More classic Iron man

[system]

@2nd_of_foot

Your naivety and faith in the US Gov is very touching but the real world is a little different.

Naaaa. You just dislike the US, so you come here to badmouth us. You’re a tiny pimple on your country’s face.

@2nd_of_foot

18 Bn has been allocated. But htat money is payed to US companies to do the work. So you as a tax payer pay money to the US Gov who pay it to Halliburton (Halliburton, once run by Vice-President Dick Cheney, is under renewed pressure over its work for the Pentagon in Iraq. BBC news.) to do the job.

You’re damned right the money goes to US companies, but it also goes to Iraqi general contracors too. If you think someone who blathers didain for the US like you is gonna get a nickle of it you’ve got something to learn! :lol:

@IRONMAN

That’s a lot more than the British or anyone else is doing, that much is certain.

“It’s a lot worse than I’d anticipated - I’m not particularly hopeful of getting work.”
Those were David Hucknall’s thoughts at the end of a meeting to tell British and other European firms how they could get a slice of the multi-billion dollar contract to repair the war damage in Iraq.

Too bad. The Americans are getting a lot done though. More than any other nation for sure.

@2nd_of_foot

The US carved up the contract and other countries hardly got a look in, feeding trough and gravy train come to mind.

You’re damned right. That’s how Americans want it and that’s how the British would do it if they were doing anywhere near as much. Cry about it.

@2nd_of_foot

But this money is not spent in country

Tell that to the Iraqi carpenters that are making a living from the money building stuff. I saw on the news the other night how an Iraqi businessman who sells ice was in trouble because of no electricity and failing freezers. The US military repaired the generators and gave him some new freezers shipped from the US for him specifically. God I love being an American!

@2nd_of_foot

As pointed out above Cheney and crew took the lions share. Did they not report all the fuss over contract to rebuild Iraq in the US? Although it would seem to be a poisoned challis.

You damned right American companies are getting the money.

[system]

@2nd_of_foot

You mean as opposed to the USAF bombing 3 or 4 weddings and killing many. Is this one-upmanship?

It can be. But in the process of my reposting all of the reports from Amnesty International and finding the ones from the UN as well, please explain your hypocricy in claiming that the US soldiers are careless when british soldiers have killed numerous civilians with carelss fire.

[system]

@Crab_to_be

This assumption is fine for a hypothetical example to demonstrate some principles of ballistic flight, but utterly wrong for a high speed projectile like a bullet.

Nope. It’s just mathematics. They did the math it for you.

[festamus]

@IRONMAN

[quote=Crab_to_be]This assumption is fine for a hypothetical example to demonstrate some principles of ballistic flight, but utterly wrong for a high speed projectile like a bullet.

Nope. It’s just mathematics. They did the math it for you.[/quote]

Well it’s NOT just mathematics, it’s Physics. Otherwise you’re saying that aerodynamic drag doesn’t exist and hence the trajectory remains 45 degrees since their example said so.

Given the speeds of rifle rounds, the drag forces involved will be significant. To say otherwise you’d have to disagree with yourself - why else would you have contended that the effective range of an assault rifle for section fire cannot be 600m? Where’s all that energy gone by 600m if not lost to significant aerodynamic drag?

[system]

@festamus

Well it’s NOT just mathematics, it’s Physics.

Gosh. I forgot. Mathematics has nothing to do with it. That’s why thiey used mathematics to explain the 45 degree thing. :roll:

Whatever dudey. The weapon was pointed at about a 35 degree angle, so by your whacked physics, the bullets traveled even farther. :lol:

Have a freaking clue first and blather second eh?

[festamus]

:roll: As has been pointed out to you by others, the 45 degree angle calculations assume NO drag. This is not true for a bullet. Not by a long shot, if you’ll excuse the pun. This is covered in A Level (16-18 year old) Physics and Mechanics modules in Mathetmatics. It’s absolutely fundamental stuff, but go ahead and embarass yourself by insisting that it’s 45 degrees because a schools website says DESPITE saying that they are assuming no air resistance. Notice also your Wiki link arrives at 45 degrees ONLY in the example titled

“Example: Uniform gravity, no drag or wind”

[system]

@festamus

:roll: As has been pointed out to you by others, the 45 degree angle calculations assume NO drag. This is not true for a bullet. Not by a long shot, if you’ll excuse the pun. This is covered in A Level (16-18 year old) Physics and Mechanics modules in Mathetmatics. It’s absolutely fundamental stuff, but go ahead and embarass yourself by insisting that it’s 45 degrees because a schools website says DESPITE saying that they are assuming no air resistance. Notice also your Wiki link arrives at 45 degrees ONLY in the example titled

“Example: Uniform gravity, no drag or wind”

OK. Whatever dudey. I still think you’re wrong, but you’re only serving my point that the angel of the soldier’s weapon sent the bullets out of town. Like I said. Even a .22 LR will travel a mile at a 45 degree angle. An assult rifle would certainly travel much farther.

So now, explain your hypocricy in claiming that the soldier was shooting carelessly while under fire to make noise, while british troops have killed numerous unarmed Iraqi citizens with careless fire. Let’s hear that. :shock:

[Crab_to_be]

@IRONMAN

[quote=festamus]Well it’s NOT just mathematics, it’s Physics.

Gosh. I forgot. Mathematics has nothing to do with it. That’s why thiey used mathematics to explain the 45 degree thing. :roll:

Whatever dudey. The weapon was pointed at about a 35 degree angle, so by your whacked physics, the bullets traveled even farther. :lol:

Have a freaking clue first and blather second eh?[/quote]

Stop being deliberately stupid. The example you linked to is a demonstration of a zero-drag ballistic calculation. It says ON THE SITE ITSELF that it assumes that drag is negligible. If drag was actually negligible when considering a bullet, then the bullet would maintain constant speed until it hit something. You cannot possibly think that. Thus, the assumption on which the calculation is based is wrong for the case we are looking at. The answer is therefore also wrong. No reliable source on the internet will tell you that max range occurs at an angle of 45° when drag on the bullet is included. The two you have provided so far certainly don’t.

Please stop being so rude. Fes and I both posted factual accurate posts demonstrating a flaw in your argument. Instead of taking the opportunity to learn, or at least be corrected with dignity, you come back screaming abuse as if this makes you look clever. As someone who makes regular claims of maturity and demands deference from other site members, you should know better than this. Get a grip of yourself and stop throwing tantrums.

[festamus]

OK. Whatever dudey. I still think you’re wrong,

Good lord you’re ignorant. Look at the links you posted. Both - neglecting air resistance. What do you suppose air resistance does? Slows the bullet. You compensate for this by firing on a slightly shallower trajectory. EDIT - because with air resistance 45 degrees trajectory will actually come down to earth in a lot shorter distance than, say, 35.

but you’re only serving my point that the angel of the soldier’s weapon sent the bullets out of town. Like I said. Even a .22 LR will travel a mile at a 45 degree angle. An assult rifle would certainly travel much farther.

Not something I’m reall interested in but I take this to mean they have… no idea where it lands? Nice one.

Twice you’ve shot yourself in the foot now, trying to deflect from the fact you got something utterly, fundamentally wrong and were then extremely rude when people pointed out the error.

What was it you were saying about clues and blather?

[system]

@Crab_to_be

Stop being deliberately stupid.

@Crab_to_be

Please stop being so rude.

What about your hypocritical claim that the American soldier under attack was carelss in sending bullets out into the dessert while under fire to make noise while british troops have killed numerous unarmed Iraqi citizends with careless fire? Are you going to address that or keep running from it?

[system]

@festamus

Good lord you’re ignorant.

@festamus

Not something I’m reall interested in but I take this to mean they have… no idea where it lands?

Not interested in? Geeze kiddo, your arguing that the bullets went into the civilians on the ground when the gun was at about a 35 degree angle, then arguing that the weapon sent the bullets farther out of town because they were shot at that angle. You are not cognitively awake here. Do you understand what is going on here?

[festamus]

@IRONMAN

[quote=festamus]Good lord you’re ignorant.

@festamus

Not something I’m reall interested in but I take this to mean they have… no idea where it lands? Nice one.

Not interested in? Geeze kiddo, your arguing that the bullets went into the civilians on the ground when the gun was at about a 35 degree angle, then arguing that the weapon sent the bullets farther out of town because they were shot at that angle. You are not cognitively awake here. Do you understand what is going on here?[/quote]

Ha ha ha ha ha.
Kindly find where I was arguing that?

I’ll give you a clue: I didn’t. I’ve merely pointed out that your ignorant insistance that 45 degrees IS the angle to fire at to achieve maximum range is false despite your insistence that it is not. Basically - I’m arguing the Physics, not the ethics.

Which despite your claim that it “helps” your case, seemed to touch a nerve that because you were rude and still insistant you were right about something you were entirely wrong over because, frankly, you evidently a bit of an idiot and you’re determined to prove that at ever possible stage.

“Have a freaking clue first and blather second eh?”

[system]

@festamus

I’ll give you a clue: I didn’t. I’ve merely pointed out that your ignorant insistance that 45 degrees IS the angle to fire at to achieve maximum range is false despite your insistence that it is not. Basically - I’m arguing the Physics, not the ethics.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jesse99/exterior.html
Please tell us what angle provides the greatest didtance with these firearms according to this ballistics software application. Please. It’s not 45 degrees is it? HOLY GUANO BATKID!

Now for goodness sakes kid, stop your blathering. You are the ignorant one kidaroo. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Man_of_Stoat]

Festamus: it’s the Communist debating technique - the party is always right, so you start with the conclusion & then denounce all evidence to the contrary. He seems to think that my ID & business card is fake on this basis, or something. :roll: He also seems to think he knows better than 8 years of combined patent examining experience

If this extreme range thing isn’t resolved by the time I get home, I’ll copy out the relevant bits from Hatcher’s Notebook.

But a quick little google gives this:

http://www.nennstiel-ruprecht.de/bullfly/faq.htm#Q1

Q: At which angle of departure does a bullet achieve its maximum range?
A: 1. If one neglects the atmosphere and considers bullet motion in vacuum, the
maximum range will be reached for a 45° departure angle.
2. For bullets fired from handguns through the atmosphere, the maximum range (typically in the range of a few kilometres or less) is usually reached for a 30°- 35° departure angle. This is a consequence of bullet retardation by the drag force.

3. Artillery shells may reach maximum ranges of a few dozens of kilometres. When fired at higher departure angles, theseprojectiles are capable to reach much higher altitudes than handgun bullets.However in those altitudes the air density is considerably smaller than the ground air density. Lower air density goes along with lower drag and this is the reason why artillery shells reach their maximum range for higher angles of departure (typically at 45°).

[Crab_to_be]

@IRONMAN

[quote=Crab_to_be]Stop being deliberately stupid.

@Crab_to_be

Please stop being so rude.

What about your hypocritical claim that the American soldier under attack was carelss in sending bullets out into the dessert while under fire to make noise while british troops have killed numerous unarmed Iraqi citizends with careless fire? Are you going to address that or keep running from it?[/quote]

There is nothing rude about saying you are being deliberately stupid. Quite the opposite. I am indicating that you have chosen to argue the point in a stupid manner. You have chosen to do so, and can presumably stop doing so and contirbute to the debate in an adult manner at other times.

Secondly, no I do not run from that point. Others have been making a far better argument than I, so I declined to comment. However, as you have asked for my opinion, I shall give it.

Aside: Hypocritical? How? Have I gone to Iraq and fired my machine gun into the air, then complained about others doing so? No. So I’m not being hypocritical.

Firing other than at a chosen target is wrong. It is a waste of ammunition and will achieve little except the conversion of live rounds into empty cases. Even with my limited experience of Infanteering, the idea of doing so runs contrary to my instincts. If I’d fired a live round in a shot not aimed at a specific point, I’d have been charged, even as a student officer. The coalition are fighting a trained and disciplined opposition. Making noise will achieve nothing. Even I can tell when a bullet is passing near me, or there is just ammunition being discharged nearby. Effective fire is what counts, and firing into the air with no concern for where rounds come down is poor drills.

The amnesty reports, as I have so often said on this thread, are allegations and accusations which they believe should be investigated. They have been. Some were valid complaints, others were not. Court Martials have proceeded as appropriate.

[festamus]

Edited for increased detail + context

@IRONMAN

[quote=festamus]I’ll give you a clue: I didn’t. I’ve merely pointed out that your ignorant insistance that 45 degrees IS the angle to fire at to achieve maximum range is false despite your insistence that it is not. Basically - I’m arguing the Physics, not the ethics.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jesse99/exterior.html
Please tell us what angle provides the greatest didtance with these firearms according to this ballistics software application. Please. It’s not 45 degrees is it? HOLY GUANO BATKID!

Now for goodness sakes kid, stop your blathering. You are the ignorant one kidaroo. :lol: :lol: :lol:[/quote]

No actually. It’s 40 degrees. Although having graphed it, the maxima looks like it actually lies in the 35-40 range (there ARE angles between 35 and 40 to consider). 45 degrees travels 5712, 35 degrees travels 5782

5782 > 5712.

EDIT 2: Jeeze! Is Ironman REALLY this stupid?

[Man_of_Stoat]

@IRONMAN

[quote=festamus]I’ll give you a clue: I didn’t. I’ve merely pointed out that your ignorant insistance that 45 degrees IS the angle to fire at to achieve maximum range is false despite your insistence that it is not. Basically - I’m arguing the Physics, not the ethics.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jesse99/exterior.html
Please tell us what angle provides the greatest didtance with these firearms according to this ballistics software application. Please. It’s not 45 degrees is it? HOLY GUANO BATKID!

Now for goodness sakes kid, stop your blathering. You are the ignorant one kidaroo. :lol: :lol: :lol:[/quote]

No, from that table it’s 40°!!!
40° gives 5803yds
45° gives 5712yds.

Now, I have been led to believe that 5803>5712 by a good 91 yards, although I’m sure you’ll claim I’m wrong.

Been to the opticians lately? Can’t read a table properly? Given what you’ve written in the last few posts about other people being able to interpret things, I’m LMAO here.

[system]

@festamus

The maxima lies somewhere between 35 and 40 degrees. Nowhere near 45. Thank you. Come again.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jesse99/exterior.html

So this popular ballistics software is wrong? :lol:

Dudey, you spout el trasho.

[festamus]

See more detailed edited post.

[2nd_of_foot]

Too bad. The Americans are getting a lot done though. More than any other nation for sure.

Yet again you miss the point. The contracts, in the main, only went to US companies, so it would be impossible for other countries to provide major reconstruction.

You’re damned right. That’s how Americans want it and that’s how the British would do it if they were doing anywhere near as much. Cry about it.

Again you make my argument for me, thank you.

Tell that to the Iraqi carpenters that are making a living from the money building stuff.

Your Gov pays US companies lots of dosh to get Mustafa to do a job. Mustafa get a small % of that money, the rest goes to the company. Locals are only paid inline with the local economy otherwise you get inflation.

I have missed your narrow mindedness, it lightens my day reading how silly you are.

So you are comparing the killing of a child to he destruction of a number of weddings

An American air strike in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul has hit the wrong target, the US military has admitted.
The bomb demolished a house in Aaytha, killing 14 people, according to local officials. The US put the toll at five.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4158463.stm

Falluja raid ‘hits wedding party’
At least 12 people have been killed and 17 others wounded in a US air strike on the rebel-held city of Falluja in Iraq.
The US military said what it called a “precision strike” targeted a hideout used by associates of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3725760.stm

‘Wedding video’ clouds US denials
A videotape has been broadcast which purports to show before-and-after footage of a wedding which Iraqis say the US bombed, killing about 40.
The film, released by a US news agency, combines a wedding home movie with video of the aftermath of the attack, which the US says targeted militants.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3741223.stm
I could go on. Open your eyes.