John

What are they using Military Dogs for in Iraq, and why aren't the US using them?

This is a very odd design. How come we have not seen more of them ? I've never seen one of these before.
What was its purpose?

Why were the original unite in France in WWI called the 'Old Contemptables' ?

Yes , what are we going to do? We are a Defence force , masquerading as a Military Force.
We're finished as a superpower. We're much better off spending our taxes on diversity and illegal immigrants. ....

How many of the Jack the Ripper murders occured on the City of London Police area?

I can't get into this either. When I did what you did, as per instructions, I had the result. I then complained , and then received a nasty Email telling me that if I didn't like it, I should go to KEW GARDENS! Well we've no choice now , have we ? jumping

What is happening with the Eurofighter? Will it be called the Typhoon? What will it be armed with and when will it come into service?

Is there any sort of WWII ace for tank destruction by an infantryman on any side, ie by bazooka, mine, hand...etc

Interestingly, this pattern of sword was found with three different points.

The first one was 'Hatchet' shaped ,as manufactured, which had a tip more like a Navy cutlass, as this was essentially a Cutting weapon.

The second type was similar to the first, except that the tip was ground down to give it a more pointed effect for thrusting.

The third type was also ground down to a spear point for a more effective thrusting technique.

These modifications were carried out at Regimental level, to give more versatility in battle. The Brtish cavalry taught cutting and slashing as this is a more natural instinct when in the heat of battle. Thrusting was seen to be less effective as it took more energy, and was only really effective at the main parts of the body and head. It was also noted that although a cut/slash would not often kill a man, it would just as effectively remove him from the battlefield.

Is it "One flew over the cuckoo's nest"?

Interesting about what you were sajing abot the AK series. I personally don't rate it too highly in comparison to other assault rifles on an individual basis.
If you could choose any assault rifle to defend you home with, would it really be the AK?
However.....! Look at this Soviet export site , and look up the individual weapons and specialist....
You certainly can't fault them for adaptability....


http://www.rusarm.ru/main.htm

I wonder how it compares to the Bradley?

It looks a bit like "not" attended by his staff. Strange one, but maybe it was a group photo and he wasn't there for the event, so this was taken separately.
I wish I had some staff to 'attend' to me. Hmmm Swedish air hostesses, maybe

Excellent post, Bigalni.

Its very hard finding any straight facts on this topic. They hung 30 blokes one after the other? I wish they could do that here....
What did your Father end up doing after Kenyan Independence? He sounds fascinating. wub.gif

the British have always looked down on us colonials

??????

Montgomery was far more experienced, than Patton.He served all of the WW1 , from 1914 in the trenches, till the end of 1918. During this time, he was wounded twice.
Post war , he went on to serve in Palestine, Egypt, India, Ireland and 'guested' to Australia, in a Staff capacity.
He returned to command the Forces in Palestine prior to the beginning of the WWII.
He was also serving in WWII for a full two years , prior to Patton entering the War, including the disaster at Dunkirk.

Patton by contrast, served in Mexico, and the latter end of WW1. He spent little or no time in the trenches, but served in the initial usage of tanks, where he was wouded and and saw out the end of the War in Hospital.
He arrived late into WWII, through , no fault of his own. During this time , he made himself notorious for the slapping of Ptes Bennet & Kuhl, for shellshock.
Anyone who was involved in sustained combat would have understood these men.He obviously didn't.

By the end of WWII, Montgomery had more Operational experience , from that War alone, than Patton did in his entire career.
:food-smiley-004:

I have noiced , since really the Afghan campaign and noticed it more and more in Iraq, that the US army's rifles seem to have all sorts of add ons on them, particularly on the SF ones.
Anyone know what they are? animal

I believe they were usually issued to Thames Division and the Docks Divisions.

I have also heard of a nasty variant of this. It a round with a long hole drilled down from the top of the apex, almost to the base.
A piece of mercury or lead ball bearing is placed in the bottom of the hole. The hole is sealed at the top, ensuring that a gap is left.
The theory is that on firing , the filler is forced to the rear of the round, and on impact, the filler is impacted forward, causing the roung to fragment/explode forward.
Sounds time consuming.

I think the most smashing piece of kit is the SA80. Everyone should have it

Looking at it, it almost looks like a US M3 Halftrack, pre op so to speak.

I saw in the Newspaper today that the SBS were awarded 24 awards and commendations for its involvment in Afghanistan.
They included a George Medal for rescuing a US crewman froma crash landed Hercules transport and two Conspicious Gallantry Crosses for rescuing a CIA operative from the Taliban.

The MP7 is a new weapon still in the design and evaluation stages.

It is shaped like the Uzi, with the magazine housing incorporated into the pistol grip. It is about two thirds the length of an MP5 and about half the weight. It is a 4.6mm weapon, and by the looks of it, has been principally developed for defeating body armour by using steel rounds , like the Soviet Gyurza pistol. It comes with 20 or 40 round magazines and is supposedly accuarate to 200m. wub.gif

Is it a Flak tower?

Montgomery was cautious. At that stage in the War, Britain certainly did not have the Manpower to draw on any more.
Most Wars are a war of attrittion of some sorts. Yes Rommel fought a brilliant rear guard action , but he still lost.

Unlike most US Generals, most allied commanders had 'between wars' experience, in many Colonial actions. I don't think Patton had much , bar his naked ambition, going for him. And the boring General of WWII ( didn't smoke or drink ) wore his Staff capbadge and Unit capbadge because he was proud of being a Tanky. I once spoke to a top chap abroad, and he detested wearing the 'Staff' capbadge, much preferring his own. His supply lines were also not guaranteed , hence his caution, especially as he had been at War since the beginning , unlike the USA who joined in after 1941.

Zuhkov was not a clever General. He purely used what he had in the simplest manner to achieve his aim. The Germans had the longest supply lines, the least numbers, and the least equipment and were the least equipped to deal with the Harsh environment.
Even I could have made that decision!