Manzanar

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#41

I have no idea what you are saying? and all the statements in quotes are unreferenced this makes it difficult to comprehend your point of view.
especially this part;’

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"
<<<<where does that quote come from?

that didnt look like an answer to the question I posted, do not go off track answer yes or no to the question below.

Please answer this question, and then we will discuss evasion of questions.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210
Quote:

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?

as you have said, we dont want to get off track and boggd down in name calling or evasive tachniques, so answer yes or no do your two statements contradict one another or not.

I want a one word answer. they either contradict or they do not.

#42

One of the tragedies of Yalta was that by the time of the conference, in February '45, Rooselvelt was largely a spent force.
His health, both phyiscally and to some extent mentally had deteriorated dramatically in the preceeding period.
He was to die in the following April.
Churchill, although he found Stalin personally charming, was under no illusions as to Russia’s intentions with regard to firstly eastern, and later, potentially all of Europe.
Unfortunately, during the first plenary session at Yalta, Roosevelt made what was almost a throw-away comment to the effect that the “United States would take all reasonable steps to preserve peace, but not at the expense of keeping a large army in Europe, 3000 miles from home. That was why the American occupation was limited to two years.”
This statement, offering the prospect of an exhausted Britain being left to face Russia alone across a devastated Germany both weakened the Western hand in negotiations, and was the reason that Churchill pressed so hard for France to be given a zone of occupation, despite his lack of enthusiasm for De Gaulle.
His hope was to use France to help balance the future absence of the Americans.
Almost immediately after the signing of the Yalta agreement, and certainly before the end of the war , Russia was going back on the agreement reached over Poland.
On April 7th. Churchill received a note from Stalin reneging on the agreement to allow western observers into Warsaw to oversee the elections there.
He (Churchill) wrote immediately to Roosevelt urging a strong joint reaction, but Roosevelt wrote back; “I would minimise the general Soviet problem as much as possible, because these problems, in one form or another, seem to arise every day and most of them straighten out”.
Roosevelt died the day this message was transmitted.

Yalta allowed for the creation of the UN, joint tri-partite occupation of Germany,(4 including France), and was hoped by the two western signatories to provide for the freedom of, primarily, Poland, which Churchill rightly saw as a test case for Russian intentions.
Sadly, the concessions made to the Soviets led to the unintended consequence of two spheres of influence within Europe and the proxy wars which killed so many during the Cold War.

#43

Yup. Unintended and unforseen. It was an unfortunate sack the Soviets pulled over our heads.

The Yalta Agreement sure as hell didn’t create them. The Soviets did.

burp

Now I suppose you’d like to fill up this thread by tring to prove something that is untrue… again. Why not? It’s been done it so many times already. What’s one more?

#44

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210
Quote:
Quote:

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?

answer the question, or I have it on good authority that Reiver will block your posting privilages, we know you and reiver have fallen out, do you want to call his bluff?

#45

Thing is though Ironman, on the issues on there that I know about (some of those topics are way outside my sphere!) you are wrong.

AR’s are used at 600m; I’ve seen it.

Yalta, Tehran, and the private conversation between Churchill and Stalin which resulted in what is known as the “percentages agreement” did split Europe into spheres of influence. I grant that in this case the Soviets did not allow free and fair elections in much of Eastern Europe, which was an infringement of the terms of the agreement, but I do not believe that this came as a significant surprise to the west. They’d seen Stalin, they knew how the Soviet system worked, and Churchill and people in the State Department like Kennan were realistic enough to see this happening. Roosevelt was more idealistic though. I have anecdotal written evidence from Polish soldiers serving in France & Germany at the time of Yalta that they and most British Officers realised that Poland was essentially being handed to Soviet control. They saw it, so I don’t know how Roosevelt didn’t to be honest. I guess it came down to how you define influence, but Yalta & the percentages deal certainly agreed that Eastern Europe would come under the economic sphere of the Soviet Union, in the same way that Latin America is under the US economic sphere.*

As to the rest of your comments, if you are the sole repository of the truth , why do you have to keep going back and altering your posts? Why are you singularly unable to provide links to documents that back up your assertions? If the M1 carbine is not an assualt rifle, why can you not point us to a reputable source which agrees with you??

*Young and Kent. [i]International Relations since 1945[/i] Oxford Press.
also
Lectures, various, University of Aberystwyth History and Politics Department. www.aber.ac.uk
also
Reynolds. [i]On World Divisible. [/i]

#46

Yup. Unintended and unforseen. It was an unfortunate sack the Soviets pulled over our heads.

The Yalta Agreement sure as hell didn’t create them. The Soviets did.

burp

Now I suppose you’d like to fill up this thread by tring to prove something that is untrue… again. Why not? It’s been done it so many times already. What’s one more?[/quote]

Ironman, my command of the English language is sufficient to allow me to have worded that statement very carefully and precisely.
I am not trying to prove or disprove anything, merely adding some detail to the discussion already begun.
This is a discussion forum after all.

And I would be careful bandying about statements like the one above re untruths.
You have yet to provide one iota of evidence for your oft-repeated and totally untrue assertion that the British Army sends Gurkhas into battle ahead of “white” troops.

#47

Well, now you have posted the official doctrine of the British Army for section fire, and it states up to 500m, not 600m. So, you were wrong, weren’t you? But you’ll never admit that. You’d rather fill up the threads with more bogus claims to try to prove the first one was correct eh?

I’ve seen people use lots of things in way that they were not intended to be used or are officially supported for use. That does not make it official or effective however. So um, no, section fire is not conducted at 600m with typical assault rifles. Sorry. That’s what other weapons are for, and I am certain that if you DARED post the official section fire doctrine for them, it would include the range of 600m. But I don’t think you’ll do that. Not now. It would only further the proof of your claim being false, as you have proven to us your very self!

As for the Yalta Agreement, you have yet to quote it’s text to show where it intentionally gave control of eastern Europe to the Soviets or conciously divided Europe into 2 spheres of influence.

Here we go with the making of one bogus claim to try to prove something that is untrue… again. :roll:

#48

Ale you fail to understand despite the fact that we are numbered at about 15 - fairly intelligent guys across a range of topics the only person that knows anything is IRONMAN

I personally have a “bugbear” for his 600 metre comments and incosistency is his posts, such as the contradiction below. then of course his petulance has jsut compounded the issue.
he evades each of our questions by moving out of our areas of “expertise” press him for too long on cartridges and he moves to Chosin, ask him about Chosin and he quotes a game manual and whinges about disrespect, then moves onto ranges, press him over ranges and he moves to the ability to see at 600 yards.

I have realised he is more greased than Lex-Steel in a meeting with Gauge but that is why it is necessary to stick at one question. You might have noticed I ahve asked hte same question 14 times without reply! Im not sure hes notcied it yet, so I shall ask him again, and in answering it we shall see if he avoids the issue and shouts about yalta some more rather than avoiding the issue!

HOLY FREAKING GUANO BATBOY - sorry, I like saying it

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?

IRONMAN you might have noticed this question before, you should note each time you avoid this question you weaken your claim that we avoid answering questions. You have the right to remain silent…Please do.

#49

Well, now you have posted the official doctrine of the British Army for section fire, and it states up to 500m, not 600m. So, you were wrong, weren’t you? But you’ll never admit that. You’d rather fill up the threads with more bogus claims to try to prove the first one was correct eh?

What, me personally?? No I haven’t! I have just checked a skill at arms pamphlet and it definately says:

Effective section fire power at ranges up to 600m

and as I say I have SEEN it done, with my own eyes!

As to Yalta, I will admit to not having read the text of the agreement in detail; however, you are free to purchase or get from the library, the two authoritive textbooks I have provided links too, and even to email the history or International Politics department at my University for their opinion, although I will not guarantee that you will get a reply. Note I also mentioned the percentages agreement between Stalin and Churchill.

I will endeavour to find a copy of the Yalta agreement and peruse it over the next couple of days, fear not, I will be back. Right now though, I have a fox to shoot and it is time for my evening meander with a gun, so please excuse me.

#50

That’s what other weapons are for, and I am certain that if you DARED post the official section fire doctrine for them, it would include the range of 600m. But I don’t think you’ll do that. Not now. It would only further the proof of your claim being false, as you have proven to us your very self!

See my post, I just did. I regret that I cannot provide a link to a website because British Army manuals are not made available to the public in the same way as US manuals. My claim is not false, and, in case you hadn’t noticed, I am not the only one who is claiming it, about 10 of us are, and all of us have either done it or seen it done. All of us have had some level of involvement in the British Forces which has seen us use the SA80 assualt rifle, and all of us are in agreement. If you aren’t, why not step over to the British Army forum www.arrse.co.uk for which I believe you have an account, and talk to people there about it?

#51

I just love the way that he thinks that he knows better than Julian S. Hatcher, Maj. Gen. Retd. who is the dog’s dusters when it comes to US small arms from about 1900-1960:

To quote him again:

During 1940 the Ordnance decided to produce a very light semi-automatic rifle to take the place of the pistol in the armament of company officers, communication units, engineers, tank units, artillery etc.

Hatcher’s Notebook, Julian S. Hatcher, Stackpole 1962, 3rd edition.

Perhaps, Tinwalt, since you clearly know more than Hatcher, you’d like to tell me for what calibre the semi-automatic trials rifles were chambered Garand was trialled in the 1929 Aberdeen test? Without googling? And what rifle it was up agains, and what the principle of operation of this other rifle was? Hint: it wasn’t “spring activated”…

#52

So, that pamphlet is not a product of the British Governemnt or Military?
Why does your quote of it state up to 500m, not 600m? I think we have already seen the doctrine, as it was already quoted. Sorry. The official doctrine is up to 500m, not 600m.

:roll:

…and you make posts that attempt to prove me wong about it?

It’s on the Net. That’s where I got my quotes from it. Please don’t shoot a fox. At least, please don’t use dogs to hunt it. That’s so… God awefully cruel. I hate it when I’ve seen video footage of dogs ripping a poor little fox to peices in the most unimaginable horror. Poor creature. I have nothing against hunting, I used to be a hunter myself - squirrels, ducks, deer.

Here we go filling up the threads trying to prove the untrue again.

#53

God, you’re acidic - ever seen what a fox does to a chicken coop or to lambs? I think the correct gaming terminology is “MMMMMMMMultikill”

& when hunting with dogs, the fox is dead anyway when it’s ripped apart. And you know what, that’s how they used to die in the wild before we hunted wolves & other large predators to extinction.

You really let your keyboard fingers run away with yourself, don’t you?

#54

So, that pamphlet is not a product of the British Governemnt or Military?
Why does your quote of it state up to 500m, not 600m? I think we have already seen the doctrine, as it was already quoted. Sorry. The official doctrine is up to 500m, not 600m.
[/quote]

The pamphlets are produced by the Army for the Army and are full of everything from personal camoflage through to range construction and beyond. They are the textbooks of the army. They are also “restricted”, which means that they are not available to non-serving people.

Why do you think that you are right and everybody else in the world, including the effing PAMS are wrong? :shock:

#55

God, you’re acidic - ever seen what a fox does to a chicken coop or to lambs? I think the correct gaming terminology is “MMMMMMMMultikill”

& when hunting with dogs, the fox is dead anyway when it’s ripped apart. And you know what, that’s how they used to die in the wild before we hunted wolves & other large predators to extinction.

You really let your keyboard fingers run away with yourself, don’t you?[/quote]

Yea, it dies when ripped apart. That’s right. Wolves are not extinct btw, at least not in North America, but just because a fox is natural game to a wolf does not mean it’s not cruel to initiate it’s horrifying death with domesticated dogs. Shoot your game for crying out loud. At least let them die instantly instead of suffering in a horrible encirclement of flesh-ripping teeth. I’d love to see the look on your face if you were thrown into a pen of starving tigers. lol

#56

Look up the psychological term “Freudian projection”, you’re exhibiting it:

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html

The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

“A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits.”

“The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual.”

“Attributing one’s own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile.”

“The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity.”

“People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way.”

“Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have.”

QED.

#57

Ahh, “two countries divided by a common language” again.
A hunted fox is killed by a gun prior to the dogs tearing the carcase apart; i.e. “the fox is dead anyway when it’s ripped apart”, not “the fox is killed by being ripped apart.”
And the “we” referred to as hunting wolves to extinction are the Brits in this case.
They died out around 1680, although legend says the last was killed by a man called McQueen sometime in the 1700s.

#58

Look up the psychological term “Freudian projection”, you’re exhibiting it:

[/quote]

You are completely lost.

Here comes the typical “insult them if they prove my bogus claim is untrue” again. Remember the patterns of behavior I told you about 2 posts back?

#59

I’m not even going to go near foxhunting, cos you’ll just know better than the experts and the official inquiries.

Let’s just quote the 1949 Henderson Committee, which was a (Labour) government-sponsered inquiry:

The Henderson Committee considered cruelty to be “an act causing unnecessary suffering”, and went on to elaborate, “So far as general cruelty is concerned, we are satisfied that there is less cruelty in fox hunting [with hounds] than in most other methods of control.”

#60

Now you want us to believe that the Brits hunt foxes by shooting them first instead of letting the dogs kill it for them?

“Just in time to see Ms. Fox shriek as at least ten hounds each chomp into a different part of her body and yank her until she rips. “Usually ten or more dogs do the job in 20 seconds,” said Gammon, who’s witnessed such killings. “with fewer dogs, it’s more drawn out.” Many foxes die from having their guts ripped out: “We’ve taken bodies to a vet and the autopsy showed that,” Gammon said.”

http://www.idausa.org/facts/foxhunting.html

Please. Don’t even try that.