A 70th Anniversary

[Aardvark]

Today is the seventieth anniversary of an amazingly daring (and high-tech
for the time) bomber raid, Operation Chastise, on the Ruhr dams in
Germany:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9E1LDOVGcY>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise>

53 Lancaster crew members were lost on the raid.

--
"I am not made like anyone I have seen; I dare believe I am not made
like anyone in existence. If I am not better, at least I am different."
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

[SeaNymph]

On 5/16/2013 4:34 PM, Aardvark wrote:
> Today is the seventieth anniversary of an amazingly daring (and high-tech
> for the time) bomber raid, Operation Chastise, on the Ruhr dams in
> Germany:
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9E1LDOVGcY>
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise>
>
> 53 Lancaster crew members were lost on the raid.
>

Fascinating. Not an event I was familiar with, but always good to learn
something new. Frankly, I am often surprised that anyone in a plane
survived WWII. I believe those had to be incredibly brave people to do
what they did.

[Aardvark]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:51:06 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

> On 5/16/2013 4:34 PM, Aardvark wrote:
>> Today is the seventieth anniversary of an amazingly daring (and
>> high-tech for the time) bomber raid, Operation Chastise, on the Ruhr
>> dams in Germany:
>>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9E1LDOVGcY>
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise>
>>
>> 53 Lancaster crew members were lost on the raid.
>>
> Fascinating. Not an event I was familiar with,

I'm kind of surprised by that. Never heard of Barnes Wallis or the
'bouncing bomb'?

> but always good to learn
> something new. Frankly, I am often surprised that anyone in a plane
> survived WWII.

Indeed.

> I believe those had to be incredibly brave people to do
> what they did.

For sure.

If you ever come across the film, I highly recommend 'The Dambusters' to
you. That music on YT was the theme tune.

[Eagle]

Aardvark wrote this on 5/16/2013 :
> Today is the seventieth anniversary of an amazingly daring (and high-tech
> for the time) bomber raid, Operation Chastise, on the Ruhr dams in
> Germany:

> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9E1LDOVGcY>

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise>

> 53 Lancaster crew members were lost on the raid.

I saw a program on the military channel about Operation Chastise.
Barnes Wallis developed the "bouncing bomb" where a barrel filled with
high explosives was dropped and bounced off the water to the face of
the
M�hne Reservoir and Edersee Dams. The only way the dams could be
breached was to get high explosives right on the face of the dams and
under water.
I didn't know there were so many air crews lost in doing this.

Didn't Barnes Wallis develop the giant 20 ton bunker buster bombs as
well?

--
Eagle
Why were the Indians here first? They had reservations.

[Aardvark]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 15:00:52 -0700, Eagle wrote:

> Aardvark wrote this on 5/16/2013 :
>> Today is the seventieth anniversary of an amazingly daring (and
>> high-tech for the time) bomber raid, Operation Chastise, on the Ruhr
>> dams in Germany:
>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9E1LDOVGcY>
>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise>
>
>> 53 Lancaster crew members were lost on the raid.
>
> I saw a program on the military channel about Operation Chastise. Barnes
> Wallis developed the "bouncing bomb" where a barrel filled with high
> explosives was dropped and bounced off the water to the face of the

> Möhne Reservoir and Edersee Dams. The only way the dams could be

> breached was to get high explosives right on the face of the dams and
> under water.

The science behind it was so simple, but was only apparently obvious to
Wallis.

> I didn't know there were so many air crews lost in doing this.
>

The Ruhr was a very heavily-defended area. Lots of manufacturing depended
on, and was situated on it.

> Didn't Barnes Wallis develop the giant 20 ton bunker buster bombs as
> well?

He invented a number of machines of war, including the Wellington bomber.
There's a hangar at Liverpool airport he designed. I was on a refurb in
the building a few years ago when the interior was turned into a large,
two-tier open-plan office.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Wallis>

[SeaNymph]

On 5/16/2013 4:53 PM, Aardvark wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:51:06 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:
>
>> On 5/16/2013 4:34 PM, Aardvark wrote:
>>> Today is the seventieth anniversary of an amazingly daring (and
>>> high-tech for the time) bomber raid, Operation Chastise, on the Ruhr
>>> dams in Germany:
>>>
>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9E1LDOVGcY>
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise>
>>>
>>> 53 Lancaster crew members were lost on the raid.
>>>
>> Fascinating. Not an event I was familiar with,
>
> I'm kind of surprised by that. Never heard of Barnes Wallis or the
> 'bouncing bomb'?

I am familiar with the bouncing bomb. It was a weird thing I think. I
was not familiar with the raids or their outcome.

>
>> but always good to learn
>> something new. Frankly, I am often surprised that anyone in a plane
>> survived WWII.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> I believe those had to be incredibly brave people to do
>> what they did.
>
> For sure.
>
> If you ever come across the film, I highly recommend 'The Dambusters' to
> you. That music on YT was the theme tune.
>
>
>

Ah...well, I'll add it to my list to keep an eye out for.

[Eagle]

Aardvark wrote this on 5/16/2013 :
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 15:00:52 -0700, Eagle wrote:

>> Aardvark wrote this on 5/16/2013 :
>>> Today is the seventieth anniversary of an amazingly daring (and
>>> high-tech for the time) bomber raid, Operation Chastise, on the Ruhr
>>> dams in Germany:
>>
>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9E1LDOVGcY>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise>
>>> 53 Lancaster crew members were lost on the raid.
>>
>> I saw a program on the military channel about Operation Chastise. Barnes
>> Wallis developed the "bouncing bomb" where a barrel filled with high
>> explosives was dropped and bounced off the water to the face of the

>> M�hne Reservoir and Edersee Dams. The only way the dams could be

>> breached was to get high explosives right on the face of the dams and
>> under water.

> The science behind it was so simple, but was only apparently obvious to
> Wallis.

>> I didn't know there were so many air crews lost in doing this.
>>

> The Ruhr was a very heavily-defended area. Lots of manufacturing depended
> on, and was situated on it.

>> Didn't Barnes Wallis develop the giant 20 ton bunker buster bombs as
>> well?

> He invented a number of machines of war, including the Wellington bomber.
> There's a hangar at Liverpool airport he designed. I was on a refurb in
> the building a few years ago when the interior was turned into a large,
> two-tier open-plan office.

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Wallis>

Thanks for the link. I'll read it when I get a little more time. WWII
history holds my interest like nothing else. That project at Liverpool
airport must have been an honor to work on. I'd like to read about it
sometime.

[SeaNymph]

On 5/16/2013 7:49 PM, Parko wrote:

> Well here are two documentaries to watch. The first about a modern
> attempt to recreate the technology, the second about the real raid.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0dFWFLIq0
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p4N_t3bDKY
>
Fascinating. Thanks!

[Eagle]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:54:25 -0500, G. Morgan
<gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote:

>Aardvark wrote:
>
>>Today is the seventieth anniversary of an amazingly daring (and high-tech
>>for the time) bomber raid, Operation Chastise, on the Ruhr dams in
>>Germany:
>>
>><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9E1LDOVGcY>
>>
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise>
>>
>>53 Lancaster crew members were lost on the raid.
>

>That was one hell of a mission. They had to evade so many anti-aircraft
>guns to even get close to the dams, then those bombs had to be dropped
>just right to be effective.
>
>Damn (no pun intended) simple idea in retrospect. Just put a little
>"English" on the bomb, like a cue ball in billiards - or like a well back
>spun 8 iron onto the green.
>
>

Or, drill three holes in the bomb and let the bomb rack hook the bomb
into the pocket.
KABLOOEY!
--

Eagle

It does not require many words to speak the truth.
Chief Joseph

[Aardvark]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:54:25 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

> Aardvark wrote:
>
>>Today is the seventieth anniversary of an amazingly daring (and
>>high-tech for the time) bomber raid, Operation Chastise, on the Ruhr
>>dams in Germany:
>>
>><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9E1LDOVGcY>
>>
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise>
>>
>>53 Lancaster crew members were lost on the raid.
>

> That was one hell of a mission. They had to evade so many anti-aircraft
> guns to even get close to the dams, then those bombs had to be dropped
> just right to be effective.
>
> Damn (no pun intended) simple idea in retrospect. Just put a little
> "English" on the bomb, like a cue ball in billiards - or like a well
> back spun 8 iron onto the green.

In the bombing of Dresden (Operation Thunderclap), *722* Lancasters took
part in the raid, mate. *722*!!!!

I've witnessed a Lancaster in flight a number of times, and those four
Rolls-Royce Merlin engines droning together make a distinctive sound that
tells you even without seeing it that it's a Lancaster. I just couldn't
imagine the sound that 722 of the fuckers would make, but I'm sure it
would be *awesome*, and I'm not using that word lightly.

[Jax]

Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in
news:knaih0$284$5...@dont-email.me:

> On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:54:25 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:
>
>> Aardvark wrote:
>>
>>>Today is the seventieth anniversary of an amazingly daring (and
>>>high-tech for the time) bomber raid, Operation Chastise, on the Ruhr
>>>dams in Germany:
>>>
>>><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9E1LDOVGcY>
>>>
>>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise>
>>>
>>>53 Lancaster crew members were lost on the raid.
>>
>> That was one hell of a mission. They had to evade so many
>> anti-aircraft guns to even get close to the dams, then those bombs had
>> to be dropped just right to be effective.
>>
>> Damn (no pun intended) simple idea in retrospect. Just put a little
>> "English" on the bomb, like a cue ball in billiards - or like a well
>> back spun 8 iron onto the green.
>
> In the bombing of Dresden (Operation Thunderclap), *722* Lancasters took
> part in the raid, mate. *722*!!!!
>
> I've witnessed a Lancaster in flight a number of times, and those four
> Rolls-Royce Merlin engines droning together make a distinctive sound
> that tells you even without seeing it that it's a Lancaster. I just
> couldn't imagine the sound that 722 of the fuckers would make, but I'm
> sure it would be *awesome*, and I'm not using that word lightly.

Aardvark..... don't be silly. They didn't all go in one raid! LOL :)

--
Jax

[Eagle]

Jax dropped this bomb :

In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of
the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air
Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and
incendiary devices on the city.

[Aardvark]

Of course not, you stupid cunt.

> They didn't all go in one raid!

You can prove that ridiculous statement, you stupid cunt? I can certainly
prove mine.

> LOL
>

Amused by your own limitless ignorance again, I see, you stupid trolling
cunt.

[Jax]

Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in
news:knducu$cf4$1...@dont-email.me:

Aardvark I would like to see you prove your assertion that all 722
Lancasters were in one raid.

Here's my proof to the contrary: "In four raids between 13 and 15

February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF)

[etc]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

I won't bother waiting for your non-existent proof! The moral is don't
argue with the wife of a military pilot about air history. LOL :)

--
Jax

[John Karras]

JaxAss wrote:

> I won't bother waiting for your non-existent proof! The moral is don't
> argue with the wife of a military pilot about air history. LOL

Who would that be? Is it the cocaine-smuggling Billy Bear Bottoms you've
been saying lately that you *aren't related to*?

LOL, indeed!

[Aardvark]

Read and fucking learn for once in your miserable, misbegotten fucking life,
you stupid cunt:

<http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55>

> Here's my proof to the contrary: "In four raids between 13 and 15
> February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF)
> [etc]"
>

So you can thoughtlessly copy and paste, you stupid cunt. Whoop-de-fucking-
doo.

> http://<SNIP PREVIOUSLY-READ LINK>

>
> I won't bother waiting for your non-existent proof!

I don't fucking blame you, cunt, as non-existent proof means a long fucking
wait. Good thing my proof exists, isn't it?

> The moral is don't
> argue with the wife of a military pilot about air history.

If I ever encounter one, you stupid cunt, I'll try to remember that.

[Jax]

Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in
news:kne38o$c5l$1...@dont-email.me:

Jax wrote:
>>
>> Aardvark I would like to see you prove your assertion that all 722
>> Lancasters were in one raid.
>>
>
> Read and fucking learn for once in your miserable, misbegotten fucking
> life, you stupid cunt:
>
> <http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55>
>
>> Here's my proof to the contrary: "In four raids between 13 and 15
>> February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF)
>> [etc]"
>
> So you can thoughtlessly copy and paste, you stupid cunt.
> Whoop-de-fucking- doo.
>

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

>> I won't bother waiting for your non-existent proof!

You are a sore loser Aardvark! Just admit you got it wrong that all 722
British Lancasters didn't go in one raid! LOL :)

--
Jax

[Aardvark]

The troll just can't seem to make its mind up, can it, John. Unfortunately
for it, there are those here who know the truth of the matter.

[John Karras]

Aardvark wrote:

> John Karras wrote:
>> JaxAss wrote:
>>> I won't bother waiting for your non-existent proof! The moral is don't
>>> argue with the wife of a military pilot about air history. LOL
>>
>> Who would that be? Is it the cocaine-smuggling Billy Bear Bottoms
>> you've been saying lately that you *aren't related to*?
>>
>> LOL, indeed!
>
> The troll just can't seem to make its mind up, can it, John.

Every day it's something new. (kinda like an Alzheimer's sufferer)

> Unfortunately for it, there are those here who know the truth of the
> matter.

Yep.

[Aardvark]

The lying, slimy, fraudulent, stalking cunt wrote:

> You are a sore loser Aardvark!

WTF, you stupid cunt????? It's a fucking discussion, not some sort of
fucking competition. There are *no* winners or losers.

> Just admit you got it wrong that all 722
> British Lancasters didn't go in one raid

Didn't bother fucking reading the link, you trolling cunt, did you?

[Aardvark]

If you'd like to know also, you could always make a throwaway email addy and
email me. Write something in the email which you can repeat verbatim
in the group so I know for sure the email is from you.

[SeaNymph]

On 5/20/2013 4:41 PM, Aardvark wrote:
> The lying, slimy, fraudulent, stalking cunt wrote:
>
>> You are a sore loser Aardvark!
>
> WTF, you stupid cunt????? It's a fucking discussion, not some sort of
> fucking competition. There are *no* winners or losers.
>
>> Just admit you got it wrong that all 722
>> British Lancasters didn't go in one raid
>
> Didn't bother fucking reading the link, you trolling cunt, did you?
>

Once again, I feel compelled to remind you that there are simply some
posters who aren't worth responding to. No matter what you say, no
matter how factual you might be, they clearly have no use for the truth.

[John Karras]

Aardvark wrote:

> John Karras wrote:
>> Aardvark wrote:
>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>> JaxAss wrote:
>>>>> I won't bother waiting for your non-existent proof! The moral is
>>>>> don't argue with the wife of a military pilot about air history. LOL
>>>>
>>>> Who would that be? Is it the cocaine-smuggling Billy Bear Bottoms
>>>> you've been saying lately that you *aren't related to*?
>>>>
>>>> LOL, indeed!
>>>
>>> The troll just can't seem to make its mind up, can it, John.
>>
>> Every day it's something new. (kinda like an Alzheimer's sufferer)
>>
>>> Unfortunately for it, there are those here who know the truth of the
>>> matter.
>>
>> Yep.
>
> If you'd like to know also, you could always make a throwaway email addy
> and email me. Write something in the email which you can repeat verbatim
> in the group so I know for sure the email is from you.

I might take you up on that sometime later. I'm too busy for more than a
quick look-in here once in a while. I'd let you know.

OBTW, Gramps used to tell me about "thousand-bomber raids" from bases in
England to the Fatherland. So 700+ at once is certainly a reality.

[Eagle]

After serious thinking Aardvark wrote :

> John Karras wrote:

>> Aardvark wrote:
>>
>>> John Karras wrote:
>>>> JaxAss wrote:
>>>>> I won't bother waiting for your non-existent proof! The moral is don't
>>>>> argue with the wife of a military pilot about air history. LOL
>>>>
>>>> Who would that be? Is it the cocaine-smuggling Billy Bear Bottoms
>>>> you've been saying lately that you *aren't related to*?
>>>>
>>>> LOL, indeed!
>>>
>>> The troll just can't seem to make its mind up, can it, John.
>>
>> Every day it's something new. (kinda like an Alzheimer's sufferer)
>>
>>> Unfortunately for it, there are those here who know the truth of the
>>> matter.
>>
>> Yep.

> If you'd like to know also, you could always make a throwaway email addy and
> email me. Write something in the email which you can repeat verbatim
> in the group so I know for sure the email is from you.

lol Again, karrasite drops in with his snitty clap mouth.
I've yet to see anything from this fool worth reading...ANYTHING.

Now Aardvark resorts to "secret email" to 'hide' his bullshit.
HA!

[John Karras]

RonNNN wrote:

> Eagliar says...

>> Aardvark wrote :
>> > John Karras wrote:
>> >> Aardvark wrote:
>> >>> John Karras wrote:
>> >>>> JaxAss wrote:
>> >>>>> I won't bother waiting for your non-existent proof! The moral is
>> >>>>> don't argue with the wife of a military pilot about air history.
>> >>>>> LOL
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Who would that be? Is it the cocaine-smuggling Billy Bear Bottoms
>> >>>> you've been saying lately that you *aren't related to*?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> LOL, indeed!
>> >>>
>> >>> The troll just can't seem to make its mind up, can it, John.
>> >>
>> >> Every day it's something new. (kinda like an Alzheimer's sufferer)
>> >>
>> >>> Unfortunately for it, there are those here who know the truth of
>> >>> the matter.
>> >>
>> >> Yep.
>>
>> > If you'd like to know also, you could always make a throwaway email
>> > addy and email me. Write something in the email which you can repeat
>> > verbatim in the group so I know for sure the email is from you.
>>

>> lol Again, karras drops in with his finely tuned mouth.
>> I've yet to see anything from this fellow not worth reading...ANYTHING.

Aren't you due for a shift in front of your cigar store, Eagliar?

>> Now Aardvark resorts to "secret email" to 'hide' his bullshit. HA!
>

> But at least he hasn't resorted to "secret PGP" posts in a public forum
> like some of your friends do... that of which could be done in private
> email to begin with.

LOL, right. And they're probably Skyping right now...

[Jax]

Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in news:kne52s$mfc$1...@dont-email.me:

> The lying, slimy, fraudulent, stalking cunt wrote:
>
>> You are a sore loser Aardvark!
>
> WTF, you stupid cunt????? It's a fucking discussion, not some sort of
> fucking competition. There are *no* winners or losers.
>
>> Just admit you got it wrong that all 722
>> British Lancasters didn't go in one raid
>
> Didn't bother fucking reading the link, you trolling cunt, did you?

Aardvark you're a bad loser.... it's you who failed to read the link! Your
M.O. is so obvious! :)

--
Jax

[Jax]

JohnAss <jka...@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:kne306$7u3$1...@dont-email.me:

John..... my husband never flew cocaine. Just saying! :)

--
Jax

[Eagle]

on 5/21/2013, Jax supposed :

He makes a habit of not opening links, Jax. Doing so really throws off
the line of conversation. He hates you so much it clouds his ability to
reason logically, and that's his loss.

[Jax]

"Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com> wrote in news:kng63s$2f8$1...@dont-email.me:

Eagle I think Aardvark actually does open links.... but he has a habit of
making a demonstration to say he hasn't.

Similarly, for a long time he claimed I was in his kill file..... but he
seemed to know a great deal about what my posts contained! LOL :)

--
Jax

[Eagle]

You have a good point there, Jax. His claim of not opening a link is
like SN claiming she ignores me. She doesn't, and Aardvark does indeed
open links he claims he doesn't.
That makes the ^5 twins liars now doesn't it.... lol

[John Karras]

JaxAss wrote:

> John wrote:
>> JaxAss wrote:
>>> I won't bother waiting for your non-existent proof! The moral is don't
>>> argue with the wife of a military pilot about air history. LOL
>>
>> Who would that be? Is it the cocaine-smuggling Billy Bear Bottoms
>> you've been saying lately that you *aren't related to*?
>>
>> LOL, indeed!
>
> John..... my husband never flew cocaine. Just saying! :)

Your "just saying" nearly always seems to indicate a lie, or some sort of
malicious innuendo.

It's also blatantly obvious that you ignore the comment that you've been
posting that you are not related, then in a subsequent post, you are. "By
marriage" is _related_. "He's not my husband." "My husband..." Just saying.

Tell this ill-informed military pilot to google up "thousand bomber raids".

[~BD~]

G. Morgan wrote:
> Aardvark wrote:
>
>> I've witnessed a Lancaster in flight a number of times, and those four
>> Rolls-Royce Merlin engines droning together make a distinctive sound that
>> tells you even without seeing it that it's a Lancaster. I just couldn't
>> imagine the sound that 722 of the fuckers would make, but I'm sure it
>> would be *awesome*, and I'm not using that word lightly.
>

> A couple of days ago three Apaches and two VH-3D helos came flying over.
> I could hear them coming from a pretty long way out. I looked to see if
> the POTUS was in town, but he wasn't. Must have been another VIP coming
> in or a training mission, who knows - they never consult me first!
>
> They were flying so low I could see the guns on the Apaches. I sure as
> hell wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of one of them. They are
> menacing enough just to hear and see without firing a shot for me, why
> anyone would engage one with rifle fire from the ground is beyond me -
> I'd run and hide!



IIRC, the President's helicopter is a Pave Hawk

That is what my son was flying when he spent four and a half years in
the USA teaching US pilots - the Sikorsky HH-60G Pave Hawk. It is a
derivative of the UH-60 Black Hawk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_HH-60_Pave_Hawk

He was based here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtland_AFB

That's a most interesting place for sure!

Nice piccie here btw:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/CSA-2005-05-05-102937.jpg

--

[Eagle]

G. Morgan has brought this to us :

> Aardvark wrote:

>> I've witnessed a Lancaster in flight a number of times, and those four
>> Rolls-Royce Merlin engines droning together make a distinctive sound that
>> tells you even without seeing it that it's a Lancaster. I just couldn't
>> imagine the sound that 722 of the fuckers would make, but I'm sure it
>> would be *awesome*, and I'm not using that word lightly.

> A couple of days ago three Apaches and two VH-3D helos came flying over.
> I could hear them coming from a pretty long way out. I looked to see if
> the POTUS was in town, but he wasn't. Must have been another VIP coming
> in or a training mission, who knows - they never consult me first!

> They were flying so low I could see the guns on the Apaches. I sure as
> hell wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of one of them. They are
> menacing enough just to hear and see without firing a shot for me, why
> anyone would engage one with rifle fire from the ground is beyond me -
> I'd run and hide!

Especially since small arms fire won't penetrate the Apache armor.

[Jax]

Dustin <abugh...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1CB951AC4019C9...@unknown.org:

> "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com> wrote in news:knirno$piq$1...@dont-email.me:

> Define small arms fire. her exhaust ports will accept live rounds.
>
> Bullet resistant, not bullet proof. Options for firing on crew as well
> as pilots. Glass is bullet resistant, but not bullet proof. A high
> enough powered rifle round will do the job.

Dustin instead of asking dumb questions try using Google....

"According to Boeing, every part of the helicopter can survive 12.7-mm
rounds".

http://www.howstuffworks.com/apache-helicopter6.htm

--
Jax

[Eagle]

Dustin explained :

> "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com> wrote in news:knirno$piq$1...@dont-email.me:

> Define small arms fire. her exhaust ports will accept live rounds.

> Bullet resistant, not bullet proof. Options for firing on crew as well as
> pilots. Glass is bullet resistant, but not bullet proof. A high enough
> powered rifle round will do the job.

Got that from the web eh? :-@

[Eagle]

Dustin explained on 5/25/2013 :
> G. Morgan <gra...@grahammorgan.name> wrote in
> news:0aoop81ptuttb7lik...@Osama-is-dead.net:

>> They were flying so low I could see the guns on the Apaches. I sure as
>> hell wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of one of them. They are
>> menacing enough just to hear and see without firing a shot for me, why
>> anyone would engage one with rifle fire from the ground is beyond me -
>> I'd run and hide!

> Despite the intimidation factor, a heli is actually a fragile aircraft and
> it only takes a good rifle round in the right spot to bring her badass on
> the ground, hard.

> If you have the right rifle with proper rounds, engaging an apache and
> aiming for her tail and/or rotors is a sure way to bring her down and most
> likely kill her crew in the process.

> You could always go for the pilots if your a good shot and watch it swirl
> out of control, instead. Glass is only bullet resistant. And only to a
> point.

> You nail the hydraulics, rotors, main tail section, engine exhaust (nope,
> not bullet proof), and or the crew, and she's a dead bird.

> Firing a few shoulder fired missiles will also bring one down. Multiple
> missiles engaging at the same time is required to defeat the anti missile
> decoy system. Hitting it anywhere with a rocket is going to cause it to
> crash.

> Apache's a fine bird, but far from invincible. See black hawk down.

buhahahahahahaha!
Hate to tell you, dustbin, but the AH64 isn't a UH 60.
Dumb punk.

[Jax]

Dustin <abugh...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1CB9A529DC44C9...@unknown.org:

> Jax <do.not.remove....@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA1CBC6...@127.0.0.1:

> Uh huh...
> I did..
>
> Lots of hits, dead black hawks. missiles, rockets, and rifle fire from
> insurgents...
>
> just do black hawk shot down.
> intimidating beast she is, hardly invincible.
>


Dustin did you miss this entry....?

"According to Boeing, every part of the [Apache] helicopter can survive 12.7
mm rounds". http://www.howstuffworks.com/apache-helicopter6.htm

"Black Hawk down" should be a clue that the downed helicopters were not
Apaches! Those Black Hawks in Mogadishu didn't come down due to small arms
fire. Think about it! :)

--
Jax

[FromTheRafters]

Dustin brought next idea :

> Jax <do.not.remove....@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA1CBC6...@127.0.0.1:
>

> Uh huh...
>
> I did..
>
> Lots of hits, dead black hawks. missiles, rockets, and rifle fire from
> insurgents...
>
> just do black hawk shot down.
>
> intimidating beast she is, hardly invincible.

Apache is not the same as Blackhawk.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070806203951AA8iwJ1

BTW - this "best answer" guy calls them "airplanes" - I hope nobody
gets upset about it.

[Aardvark]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:51:28 +0000, Dustin wrote:

> Jax <do.not.remove....@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA1CBC6...@127.0.0.1:
>

> Uh huh...
>
> I did..
>
> Lots of hits, dead black hawks. missiles, rockets, and rifle fire from
> insurgents...
>
> just do black hawk shot down.
>
> intimidating beast she is, hardly invincible.

Talking about shooting, Dustin- did you see how the cops got those two
fuckers who killed the soldier in Woolwich the other day? I watched a bit
of vid on the news the other night. The two guys ran at the cops from
about twenty yards waving their edged weapons. When they're about ten
feet from the cops, eight shots ring out, the guys go down, both shot
pretty badly in the legs.

A good result all round, IMO. The law of the land will now deal with
them.



--
"I am not made like anyone I have seen; I dare believe I am not made
like anyone in existence. If I am not better, at least I am different."
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

[Jax]

Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in
news:knr2qn$15k$2...@dont-email.me:

Aardvark.... Google shows this similar M.O. except for the knives.

"The three Scottish soldiers' killings was an incident that took place in
Northern Ireland during The Troubles. It happened on 10 March 1971, when
the Provisional Irish Republican Army shot dead three unarmed British Army
soldiers of the 1st Battalion, Royal Highland Fusiliers. Two of the three
were teenage brothers; all three were from Scotland.

They were killed off-duty and in civilian clothes having been lured from a
city-centre bar in Belfast, Northern Ireland, driven to a remote location
and shot whilst relieving themselves by the roadside."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Scottish_soldiers'_killings

--
Jax

[Eagle]

Jax expects you to read this :

Don't confuse the kid, Jax. He lives in a fantasy world.

[Eagle]

Jax laid this down on his screen :

That really sux, Jax. Candy ass fuckers attacking unarmed Men. :-@

[Eagle]

Dustin presented the following explanation :
> "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com> wrote in news:knqvu5$fj7$1...@dont-email.me:

> I can guarantee you there are places on an Apache that won't survive a hit
> from a 12.7mm round. Anyone who tells you that is smoking something. A .50
> Cal. will take out a tail rotor and put the aircraft into a spin. A hit on
> the main rotor would cause an imbalance that would cause it to crash. An
> engine hit would leave it at poor power.

> The thing is any of these hits would be pure luck. You can't pick a target
> and hit it when it's flying at 100 knots plus.

> More from the same thread, thousands of detailed reports on helis available
> supporting it.

> Your AH64 can be 0wned by a .50 cal. Set her up for full auto, you'll hit
> her, hauling ass or not. Just as the taliban.

Go up against one then. Grab a 50 cal or whatever pops your pimples,
you'll be furtilizer in one squeeze.

[Aardvark]

Yup. All these people, unarmed, brutally murdered on the afternoon of
Sunday, Jan 31, 1972:

Patrick ('Paddy') Doherty (31)

Gerald Donaghey (17)

John ('Jackie') Duddy (17)

Hugh Gilmour (17)

Michael Kelly (17)

Michael McDaid (20)

Kevin McElhinney (17)

Bernard ('Barney') McGuigan (41)

Gerald McKinney (35)

William ('Willie') McKinney (26)

William Nash (19)

James ('Jim') Wray (22)

John Young (17)

As well as these unarmed people, also all unarmed, either wounded or
otherwise injured by the same bunch of murderous thugs on the same day:

Michael Bradley (22)

Michael Bridge (25)

Alana Burke (18) (injured when run down by a British Army armoured
personnel carrier)

Patrick Campbell (53) (injured when run down by a British Army armoured
personnel carrier ?)

Margaret ('Peggy') Deery (37) (the only woman shot and injured on 'Bloody
Sunday')

Damien Donaghy (15)

Joseph ('Joe') Friel (20)

Daniel Gillespie (31) (not mentioned in Widgery's Tribunal Report)

Joseph Mahon (16)

Pius McCarron (30?) (injured by masonry dislodged by a bullet)

Patrick McDaid (24)

Daniel McGowan (37)

Alexander ('Alex') Nash (52)

Patrick ('Paddy') O'Donnell (41)

Michael Quinn (17)

A few more details of the victims:

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/15/bloody-sunday-report-victims>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281972%29>

Oh, lookie, that wasn't the first time the same gang of murderous thugs
had killed innocent, unarmed civilians en masse:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281920%29>

[Eagle]

Aardvark expects you to read this :

I'm not going to argue this with you, there is blame enough for all in
that insanity.

[Jax]

Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in
news:knr6k7$15k$2...@dont-email.me:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:42:18 -0700, Eagle wrote:
>
>> Jax laid this down on his screen :
>>> Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in
>>> news:knr2qn$15k$2...@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Talking about shooting, Dustin- did you see how the cops got those
>>>> two fuckers who killed the soldier in Woolwich the other day? I
>>>> watched a bit of vid on the news the other night. The two guys ran at
>>>> the cops from about twenty yards waving their edged weapons. When
>>>> they're about ten feet from the cops, eight shots ring out, the guys
>>>> go down, both shot pretty badly in the legs.
>>>>
>>>> A good result all round, IMO. The law of the land will now deal with
>>>> them.
>>
>>> Aardvark.... Google shows this similar M.O. except for the knives.
>>
>>> "The three Scottish soldiers' killings was an incident that took place
>>> in Northern Ireland during The Troubles. It happened on 10 March
>>> 1971, when the Provisional Irish Republican Army shot dead three
>>> unarmed British Army soldiers of the 1st Battalion, Royal Highland
>>> Fusiliers. Two of the three were teenage brothers; all three were from
>>> Scotland.
>>
>>> They were killed off-duty and in civilian clothes having been lured
>>> from a city-centre bar in Belfast, Northern Ireland, driven to a
>>> remote location and shot whilst relieving themselves by the roadside."
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Scottish_soldiers'_killings
>>
>> That really sux, Jax. Candy ass fuckers attacking unarmed Men. :-@
>
> Yup. All these people, unarmed, brutally murdered on the afternoon of
> Sunday, Jan 31, 1972:

> [names snipped for brevity]

>
> As well as these unarmed people, also all unarmed, either wounded or
> otherwise injured by the same bunch of murderous thugs on the same day:

> [names snipped for brevity]

>
> A few more details of the victims:
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/15/bloody-sunday-report-victims>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281972%29>
>
> Oh, lookie, that wasn't the first time the same gang of murderous thugs
> had killed innocent, unarmed civilians en masse:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281920%29>

Aardvark the two situations are not the same. Bloody Sunday was
confrontational. The civilian deaths were not premeditated and the victims
were not selected in advance. Recently the British gov't has apologized
for their soldiers panicking in the heat of an affray.

The I.R.A. campaign of murdering off-duty British military personnel was
an entirely different matter. This was almost exactly like the Woolwich
London attack on an off-duty soldier! :(

--
Jax

[Aardvark]

About what? I was agreeing with you about the wrongness of the murder of
innocent, unarmed people. I simply added a further case of such things
from the same place in the same year.

> there is blame enough for all in
> that insanity.

It isn't about blame.

[Aardvark]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:09:38 +0100, the lying, slimy, fraudulent,
stalking cunt wrote:

> <SNIP IGNORANT CLAPTRAP>

Missed my point entirely I see, you stupid cunt.

[FromTheRafters]

It happens that Aardvark formulated :

I suppose that actively resisting those soldiers in the performance of
their duties would be frowned upon by some people with narrowboats.

[Aardvark]

Indeed. If they had been actively resisting. They were all either running
away, seeking cover, or in bad cover. They had actually turned up there
that day to march for civil rights.

I suppose that nevertheless some people with narrowboats might very well
find fault with people protesting an imbalance of civil rights at that
time in that place. 'One man, one vote' is a very threatening idea for
such narrowboat owners, and those chanting such a revolutionary and
dangerous phrase *deserve* to be shot.

I was supposed to be on that march that day, but the vehicle transporting
my group was turned back not far outside Belfast.

[FromTheRafters]

Dustin has brought this to us :
> FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:knr2e6$tlt$1...@dont-email.me:

> Doesn't matter, she has the same vulnerabilities as any other heli does.
> You cannot protect everything from .50 cal rounds. It's not a tank. You
> make it too heavy, it can't fly.

I agree. It just seemed funny to me that you posted points about a
different helicopter than the one being discussed. They were both
purpose-built for different purposes. As you said though, they are made
for different levels of resistance to hostile fire, not nearly are they
invincible.

I watched a small video of an Apache attacking enemies in a field. The
video was basically a capture of the infrared display monitor showing
the gunnery system operators tearing their targets apart. Impressive
indeed!

[Aardvark]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 23:55:39 +0000, Dustin wrote:

> Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in news:knr2qn$15k$23@dont-
> email.me:

> Difference between your cops and ours. Ours would have used lethal
> force,
> not shooting to wound. :)

Indeed. And they would have fired just a few more than eight rounds and
not waited until their targets were at almost point-blank range. :-)

I thought the police action was highly professional and they did just
enough to neutralise the threat and no more. No overkill, no
disproportionate force- just the way it *should* be done.

[practice]

On 05/25/2013 08:50 PM, Dustin wrote:

>
> In this country, if someone breaks into my home and gets injured doing it;
> I could be held liable for their injuries. Now I'm sorry, but why should I
> lose everything I have because you tried to steal it from me?
>

Exactly!

[Jax]

Dustin <abugh...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1CBCEEB1E16BC9...@unknown.org:

>
> Dude, the taliban are dropping them with small calibre machine guns.
> Fact is, you were *wrong* about her invincibility, she's not fully
> armored either.
>
> She's a war heli, but still a heli and still vulnerable to the same
> things that any other heli would be. You cannot protect her completely.
> a .50 cal BMG will pierce a manhole cover at 300 yards. You think that
> light armor on the apache is going to stop it?
>
> You hit her in any vulnerable spot, you will down that bird. Period.

Dustin have you served in the military? Just wondering! :)

--
Jax

[Aardvark]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:50:47 +0000, Dustin wrote:

> Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in news:knrn08$6vh$18@dont-

> If someone was coming towards me with a weapon in a hostile manner, I'm
> unsure how close I'd allow them to get before I fired with lethal
> intent.
>

It is clear that the police intent in this case wasn't necessarily lethal.

> I wouldn't shoot to wound either. They can sue me for hospital bills
> later;
> and in my country, they could win.
>

I suppose those fuckers could try to sue here,but they wouldn't have a
legal leg to stand on, what with all the video and witness evidence.

>> I thought the police action was highly professional and they did just
>> enough to neutralise the threat and no more. No overkill, no
>> disproportionate force- just the way it *should* be done.
>

> In your country. :)
>

No. To my mind, in *any* country. I don't think I've ever seen or heard
of such a perfect take-down and arrest in which no one died who didn't
have to die.

> In this country, if someone breaks into my home and gets injured doing
> it; I could be held liable for their injuries.

That's a bit crazy.

> Now I'm sorry, but why
> should I lose everything I have because you tried to steal it from me?

I think you may be comparing apples and oranges here. Or at least French
Golden Delicious with Bramley.

[FromTheRafters]

on 5/25/2013, Aardvark supposed :

I found the interview with a "friend" of one of the perpetrators to be
pretty creepy. He was obviously of the same mindset as the perpetrator
and used all that "love" talk we are all quickly becoming use to
hearing from Islam exrtemists and non-extremists alike. I have the
feeling that there is deep trouble brewing over there, it will be hard
to tell the extremists from the moderates when they're all trying to
shove their love down our throats.

[BurfordTJustice]

"FromTheRafters" <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:knt3ed$jc9$1...@dont-email.me...

I found the interview with a "friend" of one of the perpetrators to be
pretty creepy.

--
Because they lie like you?

Fuck all you should feel right at home, maybe you are a closet muslim?

You do play both sides and evade all things directed at you.

You sure had bd fooled on your working and fake illness.

[Eagle]

Aardvark wrote this mess :

OK, discuss then.

>> there is blame enough for all in
>> that insanity.

> It isn't about blame.

Many would say it was.

[Eagle]

on 5/25/2013, Dustin supposed :
> Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in news:knr2qn$15k$23@dont-
> email.me:

> Difference between your cops and ours. Ours would have used lethal force,
> not shooting to wound. :)

Exactly.

[Eagle]

Dustin explained :
> Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in news:knrn08$6vh$18@dont-

> If someone was coming towards me with a weapon in a hostile manner, I'm
> unsure how close I'd allow them to get before I fired with lethal intent.

> I wouldn't shoot to wound either. They can sue me for hospital bills later;
> and in my country, they could win.

>> I thought the police action was highly professional and they did just
>> enough to neutralise the threat and no more. No overkill, no
>> disproportionate force- just the way it *should* be done.

> In your country. :)

> In this country, if someone breaks into my home and gets injured doing it;

> I could be held liable for their injuries. Now I'm sorry, but why should I

> lose everything I have because you tried to steal it from me?

The problem with that reasoning is if you kill someone inside your
home, no matter what that intruders intent was, you can be arrested
tried and convicted of manslaughter.
Our criminal system sucks big time.

[Eagle]

on 5/26/2013, FromTheRafters supposed :

Religion of "peace" my ass. :/

[Eagle]

Dustin formulated on Saturday :
> "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com> wrote in news:knr424$6ng$1...@dont-email.me:

> Dude, the taliban are dropping them with small calibre machine guns. Fact
> is, you were *wrong* about her invincibility, she's not fully armored
> either.

> She's a war heli, but still a heli and still vulnerable to the same things
> that any other heli would be. You cannot protect her completely. a .50 cal
> BMG will pierce a manhole cover at 300 yards. You think that light armor on
> the apache is going to stop it?

> You hit her in any vulnerable spot, you will down that bird. Period.

Not true at all. Small caliber weapons are not effective when the AH64
is 2000 feet overhead. A few rounds of 30 cal from that chain gun and
the perps are spread all over the desert. The videos show that very
clearly. How can a RPG hit a moving target 2000 feet away and moving
150MPH?
Your argument has big holes in it.

[OldGringo38]

That does not hold true in the state of Texas. Sorry Buber.

--
OG 38
Just west of nowhere

[Eagle]

on 5/26/2013, OldGringo38 supposed :

It does in California, and many other states.

[OldGringo38]

I'll agree with you on that. Walking through an open door is considered
B&E here. :)

[Jax]

"Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com> wrote in news:kntf0v$j29$1...@dont-email.me:

Eagle.... fact is Dustin's never served in the military but just read
about this on the Internet. LOL Just saying! :)

--
Jax

[Aardvark]

Nothing to discuss.

>>> there is blame enough for all in that insanity.
>
>> It isn't about blame.
>
> Many would say it was.

Only those who prefer to look back rather than forward. It isn't about
blame, it's about reconciliation and a shared future.

[Aardvark]

Yeah. Must be a real bummer to not be able to kill someone in the privacy
of your own home without some fucker wanting to take you to court for it.

[Aardvark]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 19:23:19 +0100, the lying, slimy, fraudulent,
stalking cunt wrote:

> fact is Dustin's never served in the military

Really, you slimy cunt? When and where did he say that? I saw you asking
him, but I must have missed his reply. What's the MID of the post in
which he gave you the information?

You certainly wouldn't be making things up, cunt, would you?

[FromTheRafters]

Jax used his keyboard to write :

I'm sure that there are plenty of people in the military that don't
know anything about rotary-wing airplanes (ok, aircraft) and their
specific capabilities. Being or not being in the military is a red
herring.

[SeaNymph]

On 5/26/2013 12:04 PM, OldGringo38 wrote:
> On 05/26/2013 11:57 AM, Eagle wrote:
>> Dustin explained :
>>> Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in news:knrn08$6vh$18@dont-
>>> email.me:

>>> In your country. :)
>>
>>> In this country, if someone breaks into my home and gets injured doing
>>> it; I could be held liable for their injuries. Now I'm sorry, but why
>>> should I lose everything I have because you tried to steal it from me?
>>
>> The problem with that reasoning is if you kill someone inside your home,
>> no matter what that intruders intent was, you can be arrested tried and
>> convicted of manslaughter.
>> Our criminal system sucks big time.
>>
>
> That does not hold true in the state of Texas. Sorry Buber.
>

Yep, the castle laws in Texas are designed to protect the homeowner, not
the intruder.

[SeaNymph]

On 5/26/2013 2:34 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Jax used his keyboard to write :
>> "Eagle" <deag...@geemail.com> wrote in news:kntf0v$j29$1...@dont-email.me:
>>

>>>

>>> Not true at all. Small caliber weapons are not effective when the
>>> AH64 is 2000 feet overhead. A few rounds of 30 cal from that chain
>>> gun and the perps are spread all over the desert. The videos show
>>> that very clearly. How can a RPG hit a moving target 2000 feet away
>>> and moving 150MPH?
>>> Your argument has big holes in it.
>>
>> Eagle.... fact is Dustin's never served in the military but just read
>> about this on the Internet. LOL Just saying! :)
>
> I'm sure that there are plenty of people in the military that don't know
> anything about rotary-wing airplanes (ok, aircraft) and their specific
> capabilities. Being or not being in the military is a red herring.
>
>

True that. Heck many in the navy know nothing about ships either. They
just do their particular job and that's all. Not that there's anything
wrong with that, it's just how it is.

[OldGringo38]

And that is the way it should be. Hoping you are having a grand
week-end SN.

[SeaNymph]

I am having a wonderful weekend. :)

[Aardvark]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 20:58:57 +0000, Dustin wrote:

> Jax <do.not.remove....@gmail.com> wrote in

> news:XnsA1CC6C...@127.0.0.1:
>
>> Dustin <abugh...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA1CBCEEB1E16BC9...@unknown.org:

>>
>>
>>> Dude, the taliban are dropping them with small calibre machine guns.
>>> Fact is, you were *wrong* about her invincibility, she's not fully
>>> armored either.
>>>
>>> She's a war heli, but still a heli and still vulnerable to the same
>>> things that any other heli would be. You cannot protect her
>>> completely.
>>> a .50 cal BMG will pierce a manhole cover at 300 yards. You think that
>>> light armor on the apache is going to stop it?
>>>
>>> You hit her in any vulnerable spot, you will down that bird. Period.
>>

>> Dustin have you served in the military? Just wondering! :)
>
> I won't answer your question. It's irrevelent to the discussion.

Funny. Last I heard, the troll was claiming as a fact that you hadn't
been in the military. You've just proven that a false claim, as no one
here knows whether you did or not. Except you.

As if military service means shit one way or the other.

[Jax]

Dustin <abugh...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1CCAFF33C31DC9...@unknown.org:

> Jax <do.not.remove....@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA1CC6C...@127.0.0.1:
>
>> Dustin <abugh...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA1CBCEEB1E16BC9...@unknown.org:
>>
>>>
>>> Dude, the taliban are dropping them with small calibre machine guns.
>>> Fact is, you were *wrong* about her invincibility, she's not fully
>>> armored either.
>>>
>>> She's a war heli, but still a heli and still vulnerable to the same
>>> things that any other heli would be. You cannot protect her completely.
>>> a .50 cal BMG will pierce a manhole cover at 300 yards. You think that
>>> light armor on the apache is going to stop it?
>>>
>>> You hit her in any vulnerable spot, you will down that bird. Period.
>>
>> Dustin have you served in the military? Just wondering! :)
>
> I won't answer your question. It's irrevelent to the discussion.

Dustin I'll take that as a "No"..... until you prove the contrary! :)

--
Jax

[Jax]

Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in news:kntu86$9re$2...@dont-email.me:

> Funny. Last I heard, the troll was claiming as a fact that you hadn't
> been in the military. You've just proven that a false claim, as no one
> here knows whether you did or not. Except you.
>
> As if military service means shit one way or the other.

That Fuzzy logic isn't working too good! :)

--
Jax

[Jax]

Aardvark <aard...@aardvark.uk.tc> wrote in news:kntkqt$9re$2...@dont-email.me:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 19:23:19 +0100, the lying, slimy, fraudulent,
> stalking cunt wrote:
>
>> fact is Dustin's never served in the military
>
> Really, you slimy cunt? When and where did he say that? I saw you asking
> him, but I must have missed his reply. What's the MID of the post in
> which he gave you the information?
>
> You certainly wouldn't be making things up, cunt, would you?

Have you served in the military Aardvark? Just asking! :)

--
Jax