American stuff

[Walle]

As far as I can see, theres a lot of ppl talking about the Americans and what they use and what they do in the world.

What I'm interested in knowing is how many of you guys and girls out there, besides me, who actually don't give a dingos kidneys about them.

I, for one, is not interested whatsoever in what the SEALS or whatever are using and doing, because it does not interest me.

I also think that most armalite weapons stink.

Yes, I'we used them, and I'd rather use a stick in combat than a M-16.

That is my opinion. If you want to discuss it, go right ahead, but don't go bitching on and on about how incredibly great Armalite weapons are. Their construction is inferior to, for instance, a swedish Bofors AK5. And that's that.

To sum it up:

Who, besides me, is sick and tired of the US armed forces and interested in anything besides the US armed forces?

[budanski]

http://www.noisedesignlab.com/gag/photos/bigcupof.jpg

Another swede with an enlightening remark. Go troll elsewhere. :roll:

[James]

What kind of question is that? Maybe you shouldn't come to a forum where a majority of users are pro-military Americans. That's just my 2 cents, though. If you aren't interested in this stuff, why are you here? Save yourself some time and ask a question about Swedish gear or something.

[USMarine3521]

if they suck so much then how come so many international special ops units use the M16 family?

[Walle]

James>

I already know what I want about swedish gear, I did my service here.

This is still a forum, and there is'nt many like these on the internet.

Budanski>

Thanks, I'd like a hug to go with that cup'o STFU...

USMarineDEP>

Because they are cheap?

Because the goverment in question don't wanna piss America off?

There's a million reasons, but in my humble opinion, I think that the ppl getting the wpns are'nt the one using them.

[Ratamacue]

Why don't you go back to harrassing people trying to cross your bridge?

Plus, I love how your expertise on Armalite weapons surpasses those who use them. M4's and M16A4's got great feedback after use in Iraq, aside from lack of stopping power.

[USAF G]

Holy cow! Why is it everybody that doesn't like the US, or her military, comes in here and bitches? I have yet to go to a Swedish site and complain about their military. If you don't like the USA or the US military, here's a hint: DON'T go pissing about it to a bunch of current servicemen and vets! :bash: I bet Greenpeace has a site you could visit.

[USMarine3521]

Walle, do you think 35,000 USD a piece dollars is cheap?

http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/m29_faq.html#Anchor-An-363

[Walle]

What would happen to a M16 if you:

1. Put it in a hole in the ground, cover it with dirt and leave it there for a week.

2. Dig it up, tie it to a APC, drive the APC in forest terrain for about 5 km.

3. Untie it from the APC and try to operate it.

Answer: It would not work, because it got dirt in the mechanism and you would'nt probably even get the magazine into the magwell.

Then what would happen to a Bofors AK5 or an Kalasnjikov AK47/AK74?

Answer: The AK5 would fire, thou it would sound really bad the 5-10 first shots. The AK47/AK74 could perhaps use some banging on the upper reciver first and maybe some moderate violence to get the magazine into the magwell, but then it would fire too.

Why you ask?

The mechanism on both the AK5 and the kalasnjikov uses a 1-****g extractor to pull the empty case out from the barrelassembly, and then it is flipped away by a litte metal pin in the reciver, while the M16 series use a complicated 3-****g system of wich 2 is moving.

The more moving parts, the more stuff that can brake.

The AK5 has three moving parts, not including the trigger/safety assembly, The piston, the bolt and the firing pin.

The M16 has at least the double.

[Walle]

USAF G> I did'nt say I did'nt like them, I just said I could'nt care less.

[Ratamacue]

If you couldn't care less, why are you bitching?

[Duke]

Although its nice to have a weapon as such, but your vignette is an absolutely unrealitic situation.

[JKD]

What would happen to a M16 if you:

1. Put it in a hole in the ground, cover it with dirt and leave it there for a week.

2. Dig it up, tie it to a APC, drive the APC in forest terrain for about 5 km.

3. Untie it from the APC and try to operate it.

Answer: It would not work, because it got dirt in the mechanism and you would'nt probably even get the magazine into the magwell.


Why would you do that? I guess Americans use m16s because they can be trusted not to bury their weapons for a week.

[Walle]

Duke & JDK> That was one of the actual tests of the many guns the swedish armed forces tryed when they chose the new standard issue weapon after the Carl Gustaf M45

[budanski]

So the Swedes are resorting to guerilla warfare? I've got a used timex you guys could use as a timer for your roadside mine.

[Walle]

Budanski> We are'nt resorting to it, we used it for quite som time now.

What's so special about that?

[Ichhabe]

http://www.noisedesignlab.com/gag/photos/bigcupof.jpg

Another swede with an enlightening remark. Go troll elsewhere. :roll:

Have to go with Budanski ALL THE WAY on this one.

There are 2-two photos for your ENJOYMENT in here Walle.

While you warm yourself in the bright light of them, also enjoy these; :bash: :fork: :slap:

How many hours have you spent in here Walle? :cantbeli:
Not even I came as strong as you did. Did your mom have a long traumatic birth with you or???

NEWSFLASH: The owner of this site is American. It was first made so that people could enjoy pics of different branches inside the US Military.

We are here as guests, behave or be gone!!!

(When it comes to Swedes, I wount get along.)

[Ballistic]

As far as I can see, theres a lot of ppl talking about the Americans and what they use and what they do in the world.

What I'm interested in knowing is how many of you guys and girls out there, besides me, who actually don't give a dingos kidneys about them.

I, for one, is not interested whatsoever in what the SEALS or whatever are using and doing, because it does not interest me.

I also think that most armalite weapons stink.

Yes, I'we used them, and I'd rather use a stick in combat than a M-16.

That is my opinion. If you want to discuss it, go right ahead, but don't go bitching on and on about how incredibly great Armalite weapons are. Their construction is inferior to, for instance, a swedish Bofors AK5. And that's that.

To sum it up:

Who, besides me, is sick and tired of the US armed forces and interested in anything besides the US armed forces?

Ok, thats great, glad you got that off your chest. Now, how about you listen to me rattle of a boring string of complaints about you and your military. What's that you say...you would'nt like that ?? Well ofcourse you would'nt. Why not ? Because you are proud of your military and the service you did for your country. So, why must you come here and belittle the Americans and their military for which, if was'nt so large and powerful, we'd all be speaking German "sieg hieling" all over the place or better yet, speaking Japanese and beheading countless people because they weren't working hard enough while their bodies fell apart from malnutrition and lack of muscle.

Who gives a flying turd what you or your military thinks of the M16. Obviously it did'nt pass your tests, just as the M16A2 did'nt pass it's test here in Australia. Do we (the people who don't have a large problem with the US) really have a problem with the Yanks because their weapon did'nt work after being buried in the ground for a week and then dragged through the bush for 5km, giving the weapon a taste of brutal punishment of which it probably would never recieve in combat.....that is ofcourse if your brilliant country would ever get off it's arse and actually DO SOMETHING.

If the basis of your disinterest in the American forces lies predominantly in the fact that the Armalite series of weapons are lacking in your countries eyes, then really, I think you really should take that nice cup of STFU which was graciously offered to you by budanski, and do as the poster says.....S T F U !

And as Tane Angle would say...."Just some thoughts..." :bash:

[ScoutRanger]

Wow, who let this limp **** walk into these forums? What a moron. As far as I see it Willy I mean Walle no one gives a rats ass what you think. So go ahead a respond to everyone one making a mockery of you but it wont help your sorry swede ass. Go ahead, take a bite.

[Walle]

Ichhabe> I do not belive I have misbehaved, I am mearly looking for ppl who likes military things, other than american.

I have spent a few weeks reading posts here, and I can't say that I'we found any posts that say "pictures of american stuff only, anthing else will be laughed at".

About my birth: I am a ceaserian born child, so it did'nt take that long.

Last but not least: Greetings to a neighbouring norwegian from a Swede that likes Norway a whole lot.

[ibstolidude]

maybe if you trained your forces better you would need to run tests like that..

instead you should go the way of the rest of the modern world and test the weapons on the conditions in which they will be used...

hence the development of the m4 and SPR's - sa80 and other modern bullpups...

[MEGR]

Why would you want to bury an m16?

[USMarine3521]

because the Swedes are afraid someone is going to steal it?

[JohnJohn]

Take your trolling **** and go to another place where they give a damn.

Don't like Americans? TOO ****ING BAD! WE'RE EVERYWHERE!!! rofl

[Merik]

Hey Budanski think you could make me a poster like that and say its from Merik lol?

[usa320]

I second the notion of

http://www.noisedesignlab.com/gag/photos/bigcupof.jpg

[usa320]

His own poll made him look like an asswipe

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

[JohnJohn]

LMAO, I wonder who voted for "dull..." :P

nice one Walle :cantbeli:

rofl

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

So wally or whatever your name is, how did the the much vaunted swedish military come up with the standards for the testing?. Was it as a result of the huge and awe inspiring wealth of institutional knowledge gained by your military after decades of operations around the entire globe during which countless of your citizens have died ensuring that freedom prevails for people who can't or won't look after themselves.

or .............

NOT!.

Yeah love the AK5, funny how it looks just like an FNC. :cantbeli:

[stuntman]

hey walle this is for you!
http://zoom.cafepress.com/8/1300838_zoom.jpg
http://www.tryandstopus.com/logo.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/M16w-att-s.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m4comp.jpg

[Fargin]

http://www.noisedesignlab.com/gag/photos/bigcupof.jpg

Another swede with an enlightening remark. Go troll elsewhere. :roll:

As a Scandinavian I agree with budanski. Walle you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

[usa320]

walle probably fromed 12 other accounts just so he could vote dull 13 more times.

rofl rofl rofl rofl

[andrew45c]

The american armed forces are dull every other country except the U.S.A sees the U.S armed forces as more of a machine with no personality.
I no will get alot of **** for saying this and not all people from other countrys share my view not to say that the U.S armed forces arent great just not cool.

[Zach R.]

What is it with these crazy Swedes! And why in the hell would would you bury your gun in the dirt? And to make matters worse, tie it to an APC track and drive over it for 3 miles? Sounds to me like Walle has his own little fantasy world. C'mon you could toss it out onto I-235 and the thing would be destroyed in a minute. Not to mention a 45 ton APC. next time Walle, try not to sound so frickin arrogant, or even better, go away.

[hood]

I'm getting that itching feeling that the next forum section that'll get created will be for rants and random complaining where people can sling mud at each other. :)

http://www.aitrus.org/images/Dear%20God%20-%20Please%20make%20it%20stop.jpg

[Kriz]

The dream Hood once had seems to have turned in a nightmare :roll:

[Trigger]

Nice^

What would happen if:
You put walle in the ground, urinated on him, covered him with dirt, leaves, excrement, cement, trash, more excrement, more leaves and dirt and left him there for weeks and weeks.

Answer:
I don't know, but I'd like to find out.

[hood]

Trigger, i took offense at the thing about the leaves... only the leaves though. :lol:


http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/positive8.jpg

[Beowulf]

cats?...huh?.....jesus?......oh man that's just weird...
b

[budanski]

What would happen if:
You put walle in the ground, urinated on him, covered him with dirt, leaves, excrement, cement, trash, more excrement, more leaves and dirt and left him there for weeks and weeks.


A family reunion?

[Chops]

Trigger, goddamn it, you are the man. Laughed so hard my piss bag split... :lol:

rgds

(A Slightly Soiled) Chops

[hood]

yeah i posted the wrong one by accident so i had to settle for jesus. story of my life. hahaha I'm goin' to hell for that one.

[pinkeye]

sure, the u.s. military can crush everything in its path, but many military scholars and analysts are not terribly impressed with the quality of the u.s.' military. great gear, fantastic logistics, but weak decision-making and generally poor intelligence. and many would argue that from an operational perspective, the u.s. military is trigger-happy and ****e to more blunders than should be tolerated. the average american infantryman, when compared to some of his european counterparts, is not terribly impressive. granted, this is a purely superficial analysis, but i'll take a british soldier or even *gasp* his french counterpart over the average american grunt. the u.s. can bomb the crap out of the taliban and a virtually non-existent iraqi conventional force, but that's not saying much. so are people on this board impressed by the gear or actual results? too frequently it appears the former is the case. my two cents...

[hood]

can you give an example of a recent conflict that the french have gotten themselves involved with, where they're defeated an impressive adversary that would demonstrate how their infantry grunts are better than their american counterparts? what's your reasoning behind your statement?

[Bootneck]

It does look like they've got that whole Congo situation pretty much squared away.


Not.


can you give an example of a recent conflict that the french have gotten themselves involved with, where they're defeated an impressive adversary that would demonstrate how their infantry grunts are better than their american counterparts? what's your reasoning behind your statement?

[Seiyuuki]

"sure, the u.s. military can crush everything in its path, but many military scholars and analysts are not terribly impressed with the quality of the u.s.' military. great gear, fantastic logistics, but weak decision-making and generally poor intelligence. and many would argue that from an operational perspective, the u.s. military is trigger-happy and ****e to more blunders than should be tolerated. the average american infantryman, when compared to some of his european counterparts, is not terribly impressive. granted, this is a purely superficial analysis, but i'll take a british soldier or even *gasp* his french counterpart over the average american grunt. the u.s. can bomb the crap out of the taliban and a virtually non-existent iraqi conventional force, but that's not saying much. so are people on this board impressed by the gear or actual results? too frequently it appears the former is the case. my two cents...


"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."

[Pakrat]

Am I hearing this right? The US military fighting man isn't worth his salt?! Did you really say that Kashyyk?? Where you been boy in a hole? If it wasn't for the US Military all you Euro Trash would be speaking german and goose stepping to the ovens.The French..do we even need to go there? They folded faster than superman on laundry day in two wars! The Britts I have respect for..at least they join the fight and stay with it.Everyone else sends token forces just so they can say "Hey we're doing out part".As for the topic starter..to each his own..but if you swedes are burying equipment and dragging it behind apcs..you need to rethink your crazy ways!!As for world domination,just relax guys we'll treat you right.

[JKD]

Here's an interesting article about the stereotyping of our troops done by the Europeans....written by a Brit. (sorry for not pasting the article here, I'm boarderline computer illiterate :oops: )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/07/25/do2501.xml

[rob]

American soldiers really aren't spoilt, trigger-happy yokels
By Jonathan Foreman
(Filed: 25/07/2003)


Whether the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein were self-inflicted or not, the military operation to capture them was immaculate. There were no American deaths, 10 minutes of warnings were given over loudspeakers, and it was the Iraqis who opened fire. So sensitive was the American approach, they even rang the bell of the house before entering.

The neat operation fits squarely with the tenor of the whole American campaign, contrary to the popular negative depiction of its armed forces: that they are spoilt, well-equipped, steroid-pumped, crudely patriotic yokels who are trigger-happy yet cowardly in their application of overwhelming force.

And, unlike our chaps, none of them is supposed to have the slightest clue about Northern Ireland-style "peacekeeping": never leaving their vehicles to go on foot patrols, never attempting to win hearts and minds by engaging with local communities and, of course, never removing their helmets, sunglasses and body armour to appear more human.

As a British journalist working for an American newspaper, who was embedded with American troops before, during and after the conquest of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, I know this is all way off the mark; a collection of myths coloured by prejudice, fed by Hollywood's tendentious depictions of Vietnam (fought by a very different US Army to today's) and by memories of the Second World War.

The American soldiers I met were disciplined professionals. Many of them had extensive experience of peacekeeping in Kosovo and Bosnia and had worked alongside (or even been trained by) British troops. Thoughtful, mature for their years, and astonishingly racially integrated, they bore little resemblance to the disgruntled draftees in Platoon or Apocalypse Now.

Yes, American troops wear their helmets and armour even though removing them might ease local relations. But it's easy to forget that British troops in Northern Ireland have very often worn helmets when patrolling unfriendly areas. And the disaster that took the lives of six Royal Military Police officers in Majar may indicate that American caution - whether it means wearing body armour, or ensuring that soldiers have sufficient back-up or are always in radio contact with headquarters - isn't so foolish.

And it's simply not true that the Americans don't patrol at all, patrol only in tanks or never get out of their vehicles. I accompanied foot patrols in Baghdad as early as April 13, only days after Saddam's presidential palace was taken. The unit carrying out these patrols was also assigned to escort SAS troopers around the city. The SAS men told me how impressed they were, not just with the Americans' willingness to learn from them, but with their training and self-control.

The idea that American troops are lavishly equipped is also a myth, a fantasy bred out of resentment of American wealth in general. The battalion in which I was first embedded came to war in creaky, Vietnam-vintage M113 armoured personnel carriers, which frequently broke down in the desert.

The battalion fought in green heavyweight fatigues because the desert camouflage ones never arrived. And, though a shipment of desert boots turned up just before the invasion, many were the wrong size, so that these GIs had to make do with black leather clompers designed for northern Europe in December. Perhaps most resented by the troops, they were not issued with bullet-resistant vests, only flak jackets, making them vulnerable to small-arms fire.

Another myth is that the Americans are also softies who live and fight in amazing, air-conditioned comfort. The truth is that the GIs encamped in and outside palaces and Ba'ath party mansions not only lack air-conditioning but also running water, unlike most of the population they guard.

And, unlike their British counterparts, they have no communication with their families at home. Many British troops are able to use the "e-bluey" system to email their loved ones on a frequent basis. The only times most GIs in Iraq ever get to let their spouses know they are well is if a passing journalist lets them have a couple of minutes on the Satphone.

And I remember what a thrill it was when I got my hands on a British ration box after nearly three months on American MREs (meals ready to eat). GIs bored of endless variations upon chilli and macaroni were amazed to find that British rations included things such as chicken and herb paté. And they were willing to trade everything from boots to whole cases of their own rations to get some.

Though the US Army lacks our regimental system, different American divisions vary greatly in culture and experience. The Third Infantry Division - the unit that reached Baghdad first and took the city in a feat of great boldness - has been kept in Iraq because its soldiers are clearly better than newcomers at the difficult task of winning hearts and minds in a newly conquered country.

You could see this in the way the tank commander, Captain Philip Wolford , broke the rules and walked around the area his company controlled, alone and bare-headed, chatting with the locals and organising food, medical care and even employment. I wish that more British reporters had gone into the streets with 3ID men such as Sgt Darren Swain, a no-nonsense soldier from Alabama who is loved in the Baghdad area his men call "Swainsville" because, off his own bat, he takes humvees out every morning to provide security at local schools.

More recently, American soldiers have been charged with the sensitive task of searching those who enter the Palace district of Baghdad. One Shi'ite mullah felt it a great dishonour to be searched. The soldier responsible, Captain Wolford, agreed to take him round the back of the building and search him in private. Once there, the mullah agreed to be searched. Captain Wolford refused then to search him - the agreement to comply was enough. The gentlemanly approach much pleased the mullah.

It is because of this kind of sensitivity that the Americans have slowly and quietly achieved the intelligence triumph that led to the discovery and killing of the sons of Saddam Hussein.

• Jonathan Foreman is film critic of The New York Post


there is the artical for you.

as for me i am with budanski

[spier]

Why don't you go back to harrassing people trying to cross your bridge?

Plus, I love how your expertise on Armalite weapons surpasses those who use them. M4's and M16A4's got great feedback after use in Iraq, aside from lack of stopping power.The M16A4's got good feedback, including their "stopping power"(whoever came up with that phrase should be shot). The M4 had some difficulties with hitting targets at long range, and it jammed a lot. That might be the reason why SF's of other countries use the Canadian C8 instead.

Yeah love the AK5, funny how it looks just like an FNC. Yeah, gosh, it might be because it is a modified license built FNC. Maybe.. Noticed how much the M249 look like the belgian minimi? Or how similar the M240 is to the FN MAG? Or how similar the 120mm gun on the Abrams is similar to the German Rheinmetall 120mm? Or how similar half the Mp5n is to the, ehm, Mp5n? And so forth. Does that mean that the weapons are inferior to domestically produced weapons?

The US military? Nothing exceptional, like for example the German WW2 military. But still good.

[warchild1/27scout]

walle. i'd say if our most left wing communist sympathiser member james gave you the verbal toby kieth boot in the ass i'd say your not welcome. you make james look like donald rumsfeld driving a tank through downtown baghdad. rofl

[hood]

"...deliverying a heavy dose of vitamin tank." - The Daily Show

[ibstolidude]

incidently the majority of "stoppping" issues when shooting dudes is really a result of the US ammunition choice not the only weapon itself

[spier]

incidently the majority of "stoppping" issues when shooting dudes is really a result of the US ammunition choice not the only weapon itselfYeah, like in Somalia where they used 7.62 Black tip ammo against personell. Unless you are talking about the M855, which would automatically exclude you from continuing this debate.

[ibstolidude]

please enlighten me as to why " talking about the M855, which would automatically exclude you from continuing this debate"

[spier]

please enlighten me as to why " talking about the M855, which would automatically exclude you from continuing this debate"First, which bullets were you talking about?

[He219]

The term 'stopping power' is a misnomer commonly used in handgun applications. The proper application would be Wound Ballistics (http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm). Energy Transfer and other Ballistic references are jargon to be used within their proper context.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/M855.gif
m855 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m855.htm)

I believe the 'Black tip' reference is the standard 7.62 NATO AP M61 muniton.

[ibstolidude]

there has been some debate in recent times about the effectiveness of the steel core penatrators and "energy dump"
this would also include the differences between the 5.56 ball used prior to the a2 v/s current.

[Trigger]

but many military scholars and analysts are not terribly impressed with the quality of the u.s.' military.
That's because those pencil ****s (that includes YOU) haven't had to face the U.S. military. Be afraid, be very afraid. :slap:

[spier]

there has been some debate in recent times about the effectiveness of the steel core penatrators and "energy dump"
this would also include the differences between the 5.56 ball used prior to the a2 v/s current.My first post originally included a sarcastic remark regarding that steel penetrator, but I thought the comedy value would be higher if you mentioned it yourself. You might want to take a look at the site He219 linked to, this is the old 5.56 used in the A1:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg
and this is the new one used in the A2:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg
But do you have anything to back up your argument?

[ibstolidude]

wow you found a website -& I have set no argument yet...
but since you are soo eager to disprove that which I have yet to state, go for it..
I hope you have more evidence...
I love when people are soo eager to argue, they don't even care what the arguement is.

that is a sarcastic remark; but I guess the value would have been higher if I let you figure that out for yourself.
in hindsight what is the point - you are too busy proving yourself to have a conversation about it with

[usa320]

Someone explain to walle that

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/whocares3.jpg

[Ballistic]

Am I hearing this right? The US military fighting man isn't worth his salt?! Did you really say that Kashyyk?? Where you been boy in a hole? If it wasn't for the US Military all you Euro Trash would be speaking german and goose stepping to the ovens.The French..do we even need to go there? They folded faster than superman on laundry day in two wars! The Britts I have respect for..at least they join the fight and stay with it.Everyone else sends token forces just so they can say "Hey we're doing out part".As for the topic starter..to each his own..but if you swedes are burying equipment and dragging it behind apcs..you need to rethink your crazy ways!!As for world domination,just relax guys we'll treat you right.

I hope by the particular comment highlighted you didnt just **** on the Australians.

[usa320]

hey...i wont allow the Aussies to be shat on...

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Or for that matter New Zealand's contribution.

[usa320]

His OWN poll made him look like an ass

rofl rofl rofl rofl

[Seiyuuki]

From D-Day by Stephen E. Ambrose:

"The U.S. Army's infantry divisions were not elite, by definition, but they had some outstanding characteristics. Although they were made up, primarily, of conscripted troops, there was a vast difference between American draftees and their German counterparts (not to mention the Ost battalions). The American Selective Service System was just that, selective. One-third of the men called to service were rejected after physical examinations, making the average draftee brighter, healthier, and better educated than the average American. He was twenty-six years old, five feet eight inches tall, weighed 144 pounds, had a thirty-three-and-a-half-inch chest, and a thirty-on-inch waist. After thirteen weeks of basic training, he’d gained seven pounds (and converted many of his original pounds from fat to muscle) and added at least an inch to his chest. Nearly half the draftees were high-school graduates; one in ten had some college. As Geoffrey Perret puts it in his history of the U.S. Army in World War II, “These were the best-educated enlisted men of any army in history.” [...]

The ordinary infantry divisions of the British army were another matter. They had been in barracks since the British Expeditionary Force retreated from the Continent in June 1940. The ordinary soldier was not as well educated or as physically fit as his American counterpart. Superficial discipline - dress, saluting, etc. - was much better than among the GIs, but real discipline, taking and executing orders, was slack. The British War Office had been afraid to impose discipline too strictly in a democratic army on the odd notion that it might dampen the fighting spirit of the men in the ranks.

Those British soldiers who were veterans had been badly beaten by the Wehrmacht in 1940; their overseas mates had surrendered to an inferior Japanese army in Singapore in February 1941, to an inferior German army in Tobruk, Libya, in June 1942, and again to an inferior German force on the Greek island of Leros in November 1943. The one British victory in the war, at El Alamein in November 1942, had been won over an undersupplied, outgunned, and outmanned Afrika Korps. In pursuing the defeated Afrika Korps into Tunisia, as in the ensuing campaigns in Sicily and Italy, the British Eighth Army had not displayed much of a killer instinct.

The Germans who fought against the British often expressed their surprise at the way in which British troops would do only what was expected of them, no more. They found it remarkable that the British would abandon a pursuit to brew up their tea, and even more remarkable that British troops would surrender when their ammunition ran low, when their fuel ran out, or when they were encircle. Gen. Bernard Law Montgomery, commander of the Eighth Army, wrote his superior, Chief of the Imperial General Staff Field Marshal Alan Brooke: “The trouble with our British lads is that they are not killers by nature.”

One reason for the shortcomings of World War II British army was inferior weaponry. British tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms were not as good as those of their enemies, or of their American partners. Another reason was the way in which the poison of pacifism had eaten into the souls of British youth after the catastrophes of the Somme, Flanders, and elsewhere in World War I. In addition, senior officers were survivors of the trenches. They had nightmares from the experience. They mistrusted offensive action in general, direct frontal assaults even more. What their generals had ordered them to do, charge across no-man’s-land, they would not. They knew it was stupid, futile, suicidal. Their mistake was in thinking that the lessons of World War I applied to all offensive action. [...]

In part, Montgomery’s caution was simple realism. Britain had reached her manpower limits. The British army could not afford heavy losses; there was no way to make them up. But it was precisely this point that infuriated Americans. In their view, the way to minimize casualties was to take risks to win the war as soon as possible, not to exercise caution in an offensive action.
Something else irritated the Americans - the supercilious contempt for all things American that some British officers could not help displaying, and the assumed superiority of British techniques, methods, tactics, and the leadership that almost all British officers shared and many of them displayed. Put directly, most British officers regarded the Americans as neophytes in war who were blessed with great equipment in massive quantities and superbly conditioned but inexperienced enlisted men. Such officers felt it was their duty, their destiny, to train and teach the Yanks. Field Marshal Sir Harold Alexander wrote to Brooke from Tunisia about the Americans: “They simply do not know their job as soldiers and this is the case from the highest to the lowest, from the general to the private soldier. Perhaps the weakest link of all is the junior leader, who just does not lead, with the result that their men don’t really fight.”

Another major problem the Allies faced at the end of 1943 was precisely the fact that they were allies. “Give me allies to fight against,” said Napoleon, pointing to an obvious truth. The Yanks got on British nerves; the Limeys got on American nerves. This was exacerbated by proximity; as the American army in Britain began to grow in anticipation of the invasion, the friction increased. According to the British, the trouble with the Yanks was that they were “overpaid, oversexed, and over here.” The GIs responded that the trouble with the Limeys was they were underpaid (which was true) and undersexed, which tended to be true as British girls naturally gravitated to the GIs, who had money to throw around and were billated in villages rather than segregated in isolated barracks.

In Tunisia, Sicily, and Italy the Tommies and the GIs has fought side by side, but there had been too much friction, too little functioning as a team. If they were going to penetrate the Atlantic Wall, they were going to have to learn to work together. One indication that they could do so was the designation of the force. Back in 1917, when members of the American Expeditionary Force were asked what AEF stood for, the Yanks replied, “After England Failed.” But in 1943 AEF stood for Allied Expeditionary Force."

[Gordon]

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg

I don't think you'd like your permanent cavity if you got hit by any caliber round ... of US origin or not.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

And your point is?.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

That was aimed at seiyuuki.

[James]

walle. i'd say if our most left wing communist sympathiser member james gave you the verbal toby kieth boot in the ass i'd say your not welcome. you make james look like donald rumsfeld driving a tank through downtown baghdad. rofl

Is this me? :D :D :D

Do I seem like Rummy? I didn't mean to.

[James]

Warchild,

You made me laugh out loud. I am neither left wing (I don't think so, anyway), nor a communist. I hate to admit it in public, but I voted for GWB in the 2000 elections! I won't make that mistake again. Perhaps Ralph Nader next time. What do you think? Howard Dean?

[Pakrat]

Nope..wouldn't **** on the Aussies or New Zealanders..met some in the Iraq..very professional soldiers..The Polish get a thumbs up as well.It's just the rest of the world that doesn't get involved that gets me riled up.I may have missed a few countries along the way..when you only send a token force,what does that say about your country?We're with you but not really.

[a. enders]

Wow...It's the traditional Fratboy chant of "YOU SUCK!WE RULE!" Amazing.How's about this,instead of bitcinhg about the number ofpictures or discussions about the US military on this site,SUBMIT SOME OF YOUR OWN ABOUT THE SWEDISH FORCES **** FOR BRAINS!

Don't be a whiny bitch just becuase you're too dumb to do something that simple.

The Aussies,Kiwis,ISraelis,and Poles have done the same.Hell,I think there is another Swede on here who INFORMS other people.

****in' idiot.

[Vance]

Walle seems to have dissapeared. rofl

[spier]

wow you found a website -& I have set no argument yet...Hm, I dunno:

incidently the majority of "stoppping" issues when shooting dudes is really a result of the US ammunition choice not the only weapon itselfAs I said, i don't know, but to me that sounds like you have just stated that there exists bullets in the US inventory incapable of doing their job. Which sounds like an argument to me. Knowing that only the bullet that has had some complaints(not founded in reality for the most part..) is the M855, then I thought it would be best to end the argument before it really started. And knowing your previous posts, it would have been dull.

[ibstolidude]

depending on your view of incapable one could make the debate:
and it may be dull, but atleast it is based in fact, which is more than can be said for most.

"Wounding Effects of the U.S. Military M193 (M16A1) and M855 (M16A2) Bullet Cartridges

Exaggerated descriptions of the wounding effects of the M16 rifle bullet flourish as great works of urban lore. One fable describes a bullet that tumbles end-over-end in flight as soon as it exits the muzzle of the rifle. Another legend provides a dramatic account of an unstable, super-high velocity bullet that tumbles and chews its way through flesh like a buzz saw. Although there appears to be a tinge of half-truth behind these entertaining and awe-inspiring mythical tales, these stories do not represent an accurate description of the wounding characteristics of the M16 bullet.

When the M16 cartridge is fired and the bullet is propelled down the bore, the bore’s rifling imparts a gyroscopic spin to the bullet. This gyroscopic rotation is needed to maintain point forward stabilization of the bullet as it flies through the air. This method of bullet stabilization is identical to the rotational spin applied to a football when thrown by a quarterback (American football).

The Earth’s gaseous atmosphere is approximately 400 times less dense than the body's soft tissues. When the M16 bullet strikes and plows into the body, the rotational spin that stabilized its flight through the air is insufficient to maintain its stability as it flies through dense tissue. The bullet typically penetrates point forward for approximately 4-5 inches before it begins to seek a state of stability in the body.

The bullet’s pointed shape makes it heavier at its base than its nose, producing a center of gravity that is located aft of its longitudinal centerline. When the bullet hits the body and penetrates, the bullet attempts to rotate 180 degrees around its center of gravity to achieve a base forward orientation. This backwards orientation is the bullet’s stable position in tissue because it places the center of gravity forward.

As the bullet yaws through 90 degrees and is traveling sideways through flesh, the stress of tissue resistance to bullet passage can overpower the physical integrity of the bullet. The bullet has a groove around its midsection called a cannelure. The purpose of the cannelure is to permit the mouth of the cartridge case to be crimped tightly against the bullet shank to hold it firmly to the case. The cannelure weakens the structural integrity of the bullet's copper jacket.

At distances of 100 yards and under, when the bullet hits the body and yaws through 90 degrees, the stresses on the bullet cause the leading edge to flatten, extruding lead core out the open base, just before it breaks apart at the cannelure. The portion of the bullet forward of the cannelure, the nose, usually remains in one piece and retains about 60 percent of the bullet's original weight. The portion of the bullet aft of the cannelure, the base, violently disintegrates into multiple lead core and copper jacket fragments, which penetrate up to 3-inches radially outward from the wound track. The fragments perforate and weaken the surrounding tissues allowing the subsequent temporary cavity to forcibly stretch and rip open the multiple small wound tracks produced by the fragments. The resulting wound is similar to one produced by a commercial expanding bullet used for varmint hunting, however the maximum tissue damage produced by the military bullet is located at a greater penetration depth.

(The increased wounding effects produced by bullet fragmentation were not well understood until the mid-1980’s. Therefore the wounding effects of the original M16 rifle bullet were not an intentional U.S. military design characteristic.)

At distances between 100-200 yards the bullet commonly breaks in half at the cannelure forming two large penetrating fragments, the nose and base.

At distances beyond 200 yards the bullet usually remains intact due to velocity decay. It simply yaws 180 degrees to penetrate backwards through the body.

Both the M193 and M855 bullets demonstrate similar terminal performance as described above, when fired from rifles fitted with a 20-inch or longer barrel.

Shooting the M193 or M855 from a rifle with a barrel length less than 14.5-inches produces insufficient muzzle velocity to achieve the terminal performance described above. A rifle fitted with a 14.5-inch barrel is adequate for close-quarters battle. For engagements anticipated at greater than room distance but less than 100 yards, a rifle fitted with a 16.5-inch barrel should be employed to ensure sufficient velocity.

The older 55-grain M193 (M16A1) cartridge is not sensitive to rifling twist rate and can be fired in rifles with 1:12, 1:9 and 1:7 rates of twist. However, the newer M855 (M16A2) cartridge is best used with a rifling twist rate of 1:7 or 1:9. When the M855 is fired in a rifle with a slower rate of twist the longer 62-grain bullet can yaw up to 70 degrees in free trajectory through the air, substantially degrading accuracy."

Hmm that could be very interesting what is the barrel length of the M4?
well that would be 14.5 inches - could that perhaps be pose a problem when mixing that weapon system with the m855 ammunition? Interesting that the complaints from 20in bar. weapons were rare during US military AAR's.

From the same site from which was posted the wound ballistics diagrams
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm
if I'm not mistaken those diagrams were added to support the information in this article..
but I guess you were too busy arguing to actually read..
or are they only a valid source for your side of a debate?

as you stated" My first post originally included a sarcastic remark regarding that steel penetrator, but I thought the comedy value would be higher if you mentioned it yourself. You might want to take a look at the site"

[spier]

5.56mm vs. 7.62 Lethality ~ 5.56mm ?definitely answered the mail? and ?as long as the shots were in the
head or chest they went down? were typical quotes from several Marines; many who were previously very
skeptical of 5.56mm ammunition. Most of the interviewed Marines who reported targets not going down
and/or could still fight were referencing non-lethal shots to the extremities. There were reports of targets
receiving shots in the vitals and not going down. These stories need not be described, but are of the rare
superhuman occurrences that defy logic and caliber of round. Some Marines did ask about getting the
heaver-grained 5.56mm rounds, up to 77 grain if possible.
- Field Report

Marine Corps Systems Command Liaison Team
Central Iraq

20 April to 25 April 2003 Look around SFTT for the rest.

[ibstolidude]

And the standard issued infantry rifle in the marine is what length barrell?
20 inches...I am not aware of compalaint of the "stopping power" of this system.. but

the quote was "M4's and M16A4's got great feedback after use in Iraq, aside from lack of stopping power."

The complaints (quite a few during afghanistan ) about "stopping" power have come from the M4 series.
It is not a problem that is strictly inherint to the M4 design but a combination of ammuinition choice and barrell length...
There is a large amount of information available about the M855 ammunition and it's development for use in the (FN) SAW M249 and how the m16a2 adopted this new ammo and rifling...there are also many sources that discuss the topic of the low velocity implicit in using M855 out of the short barrelled M4 platform.

[warchild1/27scout]

james i was just messing with this walle guy. you seem like a good enough guy to me."but that does'nt mean we're going to take long showers in the wee hours of the morning together." lol clint eastwood heartbreak ridge. :D

[spier]

And the standard issued infantry rifle in the marine is what length barrell?
20 inches...I am not aware of compalaint of the "stopping power" of this system.. but

the quote was "M4's and M16A4's got great feedback after use in Iraq, aside from lack of stopping power."

The complaints (quite a few during afghanistan ) about "stopping" power have come from the M4 series.
It is not a problem that is strictly inherint to the M4 design but a combination of ammuinition choice and barrell length...
There is a large amount of information available about the M855 ammunition and it's development for use in the (FN) SAW M249 and how the m16a2 adopted this new ammo and rifling...there are also many sources that discuss the topic of the low velocity implicit in using M855 out of the short barrelled M4 platform.I thought M16's of the A2 kind was standard in the entire US military, at least the Army and Navy?

True, the M4 is no sniper rifle in terms of range, but it isn't supposed to be either. It is meant for MOUT, not long range engagements. And when it is used in MOUT, it is good; when used to take potshots at 300 meters, it is bad. Also, lack of long range lethality from short barrelled carbines isn't exctly a newsflash. The m193 had the same problem, but since carbines is a "new thing"(on a large scale anyway) then the lack of lethality was mostly blamed on the new "armour piercing" bullets. Note that a M855 that fail to fragment WILL do more damage than a M193 that fail to fragement.

[ibstolidude]

I cannot speak for the navy's service weapon..in the army it is mixof the m16a2 and the m4 with more and more units (non SS and CSS) moving to the M4.

I'm not sure I understand your post the m855 and M193 are ball not AP?

That M855 that does not fragment causes more damage than the wider/fatter m193 that does not fragment? please explain - at many lengths the M193 has better penatration not regarding yaw or fragmentation.

[spier]

I cannot speak for the navy's service weapon..in the army it is mixof the m16a2 and the m4 with more and more units (non SS and CSS) moving to the M4.

I'm not sure I understand your post the m855 and M193 are ball not AP?

That M855 that does not fragment causes more damage than the wider/fatter m193 that does not fragment? please explain - at many lengths the M193 has better penatration not regarding yaw or fragmentation.
The M4 Carbine achieves over 80% commonality with the M16A2 Rifle and will replace all M3 .45 caliber submachine guns and selected M9 pistols and M16 rifle series. That says it all really, it is meant to replace an SMG and a pistol for the most part, and only a few M16's.

I know the M855 isn't AP, but there are some people who think it is, therefore I used the quotation marks.

The M855 is longer than the M193, why it does more damage when it tumbles doesn't need any further explanation.

It is true the M193 penetrate slightly better at ranges below 250 meters, but above that range it is the opposite, since the M855 retains its velocity better than the M193.

[ibstolidude]

you are definatively are not very familiar with the US army..."replace a few M16s" ..

have you not looked at the infantry, cav, SOF, abn & aaslt units..just a few m16s..hmm sure okay just a few..

replace the M3 - the grease gun..that is funny - I would be interested where that quote came from - I have not heard anyone talk about the M3 in a Loooooong time; funny to hear it brought up again.

ofcourse M193 does not penetrate better at the longer ranges, M855 was developed for a further distance shooting for use in the M249 as people were hesitant to replace the 7.62 M60's. - that was the entire point - using different ammo in the shorter 14.5 inch barrell M4 coud correct the problem of the lack of "stopping power" at distance and lessen the need for the re-emergence of the use of M14's and other alternatives that infantry units have adapted in the past years. There is no question that the M855 (or M193) is not the ammunition of choice for the M4, that choice of the M855 ammunition and the M4 is what has created that situation that has lead to the complaint. It is still the weapon system I use and if given the choice WOULD use, but having an understanding of ammunition; there are other types that are much better suited.
To many people have been apt to blame the percieved "stopping" problem on the M4 design when.

ohh and - The M193 is fatter and wider; why it does more damage when it tumbles doesn't need any further explanation. each have different charecteristics under different conditions
as regards to the ballistic wound profiles at different distances try here, a fellow reloader and friend referred me to the below link. the info is much more concise than I could ever try and convey.

http://ammo-oracle.com/#fbispec

[usa320]

walle seems to have disappeared.

rofl rofl

[spier]

you are definatively are not very familiar with the US army..."replace a few M16s" ..

have you not looked at the infantry, cav, SOF, abn & aaslt units..just a few m16s..hmm sure okay just a few..

replace the M3 - the grease gun..that is funny - I would be interested where that quote came from - I have not heard anyone talk about the M3 in a Loooooong time; funny to hear it brought up again.

ofcourse M193 does not penetrate better at the longer ranges, M855 was developed for a further distance shooting for use in the M249 as people were hesitant to replace the 7.62 M60's. - that was the entire point - using different ammo in the shorter 14.5 inch barrell M4 coud correct the problem of the lack of "stopping power" at distance and lessen the need for the re-emergence of the use of M14's and other alternatives that infantry units have adapted in the past years. There is no question that the M855 (or M193) is not the ammunition of choice for the M4, that choice of the M855 ammunition and the M4 is what has created that situation that has lead to the complaint. It is still the weapon system I use and if given the choice WOULD use, but having an understanding of ammunition; there are other types that are much better suited.
To many people have been apt to blame the percieved "stopping" problem on the M4 design when.

ohh and - The M193 is fatter and wider; why it does more damage when it tumbles doesn't need any further explanation. each have different charecteristics under different conditions
as regards to the ballistic wound profiles at different distances try here, a fellow reloader and friend referred me to the below link. the info is much more concise than I could ever try and convey.

http://ammo-oracle.com/#fbispecThe M3 quote came from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16.htm FYI, the US military used the M3 during the first Gulf War.

As I said, the M4 is good for what it is intended for; MOUT and CQB. It was after all meant to be a defence weapon. When used offensively SF use the Mark 262 Mod 0 anyway. Hell, most engagements during the Iraq conflict happened at distances below 30 meters(true), so even if used offensively then it would prove to be capable.

And I am still puzzled as to why you referred me to a link using FBI's handgun cartridge requirements to test how well a rifle round will perform..

[ibstolidude]

(I would not use the model from the link you posted as the information is way way way out of date. - (referring to the SOPMOD kit - "The procurement/fielding of the Accessory Kit (Phase I) is nearly complete" way way way oput of date and to the issueing of the M4 - "Infantry personnel receiving the M4 include platoon leaders, platoon sergeants, radio-telephone operators, and mortar gunners." - way way way way out of date - simply look at the photos in this site and you can see the majority of the infantry with the M4)- the M4 is the primary weapon of the 82nd & 101st division, SOF, various other units both line and support.
- your lack of knowledge of the US Military is evident (no harm there, nothing wrong with that; I lack detailed information about say the British military), but your argument so far has been against me not the topic...supported by your lattest post of the development of the "Mark 262 Mod 0" ammunition. - unless you just ran across it in internet searches and posted with out reading the details - but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

**Incidently, the development of the Mark 262 Mod 0 ammunition was to do the lack of terminal ballistics, mr research, why BECAUSE the M855 is the wrong ammunition for the M4. the higher grain (77) newer ammunition needed to be developed to offset the shorter barrell** - AND incidenlty is NOT issued across the board to the US Army Special Forces ( unless things have changes drastically, and quietly, in the last 9 months - not that it couldn't have happened for Iraq, granted nothing supports that theory, to include mates.)
BY posting that you have basically admitted that the US army Special Forces recognized that the M855 is not the ammuntion of choice for the M4. thanks for helping my point - I would not have brought up new ammunition development, but since you choose to, OK - thanks. I would have preferred to show the failures in use of the M855 with the M4.

And again if you had taken the time to read the sight I posted in detail; it has excellant ballistic information provided and developed by the 2 of the major recognized authorities on testing in the US (although controversy surrounds each of these) , which incidently includes combat surgeon Col. Martin L. Fackler, MD (USA Medical Corps, retired) & the FBI Firearms Training Institute, incidently it was FAckler's diagrams of wound ballistics THAT YOU POSTED (and someone else did also) earlier in this thread..
Actually if you read the whole page you would notice that the major source of the information is from Fackler's, the only 2 paragraghs that refer the FBI's requirements for penatration, as a result of their testing, are in answer to if the ammo meets those requirements - incidently the FBI's penetration requirements are not limited to handguns..but after all what do the forensic and firearms experts at the FBI know anyway? The reason for their penetration requirements are the same REGARDLESS of weapon type (handgun v/s rifle)...if you do not penetrate deep enough you are more likley to fail to damage the Central Nervous System or cause the vascular damage required for enough blood loss (20%) to induce a state of shock and unltimately death - and that principal applies regarless of handgun or rifle.


The other half of the question you failed to read is "Do the M855 and M193 fragement the same?" -

The source posted is an excellant consolidate source of information that even provides it's sources/resources for further details..

You have expressed only a desire to argue me rather than debate the ammunition choice of the M855 not being the best choice for the M4.
Unless that changes, it is waste of time..
good luck & have good one.

[James]

I cannot speak for the navy's service weapon.

The regular Navy uses the M16-A2 and the M-14. Submariners all use M-16s, and the surface fleet uses one or the other.

[ibstolidude]

Thanks JAMES - I have very little knowledge of the navy...

just a questions, do they really issue m16's to all the enlisted (give or take) on a submarine? I guess it makes sense in an emergency but I never thought about before.