Still no proof of your claim eh? What about the others too? We know, the range for section fire in Britain is TOP SECRET!!! God forbid the terrorists find out what it is!
I’ve asked you to prove a number of your claims, but you’ve provided spit for proof. Most of them are so absurd that proof is not required, common sence is enough. But just provide the proof. That’s all we ask. Why have you given none?
So that 500m range is with AR’s?
Still no proof of your claim eh? What about the others too? We know, the range for section fire in Britain is TOP SECRET!!! God forbid the terrorists find out what it is![/quote]
It is not top secret, no one has said that it is. It is classified as RESTRICTED meaning that it is not to be shown outside the military. Therefore it is not on any website that I know of. It has nothing to do with terrorists as far as I know, it is purely that Britain takes security very seriously unlike our American cousins. Even documents on foot drill are restricted.
IIRC you have also been asked to provide proof. More proof has been shown to you than you have ever deigned to show yourself. As for being proved to be wrong and not showing your face on here, why not take your own advice?
I havent asked Ironman for any proof, I have jsut asked Ironman to tell me if two statements that I provide him with are contradictory.
He did infact tell Erwin Schatzer that standard rifles were effective at 600 metres already, he just now denies it!!
Aaaa! See there is the difference! I am man enough to admit when I am incorrect. So is the proof for all of your ridiculous claims restricted too?
Aaaa! See there is the difference! I am man enough to admit when I am incorrect.[/quote]
You haven’t yet, anywhere on this site, on any subject, admitted that you are wrong!
Aaaa! See there is the difference! I am man enough to admit when I am incorrect. So is the proof for all of your ridiculous claims restricted too?[/quote]
You haven’t admitted that you are wrong here: http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=249
Since it was one of your more stupid and outrageous claims, it would be awfully nice if you’d admit to being incorrect.
Aaaa! See there is the difference! I am man enough to admit when I am incorrect.[/quote]
You haven’t yet, anywhere on this site, on any subject, admitted that you are wrong![/quote]
You read it kiddo. Still looking for your proof that because other people have migrated to France, the French are not largely Celtic. Ya know what? They are. I’d love to see you try it though. It would be funny.
Aaaa! See there is the difference! I am man enough to admit when I am incorrect.[/quote]
You haven’t yet, anywhere on this site, on any subject, admitted that you are wrong![/quote]
You read it kiddo. Still looking for your proof that because other people have migrated to France, the French are not largely Celtic. Ya know what? They are. I’d love to see you try it though. It would be funny.[/quote]
Please respond to my question in the other thread dealing with “Celtic France”.
By the way, please can you check who has posted something before you tell someone they are wrong. I have not posted anything about the ethnicity of the French. I merely posted about the languages.
Edited to add url of my other post: http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=5098#5098
Nobody said you can’t shoot at something 600m away you dingbat. But they have failed to prove that the doctrine of the military for section fire with AR’s is up to 600m, which they claimed. Claims, claims, claims. Just mouth.
Yea, he posted it. Here it is. It states 300m to 500m. The 600m part is in your head.
If they’ve failed to prove that doctrine is 600m why was it then in february i found myself at hythe ranges at the section defence shoot (this is where you shoot a targets that pop up, at ranges of 600m!, in a section) being told to engage targets at 600m! But of course you’re completely right why would the DS tell us to engage targets at 600m when its not brit. military doctrine. kn0bber :roll:
Join the real forces either reserve or reg then come and share some of your useful experience!
Traditionally, assult rifles are short-barreled (carbines).
Guess that counts the M16 out then!
I can imagine hitting a man with a carbine and at up to 300 yards by compensating with holding the barrel up - perhaps aiming at the height of his head a to hit him in the chest…
And not by adjusting your sights so that the little number “3” comes next to the marker? Wow, we’ve all been doing this wrong all the time! And you’re supposed to be a shooter?
I do still think that there is enough difference between the weapons to say that the carbine is not based on the Garand. If you compared the action of many weapons, there would be considerable similarity between many of them even if they were designed independantly without inspiration from each other.
Well, all you have to do is to put one beside the other. The resemblance is uncanny. Those 2 are the only weapons that looked anything like them for quite some time after WWII. There is no doubt that it was the source of inspiration for the AK.
Interesting… So, the M1 carbine and Garand have almost identical bolts, the carbine bolt being a scaled-down Garand bolt (and developped later), and yet the M1 carbine is not derivative and was designed independently, whilst the AK47 must be derivative since it looks similar, despite the bolt using a totally different principle (rotating rather than tipping")?
Nobody said you can’t shoot at something 600m away you dingbat. But they have failed to prove that the doctrine of the military for section fire with AR’s is up to 600m, which they claimed. Claims, claims, claims. Just mouth.
Well you did!
None of the carbine assult rifles used by any of the nations of the world have the range to fight at distances of 400+ meters. So why do you point at the M4? BTW, most of the fighting done in Iraq today is city fighting
No, the reported fighting is in towns, the media can not or will not go out of town. If its not on CNN I could not have happened. (Said with real sarcasm)
ranges of up to 200+ meters. A carbine assult rifle is ideal for that environment. However, the US, like all armies, carries more than one weapon to war.
oh right, (said with real derision) I remember the day I had an SLR, 84mm, a 66mm, 100 rds of link plus my fighting order. And then carry another short range weapon and ammo just in case. Or is it on the truck following me. OK guys stop hire this looks like we will need to change our weapons, call the CQMS and get new ones. (sarcasm again)
Covering fire is a concept that is been deployed by every army in the world (US, Britain, Russia… etc). It is used by your country’s army and mine.
Thats right
[b]
I don’t think that you or I have better knowledge of how to fight building-to-building combat better than those professional militaries do.
[/b]
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
At last you have said something true. (Said with real sarcasm)
Walther War Machines big book of solider knowledge
Is for reference only, take your arguments elsewhere this is meant to be an unadulterated symposium of the musings of a modern day military legend.
Please argue elsewhere, I suggest you hi jack another thread not this one.
IRONY INTENDED
Hey, I take objection to connecting my username with Potmetalboy! :lol:
Jan
Oh having a wee bit of trouble with organinzation are we. :mrgreen:
:lol: :lol: :lol: JK
Irony continuing to be intended :lol:
…but they have failed. They have also failed to prove a lot of bullsht claims. My favorite bullsht claim that has been made is that the assualt rifle or it’s concept did not exist until the Germans coined the term “storm rifle” and made the MP43. :lol:
Then again, saying that US did nothing to develop the jet engine until after WWII when they got their hands on German models was truly ignorant. Or the claim that jet airplanes have nothing in them which could be called a fan (compressor fans?). The claim that a jet engine 10x or even 2x the size of another weighs about the same is perhaps as ignorant as it gets. That’s a classic bit of stupidity. It will be hard to top that one.
You are either talking about a rotor of a compressor or you are talking about a fan, which is a completely different animal, as on a turbofan engine period.
Jan
P.S.
I doubt that you are 40+ years old. I assume that you are a 16 year old kid, who knows somewhat how to use Google. No, I´m not a soldier, I´ve never been one (I did my time in the German Civil Defense), but since several years I collect British and Russian WW2 gear. And concerning aircraft engines, I hold an FAA A&P licence (which can be easily confirmed), together with a European JAR 66 B1 licence,plus the Irish Aviation Authority Basic Aeronautical Engineering Certificates and I´m certified on several commercial jet engines, plus I have maintenance experience on plenty of others. I fact, I spent most of the last ten years fixing commercial transport aircraft.
Concerning aircraft engines, you´ve proventhat you don´t even know the basics. Go back to highschool science to catch up on your elementary physics.
Jan
I’m sorry, didn’t we mention the Federov Avtomat repeatedly, or have you forgotten?