Author Topic: US soldiers' deaths tops 5000? (Read 1366 times)

wulfie · « **Reply #45 on:** December 27, 2004, 06:36:37 PM »

Quote

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

Toad · « **Reply #46 on:** December 28, 2004, 09:51:14 AM »

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

wombatt · « **Reply #47 on:** December 28, 2004, 12:10:29 PM »

Quote

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.

Toad · « **Reply #48 on:** December 28, 2004, 12:16:00 PM »

Well, give it a try. An enema might... just might... clear your mind.

wombatt · « **Reply #49 on:** December 28, 2004, 12:38:12 PM »

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.

Toad · « **Reply #50 on:** December 28, 2004, 12:49:16 PM »

That's funny.

Quote

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.

wombatt · « **Reply #51 on:** December 28, 2004, 12:55:16 PM »

Quote

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.

Boroda · « **Reply #52 on:** December 28, 2004, 01:01:23 PM »

Quote

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.

wulfie · « **Reply #53 on:** December 28, 2004, 02:45:38 PM »

Quote

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

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #54 on:** December 28, 2004, 06:06:25 PM »

Quote

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.

Suave · « **Reply #55 on:** December 28, 2004, 07:07:24 PM »

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.

genozaur · « **Reply #56 on:** December 28, 2004, 09:24:23 PM »

Quote

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

Boroda · « **Reply #57 on:** December 29, 2004, 01:37:19 PM »

Quote

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!

lazs2 · « **Reply #58 on:** December 29, 2004, 02:18:52 PM »

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

wulfie · « **Reply #59 on:** December 29, 2004, 08:22:05 PM »

Quote

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