Now you insult me by aluding that I ma pretending to have military experience? Shame on you, again.[/quote]
Ironman, I’m really trying hard to remain polite here, but where in that post do I allude to you in any way shape or form?
If you think that all my posts relate to you, that IS arrogant indeed.
There are more than 3:
- carbine length barrel
- rifled barrel
- rifle ammunition
- large capacity magazine
- selective fire
- shoulder weapon
The M1 Carbine fits all but the selective fire.
…[/quote]
:roll:
I am not nearly as interested in disproving your statrements as you are with mine. I have done plenty of it anyway.
Now you insult me by aluding that I ma pretending to have military experience? Shame on you, again.[/quote]
Ironman, I’m really trying hard to remain polite here, but where in that post do I allude to you in any way shape or form?
If you think that all my posts relate to you, that IS arrogant indeed.[/quote]
I’m trying to be polite as well. But then, I am not making snide insults under my breath. If I wanted to insult you, I would do it staight out.
I am not nearly as interested in disproving your statrements as you are with mine. I have done plenty of it anyway.[/quote]
No, you’ve stated it is wrong…that is NOT proof.
And again with the sending Gurkhas ahead of other troops?
Where DID you get this piece of drivel?
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?
Dude, it’s distasteful. Any way you slice it. [/quote]
Why? Being accepted into the British Army carries a great deal of cachet in Nepal, and we typically only accept a few percent of the applicants (note that we don’t actively recruit or need to - we merely make it known where selection events will be held).
Besides, given the level of involvement between the UK and Nepal, how is it different from the way in which US generals are currently sending British (Gurkha too) troops into battle in Iraq ahead of US troops in some areas? Does it somehow make it any more or less right that the British troops going into battle are generally white and rich?
Now you insult me by aluding that I ma pretending to have military experience? Shame on you, again.[/quote]
Ironman, I’m really trying hard to remain polite here, but where in that post do I allude to you in any way shape or form?
If you think that all my posts relate to you, that IS arrogant indeed.[/quote]
I’m trying to be polite as well. But then, I am not making snide insults under my breath. If I wanted to insult you, I would do it staight out.[/quote]
So now you presume to know my thoughts too?
But you’re not arrogant?
There are more than 3:
- carbine length barrel
- rifled barrel
- rifle ammunition
- large capacity magazine
- selective fire
- shoulder weapon
The M1 Carbine fits all but the selective fire. However, as I have said before, thse criteria did not exist during WWII. They are the result of modern weapons development. Even the Germans (who coined the term “Assault Rifle”) did not see the need to apply such criteria to the weapon. They simply decided what kind of rifle they needed to be competetive with the semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons of the enemy and designed a weapon that fit the bill. The criteria is of more recent designation. As time has passed the design of such weapons has improved and the standards have been refined.
Attempts to compare a weapon of WWII era design with one of recent design by using modern criteria as the standard is a flawed process. Thinking that a weapon must at least be as powerful as an MP44 to be considered an assault weapon is also flawed. If it were not flawed, then the M1 Garand would not be a rifle simply because the .308 bolt action exists. In the WWII era, those standards did not exist. Let’s not forget that the Avtomat was the first assault rifle in the world, and it used a full rifle cartridge!
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?
The answer to both of thiose questions is a resounding “Yes!”
In the WWII era, and M1 Carbine could without question be considered an assult rifle, for it fit the role quite well. was activley selected for that role and was used in such a role countless times.
If the basis for your thinking that it is not an assult rifle (regardless of the role for which it was designed) is that it could not fire automatic or that it’s round was weak by comparison or that it does not meet the modern standards for an assault rifle, then you have made an error.[/quote]
OK, if we’re going down the logic of “there was nothing to compare it to, therefore we’ll define it by use”, we can say that the Mauser C96 with shoulder stock, or the MP18, or even an SMLE was an “assault rifle” in the 1st world war, cos there was nothing to compare it with. They all fit the “role”, as you say.
2ndly - the Avtomat used 6.5mm Arisaka - a very weak rifle round indeed, chosen precisely for that reason (1940ft-lb) -it is not significantly greater than the .280 enfield cartridge which was specifically developed for the EM2 assault rifle (which generates about 1565ftlb), and was considered by the British to be the ideal assault rifle cartridge. It was rejected by NATO because the US wanted to use the same cartridge for support weapons as well, so we got foisted with 7.62mm. They both also fire 140gn bullets. The M1 carbine round, by contrast, develops only 965ft-lb. Compare this to “proper” rifle cartridges, .303 generates 2350ft-lb, .30M2 generates 2656ft-lb, and even to intermediate cartridges: 7.62x39 M1943 generates 1555 ft-lb, 7.92 Kurz generates 1400 ft-lb.
The .30 carbine cartridge is fairly unique. It is not a rifle cartridge, and not a pistol cartridge per se. It is really an elongated pistol bullet, and has no real counterpart in any other country, since only the US developed the concept of a light, semi-auto carbine to replace the pistol. It is in a class of its own. In terms of muzzle energy it rates in the top end of pistol ballistics, not the bottom end of rifle ballistics. Even .30-30, which is a very weak rifle round is developing 1394ft-lb minimum. I know you’ve mentioned the straight-case issue before, but find me a military rifle cartridge from the last 100 years that was straight cased. Military rifle cartridges are usually understood to be necked. Pistol cartridges can be either, but necked ones are rare (7.65 Para, .357 SIG, .44-40 for instance)
Here’s a very well-referenced piece concerning assault rifles, and at no point does it mention any definition by use. It’s also very well referenced:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
Some highlights:
First, I need to define what I mean by an “assault rifle”, as there are various definitions around. The one I use is:
"A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres".
—snip—
There was one rather odd American development not followed by any other country - the M1 Carbine. This was a light, semi-automatic rifle chambered for an intermediate, straight-cased 7.62x33 round. 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. The M2 version came with a full-auto option, and thereby comes close to our definition of an assault rifle, but the cartridge was rather weak and the light, blunt-nosed bullet lost its modest velocity too quickly.
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?
Dude, it’s distasteful. Any way you slice it. [/quote]
[/quote]
Where did you get that drivel from? Provide evidence that we send them in in front of british troops in groups, “Operation Stay Behind The Darkies” style.
They are trained the same as other light infantry
They are used the same as other light infantry
They didn’t even make contact with the enemy in a certain South-Atlantic punch-up we had in the 80s whereas the British troops did (thereby proving that we don’t send them in first)
Did any of the serving guys on TELIC see gurkahs in groups in front of the British troops?
It is considered an honour to serve in the Gurkhas, and the selection is fierce. Plus, all the ones I’ve met have been top blokes.
No doubt! It beats the crap out of being the “best sheep hearder in the valley”.
Look, I have told you beforew, it’s a distasteful, nay, shameful practice. I will not discuss it or visit this thread again. Post what you like. Your childish disdain for thinking outside the box, making insults and name calling, and inability to prove your claims that the M1 Carbine does not fit the role of a WWII era assault rifle, that jet engines 10 times the size of anoyther have about the same weight, etc. It’s all so absolutely childish.
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:
Please list at any point in the near future a list of URLs that explain you view that.
The Carbine is an Assault rifle.
I shall in the next 24 hours waste a great deal of time collating all of the URLs we have supplied verifying ours, this should prevent any calims of inadequate research.
Thankyou.
Present your evidence first, analysis will follow. but in the immeditate time frame please collate the sources that you have used so far.
No doubt! It beats the crap out of being the “best sheep hearder in the valley”.
Look, I have told you beforew, it’s a distasteful, nay, shameful practice. I will not discuss it or visit this thread again. Post what you like. Your childish disdain for thinking outside the box, making insults and name calling, and inability to prove your claims that the M1 Carbine does not fit the role of a WWII era assault rifle, that jet engines 10 times the size of anoyther have about the same weight, etc. It’s all so absolutely childish.
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:
Oh, don’t be such a kid. “thinking outside the box” my arrse, or are you of the generation where every opinion is equally valid, even when it’s objectively wrong? If I want to think that the Trabant’s a sports car, am I just “thinking outside the box” or am I being a tard?
You know sweet FA about the Gurkhas and I have no idea where you got the idea that we use them as cannon fodder - I actually find that attitude quite offensive. The British Army does not do that. Or is that just your “thinking outside the box” too?
“Time for bed”, said Zebedee 
No doubt! It beats the crap out of being the “best sheep hearder in the valley”.
Look, I have told you beforew, it’s a distasteful, nay, shameful practice. I will not discuss it or visit this thread again. Post what you like. Your childish disdain for thinking outside the box, making insults and name calling, and inability to prove your claims that the M1 Carbine does not fit the role of a WWII era assault rifle, that jet engines 10 times the size of anoyther have about the same weight, etc. It’s all so absolutely childish.
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:
Fortunately they arent using one os those, the British Military now use an A2 which is a tricked version of the one shown.
Incidentally the soldier recieving the stoppage was swedish and didnt execute his forward assit particularly well. neitehr did he rock the Magazine into postion he hit it. Any Officer Cadet could have recitifed those problems but the SA80 is not hte Swedish individual weapon so naturally he wouldnt know his drills on the weapon as well as a british solider. Unforuantely it is largely in games that every soldier is capable of operating every individual weapo nthat he comes across, flawlessly.
The subtle manner in which you ahve changed your posts has not gone un-noticed.
You did claim that no rifle ever under any army had ever been trained to fire at 600 becasue hte weapon wouldnt be accurate beyond 350.
You took this comment and created around it a further embellishment that the M1 Carbine was an asault rifle (MAKING NO REFERENCE TO ERA) because no rifle was accurate at that raneg.
this comment has now changed to,
“it was an assault rifle of the time” - This I personally have no view on, i am concerned that i might have been tought wrongly in my military training and therefore be risking my life should I be deployed to the sand pit, that is why I wish to clear up this issue, because you are more wise than any of my instructors and that does not only endanger me, but all those who have been taught by them.
Please define for me a carbine length barrel.
Britain does not “have” Commonwealth countries in 2005, but the Commonwealth still exists, and HM the Queen is still Head of State of rather substantial parts of it, as has been detailed elsewhere.
This is it in context and has a totaly different meaning from how you have said. Britain is a member of the Commonwealth.
ironman said
Just like the Queen is a figurehead only, and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have an “alliance” to the “Crown” which is a pleasantry only.
No she dissolved the Australian government in the 60s I think.
Inform me of one combat situation when the Gurkhas have been sent into battle on their own and in front of other troops.
Stoat, I gave him that reference some days ago but he said
ironman said
Well, your “expert” lost it right there when he said “comes close to our definition of an assault rifle, but the cartridge was rather weak and the light, blunt-nosed bullet lost its modest velocity too quickly” He’s completely thinking is a little wooden box.
Brick wall and head.
I gave that link to you on the Off topic foreign Troops forum, hours before you posted here.
There are thousands of Latino troops in the US Army/Marines that have no citizenship. Isnt that even more distasteful? Join the US military and you may be able to become a citizen?
I give up![/b]
Ive sent him the link to the swearing in ceremony about four times as well, its a .WMV file floating around on this site.
Unfortuantely you are horribly mistaken if you think supplying FRIONPAN with something so paltry as “evidence” is going to sway his opinion.
I have reached the conclusion that he just types the first thing that enters his head.
Now you insult me by aluding that I ma pretending to have military experience? Shame on you, again.[/quote]
Ironman, I’m really trying hard to remain polite here, but where in that post do I allude to you in any way shape or form?
If you think that all my posts relate to you, that IS arrogant indeed.[/quote]
I’m trying to be polite as well. But then, I am not making snide insults under my breath. If I wanted to insult you, I would do it staight out.[/quote]
ironman you are a cnut. I know for a fact that some of the guys on here are experienced british soldiers and actually know what they are talking about. You just sprout sh1te. You try to sound knowledgable by using technical terms but it’s mostly b*llocks.
I have been a soldier for over 12 years. They issue you with a rifle. You keep it clean. Once in a while you point it at the enemy and fire it.
Argueing about pedantic issues is neither big nor clever. Now go back to playing with your big plastic c*ck.
tat ta for now, toodle pip. chin chin. what ho. 
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.
I am sure that my family arguably has a historical claim on land that was stolen in an 18th century colonial revolt! :twisted: