That would be between 35 and 40 degrees, as Stoat has pointed out.
No, it’s not 45°. Well observed. I take it you concede the point now?
I notice that both times you have said this, it comes where you have been proven, undeniably, to be wrong in your original assertion. The UK English equivalent of this phrase is along the lines of “Well, that’s a surprise to me, but having read the arguments, they seem to be right. I guess you learn something new every day.”
[Edited for spelling]
Help yourself. Mistakes happens in war. Iv’e said it before. But while you’re at it. please explain your hypocricy in claiming US soldiers are carelss while British soldiers have killed numerous unarmed Iraqi citizens with carelss fire. Have the guts to try to explain your hypocricy.
So you’re saying the ballistics software is incorrect? Just answer that question if you have the balls. And explain your hypocricy if you dare too.
Well we’re still waiting for you to have the guts to apologise for your unwarranted rudeness when we help to clarify your lack of appreciation of the laws of Physics… And to think in the course of one morning you’ve run out of feet to shoot yourself in.
EDIT: Ironman. READ the image you posted. 45 is NOT the angle for maximum range. 40 is. And 35 is still much further than 45. So I suggest since 36, 37, 38, 39 degrees are missing, you graph the whole range of angle vs distance data to see where the maxima lies (clue: between 35 and 40 for that round in those conditions)
[quote=“IRONMAN”]
So you’re saying the ballistics software is incorrect? Just answer that question if you have the balls. And explain your hypocricy if you dare too.[/quote]
Sorry, but it was YOU who claimed in multiple posts that it WAS 45°.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jesse99/exterior.html
So this popular ballistics software is wrong? :lol:
Dudey, you spout el trasho.[/quote]
Oh dear. Not only have you failed to read other people’s posts, you’ve also failed to read your own!
Observe:
At 35°, the range is 3.29 miles.
At 40°, the range is 3.30 miles
at 45°, the range is 3.25 miles.
It is indisputable that 3.30 miles is a greater distance than 3.25 miles. So, max range clearly does not occur at 45° in this case. Holy freaking guano?
Edited to add: This is using figures provided by IRONMAN. I’m assuming the software is right, and the figures are correct, regardless of the straw-maning of IRONMAN.
By the way gents, that image is saved on my computer so should it happen to magically “change” by accident, I have the original should anyone wish to host it. In fact, can anyone blow up the three lines of interest (35, 40, 45) and host them somewhere so we can post them nice and large so we can have a good chuckle at how Ironman is rude to people insisting they are hypocrites and wrong, when his own evidence proves him wrong in black and white, and he doesn’t even realise it.
So the US soldiers fired into the desert even farther eh? Now haow about explaining your hypocricy in claiming that US soldiers shoot wrecklessly while the British have killed so many unarmed citizens in Iraq.
You have the URL smartmouth.
Wow. That changes everything. That means the soldiers were shooting even farther eh? I’d say the bullets traveled more like 2 to 2 1/2 miles. At least 2. So your claim that they were shooting into the streets beside them is wack isn’t it. Get a clue already.
Do you know how big that town is? Do you know what direction the firing took place in? How how do you know that it landed in the desert & didn’t land in a built-up area? Were you there?
Except on a 2-way range (i.e. a firefight), you must always know your backstop.
Now please admit that you were wrong about the 45° maximum range thing. A simple “sorry” will suffice.
You have the URL smartmouth.
[/quote]
Smartmouth eh?
Let’s see… From the past two to three pages…
Gosh. I forgot. Mathematics has nothing to do with it. That’s why thiey used mathematics to explain the 45 degree thing.
Whatever dudey. The weapon was pointed at about a 35 degree angle, so by your whacked physics, the bullets traveled even farther.
Have a freaking clue first and blather second eh?
I loved that one.
OK. Whatever dudey. I still think you’re wrong
That one was similarly stupid considering you’ve consistently proven yourself to be wrong on that score.
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?
REeaaaaaaaaallllly hilarious in a smartmouth kind of way, to kind of deflect attention from your own stupidity on basic Physics and insulting people, considering that you attributed claims to me which I did not make. 
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.
Was p*** funny considering the maximum range was achieved somewhere between 35 and 40 degrees!!! I loved it how you managed to shoot yourself in the foot and pretended not to notice by now desperately trying to change the subject
So this popular ballistics software is wrong?
Dudey, you spout el trasho.
MULTIPLE people had just posted that 45 degrees was NOT the maximum as you insisted it was. My God, can you even read in between being a “smartmouth”?
So you’re saying the ballistics software is incorrect? Just answer that question if you have the balls. And explain your hypocricy if you dare too.
Nobody said the ballistics software was incorrect. They said YOU were incorrect. And guess what? The ballistics software said so too! But you were too busy being a “smartmouth” to notice.
Wow. That changes everything. That means the soldiers were shooting even farther eh? So your claim that they were shooting into the streets beside them is wack isn’t it. Get a clue already.
sigh. I didn’t claim that. Find where I did.
(edit: I have the .jpg saved on my desktop… in fact, I think I’ll MAKE it my desktop)
Do you know that the British have killed dozens of unarmed Iraqi civilians with carelss fire? You do? And you are blathering off at the Americans? Do you have the slightest idea how absurd you look doing that? I do. So does anyone else, including yourself. 
So can you explain your hypocricy in attacking the US troops for accidental deaths when the British have killed many unarmed iraqi citizens with careless fire? Please, let’s hear that. :roll:
So can you explain your hypocricy in attacking the US troops for accidental deaths when the British have killed many unarmed iraqi citizens with careless fire? Please, let’s hear that.[/quote]
Find where I have made this claim.
HINT: I didn’t.
Do you know that the British have killed dozens of unarmed Iraqi civilians with carelss fire? You do? And you are blathering off at the Americans? [/quote]
I merely commented in the specific case of one soldier firing his wpn in the air - where the hell did you infer that I’m blathering off at the americans? I’m making considered statements about one particular american! Setting up strawmen to knock down might seem big & clever to you, but it doesn’t fool the rest of us.
Do you have the slightest idea how absurd you look doing that? I do. So does anyone else, including yourself.
This statement is irony embodied!
I’m starting to think that you are not old enough to be in the military.
Hey, it’s not me. It’s the UN and Amnesty International that know all that and made those reports about British soldiers killing numerous civilians with careless fire. Please, inform us about how you were a part of their investigative teams.[/quote]
I’d like to hear your reasoning on this…
I’m sure you have a well thought out argument, after all, you wouldn’t post unsubstantiated claims and accusations would you?
I am not trying to make the US look bad at all, it is down to the individual and his training as to who is at fault. As I mentioned earlier, firing wildly violates Rule Four.
I will say however that similar actions by members of the British Army would have the Head Shed leaping onto the individuals concerned.
The video only demonstrates the reaction to an IED or gren attack, the troops might have been disciplined for their actions at a later stage - I don’t know if this was the case or not.
So that’s why the British are inncocent?[/quote]
I haven’t said that anyone was innocent, but PSO is not the same as warfighting.
Bullhockey. The soldiers of every army have to account for thier fire. American soldiers do too. Are you suggesting that the British soldiers count every round and make a note about where the spent it? Good Lord dude. Are you saying US soldiers don’t have to answer for their gunfire? Just want to know what you are implying clearly, so we can get the information from the appropriate sources in here to back it up.[/quote]
Please explain what you mean by ‘Bullhockey’ in relation to the comment posted.
I’m not saying US soldiers don’t have to account for their gunfire, I sincerely hope they do.
Brit troops do have to account for each of their rds, thirty odd years of experience in NI ensures that everyone is drilled in this due to the investigaton that accompanies all discharge of wpns.
[quote=“IRONMAN”]
I was refering to the British dropping bombs on civilian in Basra and killing numerous civilians. It happened, it’s documented by the British military themselves. Are you going to say it didn’t happen now?[/quote]
Nope, why should I ?
When I have the time I’ll look up the incident(s) to which you refer.
Let me clue you in. To spead a rumore that makes a flase claim is hatred. Now, as for the video, it showed care and consideration. More than the British showed when they opened fire upon people at a wedding and killed an 8yr old girl. You can cut the hypocritical crap now. [/quote]
Hypocrytical ? I would be making exactly the same comments regardless of the nationality of those involved.
I think Man of Stoat addressed the hypocritical stance adequately.
Oh but money does make a difference, unfortunately. Money is what many of these things cost. A billion bottles of distilled water are not free. Neither is are the materials to build a school for children or to build an electricity generation plant or a civic building. [/quote]
I never claimed that money doesn’t make a difference, sure it’s an essential part but hearts and minds are won by attitude rather than fiscal help. One cannot buy everything.
Neither.
Nope.
Nope.
Asking the question once is sufficient.
So can you explain your hypocricy in attacking the US troops for accidental deaths when the British have killed many unarmed iraqi citizens with careless fire? Please, let’s hear that.[/quote]
Find where I have made this claim.
HINT: I didn’t.[/quote]
So, you’re just on the bandwagon like a pack dog eh? :lol:
It’s funny how a search for your name turns up a lot of pages where the name 'festumus" does not exist. How do you suppose that is?
Oh. Well I’m just talking about the British soldiers who killed an Iraqi man who was walking home one afternoon because he was walking in his direction. He and his buddy opened fire on him and killed him. He was unarmed and coming home from a firend’s house. Man, that was careless.
What unsupported claims? You mean about all of the iraqi citizens whove been shot and killed by British soldiers? You’re saying those things never happened?
It’s so nice to have the whole British pack in here after me. Gotta love the way your brits think like gangsters.