Re: Airshow horror as biplane takes off without pilot and crashes into trees
Spartan613
"Stephen James" <steph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9lhju49thq0uceesp...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:52:26 GMT, "Spartan613" <bugg...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Stephen James" <steph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:q3tgu4lsm9p5g02ju...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:06:12 GMT, "Spartan613" <bugg...@nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stick to the aviation stuff. You clearly know fuck-all about small arms
>>>>and
>>>>anti-tank *rockets*.
>>>
>>> I was there and coordinated the "downing" of the dirigible...were you?
>>
>>Irrelevant. The M72 *rocket* is not a recoilless rifle. If you were what
>>you
>>claim, you'd know that.
>>
> Please re read my original post, I did not say that the M72 is a
> recoilless rifle, I said "Thank God they didn't try and use a
> recoilless anti tank weapon like the M72........................."
The M72 SRAAW is not and has never been classified as a "recoilless
anti-tank weapon", like or otherwise.
What you said was bullshit. So lets just leave it at that and move on.
>
> I am well aware of what a M72 is, I have had a great deal of
> experience with this weapon at the T.T.E.
That's nice. I have a shit-load of experience with it in a lot of other
places.
Big deal.
> Perhaps you are getting confused with the Carl Gustav M2/M3 84mm
> recoilless rifle, also an anti tank weapon.
No, I'm not in the least bit confused. I have plenty of experience with that
weapon also.
>The Australian manufactured rounds for the M2 were extensively tested at
>the T.T.E.
That's nice. So are you saying you never carried one for a living?
>>> I was also involved with on-going weapons testing at the Tropical
>>> Trials Establishment (south of Innisfail QLD) during the late 60s and
>>> early 70s. I'll let you guess which weapons I know "fuck-all" about.
>>
>
>>Ahhh, a "bigger is better" type. "Bring back the SLR" and all that
>>bullshit,
>>hey?
>>
> You do seem to like putting words into other people's mouths..... I
> made no reference or comparison to the SLR or it's larger calibre.
No, but I know your vintage.
>>It's easy to regard the 5.56mm as "piddling" ..............until you get
>>shot with it.
>
> In the context in which the reference to the M16 was used, I stand by
> the "piddling" remark in describing the holes that it made in the
> dirigible's fabric.....especially when compared to the projectile/s
> subsequently used to create holes big enough to deflate the balloon.
So you agree with me that it was pretty bloody stupid to use a small calibre
anti-personnel rifle round against a balloon.
I'm glad we got that sorted out.
--
"Green-Left Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it
everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."
-With apologies to Groucho Marx
>
> Regards
> Stephen
>
Kwyjibo
> "Stephen James" <steph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9lhju49thq0uceesp...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:52:26 GMT, "Spartan613" <bugg...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Stephen James" <steph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:q3tgu4lsm9p5g02ju...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:06:12 GMT, "Spartan613"
>>>> <bugg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stick to the aviation stuff. You clearly know fuck-all about
>>>>> small arms and
>>>>> anti-tank *rockets*.
>>>>
>>>> I was there and coordinated the "downing" of the dirigible...were
>>>> you?
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. The M72 *rocket* is not a recoilless rifle. If you were
>>> what you
>>> claim, you'd know that.
>>>
>> Please re read my original post, I did not say that the M72 is a
>> recoilless rifle, I said "Thank God they didn't try and use a
>> recoilless anti tank weapon like the M72........................."
>
> The M72 SRAAW is not and has never been classified as a "recoilless
> anti-tank weapon", like or otherwise.
Liar. Does it have recoil? What does the 'AT' stand for in the HE*AT*
warhead it fires?
That's a pathetic attempt at a backpedal - even by your miserable standards.
>
> What you said was bullshit.
No. What *YOU* said was bullshit, Brash.
> So lets just leave it at that and move on.
>
>>
>> I am well aware of what a M72 is, I have had a great deal of
>> experience with this weapon at the T.T.E.
>
> That's nice. I have a shit-load of experience with it in a lot of
> other places.
Is that why you had to invent the use of the word 'rifle' to try to justify
your silly shit?
>
> Big deal.
>
>> Perhaps you are getting confused with the Carl Gustav M2/M3 84mm
>> recoilless rifle, also an anti tank weapon.
>
> No, I'm not in the least bit confused. I have plenty of experience
> with that weapon also.
Plenty of experience mindlessly wanking too. That much is obvious, given
your failing eyesight made you see the word 'rifle' when it wasn't even
posted.
--
Kwyj.
Spartan613
"Kwyjibo" <kwy...@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
news:S8adnatPc4DOAXfU...@westnet.com.au...
> Spartan613 wrote:
>> "Stephen James" <steph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9lhju49thq0uceesp...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:52:26 GMT, "Spartan613" <bugg...@nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Stephen James" <steph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:q3tgu4lsm9p5g02ju...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:06:12 GMT, "Spartan613"
>>>>> <bugg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stick to the aviation stuff. You clearly know fuck-all about
>>>>>> small arms and
>>>>>> anti-tank *rockets*.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was there and coordinated the "downing" of the dirigible...were
>>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. The M72 *rocket* is not a recoilless rifle. If you were
>>>> what you
>>>> claim, you'd know that.
>>>>
>>> Please re read my original post, I did not say that the M72 is a
>>> recoilless rifle, I said "Thank God they didn't try and use a
>>> recoilless anti tank weapon like the M72........................."
>>
>> The M72 SRAAW is not and has never been classified as a "recoilless
>> anti-tank weapon", like or otherwise.
>
> Liar.
Yes, you are.
> Does it have recoil?
If you'd fired one you know that it does. Not as much as a large-calibre
rifle. But recoil nonetheless.
By the way, you don't have a dog in this fight, dildo, so why the interest?
>What does the 'AT' stand for in the HE*AT* warhead it fires?
Anti-tank, fucktard. Going somewhere or just running laps?
> That's a pathetic attempt at a backpedal - even by your miserable
> standards.
>
>>
>> What you said was bullshit.
>
> No. What *YOU* said was bullshit, Brash.
*scratches head*
>> So lets just leave it at that and move on.
>>
>>>
>>> I am well aware of what a M72 is, I have had a great deal of
>>> experience with this weapon at the T.T.E.
>>
>> That's nice. I have a shit-load of experience with it in a lot of
>> other places.
>
> Is that why you had to invent the use of the word 'rifle' to try to
> justify your silly shit?
Come back when you have a clue.
--
"Green-Left Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it
everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."
-With apologies to Groucho Marx
>>
Stephen James
wrote:
>
>"Stephen James" <steph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9lhju49thq0uceesp...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:52:26 GMT, "Spartan613" <bugg...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Stephen James" <steph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:q3tgu4lsm9p5g02ju...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:06:12 GMT, "Spartan613" <bugg...@nospam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stick to the aviation stuff. You clearly know fuck-all about small arms
>>>>>and
>>>>>anti-tank *rockets*.
>>>>
>>>> I was there and coordinated the "downing" of the dirigible...were you?
>>>
>>>Irrelevant. The M72 *rocket* is not a recoilless rifle. If you were what
>>>you
>>>claim, you'd know that.
>>>
>> Please re read my original post, I did not say that the M72 is a
>> recoilless rifle, I said "Thank God they didn't try and use a
>> recoilless anti tank weapon like the M72........................."
>
>The M72 SRAAW is not and has never been classified as a "recoilless
>anti-tank weapon", like or otherwise.
You use your terms I'll use mine, the fact is that it is a recoilless,
or nearly so anti-tank weapon, see cite below.
When fired, the propellant in the rocket motor completely combusts
before leaving the tip of the launcher, producing gases around 1,400
č (760 č). The rocket propels the 66 mm warhead forward **without
significant recoil.**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72_LAW
The comment about it being recoilless was for illustrative purposes
only and not intended to give the weapon its Military designation or
description..
Perhaps you are being a little pedantic.
>
>What you said was bullshit. So lets just leave it at that and move on.
>
>>
>> I am well aware of what a M72 is, I have had a great deal of
>> experience with this weapon at the T.T.E.
>
>That's nice. I have a shit-load of experience with it in a lot of other
>places.
>
>Big deal.
Exactly
>
>> Perhaps you are getting confused with the Carl Gustav M2/M3 84mm
>> recoilless rifle, also an anti tank weapon.
>
>No, I'm not in the least bit confused. I have plenty of experience with that
>weapon also.
>
>>The Australian manufactured rounds for the M2 were extensively tested at
>>the T.T.E.
>
>That's nice. So are you saying you never carried one for a living?
If you are implying that I didn't carry either weapon in combat the
you are correct. However that does not limit my knowledge of either
weapon.
>>>> I was also involved with on-going weapons testing at the Tropical
>>>> Trials Establishment (south of Innisfail QLD) during the late 60s and
>>>> early 70s. I'll let you guess which weapons I know "fuck-all" about.
>>>
>>
>>>Ahhh, a "bigger is better" type. "Bring back the SLR" and all that
>>>bullshit,
>>>hey?
>>>
>> You do seem to like putting words into other people's mouths..... I
>> made no reference or comparison to the SLR or it's larger calibre.
>
>No, but I know your vintage.
So you say, but how do you know "my vintage". That is not very
PC...ageism I think its called <GRIN>
>
>>>It's easy to regard the 5.56mm as "piddling" ..............until you get
>>>shot with it.
>>
>> In the context in which the reference to the M16 was used, I stand by
>> the "piddling" remark in describing the holes that it made in the
>> dirigible's fabric.....especially when compared to the projectile/s
>> subsequently used to create holes big enough to deflate the balloon.
>
>So you agree with me that it was pretty bloody stupid to use a small calibre
>anti-personnel rifle round against a balloon.
I think that comment should be made too the SWAT team involved. I had
no say in the choice of weapons they used. I was merely coordinating
the operation for the then Department of Aviation (Ops Control Unit)
>
>I'm glad we got that sorted out.
Perhaps you should read some of the other replies to your posts;
indeed, in my mind, and many others who responded to you, it is sorted
out.
By the way, we do agree on many other things.....green politics and
plough shares being a couple.
Regards
Stephen
Kwyjibo
IKYABWAI? LOL. Just pathetic, Brash.
>
>> Does it have recoil?
>
> If you'd fired one you know that it does. Not as much as a
> large-calibre rifle. But recoil nonetheless.
And in terms of what is generally accepted to be 'recoiless', this qualifies
stupid.
>
> By the way, you don't have a dog in this fight, dildo, so why the
> interest?
Just curious to see how big a hole you can dig for yourself. So far it looks
like you're making an open cut mine.
>> What does the 'AT' stand for in the HE*AT* warhead it fires?
>
> Anti-tank, fucktard. Going somewhere or just running laps?
Just comprehensively proving you wrong, again........
>> That's a pathetic attempt at a backpedal - even by your miserable
>> standards.
>>
>>>
>>> What you said was bullshit.
>>
>> No. What *YOU* said was bullshit, Brash.
>
> *scratches head*
Typical chimp.
>
>>> So lets just leave it at that and move on.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am well aware of what a M72 is, I have had a great deal of
>>>> experience with this weapon at the T.T.E.
>>>
>>> That's nice. I have a shit-load of experience with it in a lot of
>>> other places.
>>
>> Is that why you had to invent the use of the word 'rifle' to try to
>> justify your silly shit?
>
> Come back when you have a clue.
I'm back. WTF are you still doing here if having a clue is the entrance
criteria?
>
>>>
>>> Big deal.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps you are getting confused with the Carl Gustav M2/M3 84mm
>>>> recoilless rifle, also an anti tank weapon.
>>>
>>> No, I'm not in the least bit confused. I have plenty of experience
>>> with that weapon also.
>>
>> Plenty of experience mindlessly wanking too. That much is obvious,
>> given your failing eyesight made you see the word 'rifle' when it
>> wasn't even posted.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kwyj.
--
Kwyj.
Atheist Chaplain
Spartan613 reminds me of a typical SAS soldier :-)
(Saturday and Sundays)
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
Spartan613
No it doesn't, actually, fucktard.
Kwyjibo
Wrong. And anyway, how does that excuse your stupidity in thinking he was
referring to it as a rifle, Brash?
--
Kwyj.