Kanstantine
Banned
- Joined
- May 28, 2013
- Messages
- 891
- Reaction score
- 153
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I shall go ask some of Japanese friends if they find the use of the term "Jap" to refer to them as being offensive.
So much wrong information. Ever see Saving Private Ryan(Or The Longest Day? Or The Big Red One?)? They is a weapon against a bunker there called a Bagalore Torpedo. It uses(and is still in use) a shaped charge. Mortars as well now use shaped charges. Shaped charges are very effective against concrete structures.
Do you find it embarrassing that a liberal knows more about the military than you?
So much wrong information. Ever see Saving Private Ryan(Or The Longest Day? Or The Big Red One?)? They is a weapon against a bunker there called a Bagalore Torpedo. It uses(and is still in use) a shaped charge. Mortars as well now use shaped charges. Shaped charges are very effective against concrete structures.
Do you find it embarrassing that a liberal knows more about the military than you?
Wrong.
Bangalore torpedos are not shaped charges.
A Bangalore Toprpedo is made up of a number of metal tubes filled with explosive which are screwed together to make up the desired length and used to clear a path for infantry through mines, wire, underbrush, and etc.
Do a little research.
Most liberals get their knowledge of the military from Hollywood.
Bangalore torpedoes are used by combat engineers, not riflemen.
BTW: You are aware that the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is fiction and their was no Private Ryan. The last time two or more brothers would be killed on or around the same day in combat was the five Sullivan brothers during the naval battles off of the Solomon Islands (Guadalcanal) on the cruiser USS Jenuau in 1942.
My MOS was 0849. It was my responsibility to decide (my decision not the platoon, company or battalion commanders) of what kind of gun, projectile (AP, HE, COM, WP, ILL) the type of fuse (FQ, FD, VT, TF), ground burst or air burst, and the number of guns and number of salvos would be fired on the target.
One senario I used when I was an NGF instructor was from my own experience. Under heavy small arms and automatic fire from a NVA platoon who are out in the open but actually are dug in, trenches and fighting holes. The LT ask me what do you suggest ?
The Army would probably fall back half a klick and call in 100 rounds of 105 HE rounds with VT fuses or fall back a whole klick and call in a CAS mission. Marines don't fight that way.
What I did was get on my PRC-25 and "Illusive 26, Illusive 26, this is Grizzly Bear 26, Fire mission, Danger Close." What I requested for was one WP (Willie Peter aka white phosphorus) round armed with a TF fuse that would explode 100 feet over the heads of Charley. When that round detonated over their heads Charles was quick to jump out of their trenches and exposed themselves where the Marine riflemen zapped them as if they were at one of those shooting arcades at a county fair.
All this talk about Obama's red line in Syria has me wondering just why we have outlawed the use of chemical weapons. Do we not fight wars to win? We used nukes in Japan, we incinerated people in Dresden and Japs were burned alive with flame throwers on islands across the pacific theatre. Napalm is not a pleasant way to die and a bullet in the guts is just a bit agonizing so what's the deal with chemical weapons?
I know it was used as a defoliant and that sounds a lot nicer than dioxin. Sounds kinda harmless, don't you think. Our military and their chemical corporations couldn't resist a little more corporate welfare with a nice chemical cocktail for Vietnam. Dioxin, think Bhopal, India. Our media minimized the evil intent of this "defoliant." They always fail us because they are infiltrated with Intelligence Assets influencing our news. "The more things change, the more they remain the same."
Mainly because if one country is going to use them then the opposing force will use them. There's no benefit to using them...all you do is open a Pandora's box that makes warfare even uglier and brutal than it already is.
So there's no benefit...just like the US and the USSR throwing nukes at one another. In the end everyone loses.
Ahhh historical context or as we call it, the mouse in pocket rhetoric. :lol:
I can see from your civilian only but very ahhh militant attitude all weapons are useful with the only goal winning the war, though there would be a huge difference between the firebombing of Dresden and widespread dropping of gas on the German civilians. I can see how to your untrained eye all weapons are horror weapons, but to me there is a huge difference between mustard gas and HE.
and yeah it sure ain't easy being you. eace
Seriously, you have to ask this on a public forum? You seriously don't understand that the indiscriminate killing of civilian populations is a war crime? Even LeMay recognized that what he did with the fire-bombing and use of the the nukes were war crimes, the only reason they were not prosecuted was due to their being the victor. Both German & Japanese military personnel were prosecuted for war crimes including the use of chemical weapons.
It just baffles me that in this day and age you would have to ask a question like this. The poll results should tell you something.
So much wrong information. Ever see Saving Private Ryan(Or The Longest Day? Or The Big Red One?)? They is a weapon against a bunker there called a Bagalore Torpedo. It uses(and is still in use) a shaped charge. Mortars as well now use shaped charges. Shaped charges are very effective against concrete structures.
Do you find it embarrassing that a liberal knows more about the military than you?
They level the playing field between richer and poorer combatants.
****s up the game.
Because they kill indiscriminately, cause unnecessary suffering and horrific trauma. A lot of them also destroy the environment, and remain chemically active for many years.All this talk about Obama's red line in Syria has me wondering just why we have outlawed the use of chemical weapons.
Frankly, I am never offended by a Brit calling us Yanks. I think it's kind of cute. :lol:
I call them Limey's. :lol:
Most of the time that term is used, especially on a political forum, it is not meant to be cute.
Most British folk take considerable offense at the term, unless it's a joking tease by a good friend.
Most of the time that term is used, especially on a political forum, it is not meant to be cute.
None of which changes the fact that flame throwers where obsoleted due to improved technology.
Just had to bring politics into this huh.
This is just one persons opinion.
Excerpt:
>"Napalm, delivered by bombs or flamethrowers, kills on one hand, protects lives on another, depending on where one stands. Beyond that, burning gas has a powerful psychological effect, topping my list of weapons used to intimidate and deter.
What motivates me to think about this is a message I received from a friend operating in Afghanistan. He asks, where were flame weapons when really needed to clear caves and attack terrorists during Operation Anaconda. A major objective was to kill bin Laden. The answer, we got rid of flamethrowers years ago. And napalm bombs went by the wayside too.
Our failure to field weapons equal to the task, especially napalm configured in flamethrowers, is disconcerting testimony to our determination to win in the field and protect those carrying the fight abroad.
Conventional wisdom says we should never even consider the use of napalm, because it is so indiscriminate. Anyone within the target area is likely to be killed or maimed, whether a legitimate combatant or innocent civilian.
That is absolutely true, as far as it goes. But what if its use were restricted to remote areas, where there is no civilian population? Enemy targets cannot be avoided, whether in caves or in the open. Ignoring the threat defeats the mission and prolongs the conflict. Otherwise, the only way to clear a cave without entering is to toss in a few hand grenades, conventional or thermobaric, hoping they are effective. But caves are not necessarily shallow boxes where grenades work well..."<
>"Flamethrowers have another advantage: they are very effective if one’s position is about to be overrun. They are instantly available before defensive fires from mortars, artillery or air arrive. I can’t imagine any soldier in extremis threatened by an enemy through the wire would have second thoughts.'<
Thinking the Unthinkable about Napalm and Flamethrowers | Small Wars Journal
what's the deal with chemical weapons?
Which does nothing to prove your claim right. Face it, you made a stupid comment, got called on it, and can't back up what you said. Admit it.
I didn't make any stupid comment. Or did I claim that a certain weapon had a shaped charge when it didn't. If you are going to make a claim that I made a stupid comment and it causes you to shoot your wad off, so be it, I hoped you enjoyed the feeling.
I've talked to many Marines and soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm also able to watch the news videos of both conflicts and see all of those weapons that were put in storage thirty or more years ago that were called obsolete and now being used by our troops today like the M-14 and LAAW.
The Marine Corps is going back to that 102 year old .45 pistol, the M-1911 A-1. The Army will still keep using that little 9 mm pea shooter.
I see weapons platforms being used today that were called obsolete and "Cold War" relics by liberals like the Air Force's A-10 Warthog.
And while I'm BBQ and drinking beer with Marine officers on the weekend and we start talking and comparing experiences more in line with "old sea stories" and I show them a video of an ONTOS being used during the battle of Hue and one Marine ask "Why isn't that in our inventory today ? It would be perfect in Afghanistan ! " And the other Marine who has twenty years of service under his belt says, "Every time we have something that is dumb, stupid and simple and works, some civilian calls it obsolete."
About as stupid of using a $60,000 Hellfire missile to kill one Taliban fighter who's armed with an empty RPG when that Taliban fighter could have been taken out with a .25 cent bullet.
Spouting random things that in no way make your case is not going to prove you right. Technology obsoleted the flame thrower. Consider yourself schooled by a liberal.