The Complete Military History of France

[LORD-eX-Bu]

We use 50 cals to take out smaller equipment and *light* armor. I know, because I was trained to use a 50 cal, we mounted them om hmmwv's. Although they are illegal to use on personell, it does happen occasionaly. I don't have time to find it right now, but I remember when I was being trained with it, I was told that these do not perforate all kevlar.

What were you? Don't tell me you are another Spec Ops wannabe :w00t:

Pay attention to 3rd Infantry in Iraq right now, Abrams fighting vehicles engaging enemy soldiers with not only .50 cal but also with M242 Bushmaster 25mm cannon. Definately not illegal. By the way, if you were really told that about it not perforating kevlar they lied, and if you were really trained with that .50 cal that you claim you would know that any .50 Cal will tear kevlar to shreds with no problem.

I'll have to look, but from what I heard, they were hitting em with heavier shit than that.

Go ahead

Ok these guys were just casualy walking around for a very long time. Nobody is even sure of what they were intending to do, it didn't quite look like they were trying to get away, rather they were trying to look like badasses or who knows what. The guy who bled to death was shot in the feet from under a car. The guy who comitted suicide, well, he just comitted suicide.

Heh, as I said before, definately not casual. Take a look, they were taking cover behind vehicles once the police were able to get adequate firepower. Only reason why they were able to walk around like that for a while was because they layered that armor and even then, they could barely move.

I get what I know from my combat training.

From where? the French army?

BTW, you are way overestimating the 50 cal. I remember we had one trainee who got hit in the leg with one, they were actualy able to save his leg.

riiiiiiiight...:shifty: Did you throw the round at him?

 

[vampireuk]

French training:happy:

 

[AlphaWolf]

What were you? Don't tell me you are another Spec Ops wannabe :w00t:

Well, I would show you my DD-214, but it doesn't have any pictures so I don't think you would understand it (as well as sensitive information that I would rather not reveal). Instead you can look at this one.

I'll be honest, I am not a physics major or anything of the sort. I can't tell you anything about kevlar other than what I have been told. I have worn the same kind of kevlar that they are wearing on the battlefield in iraq right now, and let me tell you, it's some pretty heavy shit. The steel on an oil drum can't withstand even an m16 7.62mm, yet equaly thick kevlar can, and it's only made out of several layers of cloth. I can only guess what the shit that they are wearing can withstand. But, I realy doubt that small arms fire is going to do jack shit to it. I never said that the larger shit is illegal to use, but I was always told that it is illegal to use on personell.

Abrams fighting vehicles engaging enemy soldiers with not only .50 cal but also with M242 Bushmaster 25mm cannon.

LOL, you claim to know a lot but that is WAY OFF. M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles use the 25mm, NOT a damn M1 Abrams. Abrams is a tank, why would they put that on it? And to add to it, the Bradley uses an m240c, 7.62mm rounds, NOT a 50 cal. Please learn your shit before trying to correct me.

BTW, perhapse you could tell me why they do use a m240c instead of a 50 cal?

Now, the origional argument still remains however. The coalition casualties are low because iraq has extremely inferior weaponry. To be claiming that the media is lieing about it is...well...it makes me think you wear a tinfoil beanie.

 

[Talas]

So? I dont think the Iraqis just fired them because it was fun or because they wanted to look good defending themselves.

Uhm... as you can see Alpha, I have written "I DONT think". Well, since we all seem to be able to speak english you should now understand my confusion as to where exactly I said that I thought Iraqis should be able to look good defending themselves. So your:

You said they should be able to look good defending themselves. Think about that for a minute.

is complete nonsense. Excusez moi mon ami mais c´est fou.
hone:

Not even 50 caliber can penetrate the kevlar they use.

Well, this point has obviously become one to be discussed.

Simple, the iraq government under saddam (assuming that he is still alive), was giving direct orders to their citizens to pick up arms and fight. They did it several times for several days before we ever even thought about touching it. According to the geneva conventions, we had full permission to take it out after the first time they did it, let alone all of those other times.

This is no answer to my question. Mind me, it was rhetoric anyway. If they use propaganda, surely WE arent entitled to do so too. Where would the great difference be between us and them?

You don't even know what your talking about here. The "dead soldiers" were coming back for at least 4 years before the general opinion of the public was against the war. This war hasn't even been a week, and everybody and their dog knows that we have dead soldiers already (albeit very very few), yet 70% still support it.

Sorry pal, but the tonking incident in ´64 sparked the "american" pahse of the Vietnam War and there were protests right from the beginning. Dont forget that back then media werent as omnipresent as they are today. I am a student of history and media science believe me.

:blush:

yet 70% still support it.

Que senior? 70%? Maybe in Texas.
:getlost:

The ICC can demand to try bush or clinton all they want too, just like your favorite iraqi information minister is saying for them to do (btw, I hope you know that he lies his ass off). Know what they can do though? They can just tell the ICC to fuck off, and according to the ICCs own rules, it will do just that, because not us, nor iraq, has any treaties with the ICC.

Yup, but dont forget that Bush junior was the one who withdrew from the treaty that Clinton had signed. Same as the Kyoto treaty btw. It makes no sense? What makes sense then? The US? The UNO doesnt? Sorry, but thats the US megalomania that we have come to loathe.
:nuke:

Ok, "taliban warriors" like to kill 4000 people in world trade centers. Why shouldn't we tolerate this? And think about what the word "warrior" implies. Its definitely not synonamous with "civilian".

So? Whats your point? I kill your civilians and you kill mine? That surely cant be the logic. Of course one may not tolerate 9/11 but it doesnt mean that we can lash out any way we want.

Need I remind you that democratic values lead to the revolutionary war, democratic values lead to civil war which ended slavery, democratic values got us involved in the war to stop fascism. The list goes on.

Oh come on. Democratic values led to the end of slavery? Yes very true, but the same ones made it possible in the first place, at least in the US. Democratic values killed the indians bla bla bla. Its easy to hide behind democratic values, it is a great word. One has to interprete them right. And I dont think the US does that right now.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Uhm... as you can see Alpha, I have written "I DONT think". Well, since we all seem to be able to speak english

Obviously you need a little English lesson:

So? I dont think the Iraqis just fired them because it was fun or because they wanted to look good defending themselves.

That is a runon sentence; It looks like two different sentences crammed into one. Go learn some grammar.

This is no answer to my question. Mind me, it was rhetoric anyway. If they use propaganda, surely WE arent entitled to do so too. Where would the great difference be between us and them?

That specificaly is NOT propaganda. They were effectively using their television broadcast for a military purpose by doing that, and in effect, it became a military target.

Sorry pal, but the tonking incident in ´64 sparked the "american" pahse of the Vietnam War and there were protests right from the beginning. Dont forget that back then media werent as omnipresent as they are today. I am a student of history and media science believe me.

Correct, there were protests, as there are with every war. Even in WWII there were protests against the US involvement. The main thing is that the majority was in favor of that war. (BTW, I would love to hear your explanation of the "good deeds" that france was doing in vietnam before the US ever went there.)

Que senior? 70%? Maybe in Texas.
:getlost:

Quote from this article:

A Gallop survey for CNN and USA Today released on Friday said public support for the war remained steady at about 70 percent, in line with findings from other opinion polls released on Friday.

Yup, but dont forget that Bush junior was the one who withdrew from the treaty that Clinton had signed. Same as the Kyoto treaty btw. It makes no sense? What makes sense then? The US? The UNO doesnt? Sorry, but thats the US megalomania that we have come to loathe.
:nuke:

I don't know anything about that, so I conceed, however, I have read the ICC provisions on my own, and it doesn't look practical at all.

So? Whats your point? I kill your civilians and you kill mine? That surely cant be the logic. Of course one may not tolerate 9/11 but it doesnt mean that we can lash out any way we want.

OMG, read what you said: Taliban Warriors....come on, you think a civilian would give himself the job title "warrior"?

Oh come on. Democratic values led to the end of slavery? Yes very true, but the same ones made it possible in the first place, at least in the US.
Democratic values killed the indians bla bla bla. Its easy to hide behind democratic values, it is a great word. One has to interprete them right. And I dont think the US does that right now.

I guarentee you it does it better than what france does. At least the founding fathers wanted it to be slavery free.

BTW, lets add something more to that. France was considering allying themselves with the confederates (who wanted slavery) during the civil war.

 

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Well, I would show you my DD-214, but it doesn't have any pictures so I don't think you would understand it (as well as sensitive information that I would rather not reveal). Instead you can look at this one.

heh, I can pull out fake credentials too, take a looksie at the bottom of the post Not exactly hard to get... *cough* ebay *cough*

I'll be honest, I am not a physics major or anything of the sort. I can't tell you anything about kevlar other than what I have been told. I have worn the same kind of kevlar that they are wearing on the battlefield in iraq right now, and let me tell you, it's some pretty heavy shit. The steel on an oil drum can't withstand even an m16 7.62mm, yet equaly thick kevlar can, and it's only made out of several layers of cloth. I can only guess what the shit that they are wearing can withstand. But, I realy doubt that small arms fire is going to do jack shit to it. I never said that the larger shit is illegal to use, but I was always told that it is illegal to use on personell.

I've said what I've said, its up to you to listen or not. What brought my attention to your argument was your claim about taking a .50 cal shot and coming away unscathed. Now, anyone, even with half a brain and no training can tell you that that is not the case. Very unfounded and childish claim, too much CS perhaps? :happy:

LOL, you claim to know a lot but that is WAY OFF. M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles use the 25mm, NOT a damn M1 Abrams. Abrams is a tank, why would they put that on it? And to add to it, the Bradley uses an m240c, 7.62mm rounds, NOT a 50 cal. Please learn your shit before trying to correct me.

Hah, you got me there, I said Abrams instead of a Bradley, I'll give you that one, but guess what? You didn't notice that I carelessly mushed 3rd LAR into the Army's 3rd Infantry when 3rd LAR is Marine Corps., now, I'm shocked, why couldn't you pick this out too?

By the way, bradley's main armament is a Boeing 25mm M242 Bushmaster chain gun, take a look at the pics, and then once you're done looking at the pictures you'll clearley see the Bushmaster chaingun

These 3rd LAR guys are from my town, I live with these guys. Watch FOX News, one of the guys that Rick Leventhal may come across with the 3rd LAR is my sister's friend's fiance

BTW, perhapse you could tell me why they do use a m240c instead of a 50 cal?

I was reffering to your hmmwv's. You are correct about the M240C 7.62mm machine gun which is mounted coaxially to right of the Bushmaster on the Bradley, I bet you also knew that the Bradley is also equipped with the Raytheon TOW BGM-71 anti-tank missile system which is mounted on the left of the turret

Now, the origional argument still remains however. The coalition casualties are low because iraq has extremely inferior weaponry.

Wrong, coalition casualties are low because our troops have extremely surperior training and experience. They are extremely well equipped and intelligent.

The Iraqis may have inferior weaponry, but once you stop respecting the power they can actually deliver you become careless and vulnerable.

For example, the Russian T-72 with its 125mm gun poses a great threat to any of our armor. We have technology on our side but you can be sure that if the Iraqis could lay a round off a T-72 onto one of our Abrams it could very well destroy it

I also don't think Kalashnikov weaponry is inferior at all, not by a long shot

Once again, it is the individual experience and inginuity of our soldiers that makes the great difference.

To be claiming that the media is lieing about it is...well...it makes me think you wear a tinfoil beanie.

oklain:

 

[AlphaWolf]

heh, I can pull out fake credentials too, take a looksie at the bottom of the post Not exactly hard to get... *cough* ebay *cough*

I suppose so, but I know its real, which is all that matters to me *shrug*. Besides, I scanned it high res anyways...flaws should be easier to spot..

I've said what I've said, its up to you to listen or not. What brought my attention to your argument was your claim about taking a .50 cal shot and coming away unscathed. Now, anyone, even with half a brain and no training can tell you that that is not the case. Very unfounded and childish claim, too much CS perhaps? :happy:

I have still yet to look into this...

Hah, you got me there, I said Abrams instead of a Bradley, I'll give you that one, but guess what? You didn't notice that I carelessly mushed 3rd LAR into the Army's 3rd Infantry when 3rd LAR is Marine Corps., now, I'm shocked, why couldn't you pick this out too?

By the way, bradley's main armament is a Boeing 25mm M242 Bushmaster chain gun, take a look at the pics, and then once you're done looking at the pictures you'll clearley see the Bushmaster chaingun

These 3rd LAR guys are from my town, I live with these guys. Watch FOX News, one of the guys that Rick Leventhal may come across with the 3rd LAR is my sister's friend's fiance

*shrug* I don't know much about either unit. But it was my assumption that you were referring to the abrams, because you put the 50 cal on it. 50 cal doesn't go on a bradley, its like mixing oil with water.

I was reffering to your hmmwv's. You are correct about the M240C 7.62mm machine gun which is mounted coaxially to right of the Bushmaster on the Bradley, I bet you also knew that the Bradley is also equipped with the Raytheon TOW BGM-71 anti-tank missile system which is mounted on the left of the turret

Yep, the TOW missile was actualy the only thing I liked about the bradley. Neat little weapon, you can guide it by hand to anything. Too bad it only carries two of em. I bet you also know that the bradley carries 8 screening (smoke) grenades, mounted at the front of the turret. Before I left, we started training with the javeline though, which I liked better than the TOW. Hell, at least you don't gotta pick up a long ass wire after your done blowing shit up.

Wrong, coalition casualties are low because our troops have extremely surperior training and experience. They are extremely well equipped and intelligent.

The Iraqis may have inferior weaponry, but once you stop respecting the power they can actually deliver you become careless and vulnerable.

Well, I said that earlier :doh:

For example, the Russian T-72 with its 125mm gun poses a great threat to any of our armor. We have technology on our side but you can be sure that if the Iraqis could lay a round off a T-72 onto one of our Abrams it could very well destroy it

Hmm....depends on which direction its hit from, angle, etc. Abrams can actualy withstand a blow from a sabot in most cases from what I understand. IIRC, they started equpping the Abrams with a staff round, that will tear through a T-72 like a hot knife through butter.

I also don't think Kalashnikov weaponry is inferior at all, not by a long shot

Once again, it is the individual experience and inginuity of our soldiers that makes the great difference.

AKM is far superior to an M16 from every angle (except possibly accuracy, although it would be subtle). From what I understand though, we can't deploy those because they have to be hand made. Third world countries can afford it because they get cheap labor. We on the other hand have the misfortune of paying for our labor. Communism wins that one.

Either way, the small arms aren't what win the battle for us.

 

[Talas]

Ok, I´ll leave the military equipment discussion to you guys, I dont really know that much about military equipment, but enough to know that Kevlar isnt as strong as it was claimed here.

That is a runon sentence; It looks like two different sentences crammed into one. Go learn some grammar.

Entschuldigung der Herr? A runon sentenct? Its a pretty clear sentence now, isnt it, except if you wanted to see something that wasnt there. It starts with a "I dont think the Iraqis just fired them because it was fun" which is a normal standard consecutive sentence if I am not mistaken connected via an "OR" to another one "because they wanted to look good defending themselves.". Sorry senior, I dont know what your problem was.

I guarentee you it does it better than what france does. At least the founding fathers wanted it to be slavery free.

BTW, lets add something more to that. France was considering allying themselves with the confederates (who wanted slavery) during the civil war.

You think I´m french mon ami? Mais non, I am not. What the founding fathers wanted and what happenend are two different pairs of shoes. So is the consideration of something and doing the very same thing. I also dont think the argument "Look look, they did it, so we may do it too!" sticks.

 

[Talas]

BTW, only a technical question. Why do I still have only 3 posts. Do only posts in different threads count?

 

[2fast4u]

BTW, only a technical question. Why do I still have only 3 posts. Do only posts in different threads count?

yep ... posts in this forum dont count as spammers should not be encouraged.

 

[vampireuk]

That is a runon sentence; It looks like two different sentences crammed into one. Go learn some grammar.

hahahaha:happy:

When you start attacking a persons English skills you know you are losing

Communism wins that one.

Stalinism Alpha, then again its expecting a lot for you to use some of that brain matter stuck in your head.

Sorry senior, I dont know what your problem was

He has a problem with anyone who diasgrees with him, and also finds it difficult to not make personal digs at people.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Entschuldigung der Herr? A runon sentenct? Its a pretty clear sentence now, isnt it, except if you wanted to see something that wasnt there. It starts with a "I dont think the Iraqis just fired them because it was fun" which is a normal standard consecutive sentence if I am not mistaken connected via an "OR" to another one "because they wanted to look good defending themselves.". Sorry senior, I dont know what your problem was.

Because it reads like this: I don't think the Iraqis just fired on them because it was fun. Or it was because they wanted to look good defending themselves.

Think about it.

hahahaha:happy:

When you start attacking a persons English skills you know you are losing

He made an ambiguous comment, it was necessary. I am not losing anything anyways, he was swearing up and down that the media is lieing about the numbers and whatnot, but then he just conceded that he doesn't know anything about the military.

He has a problem with anyone who diasgrees with him, and also finds it difficult to not make personal digs at people.

And you're not doing that right now?

 

[vampireuk]

I never said I don't

 

[Talas]

Because it reads like this: I don't think the Iraqis just fired on them because it was fun. Or it was because they wanted to look good defending themselves.

Think about it.

All right buddy, you were funny in the beginning now this is starting to be silly. As you pointed out it reads like this, but you simply ignore the beginning of the sentence: "I dont think the Iraqis just fired on them because it was fun. I dont think it was because they wanted to look good defending themselves." Those two sentences would sound pretty dumb, because you would have to repeat the words "I dont think". So, I connected the two sentences with an "or". Every english speaking person should have understood that. If I had wanted to point out that I think they wanted to look good defending themselves I would have written, "Rather, I think they...". Now admit that you wrote nonsense and continue on to the next subject:

I am not losing anything anyways, he was swearing up and down that the media is lieing about the numbers and whatnot, but then he just conceded that he doesn't know anything about the military.

You do love misinterpreting some things dont you? (Like the media btw ) My quote was:

Ok, I´ll leave the military equipment discussion to you guys, I dont really know that much about military equipment, but enough to know that Kevlar isnt as strong as it was claimed here.

As I have written, I possess no detailed knowledge on military EQUIPMENT as you do. It was enough though to be sure that bigger caliber is enough to shred Kevlar. Sorry, you were wrong here, obviously.

And now let me say this... THINK ABOUT IT!

 

[AlphaWolf]

All right buddy, you were funny in the beginning now this is starting to be silly. As you pointed out it reads like this, but you simply ignore the beginning of the sentence: "I dont think the Iraqis just fired on them because it was fun. I dont think it was because they wanted to look good defending themselves." Those two sentences would sound pretty dumb, because you would have to repeat the words "I dont think". So, I connected the two sentences with an "or". Every english speaking person should have understood that. If I had wanted to point out that I think they wanted to look good defending themselves I would have written, "Rather, I think they...". Now admit that you wrote nonsense and continue on to the next subject:

No, that was an ambiguous error on your part and you know it.

As I have written, I possess no detailed knowledge on military EQUIPMENT as you do.

Ok, and you are trying to prove that the media is lieing. So far I have provided a lot to prove you wrong, you have done nothing to counter that. You tried to say I was full of shit about the 70% support, I proved you wrong. You tried to say that we had no reason to take out the al jazeera broadcast tower, I proved you wrong.

My point has been made.

It was enough though to be sure that bigger caliber is enough to shred Kevlar. Sorry, you were wrong here, obviously.

Ok mr kevlar expert, why don't you prove me wrong? None of you have so far, right now it's all just heresay on my part and guessing on your part. Neither hold water. But quite frankly I am more credible in this area than you are. In fact, with the exception of LORD-eX-Bu, I doubt either of you have even set eyes on kevlar other than what you have seen on TV

And now let me say this... THINK ABOUT IT!

Ditto. And can we quit with the stupid rolleyes? It makes you look like a limp wristed fag every time you do it.

 

[Talas]

All right, since you start swearing without me having done it, thus disqualifying your style of discussion, I´ll try to be more civilized.

And can we quit with the stupid rolleyes?

Sorry? Was the first time I used them.

Ok mr kevlar expert, why don't you prove me wrong? None of you have so far, right now it's all just heresay on my part and guessing on your part.

Signor, hearsay (which is written this way not your way, learn some spelling! :happy: Nah just kidding, I aint like you) is not really better than guessing. I actually have my information from a news article about the assassination of Premier Djindjic. They said that it wouldnt have done Djindjic any good wearing Kevlar because the assassin used a bigger caliber. What wouldnt do the Premier of a country any good wont do that to a soldier. So, if you have no further details nor I, ok lets call it a draw, although I still think that my news article and what Lord ex wrote makes more sense than you do.

You tried to say I was full of shit about the 70% support, I proved you wrong. You tried to say that we had no reason to take out the al jazeera broadcast tower, I proved you wrong.

You, monsieur, have a bad habit of exaggerating. I said you were full of shit? Nah, I dont need such language on this board, quite contrary to you. I dont really believe your 70% thats all. I do have the right to doubt non? As for the Al Jazeera Tower, I remember referring to the internet site of Al Jazeera. News agencies are news agencies. During the Kosovo conflict NATO bombarded serbian television, that also wasnt right. You kill the other sides voice this way. I am not even sure whether such an attack isnt a violation of the geneva accord.

No, that was an ambiguous error on your part and you know it.

I rather believe that you wanted to find an error. And as I pointed out, there is none. All I know is that you like to get this discussion on a higher level. Well I dont, stay cool.

:holiday:

 

[Slougi]

Stop the flaming or I will have to call the fire department...

 

[Talas]

Were you referring to me? Because I am wanton to stop this too.

 

[AlphaWolf]

All right, since you start swearing without me having done it, thus disqualifying your style of discussion, I´ll try to be more civilized.

Words are words. I would be more worried if you didn't know these specific words. And besides, the tone is still the same, as it was only used in an expression. However, I am sorry that certain words are so psychologicaly damaging to your dainty little mind, so I will refrain from using the naughty ones. I didn't mean to get your panties in a bunch. :getlost:

Sorry? Was the first time I used them.

I don't recall speaking to just you here.

Signor, hearsay (which is written this way not your way, learn some spelling! :happy: Nah just kidding, I aint like you)

So if that is a bad thing, and you aren't like me, then why are you even bringing it up? Your picking at your own argument. Besides, whether I spelt it wrong or not, it wasn't ambiguous.

is not really better than guessing. I actually have my information from a news article about the assassination of Premier Djindjic. They said that it wouldnt have done Djindjic any good wearing Kevlar because the assassin used a bigger caliber.

URL?

You, monsieur, have a bad habit of exaggerating. I said you were full of shit? Nah, I dont need such language on this board, quite contrary to you. I dont really believe your 70% thats all. I do have the right to doubt non?

Your tone is very much to that effect:

Que senior? 70%? Maybe in Texas. :getlost:

As for the Al Jazeera Tower, I remember referring to the internet site of Al Jazeera. News agencies are news agencies. During the Kosovo conflict NATO bombarded serbian television, that also wasnt right. You kill the other sides voice this way. I am not even sure whether such an attack isnt a violation of the geneva accord.

It's simple, as I have already said, they used it for a military purpose way beyond simple propaganda, hence it became a military target. How much more do you need than that?

 

[Slougi]

Stop the flaming or I will have to call the fire department...

Again, both of you.