Line of Fire - Goose Green (3/5)

[magicwelshman]

OI read CQB by mike chutis. all about the faklands...alot more than 17 died there

[manaorlando15]

GOD FUCK THE QUEEN LIERS 17 lost their lives'? fucking bullshit there was more deads BRITAINS LIERS!

[Maxshard]

@manaorlando15 Show some respect for your own dead, who died fighting like men so that you could have democracy , instead of making cheap comments like that, you foolish loser nobody.  Argentina gained more from losing this war than Britain gained from winning it. How old are you anyway, ten?

[tommiatkins]

@manaorlando15 Awwh. Yet another fantasist facist argie who's a sore loser. Sorry buddy. Oh and by the way, Invinvible diddnt sink and you actually lost the war really badly. Thats because your countrymen make very poor fighters.

[mlawren7]

@tommiatkins I don't disagree with you, but you've got to feel sorry for the Argie fighters - most of them were conscripts and their officers were of no use, and they were told lies about the enemy. Many fought bravely but were simply outclassed by a much more organised and motivated force.

[Scorched70twink]

@mlawren7 Yep, i feel sorry for them for those reasons. It always staggers me how many You-Tube Field Marshals from the Argentine seem to throw their dollies out of the pram because they lost so badly. The loss of the war won them democracy and freedom from a nasty murderous dictatorship. You would think they would actually be grateful, but nahh, they sit in their mums basement spouting gibberish on youtube about something that happened before they were born!

[ZemplinTemplar]

@Scorched70twink Exactly. Besides, most Argentines don't give a crap about the Falklands and don't find the issue crucial at all. Only petty nationalists, as usual... It serves that last Argentine dictatorship (70s-80s) right that they lost in their little nonsensical war (started just so they could make a smoke screen for economic and social problems at home).

[schlumbucket]

Fucking idiots! Fighting over some barren volcanic islands!

[phucoff1]

i hate it the way that geeky Sandhurst bloke keeps on calling 2 Para 'The 2nd Paracute Battalion', its either '2 Para' or 'The 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment'

[CheckEngine99]

these veteran see really gay

[truefalse]

@CheckEngine99 Not Veterans, just Historians..

[CheckEngine99]

@truefalse anyway sissy

[Maxshard]

@CheckEngine99 Yeah, cos you're a real battle hardened verteran at the age of 18, aren't you kiddo? Go back to the classroom before you comment on real men who fight to the death you dumb stupid kid.

[MikeOxsmells]

The paras use a special bullet proof beret, which is made from a kevlar weave, with a titanium regimental badge. It can stop small arms fire up to 7.62 mm, and offers good protection from shrapnel.

[neverfearchrisishere]

@MikeOxsmells Stopping bullets isn't the problem, the problem is deflecting or dispersing the force of the bullet. It doesn't matter if the bullet penetrates the head if it still turns the contents into mush... As such nothing but a helmet stands a chance - but yeah, if it stops blue on blues then a beret is better than a helmet,

[MikeOxsmells]

@neverfearchrisishere Obviously you're not aware of the Para issue socks. The Paras don't use the same socks as regular British Army regiments, they use special ballistic socks which disperse the energy from anti personnel mines. When stuffed inside their beret or helmet, the wearer's head is fully protected from the impact trauma of small arms fire and fragmentation.

[neverfearchrisishere]

@MikeOxsmells ROTFLMAO if you think SOCKS will stop a mine or a bullet given that thick, heavy, bodyarmour is far from infallible at the task.

But yes. Feel free to wear a sock on your head if you think that makes you safer - in the real world Kevlar etc... isn't THAT good.

[KamikazeElvis]

@neverfearchrisishere Hang on.. who said 'a' sock? It's well known that Paras always use BOTH socks during contact with the enemy. This effectively doubles the level of protection. To go into into battle with just one sock up there would be suicide.

[richyloike]

british helmets dont do much anyway their not bullet proof but you might be lucky and i mean very lucky if you get shot in the helmet and it bounces off,they are made out of a very hard plastic that hard that they hurt your head,soldiers often put a sock or something inside to make it softer on the head.

[Kaliman357]

The Brits fought battles with berets instead of helmets to avoid misidentification in the dark. Argentine forces used FAL's which look exactly like SLR's.

[BCoy2Pacman]

@Kaliman357 SLRs r FALs except they only fire semi auto nd they're made in England

[BCoy2Pacman]

@Kaliman357 SLRs r the same as FALs except SLRs are semi auto only and were made in England

[alanheath]

@BCoy2Pacman I could never understand why the SLR did not have a automatic function. It can be fired on automatic however by 'unofficial' means.

[BCoy2Pacman]

@alanheath they didn't want soldiers to waste ammo since the slr was a had a very large recoil on full auto and reduced overall acuracy

[alanheath]

@BCoy2Pacman That makes sense. I can recall very well the recoil. I have never fired anything similar but surely the recoil is strong on other weapons - M16, FAL etc..?

LMG (Bren) - super - one does not feel a thing - only carrying it .... urgh..... heavy...

[Kampfer1445]

The M16 does have a fairly strong recoil; from the M16A2 on the US military dropped the full-auto function as well, for the same reasons as the British. The FAL was completely useless on full-auto, which is why leaving it off the SLR was tactically little loss. The Bren had very little recoil because of its weight; the heavier the weapon, the less recoil.

[alanheath]

@Kampfer1445 I have never fired a M16. With the SLR it depended on the gas hole but when completely closed it really kicked hard. On the other hand whereas I was told that the Bren pulled forward, I remember it being completely stable. Having said that I would not have wanted to fire it standing up!

It is possible to fire a SLR on automatic - but it is not in the manufacturer's manual!!

Why was the FAL useless on automatic?

[Kampfer1445]

No assault rifle is particularly useful on automatic because the ammunition is too large for the recoil to be controlled without a bipod. The FN-FAL suffered from this to a greater degree than, say, the AK-47 due to the fact that the AK-47 fired a 'short' 7.62mm round, while the SLR/FAL fired the full sized 7.62mm. The SLR thus had better range and better accuracy than the AK-47, but no weapon firing full-size rifle ammunition can be handled by a man on full-automatic unless prone with bipod.

[Kampfer1445]

Thus full-automatic is a superfluous feature in a military rifle, except possibly for trench clearing. The only hand-held weapon useful on full automatic is the sub-machine gun, primarily due to the fact they fire pistol ammunition. For the same reasons as the assault rifle the Bren was highly accurate on bipod but ineffective save firing single rounds while kneeling or standing; which pretty much demonstrates that no personal 7.62mm weapon has any use for a full-automatic feature.

[alanheath]

@Kampfer1445 Thanks for the explanations. I think there is also the matter of morale and fear for which the automatic capacity would potential help. Most of us cannot shoot straight but then again I am sure I can shoot straighter on single shot than auto with a SLR.

[Kampfer1445]

You are right; all soldiers like an automatic function on their rifles. However the problem with an automatic capacity is that soldiers are tempted to use it (naturally), which will durastically reduce the effectiveness of their rifle fire. To quote Voltaire, 'God doesn't favor the bigger battalions, but those who shoot the most accurately.' However poor a marksman is they can always shoot better on single shot than automatic at any range beyond hand-to-hand.

[alanheath]

@Kampfer1445 Here is a slightly amusing story from when I was in the army. The instructor said, I am now going to demonstrate the firing position for the sub machine gun on fully automatic. He turned around when the weapon pointing in the other direction and started to run pretending to fire.

[mordacity85]

@alanheath The argentines had an automatic version and the british had a semi auto version. 

[alanheath]

@mordacity85 That did not escape my notice - but thanks for pointing it out all the same! As I pointed out earlier, there is a way of firing an SLR on automatic. In any case, use of this type of weapon on automatic can only be justified in extreme circumstances.

[phucoff1]

@Kaliman357

they wore helmets for the attacks, only put on berets once the fighting had finished.

[Azog150]

@Kaliman357

I thought the SLR was FAL, just a modified one?

[TomMjlewendon]

im sure they would have helmets on during the offence

[lankybastard2209]

not always, sometime they wore their red berrets as it helps stop blue-on-blues.