German weapons in korean war?

Other Wars Korean War
#81

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.

FANTASTIC!!!

Now, I’m not Yank bashing by any means, but if I had £5 for every slightly sad American I have met who:

1)Believes they are Scottish or Irish
2)Refers to Scotland or Ireland as the “Old country” :lol:
3)Dislikes the English because of what we may or may not have done to the Scots and the Irish 500 years ago.
4)Claims to be heir to something grand in Scotland

I wouldn’t have a mortgage!

I would like to give a special mention to the self claimed “Irish” cavalryman from Texas I met in a bar in Nijmegen at the marches. I think his family emigrated in about 1820, he thought Dublin and Belfast were the same place ( :? ) and when I got him a Guiness he screamed

“God damn, what is this shit?” :lol:

Do these ‘old world’ fantasists attract as much derision in the US as they do when they come here to buy tartan tea towels and shortbread?

#82

On the subject of “stolen land” Who else couldnt help but laugh when the US went to liberate the “ethnically oppressed” in Kosovo

A US Pilot was actually quoted as sayin

“Ethnic Oppresion is wrong, the US does not support it and that is what we bought these apaches for” - pointing to the Apache attack heicopter behind him

I think I pissed myself laughing but had too many tears in my eyes to recall quite what else he said.

#83

THis is not what you said earlier.
You actually stated these were the Criteria for an assault rifle.

The M1 Carbine met these requirements, and became available to serviemen in 1942, two years before the MP44, and was the world’s first assult rifle.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=hair+tonic&start=30

This does not mean the M1 Carbine was ever classified as an assult weapon, but what is an assult weapon? It is a short, large capacity, fast reloading, fast firing weapon. Because one rifle is not auto and another is, or because one weapon was not deigned to be and is not called an “assult rifle” another weapon is auto and called an assult rifle, is neither here nor there to me. 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”

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. But when it is used in city fighting at 0-200 yards to kill the enemy in the streets it is an assult rifle.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210
Both of these comments refuse to reference outside sources, in fact the only part that provides evidence for why they should be assault weapons is your opinion, do you concur whether they are assault weapons has nothing to do with “opinion” and everything to do with criteria, Critieria that the M1 Carbine fails to fulfill.

ARE YOU WRONG? - OR - HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR STANCE AS A RESULT OF US PROVIDING EVIDENCE?

If you have changed your stance it would suggest we have educated you,
If we have educated you it would appear we hve more knowledge than you on the matter therefore; Please apologise and retract your earlier comments.

Finally because you may not want to answer all of the above please answer YES or NO to this question, the question you ahve so far refused to answer 7 times.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210

an assult rifle is pretty worthless at 600m and soldiers are not going to shoot together at men 600m away with them.

VS

That is true Mr. Schätzer, it is a light rifle, and as such, it did not shoot pistol ammunition. Albiet a weak rifle, but effective at it’s maximum effective range, as are all weapons. It may not be effective at 600m, like a standard or sniper rifle, but it was a dandy little weapon.

does this quote mean that a standard rifle is effective at 600 metres unlike the M1 carbine, IRONMAN?

Does this mean a Carbine is different to a standard rifle?

Please answer the lower question!

#84

[/quote]

Well, that’s your opinion, but it’s not correct, otherwise any rifle used in an assault is an assault rifle.

Aside from the Avtomat, of which no real notice was taken, the concept itself did not exist until the MP43.

This guy is right, you are wrong:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

His definition is quite concise and good, and I agree with it in principle:

“A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres”.

This definition counts out the M2 carbine, even.

And one of your other things - assault rifles do not fire rifle ammunition as it is commonly understood (and, no, the common understanding of what constitutes “rifle ammunition” is not simply what is designed to be fired out of a rifle, otherwise things like .44/40, .22rf, .45LC and other general purpose cartridges - “rifle ammunition” is taken as meaning “full-power rifle ammunition”, the bottom end-point of which is subjective), they fire intermediate ammunition.

If you want to define by intended use, an assault rifle is intended to replace the Rifle and SMG, the M1 carbine was intended to replace the Pistol.

In any case, it’s you against most of the rest of the world, ironman - you’ve not managed to post a single link to back yourself up, and any that you do manage to find will be written by call of duty walts. I’ll post some lovely quotes from reputable sources in the bespoke M1 carbine thread.

#85

FRIONPAN, I am tired of coming back to check you havent spouted shit again,

Can you please assure me that you will never again sully this forum under the name ironman?

tell me that you will stop posting and I can get back to important things like revision masturbation and drinking, but please agree you are beaten and not going to retaliate!

#86

WTF. IRONMAN i have avoided to talking to you because there are alreadly plenty of people talking to you. I sent you a PM the reiver sent me. Gen. Sandworm and reiver are not the same person. I honestly dont know what to say…your just a crazy old man.

#87

what does it matter if you are reiver?
IRONINGMAN is still a walt, and you are still a Mod!

#88

…and there is at least one here who pretends to be as well, but that is neither here nor there, as if being in the military would somehow make his brain bigger.

…and some of them have proven over and over that they don’t know there’s a difference in mass between one machine and another 10 times it’s size, and have other such inexplicable shortcomings of common sence.

Now now. Don’t talk like a schoolboy. You’re becoming another Bluffcove.

WOW. You automatically know everything because of that! You’re a freaking God!

I’d rather debate than rant from my subconcious predisposition. When someone has nothing to say or add other than obscene ranting, you know you’ve hit the intellectual jackpot. Obviously, need to be at:

http://www.pornskullcockneyfatherlessschoolboybabbles.org

Toodaloo!

#89

For your better understanding, I never brought up the Gurkas in the first place. All I did was react to it with a marginally expressed distaste for the practice. All of this insulting and attempting to prove it’s a good thing is done on your behalf. I never ranted about it. But since you are ranting at me, even vulgarly (some of you Brits), I am responding to that as well.

Well, maybe if I were British I’d think the way you do. Here in the US, the thought of sending a group of nationally-foreign or secular people into battle would be considered a hideous infraction of cultural indecency. The US has culturally outgrown such practices. Nobody in the US would approve of sending to war a platoon or regiment of Gurkas or any other singular group of soldiers. The idea or recuiting people for such a purpose would be considered just as distasteful. Such an act would cause turmoil, and if they were Americans of a single race or foreigh nationality, there would be legal actions and possibly rioting.

How do I explain to a British person what it means to be an American?

#90

Well, there you have it.

However, the US is not sending in Gurkas. Britain is providing them. Britain selects it’s own soldiers. The US is not responsible for Britain’s policies. Now don’t try to imply such a thing. Did you think that was going to wash?

#91

No. See my other post in which I explain exactly why it is not even in the same galaxy.

#92

No. See my other post in which I explain exactly why it is not even in the same galaxy.[/quote]

Because it’s America and you’re a dick?

Will you get this through your friggin skull - the Gurkhas join the British Army under their own free will. They are not mercenaries - under UK law or international law. They are issued exactly the same uniform and kit as any other soldier doing the same job in the British Army (apart from a ceremonial Kukri, which I believe they are still issued at the end of Basic Training - but someone else could put me straight on that). They do exactly the same job as any other light infantry battalion in the British Army - they are not sent out before “British” soldiers. Stop banging on about a dead subject, the Gurkhas were serving Queen and country when you lot were still commiting genocide with the Red Indians.

You have continually argued with your betters on subjects you clearly have no fucking clue about, despite the fact that there is over 50 years (at a rough guess) of military experience telling you that your reference book (the instructions for Call of Duty from what I can see, a decent game but hardly as authorative as British Army Infantry Training Pamphlets) is wrong.

I am almost certain you live in your parents spare room and your name is almost certainly Lance or, possibly, Randy. You are ginger and you smell like a badger’s armpit. Tosser.

#93

I’m sure that you are incorrect. Do you mean the lands of North America which were stolen by the British from the Spanish through war, who had stolen the lands from native Americans over a century before, and which eventually came to be owned by the free people who had settled here over a period of 2 centuries from several nations while other countries were busy waging war over them? Are they teaching school kids in Britain that lands of North America once actually belonged to Britain?

#94

:lol: Typical

#95

What a real historian you are. Not until 1943 eh? :lol:

So rifles designed specifically for heavy firing assaults were not ARs unless they came after the Germans coined the term “assualt rifle” to describe the assualt concept battle rifle that they made using the concepts that were published and weapons that were made by others decades before? And not until they realized by fighting the superior semi/fully auto weapons of Russia and the US in WWII that they needed an assault capable rifle like their enemies had, and decided to re-examine the assault concept battle rifle which had been explored, tested, and published decades before? :lol:

Yea. The Germans invented the assualt rifle eh? Uh huh. Gosh. I love how you seem to know more that the world’s historians and every single source on the subject. :roll:

Hint: Germany did not invent the assault rifle. The concept existed for decades before the Germans realized it was time to keep up with the Jones, near the end of WWII, after getting their asses kicked and their MG positions overrun by assualts with assualt capable weapons (unlike the German army’s bolt action rifles).

Mr. Historian errs again.

#96

No. See my other post in which I explain exactly why it is not even in the same galaxy.[/quote]

Because it’s America and you’re a dick?

Will you get this through your friggin skull - the Gurkhas join the British Army under their own free will.[/quote]

We know they join. But they are recuited in their homeland aren’t they? Even if they weren’t, and regardless of how they get in or what prompts them to join, the practice is, in the opinion of Americans, distasteful and an infraction of social decency. Explain it all you like. I have explained why Americans will never find the practice paletable. You must understand that all the reasoning in the world cannot and will not change that the practice occurs or how others might feel about it.

You must also understand that calling someone a penis does not make you a big man. It has only the potential to create or reinforce a bad opinion of you.

#97

What difference does where they are recruited make? Do you have the same opinion of the rest of the Commonwealth soldiers who join the British Army? The history of Britain means that a lot of foreign soldiers are entitled to join the British Army (just as they have the right to hold a British passport) because of the Empire and the Commonwealth. Personally I’d rather have a few hundred Gurkhas next to me than 10,000 American soldiers.

The Royal Gurkha Rifles (and their offshoots in the Royal Corps of Signals, Royal Logistics Corps, Royal Engineers etc) are part of the British Army because when we relinquished control of the Indian army (which the RGR had been part of) some of the RGR Battalions were transferred to the British Army (Gurkhas also serve with the Indian Army and the Singapore Police I believe). Every year there are dozens of applicants for every place because it is such a status symbol to serve with the British Army, failed applicants are known to have killed themselves rather than return to their homes as failures.

So what do Americans find distasteful? The warrior ethos and the sense of service that makes the Gurkhas join up? The loyalty Britain shows it’s ex-Empire by allowing it’s citizens to join our army? The fact that overall, the Gurkhas are just better people than you? Is it more distasteful than offering citizenship for anyone who wants to join up (and let’s be honest, the Gurkhas are a million times better soldiers than a lot of the dross the Americans have in their forces at the minute)?

#98

Well…

Now remember, I did not bring it up. All of this hogwash is your doing because I simply agreed with the one who said they found it to be chickensh*t.

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.

#99

OK, ironpan, you have used an existing term and given it a different meaning, well fecking done. You have then based your arguments around this different meaning, which is different from all considered opinion on the subject, except your father. A stroke of genius! If I’ve learned anything from you, it’s that your definition is correct, and all the other definitions are wrong, according to you.

You should go into Law - “My client says that he had sexual relations with his accuser, but the term sexual relations in this case has a different meaning, cos I say so - they both had relations, all of whom were female or male, therefore were sexual relations” :lol:

#100

Well…
[/quote]

Would it be better to ask a potential Gurkha to pay thousands of pounds to fly to Britain for his selection (which there is a high chance of him failing), then have to travel thousands of miles back home, or set up a recruitment and selection centre in Nepal? The fact that they join in Nepal means nothing. Nepal has historic ties with Great Britain going back over a hundred years, they have stood by us in time of war (while certain other “friends” watched us get the shit kicked out of us and made a shit load of money on the side) and we would (I hope) stand by them in time of trouble.

Tell a Gurkha you think that the whole ethos and tradition of his Regiment is chickenshit and see how long you live. You have your opinion, I have mine. Only one of us is right, and that’s the one that can spell “colour” :wink:

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.[/quote]

What was the German kill ratio against the Russians in WW2? A high kill ratio didn’t help the Marines in Vietnam. Kill ratios don’t win wars. Highly trained, highly skilled deicated soldiers win wars. We have them. Our Army is probably the best trained army in the world, bar none. We have the best infantry in the world, of which the Gurkhas are a small but highly respected part. I’d rather be behind a battalion of Gurkhas than a battalion of US Marines. I’ve yet to see a Gurkha machine gun a car full of women and children because it didn’t stop at a checkpoint though.

edit - who decides on the kill ratio anyway? Is there an umpire that comes out at the end of every contact to count the scores? Overclaiming of scores is a well known phenomena in air to air fighting (see the German and RAF claims for the Battle of Britain), so how do we know that the Marines have this 10:1 “score”?