I still think your doolaly tap
Obviously, the claim,
“Jet engines contain no components that could be called in any way a fan.”
…is more bullsiot.
Yea. The Germans came back to life and taught NASA how to design rockets 1000 times more complex and larger than a V2. Nobody has done anything to develop the rocket engine since WWII eh? :roll:
[quote=“IRONMAN”]
Get a clue kiddo.[/quote]
Ironman,
I think the red mist has blinded you.
Every single one of the above quotes which you have attributed to me were all made by 2nd of Foot, who is more than able to defend his own remarks.
By all means take issue with me regarding anything I may actually have said, but not with what others have posted.
[quote=“IRONMAN”]
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.[/quote]
Again, the top quote is by 2nd of foot.
Do you perhaps think this is yet another of my incarnations?
After all, you already think I’m General Sandworm.
Perhaps I’m the only other person here, posting with multiple names?
Now, let’s see if you can find one single post of mine where I called you a nasty name, shall we?
As for being a kid, I’m your senior by some years, so play nice sonny.
You obviously have no clue as to the term “front line troops” when used in a military sense, unless you consider your own Marine Corps to be cannon fodder and human shields?
Perhaps you might clarify that with your father.
At least we finally got you to admit the Commonwealth exists. :roll:
(edited for spelling errors)
I’m not surprised. I’m just firing my M1 Carbine at the closest Chinese soldier running at me. It can get confusing under those circumstances.
But if I have made the error of quoting you instead of one of the others tossing grenades in my direction, feel free to disregard my .30 round.
A jet engine 10x or 2x the size of another is more than 10% less efficient because of the greatly increased mass.
IRONMAN, you are not too bright, being twice the size need not affevt mass at all. size relates to volume not mass.
fat people sink = fat people sat in life rafts dont - the life raft is alot bigger (in terms of volume) than the man sat in it, maybe even 10X but it isnt (10X) heavier than the man.
I have sent him a list of PMC’s operating in Iraq elswhere. It appears that because PMC’s are have-a-go-heroes, and not militarily trained (according to IRONMAN) then it is ok for the US Government to deploy them to the worlds hotspots. Whereas the Gurkhas recievev the same training as any other infantryman and consequently are soldiers before anything else. On the same “real” wages as any other soldier.
Glad to see that you have read John Parker. a shame you read the internet version rather than the actual paperback, but we can work you onto the proper adult books once you top chewing crayolas. Surely you will have read of the poverty in Nepal and consequently you understand that the issue of Pensions is rather serious for them.
you have two options regarding how you want to sit on your moral High horse. You can either say
Gurkhas only join the British Army to escape their poverty.
or you can say
The British army doesnt pay them enough to escape their poverty.
I believe you will find that this is a catch 22.
:lol:
You can’t even fabricate a good lie.
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.”
http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/engines101.php
Obviously, the claim,
“Jet engines contain no components that could be called in any way a fan.”
…is more bullsiot.[/quote]
That’s a TURBOFAN jet, not a turbojet, which is what we were talking about at the time. Turbofans were developped well after the end of WW2. Context, boy, context - I know you like to change it a lot, but some of us like to stick to it a little more rigorously.
No shiot Sherlock. And a turbofan engine is a type of jet engine.
We’ve already done this, but if you are too thick to remember, here’s proof that all jet engines, turbojets included, contain components that are commonly referred to as fans.
Obviously, the claim,
“Jet engines contain no components that could be called in any way a fan.”
…is false.
“Modern turbojet engines are modular in concept and design. The central power-producing core, common to all jet engines, is called the gas generator (described above). To it are attached peripheral modules such as propeller reduction gearsets (turboprop/turboshaft), ypass fans, and afterburners. The kind of peripheral fitted is dependent on the aircraft design application.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/jet-engine
The most common type of jet engine is the turbojet engine. Air from the atmosphere enters the fan section at the front of the engine where it is compressed in the compressor section."
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Jet_Engines/DI88.htm
Turbojet Thriust (NASA)
“We have shown here a tube-shaped inlet, like one you would see on an airliner. But inlets come in many shapes and sizes depending on the aircraft’s mission. At the rear of the inlet, the air enters the compressor. The compressor acts like many rows of airfoils, with each row producing a small jump in pressure. A compressor is like an electric fan and we have to supply energy to turn the compressor.”
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/turbth.html
“The earliest attempts at jet engines were hybrid designs in which an external power source supplied the compression. In this system (called a thermojet by Secondo Campini) the air is first compressed by a fan driven by a conventional piston engine,”
http://www.biography.ms/Jet_engine.html
Turbojet
“On its way out the nozzle, some of the gas pressure is used to drive a turbine. A turbine is a series of rotors or fans connected to a single shaft.”
http://www.keveney.com/jets.html
Turbojet Engine (NASA)
Student Sheet(s)
Background Information
Most modern passenger and military aircraft are powered by gas turbine engines, which are also called jet engines. The first and simplest type of gas turbine is the turbojet.
Large amounts of surrounding air are continuously brought into the engine inlet or intake. At the rear of the inlet, the air enters the compressor. The compressor acts like many rows of airfoils, with each row producing a small jump in pressure. A compressor is like an electric fan.
http://www.nasaexplores.com/show_912_student_sh.php?id=03010390159
“In 1936, a year before his turbojet ran successfully, Whittle applied for a patent for a turbofan, or bypass, engine,”
http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/flight03/jetsfans/jetsfans.html
"Modern turbojet engines are modular in concept and design. The central power-producing core, common to all jet engines, is called the gas generator (described above). To it are attached peripheral modules such as propeller reduction gearsets (turboprop/turboshaft), bypass fans, and afterburners. "
http://www.algebra.com/algebra/about/history/Jet-engine.wikipedia
"A variant of the pure ramjet is the ‘combined cycle’ engine, intended to overcome the limitations of the pure ramjet. An example of this is the Air Turbo Ramjet (ATR) which operates as a conventional turbojet at subsonic speeds and a fan assisted ramjet at speeds below Mach 6.
The ATREX engine developed in Japan is an experimental implementation of this concept. It uses liquid hydrogen fuel in a fairly exotic single-fan arrangement."
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/R/Ra/Ramjet.htm
General Electric - Engine Vocabulary
“The compressor is the first component in the core of the engine. It is made up of a series of fans with many blades and is attached to the shaft.”
Core: The core engine module is aft of the fan module and forward of the turbine stator case and is made up of three components:"
[quote=“IRONMAN”]
No shiot Sherlock. And a turbofan engine is a type of jet engine.
Obviously, the claim,
“Jet engines contain no components that could be called in any way a fan.”
…is more bullsiot.[/quote]
It was in the context of a discussion about TURBOJETS. Jets in the 2nd world war were all turbojets. This is a WW2 forum, and we were discussing WW2 jets, therefore using the terminology of the time we were talking about TURBOJETS.
DoubleDork,
Again, you can rationalize it anyway you like. I have explained that Americans find the practice distasteful. You can stop trying to prove to me that it isn’t. You can stop bringing it up as well. Then you won’t find yourself trying to defend the practice.[/quote]
No, YOU find the practice distasteful. Big difference there Kiddo. You are not the whole US.
I’ll repost my post here so you can answer all the questions you ignored:
Gurkhas are still (as you well know) part of the British Army (I’m on a course with one now, I asked him how he felt about your posts, I think I’d be banned if I put all the insults he came out with for you here)
If the Gurkhas are, as you say, so badly treated (and I personally disagree with their pensions being lower than ours and there is an active campaign to sort it out), why does this one (and I suspect, most of his comrades) feel that you are such a twat? (his words)
Morale is (as anyone who’s ever actually done it for real) extremely important during battle. Morale took the outnumbered, inferior equipped British to victory in 1982, morale kept the Glorious Glosters in place until they were wiped out at the Imjin in 1952(ish), morale made Russians forget the fact that they were suffering loss ratios of 10:1 and defeat the Whermacht in 1945. Morale meant that a bunch of Vietnamese farmers on bikes with home made machine guns could take on and beat two superpowers in 30 years.
No comeback for this then? You seem to make a habit out of making outlandish claims that you can’t back up and then ignoring the people who put you right.
Can’t understand why anyone would rather have Yank behind him than a Brit, unless they wanted to steal his kit?
See above
The rationale for “using” Gurkhas is that they are fucking amazing troops more than willing to die for their adopted country, and with proven bravery and skill in battle. What’s America’s excuse for using Haitan immigrants?
Any answer yet? Bearing in mind I met US soldiers in Iraq that could barely speak English.
The Gurkhas aren’t secular, they are generally Hindu or Buddhist
Not seen you call them secular again yet. Well done.
Why would we care what Yanks think anyway? When we start asking you lot for the best way to fight a war is the day I sign off from this man’s Army.
Any thoughts?
purely because this forum has fallen apart, and I cant work out which posts are related to what, I thought Id stick this in here.
It is the Blog of a PMC worker in IRAQ at present, interesting reading Im ssure you will agree. Fighting for the coalition of the willing without state legitimiacy. and actually on a different pay scale to the privates of similair rank. technically of equatable status to Mercenaries.
I can understand that. I would say that the Gurkhas are, as themselves, anything but cannon fodder. It seems that they are a bunch of seriously badass soldiers. However, if they are used in the hopes that they are going to die instead of a British national, then what could they be besides cannon fodder?
The Marines are not an ethnically aligned group. The USMC includes persons of every race and ethnicity as can be found in the US. In fact, something that is rather a problem for the US, is that we have the need to insure such a thing does not happen, else liberal organizations such as the AFLCIO, NAACP, United States Equal Oportunity Employment Commision (a US Government agency) or the Human Defamation League jump our asses for doing exactly what the British do with the Gurkhas.
You see, in America, that kind of thing won’t wash. In Britain, appearently it does. We in the US are burdened by and dedicated to the idea of making sure that whatever we do in the corporate world, and in our military, does not resemble precicely what the British government does by sending Gurkhas into battel as a group, or ahead of caucasian Brits. It cannot happen here. The United States has become dedicated to human civil liberties, and that disqualifies practices such as the one in question from being acceptable in the US.
No doubt there is honor in being a British Special Forces memnber. What I find dishonerable, as any American would, is the idea of selling that Honor to people of a poor country as a way of bettering themselves, only to be the 1st into battle, as an ethnically aligned group of soldiers. I don’t think any American, from my 43 years of living in my country, would find such a practice paletable.
Imagine if the US were to use people who were all black, or all Muslim, or all Semitic, or all Caucasian (then other ethnic groups would scream, “You are excluding us purposely!”) as a fighting force, even if they were not sent into battle as 1st installments, and even if they were not American citizens, there would be a huge uproar. In fact, it could not happen to begin with. Such practices cannot happen in the US, and Americans find such practices to be completely unacceptable.
I hope that helps you understand.
See my previous post for proof you are incorrect again. You posted so fast that you did not get the opportunity to read your humiliating proof. 
does not resemble precicely what the British government does by sending Gurkhas into battel as a group, or ahead of caucasian Brits.
There you go - you’ve claimed it AGAIN.
You’ve already aknowledged that the chickensh*t practice takes place. You would not be allowed into the US military. You would not pass the mental exam.
[quote=“IRONMAN”]
You’ve already aknowledged that the chickensh*t practice takes place. You would not be allowed into the US military. You would not pass the mental exam.[/quote]
Where? Quote one of us who said it (Not Erwin, he’s not one of us)
[quote=“IRONMAN”]
You’ve already aknowledged that the chickensh*t practice takes place. You would not be allowed into the US military. You would not pass the mental exam.[/quote]
No one has ever said this apart from you, you retard! Some Gurkhas are front line troops as are some “caucasian Brits” some are support troops such as engineers, signals, logistics etc. There is even a Gurkha band.
How does this equate to being sent ahead of other troops as cannon fodder?
Simple answer, it doesn’t.
You’ve already aknowledged that the chickensh*t practice takes place. You would not be allowed into the US military. You would not pass the mental exam.[/quote]
No one has ever said this apart from you, you retard! Some Gurkhas are front line troops as are some “caucasian Brits” some are support troops such as engineers, signals, logistics etc. There is even a Gurkha band.
How does this equate to being sent ahead of other troops as cannon fodder?
Simple answer, it doesn’t.[/quote]
We’ve already proven it. The information about it is in great abundance. So you can suck on it kiddo. It’s a chickensht practice, for chickensht soldiers.
Still waiting for answers to all of them.
We’ve already proven it. The information about it is in great abundance. So you can suck on it kiddo. It’s a chickensht practice, for chickensht soldiers
Wonder why the Yanks always want such cowards to win their wars for them? You’re a dick
can we stick on topics?
thanks