Stryker/C-130 Pics

lisieux wrote:

They are a very cute little vehicle. I have seen them disabled in
ambushes without too much difficulty. Even children can stop them if
they have lots of paint and a few big bricks.

They also tended to stop at Zebra crossings as a matter of routine.

Their drivers tended to be more polite than the Saracen and Humber Pig
drivers. The Saladins were the most fun to attack as they simply drove
through the hail of paint bombs and bricks without stopping to chase
the kids away.

I never saw them in an urban situation, except on display outside
armouries after their retirement and an occasional patrol by the Force
Reserve through the suburbs of Nicosia. They were quite tricky to
drive in snow as they could high-centre on the belly plate and wind up
with no traction under any wheel. At the same time, because of their
transmission and transfer case design, if they had one wheel on the
ground that could still drive they could usually keep moving.

The Canadian versions I saw had no turret (they were hell in winter)
so I am sure their drivers would have been really polite.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On 2 Oct 2003 02:28:18 -0700, (lisieux) wrote:

They are a very cute little vehicle. I have seen them disabled in
ambushes without too much difficulty.

Going by the standard of driving displayed by most recce troop drivers
I saw, this wouldn't be too difficult as they loved to pile their
vehicles into random ditches, culverts and hedges with gay abandon.
And that was before they found the reverse gear.

Even children can stop them if
they have lots of paint and a few big bricks.

They also tended to stop at Zebra crossings as a matter of routine.

Another cunning Fenian ploy unmasked. First, paint a zebra crossing
on the road to stop the enemy armour...

Their drivers tended to be more polite than the Saracen and Humber Pig
drivers. The Saladins were the most fun to attack as they simply drove
through the hail of paint bombs and bricks without stopping to chase
the kids away.

My favourite was the Fox, with a centre of gravity so high that it
would overturn on any sharp corner and squish the vehicle commander if
he was perching on the turrent roof to escape the stench of the
driver's socks in the main compartment as per usual. I talked my way
into driving a Scimitar down Colchester high street once. That was
fun. As was parking it at the Little Chef for lunch.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"lisieux" wrote in message
om...
"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
"Steyr" wrote in message
...

The Ferret armoured car was clearly the greatest golf buggie ever
invented,
however it was a little too under-armed for use in Florida.

I met a Ferret for the first time in 1973 as I stood sentry at the
entrance to a battery position on a cloudy, moonless night on the edge
of
a forest. The little bugger came out of the woods and was able to get
within less than 10 metres before I could hear it (and what I heard was
mostly the "crunch" of gravel under its tires). Possibly the best
sneak-and-peek recce vehicle ever built.


They are a very cute little vehicle. I have seen them disabled in
ambushes without too much difficulty. Even children can stop them if
they have lots of paint and a few big bricks.

They also tended to stop at Zebra crossings as a matter of routine.

Their drivers tended to be more polite than the Saracen and Humber Pig
drivers. The Saladins were the most fun to attack as they simply drove
through the hail of paint bombs and bricks without stopping to chase
the kids away.

Why on earth would a ferret enter into a zebra crossing, surely it would get
trampled. You know those zebras can get pretty big don't you?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP30jMFBGDfMEdHggEQIR2QCg4M18vQwYr3K6hQTSSjoI79 qQmcwAoMEQ
W6iuMkw2+yqHe1dFf+DAXBZH
=yc/B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In message , Steyr
writes
I spoke to some Brits in North Belfast last year and they told us
that their new
rifle was 'complete crap'. I think they were detached from a field gun
formation, possibbly Royal Artillery. The Welch Fusilers were in the same area.

Spoke to a colour-sergeant from the Royal Irish Rangers a few days ago
and he said the L85A2 was, quote, "****ing fantastic as long as you look
after it". While like any weapon it's less tolerant of neglect than an
AK, it shoots much better and is very reliable with basic (and correct)
care.

He'd been out using it for real, I assume he had some knowledge of the
subject.

I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've
not actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
soldier.

Talk to a few who have used it. It's interesting how the "it's crap and
we hate it" mindset of the early 1990s has changed among soldiers who
have (a) used it on operations, (b) seen other weapons used on
operations.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Steyr
writes
I spoke to some Brits in North Belfast last year and they told us
that their new
rifle was 'complete crap'. I think they were detached from a field gun
formation, possibbly Royal Artillery. The Welch Fusilers were in the same area.

Spoke to a colour-sergeant from the Royal Irish Rangers a few days ago
and he said the L85A2 was, quote, "****ing fantastic as long as you look
after it". While like any weapon it's less tolerant of neglect than an
AK, it shoots much better and is very reliable with basic (and correct)
care.

He'd been out using it for real, I assume he had some knowledge of the
subject.

I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've
not actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
soldier.

Talk to a few who have used it. It's interesting how the "it's crap and
we hate it" mindset of the early 1990s has changed among soldiers who
have (a) used it on operations, (b) seen other weapons used on
operations.

A group of British soldiers spoke to an American lady about the crisis
in North Belfast, I was standing next to the group, I asked the
soldier holding the eapon what he thought of it, he said it was
"crap".

He then remarked to the American lady that he thought her soldiers had
a real rifle. His coleagues who ere living out of a Saxon vehicle
agreed with the soldier doing the talking.

'I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've not
actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
soldier'

As I'm unlikely ever to use one, I've no personal opinion on the
matter other than it looks like a ergonomic copy of a 1949 rifle the
British contemplated adopting. I'd sooner have a Martini-Henry Mark
IV.

'So, Brits had to adopt another design, but this is also another
story. There's also some rumors that infamous British SA80 / L85
assault rifle, introduced in 1980s, was based on the EM-2 design. It
is not true, since the crappy L85 has nothing in common with EM-2
except for general external "bullpup" layout.'

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm

In message , lisieux
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Talk to a few who have used it. It's interesting how the "it's crap and
we hate it" mindset of the early 1990s has changed among soldiers who
have (a) used it on operations, (b) seen other weapons used on
operations.

A group of British soldiers spoke to an American lady about the crisis
in North Belfast, I was standing next to the group, I asked the
soldier holding the eapon what he thought of it, he said it was
"crap".

Had he used it in combat and seen how other forces' weapons performed?

He then remarked to the American lady that he thought her soldiers had
a real rifle. His coleagues who ere living out of a Saxon vehicle
agreed with the soldier doing the talking.

An opinion not entirely shared by UK troops currently returning from
Afghanistan and Iraq. The US has a serviceable and proven weapon but it
hasn't proven to be fault-free or perfect either.

Again, I'd be curious about the experience of the troops involved. My
most recent contact was with sergeants, colour-sergeants and WO2s
recently returned from operational deployments where they had used their
rifles in action; and they were solidly positive (and in a few cases
rueful that they'd bitched so much in the past)

'I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've not
actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
soldier'

Try asking a few more, especially those who have been deployed
operationally.

As I'm unlikely ever to use one, I've no personal opinion on the
matter other than it looks like a ergonomic copy of a 1949 rifle the
British contemplated adopting. I'd sooner have a Martini-Henry Mark
IV.

Your loss: you gain stopping power but lose range and rate of fire. How
well do you shoot and reload with 5.56mm ball through your torso?

'So, Brits had to adopt another design, but this is also another
story. There's also some rumors that infamous British SA80 / L85
assault rifle, introduced in 1980s, was based on the EM-2 design. It
is not true, since the crappy L85 has nothing in common with EM-2
except for general external "bullpup" layout.'

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm

I think the wording is its own evidence as to veracity, don't you?



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , lisieux
writes

'So, Brits had to adopt another design, but this is also another
story. There's also some rumors that infamous British SA80 / L85
assault rifle, introduced in 1980s, was based on the EM-2 design. It
is not true, since the crappy L85 has nothing in common with EM-2
except for general external "bullpup" layout.'

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm

I think the wording is its own evidence as to veracity, don't you?

I'll have to have a word with Max about that I suspect that he
wrote it before the successful use of the L85A2 in Iraq.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...


'So, Brits had to adopt another design, but this is also another
story. There's also some rumors that infamous British SA80 / L85
assault rifle, introduced in 1980s, was based on the EM-2 design. It
is not true, since the crappy L85 has nothing in common with EM-2
except for general external "bullpup" layout.'

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm

I think the wording is its own evidence as to veracity, don't you?

The earlier British rifle was potentially a better development
product, the 5.56 round was not really the answer and neither was the
7.62 NATO.

On 7 Oct 2003 19:32:43 -0700, (lisieux) wrote:


I think the wording is its own evidence as to veracity, don't you?

The earlier British rifle was potentially a better development
product, the 5.56 round was not really the answer and neither was the
7.62 NATO.


Reading the ballistic data at the bottom makes for an interesting what if.


greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.