PDA

View Full Version : German weapons in korean war?



FW-190 Pilot
02-22-2005, 06:17 PM
Did American actually use capture germany new planes, tanks or any weapon on the war of korea? what weapon did they use?
Me 262? X-4 missiles ?
FW-190? thanks for the info

WildBoar
02-24-2005, 12:49 PM
I don't think they used any German equipment for anything other than research to develop in future. They had more than enough of their own manufacturing companies to supply their needs.

American ammunition etc. is all imperial measurements so they would have had to adapt which wouldn't be worthwhile.

FW-190 Pilot
02-26-2005, 09:18 PM
do you think the remaining of the german weapon can be used by the allies to protect western germany against Soviet?

TexWiller
02-27-2005, 01:42 PM
Well they really didn't need any of the german weapon because they already had mountains of guns&ammo which were produced during WW2.USA gave most of them away;entire Turkish force used them in Korea.Even my uncle,who served in Turkish Armed Forces in 70s,trained with M1 Garands and told me that there were crates of these weapons,never even fired once.

Gen. Sandworm
03-12-2005, 08:59 PM
Im wouldnt think that German equipment was used during the Korean war. But i can tell you that there concepts and technology were used.

Preatorian
03-23-2005, 04:41 AM
do you think the remaining of the german weapon can be used by the allies to protect western germany against Soviet?
I hawe not any idea how captured German's hevy weapon was used after WWII, but i know for sure few facts:
MP 43/STG44 was used pretty long time in East Germany and Yugoslavia as paratroopers and military police weapon.
Walther P 38 was used both Germans as army/police sidearm, East Germany late refused this handgun in favor of PM (Pistolet Makarova), West Germany still use P-38 (a bit changed during afterwar produsing, 'corse) in non combat parts of Bundesver.
Walther PP and PPK was used in USSR as sidearm of Diplomatic Post Security till 1975.
A lots of C-98 still in use in post-USSR space as hunter rifle, i saw also C-98 fabrically re-barreled for 9 mm catriges. And, i guess, lots and lots of C-98 still in stores as "strategical reserv" somewhere in Russia.
Crates of MP 38/40, C-98, StG44 was sent with company of PPSH, PPS, SVT and AVS and other old Soviet guns in Cuba and Korea (and i guess in China too) as "war help".

Dragkon
03-25-2005, 12:53 PM
As for German hevy weapon:
Pz.4 were used 1964- in Siria("war for water") by Sirian army (together with T-34-85), for a long time by army of Finland, and in Africa.

benjclark
04-01-2005, 01:46 PM
At the Silent Wings Museum, Lubbock, TX, we have a WW2 German Nebelwerfer 41 w/ a Russian tire on it. No ideas.

RighteousDuncan
04-01-2005, 03:56 PM
The IAF (Israel) used ME109's in 1948, they bought em from Spain. Kind of Ironic that they used German planes.

FW-190 Pilot
04-03-2005, 05:55 PM
The IAF (Israel) used ME109's in 1948, they bought em from Spain. Kind of Ironic that they used German planes.
they also used T-34 against Egypt's JS-3 tank

RighteousDuncan
04-03-2005, 06:32 PM
Yep, good ol' T-34s

Polar
04-20-2005, 05:16 AM
The IAF (Israel) used ME109's in 1948, they bought em from Spain. Kind of Ironic that they used German planes.
I'm never heard about that Israel bought Me109 in Spain, but IAF was using in large nuber Avia S-199. Avia S-199 was Czechoslovakia version Me-109 built after war.

IRONMAN
05-01-2005, 11:22 PM
Did American actually use capture germany new planes, tanks or any weapon on the war of korea? what weapon did they use?
Me 262? X-4 missiles ?
FW-190? thanks for the info

I agree with the others. In Korea, the US used Sherman and Patton tanks (American), and the planes used were mostly P-51 Mustangs and Corsairs, but jets used in low numbers (all American).


do you think the remaining of the german weapon can be used by the allies to protect western germany against Soviet?

They were collected and destroyed by the Americans. Germany was dissarmed. Those weapons which remain are few, and they are mostly in museums or owned by private individuals.


Im wouldnt think that German equipment was used during the Korean war. But i can tell you that there concepts and technology were used.

Not sure what you mean by concepts, but if you mean warfare tactics, you would be incorrect. Korea was a very different kind of battlefield and the Noth Koreans proved to be a more deadly, better armed, and more tenatious enemy than the Germans were in WWII. If you meant jet engine planes...

The jet airplane was developed by the United States, Britain and Germany independantly and at the same time. Germany simply tried using them in war first. The US had a jet airplane by 1942, and a war servicable jet fighter by 1944, but they were not built in enough numbers in time to use them for the expected invasion of Japan.

Early US jet fighters:

Mid to late 1940's:
http://f-86.tripod.com/fj1a.jpg

Mid 1950's:
http://www.sky-chaser.com/image/airshow/asf86.jpg

http://www.nawcad.navy.mil/images/aircraft/t2c.jpg

http://f-86.tripod.com/fj1.html

Dani
05-04-2005, 08:09 AM
I suggest all of you to come back to the topic.

Gen. Sandworm
05-10-2005, 04:15 AM
I suggest all of you to come back to the topic.

Agreed Dani.

Topic Split. Moved most of the posts to The Jet Engine.

K Accidently moved this topic to the book forum. Ill move it to General WW2 when i get the chance.

FW-190 Pilot
05-18-2005, 04:48 PM
[quote=FW-190 Pilot]Did American actually use capture germany new planes, tanks or any weapon on the war of korea? what weapon did they use?
Me 262? X-4 missiles ?
FW-190? thanks for the info

I agree with the others. In Korea, the US used Sherman and Patton tanks (American), and the planes used were mostly P-51 Mustangs and Corsairs, but jets used in low numbers (all American).

i have to disagree with you on that, soviet did use their mig-15 in korean war

pdf27
05-18-2005, 05:23 PM
i have to disagree with you on that, soviet did use their mig-15 in korean war
Well, they were officially North Koreans and "Chinese Volunteers"...
Besides which, some Meteors also saw action in the air-to-ground role (they were too obselete to tangle with the MiG-15s, although they would beat everything else), IIRC with the RAAF.

Preatorian
05-18-2005, 05:34 PM
i have to disagree with you on that, soviet did use their mig-15 in korean war
Sure they did. :D But most of Migs in Korea was China-made licensed copyes of Mig 15.
Finally one North Korean pilot escaped to South Korea with he's MiG 15 and USA get brand-new soviet airplane.

Btw in Korea at commy's side was used old soviet biplanes Po 2, and it was real nightmare - 'cos that old biplanes was used mostly in nighttime. Americans don't have any idea - what to do with that old thing, slow and low-flyeing but hard dieng (hard to drop down airplan maked from wood and textile, flying about 1,5-2 meters higher trees spires at speed about 120 km/h)- Mustangs and especially jets was useless against Po 2, they just hawe enough time to aim and stike it enogh ('cos Po-2 can take a lot bullets though and will be still in air).
Finally helicopters was used against it - with same speed and same extremally super-low flyight capability.
Thats old biplans was used in WWII to - as night bombers and scout-plane - rotary engine don't make a lot noise and that plane was usable to drop grenades right in blindage's chimney... soviet pilots (Po-2 crews during WWII usually was a wimen) caled that night-bombings actions "Trating to nazi an pork chops".
Firstly nazi's called that biplane as "coffee grinder" and "russian veneer" but after time for each exterminated Po-2 nazi's commands payd 5000 rm and gived "Iron kross" medal...
http://eroplan.boom.ru/shavrov/chr7/pol/Image42.jpg

Gen. Sandworm
05-18-2005, 10:53 PM
Did American actually use capture germany new planes, tanks or any weapon on the war of korea? what weapon did they use?
Me 262? X-4 missiles ?
FW-190? thanks for the info

I agree with the others. In Korea, the US used Sherman and Patton tanks (American), and the planes used were mostly P-51 Mustangs and Corsairs, but jets used in low numbers (all American).

i have to disagree with you on that, soviet did use their mig-15 in korean war

What what what????? The Korean war was the classic battle between the MiG 15 and the F-86 Sabre. You can say what you want about both planes but it came out to a stalemate. IMHO. And many others they were pretty much equal. IRONMAN what is up with the Cosairs and the P-51's. Like looking at the flea circus while the elephants are walking the wire. :)

2nd of foot
05-19-2005, 03:04 AM
i have to disagree with you on that, soviet did use their mig-15 in korean war
Well, they were officially North Koreans and "Chinese Volunteers"...
Besides which, some Meteors also saw action in the air-to-ground role (they were too obselete to tangle with the MiG-15s, although they would beat everything else), IIRC with the RAAF.

The RAAF Metrors claim 3 Mig 17s, but your right mostly used in ground support.

pdf27
05-19-2005, 12:58 PM
The RAAF Metrors claim 3 Mig 17s, but your right mostly used in ground support.
<engage pedant mode ;)>

IRONMAN
05-24-2005, 08:55 AM
i have to disagree with you on that, soviet did use their mig-15 in korean war

But jets were not used in great numbers, only in low numbers, so, my post was indeed correct my friend.

reiver
05-24-2005, 02:52 PM
i have to disagree with you on that, soviet did use their mig-15 in korean war

But jets were not used in great numbers, only in low numbers, so, my post was indeed correct my friend.
Ok, from "Aircraft in the Korean War" http://www.korean-war.com/KWAircraft/index.html

Not all at the same time, it would seem, but : Jet Aircraft in Theatre by type;

USA
365 F-80s
218 F-84s
165 F86s
132 F-86 Fighter/Bombers.
2 Squadrons of F94Bs
17 USN Sdns F9F
6USN Reserve Sqdns F9F
2 USMC Sqdns F9F
4 USN Sdns F2-H2

Communists
3 Soviet Divisions Mig-15
1 Chinese Division Mig-15

Communist losses are listed as 319 Russian Mig-15s
224 Chinese Mig-15s

I'm sure someone can advise me as to the number of aircraft likely to be in a Navy or USMC Squadron, as well as a Soviet Air Division, but the above strikes me as rather more than "low numbers".

IRONMAN
05-24-2005, 06:40 PM
i have to disagree with you on that, soviet did use their mig-15 in korean war

But jets were not used in great numbers, only in low numbers, so, my post was indeed correct my friend.
Ok, from "Aircraft in the Korean War" http://www.korean-war.com/KWAircraft/index.html

Not all at the same time, it would seem, but : Jet Aircraft in Theatre by type;

USA
365 F-80s
218 F-84s
165 F86s
132 F-86 Fighter/Bombers.
2 Squadrons of F94Bs
17 USN Sdns F9F
6USN Reserve Sqdns F9F
2 USMC Sqdns F9F
4 USN Sdns F2-H2

Communists
3 Soviet Divisions Mig-15
1 Chinese Division Mig-15

Communist losses are listed as 319 Russian Mig-15s
224 Chinese Mig-15s

I'm sure someone can advise me as to the number of aircraft likely to be in a Navy or USMC Squadron, as well as a Soviet Air Division, but the above strikes me as rather more than "low numbers".

You blundered again. You are including all of the planes of those types that were on the aircraft carriers that went to Korea, not the number of those planes that were actually used in combat. By that measure:

45 F-51s
328 Corsairs
312 F4Us

...and hundreds of other piston engine planes were "used" as well.

So, no, all of those planes were not used in combat in Korea. Sorry.

Oh, and none of them were German.

reiver
05-25-2005, 01:04 AM
No blunder.
According to the site quoted, those aircraft fought in Korea.
Where did the thread become restricted to land-based aircraft?
Also, communist losses amount to over 500 JET aircraft.
Again, hardly a small number.
Obviously there were hundreds of piston engined aircraft.
Did I suggest there weren't?
No, no German planes, but then
"the planes used were mostly P-51 Mustangs and Corsairs, but jets used in low numbers (all American)."
..they weren't all American either.

If you want to avoid the kind of reaction which you blame elsewhere to anti-Americanism, try reducing the level of your arrogance a couple of notches.

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 03:10 AM
No blunder.
According to the site quoted, those aircraft fought in Korea.

Blunder No. 1:

You misunderstood it. Those aircraft were on the carriers. That does not mean the US launched entire carrier after carrier of jets. :roll:


"the planes used were mostly P-51 Mustangs and Corsairs, but jets used in low numbers (all American)."
..they weren't all American either.

Blunder No. 2:

Truly, your reading comprehension is in need of improvement. You somehow thought that my statement that "none were German" meant that none of the planes used in the war were anything BUT American.

This is the subject of this thread my slow-minded friend:

"German Weapons in Korean War?"


Did American actually use capture germany new planes, tanks or any weapon on the war of korea? what weapon did they use?
Me 262? X-4 missiles ?
FW-190? thanks for the info

...and the answer is that the American's did not use German aircraft in Korea.

Blunder No. 3:

Allowing your despise of anyone who knows something you don't to get the best of you and cause you to post your misunderstandings before taking the time to understand first.

Blunder No. 4:


If you want to avoid the kind of reaction which you blame elsewhere to anti-Americanism, try reducing the level of your arrogance a couple of notches.

Calling someone arrogant because you do not understand the post, and then alluding that they cause "anti-Americanism" when the one making that comment (you) is perpetuating the "anti-Americanism" through that very comment.

reiver
05-25-2005, 03:20 AM
Ok, let's overlook the USN jets that fought in Korea.
Let's overlook the USMC jets that fought in Korea.
That still leaves over 1000 Allied and Communists jets in combat at one time or another.
Small number?
As for my reading comprehension, if I misunderstood you then I apologise, but perhaps some of the fault lies with your rather less than clear post?
Your statement was not "none were German" it was "all American".
I do not despise you. (BTW despise is a verb, not a noun), I do, however despise your arrogance and misplaced condescension.
Point: I am not your friend. Those I choose rather more carefully.

2nd of foot
05-25-2005, 05:40 AM
I agree with the others. In Korea, the US used Sherman and Patton tanks (American), and the planes used were mostly P-51 Mustangs and Corsairs, but jets used in low numbers (all American).

No you clearly state that all jets used by the UN forces were US which is clearly not true. And as for numbers, it would appear quite a number were jets.

This is an official US navy site dealing with its history.

This give all the aircrafts and the location, date of arrival, date of departure and who used them for all navy aircrafts in KW.
http://www.history.navy.mil/download/app25.pdf

this give an indepth list of aircraft by type used in KW.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/ac-korea.htm

and this has a number of after action reports

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-7.htm

and if you have the deluded view that the US navy would put on board a ship with limited space aircraft that are not to be used or do not have a role, your stupidity knows no bounds. Aircraft are moves on and off ship as the tactical situation dictates they do not have space for passengers.

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 05:49 AM
No you clearly state that all jets used by the UN forces were US which is clearly not true. And as for numbers, it would appear quite a number were jets.

No. I said the planes used by the US. I did not say UN. Get it right.

Let me post the 1st post in the thread one more time for you. Maybe you will begin to slowly, slowly comprehend:


Did American actually use capture germany new planes, tanks or any weapon on the war of korea? what weapon did they use?
Me 262? X-4 missiles ?
FW-190? thanks for the info

Think about it first before babbling. Take your time. No hurry. Just make sure that you comprehend the subject of the thread 1st, becaus, you see, it's critical to understanding what is going on here. It's only slightly less complex than a Nancy Drew mystery novel.

Slow down now. No hurry. Take your time.

Bluffcove
05-25-2005, 05:59 AM
Can we please ascertain which threads we feel FRIONPAN, IRONINGMAN, TINWALT, KCOC! has left unanswered.

Post all of these questions elsewhere and give him 24 hours to find interent sources with URL's that support his standpoint.

I would like to see him answer.

All assault rifles are Carbines.
Assault rifles cannot engage targets at 600 metres.
The M1 Carbine was an assault rifle.

When you verify the first of these claims we will ask you one more question and you may ask us one.
This process will continue until you have shamed the British infantry for their lack of soldierly Knowledge.

in your own time carry on, preferably in this thread, alternatively you can use this thread which I feel should be resurrected.http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1894&highlight=#1894
especially as your tin soldiers make such lovely reading.
I wait for your corroboration, any lack of evidence will be taken as your accepting defeat.
you are in the right, arent you FRIONPAN so lets prove it.
in your own time carry on!

reiver
05-25-2005, 06:55 AM
No blunder.
According to the site quoted, those aircraft fought in Korea.

Blunder No. 1:

You misunderstood it. Those aircraft were on the carriers. That does not mean the US launched entire carrier after carrier of jets. :roll:


"the planes used were mostly P-51 Mustangs and Corsairs, but jets used in low numbers (all American)."
..they weren't all American either.

Blunder No. 2:

Truly, your reading comprehension is in need of improvement. You somehow thought that my statement that "none were German" meant that none of the planes used in the war were anything BUT American.

This is the subject of this thread my slow-minded friend:

"German Weapons in Korean War?"


Did American actually use capture germany new planes, tanks or any weapon on the war of korea? what weapon did they use?
Me 262? X-4 missiles ?
FW-190? thanks for the info

...and the answer is that the American's did not use German aircraft in Korea.

Blunder No. 3:

Allowing your despise of anyone who knows something you don't to get the best of you and cause you to post your misunderstandings before taking the time to understand first.

Blunder No. 4:


If you want to avoid the kind of reaction which you blame elsewhere to anti-Americanism, try reducing the level of your arrogance a couple of notches.

Calling someone arrogant because you do not understand the post, and then alluding that they cause "anti-Americanism" when the one making that comment (you) is perpetuating the "anti-Americanism" through that very comment.

In reverse order (roughly).
I did not call you arrogant because I misunderstood the post. I called you arrogant because of your manner, which is arrogant.
I did not say you caused anti-Americanism. Your reading comprehension skills need improvement.
I suggested that you got a reaction which you attributed elsewhere to anti-Americanism.
I can't actually recall seeing any anti-American postings on the site, merely anti-Ironman ones.
There were two aspects to your original post, whether you like it or not.
One, which, while ambiguous, I would accept you may have meant in a particular way, despite it also causing the same "confusion" in the minds of FW-190 Pilot, pdf27, Preatorian, Gen. Sandworm and 2nd of foot
Presumably you feel all their reading comprehension skills need improving also?
This concerned the origins of the jets in combat in Korea.
you then replied to them "But jets were not used in great numbers, only in low numbers, so, my post was indeed correct my friend."
I replied to this latter point; the numbers involved, and I stand by the figures quoted.
As for misunderstandings, you have made several statements on various threads which were quite simply factually incorrect, and when shown your error have chosen not to reply.
I have never resorted to name calling or insults in my replies to you, yet you feel it neccesary to utilise rather clumsy condescension and insults with every post.
Why?
That and that alone is why you receive the general reactions you do, not because of your nationality.

"When the ceasefire was signed the US Fifth Air Force had two wings of interceptors, the 4th and 51st Fighter-Interceptor Groups, equipped with 165 F-86 interceptors, and two wings of fighter-bombers, the 8th and 18th Fighter-Bomber Groups, equipped with 132 F-86 fighter-bombers. In addition to its service as a fighter, six F-86As were modified for photo-reconnaissance in October 1951, and they were used throughout the remainder of the war.

According to the US Air Force’s official history only 78 F-86s were lost in aerial combat during the Korean War, and they scored 810 air-to-air victories, including 792 versus MiG-15s. The F-86 Sabre proved to be a very successful fighter and served with NATO, British Commonwealth , and many other air forces during the 1950s"
" At the end of the Korean War there were three F-84 groups, with 218 operational aircraft, serving with the Fifth Air Force – the 49th, 58th, and 474th Fighter-Bomber Groups."
"An F9F of VF-51 flew the Korean War’s first jet sortie from an aircraft carrier on 3 July 1950, and Panthers served throughout the entire Korean War. The F9F Panther was the most widely used naval jet fighter of the Korean War, equipping seventeen US Navy fighter squadrons, six US Navy reserve fighter squadrons, and two US Marine Corps fighter squadrons."
Add in something over 500 acknowledged losses by Communist forces.
None of them German, I quite agree.
But I would repeat, not a "small number".

And once more, I am not your friend any more than I am your enemy. Please dispense with this manner of address.

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 02:00 PM
I did not call you arrogant because I misunderstood the post. I called you arrogant because of your manner, which is arrogant.

That is incorrect. How is it arrogant to post a bit of information which is irrefutable historical fact, such as my listing of reasons for Germany's demise in WWII or the fact that the M1 Carbine was used as an assult rifle countless times and in such a role, because it fits the charactersictics of such a weapon circa WWII, that is was in fact an assult rifle when used as one, on another thread, without using the name calling and snide remarks that you and a few others here use by rote, and then have the information attacked and to be called names, as if it were not cotrrect, simply because you for some reason dislike the author?

THAT is arrogance, among other things. You cannot disprove any of those things in that post, yet you whole-hoggedly attack the information for some bizarre reason.



I did not say you caused anti-Americanism. Your reading comprehension skills need improvement.
I suggested that you got a reaction which you attributed elsewhere to anti-Americanism.

No, you said that I illicit anti-American responses because I am arrogant:


If you want to avoid the kind of reaction which you blame elsewhere to anti-Americanism, try reducing the level of your arrogance a couple of notches.



As for misunderstandings, you have made several statements on various threads which were quite simply factually incorrect, and when shown your error have chosen not to reply.

Not true. Of the many posts I have made on this site, there have been one or two which provided incorrect information, and to those, I owed up to my error, unlike those (and yourself on other subjects) who simply cannot stand the idea of being proven incorrect - so much so that they will argue that grass is not green for the sake of avoiding an admission of error. Keep reading... I have a treat for you.


I have never resorted to name calling or insults in my replies to you, yet you feel it neccesary to utilise rather clumsy condescension and insults with every post. Why? That and that alone is why you receive the general reactions you do, not because of your nationality.

With your other account, Gen. Sandworm, you certainly have. Yes, by process of elimination using an account search I quickly determined that "reiver" is another of your accounts (guess you didn't think I was smart enough to determine that). However, I have on rare occasion resorted, after considerable propting, to the same name calling that has been used against me, but only against those who have been using name calling toward me first. If someone had not called me names, I would have not been coaxed into doing it myself.


None of them German, I quite agree.

Good. So that is cleared up.


But I would repeat, not a "small number"

You are essentially correct. I was in error. My thinking was that jets were used in small numbers by comparing in my mind the number of jets used in more recent conflicts of the jet era. This was a falable method.

In Korea, jets were used somewhat more than prop engine planes. I would like to point out however, that in comparison to the number of piston engine planes, the number of jets used was not so great, as hundreds of both jets and prop planes were used, and the number of jets did not outnumber the prop planes by a large factor, from what I have learned:

"All told, 365 F-80 fighters, 32 F-82 fighters, 26 B-26 bombers, and 22 B-29 bombers were mustered for action on the Korean peninsula. As events unfolded, many F-51s were also called into service to serve as fighter-bombers, the first 145 coming from Air National Guard stocks."

http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2000/0600korea.asp

Nonetheless, because the number of jet planes did by some measure outnumber the number of prop planes in that war, I was in error, and like a man, I admit it. You were correct.

Thank you for pointing out the error. However, I must say in my own defense lest someone mistakeny thinks my admission of this error gives them liscence to attack my other posts - my posts about other subjects in this thread, such as the M1 Carbine, the reasons for germany's demise, etc, are absolutely and irrefutably correct, and are supported by a tremendous volume of historical, factual information.

Man of Stoat
05-25-2005, 02:10 PM
Your idea of objective fact is rather...um... loose.

Again: by definition, nothing which is not select-fire is an assault rifle.

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 02:18 PM
Your idea of objective fact is rather...um... loose.

Again: by definition, nothing which is not select-fire is an assault rifle.

Hmm. So the M2 Carbine is not an assult rifle? I have stated that it was a WWII era AR and dummies argued that it was not - as if modern AR's were around in those days to compare them to!

However, as WWII era weaponry goes, the M1 Carbine was an AR because:

It fit the characteristics of one for the times.

It was used countless times as an AR BECAUSE is fit the role by characteristics. Once more, just because it was not intended for that role does not make it such.

Deisel train engines were not intended to be tow boat engines either, although that is exactly what they became in the early history of internal combution powered tow boats. Does that mean that those early tow boat's deisel engines were not tow boat engines?

Bluffcove
05-25-2005, 02:21 PM
Paranoid schizophrenic!

reiver is Gen. Sandworm?
possibly its intertesting I have still only seen you offer one retraction, and you have still not been good enough to put anyone in their place by providing evidence to quash these lies we tell.

Man of Stoat
05-25-2005, 02:35 PM
The Wikipedia definition is pretty much bang-on (pun intended):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

And there's a list of articles in the category "assault rifles": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Assault_rifles - no M1 or even M2 carbine in there.

Nobody is maintaining that the M1 carbine is an assault rifle except you, ironpan, and yet you think that this is objective historical fact. We've conceded that the M2 falls in the description, but is not really powerful enough to be considered an assault rifle since it doesn't have the range. The M1 is still only semi-auto, so doesn't even fall within the broad definition!

What is objective historical fact, however, is that the purpose of an assault rifle is to replace both the SMG and the rifle with something that can do the job of both adequately, and this is what almost all armies have done - the US replaced the Garand & Thompson/M3 with the M14 (breifly - also not an assault rifle since it fires a full-power cartridge) & then M16. The UK replaced the L1A1 SLR & L2A3 SMG with the SA-80.

The use in the assault is not a defining characteristic of an assault rifle - they don't immediately become "defence rifles" when used in the defence. In patent law terminology, what you're trying to do is "define in terms of intended use".

To quote Hatcher, 3rd Edition, 1966, page 177:


During 1940 the Ordnance decided to produce a very light semi-automatic rifle to take the place of the pistol in the armament of company officers, non-comissioned officers, communication units, engineers, tank units, artilliery, etc.

There you have it - Hatcher is the dog's dusters when it comes to US weapons - he was involved in the machinegun trials before and after the 1st world war and in the self-loading rifle trials in the 1930s. Note that he says to take the place of the pistol and not to replace rifle and SMG.

I think that we should also ask the membership of Arrse this question. Once it's up, I'll post the link.

reiver
05-25-2005, 02:43 PM
Ironman,
Firstly, I am NOT General Sandworm; sorry to disillusion you.
I'm a Scot, living in Scotland. He, so far as I know, is an American living in Indiana.
Secondly, I think you'll find I said you elicited a response which another of your posts, the one in "Hi All", seemed to attribute to anti-Americanism.
I was pointing out, as politely as I could, that this was not the cause.
I have not resorted to name calling or insults, and I have one account and one only.
Thirdly, I did not, if I recall, get involved in arguing with you over the M1 carbine beyond a fairly reasoned response to the meaning of the term "desired result", since I do not consider myself qualified so to do.
There are many members of the forum who are currently serving or past members of HM forces, who can argue ballistics etc far better than I ever could, as my information would have to be web-based and second-hand.
Fourthly, of the threads I referred to where you had posted inaccurately, two spring to mind for which I have seen no retraction.
One concerns the Commonwealth in WWII.
Your errors in this regard were catalogued, not by me, but fairly politely and factually, and continued in the Commonwealth thread, where to the best of my knowledge you declined to post.
In addition, if you go to the "Propaganda" thread, you will find a rather good poster illustrating Commonwealth troops.
The second was a statement you made in defence of your attitude to the British Gurkhas, to the effect that America had never enlisted a foreign citizen, "not one".
Quotations below from the San Francisco Chronicle:
"Latinos comprise more than a third of the 41,000 foreign citizens in the U.S. fighting force, according to the Defense Department, with the largest number -- 8,539 -- from California. Immigrant troops are most visible in the Army and Marines, the services with the highest casualty rates in Iraq, but barely present in the Navy and Air Force, Pentagon records show."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNGQ2CSURU1.DTL

Fifthly, for your apology I thank you and salute you.

Lastly, arrogance.
Posting facts do not make you arrogant.
Even posting inaccurate facts do not make you arrogant.
However, heavy, clumsy sarcasm, and inappropriate condescension does.

A brief postscript.
I could not care one whit less if the M1 is a carbine, a rifle, a cannon or a bloody ballista, but PLEASE, the word is assault, not assult.

Man of Stoat
05-25-2005, 02:45 PM
Fits the role by characteristics.

Let's just say that most of my working life is spent by characterising things by their characteristics.

There are 3 major characteristics of an assault rifle:

1. It's a rifled arm designed to be fired from the shoulder
2. It fires ammunition intermediate in power between pistol and rifle ammunition
3. It is capable of being fired in either semi- or fully-automatic modes.

The M1 carbine does not fulfil all 3 charateristics.

There were modern ARs around at the time to compare them to - the MP43/Stg44 is no less a modern assault rifle than the AK47, and was used until the 80s by East German border guards and Yugolsavian paratroopers.

Your problem is that the M1 carbine is a unique wpn, sitting in a class of its own - a pistol replacement, and yet you want to fit it into a category in which it does not belong.

If you want to go down the categorised by use thing, it was never designed to replace the rifle and SMG, whereas the MP43/Stg44 and later assault rifles categorically were.

Man of Stoat
05-25-2005, 03:03 PM
As promised:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/p=286855.html#286855

Bluffcove
05-25-2005, 03:09 PM
His username is C_O_D.

should be easy to spot unless he re-subscribe under another title

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 03:56 PM
First, as a point of mere interest, my father is arguably an heir to Tullock Castle near Dingwall - his family owned it before it was stolen from them by the English Crown. He visited Dingwall in 1999 to see it.

Now onward...


Fourthly, of the threads I referred to where you had posted inaccurately, two spring to mind for which I have seen no retraction.

When I discover myself to be in error, I owe up to it, and I have always done, and always will. Perhaps that is why you have not seen the retraction you hoped for. Those posts are not in error.

BTW, just because someone is in the military does not mean that their opinion of the usefullness of an antuique weapon is any more valid than another. Obviously. I have seen "professional" photographers who make a living through portraiture but could not properly balance a main to fill light ratio. :wink: It is wiser to put stock in the substance of what someone says than to consider their thier vocation an automatic validation of infalability.


One concerns the Commonwealth in WWII.
Your errors in this regard were catalogued, not by me, but fairly politely and factually, and continued in the Commonwealth thread, where to the best of my knowledge you declined to post.

Not that crap again. You are contending that Britain has commonwealth nations in 2005? Please, understand what commonwealth meant before claiming that my post was in error.

Please don't get me quoting all of the ridiculous claims some have made here. Many of them are embarrisingly absurd and totally disproven by historical fact.


In addition, if you go to the "Propaganda" thread, you will find a rather good poster illustrating Commonwealth troops.
The second was a statement you made in defence of your attitude to the British Gurkhas, to the effect that America had never enlisted a foreign citizen, "not one".

If you spent as much energy understanding what I said as you do attmepting to disprove it, you would have also read that I stated that the difference is plain and incomparable:

The foreign-born soldiers in the US military are required to apply for US citizenship and move to the US to live before being allowed to enter the US military. This is not the case with Gurkas. They are not residents of Britain, and are not required to apply for citizenship in Britain. They are merely foreingers to Britain serving in the British military - and they are sent into battle as 1st line offensive soldiers.

Please, read what I have said before attempting to disprove it. Furthermore, I hope now that you see the error of your comment on that matter.


Fifthly, for your apology I thank you and salute you.

I was only being a mature, responsible aduilt.


Lastly, arrogance.
Posting facts do not make you arrogant.
Even posting inaccurate facts do not make you arrogant.
However, heavy, clumsy sarcasm, and inappropriate condescension does.


If you were to look at that thought more carefully, you would see that virtually all of the name calling, insults, and condescension made in debating with me has been perpetrated by the others. Only after considerable antagonism have I resorted to dioing the same. Your energy would be better spent scolding those who do so freely and with a childish lack of restraint when they encounter an opinion that differs from their own rather than to scold the one who has so many times and so often made an effort not to respond to such childishness in kind.

lairdx
05-25-2005, 03:56 PM
Hands up if you have no military experience and are just pretending! :wink:

Man of Stoat
05-25-2005, 04:16 PM
The foreign-born soldiers in the US military are required to apply for US citizenship and move to the US to live before being allowed to enter the US military. This is not the case with Gurkas. They are not residents of Britain, and are not required to apply for citizenship in Britain. They are merely foreingers to Britain serving in the British military - and they are sent into battle as 1st line offensive soldiers.

Please, read what I have said before attempting to disprove it. Furthermore, I hope now that you see the error of your comment on that matter.


WRONG

http://www.mdgreencard.com/exp_citizenship.html


EXPEDITED CITIZENSHIP THROUGH MILITARY SERVICE

Under current immigration law, non-citizens must serve in the U.S. military for three years before they are eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. However, during times of war, a President can issue an executive order, allowing non-citizens on active duty to become eligible for citizenship before completing the three-year service, senior administration officials said.

President Bush issued such an Order in July 2002 that allows certain non-citizens serving honorably in active duty status in the Armed Forces of the U.S. in the war against terrorism to be eligible for expedited naturalization. Expedited naturalizations are permitted under a section of the law that eliminates residence and physical presence requirements under certain conditions. In order to be eligible, a person must have served on active duty status on or since September 11, 2001 in the war against terrorism. The President will set the end date of eligibility, likely when the hostilities end.

http://www.goarmy.com/JobCatList.do?fw=careerindex



GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS
U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien
17-34 years old (17-39 years old for Army Reserve)
Healthy and in good physical condition
In good moral standing
High School or Equivalent Education

QED.

(edited to replace a few lines with a simple QED)

pdf27
05-25-2005, 04:17 PM
Not that crap again. You are contending that Britain has commonwealth nations in 2005? Please, understand what commonwealth meant before claiming that my post was in error.
Ahem: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=20596
The Commonwealth is alive and well in 2005, and has 53 member countries with 1.8 billion citizens.
The only other valid meaning of Commonwealth with regard to the UK is referring to the short lived English (& Welsh) republic under Cromwell 1649-1660.

reiver
05-25-2005, 04:23 PM
First, as a point of mere interest, my father is arguably an heir to Tullock Castle near Dingwall - his family owned it before it was stolen from them by the English Crown. He visited Dingwall in 1999 to see it.

Now onward...


Fourthly, of the threads I referred to where you had posted inaccurately, two spring to mind for which I have seen no retraction.

When I discover myself to be in error, I owe up to it, and I have always done, and always will. Perhaps that is why you have not seen the retraction you hoped for. Those posts are not in error.

BTW, just because someone is in the military does not mean that their opinion of the usefullness of an antuique weapon is any more valid than another. Obviously. I have seen "professional" photographers who make a living through portraiture but could not properly balance a main to fill light ratio. :wink: It is wiser to put stock in the substance of what someone says than to consider their thier vocation an automatic validation of infalability.


One concerns the Commonwealth in WWII.
Your errors in this regard were catalogued, not by me, but fairly politely and factually, and continued in the Commonwealth thread, where to the best of my knowledge you declined to post.

Not that crap again. You are contending that Britain has commonwealth nations in 2005? Please, understand what commonwealth meant before claiming that my post was in error.

Please don't get me quoting all of the ridiculous claims some have made here. Many of them are embarrisingly absurd and totally disproven by historical fact.


In addition, if you go to the "Propaganda" thread, you will find a rather good poster illustrating Commonwealth troops.
The second was a statement you made in defence of your attitude to the British Gurkhas, to the effect that America had never enlisted a foreign citizen, "not one".

If you spent as much energy understanding what I said as you do attmepting to disprove it, you would have also read that I stated that the difference is plain and incomparable:

The foreign-born soldiers in the US military are required to apply for US citizenship and move to the US to live before being allowed to enter the US military. This is not the case with Gurkas. They are not residents of Britain, and are not required to apply for citizenship in Britain. They are merely foreingers to Britain serving in the British military - and they are sent into battle as 1st line offensive soldiers.

Please, read what I have said before attempting to disprove it. Furthermore, I hope now that you see the error of your comment on that matter.


Fifthly, for your apology I thank you and salute you.

I was only being a mature, responsible aduilt.


Lastly, arrogance.
Posting facts do not make you arrogant.
Even posting inaccurate facts do not make you arrogant.
However, heavy, clumsy sarcasm, and inappropriate condescension does.


If you were to look at that thought more carefully, you would see that virtually all of the name calling, insults, and condescension made in debating with me has been perpetrated by the others. Only after considerable antagonism have I resorted to dioing the same. Your energy would be better spent scolding those who do so freely and with a childish lack of restraint when they encounter an opinion that differs from their own rather than to scold the one who has so many times and so often made an effort not to respond to such childishness in kind.

Point of interest, as you say, Dingwall is about 140 miles due north of my home...which isn't in Indiana.
Britain does not "have" Commonwealth countries in 2005, but the Commonwealth still exists, and HM the Queen is still Head of State of rather substantial parts of it, as has been detailed elsewhere.
However, as you are so fond of pointing out, the forum was WWII, and yes, we most certainly did still have "The British Commonwealth" then.
What was "dissolved", mainly in the early part of the 20th Century was The British Empire, a different construct entirely.
As I have already said, I didn't feel qualified to argue on the subject of ballistics or weapon classifications, but please, don't presume to teach a Brit about the British Commonwealth. (There's that arrogance showing through again)
I stand ready to be corrected by a clear piece of proof re the foreign citizens serving in your armed forces, however the words are not mine, they are, subject to the newspaper reporter not actually lying, those of your Department of Defence.
The same piece also say that these "Green Card" soldiers (their words again) may apply for accelerated citizenship AFTER volunteering to serve.
Again, the Gurkhas are sent into battle exactly the same way as any other Light Infantry unit.
It might also be worth considering, although off topic, that in WW1 the USA had approximately 9000 men serving in it's army who weren't American citizens.
These days they're known as Native Americans.
As for the sarcasm and condescension I referred to, I refer only, and I mean only, to that you have attempted to employ against me personally.
The others you refer to are big enough and no doubt tough enough to fight their own battles, just as many of them fight and have fought the battles of HM Government.

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 04:27 PM
There are 3 major characteristics of an assault rifle:

1. It's a rifled arm designed to be fired from the shoulder
2. It fires ammunition intermediate in power between pistol and rifle ammunition
3. It is capable of being fired in either semi- or fully-automatic modes.

The M1 carbine does not fulfil all 3 charateristics.



There are more than 3:

1. carbine length barrel
2. rifled barrel
3. rifle ammunition
4. large capacity magazine
5. selective fire
6. shoulder weapon

The M1 Carbine fits all but the selective fire. However, as I have said before, thse criteria did not exist during WWII. They are the result of modern weapons development. Even the Germans (who coined the term "Assault Rifle") did not see the need to apply such criteria to the weapon. They simply decided what kind of rifle they needed to be competetive with the semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons of the enemy and designed a weapon that fit the bill. The criteria is of more recent designation. As time has passed the design of such weapons has improved and the standards have been refined.

Attempts to compare a weapon of WWII era design with one of recent design by using modern criteria as the standard is a flawed process. Thinking that a weapon must at least be as powerful as an MP44 to be considered an assault weapon is also flawed. If it were not flawed, then the M1 Garand would not be a rifle simply because the .308 bolt action exists. In the WWII era, those standards did not exist. Let's not forget that the Avtomat was the first assault rifle in the world, and it used a full rifle cartridge!

Furthermore, in your attempt to declare the M1 Carbine as not being an assult rifle (which, admittedly, it is not by definition because it lacks selective fire) you are omitting the most important factor of all. And this is simply - Does the weapon fit the role? Has it proved itself effective in that role?

The answer to both of thiose questions is a resounding "Yes!"

In the WWII era, and M1 Carbine could without question be considered an assult rifle, for it fit the role quite well. was activley selected for that role and was used in such a role countless times.

If the basis for your thinking that it is not an assult rifle (regardless of the role for which it was designed) is that it could not fire automatic or that it's round was weak by comparison or that it does not meet the modern standards for an assault rifle, then you have made an error.

reiver
05-25-2005, 04:27 PM
Lairdx, My hands are up.
I have no military experience..but then I'm not pretending I do. ;)

Man of Stoat
05-25-2005, 04:36 PM
First, as a point of mere interest, my father is arguably an heir to Tullock Castle near Dingwall - his family owned it before it was stolen from them by the English Crown. He visited Dingwall in 1999 to see it.


http://www.clandavidsonusa.com/tullochcastle.htm


History of Tulloch Castle

Tulloch Castle, the home of the Chiefs of the Clan Davidson, is located on the outskirts of Dingwall, Scotland, in the county of Ross and Cromarty, or Ross-shire. There is a great deal of fascinating history surrounding Dingwall, a little town which has played an important role in the history and leadership of the Highlands.

Tulloch Castle was probably built by Norsemen, but all that remains of the original structure are the southwest corner and its tower. It was first called Tulloch in 1507 from the Gaelic word “Tuich”, which means “hillock”.

Four chief families have been especially active in the town of Dingwall and country life. They are the Baynes, (later intermarrying with the Davidsons), the Dingwalls, the MacKenzies, and the Munros.

Bayne (or Bain, MacBain or MacBean) are first recorded as being in Dingwall in the late 15th century. Their origins go back to Donald Bane of Malcolm Canmore’s reign, and James Bayne, Bishop of St. Andrews, crowned King David II at Scone.

The first Bayne of Tulloch was Duncan, who received a charter from King James V in 1541 giving him the lands of Tuich or Oulch (later Tulloch). In 1553 he acquired from Clan Munro the lands of Davochcrate (now Dochcarty) which adjoined Tulloch Hill lands. A road was built between the two castles (Dingwall and Tulloch) but the Dingwall Castle is gone and only Tulloch survives. Another report, giving the Baynes an earlier claim, states that the Baynes lived in Tulloch Castle for two hundred and fifty years, from 1513 to 1752.

Kenneth, the eighth Bayne of Tulloch, sold the estate to his cousin, Henry Davidson, on the 13th of January, 1762. Henry was the Chief of the Clan Dhai from that time on.

Duncan Davidson, 4th laird of Tulloch, was born in 1800 and became Member of Parliament for Cromarty in 1826. He was one of the few lairds of the period to always dress in Highland garb and was a great favorite of Queen Victoria's whom he used to drive personally on her visits north. In his capacity as Lord Lieutenant of Ross he was her representative in the area. He was known locally as "The Stag", having had five wives who bore his eighteen children and he had at least thirty illegitimate children around the district. One of his wives was the youngest sister of his daughter in law. One of his daughters was to become the famous Green Lady of Tulloch. He is also remembered for being the subject of one of the famous predictions of the Brahan Seer - "The day will come when there will be a Laird of Tulloch who will kill five wives in succession, but the fifth will kill him." Interestingly, Duncan died of pneumonia in Edinburgh after attending the famous Wet Review of volunteers by Queen Victoria of 1881, and was survived by his fifth wife. There is also an interesting story about Duncan Davidson and one of the most famous pipers in Scotland John Ban.

The last of the direct line of Davidson at Tulloch was Duncan Davidson who died in 1917. His daughter inherited Tulloch Castle and her son, Colonel Angus Vickers, of Vickers Aircraft, was the last owner of Tulloch lands before they were given to the Highland Regional Council just a few years ago. Since then the Castle served intermittently as a dormitory for Dingwall Academy before converting to its present use as a hotel.

In 1920 the castle, which was falling badly into disrepair, was completely renovated by Mr. and Mrs. Vickers. The roof-line was changed and it was completely modernized. In her later years, Colonel Vickers’ mother did not live at the castle but preferred her smaller apartment at the adjoining farm complex.

Three of the Davidsons of Tulloch served as Provost of the town of Dingwall. They were Henry Davidson in 1779, Duncan Davidson in 1784 and Duncan Davidson in 1840.

Ken and Margaret MacAulay with their family Emma and Kevin purchased Tulloch Castle in August 1996, their mission statement being – To build up Tulloch Castle Hotel into an efficient and profitable business, characterizing the best of Scottish traditional hospitality and food, in a welcoming, family-run business. To preserve the history of the castle and make it accessible to local people as well as visitors.

Don't see any evidence of it being stolen by the English crown anywhere there - it was in the Bayne family until sold to the Davidsons in 1762. And it seems that, once sold, it remained in the same family until 1996.....

WALT!

reiver
05-25-2005, 04:36 PM
From Wilkipedia:

Queen Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary) (born 21 April 1926), styled Her Majesty The Queen, is the queen regnant and head of state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

She is also Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Commander-in-Chief of the UK Armed Forces and Lord of Mann; she has reigned in these positions since the death of her father, King George VI on 6 February 1952. She is the longest serving current Head of State in Europe, The Americas, Africa and Australasia, and is the second longest-serving current head of state in the world, after King Rama IX of Thailand.

About 125 million people live in the countries of which she is Head of State. Her reign has seen ten different Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and numerous Prime Ministers in the other personal union nations of which she is or was Head of State. She is married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and is the mother of the heir-apparent to the British throne, Charles, Prince of Wales.

For non-Brits, the term "queen regnant" indicates that she rules in her own right, and not as wife of a ruling King, in which case her title would be "queen consort".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 04:39 PM
WRONG

http://www.mdgreencard.com/exp_citizenship.html

[quote]EXPEDITED CITIZENSHIP THROUGH MILITARY SERVICE

So right you are. My error. However, it remains my opinion and always will, that the British actively recruiting foreigners from poor third-world nations to be their front line soldiers in highly distassteful to me and to many others. If the US were to do the same, I would find that distasteful as well! But then, the US does not send in groups of Mexicans to do their fighting for them, before American citizens go into the fight. You have not changed the distastefulness of it or the manner of Britain's actions in that matter. :wink:

You cannot change my opinion of it.

reiver
05-25-2005, 04:43 PM
Ironman, you seem to have picked up on an innacurate remark by, I think Tex Willer, to the effect that the Gurkhas are sent in as cannon fodder before other British troops.
I'm sorry, but this is simply not true.
The Gurkhas are deployed, as I've said before, in the Light Infantry role as any other British Unit.
They have gone in after, before and (mainly) alongside other Regiments since their inception and continue to do so.

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 04:45 PM
Not that crap again. You are contending that Britain has commonwealth nations in 2005? Please, understand what commonwealth meant before claiming that my post was in error.
Ahem: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=20596
The Commonwealth is alive and well in 2005, and has 53 member countries with 1.8 billion citizens.
The only other valid meaning of Commonwealth with regard to the UK is referring to the short lived English (& Welsh) republic under Cromwell 1649-1660.

Sorry, but the "Commonwealth" as it existed and came to be known in it's true nature no longer exists. Just like the Queen is a figurehead only, and Canada, Aurstalia, and New Zealand have an "alliance" to the "Crown" which is a pleasantry only. None of those states are under British rule. They are independant nations, politically and economically.

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 04:47 PM
Nobody is maintaining that the M1 carbine is an assault rifle except you, ironpan,

Now now. Let's not resort to that sissy name calling. Be a man.

pdf27
05-25-2005, 04:50 PM
However, it remains my opinion and always will, that the British actively recruiting foreigners from poor third-world nations to be their front line soldiers in highly distassteful to me and to many others.
We only accept Gurkhas from Nepal, while citizens of commonwealth nations who have been legally residing in the UK for 5 years prior to entry may also join.
I won't bother explaining why nobody else (least of all the Nepalese) have any moral qualms about them serving with British forces - it's been done to death already.


Nationality
Applicants will be eligible if they are a bona fide resident of the United Kingdom or the Irish Republic and are one of the following:

A British citizen; a citizen of the British dependent territories; a British overseas citizen; a British subject under the British Nationality Act 1981; a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country; British Protected Person; Citizen of the Irish Republic.


Residence
In addition to the rules on nationality, whether or not you are of UK origin, you should normally have resided in the UK for a minimum of 5 years immediately prior to making an application. In certain circumstances, a shorter period of residency may be accepted. Your recruiter should be able to advise you when making an application if you are eligible for such an exemption. You should also be in possession of a full passport from your country of origin showing your immigration status in the UK. All applicants must have the right of entry in to the UK.

reiver
05-25-2005, 04:51 PM
Not that crap again. You are contending that Britain has commonwealth nations in 2005? Please, understand what commonwealth meant before claiming that my post was in error.
Ahem: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=20596
The Commonwealth is alive and well in 2005, and has 53 member countries with 1.8 billion citizens.
The only other valid meaning of Commonwealth with regard to the UK is referring to the short lived English (& Welsh) republic under Cromwell 1649-1660.

Sorry, but the "Commonwealth" as it existed and came to be known in it's true nature no longer exists. Just like the Queen is a figurehead only, and Canada, Aurstalia, and New Zealand have an "alliance" to the "Crown" which is a pleasantry only. None of those states are under British rule. They are independant nations, politically and economically.

Absolutely correct, with regard to the independence of these countries.
But you still confuse the Empire, when we RULED these countries, with the Commonwealth, which has ALWAYS been a coalition, to use a popular word these days, of nations with allegiances to the Crown, whom several still recognise as Head of State.

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 04:55 PM
Point of interest, as you say, Dingwall is about 140 miles due north of my home...which isn't in Indiana.

Indiana? Do you think I live in Indiana for some reason? In case you do, I don't. Now if that was intended to be some kind of insult, you shame only yourself for it. And you talk about condescension and such. *tisk tisk*

[quote=reiver]Britain does not "have" Commonwealth countries in 2005...

Isn't that what I said? I'm glad you came around about it though.

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 04:56 PM
Lairdx, My hands are up.
I have no military experience..but then I'm not pretending I do. ;)

Now you insult me by aluding that I ma pretending to have military experience? Shame on you, again.

reiver
05-25-2005, 04:58 PM
No Ironman, you seemed to think I was General Sandworm, listed in his profile as living in Indiana.
No condescension or insult intended on my part, but a degree of paranoia showing on yours.
And naughty naughty, selective eyesight?
You read the rest of the post too, didn't you?
Now quote and disprove the rest of it.

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 04:59 PM
We only accept Gurkhas from Nepal

OK. So that is supposed to make me think it's a good thing to actively recuuit foreigners from third-world nations and send them into battle ahead of British citizens in groups?

Dude, it's distasteful. Any way you slice it. Please don't go about yourself like Britain is the only reighchous nation. But let's not do the historical thing here, ok?

pdf27
05-25-2005, 05:00 PM
Sorry, but the "Commonwealth" as it existed and came to be known in it's true nature no longer exists. Just like the Queen is a figurehead only, and Canada, Aurstalia, and New Zealand have an "alliance" to the "Crown" which is a pleasantry only. None of those states are under British rule. They are independant nations, politically and economically.
Which is the f***ing meaning of "Commonwealth"!!!!!!!!! :evil:
What you are referring to is the British Empire, back when Australia, Canada and the like were British Dominions. Kindly consult any dictionary, history book or encyclopedia of your choice and you will find this to be the case. I even gave you a link to the website of the Commonwealth and you claim it doesn't exist!!!

The first mention of the word "Commonwealth" was in the 1926 Balfour report, "which defined the Dominions as autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
In 1949 the word "British" was dropped from the title, and the reference to alleigence to the crown was removed (to accomodate the fact that India wished to be a member but was a Republic).
Note that there were only ever 6 members of the "British Commonwealth of Nations" (Canada, Newfoundland, Eire, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand), and that the modern Commonwealth has 53. Also, prior to WW2 most people still think of it as the British Empire and the Dominions - the Commonwealth didn't really mean anything until after the dissolution of Empire.

reiver
05-25-2005, 05:00 PM
Lairdx, My hands are up.
I have no military experience..but then I'm not pretending I do. ;)

Now you insult me by aluding that I ma pretending to have military experience? Shame on you, again.
Ironman, I'm really trying hard to remain polite here, but where in that post do I allude to you in any way shape or form?
If you think that all my posts relate to you, that IS arrogant indeed.

Cuts
05-25-2005, 05:02 PM
There are 3 major characteristics of an assault rifle:

1. It's a rifled arm designed to be fired from the shoulder
2. It fires ammunition intermediate in power between pistol and rifle ammunition
3. It is capable of being fired in either semi- or fully-automatic modes.

The M1 carbine does not fulfil all 3 charateristics.



There are more than 3:

1. carbine length barrel
2. rifled barrel
3. rifle ammunition
4. large capacity magazine
5. selective fire
6. shoulder weapon

The M1 Carbine fits all but the selective fire.

......

:roll:

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 05:02 PM
Now quote and disprove the rest of it.

I am not nearly as interested in disproving your statrements as you are with mine. I have done plenty of it anyway.

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 05:04 PM
Lairdx, My hands are up.
I have no military experience..but then I'm not pretending I do. ;)

Now you insult me by aluding that I ma pretending to have military experience? Shame on you, again.
Ironman, I'm really trying hard to remain polite here, but where in that post do I allude to you in any way shape or form?
If you think that all my posts relate to you, that IS arrogant indeed.

I'm trying to be polite as well. But then, I am not making snide insults under my breath. If I wanted to insult you, I would do it staight out.

reiver
05-25-2005, 05:04 PM
Now quote and disprove the rest of it.

I am not nearly as interested in disproving your statrements as you are with mine. I have done plenty of it anyway.
No, you've stated it is wrong..that is NOT proof.
And again with the sending Gurkhas ahead of other troops?
Where DID you get this piece of drivel?

pdf27
05-25-2005, 05:04 PM
We only accept Gurkhas from Nepal
OK. So that is supposed to make me think it's a good thing to actively recuuit foreigners from third-world nations and send them into battle ahead of British citizens in groups?
Dude, it's distasteful. Any way you slice it.
Why? Being accepted into the British Army carries a great deal of cachet in Nepal, and we typically only accept a few percent of the applicants (note that we don't actively recruit or need to - we merely make it known where selection events will be held).
Besides, given the level of involvement between the UK and Nepal, how is it different from the way in which US generals are currently sending British (Gurkha too) troops into battle in Iraq ahead of US troops in some areas? Does it somehow make it any more or less right that the British troops going into battle are generally white and rich?

reiver
05-25-2005, 05:05 PM
Lairdx, My hands are up.
I have no military experience..but then I'm not pretending I do. ;)

Now you insult me by aluding that I ma pretending to have military experience? Shame on you, again.
Ironman, I'm really trying hard to remain polite here, but where in that post do I allude to you in any way shape or form?
If you think that all my posts relate to you, that IS arrogant indeed.

I'm trying to be polite as well. But then, I am not making snide insults under my breath. If I wanted to insult you, I would do it staight out.
So now you presume to know my thoughts too?
But you're not arrogant?

Man of Stoat
05-25-2005, 05:08 PM
There are 3 major characteristics of an assault rifle:

1. It's a rifled arm designed to be fired from the shoulder
2. It fires ammunition intermediate in power between pistol and rifle ammunition
3. It is capable of being fired in either semi- or fully-automatic modes.

The M1 carbine does not fulfil all 3 charateristics.



There are more than 3:

1. carbine length barrel
2. rifled barrel
3. rifle ammunition
4. large capacity magazine
5. selective fire
6. shoulder weapon

The M1 Carbine fits all but the selective fire. However, as I have said before, thse criteria did not exist during WWII. They are the result of modern weapons development. Even the Germans (who coined the term "Assault Rifle") did not see the need to apply such criteria to the weapon. They simply decided what kind of rifle they needed to be competetive with the semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons of the enemy and designed a weapon that fit the bill. The criteria is of more recent designation. As time has passed the design of such weapons has improved and the standards have been refined.

Attempts to compare a weapon of WWII era design with one of recent design by using modern criteria as the standard is a flawed process. Thinking that a weapon must at least be as powerful as an MP44 to be considered an assault weapon is also flawed. If it were not flawed, then the M1 Garand would not be a rifle simply because the .308 bolt action exists. In the WWII era, those standards did not exist. Let's not forget that the Avtomat was the first assault rifle in the world, and it used a full rifle cartridge!

Furthermore, in your attempt to declare the M1 Carbine as not being an assult rifle (which, admittedly, it is not by definition because it lacks selective fire) you are omitting the most important factor of all. And this is simply - Does the weapon fit the role? Has it proved itself effective in that role?

The answer to both of thiose questions is a resounding "Yes!"

In the WWII era, and M1 Carbine could without question be considered an assult rifle, for it fit the role quite well. was activley selected for that role and was used in such a role countless times.

If the basis for your thinking that it is not an assult rifle (regardless of the role for which it was designed) is that it could not fire automatic or that it's round was weak by comparison or that it does not meet the modern standards for an assault rifle, then you have made an error.

OK, if we're going down the logic of "there was nothing to compare it to, therefore we'll define it by use", we can say that the Mauser C96 with shoulder stock, or the MP18, or even an SMLE was an "assault rifle" in the 1st world war, cos there was nothing to compare it with. They all fit the "role", as you say.

2ndly - the Avtomat used 6.5mm Arisaka - a very weak rifle round indeed, chosen precisely for that reason (1940ft-lb) -it is not significantly greater than the .280 enfield cartridge which was specifically developed for the EM2 assault rifle (which generates about 1565ftlb), and was considered by the British to be the ideal assault rifle cartridge. It was rejected by NATO because the US wanted to use the same cartridge for support weapons as well, so we got foisted with 7.62mm. They both also fire 140gn bullets. The M1 carbine round, by contrast, develops only 965ft-lb. Compare this to "proper" rifle cartridges, .303 generates 2350ft-lb, .30M2 generates 2656ft-lb, and even to intermediate cartridges: 7.62x39 M1943 generates 1555 ft-lb, 7.92 Kurz generates 1400 ft-lb.

The .30 carbine cartridge is fairly unique. It is not a rifle cartridge, and not a pistol cartridge per se. It is really an elongated pistol bullet, and has no real counterpart in any other country, since only the US developed the concept of a light, semi-auto carbine to replace the pistol. It is in a class of its own. In terms of muzzle energy it rates in the top end of pistol ballistics, not the bottom end of rifle ballistics. Even .30-30, which is a very weak rifle round is developing 1394ft-lb minimum. I know you've mentioned the straight-case issue before, but find me a military rifle cartridge from the last 100 years that was straight cased. Military rifle cartridges are usually understood to be necked. Pistol cartridges can be either, but necked ones are rare (7.65 Para, .357 SIG, .44-40 for instance)

Here's a very well-referenced piece concerning assault rifles, and at no point does it mention any definition by use. It's also very well referenced:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

Some highlights:


First, I need to define what I mean by an "assault rifle", as there are various definitions around. The one I use is:

"A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres".

---snip---

There was one rather odd American development not followed by any other country - the M1 Carbine. This was a light, semi-automatic rifle chambered for an intermediate, straight-cased 7.62x33 round. It was not originally intended for front-line troops, but more as a self-defence weapon for second-line units, on the sensible grounds that it was much easier to shoot accurately than a pistol. The M2 version came with a full-auto option, and thereby comes close to our definition of an assault rifle, but the cartridge was rather weak and the light, blunt-nosed bullet lost its modest velocity too quickly.

Man of Stoat
05-25-2005, 05:16 PM
We only accept Gurkhas from Nepal
OK. So that is supposed to make me think it's a good thing to actively recuuit foreigners from third-world nations and send them into battle ahead of British citizens in groups?
Dude, it's distasteful. Any way you slice it.


Where did you get that drivel from? Provide evidence that we send them in in front of british troops in groups, "Operation Stay Behind The Darkies" style.

They are trained the same as other light infantry
They are used the same as other light infantry
They didn't even make contact with the enemy in a certain South-Atlantic punch-up we had in the 80s whereas the British troops did (thereby proving that we don't send them in first)
Did any of the serving guys on TELIC see gurkahs in groups in front of the British troops?

It is considered an honour to serve in the Gurkhas, and the selection is fierce. Plus, all the ones I've met have been top blokes.

IRONMAN
05-25-2005, 05:16 PM
Being accepted into the British Army carries a great deal of cachet in Nepal,


No doubt! It beats the crap out of being the "best sheep hearder in the valley".

Look, I have told you beforew, it's a distasteful, nay, shameful practice. I will not discuss it or visit this thread again. Post what you like. Your childish disdain for thinking outside the box, making insults and name calling, and inability to prove your claims that the M1 Carbine does not fit the role of a WWII era assault rifle, that jet engines 10 times the size of anoyther have about the same weight, etc. It's all so absolutely childish.

Learn to admit it when you have made an error. It is one of the marks of manhood. Let's hope your understanding of things outside the British military improves. BTW, let's hope you aren't using one of these:

http://www.not5150.com/movies/linkster.php?LID=361&URL=http://www.not5150.com/movies/cool/new19/sa80_machinegun_wmv.zip

Bluffcove
05-25-2005, 05:16 PM
Please list at any point in the near future a list of URLs that explain you view that.

The Carbine is an Assault rifle.

I shall in the next 24 hours waste a great deal of time collating all of the URLs we have supplied verifying ours, this should prevent any calims of inadequate research.

Thankyou.

Present your evidence first, analysis will follow. but in the immeditate time frame please collate the sources that you have used so far.

Man of Stoat
05-25-2005, 05:19 PM
Being accepted into the British Army carries a great deal of cachet in Nepal,


No doubt! It beats the crap out of being the "best sheep hearder in the valley".

Look, I have told you beforew, it's a distasteful, nay, shameful practice. I will not discuss it or visit this thread again. Post what you like. Your childish disdain for thinking outside the box, making insults and name calling, and inability to prove your claims that the M1 Carbine does not fit the role of a WWII era assault rifle, that jet engines 10 times the size of anoyther have about the same weight, etc. It's all so absolutely childish.

Learn to admit it when you have made an error. It is one of the marks of manhood. Let's hope your understanding of things outside the British military improves. BTW, let's hope you aren't using one of these:

http://www.not5150.com/movies/linkster.php?LID=361&URL=http://www.not5150.com/movies/cool/new19/sa80_machinegun_wmv.zip

Oh, don't be such a kid. "thinking outside the box" my arrse, or are you of the generation where every opinion is equally valid, even when it's objectively wrong? If I want to think that the Trabant's a sports car, am I just "thinking outside the box" or am I being a tard?

You know sweet FA about the Gurkhas and I have no idea where you got the idea that we use them as cannon fodder - I actually find that attitude quite offensive. The British Army does not do that. Or is that just your "thinking outside the box" too?

reiver
05-25-2005, 05:26 PM
"Time for bed", said Zebedee :D

Bluffcove
05-25-2005, 05:26 PM
Being accepted into the British Army carries a great deal of cachet in Nepal,


No doubt! It beats the crap out of being the "best sheep hearder in the valley".

Look, I have told you beforew, it's a distasteful, nay, shameful practice. I will not discuss it or visit this thread again. Post what you like. Your childish disdain for thinking outside the box, making insults and name calling, and inability to prove your claims that the M1 Carbine does not fit the role of a WWII era assault rifle, that jet engines 10 times the size of anoyther have about the same weight, etc. It's all so absolutely childish.

Learn to admit it when you have made an error. It is one of the marks of manhood. Let's hope your understanding of things outside the British military improves. BTW, let's hope you aren't using one of these:

http://www.not5150.com/movies/linkster.php?LID=361&URL=http://www.not5150.com/movies/cool/new19/sa80_machinegun_wmv.zip

Fortunately they arent using one os those, the British Military now use an A2 which is a tricked version of the one shown.

Incidentally the soldier recieving the stoppage was swedish and didnt execute his forward assit particularly well. neitehr did he rock the Magazine into postion he hit it. Any Officer Cadet could have recitifed those problems but the SA80 is not hte Swedish individual weapon so naturally he wouldnt know his drills on the weapon as well as a british solider. Unforuantely it is largely in games that every soldier is capable of operating every individual weapo nthat he comes across, flawlessly.

The subtle manner in which you ahve changed your posts has not gone un-noticed.
You did claim that no rifle ever under any army had ever been trained to fire at 600 becasue hte weapon wouldnt be accurate beyond 350.
You took this comment and created around it a further embellishment that the M1 Carbine was an asault rifle (MAKING NO REFERENCE TO ERA) because no rifle was accurate at that raneg.

this comment has now changed to,

"it was an assault rifle of the time" - This I personally have no view on, i am concerned that i might have been tought wrongly in my military training and therefore be risking my life should I be deployed to the sand pit, that is why I wish to clear up this issue, because you are more wise than any of my instructors and that does not only endanger me, but all those who have been taught by them.

2nd of foot
05-25-2005, 05:43 PM
Please define for me a carbine length barrel.


Britain does not "have" Commonwealth countries in 2005, but the Commonwealth still exists, and HM the Queen is still Head of State of rather substantial parts of it, as has been detailed elsewhere.

This is it in context and has a totaly different meaning from how you have said. Britain is a member of the Commonwealth.

ironman said

Just like the Queen is a figurehead only, and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have an "alliance" to the "Crown" which is a pleasantry only.

No she dissolved the Australian government in the 60s I think.

Inform me of one combat situation when the Gurkhas have been sent into battle on their own and in front of other troops.

Stoat, I gave him that reference some days ago but he said

ironman said

Well, your "expert" lost it right there when he said "comes close to our definition of an assault rifle, but the cartridge was rather weak and the light, blunt-nosed bullet lost its modest velocity too quickly" He's completely thinking is a little wooden box.

Brick wall and head.

Firefly
05-26-2005, 07:05 AM
WRONG

http://www.mdgreencard.com/exp_citizenship.html

[quote]EXPEDITED CITIZENSHIP THROUGH MILITARY SERVICE

So right you are. My error. However, it remains my opinion and always will, that the British actively recruiting foreigners from poor third-world nations to be their front line soldiers in highly distassteful to me and to many others. If the US were to do the same, I would find that distasteful as well! But then, the US does not send in groups of Mexicans to do their fighting for them, before American citizens go into the fight. You have not changed the distastefulness of it or the manner of Britain's actions in that matter. :wink:

You cannot change my opinion of it.

I gave that link to you on the Off topic foreign Troops forum, hours before you posted here.

There are thousands of Latino troops in the US Army/Marines that have no citizenship. Isnt that even more distasteful? Join the US military and you may be able to become a citizen?

I give up![/b]

Bluffcove
05-26-2005, 07:10 AM
Ive sent him the link to the swearing in ceremony about four times as well, its a .WMV file floating around on this site.
Unfortuantely you are horribly mistaken if you think supplying FRIONPAN with something so paltry as "evidence" is going to sway his opinion.

Firefly
05-26-2005, 07:12 AM
I have reached the conclusion that he just types the first thing that enters his head.

lairdx
05-26-2005, 08:40 AM
Lairdx, My hands are up.
I have no military experience..but then I'm not pretending I do. ;)

Now you insult me by aluding that I ma pretending to have military experience? Shame on you, again.
Ironman, I'm really trying hard to remain polite here, but where in that post do I allude to you in any way shape or form?
If you think that all my posts relate to you, that IS arrogant indeed.

I'm trying to be polite as well. But then, I am not making snide insults under my breath. If I wanted to insult you, I would do it staight out.

ironman you are a cnut. I know for a fact that some of the guys on here are experienced british soldiers and actually know what they are talking about. You just sprout sh1te. You try to sound knowledgable by using technical terms but it's mostly b*llocks.

I have been a soldier for over 12 years. They issue you with a rifle. You keep it clean. Once in a while you point it at the enemy and fire it.

Argueing about pedantic issues is neither big nor clever. Now go back to playing with your big plastic c*ck.

tat ta for now, toodle pip. chin chin. what ho. :wink:

Voluntary Escaper
05-26-2005, 09:13 AM
First, as a point of mere interest, my father is arguably an heir to Tullock Castle near Dingwall - his family owned it before it was stolen from them by the English Crown. He visited Dingwall in 1999 to see it.

I am sure that my family arguably has a historical claim on land that was stolen in an 18th century colonial revolt! :twisted:

Ale
05-26-2005, 09:34 AM
First, as a point of mere interest, my father is arguably an heir to Tullock Castle near Dingwall - his family owned it before it was stolen from them by the English Crown. He visited Dingwall in 1999 to see it.

FANTASTIC!!!

Now, I'm not Yank bashing by any means, but if I had £5 for every slightly sad American I have met who:

1)Believes they are Scottish or Irish
2)Refers to Scotland or Ireland as the "Old country" :lol:
3)Dislikes the English because of what we may or may not have done to the Scots and the Irish 500 years ago.
4)Claims to be heir to something grand in Scotland

I wouldn't have a mortgage!

I would like to give a special mention to the self claimed "Irish" cavalryman from Texas I met in a bar in Nijmegen at the marches. I think his family emigrated in about 1820, he thought Dublin and Belfast were the same place ( :? ) and when I got him a Guiness he screamed

"God damn, what is this shit?" :lol:

Do these 'old world' fantasists attract as much derision in the US as they do when they come here to buy tartan tea towels and shortbread?

Bluffcove
05-26-2005, 09:44 AM
On the subject of "stolen land" Who else couldnt help but laugh when the US went to liberate the "ethnically oppressed" in Kosovo

A US Pilot was actually quoted as sayin

"Ethnic Oppresion is wrong, the US does not support it and that is what we bought these apaches for" - pointing to the Apache attack heicopter behind him

I think I pissed myself laughing but had too many tears in my eyes to recall quite what else he said.

Bluffcove
05-26-2005, 10:40 AM
[quote=Man of Stoat]There are 3 major characteristics of an assault rifle:

1. It's a rifled arm designed to be fired from the shoulder
2. It fires ammunition intermediate in power between pistol and rifle ammunition
3. It is capable of being fired in either semi- or fully-automatic modes.

The M1 carbine does not fulfil all 3 charateristics.


There are more than 3:

1. carbine length barrel
2. rifled barrel
3. rifle ammunition
4. large capacity magazine
5. selective fire
6. shoulder weapon

The M1 Carbine fits all but the selective fire.


THis is not what you said earlier.
You actually stated these were the Criteria for an assault rifle.

The M1 Carbine met these requirements, and became available to serviemen in 1942, two years before the MP44, and was the world's first assult rifle.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=hair+tonic&start=30


This does not mean the M1 Carbine was ever classified as an assult weapon, but what is an assult weapon? It is a short, large capacity, fast reloading, fast firing weapon. Because one rifle is not auto and another is, or because one weapon was not deigned to be and is not called an "assult rifle" another weapon is auto and called an assult rifle, is neither here nor there to me. If the weapon fits the characteristics of an assult rifle because it is effective in that role, it can be effectively as an "assult rifle"

It's my opinion than when soldiers used an M1 Carbine as support personel and are carrying the plate for a mortar, the M1 Carbine is a defensive rifle. But when it is used in city fighting at 0-200 yards to kill the enemy in the streets it is an assult rifle.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210
Both of these comments refuse to reference outside sources, in fact the only part that provides evidence for why they should be assault weapons is your opinion, do you concur whether they are assault weapons has nothing to do with "opinion" and everything to do with criteria, Critieria that the M1 Carbine fails to fulfill.

ARE YOU WRONG? - OR - HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR STANCE AS A RESULT OF US PROVIDING EVIDENCE?

If you have changed your stance it would suggest we have educated you,
If we have educated you it would appear we hve more knowledge than you on the matter therefore; Please apologise and retract your earlier comments.
************************************************** *********
Finally because you may not want to answer all of the above please answer YES or NO to this question, the question you ahve so far refused to answer 7 times.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210

an assult rifle is pretty worthless at 600m and soldiers are not going to shoot together at men 600m away with them.
VS

That is true Mr. Schätzer, it is a light rifle, and as such, it did not shoot pistol ammunition. Albiet a weak rifle, but effective at it's maximum effective range, as are all weapons. It may not be effective at 600m, like a standard or sniper rifle, but it was a dandy little weapon.

does this quote mean that a standard rifle is effective at 600 metres unlike the M1 carbine, IRONMAN?

Does this mean a Carbine is different to a standard rifle?

Please answer the lower question!

Man of Stoat
05-26-2005, 12:21 PM
It's my opinion than when soldiers used an M1 Carbine as support personel and are carrying the plate for a mortar, the M1 Carbine is a defensive rifle. But when it is used in city fighting at 0-200 yards to kill the enemy in the streets it is an assult rifle.

Well, that's your opinion, but it's not correct, otherwise any rifle used in an assault is an assault rifle.

Aside from the Avtomat, of which no real notice was taken, the concept itself did not exist until the MP43.

This guy is right, you are wrong:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

His definition is quite concise and good, and I agree with it in principle:

"A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres".

This definition counts out the M2 carbine, even.

And one of your other things - assault rifles do not fire rifle ammunition as it is commonly understood (and, no, the common understanding of what constitutes "rifle ammunition" is not simply what is designed to be fired out of a rifle, otherwise things like .44/40, .22rf, .45LC and other general purpose cartridges - "rifle ammunition" is taken as meaning "full-power rifle ammunition", the bottom end-point of which is subjective), they fire intermediate ammunition.

If you want to define by intended use, an assault rifle is intended to replace the Rifle and SMG, the M1 carbine was intended to replace the Pistol.

In any case, it's you against most of the rest of the world, ironman - you've not managed to post a single link to back yourself up, and any that you do manage to find will be written by call of duty walts. I'll post some lovely quotes from reputable sources in the bespoke M1 carbine thread.

Bluffcove
05-26-2005, 12:34 PM
FRIONPAN, I am tired of coming back to check you havent spouted shit again,

Can you please assure me that you will never again sully this forum under the name ironman?

tell me that you will stop posting and I can get back to important things like revision masturbation and drinking, but please agree you are beaten and not going to retaliate!

Gen. Sandworm
05-26-2005, 12:43 PM
Paranoid schizophrenic!

reiver is Gen. Sandworm?
possibly its intertesting I have still only seen you offer one retraction, and you have still not been good enough to put anyone in their place by providing evidence to quash these lies we tell.

WTF. IRONMAN i have avoided to talking to you because there are alreadly plenty of people talking to you. I sent you a PM the reiver sent me. Gen. Sandworm and reiver are not the same person. I honestly dont know what to say.............your just a crazy old man.

Bluffcove
05-26-2005, 12:48 PM
what does it matter if you are reiver?
IRONINGMAN is still a walt, and you are still a Mod!

IRONMAN
05-28-2005, 09:14 PM
ironman you are a cnut. I know for a fact that some of the guys on here are experienced british soldiers

...and there is at least one here who pretends to be as well, but that is neither here nor there, as if being in the military would somehow make his brain bigger.


and actually know what they are talking about.

...and some of them have proven over and over that they don't know there's a difference in mass between one machine and another 10 times it's size, and have other such inexplicable shortcomings of common sence.


You just sprout sh1te. You try to sound knowledgable by using technical terms but it's mostly b*llocks.

Now now. Don't talk like a schoolboy. You're becoming another Bluffcove.


I have been a soldier for over 12 years. They issue you with a rifle. You keep it clean. Once in a while you point it at the enemy and fire it.

WOW. You automatically know everything because of that! You're a freaking God!


Argueing about pedantic issues is neither big nor clever. Now go back to playing with your big plastic c*ck.

I'd rather debate than rant from my subconcious predisposition. When someone has nothing to say or add other than obscene ranting, you know you've hit the intellectual jackpot. Obviously, need to be at:

http://www.pornskullcockneyfatherlessschoolboybabbles.org


tat ta for now, toodle pip. chin chin. what ho. :wink:

Toodaloo!

IRONMAN
05-28-2005, 09:29 PM
The Gurkhas are deployed, as I've said before, in the Light Infantry role as any other British Unit.
They have gone in after, before and (mainly) alongside other Regiments since their inception and continue to do so.

For your better understanding, I never brought up the Gurkas in the first place. All I did was react to it with a marginally expressed distaste for the practice. All of this insulting and attempting to prove it's a good thing is done on your behalf. I never ranted about it. But since you are ranting at me, even vulgarly (some of you Brits), I am responding to that as well.

Well, maybe if I were British I'd think the way you do. Here in the US, the thought of sending a group of nationally-foreign or secular people into battle would be considered a hideous infraction of cultural indecency. The US has culturally outgrown such practices. Nobody in the US would approve of sending to war a platoon or regiment of Gurkas or any other singular group of soldiers. The idea or recuiting people for such a purpose would be considered just as distasteful. Such an act would cause turmoil, and if they were Americans of a single race or foreigh nationality, there would be legal actions and possibly rioting.

How do I explain to a British person what it means to be an American?

IRONMAN
05-28-2005, 09:38 PM
US generals are currently sending British (Gurkha too) troops into battle in Iraq ahead of US troops in some areas? Does it somehow make it any more or less right that the British troops going into battle are generally white and rich?

Well, there you have it.

However, the US is not sending in Gurkas. Britain is providing them. Britain selects it's own soldiers. The US is not responsible for Britain's policies. Now don't try to imply such a thing. Did you think that was going to wash?

IRONMAN
05-28-2005, 09:56 PM
There are thousands of Latino troops in the US Army/Marines that have no citizenship. Isnt that even more distasteful?


No. See my other post in which I explain exactly why it is not even in the same galaxy.

BDL
05-28-2005, 10:08 PM
There are thousands of Latino troops in the US Army/Marines that have no citizenship. Isnt that even more distasteful?


No. See my other post in which I explain exactly why it is not even in the same galaxy.

Because it's America and you're a ****?

Will you get this through your friggin skull - the Gurkhas join the British Army under their own free will. They are not mercenaries - under UK law or international law. They are issued exactly the same uniform and kit as any other soldier doing the same job in the British Army (apart from a ceremonial Kukri, which I believe they are still issued at the end of Basic Training - but someone else could put me straight on that). They do exactly the same job as any other light infantry battalion in the British Army - they are not sent out before "British" soldiers. Stop banging on about a dead subject, the Gurkhas were serving Queen and country when you lot were still commiting genocide with the Red Indians.

You have continually argued with your betters on subjects you clearly have no ****ing clue about, despite the fact that there is over 50 years (at a rough guess) of military experience telling you that your reference book (the instructions for Call of Duty from what I can see, a decent game but hardly as authorative as British Army Infantry Training Pamphlets) is wrong.

I am almost certain you live in your parents spare room and your name is almost certainly Lance or, possibly, Randy. You are ginger and you smell like a badger's armpit. Tosser.

IRONMAN
05-28-2005, 10:38 PM
First, as a point of mere interest, my father is arguably an heir to Tullock Castle near Dingwall - his family owned it before it was stolen from them by the English Crown. He visited Dingwall in 1999 to see it.

I am sure that my family arguably has a historical claim on land that was stolen in an 18th century colonial revolt! :twisted:

I'm sure that you are incorrect. Do you mean the lands of North America which were stolen by the British from the Spanish through war, who had stolen the lands from native Americans over a century before, and which eventually came to be owned by the free people who had settled here over a period of 2 centuries from several nations while other countries were busy waging war over them? Are they teaching school kids in Britain that lands of North America once actually belonged to Britain?

IRONMAN
05-28-2005, 10:41 PM
First, as a point of mere interest, my father is arguably an heir to Tullock Castle near Dingwall - his family owned it before it was stolen from them by the English Crown. He visited Dingwall in 1999 to see it.

FANTASTIC!!!

Now, I'm not Yank bashing by any means, but if I had £5 for every slightly sad American I have met who:

1)Believes they are Scottish or Irish
2)Refers to Scotland or Ireland as the "Old country" :lol:
3)Dislikes the English because of what we may or may not have done to the Scots and the Irish 500 years ago.
4)Claims to be heir to something grand in Scotland

I wouldn't have a mortgage!

I would like to give a special mention to the self claimed "Irish" cavalryman from Texas I met in a bar in Nijmegen at the marches. I think his family emigrated in about 1820, he thought Dublin and Belfast were the same place ( :? ) and when I got him a Guiness he screamed

"God damn, what is this shit?" :lol:

Do these 'old world' fantasists attract as much derision in the US as they do when they come here to buy tartan tea towels and shortbread?


:lol: Typical

IRONMAN
05-28-2005, 10:44 PM
Well, that's your opinion, but it's not correct, otherwise any rifle used in an assault is an assault rifle.

Aside from the Avtomat, of which no real notice was taken, the concept itself did not exist until the MP43.

What a real historian you are. Not until 1943 eh? :lol:

So rifles designed specifically for heavy firing assaults were not ARs unless they came after the Germans coined the term "assualt rifle" to describe the assualt concept battle rifle that they made using the concepts that were published and weapons that were made by others decades before? And not until they realized by fighting the superior semi/fully auto weapons of Russia and the US in WWII that they needed an assault capable rifle like their enemies had, and decided to re-examine the assault concept battle rifle which had been explored, tested, and published decades before? :lol:

Yea. The Germans invented the assualt rifle eh? Uh huh. Gosh. I love how you seem to know more that the world's historians and every single source on the subject. :roll:

Hint: Germany did not invent the assault rifle. The concept existed for decades before the Germans realized it was time to keep up with the Jones, near the end of WWII, after getting their asses kicked and their MG positions overrun by assualts with assualt capable weapons (unlike the German army's bolt action rifles).

Mr. Historian errs again.

IRONMAN
05-28-2005, 11:12 PM
There are thousands of Latino troops in the US Army/Marines that have no citizenship. Isnt that even more distasteful?


No. See my other post in which I explain exactly why it is not even in the same galaxy.

Because it's America and you're a ****?

Will you get this through your friggin skull - the Gurkhas join the British Army under their own free will.

We know they join. But they are recuited in their homeland aren't they? Even if they weren't, and regardless of how they get in or what prompts them to join, the practice is, in the opinion of Americans, distasteful and an infraction of social decency. Explain it all you like. I have explained why Americans will never find the practice paletable. You must understand that all the reasoning in the world cannot and will not change that the practice occurs or how others might feel about it.

You must also understand that calling someone a penis does not make you a big man. It has only the potential to create or reinforce a bad opinion of you.

BDL
05-29-2005, 02:32 AM
We know they join. But they are recuited in their homeland aren't they? Even if they weren't, and regardless of how they get in or what prompts them to join, the practice is, in the opinion of Americans, distasteful and an infraction of social decency. Explain it all you like. I have explained why Americans will never find the practice paletable. You must understand that all the reasoning in the world cannot and will not change that the practice occurs or how others might feel about it.


What difference does where they are recruited make? Do you have the same opinion of the rest of the Commonwealth soldiers who join the British Army? The history of Britain means that a lot of foreign soldiers are entitled to join the British Army (just as they have the right to hold a British passport) because of the Empire and the Commonwealth. Personally I'd rather have a few hundred Gurkhas next to me than 10,000 American soldiers.

The Royal Gurkha Rifles (and their offshoots in the Royal Corps of Signals, Royal Logistics Corps, Royal Engineers etc) are part of the British Army because when we relinquished control of the Indian army (which the RGR had been part of) some of the RGR Battalions were transferred to the British Army (Gurkhas also serve with the Indian Army and the Singapore Police I believe). Every year there are dozens of applicants for every place because it is such a status symbol to serve with the British Army, failed applicants are known to have killed themselves rather than return to their homes as failures.

So what do Americans find distasteful? The warrior ethos and the sense of service that makes the Gurkhas join up? The loyalty Britain shows it's ex-Empire by allowing it's citizens to join our army? The fact that overall, the Gurkhas are just better people than you? Is it more distasteful than offering citizenship for anyone who wants to join up (and let's be honest, the Gurkhas are a million times better soldiers than a lot of the dross the Americans have in their forces at the minute)?

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 03:00 AM
What difference does where they are recruited make?

Well...


We know they join. But they are recuited in their homeland aren't they? Even if they weren't, and regardless of how they get in or what prompts them to join, the practice is, in the opinion of Americans, distasteful and an infraction of social decency. Explain it all you like. I have explained why Americans will never find the practice paletable.

Now remember, I did not bring it up. All of this hogwash is your doing because I simply agreed with the one who said they found it to be chickensh*t.


(and let's be honest, the Gurkhas are a million times better soldiers than a lot of the dross the Americans have in their forces at the minute)?

Perhaps the Gurkas are better than the regular British Army, but don't compare them to the US Marine Corps, who have the highest battle effectiveness of any fighting force in the world, and are the only military force in the world that has an average kill ratio of 10 to 1. No other force has ever acheived that consistently, certainly not Gurkas.

Man of Stoat
05-29-2005, 03:40 AM
OK, ironpan, you have used an existing term and given it a different meaning, well fecking done. You have then based your arguments around this different meaning, which is different from all considered opinion on the subject, except your father. A stroke of genius! If I've learned anything from you, it's that your definition is correct, and all the other definitions are wrong, according to you.

You should go into Law - "My client says that he had sexual relations with his accuser, but the term sexual relations in this case has a different meaning, cos I say so - they both had relations, all of whom were female or male, therefore were sexual relations" :lol:

BDL
05-29-2005, 03:59 AM
What difference does where they are recruited make?

Well...


Would it be better to ask a potential Gurkha to pay thousands of pounds to fly to Britain for his selection (which there is a high chance of him failing), then have to travel thousands of miles back home, or set up a recruitment and selection centre in Nepal? The fact that they join in Nepal means nothing. Nepal has historic ties with Great Britain going back over a hundred years, they have stood by us in time of war (while certain other "friends" watched us get the shit kicked out of us and made a shit load of money on the side) and we would (I hope) stand by them in time of trouble.


Now remember, I did not bring it up. All of this hogwash is your doing because I simply agreed with the one who said they found it to be chickensh*t.


Tell a Gurkha you think that the whole ethos and tradition of his Regiment is chickenshit and see how long you live. You have your opinion, I have mine. Only one of us is right, and that's the one that can spell "colour" :wink:


(and let's be honest, the Gurkhas are a million times better soldiers than a lot of the dross the Americans have in their forces at the minute)?

Perhaps the Gurkas are better than the regular British Army, but don't compare them to the US Marine Corps, who have the highest battle effectiveness of any fighting force in the world, and are the only military force in the world that has an average kill ratio of 10 to 1. No other force has ever acheived that consistently, certainly not Gurkas.[/quote]

What was the German kill ratio against the Russians in WW2? A high kill ratio didn't help the Marines in Vietnam. Kill ratios don't win wars. Highly trained, highly skilled deicated soldiers win wars. We have them. Our Army is probably the best trained army in the world, bar none. We have the best infantry in the world, of which the Gurkhas are a small but highly respected part. I'd rather be behind a battalion of Gurkhas than a battalion of US Marines. I've yet to see a Gurkha machine gun a car full of women and children because it didn't stop at a checkpoint though.

edit - who decides on the kill ratio anyway? Is there an umpire that comes out at the end of every contact to count the scores? Overclaiming of scores is a well known phenomena in air to air fighting (see the German and RAF claims for the Battle of Britain), so how do we know that the Marines have this 10:1 "score"?

2nd of foot
05-29-2005, 05:07 AM
We have in our past been guilty of recruiting from poor counties and putting them to work in the front line. We all know it was wrong, but when their home country does not have the nerve to fight openly then its citizens will volunteer to fight a just cause.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/es.html

kill ratio is not a way of assessing who is winning or who is loosing, morale is. It is the unit with the weakest morale that will loose not the one that takes the most casualties, as has been proved through out history.

Ask a US marine who they would rather have backing them up giving a chose of US army or a Gurkha Bn?

Your own army said

http://www.todaysmilitary.com/faq/t2_faq_entrancereqs.php#q9

Can I join the U.S. Military if I am not an American citizen?
Non-citizens may enlist, but cannot reenlist (extend their enlistment beyond their first term of service) unless they become naturalized U.S. citizens. However, after service of three years, additional residency requirements for citizenship can be waived. The Military does not assist in immigration naturalization process.

For enlistment purposes, the United States includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, The Northern Marianas Islands, American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. Citizens of certain countries may require a waiver to enlist. These include citizens of countries considered hostile to the interests of the United States. For more specific information on the current list of hostile countries, or for other specific questions,

And the US had a recruiting office at RAF Lakenheath. I have also spoken on many occasions toe a National Guard tanker serving in the sand pit who is Irish.

He who is without sin cast the first stone.

What land did we steal from the Spanish in north America? We took it from the French, but that’s OK, and from the Dutch, but we have been at war with them for hundreds of years and they are very nice people. We also swapped land with the Dutch (New Holland).

The colonials did not just find it there, “oh look no one is living hire” they took it from people who could not defend it, as has happened throughout history. Guy with the biggest stick makes the rules.
:)

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 06:31 AM
OK, ironpan, you have used an existing term and given it a different meaning, well fecking done. You have then based your arguments around this different meaning, which is different from all considered opinion on the subject, except your father. A stroke of genius! If I've learned anything from you, it's that your definition is correct, and all the other definitions are wrong, according to you.

You should go into Law - "My client says that he had sexual relations with his accuser, but the term sexual relations in this case has a different meaning, cos I say so - they both had relations, all of whom were female or male, therefore were sexual relations" :lol:

I've done no such thing. I have, however, explained to you that the practice is distasteful to Americans, since you brought it up again and pointed at me when you did.

Man of Stoat
05-29-2005, 06:35 AM
err, my post was with reference to your re-definition of "assault rifle".

And why do you speak for all Americans wrt gurkhas all of a sudden - my wife's american & she doesn't find it distasteful at all!

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 07:02 AM
We have in our past been guilty of recruiting from poor counties and putting them to work in the front line. We all know it was wrong, but when their home country does not have the nerve to fight openly then its citizens will volunteer to fight a just cause.

But are Gurkas no longer used by the British military?


kill ratio is not a way of assessing who is winning or who is loosing, morale is.

Uh huh. I thought you might try to disqualify the facts. BTW, morale makes you more effective because your bullets multiply magically!!! And when playing chess, it matters not that you are down by a rook a queen and a bishop. You have morale! Training and all other things don't mean a thing if you have morale!!!


Ask a US marine who they would rather have backing them up giving a chose of US army or a Gurkha Bn?

Have you ever heard the term Semper Fidelis? It's a USMC credo. It means "Always Faithful". That applies to thier nations as well as the corps. No, I am afraid the Marines would prefer Americans, kinda like the British prefer Gurkas. But WTF does that have to do with the practice of using Gurkas? Not a flicken thing. So now you are trying to prove the effectiveness of the Gurkas as if it's an excuse for the practice of using them? Is that part of the ratioanale for using Gurkas?


Your own army said

Non-citizens may enlist, but cannot reenlist (extend their enlistment beyond their first term of service) unless they become naturalized U.S. citizens.

So now you want me to believe that the US policies are in some way anything like the practice of sending a secular group of foreigners (Gurkas) into battle for your nation? :shock:


The colonials did not just find it there, “oh look no one is living hire” they took it from people who could not defend it, as has happened throughout history. Guy with the biggest stick makes the rules.

Did I not already state that the land belonged to someone else first? That someone was not Britain either. I guess the ones with the biggest stick are those who came here to live from other countries from the 16th century to the present, when ownership was up in the air in warfare between Spain (yes, Spain) France, and Britain. I guess if you can't keep it you never owned it. :wink:

I could care less how it is rationalized. You know what Americans think of it. Why did you bother bringing it up again?

BDL
05-29-2005, 07:17 AM
Tinwalt, do you sit at home thinking of shite to spout?

Gurkhas are still (as you well know) part of the British Army (I'm on a course with one now, I asked him how he felt about your posts, I think I'd be banned if I put all the insults he came out with for you here)

Morale is (as anyone who's ever actually done it for real) extremely important during battle. Morale took the outnumbered, inferior equipped British to victory in 1982, morale kept the Glorious Glosters in place until they were wiped out at the Imjin in 1952(ish), morale made Russians forget the fact that they were suffering loss ratios of 10:1 and defeat the Whermacht in 1945. Morale meant that a bunch of Vietnamese farmers on bikes with home made machine guns could take on and beat two superpowers in 30 years.

Can't understand why anyone would rather have Yank behind him than a Brit, unless they wanted to steal his kit?

The rationale for "using" Gurkhas is that they are ****ing amazing troops more than willing to die for their adopted country, and with proven bravery and skill in battle. What's America's excuse for using Haitan immigrants?

The Gurkhas aren't secular, they are generally Hindu or Buddhist

Why would we care what Yanks think anyway? When we start asking you lot for the best way to fight a war is the day I sign off from this man's Army.

reiver
05-29-2005, 07:32 AM
Ironman wrote :
I could care less how it is rationalized. You know what Americans think of it. Why did you bother bringing it up again?
Two points.
One, in response to the above, no, we don't know what Americans think of it.
We know what ONE American, namely you, thinks of it.
Try asking some Americans who have fought alongside them of their opinions.
You do not, I assume, have the arrogance to claim to speak for all Americans?

Two. You are, of course, entitled to your individual and personal opinion of the practice of recruiting the Gurkhas for the British Army.
However, your oft-stated and incorrect claim that they are "sent into battle ahead of white troops", or that they were " sent into battle in the Falklands while British troops sat playing cards on-board ship" are not opinions.
They are insulting, inaccurate and arguably racist statements, posted as facts, despite your claims of not being anti-British.
Once again I ask you to authenticate these claims with a single shred of evidence, or withdraw them and apologise for them.

P.S. Please check your P.M.'s
(Edited to add P.S.)

2nd of foot
05-29-2005, 11:39 AM
[quote=2nd of foot]We have in our past been guilty of recruiting from poor counties and putting them to work in the front line. We all know it was wrong, but when their home country does not have the nerve to fight openly then its citizens will volunteer to fight a just cause.

But are Gurkas no longer used by the British military?

This was sarcasm, but over your head, and you would have realised that if you had read the link, but you do not like to look at evidence that may contradict you narrow field of view.


Uh huh. I thought you might try to disqualify the facts.

What fact? That your trouble you do not produce any facts. :evil:


BTW, morale makes you more effective because your bullets multiply magically!!!

Is this sarcasm!! :roll:

And yes good moral does multiply you bullets. Your soldiers fire acuratly as aposed to the low morale troos firing into the air or not aiming or finding some other reason not to shoot. In low morale troops it takes two or more to help an injured soldier. In high morale troops they take the injured soldiers ammo, mark him and carry on with the assault. They both know that they will get help latter.


And when playing chess, it matters not that you are down by a rook a queen and a bishop. You have morale! Training and all other things don't mean a thing if you have morale!!!

Quite right. I am sure I could very quickly come up with some examples including US forces. The 57th at Alburhira, the Rangers in Somalia, Para at Arnham, Dunkirk, Alamo all fighting great odds and hopeless positions but with the belief in they own ability.

morale
noun [U]
the amount of confidence felt by a person or group of people, especially when in a dangerous or difficult situation:


2nd of foot wrote:
Your own army said Non-citizens may enlist, but cannot reenlist (extend their enlistment beyond their first term of service) unless they become naturalized U.S. citizens.


So now you want me to believe that the US policies are in some way anything like the practice of sending a secular group of foreigners (Gurkas) into battle for your nation?

Bay of Pigs. But no you left them there to die instead of supporting them as you had promised.


I guess if you can't keep it you never owned it.

But you did not that is the point.

Bluffcove
05-29-2005, 12:06 PM
Gurkhas are recruited by the British Government in their own land paraphrased

Wrong. They were recruited by an NGO trading company, that was in no way government sponsored the EAST INDIA TRADING COMPANY, partitioned India for its own economic benefit during the opium wars Playing local principalities off against one another in order to secure a favourable political climate - (IRAQ anyone?)

There was no united INDIA prior to our arrival and India has the most stable democratic record of any nation in the 3rd and possibly even 1st world.

It was no more their homeland than it was ours especially if you want to make claims about settlement and government and administration of the region. The only manner in which nepal became a nation was due to its partition by the british in order to better manage and control the flow of opium there.

In 1947, in the peaceful transtion of power to the newly formed democratic Indian Government the Nepali King offered his troops to the UK for use in conflict. The UK having had a long history closely linked to the region accepted this gift from the Nepali Monarchy. We did not abduct, press gang, capitualte or force people to join, neither do we "steal" Nepals finest young men, we cammand the Gurkhali soldiers purely at the behest of the Nepali Monarch, hence the need to ask permission to use Gurkha forces in conflict.

The Nepali King can prevent Gurkhas entering conflict under a British flag, the ultimate decision to commit Gurkha forces is not made by the British but by the head of the Nepali state.[/i]

Bluffcove
05-29-2005, 12:19 PM
Now remember, I did not bring it up. All of this hogwash is your doing because I simply agreed with the one who said they found it to be chickensh*t.

Erwin, you have agreed with Erwin over the issue of Gurkhas and expect us to lay off you as a result.
Erwins friends and countrymen were scared of Gurkhas and thanks to Galtieri's control of the media has been filled with hatred for this body of men, You on the other hand are an Arsehole (come to arrse please!!!!)

You have a free press, free media, generally a good education and yet you are as keen to swallow the shit about Gurkhas being stupid lap dogs for the british military as he is. He is young and impressionable and on the recieving end of a lot os state propoganda what is your excuse?

MORALE
Cold, wet, tired, want to go to bed, wish you had never joined up. = hands in pockets dreaming of Jo Guest, too knackered to clean weapon or look after personal admin, head buried in colour breathing into your jacket ratheer than scanning your fire arc. = Dead soldier.

Warm, clean, cheery, dry, well fed, well supplied, just back from R&R, = organised kit, alert, attentive, comfortable, able to endure more hardship, more confident, more resilient to infection and illness = living soldier.

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 02:42 PM
Tinwalt, do you sit at home thinking of shite to spout?
The rationale for "using" Gurkhas is that they are ****ing amazing troops more than willing to die for their adopted country, and with proven bravery and skill in battle.

DoubleDork,

Again, you can rationalize it anyway you like. I have explained that Americans find the practice distasteful. You can stop trying to prove to me that it isn't. You can stop bringing it up as well. Then you won't find yourself trying to defend the practice.

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 02:44 PM
I could care less how it is rationalized. You know what Americans think of it. Why did you bother bringing it up again

I did not bring it up again. It was thrown at me so I threw it back.

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 03:05 PM
We have in our past been guilty of recruiting from poor counties and putting them to work in the front line. We all know it was wrong, but when their home country does not have the nerve to fight openly then its citizens will volunteer to fight a just cause.

But are Gurkas no longer used by the British military?

This was sarcasm, but over your head, and you would have realised that if you had read the link, but you do not like to look at evidence that may contradict you narrow field of view.

So they are still used I assume since you would not answer the question.


And yes good moral does multiply you bullets. Your soldiers fire acuratly as aposed to the low morale troos.

So morale is the only reason the USMC has the highest battle effectiveness of any fighting force in the world eh? Uh huh.


Bay of Pigs. But no you left them there to die instead of supporting them as you had promised.

You are claiming that because the US supplied arms and training to Cubans exiles who intended to invade Cuba, that they were a part of the American military? I suppose Gurkas are just foreigners that go to war everywhere Britain does because they have the same beef with that nation as Britain? I suppose you think Cubans, Central Americans, and those of other nations are all Soviets because they USSR did the same.

Dude, get a freaking clue.


I guess if you can't keep it you never owned it (the US).


But you did not that is the point.

Please, tell me what other country it is that you claim rules the US. We need to hear that one. :lol:

reiver
05-29-2005, 03:24 PM
I could care less how it is rationalized. You know what Americans think of it. Why did you bother bringing it up again

I did not bring it up again. It was thrown at me so I threw it back.
Ironman, that's your own quote.
Again, I reiterate, no we don't know what Americans think of it.
We know what YOU think of it, unless you claim to speak for all of America now?

reiver
05-29-2005, 03:35 PM
Ironman wrote :
I could care less how it is rationalized. You know what Americans think of it. Why did you bother bringing it up again?
Two points.
One, in response to the above, no, we don't know what Americans think of it.
We know what ONE American, namely you, thinks of it.
Try asking some Americans who have fought alongside them of their opinions.
You do not, I assume, have the arrogance to claim to speak for all Americans?

Two. You are, of course, entitled to your individual and personal opinion of the practice of recruiting the Gurkhas for the British Army.
However, your oft-stated and incorrect claim that they are "sent into battle ahead of white troops", or that they were " sent into battle in the Falklands while British troops sat playing cards on-board ship" are not opinions.
They are insulting, inaccurate and arguably racist statements, posted as facts, despite your claims of not being anti-British.
Once again I ask you to authenticate these claims with a single shred of evidence, or withdraw them and apologise for them.

P.S. Please check your P.M.'s
(Edited to add P.S.)

Reposted, in the vague hope of receiving an answer to more than the original Ironman quote.

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 04:14 PM
Again, I reiterate, no we don't know what Americans think of it. We know what YOU think of it, unless you claim to speak for all of America now?

I guess the British don't know much about Americans. Kiddo, I AM an American. Like I said, how do you explain to Brits what it means to be an American?

"The Gurkhas have been on the British frontlines since 1815. More than 200,000 enlisted for the First World War, and a tenth of their number were killed or injured. In the Second World War, 250,000 Gurkhas fought the Germans in famous battles such as Monte Casino and Tobruk and ruthless Japanese soldiers in the Far East, again suffering heavy casualties.
Better to Die than to Be a Coward. That is the motto of the hill men recruited into the British Army. But that system - which plucked thousands of youths from tiny, impoverished villages, trained them and showed them the world - is in crisis. Today there are 300 applicants for every vacancy and some who fail commit suicide rather than face the disgrace they bring upon their families."

http://www.john-parker.co.uk/thegurkhas.htm

No, you have a big cup of Shut the Fluck Up about the Gurkhas NOT being used as front line soldiers for Britain, as you Brits claim.

It seems that the British not only send them into battle, but they also mistreat them, and this got a whole bunch of prominent people in Nepal to get something legal going with financial support from the Canadians:

World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerence
"Whereas the Kathmandu Declaration adopted by the participants of the International Conference on the Plight of the Gurkhas held in Kathmandu on September 18-20, 1999 details ways in which discrimination by the United Kingdom against the Gurkhas in the British Army has manifested itself."

http://www.hri.ca/racism/Submitted/Country/gurkhas.shtml

It seems also that the Gurkha pensions are nbased on Indian Army pensions, which one can only assume is something notably less than that of British soldiers.

And the stink just gets higher with a sperate issure:

"The claimants, ex-Gurkhas of the British Army accuse the British Government of discrimination and unequal treatment. Nepalese Gurkha soldiers have been recruited into the British Army for almost two hundred years. Many thousands of them lost their lives while fighting on behalf of Britain in many bloody battles in the First and Second World Wars. Since the 1947 Tripartite Agreement between India, Nepal and UK, their recruitment into the British Army has been regulated by that agreement, which linked remuneration of Gurkhas to the Indian Army's Pay Code, resulting in a significant disparity in the payment of salaries and pensions between British Gurkhas and other British soldiers.

As a result of this disparity, serving Gurkhas were paid substantially less than other British soldiers and over 30,000 Gurkhas retired from service in the British Army without an adequate pension and benefits. Moreover, while serving, Gurkhas suffered discrimination in their everyday life. Consequently, Gurkhas started proceedings against the UK government on the basis of several violations of their human rights through applications for judicial review.

The main discrimination case resulted in the Ministry of Defence conceding that all non-financial discrimination must end, apart from accompanied leave rules. Thus discrimination about different rules on weekend leave, accommodation, dress code, religion, food, mess facilities, baggage allowance and other matters has ended. The case concerning pay, pensions and accompanied leave was heard in the High Court from 17-21 February 2003 before Sullivan J.

On 21 February 2003 Sullivan J gave judgment. On accompanied leave he found that the 1947 Tripartite Agreement, between the UK, India and Nepal, does not justify the different treatment of Gurkhas. The UK Government relied on a rule that allowed the Gurkha soldier to be with his family for a maximum of 3 out of 15 years. The judge ruled that the Ministry of Defence bring this policy into line with the rules for British soldiers. However, he refused to give the Gurkhas a declaration that the law did not allow this discrimination. Instead it was left to the discretion of the Ministry of Defence as to how and when to review and change this policy. This aspect of the judgment is to be appealed.

As for pay and pensions, the judge dealt with these as a single issue. The Gurkhas had accepted that it was lawful for there to be some differential between a Gurkha pension and a British soldier pension as the cost of living in Nepal is cheaper, and the majority of Gurkhas retire to Nepal. The judge found that once this was accepted it then became a question of whether the differential was such as to be irrational. The judge found it was not. Further, he said that the Gurkhas were not analogous to British soldiers because they were retiring to Nepal.

Both aspects of this judgment on pay and pensions will be appealed. In relation to the issue of "analogous", the claimants will say it is self-evident that Gurkhas ought to be compared to British soldiers. They serve in the same army, with loyalty to the British crown. They fight alongside each other, subject to broadly similar terms and conditions, and any differences in these terms and conditions cannot now be relied on by the Ministry of Defence to justify their own discrimination. While it is obvious that a difference arises at the end of service, with most Gurkhas retiring to Nepal and most British to the UK, that is not the end of the matter. Some British go to live in other parts of the world, cheaper than the UK, and some Gurkhas retire in the UK. As for justification, it is self-evident that the Ministry of Defence have never carried out a proper justification exercise to establish what differential in pensions is proportionate.

The point of law arising from this case will have major implications for other human rights and discrimination cases. Post Human Rights Act 1998 it can be argued that where there are violations of human rights, especially in the sensitive areas of race or sex discrimination, the body responsible must now undergo a radical change of approach. Previously, it was enough to satisfy a court, if challenged, that the public body was not behaving rationally. Now the human rights element requires such discrimination to be justified, and to be proportionate. Therefore, it is argued that such a justification exercise should be in writing, especially in a case of this importance and sensitivity, and must be coherent and rational."

"Gurkha Prisoners of War Case

Many ex-Gurkhas were captured by the Japanese during the Second World War. British soldiers have received an ex-gratia payment of £10,000. The UK Government refused to pay the ex-Gurkhas saying that they were not fighting for the British during the Second World War but were in the Indian Army. Our clients noted that white and European officers of the Indian Army, and specifically Gurkha officers, had received the payment and, therefore, their exclusion from this scheme was for reasons of racial discrimination. On 30 November 2002 a judgment of the High Court ruled in favour of our clients. Mr Justice McCombe found that the decision was tainted by racial discrimination and repugnant to the "principle of equality which is at the cornerstone of our system."

The Ministry of Defence appealed the case but then in a remarkable defeat it withdrew its appeal in the light of new evidence introduced by the PIL team on behalf of our clients. The collapse of the MOD's case means that the entire compensation scheme will now have to be overhauled and payments made to the three elderly claimants who live in Nepal and to the 343 other Gurkha POWs, previously denied compensation. The High Court decision will be crucial to future discrimination cases."

http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/gurkhas_litigation.htm

Appearently, there are a lot of people who think that using Gurkhas is not only distasteful, but sad because the British themselves won't even treat them the same as they do native Brits.

So um, there you have it.

"Secondly, Nepal was and is a poor country. This, combined with the fact that Nepal had (and retains some remnants of) a caste system, made any opportunity to make one's way in the world quite desirable. The Gurkhas were essentially recruited from every caste, so as a result, hundreds (or even thousands) of young Nepalese men apply to join the Gurkhas for every slot available in the Brigade of Gurkhas (something on the order of 28,000 applicants for 200 openings). This was due not only to the prospect of obtaining a pension and good standards of pay, the 10 month basic training of Gurkhas also included education in some skills, such as language and manners expected of the crown's soldiers. This may not sound like much, but for some aspiring Gurkhas a century or more ago, it may have been their only chance at formal schooling."

http://anticipatoryretaliation.mu.nu/archives/043872.php

"The GAESO delegation includes Captain Pahalman Gurung, 82, and Hukum Singh Pun, 85, who were both imprisoned by the Japanese. “I was kept as a PoW by the Japanese for four and a half years,” Pun said. “We fought against the Japanese bravely with our Khukuris (Nepali knives) but our battalion was finally overcome by them and we were taken as prisoners of war between 1941 and 1945. “In the battle, many Japanese and our brothers were killed,” he said.

“But after the war, the British government sent us back without pay or pension.” "

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_29-10-2002_pg4_15


Now, I can understand Britain wanting excellent soldiers, and I do not doubt that the Gurkhas are that, But the idea of some British General sitting at a table saying...

"Hey, lets figure out who some of the fiercest fighters in the third-world world are, then go over there and offer them a paltry salary to fight for us. It could save British lives!"

...is simply unpaletable to Americans.

As you enjoy your steeming hot mug of Shut the Fluck Up, allow yourself to smell the bullsh*t you blathered about how the US has a similar singular foreign source of foreign tribesmen as it's front line fodder.

reiver
05-29-2005, 04:29 PM
Ironman wrote :
I guess the British don't know much about Americans. Kiddo, I AM an American. Like I said, how do you explain to Brits what it means to be an American?
Firstly, I am definitely not a kiddo, with or without a capital.
Yes, we rather assumed you were American.
I still doubt that you speak for them all.
Well, you are the man who went out of your way to tell us Brits what the Commonwealth was...the British Commonwealth that is.
I have an American sister-in-law, and two essentially American nephews, so I do know a little about what it means to be an American.
I assume from the tone of your post that you can't find anything to back your earlier remarks, and therefore have changed the subject?
If, as you have been invited many times, you were to visit ARRSE, you would find many serving, and ex-serving soldiers who feel strongly about the difference between Gurkha pensions, and British Army pensions.
It is, however, a complicated issue, and one in which the Nepali Government also has a say.
However, it still doesn't answer the question you were asked, now does it?
I could respond in kind with questionable actions taken by the American military, at various times, but that would descend into playground stupidity.
Please advise the source for your contentions re the British using Gurkhas as human shields, or as alternative troops while ours played cards.

reiver
05-29-2005, 04:39 PM
Ironman wrote :
No, you have a big cup of Shut the Fluck Up about the Gurkhas NOT being used as front line soldiers for Britain, as you Brits claim.

When has anyone ever claimed that?

Man of Stoat
05-29-2005, 04:41 PM
No, you have a big cup of Shut the Fluck Up about the Gurkhas NOT being used as front line soldiers for Britain, as you Brits claim.
.

What? Where the feck has anyone on here said that we don't use Gurkhas in the front line, apart from you just now? We deploy them as any other light infantry, as we have said repeatedly. This one's going in the big book of words in mouths.

2nd of foot
05-29-2005, 04:52 PM
No, you have a big cup of Shut the Fluck Up about the Gurkhas NOT being used as front line soldiers for Britain, as you Brits claim.

Please point to any one who has said they are not used on the front line. Produce facts to show that they are sent into action in front of other troops. Take your time, no rush, it will be a long wait.

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 04:55 PM
You can pile your bullsh*t claims about it here:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=5149#5149


Firstly, I am definitely not a kiddo, with or without a capital.

You are with both.


Yes, we rather assumed you were American.
I still doubt that you speak for them all.

I doubt the rest of the world has much regard for the British using the Gurkhas as cannon fodder.


Well, you are the man who went out of your way to tell us Brits what the Commonwealth was...the British Commonwealth that is..

The Commonwealth includes Gurkhas.



I have an American sister-in-law, and two essentially American nephews, so I do know a little about what it means to be an American..

Then you would know that Americans dislike the isea of anyone doing their fighting for them. Hence, the US Marine Corps are always the 1st in when America goes to war. We don't train and arm poor third-world peoples to go in and take the heat for us.


It is, however, a complicated issue, and one in which the Nepali Government also has a say..

And the nepalese government does not want Britain to equal the pensions? Do you need another cup of Shut the Fluck up?


Please advise the source for your contentions re the British using Gurkhas as human shields, or as alternative troops while ours played cards.

Dingbat,

"The Gurkhas have been on the British frontlines since 1815."

http://www.john-parker.co.uk/thegurkhas.htm

You do realize that the amount of information on this is piled high, don't you? Stop trying to deny what the whole freaking world knows and have another cup.

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 05:01 PM
No, you have a big cup of Shut the Fluck Up about the Gurkhas NOT being used as front line soldiers for Britain, as you Brits claim.

Please point to any one who has said they are not used on the front line. Produce facts to show that they are sent into action in front of other troops. Take your time, no rush, it will be a long wait.

:lol: So now that the proof is in your steeming mug, you finally admit it, but only by trying to say, "Man, nobody said..."

Bullshiotte. Must I find the quotes form several of you? Have you conveinietly deleted those as you have others?

You would be a real man if you could admit you were wrong about something without trying to deny you ever made the claim in the first place. Unless you do that, you are simply a kiddo bullshiot spewer who cannot owe up to his absurd claims.

Be a man for crying out loud. Follow my example. I have made 2 or 3 and owed up to each of them. When you can do the same, without excuses, as I have, you will earn respect.

Time for dinner now.

2nd of foot
05-29-2005, 05:07 PM
You are claiming that because the US supplied arms and training to Cubans exiles who intended to invade Cuba, that they were a part of the American military? I suppose Gurkas are just foreigners that go to war everywhere Britain does because they have the same beef with that nation as Britain? I suppose you think Cubans, Central Americans, and those of other nations are all Soviets because they USSR did the same.

Trained by you, fed by you, equipped by you, paid by you, in US uniform and should have been supported by you, but Kennedy changed the order at the last moment. Look like mercenaries to me.

And must not forget Central America.

Get off your high horse you Muppet.

reiver
05-29-2005, 05:09 PM
You can pile your bullsh*t claims about it here:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=5149#5149


Firstly, I am definitely not a kiddo, with or without a capital.

You are with both.


Yes, we rather assumed you were American.
I still doubt that you speak for them all.

I doubt the rest of the wolrd has much regard for the British using the Gurkhas as cannon fodder.


Well, you are the man who went out of your way to tell us Brits what the Commonwealth was...the British Commonwealth that is..

The Commonwealth includes Gurkhas.



I have an American sister-in-law, and two essentially American nephews, so I do know a little about what it means to be an American..

Then you would know that Americans dislike the isea of anyone doing their fighting for them. Hence, the US Marine Corps are always the 1st in when America goes to war. We don't train and arm poor third-world peoples to go in and take the heat for us.


It is, however, a complicated issue, and one in which the Nepali Government also has a say..

And the nepalese government does not want Britain to equal the pensions? Do you need another cup of Shut the Fluck up?


Please advise the source for your contentions re the British using Gurkhas as human shields, or as alternative troops while ours played cards.

Dingbat,

"The Gurkhas have been on the British frontlines since 1815."

http://www.john-parker.co.uk/thegurkhas.htm

You do realize that the amount of information on this is piled high, don't you? Stop trying to deny what the whole freaking world knows and have another cup.

Firstly, sonny, stop the name calling. It isn't polite.
Do you understand the concept of frontline troops?
Or do you think it means human shields?
The Nepalese Government actually doesn't want the Gurkha pensions increased, since it would destabilise the economy, with retired Gurkhas having a greater income then doctors, among many others.
As for the Commonwealth, it does not now, nor did it ever include Nepal.
Nor did the British Empire, as I told you before.

Walther
05-29-2005, 05:14 PM
AFAIK, the other problem is that when India became independent in 1947, the Gurkha regiments were divided up between the Indian Army and the British Army. The whole thing is being regulated by a treaty between the Nepalese governmemt, the British and the Indian government. AFAIK, in this treaty the British were explicitely forbidden to pay their Gurkha soldiers higher pensions than the Indian government could afford, the prevent all recruits trying to get into the British Army Gurkha regiments.

BTW, during WW2 the Gurkhas fought ALONGSIDE, not in front of similar British units, each being responsible for a certain sector.

Jan

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 05:44 PM
Trained by you, fed by you, equipped by you, paid by you, in US uniform and should have been supported by you, but Kennedy changed the order at the last moment. Look like mercenaries to me.


You are claiming that because the US supplied arms and training to Cubans exiles who intended to invade Cuba, that they were a part of the American military? I suppose Gurkas are just foreigners that go to war everywhere Britain does because they have the same beef with that nation as Britain? I suppose you think Cubans, Central Americans, and those of other nations are all Soviets because they USSR did the same.


And must not forget Central America.


You are claiming that because the US supplied arms and training to Cubans exiles who intended to invade Cuba, that they were a part of the American military? I suppose Gurkas are just foreigners that go to war everywhere Britain does because they have the same beef with that nation as Britain? I suppose you think Cubans, Central Americans, and those of other nations are all Soviets because they USSR did the same.


Get off your high horse you Muppet.

Get a clue kiddo.

Cuts
05-29-2005, 06:11 PM
Boys ! Be nice !

Once again he obviously doesn't have a Scooby, give him have a chance to google something at least.

Sometimes I think you lot enjoy using real facts to baffle the poor soul.
Shame on you !

2nd of foot
05-29-2005, 06:34 PM
And your comment is……

ironman wrote

Get a clue kiddo.

Which means what? Do you refute my comments or am I right? Where they in he pay of the US government or not?


The development of PMCs is directly linked to a global trend whereupon some Governments are increasingly looking to out-source military tasks to private firms for various different reasons. Indeed a recent report prepared as part of the US National Defense Authorization Act revealed that the US Department of Defense employs 734,000 private-sector employees per annum compared with a civilian workforce of 700,000.[22] Of the 734,000 individuals sub-contracted by the US Government, the vast majority is employed to perform non-combat tasks such as the research and development of various defence systems. Nevertheless, a minority is engaged at the sharper end of US foreign policy. Indeed the decision taken by the Clinton administration to hire DynCorp, a US based company, to execute its unarmed Kosovo monitoring responsibilities illustrates the movement towards the privatisation of military activity. The reason for the American decision was twofold as Kevin O'Brien identifies. Firstly, the US Government did not believe it would be right to send highly trained yet unarmed personnel into a potentially dangerous situation and secondly, it ensured that US forces would not be exposed to a fragile security situation that was little understood or domestically supported.[23]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmfaff/922/2061319.htm

Now what? Is this fact or fiction? Or is it that the US Army is hiding behind mercenaries because it is dangerouse?

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 06:55 PM
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmfaff/922/2061319.htm

Now what? Is this fact or fiction? Or is it that the US Army is hiding behind mercenaries because it is dangerouse?

You're lost kiddo. Those people are civilian employees and security company police. They are not soldiers sent into battle you complete dingbat. They do not go into battle, they do not fight with US soldiers, they are not sent into battle at all. They are "wannabe soldiers" with automatic weapons who babysite facilities while the US military is off in combat. You cannot even fabricate a good lie.

Get a clue.



Firstly, sonny, stop the name calling. It isn't polite.

Well, in light of the fact that you consistently call me names, some of which are pretty nasty, I'd say you are a stinking little snot-nose kid.


Do you understand the concept of frontline troops?.

Obviously, Britain does, so the send in foreigners, sing the early 1800's.
But then, we have established that.


Or do you think it means human shields?.

Obviously, Britain does, so the send in foreigners, sing the early 1800's.
But then, we have established that.


The Nepalese Government actually doesn't want the Gurkha pensions increased, since it would destabilise the economy...

What a convenient excuse. Perfect! That excuses the practice altogether doesn't it!!! :roll:

As for the Commonwealth, it does not now, nor did it ever include Nepal.
Nor did the British Empire, as I told you before.

Oh. So they go outside the "commonwealth" only to third-world nations to recuit their cannon fodder. How thoughtful of them. What a lucky strike it was discovering the Gurkhas.

Ok, so we have established that the bullshiot claim made by several of your little British clan of name-calling-false-information-blatherers that the British do not use Gurkhas as cannon fodder when they go to war is untrue.

We have also established that:

The US independantly made developments in jet engine design during WWII.

The US made developments in jet technology before the end of WWII.

The US made developments in jet technology without using German example to help them do it.

Jet engines contain do have parts that can be referred to as fans ("compressor fans").

A jet engine 10x or 2x the size of another is more than 10% less efficient because of the greatly increased mass.

A jet engine 10x or 2x the size of another does not weaight "about the same".

The MP43 is not the world's 1st assualt rifle.

The M1 Carbine can be considered an assualt rifle because of it's
characteristics.

The M1 Carbine does not use pistolo ammo, but instead a unique rifle round designed specifically for it.

You cannot make out the leg of a man at 600m with the unaided eye.

"§ At 600 meters the body resembles a wedge shape."

Section fire with AR's is not done at 600m.

The US Marines acheived a 10-1 kill ratio at Chosin not because of the cold, but because it was a kill ratio.

The French people are over 60% Cetic, and therefroe may be considered Celtic people.

The US does not send groups of ethnically homogenous people into battle.

The US Navy did in fact capture an enigma machine in WWII, and the British were not the only ones to do it.

It is illegal to carry a loaded AR on the back seat of a motor vehicle in the US.

You cannot rent an SMG in Nevada USA and walk off the premesis with it.

The US did not send US military troops comprised of ethnic troops into battle at the Bay of Pigs.

The concept of the Assualt rifle did exist berore the MP43 (in fact, several decades before).

...and perhaps a dozen other things.


Now, if you little dudes would simply stop making false claims, all your troubles would end. Your little group of infectious lies has made countless false claims and spouted more bullsiot on this forum than anyone should be allowed to spout off in a lifetime. I have not seen a group of more misguided, lie spewing, indignant, US bashing-under-the-breath stingking forum jerkoffs in all my years. Almost every single freaking thing that comes from your mouths is utte crap, and it's always proven flase. Your learning curve is way the freak out into space kiddos.

Do 2 things:

1. Chose your words carefully. Don't spout shiot you can't prove, and which intelligent, educated people know better than to believe.

2. Like a real man, own up to it when you get caught making a false claim.

That is your ticket to intellectual and spiritual redemption. It is the only way you will be free from the strife spending your free time trying to prove the bullshuiot you spout. Keep the bullsiot in the pubs and off the Net. The genberal public is not as gullible as your desire to fabricate facts is deep.

2nd of foot
05-29-2005, 07:09 PM
You're lost kiddo. Those people are civilian employees and security company police. They are not soldiers sent into battle you complete dingbat. They do not go into battle, they do not fight with US soldiers, they are not sent into battle at all. They are "wannabe soldiers" with automatic weapons who babysite facilities while the US military is off in combat. You cannot even fabricate a good lie.

I will put it in bold so even you can read it. But you will not because it counters your argument, none of which you have proven.

PMC = PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES


The development of PMCs is directly linked to a global trend whereupon some Governments are increasingly looking to out-source military tasks to private firms for various different reasons. Indeed a recent report prepared as part of the US National Defense Authorization Act revealed that the US Department of Defense employs 734,000 private-sector employees per annum compared with a civilian workforce of 700,000.[22] Of the 734,000 individuals sub-contracted by the US Government, the vast majority is employed to perform non-combat tasks such as the research and development of various defence systems. Nevertheless, a minority is engaged at the sharper end of US foreign policy. Indeed the decision taken by the Clinton administration to hire DynCorp, a US based company, to execute its unarmed Kosovo monitoring responsibilities illustrates the movement towards the privatisation of military activity. The reason for the American decision was twofold as Kevin O'Brien identifies. Firstly, the US Government did not believe it would be right to send highly trained yet unarmed personnel into a potentially dangerous situation and secondly, it ensured that US forces would not be exposed to a fragile security situation that was little understood or domestically supported.[23]

2nd of foot
05-29-2005, 07:11 PM
Now, if you little dudes would simply stop making false claims, all your troubles would end. Your little group of infectious lies has made countless false claims and spouted more bullsiot on this forum than anyone should be allowed to spout off in a lifetime. I have not seen a group of more misguided, lie spewing, indignant, US bashing-under-the-breath stingking forum jerkoffs in all my years. Almost every single freaking thing that comes from your mouths is utte crap, and it's always proven flase. Your learning curve is way the freak out into space kiddos.
Are you talking about yourself?

Walther
05-29-2005, 07:17 PM
Wrong again.

An axial type gas turbine engine compressor stage consists of two components:
a rotor, which transmits a momentum to the gas and pushes it into a certain direction (accelerates it) and a stator, which
a) works as a diffuser, this means it converts speed of the gas into pressure
(Bernoulli´s principle) and
b) removes the swirl element and guides the gases into the correct direction to hit the next rotor stage at the right angle

The diffuser function is essential, but you don´t necessarely need the stator vanes for removing the swirl. A sufficiently long distance between the various rotor stages (without stators inbetween) would be sufficient, though very inefficient. As Pdf27 said, it would increase the length of the engine by about the factor 10, but it would just be empty space, so very little weight increase.

Since each stage of an axial compressor only allows a very small increase in pressure, only appr. the factor 1.5 per stage. Therefore jet engine use large numbers of compressor stages in series (about 15 to 20, depending on the engine).
The advantage of the axial compressor is that it can handle larger mass flows than the more simple centrifugal compressor, which can be calculated more easily and was prefered by the early jet engine designers.

A fan is a single stage of large diameter blades attached to the front end of the low pressure compressor and is driven by the low pressure turbine. It´s job is to shovel huge amounts of air into a bypass duct, which bypasses the turbine engine and propels the plane forward. Period. Don´t come with any other definitions, because they will just make you look like a fool.

Then, to increase the power of a jet engine you need to increase the mass flow it can handle, this means the amount of air it can accelarate and kick out of it´s back.
Basically this means that you increase the diameter of the engine.
This doesn´t mean that the weight increases linearily with the diameter increase, because most of the volume gained is ... empty space.
Then, a bigger engine is usually more efficient, especially it is easier to control blade tip losses, this means the ratio of gases which slip through the gaps between the compressor and turbine blades and the engine casing.

Jan

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 07:20 PM
PMC = PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES

Dingbat, we already read it. In fact, I've read about it and watched about it on TV long before you posted that trash.

THOSE COMPANIES PROVIDE ARMED SECURITY GUARD SERVICES. They are not soldiers, Dingbat. They do not go into combat, Dingbat. :wink:

2nd of foot
05-29-2005, 07:21 PM
I think this guy is doolaly tap. :lol:

2nd of foot
05-29-2005, 07:25 PM
Kevin O'Brien identifies. Firstly, the US Government did not believe it would be right to send highly trained yet unarmed personnel into a potentially dangerous situation and secondly, it ensured that US forces would not be exposed to a fragile security situation that was little understood or domestically supported

PMC = mercenaries read the link

I think this guy is doolaly tap.
:roll: :roll: :lol:

Tubbyboy
05-29-2005, 07:25 PM
PMC = PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES

Dingbat, we already read it. In fact, I've read about it and watched about it on TV long before you posted that trash.

THOSE COMPANIES PROVIDE ARMED SECURITY GUARD SERVICES. They are not soldienrs, Dingbat. :wink:

Does being this annoying come naturally to you or do you have to work at it?

You blatantly refuse to answer direct questions, you quote from one thread to counter a different topic in another thread, you lie constantly, you ignore any proof that doesn't fit in with your twisted view of reality and you are always patronising and insulting.

You are a sad strange little man.

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 07:30 PM
A fan is a single stage of large diameter blades attached to the front end of the low pressure compressor and is driven by the low pressure turbine.
:lol:

You can't even fabricate a good lie.

National Aerospace Administration, US Government:
(you know, the guys who went to the moon?)

"All jet engines, which are often called, gas turbines, work on the principle that a tremendous thrust is required to drive the plane forward. The engine sucks air in at the front. The inlet and fan pull the air in."

http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/engines101.php


http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/images/JETS/ENGPARTS.GIF

Obviously, the claim,

"Jet engines contain no components that could be called in any way a fan."

is false

2nd of foot
05-29-2005, 07:33 PM
Wow you have posted some facts. 8)

I still think your loolaly tap
:lol: :lol:

2nd of foot
05-29-2005, 07:43 PM
A fan is a single stage of large diameter blades attached to the front end of the low pressure compressor and is driven by the low pressure turbine.
:lol:

You can't even fabricate a good lie.

National Aerospace Administration, US Government:
(you know, the guys who went to the moon?)

"All jet engines, which are often called, gas turbines, work on the principle that a tremendous thrust is required to drive the plane forward. The engine sucks air in at the front. The inlet and fan pull the air in."

http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/engines101.php


http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/images/JETS/ENGPARTS.GIF

Obviously, the claim,

"Jet engines contain no components that could be called in any way a fan."

...is more bullsiot.

Which is what Walther wrote. Look at YOUR diagrame.


A fan is a single stage of large diameter blades attached to the front end of the low pressure compressor and is driven by the low pressure turbine. It´s job is to shovel huge amounts of air into a bypass duct, which bypasses the turbine engine and propels the plane forward. Period.

Walther
05-29-2005, 07:47 PM
I just explained what the fan does. To get some basic understanding about jet wengines I´d suggest you read the book "The Jet Engine" published by Rolls-Royce.

Jan

BTW, yes, NASA got to the moon.... with rockets designed by Germans...

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 08:12 PM
Which is what Walther wrote. Look at YOUR diagrame.



Obviously, the claim,

"Jet engines contain no components that could be called in any way a fan."

...is false

2nd of foot
05-29-2005, 08:13 PM
I still think your doolaly tap

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 08:13 PM
GOD, where did you get this nice picture? From Jet Engines for Kindergarten? Trying to weasel out of your previous bullshit statements?

I just explained what the fan does. To get some basic understanding about jet wengines I´d suggest you read the book "The Jet Engine" published by Rolls-Royce.

Jan

BTW, yes, NASA got to the moon.... with rockets designed by Germans...

Obviously, the claim,

"Jet engines contain no components that could be called in any way a fan."

...is more bullsiot.


BTW, yes, NASA got to the moon.... with rockets designed by Germans...

Yea. The Germans came back to life and taught NASA how to design rockets 1000 times more complex and larger than a V2. Nobody has done anything to develop the rocket engine since WWII eh? :roll:

http://home.jam.rr.com/director/bullshit.jpg

reiver
05-29-2005, 11:39 PM
Trained by you, fed by you, equipped by you, paid by you, in US uniform and should have been supported by you, but Kennedy changed the order at the last moment. Look like mercenaries to me.


You are claiming that because the US supplied arms and training to Cubans exiles who intended to invade Cuba, that they were a part of the American military? I suppose Gurkas are just foreigners that go to war everywhere Britain does because they have the same beef with that nation as Britain? I suppose you think Cubans, Central Americans, and those of other nations are all Soviets because they USSR did the same.


And must not forget Central America.


You are claiming that because the US supplied arms and training to Cubans exiles who intended to invade Cuba, that they were a part of the American military? I suppose Gurkas are just foreigners that go to war everywhere Britain does because they have the same beef with that nation as Britain? I suppose you think Cubans, Central Americans, and those of other nations are all Soviets because they USSR did the same.


Get off your high horse you Muppet.

Get a clue kiddo.

Ironman,
I think the red mist has blinded you.
Every single one of the above quotes which you have attributed to me were all made by 2nd of Foot, who is more than able to defend his own remarks.
By all means take issue with me regarding anything I may actually have said, but not with what others have posted.

reiver
05-29-2005, 11:49 PM
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmfaff/922/2061319.htm

Now what? Is this fact or fiction? Or is it that the US Army is hiding behind mercenaries because it is dangerouse?

You're lost kiddo. Those people are civilian employees and security company police. They are not soldiers sent into battle you complete dingbat. They do not go into battle, they do not fight with US soldiers, they are not sent into battle at all. They are "wannabe soldiers" with automatic weapons who babysite facilities while the US military is off in combat. You cannot even fabricate a good lie.

Get a clue.




Firstly, sonny, stop the name calling. It isn't polite.

Well, in light of the fact that you consistently call me names, some of which are pretty nasty, I'd say you are a stinking little snot-nose kid.


Do you understand the concept of frontline troops?.

Obviously, Britain does, so the send in foreigners, sing the early 1800's.
But then, we have established that.


Or do you think it means human shields?.

Obviously, Britain does, so the send in foreigners, sing the early 1800's.
But then, we have established that.


The Nepalese Government actually doesn't want the Gurkha pensions increased, since it would destabilise the economy...

What a convenient excuse. Perfect! That excuses the practice altogether doesn't it!!! :roll:

As for the Commonwealth, it does not now, nor did it ever include Nepal.
Nor did the British Empire, as I told you before.

Oh. So they go outside the "commonwealth" only to third-world nations to recuit their cannon fodder. How thoughtful of them. What a lucky strike it was discovering the Gurkhas.

Ok, so we have established that the bullshiot claim made by several of your little British clan of name-calling-false-information-blatherers that the British do not use Gurkhas as cannon fodder when they go to war is untrue.

We have also established that:

The US independantly made developments in jet engine design during WWII.

The US made developments in jet technology before the end of WWII.

The US made developments in jet technology without using German example to help them do it.

Jet engines contain do have parts that can be referred to as fans ("compressor fans").

A jet engine 10x or 2x the size of another is more than 10% less efficient because of the greatly increased mass.

A jet engine 10x or 2x the size of another does not weaight "about the same".

The MP43 is not the world's 1st assualt rifle.

The M1 Carbine can be considered an assualt rifle because of it's
characteristics.

The M1 Carbine does not use pistolo ammo, but instead a unique rifle round designed specifically for it.

You cannot make out the leg of a man at 600m with the unaided eye.

"§ At 600 meters the body resembles a wedge shape."

Section fire with AR's is not done at 600m.

The US Marines acheived a 10-1 kill ratio at Chosin not because of the cold, but because it was a kill ratio.

The French people are over 60% Cetic, and therefroe may be considered Celtic people.

The US does not send groups of ethnically homogenous people into battle.

The US Navy did in fact capture an enigma machine in WWII, and the British were not the only ones to do it.

It is illegal to carry a loaded AR on the back seat of a motor vehicle in the US.

You cannot rent an SMG in Nevada USA and walk off the premesis with it.

The US did not send US military troops comprised of ethnic troops into battle at the Bay of Pigs.

The concept of the Assualt rifle did exist berore the MP43 (in fact, several decades before).

...and perhaps a dozen other things.


Now, if you little dudes would simply stop making false claims, all your troubles would end. Your little group of infectious lies has made countless false claims and spouted more bullsiot on this forum than anyone should be allowed to spout off in a lifetime. I have not seen a group of more misguided, lie spewing, indignant, US bashing-under-the-breath stingking forum jerkoffs in all my years. Almost every single freaking thing that comes from your mouths is utte crap, and it's always proven flase. Your learning curve is way the freak out into space kiddos.

Do 2 things:

1. Chose your words carefully. Don't spout shiot you can't prove, and which intelligent, educated people know better than to believe.

2. Like a real man, own up to it when you get caught making a false claim.

That is your ticket to intellectual and spiritual redemption. It is the only way you will be free from the strife spending your free time trying to prove the bullshuiot you spout. Keep the bullsiot in the pubs and off the Net. The genberal public is not as gullible as your desire to fabricate facts is deep.


Again, the top quote is by 2nd of foot.
Do you perhaps think this is yet another of my incarnations?
After all, you already think I'm General Sandworm.
Perhaps I'm the only other person here, posting with multiple names?

Now, let's see if you can find one single post of mine where I called you a nasty name, shall we?
As for being a kid, I'm your senior by some years, so play nice sonny.
You obviously have no clue as to the term "front line troops" when used in a military sense, unless you consider your own Marine Corps to be cannon fodder and human shields?
Perhaps you might clarify that with your father.
At least we finally got you to admit the Commonwealth exists. :roll:

(edited for spelling errors)

IRONMAN
05-29-2005, 11:59 PM
Ironman,
I think the red mist has blinded you.
Every single one of the above quotes which you have attributed to me were all made by 2nd of Foot,

I'm not surprised. I'm just firing my M1 Carbine at the closest Chinese soldier running at me. It can get confusing under those circumstances.

But if I have made the error of quoting you instead of one of the others tossing grenades in my direction, feel free to disregard my .30 round.

Bluffcove
05-30-2005, 02:19 AM
A jet engine 10x or 2x the size of another is more than 10% less efficient because of the greatly increased mass.

IRONMAN, you are not too bright, being twice the size need not affevt mass at all. size relates to volume not mass.

fat people sink = fat people sat in life rafts dont - the life raft is alot bigger (in terms of volume) than the man sat in it, maybe even 10X but it isnt (10X) heavier than the man.

I have sent him a list of PMC's operating in Iraq elswhere. It appears that because PMC's are have-a-go-heroes, and not militarily trained (according to IRONMAN) then it is ok for the US Government to deploy them to the worlds hotspots. Whereas the Gurkhas recievev the same training as any other infantryman and consequently are soldiers before anything else. On the same "real" wages as any other soldier.

Glad to see that you have read John Parker. a shame you read the internet version rather than the actual paperback, but we can work you onto the proper adult books once you top chewing crayolas. Surely you will have read of the poverty in Nepal and consequently you understand that the issue of Pensions is rather serious for them.

you have two options regarding how you want to sit on your moral High horse. You can either say


Gurkhas only join the British Army to escape their poverty.
or you can say

The British army doesnt pay them enough to escape their poverty.

I believe you will find that this is a catch 22.

Man of Stoat
05-30-2005, 02:24 AM
A fan is a single stage of large diameter blades attached to the front end of the low pressure compressor and is driven by the low pressure turbine.
:lol:

You can't even fabricate a good lie.

National Aerospace Administration, US Government:
(you know, the guys who went to the moon?)

"All jet engines, which are often called, gas turbines, work on the principle that a tremendous thrust is required to drive the plane forward. The engine sucks air in at the front. The inlet and fan pull the air in."

http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/engines101.php


http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/images/JETS/ENGPARTS.GIF

Obviously, the claim,

"Jet engines contain no components that could be called in any way a fan."

...is more bullsiot.

That's a TURBOFAN jet, not a turbojet, which is what we were talking about at the time. Turbofans were developped well after the end of WW2. Context, boy, context - I know you like to change it a lot, but some of us like to stick to it a little more rigorously.

IRONMAN
05-30-2005, 04:48 AM
That's a TURBOFAN jet, not a turbojet, which is what we were talking about at the time. Turbofans were developped well after the end of WW2. Context, boy, context - I know you like to change it a lot, but some of us like to stick to it a little more rigorously.
No shiot Sherlock. And a turbofan engine is a type of jet engine.

We've already done this, but if you are too thick to remember, here's proof that all jet engines, turbojets included, contain components that are commonly referred to as fans.

Obviously, the claim,

"Jet engines contain no components that could be called in any way a fan."

...is false.

"Modern turbojet engines are modular in concept and design. The central power-producing core, common to all jet engines, is called the gas generator (described above). To it are attached peripheral modules such as propeller reduction gearsets (turboprop/turboshaft), ypass fans, and afterburners. The kind of peripheral fitted is dependent on the aircraft design application."

http://www.answers.com/topic/jet-engine

The most common type of jet engine is the turbojet engine. Air from the atmosphere enters the fan section at the front of the engine where it is compressed in the compressor section."

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Jet_Engines/DI88.htm


Turbojet Thriust (NASA)

"We have shown here a tube-shaped inlet, like one you would see on an airliner. But inlets come in many shapes and sizes depending on the aircraft's mission. At the rear of the inlet, the air enters the compressor. The compressor acts like many rows of airfoils, with each row producing a small jump in pressure. A compressor is like an electric fan and we have to supply energy to turn the compressor."
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/turbth.html

"The earliest attempts at jet engines were hybrid designs in which an external power source supplied the compression. In this system (called a thermojet by Secondo Campini) the air is first compressed by a fan driven by a conventional piston engine,"
http://www.biography.ms/Jet_engine.html

Turbojet

"On its way out the nozzle, some of the gas pressure is used to drive a turbine. A turbine is a series of rotors or fans connected to a single shaft."
http://www.keveney.com/jets.html

Turbojet Engine (NASA)

Student Sheet(s)

Background Information
Most modern passenger and military aircraft are powered by gas turbine engines, which are also called jet engines. The first and simplest type of gas turbine is the turbojet.

http://media.nasaexplores.com/lessons/04-045/images/burner.gifhttp://media.nasaexplores.com/lessons/04-045/images/pinwheel_fan.gif

Large amounts of surrounding air are continuously brought into the engine inlet or intake. At the rear of the inlet, the air enters the compressor. The compressor acts like many rows of airfoils, with each row producing a small jump in pressure. A compressor is like an electric fan.


http://www.nasaexplores.com/show_912_student_sh.php?id=03010390159

"In 1936, a year before his turbojet ran successfully, Whittle applied for a patent for a turbofan, or bypass, engine,"

http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/flight03/jetsfans/jetsfans.html

"Modern turbojet engines are modular in concept and design. The central power-producing core, common to all jet engines, is called the gas generator (described above). To it are attached peripheral modules such as propeller reduction gearsets (turboprop/turboshaft), bypass fans, and afterburners. "

http://www.algebra.com/algebra/about/history/Jet-engine.wikipedia

"A variant of the pure ramjet is the 'combined cycle' engine, intended to overcome the limitations of the pure ramjet. An example of this is the Air Turbo Ramjet (ATR) which operates as a conventional turbojet at subsonic speeds and a fan assisted ramjet at speeds below Mach 6.

The ATREX engine developed in Japan is an experimental implementation of this concept. It uses liquid hydrogen fuel in a fairly exotic single-fan arrangement."
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/R/Ra/Ramjet.htm

General Electric - Engine Vocabulary

"The compressor is the first component in the core of the engine. It is made up of a series of fans with many blades and is attached to the shaft."

Core: The core engine module is aft of the fan module and forward of the turbine stator case and is made up of three components:"

http://www.geae.com/education/vocabulary.html

Man of Stoat
05-30-2005, 04:52 AM
That's a TURBOFAN jet, not a turbojet, which is what we were talking about at the time. Turbofans were developped well after the end of WW2. Context, boy, context - I know you like to change it a lot, but some of us like to stick to it a little more rigorously.
No shiot Sherlock. And a turbofan engine is a type of jet engine.

Obviously, the claim,

"Jet engines contain no components that could be called in any way a fan."

...is more bullsiot.

It was in the context of a discussion about TURBOJETS. Jets in the 2nd world war were all turbojets. This is a WW2 forum, and we were discussing WW2 jets, therefore using the terminology of the time we were talking about TURBOJETS.

BDL
05-30-2005, 05:02 AM
Tinwalt, do you sit at home thinking of shite to spout?
The rationale for "using" Gurkhas is that they are ****ing amazing troops more than willing to die for their adopted country, and with proven bravery and skill in battle.

DoubleDork,

Again, you can rationalize it anyway you like. I have explained that Americans find the practice distasteful. You can stop trying to prove to me that it isn't. You can stop bringing it up as well. Then you won't find yourself trying to defend the practice.

No, YOU find the practice distasteful. Big difference there Kiddo. You are not the whole US.

I'll repost my post here so you can answer all the questions you ignored:



Gurkhas are still (as you well know) part of the British Army (I'm on a course with one now, I asked him how he felt about your posts, I think I'd be banned if I put all the insults he came out with for you here)

If the Gurkhas are, as you say, so badly treated (and I personally disagree with their pensions being lower than ours and there is an active campaign to sort it out), why does this one (and I suspect, most of his comrades) feel that you are such a twat? (his words)



Morale is (as anyone who's ever actually done it for real) extremely important during battle. Morale took the outnumbered, inferior equipped British to victory in 1982, morale kept the Glorious Glosters in place until they were wiped out at the Imjin in 1952(ish), morale made Russians forget the fact that they were suffering loss ratios of 10:1 and defeat the Whermacht in 1945. Morale meant that a bunch of Vietnamese farmers on bikes with home made machine guns could take on and beat two superpowers in 30 years.

No comeback for this then? You seem to make a habit out of making outlandish claims that you can't back up and then ignoring the people who put you right.


Can't understand why anyone would rather have Yank behind him than a Brit, unless they wanted to steal his kit?

See above



The rationale for "using" Gurkhas is that they are ****ing amazing troops more than willing to die for their adopted country, and with proven bravery and skill in battle. What's America's excuse for using Haitan immigrants?

Any answer yet? Bearing in mind I met US soldiers in Iraq that could barely speak English.


The Gurkhas aren't secular, they are generally Hindu or Buddhist

Not seen you call them secular again yet. Well done.



Why would we care what Yanks think anyway? When we start asking you lot for the best way to fight a war is the day I sign off from this man's Army.

Any thoughts?

Bluffcove
05-30-2005, 05:03 AM
purely because this forum has fallen apart, and I cant work out which posts are related to what, I thought Id stick this in here.

It is the Blog of a PMC worker in IRAQ at present, interesting reading Im ssure you will agree. Fighting for the coalition of the willing without state legitimiacy. and actually on a different pay scale to the privates of similair rank. technically of equatable status to Mercenaries.

http://home.wol.co.za/~20137865/iraq/blog1.htm

IRONMAN
05-30-2005, 05:25 AM
No, YOU find the practice distasteful. Big difference there Kiddo. You are not the whole US.


Ironman,
I have repeatedly agreed that the Gurkhas are, indeed, front line troops.
I have posted details of their bravery in the front line at Monte Cassino and elsewhere, and commented on the gallnatry awards they have won in the process. I have stated that you are entitled to your own, personal opinion as to the recruiting of the Gurkhas. I do, however, continue to take issue with your use of the term "cannon-fodder".

This indicates poor troops sent in to soak up punishment without any hope of victory, and, in the context of several of your own posts, as human shields for ethnically British troops.

I can understand that. I would say that the Gurkhas are, as themselves, anything but cannon fodder. It seems that they are a bunch of seriously badass soldiers. However, if they are used in the hopes that they are going to die instead of a British national, then what could they be besides cannon fodder?


Do you consider the American Marine Corps to be "cannon-fodder"?

The Marines are not an ethnically aligned group. The USMC includes persons of every race and ethnicity as can be found in the US. In fact, something that is rather a problem for the US, is that we have the need to insure such a thing does not happen, else liberal organizations such as the AFLCIO, NAACP, United States Equal Oportunity Employment Commision (a US Government agency) or the Human Defamation League jump our asses for doing exactly what the British do with the Gurkhas.

You see, in America, that kind of thing won't wash. In Britain, appearently it does. We in the US are burdened by and dedicated to the idea of making sure that whatever we do in the corporate world, and in our military, does not resemble precicely what the British government does by sending Gurkhas into battel as a group, or ahead of caucasian Brits. It cannot happen here. The United States has become dedicated to human civil liberties, and that disqualifies practices such as the one in question from being acceptable in the US.

No doubt there is honor in being a British Special Forces memnber. What I find dishonerable, as any American would, is the idea of selling that Honor to people of a poor country as a way of bettering themselves, only to be the 1st into battle, as an ethnically aligned group of soldiers. I don't think any American, from my 43 years of living in my country, would find such a practice paletable.

Imagine if the US were to use people who were all black, or all Muslim, or all Semitic, or all Caucasian (then other ethnic groups would scream, "You are excluding us purposely!") as a fighting force, even if they were not sent into battle as 1st installments, and even if they were not American citizens, there would be a huge uproar. In fact, it could not happen to begin with. Such practices cannot happen in the US, and Americans find such practices to be completely unacceptable.

I hope that helps you understand.

IRONMAN
05-30-2005, 05:30 AM
It was in the context of a discussion about TURBOJETS. Jets in the 2nd world war were all turbojets. This is a WW2 forum, and we were discussing WW2 jets, therefore using the terminology of the time we were talking about TURBOJETS.

See my previous post for proof you are incorrect again. You posted so fast that you did not get the opportunity to read your humiliating proof. :wink:

Man of Stoat
05-30-2005, 06:06 AM
does not resemble precicely what the British government does by sending Gurkhas into battel as a group, or ahead of caucasian Brits.

There you go - you've claimed it AGAIN.

IRONMAN
05-30-2005, 06:10 AM
does not resemble precicely what the British government does by sending Gurkhas into battel as a group, or ahead of caucasian Brits.

There you go - you've claimed it AGAIN.

You've already aknowledged that the chickensh*t practice takes place. You would not be allowed into the US military. You would not pass the mental exam.

Man of Stoat
05-30-2005, 06:16 AM
does not resemble precicely what the British government does by sending Gurkhas into battel as a group, or ahead of caucasian Brits.

There you go - you've claimed it AGAIN.

You've already aknowledged that the chickensh*t practice takes place. You would not be allowed into the US military. You would not pass the mental exam.

Where? Quote one of us who said it (Not Erwin, he's not one of us)

Tubbyboy
05-30-2005, 06:16 AM
does not resemble precicely what the British government does by sending Gurkhas into battel as a group, or ahead of caucasian Brits.

There you go - you've claimed it AGAIN.

You've already aknowledged that the chickensh*t practice takes place. You would not be allowed into the US military. You would not pass the mental exam.

No one has ever said this apart from you, you retard! Some Gurkhas are front line troops as are some "caucasian Brits" some are support troops such as engineers, signals, logistics etc. There is even a Gurkha band.

How does this equate to being sent ahead of other troops as cannon fodder?
Simple answer, it doesn't.

IRONMAN
05-30-2005, 06:20 AM
does not resemble precicely what the British government does by sending Gurkhas into battel as a group, or ahead of caucasian Brits.

There you go - you've claimed it AGAIN.

You've already aknowledged that the chickensh*t practice takes place. You would not be allowed into the US military. You would not pass the mental exam.

No one has ever said this apart from you, you retard! Some Gurkhas are front line troops as are some "caucasian Brits" some are support troops such as engineers, signals, logistics etc. There is even a Gurkha band.

How does this equate to being sent ahead of other troops as cannon fodder?
Simple answer, it doesn't.

We've already proven it. The information about it is in great abundance. So you can suck on it kiddo. It's a chickensh*t practice, for chickensh*t soldiers.

BDL
05-30-2005, 10:00 AM
I'll repost my post here so you can answer all the questions you ignored:



Gurkhas are still (as you well know) part of the British Army (I'm on a course with one now, I asked him how he felt about your posts, I think I'd be banned if I put all the insults he came out with for you here)

If the Gurkhas are, as you say, so badly treated (and I personally disagree with their pensions being lower than ours and there is an active campaign to sort it out), why does this one (and I suspect, most of his comrades) feel that you are such a twat? (his words)



Morale is (as anyone who's ever actually done it for real) extremely important during battle. Morale took the outnumbered, inferior equipped British to victory in 1982, morale kept the Glorious Glosters in place until they were wiped out at the Imjin in 1952(ish), morale made Russians forget the fact that they were suffering loss ratios of 10:1 and defeat the Whermacht in 1945. Morale meant that a bunch of Vietnamese farmers on bikes with home made machine guns could take on and beat two superpowers in 30 years.

No comeback for this then? You seem to make a habit out of making outlandish claims that you can't back up and then ignoring the people who put you right.


Can't understand why anyone would rather have Yank behind him than a Brit, unless they wanted to steal his kit?

See above



The rationale for "using" Gurkhas is that they are ****ing amazing troops more than willing to die for their adopted country, and with proven bravery and skill in battle. What's America's excuse for using Haitan immigrants?

Any answer yet? Bearing in mind I met US soldiers in Iraq that could barely speak English.


The Gurkhas aren't secular, they are generally Hindu or Buddhist

Not seen you call them secular again yet. Well done.



Why would we care what Yanks think anyway? When we start asking you lot for the best way to fight a war is the day I sign off from this man's Army.

Any thoughts?

Still waiting for answers to all of them.



We've already proven it. The information about it is in great abundance. So you can suck on it kiddo. It's a chickensh*t practice, for chickensh*t soldiers

Wonder why the Yanks always want such cowards to win their wars for them? You're a ****

FW-190 Pilot
05-30-2005, 03:25 PM
can we stick on topics?
thanks

Rifleman
05-30-2005, 04:17 PM
However, if they are used in the hopes that they are going to die instead of a British national, then what could they be besides cannon fodder?


I asm quite certain that you have already been told that many of them ARE British nationals. Are you now suggesting that Ghurka battalions pick out only those who only hold Nepalese passports to use us gun fodder?

Gen. Sandworm
05-30-2005, 05:36 PM
can we stick on topics?
thanks

Im thinking we split to original post and one on the Korean war. Alot of this is becoming garbage.

BDL
05-31-2005, 02:26 AM
can we stick on topics?
thanks

Im thinking we split to original post and one on the Korean war. Alot of this is becoming garbage.

Could you split it all into a "Tinwalt talking crap" thread in off topic or something?

Gen. Sandworm
05-31-2005, 08:31 AM
can we stick on topics?
thanks

Im thinking we split to original post and one on the Korean war. Alot of this is becoming garbage.

Could you split it all into a "Tinwalt talking crap" thread in off topic or something?

I think FW190 is going to clean this up when he gets the chance. So alot of the insults will be taken out or deleted.

Bluffcove
05-31-2005, 10:39 AM
Could they not be compiled?
I think the English language has expanded significantly in this thread!

We already have two gurkha threads in operation and a defence-contractors, mercenaries thread. The defence contractors one is actually very interesting however the cross topic subversive element that has so shamelessly corrupted my
Blather War Machines book of Soldier Knowledge thread has also appeared here. Gen Sandworm Im glad Im not a MOD,
"Its a tough job but someones gotta do it"

It has also been shown to TINWALT that Gurkhas are only used at the perimission of the Nepali King - (homicidal maniac as he might be) - he is still their supreme monarch and has control of the Gurkhas and ultimate control in whether they fight for Britian

IRONMAN do you think Gurkhas only join to escape poverty?
IRONMAN do you think the British Military doesnt pay them enough to escape poverty?

again you have contradicted yourself!

strangeland
09-17-2006, 09:25 PM
The US didn't use any captured German equipment (certainly no jets or tanks), but I wouldn't be surprised if some Chinese or North Korean infantry units went into battle armed with German-made rifles, machine guns, or gernades.

Gen. Sandworm
09-18-2006, 03:24 AM
The US didn't use any captured German equipment (certainly no jets or tanks), but I wouldn't be surprised if some Chinese or North Korean infantry units went into battle armed with German-made rifles, machine guns, or gernades.

Possibly some American and British equipment left in China after the war. The allies supported the Chinese and their fight against Japan as much as they could afford. And of couse during the Korean war the Chinese and Russians supported the north.

Anyhow just an probable idea. Back to anyone who know about German weapons.

Stahler
09-19-2006, 02:29 PM
Hi Folks,

i would only mention that the chinese army was trained from german advisors until the war with japan. The army was equipped with german weapons and also some scout cars 222/ or 221. So it possible that some of these weapons where used in the korean war by the chinese army.


Stahler

FW-190 Pilot
09-19-2006, 04:16 PM
Hi Folks,

i would only mention that the chinese army was trained from german advisors until the war with japan. The army was equipped with german weapons and also some scout cars 222/ or 221. So it possible that some of these weapons where used in the korean war by the chinese army.


Stahler
no, i dont think so, the first group of German trainned soldiers were the first wave to go against the japanese, i doubt any of those equipment would still be there in 1950. (if not destroyed in ww2, then maybe in the civil war between two parties, the nationalists vs the communists)

strangeland
09-27-2006, 11:35 PM
I should add that the reason the US didn't use captured German tanks or planes was probably that finding ammo and spare parts for them would have been costly and difficult, while spare parts for American-built WWII-era bombers and fighters, as well as newer weapons, wouldn't have been a problem at all with huge amounts of wartime surplus lying around.

FW-190 Pilot
09-28-2006, 04:07 PM
i think the US should really tried their A4 missiles that they get from the Germans, just to test how effective it could be.

German scientists in a documentary video said that hitler has used the missiles too prematurely, the scientists said if they were given 3-4 years more to develop, they could have build missiles that could pinpoint any target from building to enemy ships.

Digger
09-30-2006, 05:49 AM
G'day,

After reading nearly eighteen pages of this fascinating thread I believe we can safely assume no German weapons were used in the Korean conflict.:rolleyes:

Regards to all
Digger.

Nickdfresh
09-30-2006, 09:31 AM
There were many WWII German, as well as Allied, weapons that were used by both sides of the Arab-Israel conflict.

Nickdfresh
09-30-2006, 09:54 AM
Related to the thread though, does anybody have pics or info. regarding the Chinese using American sourced weapons delivered to the Kumingtang Nationalists, that were captured or inherited by the Chinese People's Liberation Army?

Gen. Sandworm
09-30-2006, 11:14 AM
Related to the thread though, does anybody have pics or info. regarding the Chinese using American sourced weapons delivered to the Kumingtang Nationalists, that were captured or inherited by the Chinese People's Liberation Army?

Sorry didnt look thru all the pics just scanned them and found nothing.

Doesnt seem to be alot of German weapons were used or at least on any alarming quanity.

Seems to be a really good site and the following is quoted from there:

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/PrincipalWeapons.htm

Throughout the fighting, the enemy was adept at capturing and employing US weapons and equipment. During the first 90 days, the North Korean People's Army (NK) secured enough equipment from ROK and US divisions to equip several of their own. The Chinese Communist Forces (CCF), during the first year of the war, were in many cases equipped with US arms supplied to the Nationalist government both during and after WWII, all of which had fallen into Communist hands. The Chinese also had a considerable quantity of surrendered Japanese weapons, from rifles to field artillery. The principal source of armament for the NK and, after the first year also for the CCF, was Soviet Russia. Just as the US provided 90% of all munitions used by UN forces, Russia designed, mass-produced and delivered the bulk of all Communist weapons.

As with the US, the majority of Russian equipment was WWII vintage.

Russian weaponry, as Russian equipment generally, had one marked characteristic: it was extremely rugged, of the simplest design consistent with efficiency, and very easy to maintain, making it suitable for the equipping of peasant armies. Despite its simplicity and lack of refinement, it was good.

Vassili Chukolov
04-30-2007, 03:34 PM
I do know that some south korean units were supplied with captured Japanese Rifles though. I've never heard of any German weapons used...