More classic Iron man

2nd Foot,

Obviously you are hell-bent on finding some fault in the US soldiers who were attacked in that convoy. But you have made some mistakes in so doing. I will bring them to light:

I guess you don’t know much about such convoy attacks, so let me help you understand them. There is not just one particular place where a convoy is attacked on a street like that. The convoy was attacked at several places on their route. AFTER the initial attack with grenades and small arms, and after the convoy has moved @200-300m forward, if you listen to the audio, you will hear an officer say,

“Is that them?”
Another states, “Yea it’s them.”

Then a couple of seconds later you hear a deeper sounding machine gun firing as the convoy fires back at their attackers. The officer says,

“THAT’S not them.”
The other replies, “No that’s not them. That’s us.”

So here you have a convoy that is attacked at numerous places on their route, and you hear the US troops firing back with the deeper sounding machine gun using very few and intermitten rounds of quite obviously retrained fire…

“boom boom… boom… boom… boom boom”

That is very common in Iraq. American convoys are often fired upon from several locations on the same road by insugents in buildings, around street corners, etc.

A minute later in the video, an officer says, “More on the route. We got more coming.”

Now why does he say that? He says it because he knows what is going on, and may have even been in that situation more than once. He knows that they are about to be fired on again, even though they have already been fired upon more than once along the way.

They were not traveling 50 mph either. They were moving probably less than 40. I have watched the video numerous times carefully. But their speed has nothing to do with it, since they were attacked here, and a hundred meters later, and 300 meters after that, etc.

The buildings on the right are 7-10m from the street. The building to the right where the soldier is firing is several stories tall. Watch the video again. That is where the soldier is pointing his weapon - at insurgents firing from the windows of that building. I hope he hit the f*uck too.

Indeed they were returning fire, as another report states. US convoys are attacked all the time, and they return fire all the time.

Again, they were not out of any “kill area”. There is not just one “kill area” to convoy ambushes in the cities in Iraq. There was no excessive fire that can be determined from that video. In fact, you can hear that a US machinegunner is using very few, carefully placed rounds un unsustained fire!

You are implying something which is impossible to determine by anyone except the men in the convoy. You did not see and you cannot hear all of the weapons fire from that video which was made from inside just one SUV with the windows rolled up in a convoy of several vehicles. When US convoys are attacked, their vehicles are often riddled with bullets. Sometimes they don’t make it, and are cut to peices. And you make the assumption that the US troops used excessive fire? Come on man. Don’t stray so far from reality here.

You have seen that they were firing at the enemy in and on top of buildings, not into the air. But even if they were, I would not condemn it under those circumstances.

If you don’t like it that soldiers return fire from convoys when attacked, I suggest you write a letter to Blair and ask him to tell the british military to be sweet boys and not shoot bullets in town when grenades and AK-47’s are riddling their vehicles with bullets. Tell him how that’s not being nice.

They don’t do that? I hear about them doing it all the time. I see video of them doing it on TV twice a week, walking around with weapons, keeping the peace, stopping looters. Humgh.

Just wanted to take a jab at the US eh? I understand. It happens here all the time on this forum, in quite a few threads.

None of the occupation armies - British or American, really got looting under control in the early days. Certainly in the British case, and most probably in the American case, this was claimed to be a calculated move to allow the Iraqi people to “blow off steam”. The wisdom of this was challenged at the time.

I agree that there was not enough done by the troops of either the US or Britain to stop it. Look what happened to that museum with priceless historical artifacts. I was pissed when i heard about it. What a f*uck up that was. I was mad at the US military for not posting some type of force at that building.

I don’t know about that idea thet it was a “calculated move”. I tend to doubt that. If you have any documentation about it go ahead and post it. But please, not from a liberal rag - from an official news agancy or something.

They don’t do that? I hear about them doing it all the time. I see video of them doing it on TV twice a week, walking around with weapons, keeping the peace, stopping looters. Humgh.

Just wanted to take a jab at the US eh? I understand. It happens here all the time on this forum, in quite a few threads.[/quote]

No Rumsfelt got it wrong and tried to save money. They were not ready for the occupation.

I agree that there was not enough done by the troops of either the US or Britain to stop it. Look what happened to that museum with priceless historical artifacts. I was pissed when i heard about it. What a f*uck up that was. I was mad at the US military for not posting some type of force at that building.

.[/quote]

this has now been proved to be rubbish and again media hype.

I agree. Rumsfeld should have been fired. But it was not money he was trying to save I think. I believe it was numbers. He sent in about 40-50,000 too few men to occupy Iraq properly.

BBC?

Basra :: Clive Myrie :: 0631GMT

I am with the Royal Marines of 42 Commando and they have the city very much under control.

There was a lot of looting yesterday - a lot of violence - but the British troops decided it wasn’t worth intervening and getting involved in urban problems with local people.

I suspect that they feel there is a certain amount of letting off of steam to take place between one regime going and another regime - the British coalition forces - coming in.

Hopefully it will be a little quieter today in the centre of town. But British forces are very much in control and will, over the next few days, try to offer any humanitarian help needed to the citizens of Iraq’s second city.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/2927191.stm

From the most hasty of searches

EDIT Also a suggestion that this was likewise suggested of the US
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/06/25/nyt.friedman/

Hope this helps.

So now you accept that they are not firing into the air to frighten the local?

If you bother to read what is written I said

You have hit on the whole point, well done.
This is not one is better than the other, it is an understanding that one army does things different to the other. As to who is better than the other is a pointless trip.

The firing you hear is friendly fire not enemy fire as I am sure those that have heard Aks fired will tell you. The people in the SUV are PMC not soldiers, the soldiers/airmen are in ht mil veh. There is only one attack. The commentary on the film is crap “look at the number of bullet holes on the SUV” they are grenade splinters, typical media crap.

Grenade splinters? WTF? Dude, a fragmentary grenade might put out 20 pieces of shrapnel. Not 1,000. 8)

Did you not read what I posted about the convoy? The US soldier, later in the video, can be heard firing intermittent, selective rounds from a deeper sounding weapon. Obviously, he was shooting at something, carefully I might add. That was a few hundred meters past the initial grenade attack.

Do you not realize that convoys on city streets are typically attacked at several places along their route?

It was a SAW and firing 3-5 round burst over a period of about 45 seconds and a distance of 600m. there was only one attack.

and probably came from the green veh that they pass.

edited to add the above

One attack? Silly boy. There has never been a convoy in the cities in Iraq that was attacked at only 1 place. That’s not how the insurgents do it. These guys are well organized dudey. They use radios to communicate and everything. You need to have more information before posting something like that.

Grenade splinters? WTF? Dude, a fragmentary grenade might put out 20 pieces of shrapnel. Not 1,000. 8)

Did you not read what I posted about the convoy? The US soldier, later in the video, can be heard firing intermittent, selective rounds from a deeper sounding weapon. Obviously, he was shooting at something, carefully I might add. That was a few hundred meters past the initial grenade attack.

You do not know the make up of a grenade or you would not have said the above.

The splinters are all at the location of the grenade that exploded on the front SUV,

Do you not realize that convoys on city streets are typically attacked at several places along their route?[/quote]

You do not know the make up of a grenade or you would not have said the above.

The splinters are all at the location of the grenade that exploded on the front SUV,

One attack? Silly boy. There has never been a convoy in the cities in Iraq that was attacked at only 1 place. That’s not how the insurgents do it. These guys are well organized dudey. They use radios to communicate and everything. You need to have more information before posting something like that.[/quote]

They do now but at the time of this attack about a year 8 months ago it was not the case. This attack is a typical cowboy attack of amateurs who die very quickly. Unfortunately they are replaced by better ones who learn from others mistakes. This attack was a simple one and the comments you hear on the film are normal confusion in an attack.

Good Lord man. What you fail to understand, because you are hell-bent on going after the men in the vehicles and finding some guilt in their returning fire, is that the insurgents do not shoot once and let the convoy go on. Most of those attackes are well planned, and any that uses grenades is certainly planned. They don’t sit around on the street corners with RPGs and just wait for the chance that a convoy might come by. Good Lord. They take numerous men with them, they communicate by radio and tell each other where the vehicles are and how long before they will arrive at the initial hot spot. They attack with RPGs and at least several men with small arms.

GOOD LORD MAN. Know something, please. What you have said it completely ignorant.

So you’re an expert on attacks now. and never is a dangerous work to use.

For Ironman the development of grenades stopped with the American Mk2 pineapple.
For your information: It has been proven that the grenades with a cast iron body and grooves on the outside break up into irregular sized fragments. Some are too small to cause injury, while others are so heavy that they will fly for hundred meters, the result is very unpredictable. Your quote of 20 fragments is acceptable for the old style grenades used e.g. in WW2, like the No.36 grenade or the American Mk2.
One development was to use a thin sheetmetal body, which has a prenotched coil of heavy steel wire on the inside. The grenade is not filled with a high explosve anymore (like TNT or RDX), but with slower burning smokeless powder. The explosion of such a grenade results in a cloud of fragments heavy enough to cause serious injury within a distance of about 10 meters (somebody correct me on this?), but they are slowing down quite quickly so that at larger distances they are safe.
Another idea is the modern German dual purpose grenade currently used by the Bundeswehr. It uses a thinwalled casing filled with explosive and can thus act as a pure blast grenade. However you can slip a plasic sleeve over it, which is filled with about 900 small ball bearings to give a fragmentation effect.

Jan

Edit for typos

[quote=“2nd_of_foot”]

So you’re an expert on attacks now. and never is a dangerous work to use.[/quote]

No but you are so unknowledgable that it makes me wonder if you are aware of anything whatsoever that is going on over there. Convoys are attacked once in route… :roll: Ha! Good Lord. How can someone be so uninformed and then carry on about it like they have the low down on it.

Good Lord man. What you fail to understand, because you are hell-bent on going after the men in the vehicles and finding some guilt in their returning fire, is that the insurgents do not shoot once and let the convoy go on. Most of those attackes are well planned, and any that uses grenades is certainly planned. They don’t sit around on the street corners with RPGs and just wait for the chance that a convoy might come by. Good Lord. They take numerous men with them, they communicate by radio and tell each other where the vehicles are and how long before they will arrive at the initial hot spot. They attack with RPGs and at least several men with small arms.

GOOD LORD MAN. Know something, please. What you have said it completely ignorant.[/quote]

what RPG, please show me an RPG on that film.

I don’t believe that myself. They did not have the men to stop that much looting in that many places in a city that large at that time. Do you know how many men it would take to control all of the prominet streets of a city the size of Bahgdad? Thousands!

You carry on about media hype, well there’s some for you.