http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=285
'Scuse me lads, I must have been asleep in the lectures.
Which inf units are issued with cannon as section wpns, ie those they run around with ?
HOLYFREAKINGUANOBATBOY
you evidently havent done your training as recently as me.
Cannon have been general issue for Infantry since;
When I was at training camp - (Fort Bedding it was) right before being deployed exactly 500 yards from the enemy by my helicopter with seven weapons in my webbing a “medkit” that I understood how to use and could fix all wounds instantly enabling full recovery, and when I could fight for days on end without needing food or water. When we never had standing patrols only ever fighting or recce patrols. When the enemy could always be garuanteed to engage us, rather than obvserving and retiring
When I never had to fight my way out of a situation after accomplishing my mission jsut waited for a truck or helicopter to pull me out, when regardless of how many of my mates got shot, I would still willingly go into the next mission, when all maps had a picture of me in the middle that would move as I walked. When my admin was so good I could reload a weapon on the run without breaking stride. when finding a grenade took 1 second reloading took 2 and clearing a stoppage took 3
When I had 7 sidearms all of which could be brought to bear in five seconds
When, when the enemy were 40 feet away I could swith to Thompson and be a “war machine”
When I never had a stoppage in my weapon, when every magazine i found lying around was clean, free from dirt, safe to use and fitted my weapon, when every enemy I found was gracious enough not to lie on a grenade as I searched his body for weapons that I found (and could always use)When the enemy never put unmarked minefields in the dead ground inches from their perimeter.
When all radio communications were clear and exact and used plain deliberate comprehensible slow clear english as opposed to garbled BATCO.When soldiers fought instinctively without communication, or only vocal, never visual and silent. When all weapons had two functions.
When all of that was true… I was issued one of these!
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2700/2774.htm
sorry that was the rifle I was issued with, I think that the cannon looked more like this. www.world.guns.ru/sniper/sn56-e.htm a HAND CANNON 20!
We all had one! Get with the programme!
Even the most cursory glance at an exploded diagram would have shown the parentage.
On the other hand, perhaps I should get a couple out of the safe and strip them down on the pc-room floor ?
[/quote]
“Although the M1 Carbine is sometimes thought of as a development of the M1 Garand rifle, it isn’t. It has a different internal design, based upon a lightweight tappet-and-slide gas system and detachable, large-capacity magazines. It fires a smaller and lighter .30 caliber (7.62 mm) cartridge which is very different, in both design and performance, from the full-sized .30-'06 cartridge used in the Garand.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/m1-carbine
“The Army was looking for a semi-automatic rifle more powerful than a handgun, but less powerful than the M1 Rifle, effective out to 300 yards and light enough to be issued to personnel who needed a weapon, but didn’t need the M1 Rifle. The Carbine was one of over twenty designs submitted to the Government.”
Riverbank Armory
http://home.att.net/~ra-carbines/history.html
Ooops!
- The 9mm is a pistol rd, subsequent higher MV from the longer bbl.
- Ever fired full auto ? Ever had to carry a battle load ?
- Utter lack of understanding of drills !
- Mag lips & followers are always the major problem with self-loading wpns.
- See 3.[/quote]
So you are agreeing with me! And your point is…?
Ooops!
- The '44 is an assault rifle, not a SMG. Slings are issued with weapons.
- Until recently no army had a scope as general issue for all inf. Neither German funds nor their manufacturing were at a level where this would have been feasible.[/quote]
“MP44 scopes
Two different scopes and mounts were tested for the MP44 series of guns but none of these were actually produced because these guns had a shot dispersion which was so great that they couldn’t replace the G43 as a sniper rifle”
http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/reviews/mp44/mp44_review.htm
…scope mounts were designed for it and tested on it, but to quote myself, it was a “Poor design for use with scope” Hence, they abandoned the idea.
Ooops!
:lol: [/quote]
DALY, MICHAEL J. - Medal of Honor Recipient
City of Nuremberg, Germany, 18 April 1945.
“When blistering machinegun fire caught his unit in an exposed position, he ordered his men to take cover, dashed forward alone, and, as bullets whined about him, shot the 3-man guncrew with his carbine. Continuing the advance at the head of his company, he located an enemy patrol armed with rocket launchers which threatened friendly armor. He again went forward alone, secured a vantage point and opened fire on the Germans. Immediately he became the target for concentrated machine pistol and rocket fire, which blasted the rubble about him.”
…just one of countless such situations that occured in WWII, using an M1 Carbine, in Europe.
Ooops!
(My emboldenment)
Hammer…
Expert…
:lol:[/quote]
Cuts I think you lie when you say you are in the military. Even a civilian knows that a revolver or bolt action weapon is more powerful per se because the energy from the exploding gases of the cartridge is not used to power the action of such a weapon.
Ooops!
SMG…
Expert…
:lol:[/quote]
Indeed! It’s a new generation assult weapon. Possibly the best AR ever made! Oh you mean the typo? LOL You need a job. You have too much time on your hands.
Ooops!
SIGH Cuts, you seem to dig yourself into one foxhole after another. You might need an M1 Carbine to shoot your way out!
when structuring a resposne to a statement,
It helps if you have a beginnign middle and end, anything else is jsut dross.
I am posting dross because you have failed to answer a question I asked 24 times!
Therefore i feel I do not need feel anythign you might say about the “proper” way of responding to posts holds any water!
bit like your bladder you nappie wearing MLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR
shot the 3-man guncrew with his carbine - All weapons kill people you knob jockey, the fact it killed someone doesnt make it an assault weapon or any better than a pistol!
Cuts I think you lie when you say you are in the military. Even a civilian knows that a revolver or bolt action weapon is more powerful per se because the energy from the exploding gases of the cartridge is not used to power the action of the weapon. - Did you say revolvers were more powerful because they dont waste energty from the cartridge chambering the next round? Ever seen a revolver? did you notice how the part that holds the cartidges is on a pintel and “revolves” do you think that it forms a perfect seal with the face that holds the firing pin? - no fucking chance! wasted energy in a pistol? no I think that was half the purpose of the pistol to provide a more enclosed breech - But I will wait for you to supply my with a Link to where it states the advantages of the revolvers breach mechanism!
Tittyboy,
…er, sorry, you called me a tard.
Tubbyboy,
the conversation was about carrying automatic weapons, it was about the US, and you are delightfully, incorrect… still.
Alaska and Vermont? :lol:[/quote]
What about Alaska and Vermont? Quote to me the post where I mention them.
Can’t? That is because I have never mentioned them. Retard.
[/quote]
You didn’t get it did you? Kinda slow? Kinda retarded?
What about Alaska and Vermont? Quote to me the post where I mention them.
Can’t? That is because I have never mentioned them. Retard.
[/quote]
You didn’t get it did you? Kinda slow? Kinda retarded?[/quote][/quote]
Alaska is in the USA - jizzmonkey
I’m not English. However, I bet that I have a better grasp of the language than you. I bet you can’t write a sentance as long or complex as me without making gramatica errors, run-on sentance structure, or without verb and noun relationships or end-of-sentence structures. Give it a try if you like.
Hmmm. Well, since it didn’t exist when the M1 Carbine was designed, you have blundered again. You simply can’t post a freaking thing without f’ing up can you? Every singe post you make is a blunder.
Aren’t you getting thirsty yet???
[quote=“IRONMAN”]
I’m not English. but I betcha I have a better grasp of the language than you. Bet you can’t write a sentance as long or complex as me without making a blunder with it being a run-on sentance or without verb and noun relationships or end-of-sentence structures. Give it a try if you like.[/quote]
IRONMAN, my spelling isnt great but…
“English. but” - dont start sentences with a conjunction, use a capital letter
“betcha” - bet you
“language than you” - requires a qualifying subjext “language than you do”
“Language” in this context is being used to refer to the English Language therefore it has a captial letter as it is a Prime noun and not a minor one.
“Bet you cant” - starting a sentence with a verb without an qualifying article such as “I”
“a sentence as long or complex as me” - you are not a sentence! it should read “as long or complex as I can;”
secondly the comparative term should be used in reference to both length and complexity “as long or as complex as me”
“without making a blunder with it being” - this requires a comma in order to prevent it becoming a run-on “sentance”
“Sentance” - sentence!
“or without verb and noun relationships or” - you have a double conjunction - the first of which should be a comma.
No one can write a sentences “without verb and noun relationships” regardless of grammar, thus did not understand your post!
your post should have read
I’m not English, but I bet you that I have a better grasp of the Language than you do. I bet you can’t write a sentence as long or as complex as I can, without making a blunder, without it becoming a run-on sentence, without (misusing) verb and noun relationships or end of sentence structures.
(my italics)
and not
I’m not English. but I betcha I have a better grasp of the language than you. Bet you can’t write a sentance as long or complex as me without making a blunder with it being a run-on sentance or without verb and noun relationships or end-of-sentence structures. Give it a try if you like.
Still didnt make that much sense though.
I didnt start the pissing war over grammar so dont expect me to retaliate!
And you still think the Yalta Agreement gives the Soviet Union the powers to militarily and politically control, puppetize, appropriate funds from, chose the leaders of, and prevent representation of those nations?
Either you fell asleep, have waxy ears, or skipped. Well, I suppose you could simply be dense.
Please see the other thread where I quote the Yalta Agreement and show that it does not provide any such liscence to the Soviet Union. :roll:
Then come back here and post something about your being a smartmouth who blathers first and thinks second.
I used to think I didn’t enjoy responding to smartmouthed, cuss-filled, name-calling posts with like responses, but it’s growing on me.
Was I the only one impressed by the fact I can remember year 7 and how to build a paragraph?
Im so cool!
8)8)8)8)8)8)8)8)8)8)
8) :lol: 8)8)8)8)8) :lol: 8)
8)8) :lol: 8)8)8) :lol: 8)8)
8)8)8) :lol: 8) :lol: 8)8)8)
8)8)8)8) 
8)8)8)8)
8)8)8) :lol: 8) :lol: 8)8)8)
8)8) :lol: 8)8)8) :lol: 8)8)
8) :lol: 8)8)8)8)8) :lol: 8)
8)8)8)8)8)8)8)8)8)8)
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:[/quote]
So, they are the Army’s documents, and they say:
Effective section fire power at between 300m and 500m
OK. So you were wrong on that one too all along? No section fire for AR’s at 600m. Well well. How about that.
You are confusing a PAM - that you have not seen as it is not in the public Arena with world.guns.ru, a Russian website that reports on the earliest protoype of the SA80 - incidentally the range is dictated by the ballistics of the cartridge not the weapon itself, accuracy is the job of the weapon.
effectiveness is the combination of the two!
We have given you the closest thing that we can to a PAM, but despite the presence of a commonwealth crest (the imaginary commonwealth) and Army shield you ahve denied its legitimacy, you also poured scorn on the USMC Pam we found you.
Is the issue there “up to 600 metres” - ALe evidently says 600!
In that section fire is effective to 600 but not 601 - if that is you defence it is Hilarious bearing I mind you are now refuting your earlier claim not no assault weapon was ever used at more than 400 metres
Its in “Walther War machines big book of soldier knowledge”
Even the most cursory glance at an exploded diagram would have shown the parentage.
On the other hand, perhaps I should get a couple out of the safe and strip them down on the pc-room floor ?
[/quote]
“Although the M1 Carbine is sometimes thought of as a development of the M1 Garand rifle, it isn’t. It has a different internal design, based upon a lightweight tappet-and-slide gas system and detachable, large-capacity magazines. It fires a smaller and lighter .30 caliber (7.62 mm) cartridge which is very different, in both design and performance, from the full-sized .30-'06 cartridge used in the Garand.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/m1-carbine
“The Army was looking for a semi-automatic rifle more powerful than a handgun, but less powerful than the M1 Rifle, effective out to 300 yards and light enough to be issued to personnel who needed a weapon, but didn’t need the M1 Rifle. The Carbine was one of over twenty designs submitted to the Government.”
Riverbank Armory
http://home.att.net/~ra-carbines/history.html
Ooops![/quote]
Read the your post IRONMAN, then mine. ‘Parentage’ was the word I used, if your reading, comprehension or command of the English language does not allow you to understand what I had written I will understand.
Now see if you can find someone who will show you how the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine strips, ask them if they will lay the parts out for you to look at.
You may well see the similarity and ergo the basis of Mr Williams’ design…
As for this part: “The Carbine was one of over twenty designs submitted to the Government.”
Why do you think they chose that design ?
Do you have any idea how procurement works ? (It’s a rhetorical question…)
- The 9mm is a pistol rd, subsequent higher MV from the longer bbl.
- Ever fired full auto ? Ever had to carry a battle load ?
- Utter lack of understanding of drills !
- Mag lips & followers are always the major problem with self-loading wpns.
- See 3.[/quote]
So you are agreeing with me! And your point is…?
Ooops![/quote]
Agreeing ? Do you mean that the 9x19 is a pistol rd ?
How about the other points ?
- The '44 is an assault rifle, not a SMG. Slings are issued with weapons.
- Until recently no army had a scope as general issue for all inf. Neither German funds nor their manufacturing were at a level where this would have been feasible.[/quote]
“MP44 scopes
Two different scopes and mounts were tested for the MP44 series of guns but none of these were actually produced because these guns had a shot dispersion which was so great that they couldn’t replace the G43 as a sniper rifle”
http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/reviews/mp44/mp44_review.htm
…scope mounts were designed for it and tested on it, but to quote myself, it was a “Poor design for use with scope” Hence, they abandoned the idea.
Ooops!
[/quote]
No kak Sherlock !
Who said that the weapon that was intended as a general issue weapon was supposed to be a sniper rifle ?
While on the subject of those and the G/K43, at one stage the Germans had hoped that they would be sniper rifles, but there were very few that made the grade.
By the way, how many G/K43s have you fired ?
As for using “Arnie’s Air Soft” as a source, is this further indication of your expertise ?
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
:lol: [/quote]
DALY, MICHAEL J. - Medal of Honor Recipient
City of Nuremberg, Germany, 18 April 1945.
“When blistering machinegun fire caught his unit in an exposed position, he ordered his men to take cover, dashed forward alone, and, as bullets whined about him, shot the 3-man guncrew with his carbine. Continuing the advance at the head of his company, he located an enemy patrol armed with rocket launchers which threatened friendly armor. He again went forward alone, secured a vantage point and opened fire on the Germans. Immediately he became the target for concentrated machine pistol and rocket fire, which blasted the rubble about him.”
…just one of countless such situations that occured in WWII, using an M1 Carbine, in Europe.
Ooops! [/quote]
Your quote of yourself proves that you have mastered the quote system in posting, nothing else.
Come on, there are youngsters that can support daft ideas better than that.
If as you claim he was armed with an M1 Carbine, how did he hold down the trigger of this weapon to take out the three enemy ? Or as you put it:
Does your assertion that the above is indeed as it reads mean that you now believe the M1 is a sub-machinegun ?
Or did one of your computer games tell you that ‘spray-and-pray’ was an effective reaction to enemy fire ?
(My emboldenment)
Hammer…
Expert…
:lol:[/quote]
Cuts I think you lie when you say you are in the military. Even a civilian knows that a revolver or bolt action weapon is more powerful per se because the energy from the exploding gases of the cartridge is not used to power the action of the weapon.
Ooops![/quote]
Once again, please read your own post then mine, with your bountiful knowledge of firearms you will be able to see what doesn’t gel.
While you’re at it, perhaps you might like to inform us of the magnitude of the power loss involved ?
Please do, I’d love to view your answer !
As to what you ‘think’ of my membership of the armed forces, it is of no consequence to me.
There are more than enough people that have read your posts, (and a number that have posted,) that actually know me.
(I mean in real life, on planet Earth, not wherever you obtain your visions from.)
SMG…
Expert…
:lol:[/quote]
Indeed! It’s a new generation assult weapon weapon. Possibly the best AR ever made! Oh you mean the typo? LOL You need a job. You have too much time on your hands.
Ooops![/quote]
A typo is it now ?
Hmmm…
As at 011739ZMAY you didn’t think it was a typo, in fact you said:
Then it wasn’t a typo but it is now ?
Seems you’re quite confused as to what you really mean.
Anyway, a new generation ? The H&K G36 ring any bells ?
With your infinite hands-on experience I’m sure you’ve had the opportunity to strip and assemble both…
As of the two of us it is only I who has spent considerable time in real shellscrapes, slit trenches and other dug in positions, your comment is a little redundant.
I am fully aware that not everyone wants or has the aptitude for military service and I don’t tend to hold that fact against them.
Unless they claim authority in subjects of which they have no practical knowledge…
oops
That is not a response, it has no imperative value to it.
Emoticons are not a sustitute for intelligent argument
your answer infers nothing, implies nothing, explains nothing, resolves nothing, answers nothing, excludes nothing, precludes nothing, informs of nothing, yields nothing, demonstrates nothing. At times the other posters on here have used Emoticons but as secondary articles to the text, normally as a footnote of comical aside, they do not replace the body of the text!
(apart from mine at the top, which is kind of more boredom than anything else)
It is as redundant as your reproductive organ!
dont use it, if you cannot construct a response or answer using the english language might i suggest you fist yourself and try to remove your appendix whilst your hand is in there
Guys why do you argue with ironman? It is obvious that he has no knowledge of what is being discussed. This combined with, either, very poor or very selective comprehension turns any discussion with him a game of “chase your tail”.
Just ignore the troll, or ban his IP (on other boards I’ve seen him start other accounts with the purpose of supporting his posts).