Im not implying that the performance was poor. Just saying that it was not enough. The Chinese drove the American back with superior numbers.
And a catchy gif if i must say so myself. :D[/quote]
BTW, it was not an “American force” so to speak - 20,000 UN + 7,000 US). You are right, it was not enough. 220,000-240,000 attacked 27,000. That is a terrible balance of force.
And the M1 Garande is not a weapon I would chose if I had a choice in jungle or close range combat either. How “rubbish” would that be!
Wow, thanks for clearing that up - I never would have realised. :roll:
Patronising frotter.
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”! :roll: However, at it’s intended range, the cabine performed well.
As for the “taste of combat”. my father, who was on the front lines at Chosin and used both the Garand and the carbine at times, disagrees with that. When I asked him at lunch a few weeks ago what weapon would be ideal for the fight at Chosin, he said. “Well, the M1 (Garand) didn’t hold enough rounds for that fight. The carbine would be the better choice in that one. Most of the fighting was done at 100 to 200 yards.”
Make sure you quote me when I say the M1 Carbine is a great rifle for shooting at men at 350m, ok? We all want to see that one. Then you can shine like a beacon!
Do you stand by it being an Assault rifle,
And we all know what you said, has it taken you this entire week to redress all of your earlier posts?
What about needing telescopic eyes to engage targets at 600 metres or were you misquoted on that too.
You are a complete silly! (mods hope that is permitted) if it is can I call him a pretender an arrogant cock and a Walt at the same time?
My cable ISP has been having trouble with the cables in this area, and I’ve been off-line for a week, until today in fact.
Nothing useful to say so you feel the need to resort to insults eh? That’s pretty sad.
There are non-so blind as those who will not see. :roll:
Pile I give you 3 seconds exactly 3 'King seconds, or I will gouge out your eyeballs and FullScuck you 1,2,3 Arghhhhh
Do you suppose that would make you blind?
I would suspect so…
I have never been on a forum where so much rubbish has been written by one person, that being IRONMAN. His knowledge of firearms is minimal to say the least.
Just a guess but I assume IRONMAN is a Mall security guard, special SWAT ninja section (affiliated to US Navy SQUEAL’s and US Army BELTA Farce and SF Greenish Berets.)
Tinwalt’s still declined to make his claims on the Army forum - we’ve paraphrased them for him, though:
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?
:shock:
If you want to debate this properly, why don’t you accept the invitation to go over to arrse. There are enough professional soldiers from both the UK and the USA using that site that if we are wrong, I am sure someone will put us right. The fact that you haven’t tells me that you actually know that you are wrong. Why not just admit this and we can all move back to discussing WWII.
As for the claims about training from comic books, f*ck off. We are not the ones who quote from a game manual as fact!
And it is ASSAULT rifle, numbnuts.
A nice reply from gravelbelly on ARRSE, with regard to using the SA-80 (an assault rifle) at 600m:
A couple of years ago I was trying to sort out some quick zeroing for a unit shooting team; got the rifles sorted, then moved back to 600m on the AMS range to get the LSWs some confidence with the wind.
Decided to give the rifles a chance to try their hand at 600m, as a bit of interest. By way of a demo, fired a quick ten rounds with an unzeroed rifle; the first three to sight in and start hitting the target (isn’t AMS wonderful, it’s just like tracer) and then managed to put the next seven onto the fig.11
As a more realistic example of the average shooter, the team-members (all UOTC Officer Cadets with limited experience firing the L85) were reliably “suppressing” at 600m; most were hitting every couple of rounds at 600m.
So, yes, the rifle is accurate. If you’ve actually got the time and concentration to aim carefully. And you can actually identify or indicate a target 600m away. And the target is considerate enough not to move during the the quarter-second of reaction time between “deciding to fire” and “pulling the trigger”, or three-quarters of a second time of flight between your rifle going bnag and the bullet reaching the target…
Can be found here:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=17262/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=10.html
I would dispute the number of combatants involved in the Korea conflict, for nearer the true numbers see this:
This site give more detailed figures and units.
http://www.korean-war.com/
TROOP STRENGTHS
· Peak strength for the UNC was 932,964 on July 27, 1953 – the day the Armistice Agreement was signed:
· Republic of Korea 590,911
· Columbia 1,068
· United States 302,483
· Belgium 900
· United Kingdom 14,198
· South Africa 826
· Canada 6,146
· The Netherlands 819
· Turkey 5,453
· Luxembourg 44
· Australia 2,282
· Philippines 1,496
· New Zealand 1,385
· Thailand 1,204
· Ethiopia 1,271
· Greece 1,263
· France 1,119
And I have found this one very good.
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/history.htm
the links at the bottom are very good.
Very good link indeed, thanks for that, the bit on the Air Forces I found especially good.
We have already seen that the official British doctrine for section fire with assault rifles is for ranges between 300m and 500m, form the official publication of the British military that you provided.
We have already seen that the official British doctrine for section fire with assault rifles is for ranges between 300m and 500m, form the official publication of the British military that you provided.[/quote]
No, PAMS definitely states 600m for section fire.
Please don’t drag another thread into pointless bickering. Accept the fact that on this point, you are wrong.
We have already seen that the official British doctrine for section fire with assault rifles is for ranges between 300m and 500m, form the official publication of the British military that you provided.[/quote]
No, PAMS definitely states 600m for section fire.
Please don’t drag another thread into pointless bickering. Accept the fact that on this point, you are wrong.[/quote]
Indeed. Don’t drag this thread on with your absurd claims. You blundered, again. I had quoted you in one of my posts, and you couldn’t edit mine to change 500m to 600m like you did to all of your posts once you made the idiotic blunder of posting what it said. :lol:
Here’s what you posted from your PAMS before you edited all of your previous posts to say “600m”:
“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”
Now that one more of your absurd claims has been shot down, please don’t keep making them and filling the threads with your bullsh*t. You’d be a bigger man if you were only capable of admitting an error, instead of making a lie to support a previous one.