Picture of the day

fingers284 said:
XRCD011 said:
^ What I have been told, the rifle (M16) was well received it was just felt the 5.56 rd to be underperforming at the longer ranges and higher cross winds that a 7.62 NATO round handled better. I have also yet to meet a Brit that calls his rifle a "FN", always L1.[/QUOTE

that's counter to a lot of first hand comments I've read back when I was a "student" of everything I could find to read or watch concerning the Vietnam war. Numerous pic were printed back then of troopers lying dead beside their Mattel's with the pins pulled trying to get the obstruction out of them so they would work (very similar to the Indian's reports of Custers soldiers found with a trapdoor beside them with an empty case in it and a ramrod in the bore) . The problem, at the time was attributed to the tight tolerances Colts machined them too, no clearance room for any dust or foreign material. The problem was so prevalent that Communist battlefield pickups were a very sought after weapon for the "bush" grunts ( Until the Brass issued orders against their use when some of the "doctored/booby-trapped" ammo that they were supplying the Cong with showed up in their own soldiers mags).

The troopers finally did learn to be prudent with the extra care required to keep the 16's as clean as possible so they would remain operational but I know a lot of vets held a grudge against the M16, claiming their malfunction directly caused the death of their buddies.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should backtrack a bit and point out the M16 usage I am referring to is concerning the employment by British forces in the Falklands. I am NOT running on about Viet Nam/early US issue of the M16 rifle/cleaning issues/propellant issues or Congressional findings. The 53 Grain bullet came up short (according to some) or at least it was felt to be "to light" a round Vs the 7.62 NATO ball.
Click to expand...
 
The SAS M16s in the Falklands were 20 years after Viet Nam, so I would assume it would have been a sorted-out piece of kit by then. I don't recall them saying there were any problems with them.

Another thing I recall (from the other briefing - not the SAS) was that they were pinned down by machine guns in emplacements in the rocks. They used Milan anti-tank missiles to take them out. He mentioned how much each one cost, but it sure saved lives. The Brits took casualties from snipers and I heard that they might have been American mercenaries.

The second briefing was in Bisley. There may be some others on here who attended and heard David Cooper's presentation.
 
rpXq9Nv.jpg
 
Sharps '63 said:
The difference is that the Medieval city of Dresden was firebombed late in the war for no apparent strategic reason as there was no significant war industry located there. Many bodies were found stripped naked by the force of the fire generated wind, others simply 'melted' before they burned.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that is completely wrong, or in Canadian English, "total bullsh1t". There were numerous reasons to bomb Dresden and they are laid out here for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

There is zero evidence that it was anything other than a raid on a major industrial and transportation center, like many others. But as Hitler said, repeat a lie often enough and it will be believed, at least by people who don't bother to check the facts.

The Americans didn't bomb Japan's cultural capital of Kyoto because it was felt to have great cultural significance and no particular military importance. The Japanese then proceeded to ruin it themselves postwar, but that's another story.

I knew a decorated Canadian pathfinder who said that on one raid his task was to fly at low altitude around Cologne cathedral to try to prevent it being hit. He believed the German AA gunners knew what they were doing as he said they seemed to aim behind his aircraft.

Quite a contrast to the Germans total erasure of Warsaw, to name only one of innumerable examples.

Our enemies received far more consideration than they deserved, or than they had shown others. In fact there is no comparison at all.
 
Last edited:
^I thought you said you were done responding?
Stop trying to justify the killing of civilians (of any side) and post some pictures instead.

Like this for example: Wheeeee!! brace for ze landung!

Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-568-1531.jpg
 
Last edited:
RRCo. said:
I'm afraid that is completely wrong, or in Canadian English, "total bullsh1t". There were numerous reasons to bomb Dresden and they are laid out here for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

There is zero evidence that it was anything other than a raid on a major industrial and transportation center, like many others. But as Hitler said, repeat a lie often enough and it will be believed, at least by people who don't bother to check the facts.

far more consideration than they deserved, or than they had shown others. In fact there is no comparison at all.
Click to expand...

Wow! A Wikipedia quote as irrefutable evidence of a fact. Whodathunkit?

There is a reduced scale version of the Cologne catherdral in the Hanseatic town of Soest, Westphalia. The RCAF Bomber Command hit the rail marshalling yards of the town several times, but nary a bomb hit the cathedral. After the war, the local authorities thanked the RCAF for their sparing the church. The fact was - they never even knew it existed beyond recce photos and did not deliberately miss it.

I can't 'prove' that with a quote from Wikipedia, but I was stationed at Fort Henry (HQ CMBG) on the outskirts of Soest for four years and it was part of the local lore. The camp got buzzed annually by a Brit aircraft on the occasion of the Mohne Raid by the "Dam Busters", but that's another story.

Look it up on Wikipedia .....
 
Dark Alley Dan said:
Buddy knows what he's talking about. They don't hand out Tank Destruction Badges in boxes of cornflakes.

This guy holds the record, though:
G%C3%BCnther_Viezenz.jpg
Click to expand...

Now that is one tough dude. Served in the Wehrmacht, most likely for most of World War 2 (he was born in 1921) and then re-upped into the Bundeswehr in 1956 and retired in 1980 as a Colonel. I wonder if he was permitted to wear his Tank Destruction Badges in the Bundeswehr. I think not.
 
Tank Destruction badges were authorized to wear in the Bundeswehr. Look up photos of vets wearing the 1957 series of awards.
The Wizard said:
Now that is one tough dude. Served in the Wehrmacht, most likely for most of World War 2 (he was born in 1921) and then re-upped into the Bundeswehr in 1956 and retired in 1980 as a Colonel. I wonder if he was permitted to wear his Tank Destruction Badges in the Bundeswehr. I think not.
Click to expand...
 
Recce21 said:
Tank Destruction badges were authorized to wear in the Bundeswehr. Look up photos of vets wearing the 1957 series of awards.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder if any of the other Wehrmacht medals (Iron Cross, etc.) that didn't bear the Swastika were also authorized. Some of those tank destroyer medals may have been won fighting against American/British/Canadian tanks.
 
Im almost positive that every WW2 SS and Wehrmacht medal, cuff titles, campaign shields was authorized as long as the Nazi Eagle was removed or SS runes were removed. I have seen 1957 versions of everything from German Cross in Gold, Tank Destruction Badges, Close Combat Clasps, even Long Service medals to the Third Reich. The only one I am not 100% sure of is the Anti Partisan Badge.
Sharps '63 said:
Makes you wonder if any of the other Wehrmacht medals (Iron Cross, etc.) that didn't bear the Swastika were also authorized. Some of those tank destroyer medals may have been won fighting against American/British/Canadian tanks.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom