Dont Miss.... Ross Kemp On Afghanistan
Discussion
Th program was really good and is shaping up to be anothe success. Wouldnt be surprised to see Kemp pick up MORE BAFTAs when these come around again.
It was sobering to see that one of the soldiers (a Sgt) that they spent a lot of time with, including some moving scenes with his wife before the deployment, become one of the first casualties.
The first exposure that Kemp got on the ground to Afgahnistan was the the military send off for a young Lance Corporal, killed days before. it was surprisingly moving and also quite sobering.
It was also interesting to see the boy soldier that was all 'fingers and thumbs' during training in the UK coming home on R&R 2 months after deployment. Kemp said the lad (18 yrs old) looked like he had aged 10 years.
Kemp was obviosuly scared in places, and this was before being sent forward to the real front line. The show seems to show how it is on the ground, and Kemp will be in hte thick of it.
I think it will turn out to be an award winning show. That people on here dont like Kemp shouldnt put them off the factthat its actually about the young soldiers that we are sending to one of the worst wars we have fought for years. Real up close and personal warfare against an enemy that believes they are going to paradise.
It was sobering to see that one of the soldiers (a Sgt) that they spent a lot of time with, including some moving scenes with his wife before the deployment, become one of the first casualties.
The first exposure that Kemp got on the ground to Afgahnistan was the the military send off for a young Lance Corporal, killed days before. it was surprisingly moving and also quite sobering.
It was also interesting to see the boy soldier that was all 'fingers and thumbs' during training in the UK coming home on R&R 2 months after deployment. Kemp said the lad (18 yrs old) looked like he had aged 10 years.
Kemp was obviosuly scared in places, and this was before being sent forward to the real front line. The show seems to show how it is on the ground, and Kemp will be in hte thick of it.
I think it will turn out to be an award winning show. That people on here dont like Kemp shouldnt put them off the factthat its actually about the young soldiers that we are sending to one of the worst wars we have fought for years. Real up close and personal warfare against an enemy that believes they are going to paradise.
Edited by Tony*T3 on Tuesday 22 January 10:10
grand cherokee said:
can't believe some of the crap on the weapons traing!
bayonet - '...thats the blood groove....' - maybe makes good tv viewing but is untrue!
its called a 'fuller' and is added to a blade to reduce weight and stiffen the blade - made during the founding of the blade not ground out later
even wiki says its 19th century romantic myth with no basis in fact!
and on the range was given a rifle with something along the lines of its not sighted for you but in combat you have to grab the nearest weapon - weapons sighting is a ballistic exercise the only personal touch is the focus ring
best zero/sighting is done on a bench rest - no human contact
i've years of experience with rifles and i've picked up other peoples rifles and been as accurate as they are - do you think a professional deerstalker re-sights his rifle every day to suit each client
This isnt reffering to sightening of the actual weapon to the sights, its about sighting the weapon to the person holding it.bayonet - '...thats the blood groove....' - maybe makes good tv viewing but is untrue!
its called a 'fuller' and is added to a blade to reduce weight and stiffen the blade - made during the founding of the blade not ground out later
even wiki says its 19th century romantic myth with no basis in fact!
and on the range was given a rifle with something along the lines of its not sighted for you but in combat you have to grab the nearest weapon - weapons sighting is a ballistic exercise the only personal touch is the focus ring
best zero/sighting is done on a bench rest - no human contact
i've years of experience with rifles and i've picked up other peoples rifles and been as accurate as they are - do you think a professional deerstalker re-sights his rifle every day to suit each client
Everyone is built different, everyone holds the rifle slightly different, and everyone shoots slightly different.
They were refferring to zeroing the weapon to the indevidual holdong it. DOnt say this is rubbish, as most of us that have been in the forces have had to do it regularly, especially if you are not issued a personal weapon. It makes a real difference when put into practice.
As for your insistance that bayonet tyoe knives have no such thing as a 'blood groove' well, just about every serious knife maker lists such a feature on its military knife models. Its what I was taught it was 20 years ago in the military too. The blood groove is a patented feature on most military knives.
Edited by Tony*T3 on Thursday 24th January 14:06
Edited by Tony*T3 on Thursday 24th January 14:14
grand cherokee said:
Tony*T3 said:
grand cherokee said:
can't believe some of the crap on the weapons traing!
bayonet - '...thats the blood groove....' - maybe makes good tv viewing but is untrue!
its called a 'fuller' and is added to a blade to reduce weight and stiffen the blade - made during the founding of the blade not ground out later
even wiki says its 19th century romantic myth with no basis in fact!
and on the range was given a rifle with something along the lines of its not sighted for you but in combat you have to grab the nearest weapon - weapons sighting is a ballistic exercise the only personal touch is the focus ring
best zero/sighting is done on a bench rest - no human contact
i've years of experience with rifles and i've picked up other peoples rifles and been as accurate as they are - do you think a professional deerstalker re-sights his rifle every day to suit each client
This isnt reffering to sightening of the actual weapon to the sights, its about sighting the weapon to the person holding it.bayonet - '...thats the blood groove....' - maybe makes good tv viewing but is untrue!
its called a 'fuller' and is added to a blade to reduce weight and stiffen the blade - made during the founding of the blade not ground out later
even wiki says its 19th century romantic myth with no basis in fact!
and on the range was given a rifle with something along the lines of its not sighted for you but in combat you have to grab the nearest weapon - weapons sighting is a ballistic exercise the only personal touch is the focus ring
best zero/sighting is done on a bench rest - no human contact
i've years of experience with rifles and i've picked up other peoples rifles and been as accurate as they are - do you think a professional deerstalker re-sights his rifle every day to suit each client
Everyone is built different, everyone holds the rifle slightly different, and everyone shoots slightly different.
They were refferring to zeroing the weapon to the indevidual holdong it. DOnt say this is rubbish, as most of us that have been in the forces have had to do it regularly, especially if you are not issued a personal weapon. It makes a real difference when put into practice.
Edited by Tony*T3 on Thursday 24th January 14:06
regardless of how you hold the weapon - the cross hairs are where the round impacts - does the army no produce left handed stocks?
as i said bench zeroing is the best - anybody can pick up said weapon and hit the target - if they can aim!!
if a weapon shoots 3" high for you it will still shoot 3" high for me - simple ballistics
as i said i have taken hundreds of people deerstalking and NEVER adjusted the rifle for them - yet they hit the 'beasty' at distances a sqaddy can only dream about!
You shot a deer - would the round have hit the same impact point of the deer whether you, me, or any of your person firing the same rifle? How do you know, does the deer stand there dead still whilst you all shot a the same one inch square white patch?
10's of thousands of rounds a MONTH are used on the ranges of the British forces to achive this - perhpas you would like to go tell the military that all along they were wrong and you were right. Would save us all a fortune.
Why the cheap 'shot' at what a squaddie can do or not? Some of the est shots in britain are in the army, they arent shooting bambie for fun and entertainment, they are either practicing for combat or shooting atthe enemy. Would love to see you do it. Or perhaps you did, back in 'Nam....?
((chelte'Nam))
grand cherokee said:
why do butchers knives not have a blood groove? -- the Japanese who are the worlds best knife makes never used one with the katana??
Why would a butcher require a 'blood groove' in a knife? Do butchers usually sneak up on their 'victims', and does it matter if theres a sound as the knife is withdrawn?I do agree however that this might well all be 'urban legend', however, in the context of the TV program, it was true, as its what is beleived by the army. Perhaps they should all look it up on Wikipedia too.
grand cherokee said:
i'll leave it to you
but i used to go to the range every morning with new 'clients' and if they could aim they hit the target with my rifle without any adjustment apart from the focus ring
That would be because of a competent instructor with a reasonably intelligent pupil that listens well, using a proper precision rifle thats properly set up for the job. but i used to go to the range every morning with new 'clients' and if they could aim they hit the target with my rifle without any adjustment apart from the focus ring
Edited by grand cherokee on Thursday 24th January 14:39
Have you ever fired the SA80?
grand cherokee said:
Tony*T3 said:
grand cherokee said:
i'll leave it to you
but i used to go to the range every morning with new 'clients' and if they could aim they hit the target with my rifle without any adjustment apart from the focus ring
That would be because of a competent instructor with a reasonably intelligent pupil that listens well, using a proper precision rifle thats properly set up for the job. but i used to go to the range every morning with new 'clients' and if they could aim they hit the target with my rifle without any adjustment apart from the focus ring
Edited by grand cherokee on Thursday 24th January 14:39
Have you ever fired the SA80?
need i go on?
Every time I was issued a weapon it needed 'zeroing' to me. It was done on a 30m range, and at that range would produce a result prior to zeroing that would see the group 'high and wide' or similar. It would then be 'zeroed' to my firing technique, and the grouping would be brought onto the one inch square. The weapon could then be used on longer ranges to put a grouping into the desired area.
This occurred for just about everyone being issued with the weapon. The weapon would then be retained by you for the period of use (usually a week long guard duty).
Obviosuly, this is with non personal weapons. Those issued with personal weapons didnt need to have them 'zeroed' once they were set up for them,
Such a sad show last night. Three young lives lost to friendly fire.
It must have been errible for the troop commanders to realise that one of the young soldiers had not returned to the forward base after the attack. To leave someone on the battle field like that, such a terrible thing, and then to realise that you are missing a soldier. To realise he's liekly dead, or worse, wounded and captured by the taliban. The recovery later of his body must have been frantic, and very dangerous.
Kemps style of narration is the only thing about this programme that grates, his constant use of gaps in sentances. Other than that, a superb programme, surely up for Baftas.
Boys to Men in weeks. Seeing the change in the young troops from the first episode. Stuff they do and see will stay in their minds for ever.
Next weeks final episode looks very good. returning to the place of the friendly fire incedent to destoy it and recover any articles left behind.
Kemp and his crew must surely win the awards for best show in the near future. The only time the BBC makes stuff this good they feel compled to present a balanced show, seeing it from the other side as well, interviewing the Taliban and showing their struggle. I personally dont give a fek about the other side to this story, the public needs to see the loss sufferred by British families when a mum is told her 19 year old son has given his life for his country. Do you remember being 19?
It must have been errible for the troop commanders to realise that one of the young soldiers had not returned to the forward base after the attack. To leave someone on the battle field like that, such a terrible thing, and then to realise that you are missing a soldier. To realise he's liekly dead, or worse, wounded and captured by the taliban. The recovery later of his body must have been frantic, and very dangerous.
Kemps style of narration is the only thing about this programme that grates, his constant use of gaps in sentances. Other than that, a superb programme, surely up for Baftas.
Boys to Men in weeks. Seeing the change in the young troops from the first episode. Stuff they do and see will stay in their minds for ever.
Next weeks final episode looks very good. returning to the place of the friendly fire incedent to destoy it and recover any articles left behind.
Kemp and his crew must surely win the awards for best show in the near future. The only time the BBC makes stuff this good they feel compled to present a balanced show, seeing it from the other side as well, interviewing the Taliban and showing their struggle. I personally dont give a fek about the other side to this story, the public needs to see the loss sufferred by British families when a mum is told her 19 year old son has given his life for his country. Do you remember being 19?
The Londoner said:
Along with this series, I have watched several other programmes with documentary teams embedded with UK and US forces and none of them answer a couple of questions.
Firstly, why are the Taliban such a foe to be reckoned with? They are up against some of the best trained and equipped troops in the world, they are running around in turbans and robes, yet no-one can defeat them. Why not?
Secondly, these programmes rightly concentrate on our troops and casualties, yet what damage is being done to the enemy? Are they losing large numbers of men in what ought to be totally one sided battles?
The 'Taliban' are the enemy when they hold a gun. They can put down that gun, walk around the corner, and suddenly be a farmer, or anything else. They dont have a uniform and they dont have structured organised military appearance. How do you fight someone like this with a regular armed force? You cant. You can drop a bomb on a house that contain 10 Taliban fighters, but then you find the house also contained women and children and therefore everyones suddenly a civilian. The army dont want enemy casualty figures because they will be used as counter propaganda of indescriminate attacks on civilians. Firstly, why are the Taliban such a foe to be reckoned with? They are up against some of the best trained and equipped troops in the world, they are running around in turbans and robes, yet no-one can defeat them. Why not?
Secondly, these programmes rightly concentrate on our troops and casualties, yet what damage is being done to the enemy? Are they losing large numbers of men in what ought to be totally one sided battles?
Even if a sniper bags a Taliban at long range, his weapon will likely be removed by his fellow Taliban fighters and all thats left is a body of someone dressed in civilian clothing.
Countries have been trying to defeat resistance in Afghanistan for centuries. No one has managed it.
audidoody said:
There's a very simple reason why our conventional forces will never defeat the Taiban. There is "no-one" to defeat. There is no military apparatus that can recognise a defeat and offer surrender. Normal war = political tool of an elected government. Aim is regime change or territorial conquest. One trained state-sponsored force against another. Aim achived. War over. One kills/destroys more materiel than the other side. One wins one loses. War against Taliban = skirmishes against "citisen" army motivated by religious extremism. Willingness to die. No political aims that can be defeated. No military apparatus to acquiesce to an order from high command to surrender.
Christ on a bike. If can work that one out , why couldn't Blair and Bush?
Agreed, however, no need to even blame it on 'religious extremism'. Simply put, faith and belieth cannot be beaten by technology and air superiority. Christ on a bike. If can work that one out , why couldn't Blair and Bush?
pablo said:
Eric Mc said:
Tony*T3 said:
audidoody said:
There's a very simple reason why our conventional forces will never defeat the Taiban. There is "no-one" to defeat. There is no military apparatus that can recognise a defeat and offer surrender. Normal war = political tool of an elected government. Aim is regime change or territorial conquest. One trained state-sponsored force against another. Aim achived. War over. One kills/destroys more materiel than the other side. One wins one loses. War against Taliban = skirmishes against "citisen" army motivated by religious extremism. Willingness to die. No political aims that can be defeated. No military apparatus to acquiesce to an order from high command to surrender.
Christ on a bike. If can work that one out , why couldn't Blair and Bush?
Agreed, however, no need to even blame it on 'religious extremism'. Simply put, faith and belieth cannot be beaten by technology and air superiority. Christ on a bike. If can work that one out , why couldn't Blair and Bush?
eg: there is a field full of fertile soil. someone makes you grow opium in it and will kill you if you dont. you grow opium and get a pittance, they keep most of the profits. I come along, give you more money to grow something else and in the mean time, kill the man forcing you to grow opium. you are happy because you get more money, can grow what you want and will not die as a result.
the war on terror was dreamt up on fleet street.
Yes, you can defeat ideas and styles, such as Fascism. You remove the (mortal)figure heads. But I cant see how you can defeat a faith, without actually killing everyone, because you cant remove the the figure head. Even slotting Osama wont help, someone else will take his place, and he'll gain martyrdom.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff