:lol: So now that the proof is in your steeming mug, you finally admit it, but only by trying to say, “Man, nobody said…”
Bullshiotte. Must I find the quotes form several of you? Have you conveinietly deleted those as you have others?
You would be a real man if you could admit you were wrong about something without trying to deny you ever made the claim in the first place. Unless you do that, you are simply a kiddo bullshiot spewer who cannot owe up to his absurd claims.
Be a man for crying out loud. Follow my example. I have made 2 or 3 and owed up to each of them. When you can do the same, without excuses, as I have, you will earn respect.
You are claiming that because the US supplied arms and training to Cubans exiles who intended to invade Cuba, that they were a part of the American military? I suppose Gurkas are just foreigners that go to war everywhere Britain does because they have the same beef with that nation as Britain? I suppose you think Cubans, Central Americans, and those of other nations are all Soviets because they USSR did the same.
Trained by you, fed by you, equipped by you, paid by you, in US uniform and should have been supported by you, but Kennedy changed the order at the last moment. Look like mercenaries to me.
I doubt the rest of the wolrd has much regard for the British using the Gurkhas as cannon fodder.
The Commonwealth includes Gurkhas.
Then you would know that Americans dislike the isea of anyone doing their fighting for them. Hence, the US Marine Corps are always the 1st in when America goes to war. We don’t train and arm poor third-world peoples to go in and take the heat for us.
And the nepalese government does not want Britain to equal the pensions? Do you need another cup of Shut the Fluck up?
Dingbat,
“The Gurkhas have been on the British frontlines since 1815.”
You do realize that the amount of information on this is piled high, don’t you? Stop trying to deny what the whole freaking world knows and have another cup.[/quote]
Firstly, sonny, stop the name calling. It isn’t polite.
Do you understand the concept of frontline troops?
Or do you think it means human shields?
The Nepalese Government actually doesn’t want the Gurkha pensions increased, since it would destabilise the economy, with retired Gurkhas having a greater income then doctors, among many others.
As for the Commonwealth, it does not now, nor did it ever include Nepal.
Nor did the British Empire, as I told you before.
AFAIK, the other problem is that when India became independent in 1947, the Gurkha regiments were divided up between the Indian Army and the British Army. The whole thing is being regulated by a treaty between the Nepalese governmemt, the British and the Indian government. AFAIK, in this treaty the British were explicitely forbidden to pay their Gurkha soldiers higher pensions than the Indian government could afford, the prevent all recruits trying to get into the British Army Gurkha regiments.
BTW, during WW2 the Gurkhas fought ALONGSIDE, not in front of similar British units, each being responsible for a certain sector.
Which means what? Do you refute my comments or am I right? Where they in he pay of the US government or not?
The development of PMCs is directly linked to a global trend whereupon some Governments are increasingly looking to out-source military tasks to private firms for various different reasons. Indeed a recent report prepared as part of the US National Defense Authorization Act revealed that the US Department of Defense employs 734,000 private-sector employees per annum compared with a civilian workforce of 700,000.[22] Of the 734,000 individuals sub-contracted by the US Government, the vast majority is employed to perform non-combat tasks such as the research and development of various defence systems. Nevertheless, a minority is engaged at the sharper end of US foreign policy. Indeed the decision taken by the Clinton administration to hire DynCorp, a US based company, to execute its unarmed Kosovo monitoring responsibilities illustrates the movement towards the privatisation of military activity. The reason for the American decision was twofold as Kevin O’Brien identifies. Firstly, the US Government did not believe it would be right to send highly trained yet unarmed personnel into a potentially dangerous situation and secondly, it ensured that US forces would not be exposed to a fragile security situation that was little understood or domestically supported.[23]
You’re lost kiddo. Those people are civilian employees and security company police. They are not soldiers sent into battle you complete dingbat. They do not go into battle, they do not fight with US soldiers, they are not sent into battle at all. They are “wannabe soldiers” with automatic weapons who babysite facilities while the US military is off in combat. You cannot even fabricate a good lie.
Get a clue.
Well, in light of the fact that you consistently call me names, some of which are pretty nasty, I’d say you are a stinking little snot-nose kid.
Obviously, Britain does, so the send in foreigners, sing the early 1800’s.
But then, we have established that.
Obviously, Britain does, so the send in foreigners, sing the early 1800’s.
But then, we have established that.
Oh. So they go outside the “commonwealth” only to third-world nations to recuit their cannon fodder. How thoughtful of them. What a lucky strike it was discovering the Gurkhas.
Ok, so we have established that the bullshiot claim made by several of your little British clan of name-calling-false-information-blatherers that the British do not use Gurkhas as cannon fodder when they go to war is untrue.
We have also established that:
The US independantly made developments in jet engine design during WWII.
The US made developments in jet technology before the end of WWII.
The US made developments in jet technology without using German example to help them do it.
Jet engines contain do have parts that can be referred to as fans (“compressor fans”).
A jet engine 10x or 2x the size of another is more than 10% less efficient because of the greatly increased mass.
A jet engine 10x or 2x the size of another does not weaight “about the same”.
The MP43 is not the world’s 1st assualt rifle.
The M1 Carbine can be considered an assualt rifle because of it’s
characteristics.
The M1 Carbine does not use pistolo ammo, but instead a unique rifle round designed specifically for it.
You cannot make out the leg of a man at 600m with the unaided eye.
“§ At 600 meters the body resembles a wedge shape.”
Section fire with AR’s is not done at 600m.
The US Marines acheived a 10-1 kill ratio at Chosin not because of the cold, but because it was a kill ratio.
The French people are over 60% Cetic, and therefroe may be considered Celtic people.
The US does not send groups of ethnically homogenous people into battle.
The US Navy did in fact capture an enigma machine in WWII, and the British were not the only ones to do it.
It is illegal to carry a loaded AR on the back seat of a motor vehicle in the US.
You cannot rent an SMG in Nevada USA and walk off the premesis with it.
The US did not send US military troops comprised of ethnic troops into battle at the Bay of Pigs.
The concept of the Assualt rifle did exist berore the MP43 (in fact, several decades before).
…and perhaps a dozen other things.
Now, if you little dudes would simply stop making false claims, all your troubles would end. Your little group of infectious lies has made countless false claims and spouted more bullsiot on this forum than anyone should be allowed to spout off in a lifetime. I have not seen a group of more misguided, lie spewing, indignant, US bashing-under-the-breath stingking forum jerkoffs in all my years. Almost every single freaking thing that comes from your mouths is utte crap, and it’s always proven flase. Your learning curve is way the freak out into space kiddos.
Do 2 things:
Chose your words carefully. Don’t spout shiot you can’t prove, and which intelligent, educated people know better than to believe.
Like a real man, own up to it when you get caught making a false claim.
That is your ticket to intellectual and spiritual redemption. It is the only way you will be free from the strife spending your free time trying to prove the bullshuiot you spout. Keep the bullsiot in the pubs and off the Net. The genberal public is not as gullible as your desire to fabricate facts is deep.
You’re lost kiddo. Those people are civilian employees and security company police. They are not soldiers sent into battle you complete dingbat. They do not go into battle, they do not fight with US soldiers, they are not sent into battle at all. They are “wannabe soldiers” with automatic weapons who babysite facilities while the US military is off in combat. You cannot even fabricate a good lie.
I will put it in bold so even you can read it. But you will not because it counters your argument, none of which you have proven.
PMC = PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES
The development of PMCs is directly linked to a global trend whereupon some Governments are increasingly looking to out-source military tasks to private firms for various different reasons. Indeed a recent report prepared as part of the US National Defense Authorization Act revealed that the US Department of Defense employs 734,000 private-sector employees per annum compared with a civilian workforce of 700,000.[22] Of the 734,000 individuals sub-contracted by the US Government, the vast majority is employed to perform non-combat tasks such as the research and development of various defence systems. Nevertheless, a minority is engaged at the sharper end of US foreign policy. Indeed the decision taken by the Clinton administration to hire DynCorp, a US based company, to execute its unarmed Kosovo monitoring responsibilities illustrates the movement towards the privatisation of military activity. The reason for the American decision was twofold as Kevin O’Brien identifies. Firstly, the US Government did not believe it would be right to send highly trained yet unarmed personnel into a potentially dangerous situation and secondly, it ensured that US forces would not be exposed to a fragile security situation that was little understood or domestically supported.[23]
Now, if you little dudes would simply stop making false claims, all your troubles would end. Your little group of infectious lies has made countless false claims and spouted more bullsiot on this forum than anyone should be allowed to spout off in a lifetime. I have not seen a group of more misguided, lie spewing, indignant, US bashing-under-the-breath stingking forum jerkoffs in all my years. Almost every single freaking thing that comes from your mouths is utte crap, and it’s always proven flase. Your learning curve is way the freak out into space kiddos.
An axial type gas turbine engine compressor stage consists of two components:
a rotor, which transmits a momentum to the gas and pushes it into a certain direction (accelerates it) and a stator, which
a) works as a diffuser, this means it converts speed of the gas into pressure
(Bernoulli´s principle) and
b) removes the swirl element and guides the gases into the correct direction to hit the next rotor stage at the right angle
The diffuser function is essential, but you don´t necessarely need the stator vanes for removing the swirl. A sufficiently long distance between the various rotor stages (without stators inbetween) would be sufficient, though very inefficient. As Pdf27 said, it would increase the length of the engine by about the factor 10, but it would just be empty space, so very little weight increase.
Since each stage of an axial compressor only allows a very small increase in pressure, only appr. the factor 1.5 per stage. Therefore jet engine use large numbers of compressor stages in series (about 15 to 20, depending on the engine).
The advantage of the axial compressor is that it can handle larger mass flows than the more simple centrifugal compressor, which can be calculated more easily and was prefered by the early jet engine designers.
A fan is a single stage of large diameter blades attached to the front end of the low pressure compressor and is driven by the low pressure turbine. It´s job is to shovel huge amounts of air into a bypass duct, which bypasses the turbine engine and propels the plane forward. Period. Don´t come with any other definitions, because they will just make you look like a fool.
Then, to increase the power of a jet engine you need to increase the mass flow it can handle, this means the amount of air it can accelarate and kick out of it´s back.
Basically this means that you increase the diameter of the engine.
This doesn´t mean that the weight increases linearily with the diameter increase, because most of the volume gained is … empty space.
Then, a bigger engine is usually more efficient, especially it is easier to control blade tip losses, this means the ratio of gases which slip through the gaps between the compressor and turbine blades and the engine casing.
Kevin O’Brien identifies. Firstly, the US Government did not believe it would be right to send highly trained yet unarmed personnel into a potentially dangerous situation and secondly, it ensured that US forces would not be exposed to a fragile security situation that was little understood or domestically supported
PMC = mercenaries read the link
I think this guy is doolaly tap.
:roll: :roll: :lol:
Dingbat, we already read it. In fact, I’ve read about it and watched about it on TV long before you posted that trash.
THOSE COMPANIES PROVIDE ARMED SECURITY GUARD SERVICES. They are not soldienrs, Dingbat. [/quote]
Does being this annoying come naturally to you or do you have to work at it?
You blatantly refuse to answer direct questions, you quote from one thread to counter a different topic in another thread, you lie constantly, you ignore any proof that doesn’t fit in with your twisted view of reality and you are always patronising and insulting.
National Aerospace Administration, US Government:
(you know, the guys who went to the moon?)
“All jet engines, which are often called, gas turbines, work on the principle that a tremendous thrust is required to drive the plane forward. The engine sucks air in at the front. The inlet and fan pull the air in.”
National Aerospace Administration, US Government:
(you know, the guys who went to the moon?)
“All jet engines, which are often called, gas turbines, work on the principle that a tremendous thrust is required to drive the plane forward. The engine sucks air in at the front. The inlet and fan pull the air in.”
“Jet engines contain no components that could be called in any way a fan.”
…is more bullsiot.[/quote]
Which is what Walther wrote. Look at YOUR diagrame.
A fan is a single stage of large diameter blades attached to the front end of the low pressure compressor and is driven by the low pressure turbine. It´s job is to shovel huge amounts of air into a bypass duct, which bypasses the turbine engine and propels the plane forward. Period.
I just explained what the fan does. To get some basic understanding about jet wengines I´d suggest you read the book “The Jet Engine” published by Rolls-Royce.
Jan
BTW, yes, NASA got to the moon… with rockets designed by Germans…
