And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
A weapon that kills on one end and harms the operators.
SNIP Safety precautions
Soldier fires a Carl-Gustaf. The overpressure, or blast wave, generated by the Gustaf will cause blast- and burn-related injuries to those behind the weapon, and is dangerous to 30 metres (100 ft)[13] and hazardous to about 50 to 75 metres (160 to 250 ft).[10] Repeatedly firing the Gustaf can also cause related shock wave injuries to gunners and those nearby.[17][18][19]
Gunners are only allowed to fire six rounds a day during training.[20] The assistant gunners would also often move away from the overpressure zone, so that they too can fire six rounds a day.[20] Sweden, the first user of Carl-Gustaf, has the regulation that gunner and assistant gunner are allowed to be exposed to 20 full-caliber rounds each day.[21]
John - That's not how the acronym for that particular weapon is used in the USA. It's the M72 Light Anti-tank Weapon "LAW". Troops carried up to three of them at a time, strapped to their ALICE packs.
Excellent weapon, might be the best made. Very handy piece, has some superb multi use warheads. Don't know about the girl, not exactly the feminine type. Still, probably cleans up pretty well.
Sure John... I heard that BS from a lot of Girls in the 70s, they were somehow, just as TOUGH as boys. After restraining myself, the breaking point was reached, and tossed a bale of hay in the 'smart mouths' direction, hitting one squarely, she hit the ground, broke her tail bone and cussed me for months. Never talked that crap again, to this scrappy, skinny young teenager.
I was on the team that tested the Carl G for the us military back in 1978. it was way better than anything we had at that time. many different use rounds iron sights to back up the optic. you could re cock the weapon if you had a misfire. never saw one misfire though. 3 army generals and 2 Marine ones in the stands come "show day" the army guy didn't care one bit. the Maines generals, they both fired it. asked lots of questions and took notes about what we thought of the weapon (?) and yes. they wrote all of this down in their notebooks. the army went with the Dragon instead. it cost many times more than the Carl G did. and the rounds with a hell of a lot more than the 84mm ones. funny thing, 10 years AFTER the Dragon was in service, I never met a gunner who fired a live dragon round at anything ? fast forward to 2005 or so, and on CNN I see the Carl G in use by our troops in the sandbox and they saying how great the weapon was for the mission. well, gee guys. we found that out back in 1978. why buy something that works and is cheap when you can buy something at 10 times the price and it doesn't even work. the MIC in action !
Like the Python vs the AIM-9X. Could've bought the Python COTS back in the 90s, but instead spent the next 10 years throwing billions at developing the AIM-9X while our crews went without a HOBS missile.
one great thing about the Carl G is that it is "grunt proof". yes, I mean that. drop it out of helo at 20-30 feet and clean out the dirt and it fired. drop it off a truck going at 25 mph and it still worked. and very simple and robust weapon if I ever saw one. we did all sorts of shit to it and it still fired. and the back up iron sights worked just as well as the optic did. it held zero. had a training round that fired a 7.62 by 51 Nato to zero the weapon. hell, the more I think about it, the more pissed I get that it was passed over for that overpriced POS they called the Dragon.
funny thing I told people this for years. how the army went with some hi tech untried weapon system just because it was made here. not that it worked. no. it was made here. the optical sight on the Dragon cost over 20 grand alone (?) God only knows what the "live rounds' went for. back then I think the Carl G was under 2-3 grand for the launcher/sight and under 2 grand per round. and as I have said before, never met a gunner that fired a live Dragon round at anything in my final 10 years in the army. and people wonder why I loathe DC ? or anyone in the five sided funny farm.
I ran a 106mm recoilless rifle section for a while. Made a hell of a racket, would shred a sheet of 3/4" plywood propped up 50-yards behind the breech end. But I thought the Jarhead idea of mounting six of them on the tracked Ontos carrier instead of one on a jeep like the army did it made a lot more sense. So the comment about the army choosing the Dragon over the Carl didn't surprise me much. Same old, same old.
The Ontos was designed to be a Defensive weapon. Sadly, the USMC used it offensively, and a lot of young Marines were killed. Between thin "armor" and gasoline powered... not a great weapon system to be deployed with.
another thing, the rounds came in 2 round carriers that you could hook/strap to your rucksack with no problem. they didn't weigh much either. compared to the 90 mm rounds in service at the time. the carriers where plastic and when empty made for great wine coolers ! I had 2 of them for years. gave them away later on. you don't hear much of anything about the Dragon weapon system anymore. it just kind of faded away like. we all figured some body got rich off the Dragon sales. anyway.
Dave, nobody wants the blue/pink haired women in the services. The services can't do anything with them because they are untrainable, and they don't want in because actual work is like yucky and stuff.
As Europe ramps up for war you see more caucasian faces put in uniforms and in militaristic roles while the 'new europeans' recently arrived from Turdistan get preference back home replacing previously native positions.
A weapon that kills on one end and harms the operators.
ReplyDeleteSNIP Safety precautions
Soldier fires a Carl-Gustaf.
The overpressure, or blast wave, generated by the Gustaf will cause blast- and burn-related injuries to those behind the weapon, and is dangerous to 30 metres (100 ft)[13] and hazardous to about 50 to 75 metres (160 to 250 ft).[10] Repeatedly firing the Gustaf can also cause related shock wave injuries to gunners and those nearby.[17][18][19]
Gunners are only allowed to fire six rounds a day during training.[20] The assistant gunners would also often move away from the overpressure zone, so that they too can fire six rounds a day.[20] Sweden, the first user of Carl-Gustaf, has the regulation that gunner and assistant gunner are allowed to be exposed to 20 full-caliber rounds each day.[21]
True for a lot of similar weapons. The old LAW had a backblast danger zone. Probably TOW and Dragon too.
DeleteRockets don't have half the blast of a recoilless rifle.
DeleteI've fired several LAWs, a TOW missiles and a Carl Gustuf.
A Carl thumps you.
Michael the anonymous
Your LAW should be spelled: LAAW - Light Anti-Armor Weapon.
DeleteAnyone ignorant enough to stand behind any so-called "recoilless" weapon deserves what they get.
John - That's not how the acronym for that particular weapon is used in the USA. It's the M72 Light Anti-tank Weapon "LAW". Troops carried up to three of them at a time, strapped to their ALICE packs.
DeleteYou know what? You are right. After 60 years of thinking that the grunts who walked next to my tank in Vietnam were carrying a LAAW, now it's a LAW!!!
DeleteYeah, she can pose with it, but can she fire it and can she carry it and/or more than one round?
ReplyDeleteFAFO
Delete“Due to the increased incidence of rape in Sweden, Swedish women take new precautions”
ReplyDelete"Recoilless" - what's in a name? Trying to prove a 'negative'? It sells easier!
ReplyDeleteThe 84mm was a “recoilless”…For that matter, so was the 106, you just couldn’t shoulder that monster
DeleteExcellent weapon, might be the best made. Very handy piece, has some superb multi use warheads. Don't know about the girl, not exactly the feminine type. Still, probably cleans up pretty well.
ReplyDeleteYeah. Still a chick.
ReplyDeletePretty serious eyes though.
DeleteI know several female Marines that would kick your ass in the blink of an eye.
DeleteSure John... I heard that BS from a lot of Girls in the 70s, they were somehow, just as TOUGH as boys. After restraining myself, the breaking point was reached, and tossed a bale of hay in the 'smart mouths' direction, hitting one squarely, she hit the ground, broke her tail bone and cussed me for months. Never talked that crap again, to this scrappy, skinny young teenager.
DeleteSoon after that, her friends wanted to 'date me'.
Well, I am a US Marine veteran, and I know several female Marines who could and would kick your ass in a heartbeat.
DeleteCome on John. Once a Marine always a Marine and Semper Fie (?) etc., but come on.
DeleteI don't know what your problem is, but it definitely seems to be a problem
DeleteNo problem. Just checking if it's still easy to get under a Marine's skin. It is.
DeleteI was on the team that tested the Carl G for the us military back in 1978.
ReplyDeleteit was way better than anything we had at that time. many different use rounds
iron sights to back up the optic. you could re cock the weapon if you had a misfire.
never saw one misfire though. 3 army generals and 2 Marine ones in the stands come "show day" the army guy didn't care one bit. the Maines generals, they both fired it. asked lots of questions and took notes about what we thought of the weapon (?) and yes. they wrote all of this down in their notebooks.
the army went with the Dragon instead. it cost many times more than the Carl G did. and the rounds with a hell of a lot more than the 84mm ones.
funny thing, 10 years AFTER the Dragon was in service, I never met a gunner who fired a live dragon round at anything ? fast forward to 2005 or so, and on CNN I see the Carl G in use by our troops in the sandbox and they saying how great the weapon was for the mission. well, gee guys. we found that out back in 1978.
why buy something that works and is cheap when you can buy something at 10 times the price and it doesn't even work. the MIC in action !
The government graft goes way, way back.
DeleteYes. Those army princes probably looking forward to cozy after graft retirement jobs with the military-industrial scammers.
DeleteLike the Python vs the AIM-9X. Could've bought the Python COTS back in the 90s, but instead spent the next 10 years throwing billions at developing the AIM-9X while our crews went without a HOBS missile.
Deleteone great thing about the Carl G is that it is "grunt proof". yes, I mean that.
Deletedrop it out of helo at 20-30 feet and clean out the dirt and it fired. drop it off a truck going at 25 mph and it still worked. and very simple and robust weapon if I ever saw one. we did all sorts of shit to it and it still fired. and the back up iron sights worked just as well as the optic did. it held zero. had a training round that fired a 7.62 by 51 Nato to zero the weapon. hell, the more I think about it, the more pissed I get that it was passed over for that overpriced POS they called the Dragon.
funny thing I told people this for years. how the army went with some hi tech untried weapon system just because it was made here. not that it worked.
Deleteno. it was made here. the optical sight on the Dragon cost over 20 grand alone (?) God only knows what the "live rounds' went for.
back then I think the Carl G was under 2-3 grand for the launcher/sight
and under 2 grand per round. and as I have said before, never met a gunner that fired a live Dragon round at anything in my final 10 years in the army. and people wonder why I loathe DC ? or anyone in the five sided funny farm.
I ran a 106mm recoilless rifle section for a while. Made a hell of a racket, would shred a sheet of 3/4" plywood propped up 50-yards behind the breech end. But I thought the Jarhead idea of mounting six of them on the tracked Ontos carrier instead of one on a jeep like the army did it made a lot more sense. So the comment about the army choosing the Dragon over the Carl didn't surprise me much. Same old, same old.
DeleteThe Ontos was designed to be a Defensive weapon. Sadly, the USMC used it offensively, and a lot of young Marines were killed. Between thin "armor" and gasoline powered... not a great weapon system to be deployed with.
Deleteanother thing, the rounds came in 2 round carriers that you could hook/strap to your rucksack with no problem. they didn't weigh much either. compared to the 90 mm rounds in service at the time. the carriers where plastic and when empty made for great wine coolers ! I had 2 of them for years. gave them away later on.
ReplyDeleteyou don't hear much of anything about the Dragon weapon system anymore.
it just kind of faded away like. we all figured some body got rich off the Dragon
sales. anyway.
A country that sends it's women to war has lost all sense of morality.
ReplyDeleteYes, men protect women. Not the other way around.
DeleteAre we talking "traditional" women or the blue/pink haired ones running around now?
DeleteDave, nobody wants the blue/pink haired women in the services. The services can't do anything with them because they are untrainable, and they don't want in because actual work is like yucky and stuff.
DeleteShe says she's fine.
ReplyDeleteAs Europe ramps up for war you see more caucasian faces put in uniforms and in militaristic roles while the 'new europeans' recently arrived from Turdistan get preference back home replacing previously native positions.
ReplyDeleteIs she on the bikini team too?
ReplyDeleteWhere’s her ear protection…??
ReplyDeleteYou mean we won't be able to see her tits jiggle when she fires it ?
ReplyDeleteAnd she looks like she can use it.
ReplyDelete