who are we !!!!!

[tonyk]

Originally Posted by hang man

Perhaps I've gone too far and i am now a loaf of bread with a few slices missing in your minds eyes ....I'll leave you be and will post some pics of my new SV 650 next spring , I Apologize if i wasted your time

no you have'nt gone too far just opening peoples eyes and minds..
Fascinating subject going in to the realms of quantum physics of what is reality and what is real or not as the mind perceives it.
but my advise is still play more...

[BanannaMan]

Er....sorry hang....but...

I thought for years I had an "out of body" experience.
Felt myself leave my body, and looked down on a 2 star general (the doc) and a couple of nurses "bring me back" and then patch my arteries and re-attach my hand/fingers .....with what they could find in a medical bag.

The out of body experience seemed so real to me I would have bet my very life on it.
Years later I was talking to a nurse who told me she was there that day and how terrible it was, she was sprayed with blood...etc.

My reaction???
You were there????
I hadn't seen her enter the room and she didn't say anything so I didn't see her while floating about the room waiting to be "brought back".
Turns out she was the nurse holding my arm while the Dr. worked on it.

The experience that I was so sure had happened...happened inside my brain.... most likely from lack of oxygen.
The reason people are able to be recessitated at all is because it takes the brain a while to totally shut down even though measurable activity may have ceased.

Happy Ending to the story!!!
Miracle recovery...I have full use of the hand and all fingers.
The 2 star general who saved my life ...and my hand...retired as a 5 star general and now lives in the same town I do!!!
I know him well!!!

Er...back on topic...
I believe the people who think they died ...really believe they did... but things that they heard or remembered while flat-lined doesn't really prove anything to me other than it takes the brain a while to totally shut down.

Originally Posted by Dangerous Dave

No offence, but the RAF have been a little behind the times for a very long time now. Towards the end of WWII they began to lag behind technology wise, they reinvented them selves in the 50's-70's but since then it has all been about getting the most of what is left. Look at the Falklands campaign, nothing but the Avro Vulcan could do the job and most of those aircraft had already been scraped and the remaining few were earmarked for retirement. The new Typhoon for example is a 15 year old design, and it still doesn't work to its specification.


The modern US military is driven by computers and the internet, okay it was not a live war but the Cold War produced a lot of stuff which is now the basics of what is now public.


I am not saying everything in this world was developed by war, but the mobile phone was started this way. You are right, the public market is a huge contributor of development for products but a lot of the basic invention came from battle.

The amount of technology that is yet to be filtered down to the public sector is unbelievable, making it public isn't always the best thing to do though.

Originally Posted by ThEGr33k

Im not offended... I know the RAF is **** (insert your own 4 star word).

TBH though isnt it the same for all the UK's forces, arnt we all lagging behind massivly due to not enough money? I mean for a long while we had to use a rifle that didnt even work right... How much worse could it get!? ammunition that doesnt work? Sigh.

I agree the military has contributed to a lot of things tech wise but I dont think you could say this is due to the military (outside of weapons).

Originally Posted by Dangerous Dave

No comment on that one mate, we do alright....


Too right, the SA80 is a excellent design on paper and a load of bollo**s in the real world. The redesign by H&K was a revelation but the basic flaws are still there. We will not touch the SA80, we need a weapon that works every time in all conditions which isn't afraid to get wet let alone submerged.

I'm not too sure that the blame for the failures of the Army, Navy, and RAF lies with themselves, as the issue with the tools that you had at your disposal was controlled by people who do not know your job (politicians and civil servants).
I know how much critisms the SA80 gets, and when my mate was in Sierra Leone looking down the wrong end of an SLR he still wished that he had that weapon. Why did we choose the SA80? Wasn't the choice of a weapon's expert was it.....
The biggest trend of mistakes over the last 100 years has been with our avaition industry: Just take one look at the TSR-2, oh and the first plan to go supersonic used British engineering developed in 1943.

Politically you lot have been sold short; It would be illegal for me to send my lads out to do their job without the tools, equipment, training and PPE that they need. The British Armed forces get the training (the one thing that they can control), but the rest?

Originally Posted by Dangerous Dave

We officially dumped the M16 in the early 90's, we were using it along with the M4 in the Gulf.

Main weapon is the C8, a Canadian version of the M4 carbine assault rifle manufactured specifically/exclusively built for us by Diemaco.

For terrorist operations on UK soil we will use the G36 and MP5, just as light and compact as the C8 and offers the same qualities but not as ruggedly designed. Ideal for CQB and also helps us to blend in with SO19.

The G3 is mainly used for places we shouldn't be, basically this is the second most readily available assault rifle on the market after the infamous AK47. It is also a high punch rifle, not so good for CQB. The SAS still use this weapon as there primary sniper rifle, we tend to use the L96A1 as we carry more gear and multiple weapons.

What happening with the .325? Seen them around in civilian ranges quite a lot, and all the owners use them in their '****ing contests' saying how the Royal Marines now use them. (one of the reasons I don't shoot at a club anymore - too many morons with FAC's! and none of them can shoot straight)

Originally Posted by Caddy2000

What happening with the .325? Seen them around in civilian ranges quite a lot, and all the owners use them in their '****ing contests' saying how the Royal Marines now use them. (one of the reasons I don't shoot at a club anymore - too many morons with FAC's! and none of them can shoot straight)

Not any more they don't, the .338 L96 is the weapon of choice for the RM. This is the only standard issue BAF weapon we sue in the SBS.

I can't stand shooting clubs either, I stick to the range on base.

I stick to pigeons, rabbits, squirrels, crows, etc. Anything that either I can eat or is vermin. Used to shoot competition, but really does nothing for me anymore.
I also stick with air rifles now because you have to work so much harder for the 'perfect shot', that and I want to be able to hear out of my right ear!

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Caddy2000

The biggest trend of mistakes over the last 100 years has been with our avaition industry: Just take one look at the TSR-2, oh and the first plan to go supersonic used British engineering developed in 1943.

Perhaps also more of a political about face than an engineering disaster?

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Perhaps also more of a political about face than an engineering disaster?

Both were masterclasses in engineering with the work we did the supersonic challenge being given to the americans and the TSR-2 closed down by the labour government in the 60's. The TSR-2 was more capable than the Tornado which came in 25 years later

Originally Posted by Caddy2000

TSR-2

Project scrapped in favour of the F-111, which we never did buy in the end. Labour screwed it up, there were design flaws with the TRS2 but most already had a development in the waiting.

Air rifles require a little more skill, useless at long distance which is something I enjoy doing.

Originally Posted by Dangerous Dave

Project scrapped in favour of the F-111, which we never did buy in the end. Labour screwed it up, there were design flaws with the TRS2 but most already had a development in the waiting.

Air rifles require a little more skill, useless at long distance which is something I enjoy doing.

There were no flaws in the TSR-2, there were issues that needed ironing out, but isn't that what prototypes are for?
What was really amazing just about the aircraft was that even in it's prototype stage it could out-perform a Lightning with just one of it's engines on re-heat (there are some amazing vids on youtube).
At the time the Labour government got into power and scrapped it claiming that it had cost the taxpayer over £400m so far in it's development when in fact it was about £190m (3+ prototypes). Speculation has it the Labour wanted to destroy the British Aviation industry - which they did!


I love my .177 NJR. Used to be able to get a grouping about the size of my thumbnail at 60 yards, and was taking out ferral pigeons with 45 yard head shots two months ago - it's all in the breathing! (mind you it has got a huge scope on it)