J Ruddy

How many Januaries does Finland have in a year?

Isn't that what the Free market is all about, making a quick buck and looking after #1? Sounds familiar... hmmm... :confused: Oh, I'm grumpy and a trolling for a ban... Oh, I'm grumpy and a trolling for a ban... I think Steve's gonna say Hey Ruddy go away Oh, I'm grumpy and a trolling for a ban!

wtf? Can't we all just get along? There's three ways to deal with the impending 'crisis' with Syria. 1) Diplomatic Solution - ya right, that would take intelligence, understanding and 'kid gloves' 2) Multilateral (UN) action - About as likely as G.W. Bush winning a Nobel prize. 3) Unilateral Action - Yippy!!! the U.S.A. goes in and kicks some butt, billionaires get richer on the spoils of war (rebuilding program) the US expands its influence in the region and gains the upper hand on Russia. And it only cost a few hundred ordinary lives. (Oh, plus a few thousand Syrian civilians, but they don't count) You can understand why a government that is run by Billionaires and Lawyers would choose option 3. Where's JFK when ya need him...

Come the New Year then Time I'll have to go Haiku on all ye maggots! :mad:

Ho Ho Ho :mad:

I am looking for good resources on the Canadian and Polish actions in France between August 6 and August 21st 1944. I am looking for detailed information on the battles which Canadians or Poles fought (Hill 262 for example) including unit details & battle maps. If anyone has anything they can suggest, on-line or in print, I would be very appreciative of the advice. [Edit - I thought I'd best put the year (1944) in for n00bs like Sergei...] :mad: [ December 14, 2005, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ]

I'm Back after a 'personal' day taken for Christmas shopping... :mad: WTH? There's nothing but a bunch of wankers and geriatrics out there! It's Unbelievable how hard it is to get coal this time of year, what the hell am I supposed to put in my kids stocking? BTW - One of you Maggots should try to Post something before this thread drops to page 2! :mad:

I agree mD. Although it does put a strain on your enemy's logistics system to have to deal with wounded, if you capture the wounded, it puts a strain on your own logistics system instead... I think the real reasons to go to 5.56 from 7.62 for Nato standard issue were weight and recoil. The average Joe doesn't want 20 ft-lbs of recoil kicking back on them. They also don't want a 10lb rifle and another 4 lbs in spare ammo. It is my opinion, though, that the powers that be went a little too far. We should say 'Sorry Charlie' to NATO and assuming we are going to retain the C7, C8 and C9 for any length of time, we should contract Diamaco to refit them to 6.8 SPC. I also think it is crazy that the Northern Rangers are still using .303..! We really need to get them modern 7.62 rifles suitable for arctic use. I have other idea's for the Northern Rangers, but this probably isn't the place and time to discuss it...

Ive shot large animals through the lungs. I didn't take home movies though. I have noticed that I have never seen a lartge animal go strait down from using arrows (low velocity in comparison to bullets). </font>

er.. isn't that what I said? The highest percentage chance of achieving an incapacitating wound is achieved through aiming for the centre of mass. If the average shooter tries specifically for a kill-shot (Head/Upper Torso) they have a much lower chance of hitting anything vital (or anything at all) which reduces the chance of killing/incapacitating the target. What I'm saying is that when you shoot for the Centre of Mass, you aren't specifically trying to wound or kill the target, simply stop it from shooting back via total incapacitation. I believe that aiming for C.o.M. increases the chance of achieving this versus trying for a clean 'kill shot'. You won't be disciplined for incapacitating the enemy in a combat situation, so I don't understand how you believe that soldiers are trained specifically to "shoot to kill". Hunters, like myself, aim for the sure kill zone, which is not the centre of mass on Deer and Moose. We sacrifice the odds of hitting the target in order to improve the odds of a clean kill. That is shooting to kill.

mD I think if you dig into it, you'll find Canuckian grunts are trained to incapacitate. I think this is where the 'shoot to wound' phrase comes from. I know I've even used that phrase myself to stir it up on another board... But we don't shoot to wound. We don't specifically try not to kill someone. You know as well as I that we are trained to aim for the centre of mass - the abdomen, someone shot in the thigh, guts or chest is likely to be killed or even more likely, incapacitated. If the average grunt were to shoot to kill, he'd be aiming for key vitals: heart & brain. Of course, for the average grunt, aiming for a head shot (or even a high chest shot) has a lower percentage chance of hitting a vital than a centre of mass shot. Someone shot in the arm, shoulder/collar bone area is more likely to not be incapacitated/killed than someone shot in the guts, liver, kidney, hip, thigh, lung, stomache etc... That's why you don't specifically shoot to kill. Snipers and marksmen are a different breed and are well known for hitting the 2 main vitals.

[Hopping from high horse onto soap box] [Removes Political Correctness Filter] The 5.56mm NATO is a varmint round. No hunter in his right mind would use 5.56 (223) for anything larger than a Woodchuck / Fox or possibly a Coyote / Small Wolf. The very light bullet has very little stopping power - you need grains of mass in the bullet for shock and penetration and enough velocity to give the bullet adequate energy to transfer into the target. When the Washington sniper jerk was popping people with 5.56, I declared to the universe that he wasn't a hunter and was probably some ex Army grunt. No frigging way a hunter would go after 150lb targets with such a small round. Anyways, I digress... 7.62 NATO (308 Win) is one of the best all around rounds for North American big game. With the various loads it can be used for anything from Prairie Dogs to full sized Bull Moose. OK - it is a little light for the big Alaskan swamp donkeys, but IMHO no other short action round can claim to be as versatile. The only other round that comes close to de-throning 7.62NATO is the old .30-06 round that the US used in WWII. The Major problem with .30-06 is it is a long action round - meaning in an auto-loader the breach must travel farther to cycle, reducing RoF and increasing the chance of jam. (I know - there's the great 7mm mags, the killer WSM's, 375H&H Mag etc.., but for an all around round it has to be 'easy' to shoot.) Which brings us to the new and exciting 6.8 Rem SPC. It's Short Action It's 6.8mm It's around 115 grains It's very good, ballistically, out to 300 metres I think it makes an ideal White Tail Deer round, which also (by default) makes it an ideal 'person' round. Of course the average deer hunter isn't carrying 80 rounds of ammo on them, or engaging targets behind cinder block walls, but 6.8 spc is an interesting alternative for military use. To drop an unarmoured White Tail Deer, you want to have over 1000 ft-lbs of energy to transfer into the target. If you follow this link, you can see that an average load of the 6.8 spc carries 1000 ft-lb of energy out to 300 yards. (R68 = 6.8SPC, R308 = 7.62 Nato, R223 = 5.56) Compare basic loads for 5.56 Rem (223) to 7.62 Nato (308 Win) to 6.8 Rem SPC The other factor in energy transfer is the diameter of the round (mushrooming and deforming rounds are designed to maximise this). I think most military rounds are still FMJ, so it is simple to see that (for similarily constructed bullets) a 115 grain 6.8mm (.267") round will be more efficient in transferring energy to the target than a 55 grain 5.56mm (.22") round. The complaints are that 7.62 Nato kicks too hard and is too heavy/bulky for the average foot-slogger - and 5.56 can't take down the targets - so 6.8SPC is the compromise. It's lighter/more manageable than 7.62 and more powerful than 5.56. For 150-200 lb targets, S.P.C. is the round for me! [Replaces Political Correctness Filter] [Leaps from Soap Box onto high horse and rides off into the sunset]

The killed soldier was in the Rear Sentry position, which is partially exposed (I think it is one of the rear hatches). I suspect this'd be like standing in your SUV with your upper torso out the sun roof. How the hell are you going to airbag that? See below (courtesy of DND) for soldiers in the rear hatch position. [ December 02, 2005, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ]

:mad: I sincerely wish you all a crappy and miserable Friday and I hope you know that you will not be in my thoughts this holiday season! :mad:

Does anyone know if the US Infantry are still issued with good quantities of M72 LAWs? I think they were used as bunker busters in Vietnam, obviouisly not with the effectivenes of a Javelin or TOW, but I'm just curious if the 'Stryker Company' has oodles of these puppies at their disposal. Max range is 1000 meters, but effective range is only 200 meters so I don't think they's be appropriate in the sniper scenario, I'm just curious if they're used much in Iraq and if ther'll be many in the game. [Edit - Obviously they are not ATGM's, I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here...]

You're as bad as mD for putting words into my mouth. Children have been Decapitated by airbags. Note the link to being unrestrained and in the front seat. You can't bury your head in the sand, in low speed accidents, these things do more damage than good. The problem is that in North America, airbags are designed to work on unrestrained adults. This means the Airbag is required to expand faster and with a larger volume than the UK Airbags (Over double the volume). So if you want to protect unrestrained soldiers in the back of a LAV, you will need to use the US style high power bags. Unfortunately the high power airbags also carry a higher risk of injury. Plus the airbags in your SUV are designed to protect in the case of a frontal collision. (Mama van side Curtains are designed with side impacts in mind) Neither of these are going to be much use if you are unrestrained and your vehicle rolls. Have you been in a car when an airbag deploys? Fine white powder goes everywhere, you are momentarily blinded by it. The noise of the expansion is disorienting. It's almost like being flash-banged. Imagine the LAV is hit in the front with a 25mm round and the airbags deploy. There's nothing like a little extra help when you are trying to debus/deploy/dismount So I stand by my comments. Unless someone shows me a system that would protect soldiers in a roll over that wouldn't go off at the wrong time, and wouldn't blind/disorient them I think this is a dead end. Active suspension, lower center of G and wider track are the way to go.

Airbags assume that your are strapped in to a specific location in the vehicle. You can't make this kind of assumption in a LAV compartment. If you are leaning forward or to the side in your SUV when the front airbag deploys there is an increased chance of death by broken neck or decapitation by the airbag. You can't safely put airbags (as they exist now) inside an LAV. I think for safety's sake, the focus should be on active stability for the LAV suspension system to help keep it from rolling so easily. Of course, IMHO, the whole high speed brick on wheels concept leaves a lot to be desired. I wonder if they could design a faster vehicle with a higher centre of gravity... Kind of like a Turbo Stryker AGS...

I don't think it is that expensive when looked at from a pure logistics point of view. How much does it cost to train a single infanteer? Salary, Kit, Instructors, Food & Housing (while on course), Insurance, plus all the support staff, course developers, etc... all add up pretty quickly. I think $100,000 is probably not to far off the cost to train a single infanteer to combat readyness. When you stop to think that snipers typically target sr NCO's or officers (when given the choice) the costs might triple (or more). How many infanteers would the sniper likely take-out before he was captured or killed if only 'cheap' small arms weapons and tactics are used against him? Plus what tactical advantage do you get from taking out the sniper? Maybe you have a truck convoy that is being held up until the sector is clear and there's a company 20km away who's effectiveness is seriously marginalized due to a lack of supplies. $100,000 might not be that expensive for taking out a sniper.

Dang! I thought it was Friday today... :mad: (That's gonna leave a mark)

TOW Bunker Buster Does anyone know if the US procures and deploys these? [ December 01, 2005, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ]

:mad: You, sir, are an ignoramus! :mad:

Did I forget to mention the Christmas Special?

Top 10 Reasons why Pee Wee Herman (Paul Reubens) > George W Bush :mad: - "If you hear the word of the day, scream real loud!" - Paul Reubens can stick to the script - Paul Reubens was in the Blues Brothers,Cheech & Chong's Next Movie & Nice Dreams, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Batman Returns, Mystery Men and The Nightmare Before Christmas. - "I know you are but what am I?" - Paul Reubens admits to enjoying pron and has a sizeable 'art' collection... - Paul Reubens had not one, but four guest appearances on "The Gong Show" - "Pee-wee's Playhouse" = $325,000 per episode, G.W.B $400,000 / year! - "That's so funny I forgot to laugh!" - Paul Reubens was Honorably discharged from the Marine Corps. - Paul Reubens doesn't eat kittens.

- Tasers suck

*burp*