What was wrong with the Bren? I cannot recall anyone getting up after a 303 round or two. Dead accurate. Even with a burst.... sapper
Soldier Magazine c1951-52 Soldier Magazine c1953-55 Soldier Magazine c1953-55 Contemporary article on the Cent that was being touted as the standard NATO tank. Pre-Suez, of course, when we thought we still mattered...
Nothing Brian ...It was given a 7.62 barrel et all and was used down in the Falklands Still in use in 1990. I had the pleasure of humping one around in NI
you could hit a bloke at 200 yds in the shoulder & take his arm off fucking cool, aint it?? but there is no space for rambos. your aim should be to "take out" the enemy not to dismember him. it happens of course, ugly things those wounds but a soldier should remain calm and MUST avoid any kind of blood thirst. (sorry for beeing the ethic again) I remember a conversation during the training in my first weeks in the Bundeswehr (i was 18): during our first weeks of training (grundausbildung) there was this guy. he considered himself to be a real expert on rifles and said that calibers in the past were "much" bigger. he said he doubts the effect of ammo small like that. it was a conversation between us kids back then but our captain brought a pic next day with wounds documented, caused by the 5,56x45 mm caliber from a G36....from then we were a bit more "cap in hand" when talking about stuff we did not experience yet. to topic: I know the debate myself from several reports from a "sister unit" (can you say that in english?), complaining about inadequate fire power of our infantry equipment. the problem is that german politicans refuse to provide us heavy weapons in a large number, as they want to avoid us to apear too martial. (the image of the german soldier is still regarded as critical here in germany).
The aim is to kill the enemy as his is to kill you. Governments are nowadays too 'pc' to view the Armd Forces as anything but a warmongering mob. When I was in soldiers were respected as defenders of the realm and of the public. Now we are fascist warmongers who kill unlawfully!
The aim is to kill the enemy as his is to kill you. Governments are nowadays too 'pc' to view the Armd Forces as anything but a warmongering mob. When I was in soldiers were respected as defenders of the realm and of the public. Now we are fascist warmongers who kill unlawfully! -_--_--_- no it is not your aim to KILL the enemy. (maybe if you seek for revenge). but military conflicts are about taking and holding strategic points. most of the time these goals are achieved by killing the enemy. a word that is used around here is "kampfunfähig", look that up cause i cant translate it. war is not about good or bad black and white you and me or heroes or whatever on a personal level it can be different. emotions can overwhelm a person and force the person to act emotionally. but killing is always an instrument to achieve your goals not for the fun of killing itself. i read alot of comments on the forum allready who would come back to earth real quick as soon as they would join the military. or maybe its better anyway, not to give them a weapon at all.
OK, so the enemy is shooting AT you - you only want to wound him to tell him he is a naughty boy? I doubt it. I did 17 years in a front line unit, I know MY priority.
The aim is to kill the enemy as his is to kill you. Governments are nowadays too 'pc' to view the Armd Forces as anything but a warmongering mob. When I was in soldiers were respected as defenders of the realm and of the public. Now we are fascist warmongers who kill unlawfully! You are right. I recall having read a quote from an american general (don't ask, I don't remember his name) in the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis: "It takes you one word, and I turn that fucking island into a praking lot!" No pc on that, is it? And I think I'm backing red devil here (even though I never yet was at war): If you are being shot at, you don't just want to wound the enemy. If you shoot, you shoot to kill. About the german government not giving heavy weapons to the army: I read about it, and I think it is... sorry, but ridiculous. You can't fight a war w/o heavy weapons (even though the german state policy says it is NOT a war).
If killing enemy soldiers -IS THE AIM- in a war, then I guess the germans won the war. or the USA won vietnam, due to their bodycount. i can not dictate your personal feelings. but in german military I learned to follow orders. if the orders mean to engage hostile forces, yes itll get nasty, for shure. all i want to say is that your personal feelings mean NOTHING, and they have to be subordinated. About the german government not giving heavy weapons to the army: I read about it, and I think it is... sorry, but ridiculous. You can't fight a war w/o heavy weapons (even though the german state policy says it is NOT a war). wont comment on any government issue....but you are right. its a shame
If killing enemy soldiers -IS THE AIM- in a war in the quoted post is white text, highlight it!! Regarding killing of enemy - it is NOT the aim of the war, you misunderstand. It is simply kill or be killed, nothing personal, nothing political and can only serve to give you, the soldier, an advantage. When a group of soldiers is tasked with moving forward and taking land, and on that particular land is a similar group of enemy, then you must remove that group in order for you to occupy the space, as in chess. If that group surrenders, well and good, they will be happy to know that, whatever the outcome of the war, they will survive. A nice feeling. BUT, if that same group does not wish to surrender, then sterner steps must be taken in order for you to reach your objective. If this means destroying their equipment and killing a person so that they cannot kill you, THAT is the aim of war.
in the quoted post is white text, highlight it!! Regarding killing of enemy - it is NOT the aim of the war, you misunderstand. It is simply kill or be killed, nothing personal, nothing political and can only serve to give you, the soldier, an advantage. When a group of soldiers is tasked with moving forward and taking land, and on that particular land is a similar group of enemy, then you must remove that group in order for you to occupy the space, as in chess. If that group surrenders, well and good, they will be happy to know that, whatever the outcome of the war, they will survive. A nice feeling. BUT, if that same group does not wish to surrender, then sterner steps must be taken in order for you to reach your objective. If this means destroying their equipment and killing a person so that they cannot kill you, THAT is the aim of war. thanks for formulating it like this...now we can come together. what I was trying to say that it is "everything else" than "good" if a soldier gets overwhelmed fast by his feelings. of course the images of war can cause psychological problems and there are situations no one can stay calm in. but my point is that (highly) emotional persons should not serve in the military in a frontline unit. (ww2 was different: most of the conscripts were forced to go to war so it involved EVERYONE, but nowadys its "a job" for the most of us and everyone in my unit is a volunteer, so personal feelings like rage, fear or whatever MUST be subordinated under the orders of the command)
I'm only an armchair general, but in all y readings and musings the conclusion I and others before me had reached that the aim of war is to win. If this entails killing the enemy so be it, but it is much safer and economical to win without having to resort to ultimate means. A few examples at random. The Israeli armed forces won the Yom Kippur war in October 1973, not by pulverizing the Egyptian army but by penetrating through where they were unexpected (movement led by Gen. Ariel Sharon) at a fast tempo of operations, succeeding in cutting the communications off and surrounding the Egyptian forces that had crossed the Suez Canal into the Sinai peninsula, turning THE great Egyptian victory into a mouse trap. In 1980 Iraq attacked Iran and both bogged down to and indecisive slugfest. After the initial Iraqi Shitzkrieg they both resorted to a trench war lasting eight years and causing more than 1.2 million casualties. Yup, they both aimed at killing their enemy but this didn't bring victory any closer. Please compare the quickness and cleanliness of the Coalition victory in Op. Iraqi Freedom (2003 invasion) which in three weeks or thereabouts had Saddam fleeing his palaces. Julius Caesar managed to turn the tables on the Pompeian forces in Spain in his Ilerda campaign there. He forced them out entirely through active spadework and manouvering for better positions, without shedding any blood. Or how Napoleon trapped a large Austrian army inside Ulm, etc, etc. Recommended reading: Liddel Hart's Indirect Approach ---- [added] Here are LH's maxims: 1. Adjust your end to your means - in effect don’t bite off more than you can chew. 2. Keep your objective always in mind, adapting plans to circumstances, remembering that there are more ways than one of gaining an objective and making sure that attainment of intermediate objectives is worthwhile. “To wander down a side-track is bad but to reach a dead end is worse.” 3. Choose the line (or course) of least expectation i.e. put yourself in your opponent’s shoes and take the line of action that he (or she) is least likely to foresee or forestall. 4. Exploit the line of least resistance - providing of course that it leads toward your ultimate objective. 5. Pursue a line of operation that offers alternate objectives. Your opponent will not be sure which objective to defend most strongly and you will have a better chance of gaining at least one of them - whichever he (or she) guards least - and perhaps of achieving one after the other. 6. Make sure that your plans and dispositions of forces are flexible. Any plan should provide for a next step quickly carried out in case of success or failure or - the more common outcome in war - partial success. (See also Publilius’s Maxims no. 469.) 7. Do not throw your weight into an offensive while your opponent is on guard. Unless the enemy is much inferior in strength, wait until his (or her) power of resistance or evasion is paralysed by disorganisation and demoralisation before making a real attack. 8. Do not renew an attack along the same line or in the same manner after it has once failed. Bringing up reinforcements is not enough since the enemy is likely to do the same and his (or her) success in repulsing you will have strengthened his (or her) morale. Or from Sun Tzu: When the enemy is at ease, be able to weary him; when well fed, to starve him; when at rest, to make him move. Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you. Seems to me more intelligent than go forth and kill all your enemies.
thanks for formulating it like this...now we can come together. what I was trying to say that it is "everything else" than "good" if a soldier gets overwhelmed fast by his feelings. of course the images of war can cause psychological problems and there are situations no one can stay calm in. but my point is that (highly) emotional persons should not serve in the military in a frontline unit. (ww2 was different: most of the conscripts were forced to go to war so it involved EVERYONE, but nowadys its "a job" for the most of us and everyone in my unit is a volunteer, so personal feelings like rage, fear or whatever MUST be subordinated under the orders of the command) Yes indeed, sorry if my earlier statements were misread, a fault of mine! As with all human beings, there is always going to be somebody who kills for the fun of it. I imagine we (Allies) had these people and we all know the Nazi's did. Note: I say Nazi as opposed to German, because most german soldiers, sailors and airmen were just people doing a job, and were 'human'. Adolph Galland is a good example. He entertained his prisoners in his Mess before handing them over to the authorities. Galland in name, Gallant in nature.
With the Ocelot: BBC News - A look at the army's Ocelot vehicle Video: The Ocelot: Snatch Land Rover replacement road tested - Telegraph I noticed whilst I was down near the ranges at Hythe in Kent the Army has a new truck too - I assume replacing the old Bedford and DAF 4 Tonners.
Getting back to the more or less original subject of this thread namely the introduction of the L129 Sharpshooter/Designated Marksman Rifle and the perceived unsuitability of the SA80/5.56mm weapon and calibre combination. May I submit for your consideration the Keltec RFB a 7.62mm Ambidextrous Bull Pup Rifle which also uses "metric" 20 round FAL magazines! Ejection of empty cases is forward allowing for true ambidextrous use and the safety/selector is duplicated on both sides of the weapon. The cocking handle can be fitted on either side so could be considered not 100% Ambidextrous in operation but certainly anyone left or right handed can pick one up and use it! Pictured here side by side with a Folding Stock FAL similar to those used by the Argentines in the Falklands. You can find out more on this link to Keltec's Website or just Google Keltec RFB and you'll find pictures, videos and sites galore!
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Troops in Afghanistan get new lightweight rifle magazines
