US Marines versus 1 viet cong sniper, tracer

Savage93

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345454/Vietnam-War-photos-reveal-moment-U-S-troops-unleashed-hell-Viet-Cong-sniper-hills-Army-camp.html

The moral of the story is DON'T POKE THE BEAR!!!!!

discus

People can say what they want about the Daily Mail, but you just don't get pieces like that in the Times or Newsweek.

iceage

He looks very like Matthew Modine's character Private Joker in Full Metal Jacket, or is that just me??

Great photography considering the conditions.

Beano

iceage wrote: »

He looks very like Matthew Modine's character Private Joker in Full Metal Jacket, or is that just me??

Great photography considering the conditions.

Not just you.

Seriously cool photos.

cruasder777

Savage93 wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345454/Vietnam-War-photos-reveal-moment-U-S-troops-unleashed-hell-Viet-Cong-sniper-hills-Army-camp.html

The moral of the story is DON'T POKE THE BEAR!!!!!

Hence why the US military needs a unit like the RAF Regiment to dominate the ground around air bases etc.

The nearest is the US Army Rangers.

Gatling

Used to a have a poster showing 2 boxcar(pre c130) gunships on a night run unleashing what can only be described as a ring of fire on an nva position

Awesome find op

booom

great photos, but can someone tell me what kind of sniper (duh, duh, duhhhh) sprays fire anywhere, especially with the result or rounds hitting the roof? sadly, the written piece accompanying the photos don't do them justice. There are few things as impressive as a large volume of tracer fire of different calibers, and god knows the yanks love a light show. A few grands worth of ammunition against some bloke with a couple of rounds, blowing the absolute **** out of everything in sight but being unable to confirm the kill- not a lot seems to have changed since the 70's.

tac foley

RAF Regiment = US Army Rangers?

Dream on.

tac

cruasder777

tac foley wrote: »

RAF Regiment = US Army Rangers?

Dream on.

tac

Lt Col. Tac Foley

Dream on,

Crusader

discus

cruasder777 wrote: »

Hence why the US military needs a unit like the RAF Regiment to dominate the ground around air bases etc.

I get it now.

Years ago, you wanted to be in the forces. Being a little special, you applied for the RAF Regiment because you didn't have the personality to get on with lads in the real forces. But, your plan didn't work, because for some reason (mental health?) you got rejected by the RAF. So, in order to get revenge you make them seem like an even worse bunch of tossers; you visit numerous fora and claim to be a rock ape, and act like a deluded nutter making cracking claims about the abilities and expections of a RAF regiment ape. You are infact, working hard to come across as this headcase so that people will think that all RAF Regt personnel are this crazy.

I'll claim my 5 pounds thanks.

Manic Moran

cruasder777 wrote: »

Hence why the US military needs a unit like the RAF Regiment to dominate the ground around air bases etc.

The nearest is the US Army Rangers.

Not entirely sure what you're on about. USAF Security Forces perform that function. Why would Rangers be in any way analagous?

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Hence why the US military needs a unit like the RAF Regiment to dominate the ground around air bases etc.

The nearest is the US Army Rangers.

The RAF Regiment is primarily concerned with force protection - the US 75th Ranger Regiment are a raiding force - chalk & cheese.

Manic Moran

cruasder777 wrote: »

Lt Col. Tac Foley

Dream on,

Crusader

[mod]Your turn to get an infraction.

If you have evidence that he is not who he claims, present it to me and the other mods by PM. Otherwise, drop the personal attacks.[/mod]

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

The RAF Regiment is primarily concerned with force protection - the US 75th Ranger Regiment are a raiding force - chalk & cheese.

The Rangers obviously have a much broader role.

But they also share a role No. 2 Squadron RAF Regiment have which is capturing and holding airfields. The RAF Regiment is also a raiding Regiment, hence its long range patrol role.


"No. 2 Squadron RAF Regiment is based at RAF Honington in Suffolk. It is a parachute-trained Field Squadron in the RAF Regiment which is capable of inserting by parachute and securing forward airfields"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1_Air_Base
The Iraqi 2d Air Defense Sector, also known as the Western Air Defense Sector, had an IOCs at H-1 Airfield. The US Army's 75th Ranger Regiment captured H1 airfield in a night-time parachute assault on 25 March 2003.

cruasder777

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not entirely sure what you're on about. USAF Security Forces perform that function. Why would Rangers be in any way analagous?

USAF Security forces inc 435th Security Forces Squadrons role is not as broad as the RAF Regiments in terms of force protection.

The RAF Regiment is a very unique military formation

There is no equivilant unit. The RAF Regiment is force protection + Raiding, its motto attack is the best form of defence. It also has a long range patrol role.

Why would Rangers be in any way analagous?

above post.

cruasder777

discus wrote: »

I get it now.

Years ago, you wanted to be in the forces. Being a little special, you applied for the RAF Regiment because you didn't have the personality to get on with lads in the real forces. But, your plan didn't work, because for some reason (mental health?) you got rejected by the RAF. So, in order to get revenge you make them seem like an even worse bunch of tossers; you visit numerous fora and claim to be a rock ape, and act like a deluded nutter making cracking claims about the abilities and expections of a RAF regiment ape. You are infact, working hard to come across as this headcase so that people will think that all RAF Regt personnel are this crazy.

I'll claim my 5 pounds thanks.

Reported.

cruasder777

Manic Moran wrote: »

[mod]Your turn to get an infraction.

If you have evidence that he is not who he claims, present it to me and the other mods by PM. Otherwise, drop the personal attacks.[/mod]

Its impossible to go from Private to Lt Col in peacetime, its unheard of.

Lt Cols command Regiments.

Manic Moran

cruasder777 wrote: »

Its impossible to go from Private to Lt Col in peacetime, its unheard of.

Lt Cols command Regiments.

What sort of rubbish are you spouting? 13 years ago I graduated basic training as a new junior enlisted soldier. I was notified yesterday that the Major's selection board has approved my promotion to that rank. That's only one rank below LTC, and none have been battlefield promotions.

Manic Moran

cruasder777 wrote: »

USAF Security forces inc 435th Security Forces Squadrons role is not as broad as the RAF Regiments in terms of force protection.

It may not be, but if the function currently under discussion involves gearing up for a fight within a couple of miles of the airfield in order to make sure nobody attacks either the airfield itself, or aircraft on the approach path, then the USAF Security Forces have that function.

cruasder777

Manic Moran wrote: »

What sort of rubbish are you spouting? 13 years ago I graduated basic training as a new junior enlisted soldier. I was notified yesterday that the Major's selection board has approved my promotion to that rank. That's only one rank below LTC, and none have been battlefield promotions.

You are not serving in the British army.

It takes around 22 years to become a WO1 from private.

downonthefarm

Savage93 wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345454/Vietnam-War-photos-reveal-moment-U-S-troops-unleashed-hell-Viet-Cong-sniper-hills-Army-camp.html

The moral of the story is DON'T POKE THE BEAR!!!!!

light em up mack

discus

cruasder777 wrote: »

You are not serving in the British army.

It takes around 22 years to become a WO1 from private.

Bull****. There's a WO1 in my regiment who isn't even 30 yet.

cruasder777

discus wrote: »

Bull****. There's a WO1 in my regiment who isn't even 30 yet.

I dont believe you, in Tacs time it was around 22 years, in recent times 15 years in exceptional circumstances in units such as the Royal Signals or Int Corps. Larger Corps still 18-22 years.

pablomakaveli

discus wrote: »

Bull****. There's a WO1 in my regiment who isn't even 30 yet.

Got a recently promoted WO2 in mine who's been in about 12 years. Went from sergeant to WO2 in 3 years.

Of course you and me dont know what we're talking about as far as crusader is concerned. :rolleyes:

cruasder777

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Got a recently promoted WO2 in mine who's been in about 12 years. Went from sergeant to WO2 in 3 years.

Of course you and me dont know what we're talking about as far as crusader is concerned. :rolleyes:

craphat regiments

pablomakaveli

cruasder777 wrote: »

craphat regiments

A bit like the RAF regiment then.

cruasder777

pablomakaveli wrote: »

A bit like the RAF regiment then.

Not quite.

There is no way you can have the experience to be a WO2 in 12 years, never mind WO1.

The RSM/W01 is responsible for maintaining standards and discipline and acts as a parental figure to his or her subordinates.

12 Years does not give you the experience to do that.

pablomakaveli

cruasder777 wrote: »

Not quite.

There is no way you can have the experience to be a WO2 in 12 years.

And you know that based on what?

Because despite what you say he's done it. Funny that. Maybe you can come over and explain that to my CO.

cruasder777

pablomakaveli wrote: »

And you know that based on what?

Because despite what you say he's done it. Funny that. Maybe you can come over and explain that to my CO.

The RSM/W01 is responsible for maintaining standards and discipline and acts as a parental figure to his or her subordinates.

A 30 yr old does not have the experience to do that.

The whole point of the Rank was created to award lifetime service soldiers.



And how can a 30 yr old with 12 years service have the experience of Queens Regulations to uphold this rank ?

pablomakaveli

cruasder777 wrote: »

The RSM/W01 is responsible for maintaining standards and discipline and acts as a parental figure to his or her subordinates.

A 30 yr old does not have the experience to do that.

He's in his mid-thirties not that it matters. Why shouldn't a thirty year old be capable if they're considered good enough?

cruasder777

pablomakaveli wrote: »

He's in his mid-thirties not that it matters. Why shouldn't a thirty year old be capable if they're considered good enough?

Its not about good enough, its experienced enough.

Esp in Queens Regulations and maintaining regimental standards, acting as a parental figure in the regiment.

The other poster said the WO in his reg was under 30.

pablomakaveli

cruasder777 wrote: »

Its not about good enough, its experienced enough.

Esp in Queens Regulations and maintaining regimental standards, acting as a parental figure in the regiment.

The other poster said the WO in his reg was under 30.

You could have someone with twice the experience and they could still make a crap RSM.

It's not all about how many years they've done.

discus

cruasder777 wrote: »

The RSM/W01 is responsible for maintaining standards and discipline and acts as a parental figure to his or her subordinates.

A 30 yr old does not have the experience to do that.

The whole point of the Rank was created to award lifetime service soldiers.

And how can a 30 yr old with 12 years service have the experience of Queens Regulations to uphold this rank ?

How embarrassing.

cruasder777

discus wrote: »

How embarrassing.

Stop trolling.

iceage

Another perfectly sensible, logical and on topic thread,(And historically unique) relevant to the Military Forums here on Boards.ie, completely and utterly trashed to ribbons by Crusader..

HA! Troll he says... Pot, Kettle and fecking refugee mate.

cruasder777

pablomakaveli wrote: »

You could have someone with twice the experience and they could still make a crap RSM.

It's not all about how many years they've done.

In the main, yes it is, the whole point of the ranks creation was to award lifeservice soldiers.

cruasder777

iceage wrote: »

Another perfectly sensible, logical and on topic thread,(And historically unique) relevant to the Military Forums here on Boards.ie, completely and utterly trashed to ribbons by Crusader..

My posts are based on reality.

If you have nothing to contribute dont bother posting.

pablomakaveli

cruasder777 wrote: »

In the main, yes it is, the whole point of the ranks creation was to award lifeservice soldiers.

I'm sorry i forgot your the expert based on all your experience browsing wikipedia.

pablomakaveli

cruasder777 wrote: »

My posts are based on reality.

If you have nothing to contribute dont bother posting.

Must be a bizarre alternate reality where the RAF regt are SF then.

cruasder777

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'm sorry i forgot your the expert based on all your experience browsing wikipedia.

Stop trolling.

Everything I have posted on this thread is factual.

cruasder777

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Must be a bizarre alternate reality where the RAF regt are SF then.

Where did I say that ?

Stop trolling.

iceage

cruasder777 wrote: »

My posts are based on reality.

If you have nothing to contribute dont bother posting.

Head back to page 1 of this Thread... read the title, admire the stunning photography, step away from the keyboard and desist from hijacking posts. Simples really.

iceage

Flipping eck, It worked! Iceage swaggers off to bed.

My work here is done.

Manic Moran

I'm having a gander at the career of WO1 Darren Chant, who was killed on op in Afghanistan (Hence his career is listed). Graduated Basic in 1986, was a WO1 by 1999.

Thirteen years. Since he was born late 1969, he joined the Army at 17. Makes him a WO1 by age 29 or 30.

http://www.theinvictafoundation.org.uk/article.php/647/warrant_officer_class_1__regimental_sergeant_major__darren_chant

You can certainly argue whether or not a 30-year-old should be eligible for the rank, but I don't see how you can argue that it can't happen.

cruasder777

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm having a gander at the career of WO1 Darren Chant, who was killed on op in Afghanistan (Hence his career is listed). Graduated Basic in 1986, was a WO1 by 1999.

Thirteen years. Since he was born late 1969, he joined the Army at 17. Makes him a WO1 by age 29 or 30.

http://www.theinvictafoundation.org.uk/article.php/647/warrant_officer_class_1__regimental_sergeant_major__darren_chant

You can certainly argue whether or not a 30-year-old should be eligible for the rank, but I don't see how you can argue that it can't happen.[/QUOTE#

"In the summer of 2008 he was appointed Sergeant Major and moved with the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards to London and on to pre-deployment training. In September 2009 he deployed to Afghanistan on Operation HERRICK 11 as the Sergeant Major of the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards."


.............He was WO1 at 39 not 29/30, you dont become a WO1 in the Grenadier Gds at 30.




Anyway Ive had enough of this point scoring, better things to do.

Manic Moran

Perhaps I misinterpreted the statement that WO1 Chant was serving as a senior instructor at Sandhurst.

Such bios in the US tend to use the rank of the time.

Manic Moran

Stanley Price and Tom Duffy appear to both have made RSM by age 24, though granted in WW2, standards may have slipped.

My Google-fu however, is too weak to identify the current youngest WO1 in the British Army.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Not quite.

There is no way you can have the experience to be a WO2 in 12 years, never mind WO1.

The RSM/W01 is responsible for maintaining standards and discipline and acts as a parental figure to his or her subordinates.

12 Years does not give you the experience to do that.

Just because Wikipedia says it, don't make it true......

......you could at least put quote marks around the material you are plagiarising.

Of course, I'll admit it's possible you edited the page in wikipedia after you posted here......and that you somehow managed to erase that fact from the edit history relating to that page.

tac foley

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps I misinterpreted the statement that WO1 Chant was serving as a senior instructor at Sandhurst.

Such bios in the US tend to use the rank of the time.

All quotes referring to the late WO1[RSM] Chant use his rank at the time of death.

tac

Lemming

In case it goes missing amidst the arguments over the capability & suitability age of the candidate for WO, congrats to MM on his notification of promotion.

And on a more on-topic, ableit anal, comment; the photographer of those stunning photos was airborne, not USMC. Whilst stationed near Da Nang, the article would suggest that it was not the marine base at Da Nang that got lit up by a VC sniper.

Savage93

Lemming wrote: »

In case it goes missing amidst the arguments over the capability & suitability age of the candidate for WO, congrats to MM on his notification of promotion.

And on a more on-topic, ableit anal, comment; the photographer of those stunning photos was airborne, not USMC. Whilst stationed near Da Nang, the article would suggest that it was not the marine base at Da Nang that got lit up by a VC sniper.

I thank you for your accuracy in pointing out that the reporter is airborne and not marine and apologise for my error. As for the rest of the thread it saddens me as a boardsie to see threads hijacked and turned into pissing contests on an ongoing basis by warped little individuals (you Crusader, and I know I'm attacking the poster not the post and liable to suffer an infraction for saying so)