German weapons in korean war?

[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

[WildBoar]

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]

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

[TexWiller]

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]

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]

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]

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]

At the Silent Wings Museum, Lubbock, TX, we have a WW2 German Nebelwerfer 41 w/ a Russian tire on it. No ideas.

[RighteousDuncan]

The IAF (Israel) used ME109's in 1948, they bought em from Spain. Kind of Ironic that they used German planes.

[FW-190 Pilot]

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]

Yep, good ol' T-34s

[Polar]

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]

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]

I suggest all of you to come back to the topic.

[Gen. Sandworm]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The RAAF Metrors claim 3 Mig 17s, but your right mostly used in ground support.
<engage pedant mode ;)>

[IRONMAN]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Your idea of objective fact is rather...um... loose.

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

[IRONMAN]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

As promised:

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

[Bluffcove]

His username is C_O_D.

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

[IRONMAN]

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]

Hands up if you have no military experience and are just pretending! :wink:

[Man of Stoat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Lairdx, My hands are up.
I have no military experience..but then I'm not pretending I do. ;)

[Man of Stoat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"Time for bed", said Zebedee :D

[Bluffcove]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I have reached the conclusion that he just types the first thing that enters his head.

[lairdx]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

what does it matter if you are reiver?
IRONINGMAN is still a walt, and you are still a Mod!

[IRONMAN]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 dick?

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 fucking 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 dick?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 citizenshi