-70 that could be considered anything less than crap with the exception of tanks.
Forgetting the first artificial satellite in space sputnik of course in 1957. 2nd place hurts in space race doesnt it![/quote]
interestingly why the 65-70 cant you just say 70, or are you being vague on purpose - one other thing MIGS MIGS MIGS MIGS MIGS KOREA

The americans built spitfires

The Spitfire was a very good plane, but it was not terribly reliable; one of the most important criteria for judging the worth of anything mechanical. In fact, it was the US that constantly supplied the Brits with American made parts for their planes. Not only because German bombing slowed production, or because the planes were used so heavily and stressed, but more because the plane was simply not terribly reliable. As many Spitfires sat on fields awaiting parts as were in the air. The reliability problem was so great that british pilots constantly cursed the plane they loved so much. The British are very industrious, hearty, and stalwort, and when one factory was bombed, another popped up almost over night
. Sorry is he forgetting that when his mustanges turned up the luftwaffe were on their knees and confined to European shores? how many sorties did our boys fly, would the Mustang have taken that stress? we dont know? but to claim that the mustang was “more reliable” when it never faced the same workload is obtuse.
factories dont “pop up” too many saturday afternoon matinees (well in the UK) the war was hard not a case of toodle pip jolly ho what, jsut cos you turned up for tea and scones at the end when the ruskies had beaten seven shades of shite out of the oppostion.

Dude, the war started in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. The US declared war on Japan in December of 1941. Germany surrendered on may 7th 1945 and japan surrendered on August 14th 1945. It was a whole year before even half of Europe was involved in the war. The US was involved "properly(?) for most of the war.

Let’s recap, shall we? The war started in 1939, US entered in 1941, it ended late 1945. What was that about the US getting “properly” involved half way through the war?
You minced about in the pacific for quite a while before getting to the D-Day beaches in 44! when the counter offensive began in full. I am not forgetting north africa or italy or sicily but that is most likely what he meant.

My father faught in the bloodiest battle in the history of modern warfare trying to free people from oppression, and when we talk about it, he becomes humble. I can almost see the muzzle blast of 105mm guns and submachineguns and exploding grenades and flying body parts in his eyes as he looks out of the window.
Full respect to your father for fighting, you didnt, dont try and gain sympathy or credibility by pulling on his war record. Secondly dont patronise your father with shit like that. If he fought he fought, he doesnt need you telling people about hte 1,000 yard stare to make yourself or your country look better we are aware of his sacrifices and bringing them up here is crass.

you have a tainted, libertarian, slanted understanding of WWII and the tools therof which is based on PC games

We Americans understand quite well what is going on in the world. We are well aware of the jealousy and hatred that is mindlessly passed around in other countries infecting the minds of the youth and which results in misguided people like you who try to inject insults about America into your seemingly benign comments
Im torn between telling him to take some pills and stop listening to the voices or slapping him and saying
“WONDER WHY?”

LOL So now America has never won a war on their own eh. Yes we have my misguided lurch. Against Spain and Mexico seperately a hundred years ago and twice in Iraq. and before you strt in, no, insurgents don’t qualify as an army
We werent in IRAQ on either occasion, shit!!! Chris Ryan’s marketting men missed a trick here!

As it were, the vast majority of the fighting was done by the US army, as has been the case with every war the US has been involved in. So your insults about the US can’t win a war without help is just more of your insulting crap. The war had already been won from the air by US air forces before a single soldier stepped into Iraq
thats right guys yet again the US is winning wars with airpower, the fabled myth of modern warfare, wars are fought at sea and in the sky, but won on the ground. Colin Mcinnes Phd
(Professor Colin McInnes specialises in strategic studies and in health and international relations. He was formerly a Lecturer at The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Visiting Research Fellow at the Centre for Defence Studies, University of London and a Special Adviser to the House of Commons Defence Committee. He was appointed to a Defence Lectureship at Aberystwyth in 1986, from where he was awarded both his first degree and his PhD. )

http://www.aber.ac.uk/interpol/staff/index.html Just had lunch with him! STFU

We won the war by devestating the enemy on the ground from the air in 6 weeks before we sent a single man in. All the soldiers and tanks did was finish them off and secure the land. When the soldiers did roll in, they fought a few skirmishes with tanks and small arms and looked around at all of the devestation caused by the American air forces
he is right that is what the Yanks did, the rest of us fought a war, heard a sstory about some scuds and road watch patrols but that was probably a lie made up by the Brits to make themselves sound better

For that matter, the US didn’t even come close to throwing all it had into WWII.
evidently, otherwise the debt the US is still in would be even larger, are you awware the US has the worlds largest credit debt!

Oh, so now you say that the only reason America pilots shot down any German planes is because the German pilots were “kids”? I suppose all the Japanes pilots the US downed between 1941 and 1945 were kids too. LMAO Where are your “brains”?
average age of a kamikaze pilot was 22, not sure if this is what you meant? the Aircraft in the Japanses navy were only converted to carrier duty shortly before the war, hence at most they had five years of training in a discipline that had no teachers!

#11

Never seen inside either of them, have you? Just like you’ve never seen inside an M1 carbine or Garand, eh?

The BAR could also fire tracer, armour piercing, and incendiary rounds, which were unsuitable in the Bren because of it’s curved magazine.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

#12

It’s my opinion than when soldiers used an M1 Carbine as support personel and are carrying the plate for a mortar, the M1 Carbine is a defensive rifle.

#13

You guys have been getting away with murder in this forum haven’t you.

Last edited by IRONMAN on Sat Apr 23, 2005 3:32 am; edited 10 times in total

in reference to a U-571 / U505 refernce in which it appears he was correct, though he did edit ten times!!!

#14

But then, French is a strange, unique Celtic language.

LMAO :lol:

#15

Perhaps the Gurkas are better than the regular British Army, but don’t compare them to the US Marine Corps, who have the highest battle effectiveness of any fighting force in the world, and are the only military force in the world that has an average kill ratio of 10 to 1. No other force has ever acheived that consistently, certainly not Gurkas.

Don’t think this even needs a comment. From the German Weapons In Korean thread (not sure why Gurkhas got involved though)

#16

Nobody said you can’t shoot at something 600m away you dingbat. But they have failed to prove that the doctrine of the military for section fire with AR’s is up to 600m, which they claimed. Claims, claims, claims. Just mouth.

Yea, he posted it. Here it is. It states 300m to 500m. The 600m part is in your head. :lol:

“The secondary mission of the SDM is to engage key targets from 300 to 500 meters with effective, well-aimed fires using the standard weapon system and standard ammunition. He may or may not be equipped with an optic. The SDM must, therefore, possess a thorough understanding and mastery of the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship as well as ballistics, elevation and windage hold-off, sight manipulation, and range estimation”

#17

You’ve already been told at least twice that’s an American document.

#18

Silly boy. You haven’t earned anything except your ability to prove how uninformed you are. Gimme the proof, get your $10,000!

“The secondary mission of the SDM is to engage key targets from 300 to 500 meters with effective, well-aimed fires using the standard weapon system and standard ammunition. He may or may not be equipped with an optic. The SDM must, therefore, possess a thorough understanding and mastery of the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship as well as ballistics, elevation and windage hold-off, sight manipulation, and range estimation”

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh? So you can’t prove afterall your absurd claim that section fire with AR’s is done at 600m! Figures. Next you’ll say section fire is done in fully auto with AR’s at 700m. :lol:

Then you’ll say we do section fire at 800m because we use an optic. :lol:

What absurd claim comes next? 3cm groups at 400m with an AR? :lol:

#19

did you ever show him the weapon’ ranges from that phamplet from HQ Land which explicitily states that the SA80’s range was 600m at section level?

Why doesn’t this demonstrate that section fire occurs (according to Doctrine) at 600m in the British Armed forces? :? ‘HQ Land’ is the British military Headquarters that issue phamplets on Land warfare tactics etc. etc.

That document you keep quoting is a US document which refers to the SDM-Squad Designated Marksman, who will be firing at 500m targets as an individual marksman.

#20

Jeez, will someone just scan the relevant part of PAM2 & e-mail it to the idiot?