Military Roll Call! Veterans, GTFIH!

Mate Im not even asking you what they're like it is me saying it how it is.... this isnt stuff I have read it is what I have seen and experienced and have friends currently in the Unit...not really sure why you want to make them seem like something they are not.

So, just exactly what rank were these FFL soldiers you worked with? I find that very hard to believe given the literature on the topic and a second or third opinion. Yeah, I can find you a really fucked up Infantry unit in the U.S. Army and you will be thinking the same thing. Check post #1769.
 
So, just exactly what rank were these FFL soldiers you worked with? I find that very hard to believe given the literature on the topic and a second or third opinion. Yeah, I can find you a really fucked up Infantry unit in the U.S. Army and you will be thinking the same thing. Check post #1769.

They were finishing their first 5 year term going onto sergeant of chef de sergeant or whatever shite it is. Thanks for the accusatory tone though I was contributing based on first hand experience and of colleagues. These guys were not joining for prestige, they wanted to be soldiers and between afghan deployments kept getting in trouble and one divorced and thought fuck it might as well. Kicked out of the British military and having a dishonorable discharge meant noone would hire them in the UK for regular jobs.

If their training is not elite, and their deployments are not elite (tasks expected of a specialised unit), in what way are you suggesting they are elite?
 
Thanks for the accusatory tone though I was contributing based on first hand experience and of colleagues.

What 'accusatory' tone mate? It is merely my opinion on the mater.

If their training is not elite, and their deployments are not elite (tasks expected of a specialised unit), in what way are you suggesting they are elite?

Ah, if you go back and read what has been posted above and the previous pages I think you'll have your answer. So, the FFL is equivalent to the Bolivian Army? Sorry mate, I still don't buy it. But hey, we all have a right to our opinion.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the USMC has flight support built into their branch. Never saw the need for Marine pilots (jets, not helicopter) when the U.S. Navy has plenty of pilots. Plus, the USMC has always been in a sorry state of affairs relying on the U.S. Navy budget. U.S. Navy SEALs don't go anywhere on land without U.S. Army aviation support. A few U.S. Air Force gunships.

In Land warfare the only thing the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force can support is airstrikes. Every branch of the U.S. military wants a piece of the pie when it comes to war. But as I have mentioned many times before, we fight for land, not water or air. The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force have always supported what is happening on the ground with soldiers and Marines. Casualty numbers prove that.

The French have also been one of the few countries that is self reliant when it comes to building their military arsenal. Tanks, planes, ships, rifles, nuclear reactors, etc. They don't normally buy U.S. or Russian equipment, they make their own. They sucked during WWII but kicked ass when Napoleon was in charge.
I understand the point of Marines having their own ground support aircraft, as I understand it Marine aviation officers have to spend a certain amount of time with the ground troops and assist in the call for air support. I kind of view that like the difference between a National league pitcher and an American league pitcher, one has to get in the box and face down the pitches and the other doesn't, not surprisingly American league pitchers tend to be more willing to throw the brush off pitches. Also another reason being during WW II the Marines tended to view it that they were often put low on the priority list when it came to ground support from the Navy. I've been one to bash the Marines for some of their things but in some ways I think the Marines are ahead of the curve in other areas, this being one of them. Also you know if given half a chance to have ground attack planes, not just copters the army would be slipping in their own drool running to sign the paperwork.

Also the air force and Navy have treated ground support as kind of the red headed step child when it comes to funding. Just look at all the back and forth regarding the A 10.

The funny thing about the French in WW II was originally they had better tanks than the Germans, attrition due to losses during WW I really took a toll on the French hence their creation and over reliance on the Maginot Line. That and the fact the Germans integrated radios into their tanks, something that seems so plainly obvious now was a novel idea at that time. The French take a lot of crap about WW II but everyone forgets the British almost lost almost 500,000 men at Dunkirk. If it hadn't been for the English Channel, England probably would have been caught just as unprepared as the French.
 
So if anyone want to save money I just took tmobile up on their veteran plan. Saved me like 20 bucks and I got a new S9 in the process.
 
I'm fairly new to the game, I'm not even active duty, with only 1 year active duty service, but I start my deployment certifications very soon starting with M4 quals. They are starting to get crazy asking for Security Forces augmentation in the ME and for the border. I am not looking to do fucking EC duty for 6months overseas or at the border of Mexico lol. I'm a fuel systems engineer and I need experience at that but it looks like if my unit needs me to deploy I'm going to be bored out of my mind.

#NotWhatIsignedUpFor
 
I'm fairly new to the game, I'm not even active duty, with only 1 year active duty service, but I start my deployment certifications very soon starting with M4 quals.

What branch of the service are you in? Army National Guard? What rank? 92F MOS?
Cool. I guess you get to fuel the Blackhawk and Apache helicopters.
I would say you are pretty safe if you deploy. Part of the deployment is what you make out of it. Good experience and you'll find out what you are made of. Don't worry, we were all scared before a deployment. Those who say they weren't are lying. You will be with the best Army in the world. Good luck...
 
What branch of the service are you in? Army National Guard? What rank? 92F MOS?
Cool. I guess you get to fuel the Blackhawk and Apache helicopters.
I would say you are pretty safe if you deploy. Part of the deployment is what you make out of it. Good experience and you'll find out what you are made of. Don't worry, we were all scared before a deployment. Those who say they weren't are lying. You will be with the best Army in the world. Good luck...
Air Force. Lol I would never go Army, no offense. Not scared about a deployment, I might be deployed to Bahrain! The horror!
 
Air Force. Lol I would never go Army, no offense. Not scared about a deployment, I might be deployed to Bahrain!

Yeah, I thought it might be Air Force when you said 6 months. Army did 12 months in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even safer in the Air Force. Safer still in Bahrain. Bahrain is beautiful. A very rich Arab country. They treat their workforce from India and Bangladesh like shit. If you are single you will enjoy the women.
 
I'm fairly new to the game, I'm not even active duty, with only 1 year active duty service, but I start my deployment certifications very soon starting with M4 quals. They are starting to get crazy asking for Security Forces augmentation in the ME and for the border. I am not looking to do fucking EC duty for 6months overseas or at the border of Mexico lol. I'm a fuel systems engineer and I need experience at that but it looks like if my unit needs me to deploy I'm going to be bored out of my mind.

#NotWhatIsignedUpFor

That sucks man, security forces is an awful job but it's probably even worse to augment them.

I would avoid that job at all costs unless the per diem made it worthwhile.
 
This thread is old.

Agreed need a topic change.

USSOCOM has been pushing for the 6.5 Creedmoor to replace .308.

soldiersystems.net/2018/03/23/ussocom-adopts-6-5-cm/

I think it's about time .308 is good but outdated technology, being on the inside of the sniper community so to speak, I think 6.5, 260 rem are very competitive and both fit into preexisting ar10 mags. I think bias contracting is why the 6.5 was chosen.

I think the goal is also to change 300wm over to 300 Norma and cut out .50cal and 338 completely.

Being that all of these rounds are overbore and more expensive, I'm wondering if the entire army will switch.

Big army just got those sigs in the big army inventory... Dumb. Could have kept the m9/92fs Berretta, and spentd the money on 9mm to actually train soldiers to be able to shot pistol.

Any thoughts? I'll just state I'm a qualified sniper attending one of the premier schools, and an still in the sniper capacity. Any other military qualified snipers here or just long range shooting enthusiast?
 
Last edited:
Agreed need a topic change.

USSOCOM has been pushing for the 6.5 Creedmoor to replace .308.

soldiersystems.net/2018/03/23/ussocom-adopts-6-5-cm/

I think it's about time .308 is good but outdated technology, being on the inside of the sniper community so to speak, I think 6.5, 260 rem are very competitive and both fit into preexisting ar10 mags. I think bias contracting is why the 6.5 was chosen.

I think the goal is also to change 300wm over to 300 Norma and cut out .50cal and 338 completely.

Being that all of these rounds are overbore and more expensive, I'm wondering if the entire army will switch.

Big army just got those sigs in the big army inventory... Dumb. Could have kept the m9/92fs Berretta, and spentd the money on 9mm to actually train soldiers to be able to shot pistol.

Any thoughts? I'll just state I'm a qualified sniper attending one of the premier schools, and an still in the sniper capacity. Any other military qualified snipers here or just long range shooting enthusiast?
Only weapon I qualified on consistently was the Remington 870. I guess someone smarter than I thought the 870 was the best weapon to defend against a hostile takeover of a Launch Facility. Later in my career I qualified in m4, but nothing like you’re talking about.

<Fedor23>
 
Only weapon I qualified on consistently was the Remington 870. I guess someone smarter than I thought the 870 was the best weapon to defend against a hostile takeover of a Launch Facility. Later in my career I qualified in m4, but nothing like you’re talking about.

<Fedor23>
Hah right on man just putting it out there for the masses, change it up in here.

We still have the 870 in the inventory for breaching hinges, windows and less than lethal rounds. We also have shorty shot guns that attach to your plate carrier that is primarily used for breaching locking mechanisms.

I wonder if over penetration had anything to do with you guys using shotguns in that environment.
 
Hah right on man just putting it out there for the masses, change it up in here.

We still have the 870 in the inventory for breaching hinges, windows and less than lethal rounds. We also have shorty shot guns that attach to your plate carrier that is primarily used for breaching locking mechanisms.

I wonder if over penetration had anything to do with you guys using shotguns in that environment.
Right on. I’m not sure about penetration. With hazardous gasses and other ordnance on site I could see penetration being a bad thing. But I think it has to do with close quarters. Small confined area.
 
USSOCOM has been pushing for the 6.5 Creedmoor to replace .308.

I think it's about time .308 is good but outdated technology, being on the inside of the sniper community so to speak.

Any thoughts? Any other military qualified snipers here or just long range shooting enthusiast?

The 6.5 Creedmoor is clearly a ballisticaly better cartridge than the .308. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with the good old 30-06 either, my caliber of choice for the variety of bullet weights.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top