Manzanar

[South African Military]

Is anyone familer with Manzanar and the American camps that they put the Japanese in during the war?

Well, right after the Japanese attack on Pearl Habor, the American government rounded up hundreds of Japanese and sent them to these camps that were spread out accross the country. The most famous one would probably be Manzanar. They did this because they considered the Japanese in America a national threat. But the interesting thing is that the an intelligence service gathered information about the Japanese-Americans and concluded that most of them where supportive of America, and they where no risk at all. The government dismissed that and still gathered the Japanese, even if they had an American citizenship.

The living conditions where horrible, but they kindoff increased during the later years. The most terrible thing about it though, was that all that they worked for had been taken away. They practically lost anything that they earned. Many came from Japan and moved to America for a better life. They worked hard in fields, and fishing and finally they gained a house etc. When they went to the camps they lost everything, every single thing. Their house, their boat, all their possesions, everything. There was this one guy who fought for America in WW1 and even he was put in the camps. Imagine fighting for a country with your life and then getting betrayed. Well after they where released at the end of the war, they had to start from scratch.

Even when America declared war on Germany, no Germans living in Japan where even considered a threat. This is most likely becase of the publics opinion on Oriental people. Even many years after the war, the Japanese where looked down opon, it was hard to get a job, and it was hard to get along with anybody else.

Well when America was getting the Japanese from the mainland, they never interned any Japanese living in Hawaii. This is because the Americans where scared of the Japanese living in Hawaii because they had a very large population. They feared that they would strike back. They even gathered Japanese orphans and put them in the camps too. This is one example of how an opressor can strike out because of fear. How will orphans pose a threat??

well, if you really into the subject then you can read the book "Farewell to Manzanar". It is a book about her experience and her perants experience during the internment, and after.

[Gen. Sandworm]

A very dark and sad time in American history. Many say that the German POW's were treated better than the interned Japanese. Hell German POW's were treated better than the free black people. Just goes to show anti-senitism knows no bounds.

Similar scare during the cold war when people that were supposed communist basically had there lives destroyed. There is a movie that touches on that call "Citizen Cohn" I believe. Just think this in retarded in a land where we are supposedly free to believe whatever we want.

To tell ya the truth im suprised Bush hasnt rounded up all the arabs and put them in internment camps. Its all pretty silly to me.

[RighteousDuncan]

Yea I've heard of those camps. Bloody shame for us Americans to have done it too :(

[FW-190 Pilot]

the canadian government also did the same thing, they force the japanese to move to the inland, meanwhile they government took all their properties away, so when they are release back to where they live, they basically have to start all over again
i have a debate to start on, is that morally right for the government to pay back what they have done to the japanese? but if they really do, many races would able to ask for payment (since canada and american are not exactly a friendly nation in the early twenty century), and government can go bankcrupt because of that. my opinion is instead of using the money for payment, use it to edcuate our next generation so that this will never happen again

[South African Military]

In the beggining they should of just left their property alone, but better leave them alone! Now it is too late, the only thing to do is to say sorry, and admit you made a mistake.

[WildBoar]

Sounds about right for the "land of the free" look at all the small countries american politicians walked into because of their paranoia about communism.Lots of people persecuted and killed, It's still not much better today unfortunately.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Sounds about right for the "land of the free" look at all the small countries american politicians walked into because of their paranoia about communism.Lots of people persecuted and killed, It's still not much better today unfortunately.

Both events were very side times in America. And I think your right I about current issues. The patriot act is an awful thing and taking away the rights of many. Hopefully things will get better once Dubya is out of office. He is doing a bit better this term but still a wacko. :D

But lets try to not get to off topic.

[RighteousDuncan]

In the beggining they should of just left their property alone, but better leave them alone! Now it is too late, the only thing to do is to say sorry, and admit you made a mistake.

Well fortunatly none us us made any of those desicions cuz we weren't around back then. Just like the Japanese generation of today had nothing to do with the second world war. I am glad that we can all get along nowadays.

[WildBoar]

Well fortunatly none us us made any of those desicions cuz we weren't around back then. Just like the Japanese generation of today had nothing to do with the second world war. I am glad that we can all get along nowadays.


If only that were true but it's still a very long way from happening but then it would be with the people we have running our countries .

[IRONMAN]

my opinion is instead of using the money for payment, use it to edcuate our next generation so that this will never happen again

That is a very good thought. It would seem to be a more productive use of money than to give it to the families of those who were encamped.

Sounds about right for the "land of the free" look at all the small countries american politicians walked into because of their paranoia about communism.Lots of people persecuted and killed, It's still not much better today unfortunately.

True, paranoia over communism was high, but if you are refering to the McCarthy hearings and such of the 1950's when you said, "Lots of people persecuted and killed," consider also that the paranoia was not wholly unfounded. Do not forget that the US's ally, the Soviet Union - a communist state, was not expected to simply annex half of Europe at the end of WWII and say that all those nations were now under their communist control. It was a shocking and very dissapointing development that made the US rightfully suspicious of them, and of communists altogether. Unfortunately, the actions of the Soviet Union only fueled the suspicions that American already had during the war.

As for people being killed over communism in the US, I cannot think of any instances where "lots of people" were killed in the US because they were suspected of being communist.

Although the actions of the US during WWII to encamp Japanese could in no way be considered a just thing to do, it is also fair to say that the "paranoia" of the US about communists was not truly unwarented either, since the actions of the Soviet Union during the following 30 years (supporting the communist takeover of Asian nations, attempting to do the same in Afghanistan, supporting communism in Central America, trying to put Soviet nuclear missles in Cuba) proved that the communists were worthy of suspicion afterall.

[shrendi]

If only they had deployed the Giga Barge!

[Firefly]

True, paranoia over communism was high, but if you are refering to the McCarthy hearings and such of the 1950's when you said, "Lots of people persecuted and killed," consider also that the paranoia was not wholly unfounded. Do not forget that the US's ally, the Soviet Union - a communist state, was not expected to simply annex half of Europe at the end of WWII and say that all those nations were now under their communist control. It was a shocking and very dissapointing development that made the US rightfully suspicious of them, and of communists altogether. Unfortunately, the actions of the Soviet Union only fueled the suspicions that American already had during the war.


Ever heard of the Yalta agreement?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/documents/yalta.html

I suggest you go and read it. The US/UK and USSR basically divided Europe before the war had even ended. So it came as no shock whatsoever.

[Bluffcove]

Welcome to IRONMAN!

Walther the War Machine's big book of Soldier knowledge"
His previous best seller no less, now has an appendage. in the style of:

the art of Zen and motrocycle maintenance
you can now purcachase.

The art of international diplomacy and jet propulsion design

It is a top read, I have a copy in my toilet, with a steadily decreasing number of pages in it........... 8)

[Sturmtruppen]

Welcome to IRONMAN!

Walther the War Machine's big book of Soldier knowledge"
His previous best seller no less, now has an appendage. in the style of:

the art of Zen and motrocycle maintenance
you can now purcachase.

The art of international diplomacy and jet propulsion design

It is a top read, I have a copy in my toilet, with a steadily decreasing number of pages in it........... 8)
we descovered a very funny guy called bluffcove :wink:

continue posting man!

[Firefly]

Welcome to IRONMAN!

Walther the War Machine's big book of Soldier knowledge"
His previous best seller no less, now has an appendage. in the style of:

the art of Zen and motrocycle maintenance
you can now purcachase.

The art of international diplomacy and jet propulsion design

It is a top read, I have a copy in my toilet, with a steadily decreasing number of pages in it........... 8)

Does he also go by the name of Tintwat? I have read back through some of his enlightening posts about all things military, I must say, his level of in-depth knowledge just amazes me, and I mean amazes!

[IRONMAN]

Ever heard of the Yalta agreement?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/documents/yalta.html

I suggest you go and read it. The US/UK and USSR basically divided Europe before the war had even ended. So it came as no shock whatsoever.

You mean the agreement reached on February 4-11, 1945? Shortly before the end iof the war? Yea, it was a surprise to the Allies that Russia made such a demand and later did not relent control of those countries later.

Yup, it sure was.

Now, I suppose you are going to start some thing about the US wimping out and not trying to "make" Russia not insist on their control over eastern Europe, but that would be a biggy booboo, since Russia had a hubungus army and the US had not desire to get into a war with them.

[IRONMAN]

Welcome to IRONMAN!

Inkin

[Bluffcove]

IRONMAN
I have created you an account at Arrse so that you may discuss your views on section fire!

the login and password are in your PM
I hope we can resolve this and you get to humiliate me by telling all of them how I foolishly imagine section fire to be effective at 600 metres

[IRONMAN]

continue posting man!

Blinkin

[IRONMAN]

Does he also go by the name of Tintwat? I have read back through some of his enlightening posts about all things military, I must say, his level of in-depth knowledge just amazes me, and I mean amazes!

Nod

[pdf27]

It is a top read, I have a copy in my toilet, with a steadily decreasing number of pages in it........... 8)
Without question your favourite read? It's soft, it's strong and thoroughly absorbent I am led to believe.

[Bluffcove]

well at the moment its full of shit!
or are we talking about the book................

the answer still stands.

[Firefly]

Ever heard of the Yalta agreement?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/documents/yalta.html

I suggest you go and read it. The US/UK and USSR basically divided Europe before the war had even ended. So it came as no shock whatsoever.

You mean the agreement reached on February 4-11, 1945? Shortly before the end iof the war? Yea, it was a surprise to the Allies that Russia made such a demand and later did not relent control of those countries later.

Yup, it sure was.

Now, I suppose you are going to start some thing about the US wimping out and not trying to "make" Russia not insist on their control over eastern Europe, but that would be a biggy booboo, since Russia had a hubungus army and the US had not desire to get into a war with them.

Did you even go and read it? How can you still call it a surprise! The only reason the allies never went for Berlin was that agreement!!!!! The reasoning was, why fight for territory that they would have to just hand back to the Soviets. I now understand why others are so frustrated with your miopic views on things, sheesh, read the damned thing all the way through.

[Firefly]

IRONMAN
I have created you an account at Arrse so that you may discuss your views on section fire!

the login and password are in your PM
I hope we can resolve this and you get to humiliate me by telling all of them how I foolishly imagine section fire to be effective at 600 metres

Ive been reading Arrse since the start, but as a Crab, wouldnt dare post, my bravery only goes so far.

[pdf27]

Ive been reading Arrse since the start, but as a Crab, wouldnt dare post, my bravery only goes so far.
Provided you aren't a mover you're fairly safe ;) After all, they haven't killed and eaten Erwin yet, despite him posting some fairly... revisionist... websites about the Falklands, and there are one or two live spam members.

[Firefly]

No, scum of the earth movers are my mortal enemy, for instance my Sqn is flying out on Sat at 9 am, when are the bastardo movers checking us in?

0800 friday orning, grrr dont even get me started on that pile of fly ridden shite with their Nazi armbands!!!!!!

[pdf27]

No, scum of the earth movers are my mortal enemy, for instance my Sqn is flying out on Sat at 9 am, when are the bastardo movers checking us in?

0800 friday orning, grrr dont even get me started on that pile of fly ridden shite with their Nazi armbands!!!!!!
Sounds like you'd fit in perfectly! There is a 26 page thread dedicated to that already (although titled "I HATE CRABS I HATE CRABS I HATE CRABS I HATE CRABS I HATE C" it is actually going on about movers).
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=9099/highlight=movers.html

[IRONMAN]

Ever heard of the Yalta agreement?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/documents/yalta.html

I suggest you go and read it. The US/UK and USSR basically divided Europe before the war had even ended. So it came as no shock whatsoever.

You mean the agreement reached on February 4-11, 1945? Shortly before the end iof the war? Yea, it was a surprise to the Allies that Russia made such a demand and later did not relent control of those countries later.

Yup, it sure was.

Now, I suppose you are going to start some thing about the US wimping out and not trying to "make" Russia not insist on their control over eastern Europe, but that would be a biggy booboo, since Russia had a hubungus army and the US had not desire to get into a war with them.

Did you even go and read it? How can you still call it a surprise! The only reason the allies never went for Berlin was that agreement!!!!! The reasoning was, why fight for territory that they would have to just hand back to the Soviets. I now understand why others are so frustrated with your miopic views on things, sheesh, read the damned thing all the way through.

...and I was right. You did. :lol:

[Bluffcove]

IRONMAN please qualify your last comment,
1)what were you right about and what did you do?

2)What happens at metre 501?
especially as you have now told Erwin that Standard rifles are effective to 600 metres!

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.

3)More importantly if an M1 carbine is not the same as a "standard" rifle, is it an assault rifle in that case?

that is 3 questions I would like 3 individual answers.
thankyou.

[IRONMAN]

Firefly, I suppose you are trying to imply that the US suspicion of the Russian was unwarrented? Even in light of Soviet actions around the globe to push communism into every corner of the world over the following 40 years?

So, the Soviets didn't support communists in Korea, Central America, Cuba, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc with money and weapons? They didn't attempt to put nuclear missles in Cuba? They didn't do any of that eh? No reason to suspect them eh? We should have just considered them to be our good buddies eh?

I suppose you think it would have been better for the world to just let the Soviets have their way all over the world and turn as many countries as they can into puppet states armed with nuclear weapons?

Is that why the comment...

The only reason the allies never went for Berlin was that agreement!!!!! The reasoning was, why fight for territory that they would have to just hand back to the Soviets.

...which is quite incorrect? The US had just fought the most horrific war in history, and you think they wanted to do it all over again against the Soviet Union???

Is it that very lack of understanding that prompts you, in the face of good information, to make such loser and gutteral commentary as...

Does he also go by the name of Tintwat? I have read back through some of his enlightening posts about all things military, I must say, his level of in-depth knowledge just amazes me, and I mean amazes!

It seems so. When you think you can prove that the US was willing to go to war against the Soviets at the end of WWII, post it here. It would be interesting to see your alternate views of how the world should run and how many should suffer and die for your ill-gotten, forum-based-education and boargame philosophies.

http://img162.echo.cx/img162/958/copiadestfubig8ei.png

[Firefly]

Firefly, I suppose you are trying to imply that the US suspicion of the Russian was unwarrented? Even in light of Soviet actions around the globe to push communism into every corner of the world over the following 40 years?

So, the Soviets didn't support communists in Korea, Central America, Cuba, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc with money and weapons? They didn't attempt to put nuclear missles in Cuba? They didn't do any of that eh? No reason to suspect them eh? We should have just considered them to be our good buddies eh?

I suppose you think it would have been better for the world to just let the Soviets have their way all over the world and turn as many countries as they can into puppet states armed with nuclear weapons?

Is that why the comment...

The only reason the allies never went for Berlin was that agreement!!!!! The reasoning was, why fight for territory that they would have to just hand back to the Soviets.

...which is quite incorrect? The US had just fought the most horrific war in history, and you think they wanted to do it all over again against the Soviet Union???

Is it that very lack of understanding that prompts you, in the face of good information, to make such loser and gutteral commentary as...

Does he also go by the name of Tintwat? I have read back through some of his enlightening posts about all things military, I must say, his level of in-depth knowledge just amazes me, and I mean amazes!

It seems so. When you think you can prove that the US was willing to go to war against the Soviets at the end of WWII, post it here. It would be interesting to see your alternate views of how the world should run and how many should suffer and die for your ill-gotten, forum-based-education and boargame philosophies.

http://img162.echo.cx/img162/958/copiadestfubig8ei.png

Nice rant Homus Ferrous!

You absolutely totally missed my point. I will explain it simply for you.

1. There was a Yalta agreement in 45 - which divided Europe into 2 spheres of influence. UK/US and Soviet. The lines of influence were drawn on the map and Germany was to be separated into East and West. So its no surprise at all then, cut and dry in paper months before the wars end.

2. And here is where you fail to comprehend - I didnt mention fighting the Soviets. I said that the US and UK could have easily reached Berlin in May 45 before the Soviets did. There was no point however in Eisenhowers mind that he didnt want to take unecessary casualties in fighting the Germans into Berlin just to hand it back to the Soviets, as US forces that had reached Czechoslovakia did.

There you are, plain and simple, I did not mention the cold war et all that you proceeded to rave on about. I suggest you read the words in front of you in future instead of interpriting it the way you want to.

[IRONMAN]

1. There was a Yalta agreement in 45 - which divided Europe into 2 spheres of influence. UK/US and Soviet. The lines of influence were drawn on the map and Germany was to be separated into East and West. So its no surprise at all then, cut and dry in paper months before the wars end.

Firefly,

Your statement was obviously slanted. However, you grotesquely misunderstood the Yalta Agreement. The agreement did not divide Europe into 2 spheres of influence as you said, per se. It did not hand over eastern Europe to the Soviets for control. It allowed the US and the Soviet Union to become trustees of those nations. But instead of acting merely as a trustee, and in congruence with my previous statement that the Soviets proved themselves untrustworthy, the Soviets simply took totalitarian control of those nations, unlike the US, and occupied them militarily, controlled their governements, surpressed their human rights, levied taxes and appropriated monies from them to benefit the Soviet Union, and dissolved the independace of their military and political powers, and prevented them from having representation in the west.

None of that was a part of the Yalta Agreement, none of those acts were expected to be taken by the Soviet Union, and it was indeed a big surprise and dissapointment, as I had told you, that the Soviet Union took such liberties with those nations.

It did not divide Europe into 2 speres of influence or give the Soviets any rights to do any of the things they did. It did, however, call for the establishment of free and independant governments in Poland,

"The Provisional Government which is now functioning in Poland should therefore be reorganized on a broader democratic basis with the inclusion of democratic leaders from Poland itself and from Poles abroad. This new Government should then be called the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity."

"When a Polish Provisional of Government National Unity has been properly formed in conformity with the above, the Government of the U.S.S.R., which now maintains diplomatic relations with the present Provisional Government of Poland, and the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States of America will establish diplomatic relations with the new Polish Provisional Government National Unity, and will exchange Ambassadors by whose reports the respective Governments will be kept informed about the situation in Poland."

...BTW, this is not how things turned out. The Soviets did not allow Poland or any other eastern European nation to be free and independant, or send diplomats to the west....

Yugoslavia,

"That the Tito-Subasitch agreement should immediately be put into effect and a new government formed on the basis of the agreement. (b) That as soon as the new Government has been formed it should declare..."

Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Japan, and it made agreement that those nations, Austria and Greece shall respect the national borders and governments of each other.

Nowhere in the agreement is provision which gave the Soviet Union the liberties to occupy and control those nations as they did. The Soviets immediately broke all trust of the agreement and militarily occupied and politically controlled those nations, prevented them from having representation to the US, and denied them Human rights.

The Yalta Agreement did not divide Europe into 2 spheres of influence.

2. And here is where you fail to comprehend - I didnt mention fighting the Soviets. I said that the US and UK could have easily reached Berlin in May 45 before the Soviets did. There was no point however in Eisenhowers mind that he didnt want to take unecessary casualties in fighting the Germans into Berlin just to hand it back to the Soviets, as US forces that had reached Czechoslovakia did..

The Yalta Agreement did not allow for the "handing" of any territory to the Soviet Union. Sure, undue concessions were made to the Soviets for provisional management, but it did not provide for them to do the things that they did.

You may have read it, but did not understand it. Read it again. Like I said, the Yalta Agreement did not provide for 2 "spheres of influence", as the US, USSR, and Britain were agreeed to manage and have representation from those countries jointly.

Like I said, the actions of the USSR were quite unexpected and a huge dissapointment, and ultimately, they proved that the suspicions that the American public had of communists was not unjustified. The Soviets proved it all the more with their actions over the next 40 years.

Please know what you are talking about before you jump onto some dingbat bandwagon of ignorance-based insults towards someone.

Does he also go by the name of Tintwat? I have read back through some of his enlightening posts about all things military, I must say, his level of in-depth knowledge just amazes me, and I mean amazes!

As we clearly see, they are unjustified, and your claim of my ignorance has only proven your own. Should I start calling you FlyBrain?

Naaa. I'm not like you.

[Bluffcove]

Admittedly the wall they built was a bit of a surprise?
but then we had purposefully not invited the USSR to discussions of forming the new currency (problems to do with a capitalist and Communist regime sharing a currency)
************************************************** ****
Please answer this question, and then we will discuss evasion of questions.


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!

[Tubbyboy]

Oh for fucks sake, you're back again.

Seeing as you like a good debate, why don't you go over to the ARRSE website, where I believe you have already had a username set up for you and a password sent to you and we can all have a good argument without cluttering up these threads with opinionated bullshit.

ARRSE thread just for you (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=17262.html)

[Bluffcove]

Tubby we have been more gracious than that!
there is this one too.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=17346/highlight=M1.html

and IRONMAN even has some supporters at the Effective range thread!
might even make a friend yet,
Your own ally! IRONMAN imagine it you and him shoulder to shoulder, facing down the ignorant retarded Squaddies! It will be your finest hour!
well maybe not. I dont know how many men you have faced down previously :?

[Tubbyboy]

Damn, I must have missed that one. I've been spending far too much time away from my computer! :D

[IRONMAN]

Oh for fucks sake, you're back again.

Seeing as you like a good debate, why don't you go over to the ARRSE website, where I believe you have already had a username set up for you and a password sent to you and we can all have a good argument without cluttering up these threads with opinionated bullshit.

ARRSE thread just for you (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=17262.html)

The opinions I have seen from you are certainly bull. I'd say you're pretty lost overall. I'd say you have a pretty foul mouth too. A poor upbringing can lead to that though.

[Ale]

Oh for fucks sake, you're back again.

Seeing as you like a good debate, why don't you go over to the ARRSE website, where I believe you have already had a username set up for you and a password sent to you and we can all have a good argument without cluttering up these threads with opinionated bullshit.

ARRSE thread just for you (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=17262.html)

The opinions I have seen from you are certainly bullshit. I'd say you're pretty lost overall.

Ironman, do you not find it strange and indicative of something that everyone on this site thinks you are a tool, and have no idea what you're on about?? :? I'm sure you have useful things to add, but you need to learn to wind your neck in a bit.

[Bluffcove]

and if you cant wind your neck in,
please answer this question,

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210
Quote:

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?
************************************************** **********
we know that you said it, so please, agree that these are your words and you have shown yourself to be an TWAT-LIN (an anagram of tinwalt, I do apologise im dyslexic me!!!!! - shuttup Ale)

[IRONMAN]

Oh for fucks sake, you're back again.

Seeing as you like a good debate, why don't you go over to the ARRSE website, where I believe you have already had a username set up for you and a password sent to you and we can all have a good argument without cluttering up these threads with opinionated bullshit.

ARRSE thread just for you (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=17262.html)

The opinions I have seen from you are certainly bullshit. I'd say you're pretty lost overall.

Ironman, do you not find it strange and indicative of something that everyone on this site thinks you are a tool, and have no idea what you're on about?? :? I'm sure you have useful things to add, but you need to learn to wind your neck in a bit.

Not a bit. Forums do draw those who think they know it all. It's a shame however, that once they spread untruths on them and someone comes along and corrects a couple of their bogus claims for the good of the young and impressionable who may read their claims and believe them, that they typically gang-up on that person in desperation to prevent their false claims from emberessing themselves.

Nothing new going on that I can see. That kind of thing happens on virtually every forum that has ever been on the Net.

"It's legal to carry a weapon covered up on the back seat of a car in the US without a concealed weapons liscence."

"Jet engines have nothing in them that the term "fan" could be used to describe"

"The US did nothing to develop the jet engine until after WWII"

"The US didn't do anything with the jet engine until they got hold of German designs."

"A jet engine twice the size of another weighs "pretty much the same.""

"The M1 Carbine uses pistol ammunition."

"The M1 Carbine was develped as a replacement of the .45."
(That's a good one. Lots of people believe that one. It was to be a light rifle capable of heavy firepower at closer ranges for support personel and commanders. Not a replacement for the .45. Commanders typically carried both and could have used an M1 Garand instead, but the carbine was issued to them. :wink: )

"The USMC at Chosin achieved thier 10-1 kill ratio because the cold killed so many the Chinese."

"The M1 Carbine does not fit the role of an assult rifle circa WWII."

"The secondary mission of the SDM is to engage key targets from 300 to 500 meters with effective, well-aimed fires using the standard weapon system and standard ammunition. He may or may not be equipped with an optic. The SDM must, therefore, possess a thorough understanding and mastery of the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship as well as ballistics, elevation and windage hold-off, sight manipulation, and range estimation"

:!: Nothing about section fire at 600m there eh? Figures.
(BTW, recognizing a human as a tiny blob at 600m does not mean section fire at 600m either. :wink: )

"I can make out the leg of a man at 600m with open sights!"

"The Yalta Agreement divided Europe into 2 spheres of influence."

...and quite a few others.

There have been plenty of bogus claims made that I have seen. It has happened on every forum since Day One. It's just sad that when someone shows a few of them to be false, the persons who made the claim can't act like a man and admit they have been shown that their claim was incorrect... which leads to sissy name calling and insults on their behalf, and making additional bogus claims to try to support the first one they made which, is impossible to do anyway.

I've admitted on a few occasions that I was incorrect. It's just sad that some of you are not mature enough to do the same.

[Bluffcove]

I have no idea what you are saying? and all the statements in quotes are unreferenced this makes it difficult to comprehend your point of view.
especially this part;'
The secondary mission of the SDM is to engage key targets from 300 to 500 meters with effective, well-aimed fires using the standard weapon system and standard ammunition. He may or may not be equipped with an optic. The SDM must, therefore, possess a thorough understanding and mastery of the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship as well as ballistics, elevation and windage hold-off, sight manipulation, and range estimation" <<<<where does that quote come from?

that didnt look like an answer to the question I posted, do not go off track answer yes or no to the question below.


Please answer this question, and then we will discuss evasion of questions.


http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210
Quote:

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?

as you have said, we dont want to get off track and boggd down in name calling or evasive tachniques, so answer yes or no do your two statements contradict one another or not.

I want a one word answer. they either contradict or they do not.

[reiver]

One of the tragedies of Yalta was that by the time of the conference, in February '45, Rooselvelt was largely a spent force.
His health, both phyiscally and to some extent mentally had deteriorated dramatically in the preceeding period.
He was to die in the following April.
Churchill, although he found Stalin personally charming, was under no illusions as to Russia's intentions with regard to firstly eastern, and later, potentially all of Europe.
Unfortunately, during the first plenary session at Yalta, Roosevelt made what was almost a throw-away comment to the effect that the "United States would take all reasonable steps to preserve peace, but not at the expense of keeping a large army in Europe, 3000 miles from home. That was why the American occupation was limited to two years."
This statement, offering the prospect of an exhausted Britain being left to face Russia alone across a devastated Germany both weakened the Western hand in negotiations, and was the reason that Churchill pressed so hard for France to be given a zone of occupation, despite his lack of enthusiasm for De Gaulle.
His hope was to use France to help balance the future absence of the Americans.
Almost immediately after the signing of the Yalta agreement, and certainly before the end of the war , Russia was going back on the agreement reached over Poland.
On April 7th. Churchill received a note from Stalin reneging on the agreement to allow western observers into Warsaw to oversee the elections there.
He (Churchill) wrote immediately to Roosevelt urging a strong joint reaction, but Roosevelt wrote back; "I would minimise the general Soviet problem as much as possible, because these problems, in one form or another, seem to arise every day and most of them straighten out".
Roosevelt died the day this message was transmitted.

Yalta allowed for the creation of the UN, joint tri-partite occupation of Germany,(4 including France), and was hoped by the two western signatories to provide for the freedom of, primarily, Poland, which Churchill rightly saw as a test case for Russian intentions.
Sadly, the concessions made to the Soviets led to the unintended consequence of two spheres of influence within Europe and the proxy wars which killed so many during the Cold War.

[IRONMAN]

Sadly, the concessions made to the Soviets led to the unintended consequence of two spheres of influence within Europe and the proxy wars which killed so many during the Cold War.

Yup. Unintended and unforseen. It was an unfortunate sack the Soviets pulled over our heads.

The Yalta Agreement sure as hell didn't create them. The Soviets did.

*burp*

Now I suppose you'd like to fill up this thread by tring to prove something that is untrue... again. Why not? It's been done it so many times already. What's one more?

[Bluffcove]

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210
Quote:
Quote:

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?

answer the question, or I have it on good authority that Reiver will block your posting privilages, we know you and reiver have fallen out, do you want to call his bluff?

[Ale]

Thing is though Ironman, on the issues on there that I know about (some of those topics are way outside my sphere!) you are wrong.

AR's are used at 600m; I've seen it.

Yalta, Tehran, and the private conversation between Churchill and Stalin which resulted in what is known as the "percentages agreement" did split Europe into spheres of influence. I grant that in this case the Soviets did not allow free and fair elections in much of Eastern Europe, which was an infringement of the terms of the agreement, but I do not believe that this came as a significant surprise to the west. They'd seen Stalin, they knew how the Soviet system worked, and Churchill and people in the State Department like Kennan were realistic enough to see this happening. Roosevelt was more idealistic though. I have anecdotal written evidence from Polish soldiers serving in France & Germany at the time of Yalta that they and most British Officers realised that Poland was essentially being handed to Soviet control. They saw it, so I don't know how Roosevelt didn't to be honest. I guess it came down to how you define influence, but Yalta & the percentages deal certainly agreed that Eastern Europe would come under the economic sphere of the Soviet Union, in the same way that Latin America is under the US economic sphere.*

As to the rest of your comments, if you are the sole repository of the truth , why do you have to keep going back and altering your posts? Why are you singularly unable to provide links to documents that back up your assertions? If the M1 carbine is not an assualt rifle, why can you not point us to a reputable source which agrees with you??

*Young and Kent. International Relations since 1945 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198781644/ref=lm_lb_1/026-0805417-6578869) Oxford Press.
also
Lectures, various, University of Aberystwyth History and Politics Department. www.aber.ac.uk
also
Reynolds. On World Divisible. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140295100/qid=1117133307/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-0805417-6578869)

[reiver]

Sadly, the concessions made to the Soviets led to the unintended consequence of two spheres of influence within Europe and the proxy wars which killed so many during the Cold War.

Yup. Unintended and unforseen. It was an unfortunate sack the Soviets pulled over our heads.

The Yalta Agreement sure as hell didn't create them. The Soviets did.

*burp*

Now I suppose you'd like to fill up this thread by tring to prove something that is untrue... again. Why not? It's been done it so many times already. What's one more?

Ironman, my command of the English language is sufficient to allow me to have worded that statement very carefully and precisely.
I am not trying to prove or disprove anything, merely adding some detail to the discussion already begun.
This is a discussion forum after all.

And I would be careful bandying about statements like the one above re untruths.
You have yet to provide one iota of evidence for your oft-repeated and totally untrue assertion that the British Army sends Gurkhas into battle ahead of "white" troops.

[IRONMAN]

Thing is though Ironman, on the issues on there that I know about (some of those topics are way outside my sphere!) you are wrong.

AR's are used at 600m; I've seen it.

Yalta, Tehran, and the private conversation between Churchill and Stalin which resulted in what is known as the "percentages agreement" did split Europe into spheres of influence. I grant that in this case the Soviets did not allow free and fair elections in much of Eastern Europe, which was an infringement of the terms of the agreement, but I do not believe that this came as a significant surprise to the west. They'd seen Stalin, they knew how the Soviet system worked, and Churchill and people in the State Department like Kennan were realistic enough to see this happening. Roosevelt was more idealistic though. I have anecdotal written evidence from Polish soldiers serving in France & Germany at the time of Yalta that they and most British Officers realised that Poland was essentially being handed to Soviet control. They saw it, so I don't know how Roosevelt didn't to be honest. I guess it came down to how you define influence, but Yalta certainly agreed that Eastern Europe would come under the economic sphere of the Soviet Union, in the same way that Latin America is under the US economic sphere.*

As to the rest of your comments, if you are the sole repository of the truth , why do you have to keep going back and altering your posts? Why are you singularly unable to provide links to documents that back up your assertions? If the M1 carbine is not an assualt rifle, why can you not point us to a reputable source which agrees with you??

*Young and Kent. International Relations since 1945 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198781644/ref=lm_lb_1/026-0805417-6578869) Oxford Press.
also
Lectures, various, University of Aberystwyth History and Politics Department. www.aber.ac.uk
also
Reynolds. On World Divisible. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140295100/qid=1117133307/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-0805417-6578869)

Well, now you have posted the official doctrine of the British Army for section fire, and it states up to 500m, not 600m. So, you were wrong, weren't you? But you'll never admit that. You'd rather fill up the threads with more bogus claims to try to prove the first one was correct eh?

I've seen people use lots of things in way that they were not intended to be used or are officially supported for use. That does not make it official or effective however. So um, no, section fire is not conducted at 600m with typical assault rifles. Sorry. That's what other weapons are for, and I am certain that if you DARED post the official section fire doctrine for them, it would include the range of 600m. But I don't think you'll do that. Not now. It would only further the proof of your claim being false, as you have proven to us your very self!

As for the Yalta Agreement, you have yet to quote it's text to show where it intentionally gave control of eastern Europe to the Soviets or conciously divided Europe into 2 spheres of influence.

Here we go with the making of one bogus claim to try to prove something that is untrue... again. :roll:

[Bluffcove]

Ale you fail to understand despite the fact that we are numbered at about 15 - fairly intelligent guys across a range of topics the only person that knows anything is IRONMAN

I personally have a "bugbear" for his 600 metre comments and incosistency is his posts, such as the contradiction below. then of course his petulance has jsut compounded the issue.
he evades each of our questions by moving out of our areas of "expertise" press him for too long on cartridges and he moves to Chosin, ask him about Chosin and he quotes a game manual and whinges about disrespect, then moves onto ranges, press him over ranges and he moves to the ability to see at 600 yards.

I have realised he is more greased than Lex-Steel in a meeting with Gauge but that is why it is necessary to stick at one question. You might have noticed I ahve asked hte same question 14 times without reply! Im not sure hes notcied it yet, so I shall ask him again, and in answering it we shall see if he avoids the issue and shouts about yalta some more rather than avoiding the issue!

HOLY FREAKING GUANO BATBOY - sorry, I like saying it
************************************************** ***********
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?

IRONMAN you might have noticed this question before, you should note each time you avoid this question you weaken your claim that we avoid answering questions. You have the right to remain silent.............Please do.

[Ale]

Well, now you have posted the official doctrine of the British Army for section fire, and it states up to 500m, not 600m. So, you were wrong, weren't you? But you'll never admit that. You'd rather fill up the threads with more bogus claims to try to prove the first one was correct eh?


What, me personally?? No I haven't! I have just checked a skill at arms pamphlet and it definately says:

Effective section fire power at ranges up to 600m

and as I say I have SEEN it done, with my own eyes!

As to Yalta, I will admit to not having read the text of the agreement in detail; however, you are free to purchase or get from the library, the two authoritive textbooks I have provided links too, and even to email the history or International Politics department at my University for their opinion, although I will not guarantee that you will get a reply. Note I also mentioned the percentages agreement between Stalin and Churchill.

I will endeavour to find a copy of the Yalta agreement and peruse it over the next couple of days, fear not, I will be back. Right now though, I have a fox to shoot and it is time for my evening meander with a gun, so please excuse me.

[Ale]

That's what other weapons are for, and I am certain that if you DARED post the official section fire doctrine for them, it would include the range of 600m. But I don't think you'll do that. Not now. It would only further the proof of your claim being false, as you have proven to us your very self!


See my post, I just did. I regret that I cannot provide a link to a website because British Army manuals are not made available to the public in the same way as US manuals. My claim is not false, and, in case you hadn't noticed, I am not the only one who is claiming it, about 10 of us are, and all of us have either done it or seen it done. All of us have had some level of involvement in the British Forces which has seen us use the SA80 assualt rifle, and all of us are in agreement. If you aren't, why not step over to the British Army forum www.arrse.co.uk for which I believe you have an account, and talk to people there about it?

[Man of Stoat]

I just love the way that he thinks that he knows better than Julian S. Hatcher, Maj. Gen. Retd. who is the dog's dusters when it comes to US small arms from about 1900-1960:

To quote him again:

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, communication units, engineers, tank units, artillery etc.
Hatcher's Notebook, Julian S. Hatcher, Stackpole 1962, 3rd edition.

Perhaps, Tinwalt, since you clearly know more than Hatcher, you'd like to tell me for what calibre the semi-automatic trials rifles were chambered Garand was trialled in the 1929 Aberdeen test? Without googling? And what rifle it was up agains, and what the principle of operation of this other rifle was? Hint: it wasn't "spring activated"....

[IRONMAN]

What, me personally?? No I haven't! I have just checked a skill at arms pamphlet and it definately says:

Effective section fire power at ranges up to 600m

So, that pamphlet is not a product of the British Governemnt or Military?
Why does your quote of it state up to 500m, not 600m? I think we have already seen the doctrine, as it was already quoted. Sorry. The official doctrine is up to 500m, not 600m.

:roll:

As to Yalta, I will admit to not having read the text of the agreement in detail;

...and you make posts that attempt to prove me wong about it?

I will endeavour to find a copy of the Yalta agreement and peruse it over the next couple of days, fear not, I will be back. Right now though, I have a fox to shoot and it is time for my evening meander with a gun, so please excuse me.

It's on the Net. That's where I got my quotes from it. Please don't shoot a fox. At least, please don't use dogs to hunt it. That's so... God awefully cruel. I hate it when I've seen video footage of dogs ripping a poor little fox to peices in the most unimaginable horror. Poor creature. I have nothing against hunting, I used to be a hunter myself - squirrels, ducks, deer.

Here we go filling up the threads trying to prove the untrue again.

[Man of Stoat]

Please don't shoot a fox. At least, please don't use dogs to hunt it. That's so... God awefully cruel. I hate it when I've seen video footage of dogs ripping a poor little fox to peices in the most unimaginable horror. Poor creature.


God, you're acidic - ever seen what a fox does to a chicken coop or to lambs? I think the correct gaming terminology is "MMMMMMMMultikill"

& when hunting with dogs, the fox is dead anyway when it's ripped apart. And you know what, that's how they used to die in the wild before we hunted wolves & other large predators to extinction.

You really let your keyboard fingers run away with yourself, don't you?

[Man of Stoat]

What, me personally?? No I haven't! I have just checked a skill at arms pamphlet and it definately says:

Effective section fire power at ranges up to 600m

So, that pamphlet is not a product of the British Governemnt or Military?
Why does your quote of it state up to 500m, not 600m? I think we have already seen the doctrine, as it was already quoted. Sorry. The official doctrine is up to 500m, not 600m.


The pamphlets are produced by the Army for the Army and are full of everything from personal camoflage through to range construction and beyond. They are the textbooks of the army. They are also "restricted", which means that they are not available to non-serving people.

Why do you think that you are right and everybody else in the world, including the effing PAMS are wrong? :shock:

[IRONMAN]

Please don't shoot a fox. At least, please don't use dogs to hunt it. That's so... God awefully cruel. I hate it when I've seen video footage of dogs ripping a poor little fox to peices in the most unimaginable horror. Poor creature.


God, you're acidic - ever seen what a fox does to a chicken coop or to lambs? I think the correct gaming terminology is "MMMMMMMMultikill"

& when hunting with dogs, the fox is dead anyway when it's ripped apart. And you know what, that's how they used to die in the wild before we hunted wolves & other large predators to extinction.

You really let your keyboard fingers run away with yourself, don't you?

Yea, it dies when ripped apart. That's right. Wolves are not extinct btw, at least not in North America, but just because a fox is natural game to a wolf does not mean it's not cruel to initiate it's horrifying death with domesticated dogs. Shoot your game for crying out loud. At least let them die instantly instead of suffering in a horrible encirclement of flesh-ripping teeth. I'd love to see the look on your face if you were thrown into a pen of starving tigers. lol

[Man of Stoat]

Here we go with the making of one bogus claim to try to prove something that is untrue... again.

Look up the psychological term "Freudian projection", you're exhibiting it:

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

"The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."

"Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."

"The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."

"People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."

"Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

QED.

[reiver]

Ahh, "two countries divided by a common language" again.
A hunted fox is killed by a gun prior to the dogs tearing the carcase apart; i.e. "the fox is dead anyway when it's ripped apart", not "the fox is killed by being ripped apart."
And the "we" referred to as hunting wolves to extinction are the Brits in this case.
They died out around 1680, although legend says the last was killed by a man called McQueen sometime in the 1700s.

[IRONMAN]

Here we go with the making of one bogus claim to try to prove something that is untrue... again.

Look up the psychological term "Freudian projection", you're exhibiting it:



You are completely lost.

Here comes the typical "insult them if they prove my bogus claim is untrue" again. Remember the patterns of behavior I told you about 2 posts back?

[Man of Stoat]

I'm not even going to go near foxhunting, cos you'll just know better than the experts and the official inquiries.

Let's just quote the 1949 Henderson Committee, which was a (Labour) government-sponsered inquiry:

The Henderson Committee considered cruelty to be "an act causing unnecessary suffering", and went on to elaborate, "So far as general cruelty is concerned, we are satisfied that there is less cruelty in fox hunting [with hounds] than in most other methods of control."

[IRONMAN]

Ahh, "two countries divided by a common language" again.
A hunted fox is killed by a gun prior to the dogs tearing the carcase apart; i.e. "the fox is dead anyway when it's ripped apart", not "the fox is killed by being ripped apart."
And the "we" referred to as hunting wolves to extinction are the Brits in this case.
They died out around 1680, although legend says the last was killed by a man called McQueen sometime in the 1700s.

Now you want us to believe that the Brits hunt foxes by shooting them first instead of letting the dogs kill it for them?

"Just in time to see Ms. Fox shriek as at least ten hounds each chomp into a different part of her body and yank her until she rips. "Usually ten or more dogs do the job in 20 seconds," said Gammon, who's witnessed such killings. "with fewer dogs, it's more drawn out." Many foxes die from having their guts ripped out: "We've taken bodies to a vet and the autopsy showed that," Gammon said."

http://www.idausa.org/facts/foxhunting.html

Please. Don't even try that.

[Man of Stoat]

You have still failed to provide any evidence to support your view, whereas we have provided ample testimony from experts which goes against your view. Re-stating your unsubstantiated opinion is not a suitable way to back up an argument (it is re-stating your basic premise), especially when the bulk of evidence is against you.

You are invited, again, to cite some experts to back up your claims re. M1 carbine. If you cannot do this you are at least foolish, at most a prat.

[IRONMAN]

You are invited, again, to cite some experts to back up your claims re. M1 carbine. If you cannot do this you are at least foolish, at most a prat.

BTW, the claims were yours, not mine, that the M1 Carbine uses pistol ammunition, is a replacement for the .45, does not have the characteristics of an assault rifle circa WWII... etc.

More of that trying to prove the untrue... again. That's about 5 posts so far.

you are at least foolish, at most a prat.

More of the "let's insult him if we can't prove our false claims to be true".

Remember the behavior pattern?

Aren't you filling up the thread in your attmep to prove the untrue... again?

Remember the behavior pattern?

[Man of Stoat]

Now you want us to believe that the Brits hunt foxes by shooting them first instead of letting the dogs kill it for them?


Since 17 February 2005, this is the way that it is done. This is to comply with the Hunting Act 2004, which came into effect at midnight on that date. You are invited to read the whole Act here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040037.htm

Here is also a copy of the Hunting Handbook 2005, which outlines how hunting has to continue (in summary, the dogs are used to flush the fox which is then shot):

http://www.countryside-alliance.org/images/stories/pdf/c_H_Hunting_Handbook.pdf

[reiver]

Ahh, "two countries divided by a common language" again.
A hunted fox is killed by a gun prior to the dogs tearing the carcase apart; i.e. "the fox is dead anyway when it's ripped apart", not "the fox is killed by being ripped apart."
And the "we" referred to as hunting wolves to extinction are the Brits in this case.
They died out around 1680, although legend says the last was killed by a man called McQueen sometime in the 1700s.

Now you want us to believe that the Brits hunt foxes by shooting them first instead of letting the dogs kill it for them?

"Just in time to see Ms. Fox shriek as at least ten hounds each chomp into a different part of her body and yank her until she rips. "Usually ten or more dogs do the job in 20 seconds," said Gammon, who's witnessed such killings. "with fewer dogs, it's more drawn out." Many foxes die from having their guts ripped out: "We've taken bodies to a vet and the autopsy showed that," Gammon said."

http://www.idausa.org/facts/foxhunting.html

Please. Don't even try that.
Excellent choice of sources. The League against Cruel Sports and the Hunt Saboteurs.
As fine a piece of anthropomorphism as I've seen in a while.
Did you ever watch Bambi before going stalking?

[Man of Stoat]

BTW, the claims were yours, not mine, that the M1 Carbine uses pistol ammunition, is a replacement for the .45, does not have the characteristics of an assault rifle circa WWII... etc.


I quoted Hatcher, who is the Big Boss Authority on this kind of thing - did you quote someone of a similar stature?

[Bluffcove]

World.guns.ru where we found the 500metre quote was referring to the SA80 in its individual fire capacity.

The skill at arms pamphlet is the produce of the British military.

I have seen a Fox maimed by a rifle bullet, Bleeding out slowly trying to run and incapable or dragging itself into cover, I have yet to see a Fox maimed by a pack of beagle hounds! It is generally one or the other. It survives or very definetly dies!
You are a Huntsman and you hunt squirrels, well whoopdi fucking do,
HOLY FREAKIN GUANO BATBOY (that is great)
bet all the farmers round your way are greatful for the nuts you have saved! Foxes out by me kill lambs direct from the Birth Canal of sheep, kill household pets and tore the throat out of one of my friends Alsation puppies when it went for a wonder in the bushes. The Alsatian was a puppy lying on its back expecting to play, and hte Fox cub tore its trachea out.
You evidently have no idea about countryside life, and please stick to annyoing me about your lack of weapons knowledge (or rather plentiful yet wholly inaccurate) rather than your urban urbane bullshit about the countryside.
A friend of mine shot 36 foxes in a week in south Gloucestershire, they are not endangered or any other fucking bollocks like it they are a plague and the only time anyone will allow us to recommence hunting them is when thye finally carry diseases into the cities and become more prevalent in killing children on doorsteps, such as happened late last year
Its my countryside, fuck off, if your septic "hiney" thinks it has any place playing in domestic plitics that half of the UK shouldnt event be getting involved in

If im not very much mistaken a Black man was towed down a road behind a pickup a few years back following a 3 Mile chase across rough countryside! get your own hunting problems in order before commenting on ours!

anyway back to the question that you refuse to answer.
I dont ask what you mean I merely ask if they are contradictory.
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?

************************************************** *********
is the refusal to admit this is a contradiction evidence enough to block IRONMAN, MODS. IRONMAN is terribly concerned we may be misinforming the public, it seems that IRONMAN is informing the public giving the most balanced view I ahve ever seen, in fact he speaks on both sides of the same argument! what a hero.

CAN I SET A PACK OF BEAGLES ON HIM, IF HE DOESNT LIKE THE IDEA OF US STANDING 501 METRES FROM HIM WITH AN SA80

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEE

[Tubbyboy]

Ironman,

You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you? You constantly refuse to back up any of your opinions with facts. The overwhelming evidence put forward by people posting on this site is against you. You have ignored the friendly invitation to discuss this elsewhere so that we don't clog up this website.

You also think that, by changing the subject and editing your posts, we will be fooled into thinking that you are right in what you say. How thick do you think everyone is?

To address just one of the spurious points you brought up earlier:

"It's legal to carry a weapon covered up on the back seat of a car in the US without a concealed weapons liscence."

No-one said this. People did say that it is legal, in some circumstances, for a British soldier in the UK to carry a concealed weapon.

While we are at it, I have to admit you are right in one thing you have said. I do swear a lot. You have pissed me off mightily and I am afraid that when someone does this, I do tend to swear. I apologise to anyone offended by this. This doesn't mean however that I will stop doing it.

Don't bring my upbringing into this or I will start bringing your parenting into question.

Cunt.

Edited for clarity to add "British soldier in the UK"

[Bluffcove]

Its ok to Swear Tubby most of us have had things worse than nasty words hurled at us before, on my first hunt I was caught acrtoss the side of the head by what I understand was an aborted fox foetus!
:lol: :lol:

You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?You You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?

You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?

You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?

You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?

You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?

You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?

really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?

You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?

You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?
You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?

[Bluffcove]

sorry I was trying to quote tubbyboy and my computer appears to have a virus will correct it when I can be bothered.

(edit - well later on anyway)

[Man of Stoat]

"It's legal to carry a weapon covered up on the back seat of a car in the US without a concealed weapons liscence."

No-one said this. People did say that it is legal, in some circumstances, for a British soldier in the UK to carry a concealed weapon.
[/i]

It is noted however that there are states in which any non-felon can carry a concealed wpn without any permit. Vermont and Alaska at least, off the top of my head. So that's 2 states where your statement (which was words put in our mouths) is manifestly true.

Also, it is you, tinwalt, who has been arguing against the accepted authodoxy, and against accepted experts such as Hatcher.

[IRONMAN]

Ironman,

You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?

:roll:

[Man of Stoat]

And since you've not responded to this post in the other thread, I'll repeat it here:

Some quotes regarding the assault rifle non-status of the M1 carbine:

http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl08-e.htm

The M2 modification, which had a select-fire capability and a magazines of larger capacity (30 rounds, interchangeable with the older 15-round ones), could be described as an "almost an assault rifle" ("almost" is added due to the lack of effective range).

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

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Carbine

The Carbine was inadequate for ranges normally asociated with assault rifles, and when fired, the .30 inch (7.62 mm) caliber US Carbine cartridge loses considerable lethality after about 200 m though it was optimistically listed as effective up to about 275 m.

The cartridge had inferior hitting power to that of assault rifles, as it is within the power range of pistol rounds, and as such suffered from a lack of penetration. Its effective range differs from weapons like the AK-47 and other full power or intermediate cartridge rifles.

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/arifle2.html

... U.S. Carbine M1 and M2 come very close [to being assault rifles], but in fact fall into their own very special category. In every case, the "pure" assault rifles replaced or supplemented much more powerful rifles...in U.S., M16 replaced M14, in the USSR, AK an SKS replaced the Nagant and Tokarev in 7.62x54R M91, and so on.

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/MIKE223.html
An interesting piece of advice I've come across was that if you thought of the M1 carbine as a rifle you would always be disappointed, -better to think of it as a "two handed pistol"

Jane's:

...totally useless at ranges over 200 yards, since it fired a pistol bullet. It was intended simply to replace the pistol ... but found itself being used as a light rifle more often than not.

I can't find a document anywhere that says that the M1 carbine in fact is an assault rifle. Sorry, ironman, but you're on your own on this one, and you're arguing against the whole of Internet- and Gunowner-land.

Find me some nice quotes from reputable sources (not re-enacting or gaming walt sites) to back yourself up, or admit defeat, if you'd be so frightfully kind. 8)

It should be noted yet again that if someone wishes to dissent from established wisdom, they should provide some effing evidence for it, not just repeat their basic premise.

[Bluffcove]

Just in case IRONINGMAN has missed the question, clearly he is too upstanding to ignore a question, I will ask again....

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210


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?

how many times is he allowed to avoid a question before we can download trojans onto his computer?
I think some guys from the Intelligence corps might be bored.

[Bluffcove]

:roll: Possibly the most obnoxious emoticon there is!

And Man of Stoat if he doesnt believe those are suitable places to reference, there is always this quote;

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

Seem to remember that one from a very intelligent man, and is actually a direct attempt to educate those lacking knowledge, consequently it must be true, the teacher was very keen that the younger generation must not be misinformed!

[Tubbyboy]

Ironman,

You really are an obnoxious little twat aren't you?

:roll:

Do you want to elaborate on that?

Halfwit (see no swearing)







CUNT!

[Bluffcove]

Its ok I frequently equate halfwit. for fuckwit
IRONMAN you are a fuckwit.

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?

[IRONMAN]

Some quotes regarding the assault rifle non-status of the M1 carbine:

You blundered. All of those sources compare the M1 Carbine to the modern standards for assault rifles. The M1 Carbine is a WWII era weapon. It is not a modern weapon. It was designed prior to WWII.

Do you see your blunder? Let's hope so.

[reiver]

Ironman,
might I politely and respectfully request the evidence I previously asked you for to justify your comments vis-a-vis the British Army sending Gurkha troops into battle "ahead of white troops"?

[Tubbyboy]

Some quotes regarding the assault rifle non-status of the M1 carbine:

You blundered. All of those sources compare the M1 Carbine to the modern standards for an assult rifle. The M1 Carbine is a WWII era weapon. It is not a modern weapon. It was designed and manufactured prioor to WWII.

Do you see your blunder? let's hope so.

The least you could do is learn how to spell. I am sick of hearing about alleged assult (sic.) rifles.

Do you see your blunder? If you do, please find an assault rifle, load a full magazine, select full automatic, take the safety catch off, place the muzzle in your mouth, big toe on the trigger and put yourself out of our misery.

Edited to say: What a surprise, he has edited his post.

[Bluffcove]

Nevertheless those sites are more likely to be comparing the M1 carbine to the definition of an assault rifle!

assault rifles are termed assault rifles in relation to their characteristics, ones that the M1 carbine does not have! If the moniker is merely handed to weapons used in assaults then surely the M1/M2 (Im not sure which was first I ws confused by your post)could not have been the first assault rifle, as assaults actually happened prior to WWII

and purely because I have a bet on the fact that Ill reach 40 posts before you reply to this question, here it is again....................
Still unanswered. ...............

[Man of Stoat]

Some quotes regarding the assault rifle non-status of the M1 carbine:

You blundered. All of those sources compare the M1 Carbine to the modern standards for assault rifles. The M1 Carbine is a WWII era weapon. It is not a modern weapon. It was designed prior to WWII.

Do you see your blunder? Let's hope so.

The definition is absolute and not time dependent! It's not like the definition of a sports car (as you claimed earlier) - it is a defined entity, and the definition has not changed from the Stg.44 (which invented the term) to the present day. There is, as you have said, 1 pre-WW2 wpn that fits the description (Federov Avtomat), and then the MP43 in WW2, so your claim that there was nothing to compare it to is false. It is unique, and it fits in its own category, not in the category of assault rifles. If your claim was true, then the Mauser C96 with shoulder stock, the Artilliery Luger with shoulder stock and Bergmann MP18 (it's rifled & fires hot 9mm Para loads) should be considered "assault rifles" in WW1 because of the way they were used!

If I blundered, then you are the only person in the whole wide world that didn't, since you are the only person I know of who is claiming this! How come you are so "enlightened" as to think that you can go against all accepted wisdom?

If you back yourself up with some respected sources, then I will change my opinion, as will all the others here. If you can't and are a gentleman, you should concede defeat. Over to you.

[Tubbyboy]

Was the Baker rifle an assault rifle? It was a rifle, it was used in assaulting the enemy, therefore it must be an assault rifle!

[Man of Stoat]

All of those sources compare the M1 Carbine to the modern standards for assault rifles.

Just to re-iterate : Find me some sources that don't compare it to "modern standards" (i.e. conventional wisdom) to back up your position, otherwise it is untenable. At the moment, all we've got is your personal (and rather ill-considered) opinion to go on, standing against the might of some people who have done some real research and have some real personal experience.

[IRONMAN]

"It's legal to carry a weapon covered up on the back seat of a car in the US without a concealed weapons liscence."

No-one said this. People did say that it is legal, in some circumstances, for a British soldier in the UK to carry a concealed weapon.


I correct us both:

They said it was legal to carry a loaded automatic weapon concealed on the back seat of a car, and the discussion was about carrying weapons in the US, not in Britain.

As for Alaska...

a non-concealed weapon is legal for carry without a permit. The reaon is because there is a very real problem with bears attacking citizens there, and people who go walking at the edge of town may be placing themselves at risk.

"Permit to carry a concealed weapon required? Yes"

http://crime.about.com/od/guns/f/gunlaw_ak.htm

As for Vermont:

"It is unlawful to carry or possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in or on a motor vehicle within the right of way of a public highway."

So um, it is illegal to carry a loaded automatic weapon concealed on the back seat of a motor vehicle without a permit in either state. Sorry, but you are incorrect my friend.

[Bluffcove]

Something, is preventing me from posting that question for the 24th time, and it is on the server.

You know what the question is please answer it

[Cuts]

It has been interesting to see the 'information' upon which the resident 'expert' on all things military bases his posts.
Enlightening too, has been the way in which he seems to assume that by ignoring the questions they will go away.

For a very short time I had hoped that he would be prepared to be educated by those that actually know better, but his arrogance has rapidly shown me it was indeed a folorn hope.

I can now sit back in comfort and laugh at the utter piffle he posts.
I can't even look at the title of the Jet Engine thread without a broad grin breaking out across my boat !

Chill gentlemen all these posts come from someone who, although alleging to have grown up around weapons, claimed a mere thirty-one days ago that the M1 has a spring operated action !

In those thirty-one days he has suddenly become an expert !

Also, you are incorrect about the M1 Carbine being based on the Garand. The 2 weapons are totally different in design. The are no similarities whatsoever between the weapons mechanically. The action of the two weapons is totally different. The M1 Carbine had spring operated action. The M1 Garand had gas operated action. Later a gas operated verion of the M2 Carbine was produced.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

[Tubbyboy]

"It's legal to carry a weapon covered up on the back seat of a car in the US without a concealed weapons liscence."

No-one said this. People did say that it is legal, in some circumstances, for a British soldier in the UK to carry a concealed weapon.


I correct us both:

They said it was legal to carry a loaded automatic weapon concealed on the back seat of a car, and the discussion was about carrying weapons in the US, not in Britain.

As for Alaska...

a non-concealed weapon is legal for carry without a permit. The reaon is because there is a very real problem with bears attacking citizens there, and people who go walking at the edge of town may be placing themselves at risk.

"Permit to carry a concealed weapon required? Yes"

http://crime.about.com/od/guns/f/gunlaw_ak.htm

As for Vermont:

"It is unlawful to carry or possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in or on a motor vehicle within the right of way of a public highway."

So um, it is illegal to carry a loaded automatic weapon concealed on the back seat of a motor vehicle without a permit in either state. Sorry, but you are incorrect my friend.

No, I did not say anything about certain state laws. As for the concealed weapon question, it was quite clear from the responses you got that people were talking about British soldiers in the UK so you are incorrect.

By the way, I am not your friend you patronising bastard.

[reiver]

Ironman Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:11 am
Best LMG Thread
The M1 Carbine was not an assult rifle because it did not have selective fire - it was semi-automatic only. The M2 Carbine did, and was an assult rifle. I corrected my post above.

[IRONMAN]

thirty-one days ago that the M1 has a spring operated action

Yup! Sure did! I thought it was.

[IRONMAN]

it was quite clear from the responses you got that people were talking about British soldiers in the UK so you are incorrect.

Tittyboy,

...er, sorry, you called me a tard.

Tubbyboy,
the conversation was about carrying automatic weapons, it was about the US, and you are delightfully, incorrect... still.

Alaska and Vermont? :lol:

[Bluffcove]

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 12:59 pm Post subject: Re: US Army and full-auto fire
None of the carbine assult rifles used by any of the nations of the world have the range to fight at distances of 400+ meters

Whilst we are discussing honesty, do you want to retract your accuracy at 500 metre comments seeing as the guy that posted this disagrees with you!
************************************************** *********
. I don't think that you or I have better knowledge of how to fight building-to-building combat better than those professional militaries do
That comment was aimed at Pretorian, who served with the Warsaw Pact nations from what I understand - incidentally those "professional militaries" are stood in front of you at the moment, do you now "have better knowledge"

:D

[IRONMAN]

Ironman Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:11 am
Best LMG Thread
The M1 Carbine was not an assult rifle because it did not have selective fire - it was semi-automatic only. The M2 Carbine did, and was an assult rifle. I corrected my post above.


...and I have also posted several times, though you forget, that it is my opinion that the M1 Carbine, since it fits the role and all chsracteristics opf assault rifles (circa WWII) except selective fire, that it is an assault rifle WHEN USED FOR THAT ROLE.

Get your info right first.

[Tubbyboy]

it was quite clear from the responses you got that people were talking about British soldiers in the UK so you are incorrect.

Tittyboy,

...er, sorry, you called me a tard.

Tubbyboy,
the conversation was about carrying automatic weapons, it was about the US, and you are delightfully, incorrect... still.

Alaska and Vermont? :lol:

What about Alaska and Vermont? Quote to me the post where I mention them.

Can't? That is because I have never mentioned them. Retard.

The point about soldiers carrying concealed weapons was made about the UK. This was specified at the time. Just because you struggle to understand the written word doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong.

Please do as I suggested earlier and put yourself out of our misery.

[Man of Stoat]

Your info re. alaska is out of date:

http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/alaska
HB 102, took effect June 11, 2003 and changes Alaska Statute 11.61.220 to allow anyone who may legally carry a firearm to also carry it concealed without having to obtain a special permit if 21 years of age or older. The possession of a firearm at courthouses, school yards, bars and domestic violence shelters will continue to be prohibited. Alaskans may still obtain a concealed carry permit if they want reciprocity with other states or want to continue to be exempt from background checks when purchasing firearms. The effective date of this law change is September 9th, 2003. For more information contact the Permits & Licensing Unit at 907 269-0392

[Bluffcove]

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 12:59 pm Post subject: Re: US Army and full-auto fire
None of the carbine assult rifles used by any of the nations of the world have the range to fight at distances of 400+ meters


Whilst we are discussing honesty, do you want to retract your accuracy at 500 metre comments seeing as the guy that posted this disagrees with you!
************************************************** *********

I don't think that you or I have better knowledge of how to fight building-to-building combat better than those professional militaries do

That comment was aimed at Pretorian, who served with the Warsaw Pact nations from what I understand - incidentally those "professional militaries" are stood in front of you at the moment, do you now "have better knowledge"

[IRONMAN]

Retard.

The point about soldiers carrying concealed weapons was made about the UK. This was specified at the time. Just because you struggle to understand the written word doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong.

Please do as I suggested earlier and put yourself out of our misery.

Nopers. It was the US. We were discussing automatic weapons in the US, someone made the claim you could carry a loaded auto in the back seat of a car concealed in the US, that they could go rent an auto in Nevada (implying that they could then leave the premisis with it on a rental) and the conversation turned to a tale about 2 soldiers in the US being taken out by a cop.

Bad memory or...

Halfwit (see no swearing)
It's legal to you patronising bastard.

...bad upbringing?

[Man of Stoat]

thirty-one days ago that the M1 has a spring operated action

Yup! Sure did! I thought it was.

What? You were wrong? You thought that it was operated by something called a "spring operated action", something which does not exist? You got something so fundamentally wrong about a wpn which you profess to be an expert abuot? Perhaps you might be wrong about other some things to! Perhaps you might have invented your own unique definition of "assault rifle" which is in different to the accepted term, just like you invented "spring operated"?

If you google for "spring operated action" in quotes, your post comes up first. Who's misinforming who?

[reiver]

Ironman Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:11 am
Best LMG Thread
The M1 Carbine was not an assult rifle because it did not have selective fire - it was semi-automatic only. The M2 Carbine did, and was an assult rifle. I corrected my post above.


...and I have also posted several times, though you forget, that it is my opinion that the M1 Carbine, since it fits the role and all chsracteristics opf assault rifles (circa WWII) except selective fire, that it is an assault rifle WHEN USED FOR THAT ROLE.

Get your info right first.

You've also posted several times, that the British Army send Gurkhas into battle "ahead of white troops", without once backing up your statement with a shred of evidence.
Such evidence will be hard to come by, since the statements are rubbish.
Get your info right first.

[IRONMAN]

Who's misinforming who?

Some here are misinforming the young and impressionable with bogus claims and false information (Alaska? Vermont?), and that includes you, my friend.

[IRONMAN]

You've also posted several times, that the British Army send Gurkhas into battle "ahead of white troops", without once backing up your statement with a shred of evidence.

No, Shatzer said that, then it was proven true by British members who said "Yea??? So what!!!" (and other things about the Gurkas going in first). I simply stated my opinion of how (to use the same word I used the 1st time I reacted to it) "cheezy" that is.

http://img162.echo.cx/img162/958/copiadestfubig8ei.png

[Bluffcove]

fortunately you havent mislead anyone have you IRONMAN

these are all illegal actions according to you.
Let me help you since you need it:

A soldier carrying a fully automatic weapon in his car on the way to a base would be breaking the law.

A soldier carrying a fully auto weapon from the base to his home would be breaking the law.
A soldier in posession of a fully auto weapon in his home would be breaking the law.

from here
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75
Sat May 07, 2005 4:52 pm

[reiver]

I can't recall one British member who said "so what?"
Perhaps you might remind me?
If it had ever happened, it would be more than "cheezy"(sic).
It hasn't, doesn't and won't.
And if someone can "prove" something to you just by saying it, why are you arguing so much about the M1?

[Man of Stoat]

Err, I said that AK and VT have concealed carry without permits, which is true.

From the horse's mouth re. alaska
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/23/Bills/HB0102B.PDF

Read the bill

http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/vermont

How do I apply for a Permit/License?
Since there is no permit required, there is no application process.
Documents required
N/A
Issuing authority
Date updated: Monday, December 30, 2002

Vermont does not issue carry permits. The Attorney General has a web page that lists all the Vermont laws governing the use and possession of firearms.



And since you are obsessed with this wpns in a vehicle thing, it's only illegal to have a loaded rifle or shotgun in a car, but not a handgun:

TITLE 10 Chpt.133: Section 4705. Shooting from motor vehicles or aircraft: permit


(b) A person shall not carry or possess while in or on a vehicle propelled by mechanical power or drawn by a vehicle propelled by mechanical power within the right of way of a public highway a rifle or shotgun containing a loaded cartridge or shell in the chamber, mechanism, or in a magazine, or clip within a rifle or shotgun, except as permitted under subsections (d) and (e) of this section. A person who possesses a rifle or shotgun in or on a vehicle propelled by mechanical power, or drawn by a vehicle propelled by mechanical power within a right of way of a public highway shall upon demand of an enforcement officer exhibit the firearm for examination to determine compliance with this section.

Note: because handguns are not mentioned in the statute, it is not illegal to carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle.

[Bluffcove]

You've also posted several times, that the British Army send Gurkhas into battle "ahead of white troops", without once backing up your statement with a shred of evidence.

No, Shatzer said that, then it was proven true by British members who said "Yea??? So what!!!" (and other things about the Gurkas going in first). I simply stated my opinion of how (to use the same word I used the 1st time I reacted to it) "cheezy" that is.

http://img162.echo.cx/img162/958/copiadestfubig8ei.png

actually you said this!
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=126&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90
Mon May 02, 2005 3:29 am
It was cowardly of the British to send in troops comprised of people from another nation instead of using British-born soldiers. That's cheap, and it tells you that Britian still has it's nose in the air thinking that it's too good to spill it's littly-white blood in battle if some non-English subject is willing and stupid enough to do the fighting for them
They've been at it a long time. They have been recruiting foreigners to go into battle ahead of Brits a long, long time now. Britain is the only nation that I know of that has a history of doing such a thing.
implication being, they fought and we didnt!

funniest yet we know more of your history than you do - your nation does the same thing!

[IRONMAN]

And since you are obsessed with this wpns in a vehicle thing, it's only illegal to have a loaded rifle or shotgun in a car, but not a handgun:

Since you're having trouble dealing with the subject, let me help you once more. Listen this time.

The conversation was about military personel off-duty carrying a loaded, concealed automatic military rifle on the back seat of a car in the US without a permit.

Let that sink in for a moment...

...which is illegal in Alaska and Vermont.

Let that sink in for a minute. Is it seeping into your noodle yet? No hurry. Take your time.

Got that? OK. Now... take your time... do you see the word "handgun" anywhere in that conversation?

Take your time now...

Take your time reading that while I go to the grocery store.

[Bluffcove]

Ive supplied you with quotes for everyting you have said all of which you are now refuting!

[Bluffcove]

[quote=Man of Stoat]And since you are obsessed with this wpns in a vehicle thing, it's only illegal to have a loaded rifle or shotgun in a car, but not a handgun:

Since you're having trouble dealing with the subject, let me help you once more. Listen this time.

The conversation was about carrying a concealed automatic military rifle on the back seat of a car in the US without a permit.

actually at the time this was the quote - no mention of permits, all to do with dates of manufacture
Young man, you are truly lost in your efforts to support the bullhocky you spout. The liscence would not allow a soldier to have in their posession a military weapon issued by the US military at home - because the weapon would not have been manufactured prior to 1987 or purchased from a Class III weapons dealer!!! That is the US law my boy!

[Cuts]

Further to my last :

I do still think that there is enough difference between the weapons to say that the carbine is not based on the Garand. If you compared the action of many weapons, there would be considerable similarity between many of them even if they were designed independantly without inspiration from each other.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

Even the most cursory glance at an exploded diagram would have shown the parentage.
On the other hand, perhaps I should get a couple out of the safe and strip them down on the pc-room floor ?
:wink:

The MP40 was not a very good weapon, and was out of date by the start of WWII because:
1. 9mm parabellum round was weak
2. Very slow fire rate (380-420 rpm) compared to most other SMG's of the time (Thompson was 625-700rpm, Spagin was up to 900rpm)
3. No forward grip - soldiers frequently burned their hands in the heat (no pun intended) of battle by accidentally grabbing the barrel as a natural reflex to hold the weapon from the front, especially while reloading it
4. Jamming problems until the magazine was redesigned to hold 1 less round (partly due to 9mm round being weak and spring action)
5. Inclination to use the magazine as a forward grip causes stresses to it and would damage it over time
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

1. The 9mm is a pistol rd, subsequent higher MV from the longer bbl.
2. Ever fired full auto ? Ever had to carry a battle load ?
3. Utter lack of understanding of drills !
4. Mag lips & followers are always the major problem with self-loading wpns.
5. See 3.

MP44:

1. Much too heavy - twice the weight of most other SMG's of the time, and this would be tiring to carry, especially without a shoulder sling
2. Poor design for use with scope - most rifles or mid-range weapons of the time had better scope fittings and scope integration
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

1. The '44 is an assault rifle, not a SMG. Slings are issued with weapons.
2. Until recently no army had a scope as general issue for all inf. Neither German funds nor their manufacturing were at a level where this would have been feasible.

Another scenario: You come face to face with 3 enemies in the streets. Holding the trifgger of your high rate SMG will give you a good chance to kill some or all of them before they have a chance to aim at you.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

:lol:

In a pistol, the 9mm was good, but in 1940's era SMG's it wass not so good. The energy from the smaller round must be used to operate the hammer, and that can lead to jamming and weak hit power. Modern weapons are better, but then, we have had 60 years to perfect the 9mm automatic weapon.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

(My emboldenment)
Hammer...
Expert...
:lol:

There are quite a few very good SMG's today. The new American carbine (XM8 - new HK weapon) for example.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

SMG...
Expert...
:lol:

I bring these up gentlemen, not so that IRONMAN should rail against them, but so that you are aware - if you weren't before - of the expertise against which you must pit your "bad memories" and your "bogus claims."

[Man of Stoat]

God, you've got a selective memory - you claimed that Alaska was shall-issue instead of no permit, which is wrong, and this is why I responded.

I couldn't give a monkey's feck about the rules for military personnel carrying arms in civvy clothes cos I can't find any info on it - but you have not cited anything else either. In the UK it is the case that military personnel can carry wpns in vehicles when on duty, and there are certain circumstances when it would be permitted to do this with the wpns loaded, and it seems logical that this would also be the case in the US. You haven't provided any evidence that it is not, other than "I say so, get that into your thick skull, batboy".

I'm still LMAO re. the "spring operated" claim!!!!! At least you retracted it though!

[Ale]

IRONMAN, you seem to take issue with me making points about the Yalta agreement despite the fact that I haven't read it? Can I direct you again to the two links I provided when I referenced my original post on the subject? If you click on the link then you will find the amazon page for two well regarded texts on Cold War History. As Yalta and the Wartime Alliance between Britain, America and the Soviet Union are the essential precursors to the Cold war, you will find that both of these books deal with the subject of Yalta, the percentages agreement and the post war division of Europe in some considerable depth.

I have also, as I mentioned, attended several lectures at University on the subject of Yalta, the breakdown of the Grand Alliance et al. I have provided a link to my university home page, should you doubt that it exists. :roll:

I think that this entitles me to some sort of opinion don't you?

Granted, reading primary source material is always a good thing, but life is short and I'd rather be hunting. :twisted: Oh, and for your information Mr foxy didn't put in an appearance this evening, but I have a baiting spot on the go, so its only a matter of time. :twisted:

[Man of Stoat]

Nice one Cuts!

Hammer in an SMG!
XM8 is an SMG!
Higher rate of fire is necessarily better in an SMG!
Stg. 44 is an SMG!
Spray & pray giving with an SMG giving a good chance of killing 3 enemies!

Maybe the confusion of several real assault rifles with SMGs is the source of your problem with the carbine?

Your comments are indicative of somebody who has never handled an SMG, or even read a reasonably technical book about one, or fired full-auto in any type of wpn.

Shall we give the poor fell