Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Red Tail 444 on December 21, 2004, 04:06:04 PM
-
As quoted from a friend who works in the UN building:
just got back from a meeting with the Iraq working group. They reminded me that there are many things we don’t hear on TV about the conflict. For example, I didn’t know that the Stars and Stripes magazine puts the official US soldiers’ deaths related to the conflict is over 5000.
If a soldier died outside of Iraq (i.e. Military hospitals overseas or in DC, then he or she is not counted in the official Pentagon’s count of war deaths). Sorry to be a such a downer, I’ll stop right here.
I hope we can reflect on our good fortune and those less fortunate wherever we are-Japan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and California. Cheers.
-
Stars and Stripes? You can't belive that lefty anti-american rag.
-
Source please.
-
Googled and couldn't find corroboration.
Nothing on the stars and stripes website I could find.
according to global security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm) 1309 isthe current number.
-
Are you sure you're not confusing cassualties with deaths?
-
So how long have we been there?
Pretty good I'd say ... being as even if true, it is still 24,000 short of the number of American dead on D-Day.
< S > to All the Troops in Iraq, Get the job done and come back safe.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That's downright deceiving the public.
Yes, Red Tail should be ashamed.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Are you sure you're not confusing cassualties with deaths?
I'm pretty sure he is. The official toll was like 1,000 a month or two ago. No way 4,000 died since, even outside Iraq.
I know there was the Falhuja offensive and all...but still...nah.
-
You gotta keep in mind in that 1300 deaths by accident or suicide and such are not counted. Even with that I don't think the figure is anywere near 5000.
I think he's confusing the word casualites with KIA.
and technically I don't think if you die as a result of wounds sustained in combat that you are considered a KIA
-
so whats the truth here?
-
Hard to say.
-
1325 dead as of today (19 died today in Mosul)
1 is missing
4615 wounded (as of dec 14)
That gives 5940
-
From what I have seen the 1300 number is US military deaths in Iraq. 1000 deaths in combat has been recenty surpassed.
Apparently 20,000 US military personal have been wounded in Iraq. And 10,000 have been wounded and not fit to return to thier units.
I haven't seen SFA to coraborat the number of 5,000 US military deaths in regards to Iraq.
You can find here, an apparent list of every US military person that died and were a member of "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/oif_date_of_death_list.pdf
I ask Red Tail for you to name, and provide source information for, one member of US military that was in Iraqi Freedom and was a casualty and is not mentioned in that list, as of Dec 18, 2004.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
1325 dead as of today (19 died today in Mosul)
1 is missing
4615 wounded (as of dec 14)
That gives 5940
Well we solved one thing...
He rounded the wrong way....
:aok
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
You gotta keep in mind in that 1300 deaths by accident or suicide and such are not counted. Even with that I don't think the figure is anywere near 5000.
I think he's confusing the word casualites with KIA.
and technically I don't think if you die as a result of wounds sustained in combat that you are considered a KIA
(http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg)
If an american soldier gets shot by a terrorist, develops complications from the wound and dies, he wasn't killed by a terrorist in a war.
He died of natural causes.
(http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Bush-Mission-Accomplished.jpg)
-
Originally posted by rpm
(http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg)
If an american soldier gets shot by a terrorist, develops complications from the wound and dies, he wasn't killed by a terrorist in a war.
He died of natural causes.
(http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Bush-Mission-Accomplished.jpg)
I was guessing about that. It was based on an article I read recently about a widow that wants her husbands name on the veitnam memorial wall. He died about 10 years ago due to complications from wounds he recieved in 1968. She claims (and I agree with her in most aspects) that her husband is a death in the vietnam war. IIRC her request was denied.
The interesting thing about this entire conversation (and I know RPM you were being a smart arse but I was actually being serious) What time frame (if there is one) determine weather a person is a KIA in a war if he/she dies due to wounds recieved? They are more or less a casualty but when do they actually become a statisitical KIA?
-
The Iraqi military was defeated quickly, that was what Bush was referring to. The insurgency was not known as a organized force at that time. Bush and crew have screwed up with regards to the insurgency and alot of other things but at that time and at that place Bush was in line and can only be faulted for overconfidence in the face of an apparent major victory.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The Iraqi military was defeated quickly, that was what Bush was referring to. The insurgency was not known as a organized force at that time. Bush and crew have screwed up with regards to the insurgency and alot of other things but at that time and at that place Bush was in line and can only be faulted for overconfidence in the face of an apparent major victory.
Good point,
Most people don't realize that the invasion itself was the finest example of manuver warfare ever seen. I heard a General say that it made the Blitzkrieg of WWII look like a turtle race in comparison.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Good point,
Most people don't realize that the invasion itself was the finest example of manuver warfare ever seen. I heard a General say that it made the Blitzkrieg of WWII look like a turtle race in comparison.
The oposition looked like a day care compared to WW2 as well. Doubt he pointed that out.
but it was a hell of a victory.
-
Don't think so - current deaths stand at 1,319 whilst combat casualties are at 9,981 - slightly higher than the normal 7-1 ratio of dead to injured on active service.
The higher use of body armour and kevlar has probably been countered by the use of explosive ambush tactics where although death has not been the outcome severe injuries are - those troops injured being saved only by quick evacuation to mash units within 30 to 60 minutes of injury.
1,000 deaths a year with 8,000 to 10,000 serious casualties - loss of limb, burns, loss of sight - would not be unrealistic totals per annum in urban counter insurgency operations of this size and intensity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17938-2004Dec21.html
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Good point,
Most people don't realize that the invasion itself was the finest example of manuver warfare ever seen. I heard a General say that it made the Blitzkrieg of WWII look like a turtle race in comparison.
That was just the opening round - the reason the US Army gained a "victory" is that the Iraqi army simply didn't fight - they simply removed themselves from the battlefield and then changed tactics to those more suited to taking on a superior conventional force.
It is interesting to note that only once in the last century did a ruling foreign power manage to win against local insurgents. Probably due to the fact that in that case the insurgents were ethnic Chinese and not indigenous to the country involved.
The odds of it happening again are not good.
-
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
DOD Instruction 7730.22, ("Reports of U.S. Casualties in Combat Areas," January 20, 1967, and March 20, 1973) provided that the Vietnam casualties to be reported were all those occurring within the designated combat areas and those deaths occurring anywhere as the result or aftermath of an initial casualty occurring in a combat area. The current related document, Military Personnel Casualty Matters, Policies, and Procedures" DoD Instruction 1300.18, December 18, 2000, is simply silent on this critical matter.
It is somewhat difficult to imagine that nearly 15,000 people were sufficiently sick or injured to require evacuation from the theater, but that only ten of them subsequently succumbed to the condition that required their evacuation. Overall, the ratio between wounded to killed-in-action is running about ten to one -- about 7,000 wounded in action with over 700 killed in action. The ratio of those evacuated due to combat wounds [over 1,500 as of 01 August 2004] to those who died subsequent to evacuation [eight reported], presents a ratio on the order of two-hundred to one, which is puzzling. It is also puzzling that over 4,000 were evacuated due to non-battle injuries, but only two subsequently died and that over 7,000 were evacuated due to disease, but that none of them died.
http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/02/week_2/10_iraq2.html
Published: 10-Feb-2004
More than 11,000 medical evacuees have come through Andrews in the past nine months, the Air Force says.
Most, we suspect, from Iraq. But that's 8,000 more than the Pentagon says have been wounded there.
{snip}
There'd been a suicide at the Center the previous week. Another of what the Pentagon terms a "non-hostile" death - in other words, one that won't figure on its list of fatalities,
[snip]
But when it comes to the wounded, an astonishing situation has arisen: the Pentagon's figures clash wildly with those of the US Army.
The Pentagon lists 2,604 wounded in action and just 408 "non-hostile wounded".
But the Army says many thousands more have been medically evacuated from the conflict zone.
Why the discrepancy? Well, the Pentagon doesn't count as victims soldiers who come back with brain injuries or psychiatric disorders, those hit by friendly fire or those who've crashed in their military vehicles.
-
When I was in South America, we had 40 people at a camp in the middle of the jungle. 4 of them were evacuated to Panama in 1 month due to illness or spider bite (brown recluse). 10% in one month.
I think Andrews is feeling the brunt of having 1/3 of the US's military forces one hop away. I also think the media has zero concept of what goes on with the military and is easily mystified by a number.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
When I was in South America, we had 40 people at a camp in the middle of the jungle. 4 of them were evacuated to Panama in 1 month due to illness or spider bite (brown recluse). 10% in one month.
Insect won, you guys sux :D
-
I blame lack of adequate body armor for that one.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I blame lack of adequate body armor for that one.
Though not surprising when one takes into account the high humidity and general sneakiness of spiders...
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
and technically I don't think if you die as a result of wounds sustained in combat that you are considered a KIA
Well, the problem is that as far as I understand any soldier who is not blown up to pieces instantly and gets any kind of medical treatment can be counted as "non-combat loss".
American way of counting losses encourages such statistics, at least I came to such a conclusion reading some literature.
Please tell me if I am wrong. No chest-thumping please, only people who really know what really goes on.
-
No, if you are a casualty WIA (wounded in action) and you later die (DOW-died of wounds) as a result of wounds sustained in combat then you are a combat loss. But you are not a KIA.
KIA-killed in action
MIA-missing in action
CIA-captured in action
DOW-died of wounds
POW-prisoner of war
WIA-wounded in action
DWC-died while captured
DWM-died while missing
KIA, DOW, DWC, DWM all count as combat deaths as far as I know.
-
I don't want to violate Suave's privacy but I know him personally and he "really knows what goes on" when it comes to military medical treatment and hospitals.
-
Actually I googled it :cool:
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
You gotta keep in mind in that 1300 deaths by accident or suicide and such are not counted. Even with that I don't think the figure is anywere near 5000.
I think he's confusing the word casualites with KIA.
and technically I don't think if you die as a result of wounds sustained in combat that you are considered a KIA
Technically you are absolutely right.
But the public awareness is quite a different thing.
One notch from hysteria.
-
Pretty good I'd say ... being as even if true, it is still 24,000 short of the number of American dead on D-Day.
24,000 Americans didnt die on D-Day, it was around 2000 I believe.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
24,000 Americans didnt die on D-Day, it was around 2000 I believe.
:eek:
In my opinion, the misinforming of the American people about the full scale of the US losses connected with the war on terrorism (if you consider Iraq's occupation as part of it) is only the repetition of an old war propaganda trick which was used during WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War and many wars before that.
It's a pity that the authorities can't rely on sober judgement of the people even when the country is waging the war for the right cause (or is it ?).
Anyway, the growing rate of the US military personnel KIA in Iraq and Afganistan after May 2004 is starting to exceed the average KIA rate for the Soviet Army in Afganistan (according to my rough calculations in summer 2004).
And this is disturbing !
Especially the rumours that the American soldiers in the battle field are now using plastic bags to keep their personal firearms clean from sand.
For the love of God, why the US Army top brass strictly forbids the use by the soldiers of reliable
Kalashnikov assault rifles ? Some of the Red Army tankers during WWII were using Thompson sub-machine guns along with the US tankers' helmets and the Lend-Lease M3A1 tanks.
I consider it to be sabotage and treason that the American troops die because they don't have REALLY RELIABLE personal firearms.
The story of the Army Pfc Jessica Lynch should be taught at every Military Academy in the US.
:mad:
-
Originally posted by genozaur
For the love of God, why the US Army top brass strictly forbids the use by the soldiers of reliable
Kalashnikov assault rifles ?
I consider it to be sabotage and treason that the American troops die because they don't have REALLY RELIABLE personal firearms. The story of the Army Pfc Jessica Lynch should be taught at every Military Academy in the US.
The M16 and M4 do just fine in the desert as long as you don't totally neglect them when it comes to cleaning. Any highly accurate military rifle that isn't cleaned regularly will become unhappy with its master.
The lesson that Lynch and a few others (re)learned the hard way is taught to everyone who packs a rifle. Neglect the rifle and it will neglect you when you need it and you will get killed.
AK-47s have some nice features but I gurantee that no Soviet soldier ever skipped the daily cleaning of his weapon because it was 'so robust'.
I like the AK-47 (and I really like the AK-74) but I'll take my M4 any day.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by wulfie
The M16 and M4 do just fine in the desert as long as you don't totally neglect them when it comes to cleaning. Any highly accurate military rifle that isn't cleaned regularly will become unhappy with its master.
The lesson that Lynch and a few others (re)learned the hard way is taught to everyone who packs a rifle. Neglect the rifle and it will neglect you when you need it and you will get killed.
AK-47s have some nice features but I gurantee that no Soviet soldier ever skipped the daily cleaning of his weapon because it was 'so robust'.
I like the AK-47 (and I really like the AK-74) but I'll take my M4 any day.
Mike/wulfie
On the topic of personal weapons - Galil for me
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as23-e.htm
combination of a Ak47, Finnish Assault rifle around a nato 5.56mm round - very, very good weapon. Heavy, ugly - same weight as a M14 - but as one Master Sergeant said to me "So is my wife and I love her dearly"
and if you're in the infantry then carrying a handgun is a waste of time - except maybe if you're a paratrooper doing combat jumps - and no-one does those anymore.
I carried a 9mm for a year - total waste of time, never used it, never even thought of using it, cleaned it a LOT - and while I'm on the topic people who wear "fast draw" strap on yr leg holsters AND carry a handgun who are in the infantry are complete and total avacados who need to grow up - don't even get me started on throwing knives btw......
-
The M16 and M4 do just fine in the desert as long as you don't totally neglect them when it comes to cleaning.
Not to turn this into a gun thread, but soldiers shouldn't have to clean their weapons everyday.
-
a 9 mm with hardball ammo is pretty bad but... I think you will find that all of the elite forces in the world from swat to delta all use handguns. Not many use 9mm ball ammo tho. A handgun can be very effective in many situations.
lazs
-
If we can all agree that you cant put a price tag on human life
then how can we ever justify war?
I mean in the end what does it solve?
From what I see all it does is kill a bunch of people and create hard feelings between countries that take years to heal.
There are of coures people in history that need to be removed from power like old Adolph but for the most part wars are avoidable as i see it.
Just MHO.
-
Originally posted by wombatt
There are of coures people in history that need to be removed from power like old Adolph but for the most part wars are avoidable as i see it.
Just MHO.
Funny, Chamberlain didn't think old Adolph need to be removed from power. As he saw it, he thought wars were avoidable for the most part.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Funny, Chamberlain didn't think old Adolph need to be removed from power. As he saw it, he thought wars were avoidable for the most part.
Well Toad If you like wars so much im sure the Marines are looking for a few good men right about now.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
The oposition looked like a day care compared to WW2 as well. Doubt he pointed that out.
but it was a hell of a victory.
Hold on, wait a minute...
Are you saying the French army would have done better?
-
Originally posted by wombatt
If we can all agree that you cant put a price tag on human life
For some people liberty is more valuable than life.
-
Well, wombatt, it's not that I like them so much, it's just that I'm enough of a realist to understand that they happen and either good men act or the bad guys win.
You've probably heard this one from Edmund Burke:
All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.
I did my hitch. USAF, 1974-1980. I volunteered for the Air Guard on 9/12; they told me I was too old. I volunteered again about 6 months ago after I heard the Guard was short on recruiting. They turned me down again, same reason.
I'll give the Marines a call; you never know, eh? I'll let you know.
Anyway, I'm sure you're a good man; what have you done? Besides nothing, I mean?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, wombatt, it's not that I like them so much, it's just that I'm enough of a realist to understand that they happen and either good men act or the bad guys win.
You've probably heard this one from Edmund Burke:
I did my hitch. USAF, 1974-1980. I volunteered for the Air Guard on 9/12; they told me I was too old. I volunteered again about 6 months ago after I heard the Guard was short on recruiting. They turned me down again, same reason.
I'll give the Marines a call; you never know, eh? I'll let you know.
Anyway, I'm sure you're a good man; what have you done? Besides nothing, I mean?
LOL Good Lord man is that really the best you can do?
I quess I could come back with i served in the US Army 1976-1981
you know the REAL military:D
But that would be tacky would it not.
Let's just say we both did our part and leave it at that.
And as one who serverd you of all people should be the first to hate war as you where one of the ones who might have had to fight one.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Not to turn this into a gun thread, but soldiers shouldn't have to clean their weapons everyday.
I don't think they 'have to' with the M4 or M16 either. I have treated my M4 in a less-than-stellar manner on more than one occasion and it has never let me down.
I am not a gun or gun history expert like some here (lazs2, etc.) but I did ask some of the 'super gun experts' about the M16 back when I was learning the basics and every time the response I got was "It got bad press initially in Viet Nam and that's never gone away because gun magazine writers need something to write about when they are in a slump".
I wasn't there when Lynch got ambushed but my gut instinct is that She and others didn't have their immediate action drills down like they should have (and that may or may not be their fault - did the O or NCO in her unit responsible for tactical training run the courses and get ignored? Or were the courses not run often enough or in the proper way? If someone really wanted to know they could probably dig for the information and find it) and that combined with weapons that had been poorly maintained (maybe thru having no other choice...who knows?) is going to be bad news every time.
We do know that one guy in her unit - a former real-deal infantryman had no problem getting his M16 into bullet-launching mode and made the Iraqis pay dearly. And we do know that the M16 and M4 have seen more combat use over there in the sand over the past couple of years than any other combat rifle (we do more shooting than the bad guys - much to their brief chagrin) and if there were an actual problem with the current weapons in a sandy place it would get changed or people would start to hear about it.
I've played with G36s and they are sweet. But I didn't have the instant urge to chuck my M4, pay Yuri the RIfluffied KGB field guy to get me a new German ID, and screen for KSK. :) The current M16s and the M4 are good guns. They perform well and they get the job done. I hear guys complain about issued weapons all the time, but the M16 and the M4 aren't the ones being complained about.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Schaden
On the topic of personal weapons - Galil for me
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as23-e.htm
combination of a Ak47, Finnish Assault rifle around a nato 5.56mm round - very, very good weapon. Heavy, ugly - same weight as a M14 - but as one Master Sergeant said to me "So is my wife and I love her dearly"
and if you're in the infantry then carrying a handgun is a waste of time - except maybe if you're a paratrooper doing combat jumps - and no-one does those anymore.
I carried a 9mm for a year - total waste of time, never used it, never even thought of using it, cleaned it a LOT - and while I'm on the topic people who wear "fast draw" strap on yr leg holsters AND carry a handgun who are in the infantry are complete and total avacados who need to grow up - don't even get me started on throwing knives btw......
I've heard good things about the Galil but I've never shot one. I was around some Israelis once for awhile but they were using M4s or M16s. :)
I can't speak for SOP in 'line-infantry' units but having a secondary isn't a bad thing. If you lose your primary somehow it's better to be able to shoot back with something. Outside of 'regular infantry' usage there are times where a pistol is more useful as well. Under a certain range and in the correct environment a good shooter with a pistol is at least as dangerous as he would be with his primary.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by wombatt
And as one who serverd you of all people should be the first to hate war as you where one of the ones who might have had to fight one.
And you of all people should likewise be intelligent enough to realize that just because one serves it doesn't mean one "loves war".
Nor does the understanding that more wars will be fought, as they have throughout man's history, mean that one "loves war".
Nor does realizing that there are things worth fighting for mean that one "loves war".
Loving or hating war has nothing to do with the ability to understand that wars continue to occur.
You fall into the group John Stuart Mill so aptly described.
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And you of all people should likewise be intelligent enough to realize that just because one serves it doesn't mean one "loves war".
Nor does the understanding that more wars will be fought, as they have throughout man's history, mean that one "loves war".
Nor does realizing that there are things worth fighting for mean that one "loves war".
Loving or hating war has nothing to do with the ability to understand that wars continue to occur.
You fall into the group John Stuart Mill so aptly described.
I think a good enema is in order.
-
Well, give it a try. An enema might... just might... clear your mind.
-
Well what is with this facisnation with killing?
Have you ever seen a dead person?
Death sux there is nothing fun about it you cant take it back its the end thats it done over and out!
Some of you seem to equate my hesitation with taking a persons life with being a candy ass.
WRONG.
I am not saying ALL wars are avoidable i am saying that in Gods eyes all killing is WRONG!
I as a human being have no right to kill anyone exept to protect myself and my family or an innocent person.
That is my beliefe sorry if you dont wish to understand it.
-
That's funny.
I am not saying ALL wars are avoidable
That's what just about everyone in this thread seems to be telling you.
Seems like you're the one that doesn't get it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
That's funny.
That's what just about everyone in this thread seems to be telling you.
Seems like you're the one that doesn't get it.
There is a song bt Graham Nash from his songs for begginers album called the man in the mirror.
you might want to listen to it very good tune.
And if anyone cared to really read what i was trying to say you would then know that i was trying to say that it SHOULD be that way not that it is.
That way being no wars and killing.
And that we as people should be smart enough to work thru any of our problems without having to resorte to war.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
AK-47s have some nice features but I gurantee that no Soviet soldier ever skipped the daily cleaning of his weapon because it was 'so robust'.
A quick answer from my friend, who spent 2 years in Afghan: "we simply put the automats into a barrel filled with kerosene, then cleaned the automat's barrel and gas chamber, that was all the maintenance".
When I studied the M-16 automatics - I thought it's a joke, then read some more sources... I can think of some reasons to make an automat that way, but... I don't know. I studied projectiles, not weapon automatics, only had a brief course in that field.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
A quick answer from my friend, who spent 2 years in Afghan: "we simply put the automats into a barrel filled with kerosene, then cleaned the automat's barrel and gas chamber, that was all the maintenance".
When I studied the M-16 automatics - I thought it's a joke, then read some more sources... I can think of some reasons to make an automat that way, but... I don't know. I studied projectiles, not weapon automatics, only had a brief course in that field.
I think we have a minor misunderstanding here. When someone said 'a soldier shouldn't have to clean his weapon every day' what I was trying to add was that even though the AK-47 will handle no cleaning and rough conditions better than the M16, there is no way a trained soldier will skip cleaning his weapon even though the weapon would still function.
The AK-47 isn't even close to the M16 when it comes to 'how tightly things are packed'. This understandably leads to the AK-47 handling dust, sand, whatever better than the M16. The tradeoff is that at 300, 400, 500 meters you can't shoot groups as tightly with the AK-47 as you can with the M16. But the bottom line is I wouldn't want to be shot at with either by someone who knew what they were doing. There isn't a modern military rifle that has been mass-issued that is 'bad'.
I think the AK-74 is the best rifle the Russians have ever made, but that's just my personal (biased) opinion. Great control when using automatic fire, and the Russian 5.45mm is a very nasty round. It has a 'built in hollowpoint' is the way one combat medic explained it to me. It really tears things up when it hits them. This isn't saying that 5.56mm rounds are any thing to laugh at, despite all the scandalous rumors about the 5.56mm round that began after Somalia.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
From what I have seen the 1300 number is US military deaths in Iraq. 1000 deaths in combat has been recenty surpassed.
Apparently 20,000 US military personal have been wounded in Iraq. And 10,000 have been wounded and not fit to return to thier units.
I haven't seen SFA to coraborat the number of 5,000 US military deaths in regards to Iraq.
You can find here, an apparent list of every US military person that died and were a member of "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/oif_date_of_death_list.pdf
I ask Red Tail for you to name, and provide source information for, one member of US military that was in Iraqi Freedom and was a casualty and is not mentioned in that list, as of Dec 18, 2004.
If you read my original post, I mentioned this was an account, from someone who works in the UN, it was a personal email, and what I wanted to know if this was actual, or a misread on my friend's part.
I was on vacation and just got back, so, there ya go.
-
I allways thought that the biggest flaw of the m16 was that it didn't use a piston in the gas port to blow the bolt back. The way the m16 is designed, carbon is blown back through the gas port into the action.
-
Originally posted by Suave
I allways thought that the biggest flaw of the m16 was that it didn't use a piston in the gas port to blow the bolt back. The way the m16 is designed, carbon is blown back through the gas port into the action.
I was suspecting that :(
Anyway, for me it's much better when instead of "maintaining" my Kalashnikov I sprey with bullets the motherlovers and disperse them (probably not killing a single person) and do it hundreds and hundreds times, than do hundreds killer shots and on the 999th attempt find my rifle not working.
TY Suave for the insight on gas dynamics
-
Originally posted by Suave
I allways thought that the biggest flaw of the m16 was that it didn't use a piston in the gas port to blow the bolt back. The way the m16 is designed, carbon is blown back through the gas port into the action.
This is what I meant speaking about a joking design :) Looks like another typical American way of finidng a technological solution to an engineering problem. Keeps your equipment expensive.
Wulfie, modern Russian designs use opposite-action pistons, keeps the accuracy in autofire and isn't as vulnerable to dust and char as direct-gas action as M16, but still is more complicated then classc Kalashnikov design. Muzzle compensator is a partial solution, but much cheaper and reliable.
BTW, did you ever fire Saiga-410? It's an AK-74 fitted for .410 cartridge, 10-round clip, folding butt works as a safety -> it makes this weapon legal here for carrying if you have hunter's lisence, you carry it "disassembled" if you fold a butt and don't attach a clip. You can add 30cm rifled attachment, but I don't remember if it allows you to fit a compensator on it. With standard compensator this thing dosn't have recoil at all!
-
kinda curious... what is all this interest in the .410 shotgun shell all about lately... I have never found the round to be much good for anything... is there something new about it? Seems a old 45 colt is the the same thing in slug form with a lot less fuss.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Boroda
...BTW, did you ever fire Saiga-410?...
I've trained with the AK-47, AK-74, and the SAW variants of those weapons a fair amount. I also got to put 200-300 rounds thru an AN-94 - that is a very impressive rifle. That is the extent of my shooting experience with Russian weapons.
If you ever get to the San Diego area and I can somehow meet you, there's a unit in that area that has one of the 'origional' AK-47s in it's armory. I guess for the first 2-3 years that they were making AK-47s they took a solid bar of steel and machined it 30 or more times while producing the AK-47. Talk about an indestructible rifle... :)
Assuming iron sights on both sides, in non-CQC terrain, and ranges of 200 meters or less the AK-47 is as good as anything out there.
Mike/wulfie