Speed limit enforcement

Eugenio Mastroviti said:

In Iraq, an Italian journalist and the Italian security service officers
that had just freed her from her kidnappers came under fire from US
troops some 700 metres from the airport where a plane awaited to take
her back to Italy. One of the security service officers was killed, the
journalist and another officer were wounded.

The reason the GIs opened fire? "They were approaching at excessive speed"

Hmmm...

Can I have some of those soldiers on Archway Road please?

I heard a quote the other day saying the US marines had the "best
snipers in the world" I just sprayed the cat with my tea and nearly
choked to death! The reason the yanks have so many automatic weapons is
they can't shoot straight. So in response, let's not have US servicmen
aggresivly enforcing the speed limit with extreem prejudice unless we
want large numbers of collateral casualties.
Alternativly I know of a good training school located in the UK which
has any number of marksmen capable of doing a slap up job.

Sniper8052

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

I heard a quote the other day saying the US marines had the "best
snipers in the world" I just sprayed the cat with my tea and nearly
choked to death! The reason the yanks have so many automatic weapons is
they can't shoot straight. So in response, let's not have US servicmen
aggresivly enforcing the speed limit with extreem prejudice unless we
want large numbers of collateral casualties.
Alternativly I know of a good training school located in the UK which
has any number of marksmen capable of doing a slap up job.

The statement is not necessarily false. The fact that their snipers are
exceptionally good should in no way be taken to mean that the rest of
their troops know which end of a gun to point at the enemy!

Jon

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:44:13 GMT, Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote in
<[email hidden]>, seen in
uk.rec.cycling:

[...]

Quoted message said:

I heard a quote the other day saying the US marines had the "best
snipers in the world" I just sprayed the cat with my tea and nearly
choked to death!

They probably have.

It's just the rest of the buggers who wouldn't know a legitimate
target if it came up and congratulated them on killing yet another
person who's on their own side.

ISTR that the yanks had the worst rep for "friendly fire" back in WW2.
Not much changed since, really.

--
Ross, in Lincoln
Reply-to address will bounce; replace "junk-trap" with "me" for e-mail

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:59:40 +0000 someone who may be Ross Hamilton
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

ISTR that the yanks had the worst rep for "friendly fire" back in WW2.
Not much changed since, really.

In the nights after D-Day one of the threats to shipping was from
German motor boats. Some were the well known E-boats, but others
were smaller motor boats, some of which were filled with explosives
and set to explode on contact (this is not a tactic invented by
"arab terrorists" in recent years). These would shoot out of their
bases at considerable speed and cause a lot of trouble before going
home for breakfast.

To guard against these and other threats three flotillas of
destroyers were patrolling the area. The outer flotillas were the
larger fleet destroyers, one from the US navy and one from the Royal
Navy. In the middle were the smaller Hunt class destroyers. These
dispositions matched the particular threat in a location with the
capabilities of the destroyers.

The Royal Navy were on top of the job and knew where everyone was.
However, the US Navy were not on top of the job. Several times a
night they would fire on the Hunts, at the same time excitedly
speaking on the radio. The only other thing they could have done to
attract attention was to turn on their lights. They never managed to
hit the Hunts, whose crews considered it a waste of ammunition.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:59:40 +0000 someone who may be Ross Hamilton
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

ISTR that the yanks had the worst rep for "friendly fire" back in WW2.
Not much changed since, really.

In the nights after D-Day one of the threats to shipping was from
German motor boats. Some were the well known E-boats, but others
were smaller motor boats, some of which were filled with explosives
and set to explode on contact (this is not a tactic invented by
"arab terrorists" in recent years). These would shoot out of their
bases at considerable speed and cause a lot of trouble before going
home for breakfast.

To guard against these and other threats three flotillas of
destroyers were patrolling the area. The outer flotillas were the
larger fleet destroyers, one from the US navy and one from the Royal
Navy. In the middle were the smaller Hunt class destroyers. These
dispositions matched the particular threat in a location with the
capabilities of the destroyers.

The Royal Navy were on top of the job and knew where everyone was.
However, the US Navy were not on top of the job. Several times a
night they would fire on the Hunts, at the same time excitedly
speaking on the radio. The only other thing they could have done to
attract attention was to turn on their lights. They never managed to
hit the Hunts, whose crews considered it a waste of ammunition.

I suggest you crosspost this to the groups us.military.army and
us.military.navy for the purposes of devilment.

Jon Senior said:

The statement is not necessarily false. The fact that their snipers
are exceptionally good should in no way be taken to mean that the
rest of their troops know which end of a gun to point at the enemy!

Or indeed that the rest of the Leftpondian military is sufficiently clueful
even to /recognise/ the enemy...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:21:18 +0000, Tilly wrote in
<[email hidden]>, seen in uk.rec.cycling:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:25:59 +0000, David Hansen
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Royal Navy were on top of the job and knew where everyone was.
However, the US Navy were not on top of the job. Several times a
night they would fire on the Hunts, at the same time excitedly
speaking on the radio. The only other thing they could have done to
attract attention was to turn on their lights. They never managed to
hit the Hunts, whose crews considered it a waste of ammunition.

I suggest you crosspost this to the groups us.military.army and
us.military.navy for the purposes of devilment.

Preferably after ensuring that (a) your house is not in range of any
US missiles (mind you they'd probably land on Canberra or the moon
instead) and (b) you don't intend visiting the good ol' USofA for the
foreseeable future (say the next 150 years).

<g>

--
Ross, in Lincoln
Reply-to address will bounce; replace "junk-trap" with "me" for e-mail

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:34:25 +0000 someone who may be Ross Hamilton
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:21:18 +0000, Tilly wrote in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suggest you crosspost this to the groups us.military.army and
us.military.navy for the purposes of devilment.

While I occasionally like to play with trolls I don't often troll
other newsgroups.

Quoted message said:

Preferably after ensuring that (a) your house is not in range of any
US missiles (mind you they'd probably land on Canberra or the moon
instead)

They could shell my house from their ships too.

Quoted message said:

and (b) you don't intend visiting the good ol' USofA for the
foreseeable future (say the next 150 years).

I do hope they have already banned me for something or other. if not
I must try harder:-)

If they can ban the artist formerly known as Cat Stephens and babies
because they are "terrorists" then surely they wouldn't want a
generally law abiding person like me.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Dave Larrington said:

Or indeed that the rest of the Leftpondian military is sufficiently clueful
even to /recognise/ the enemy...

American grunt 101: Enemy != me

Jon

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:36:27 +0000, David Hansen wrote in
<[email hidden]>, seen in uk.rec.cycling:

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:34:25 +0000 someone who may be Ross Hamilton
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:21:18 +0000, Tilly wrote in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suggest you crosspost this to the groups us.military.army and
us.military.navy for the purposes of devilment.

While I occasionally like to play with trolls I don't often troll
other newsgroups.

Quoted message said:

Preferably after ensuring that (a) your house is not in range of any
US missiles (mind you they'd probably land on Canberra or the moon
instead)

They could shell my house from their ships too.

Well, yes, but do you think the shells would hit your house - or the
top of Ben Nevis instead?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and (b) you don't intend visiting the good ol' USofA for the
foreseeable future (say the next 150 years).

I do hope they have already banned me for something or other. if not
I must try harder:-)

Ditto!

Quoted message said:

If they can ban the artist formerly known as Cat Stephens and babies
because they are "terrorists" then surely they wouldn't want a
generally law abiding person like me.

Quite. 🙁

--
Ross, in Lincoln
Reply-to address will bounce; replace "junk-trap" with "me" for e-mail

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:49:05 +0000 someone who may be Ross Hamilton
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They could shell my house from their ships too.

Well, yes, but do you think the shells would hit your house - or the
top of Ben Nevis instead?

Sadly I do not have a radar set to detect them firing their shells,
neither do I watch the water for the arrival of the US Navy. Neither
can I ring down to the engine room for more revolutions and order a
course change. So they are more likely to hit my house than a Hunt
class destroyer.

On the other hand I do recollect the story told about the firing of
a US battleship against a shore target, ISTR during the Korean war.
The sensible way of doing this is to fire single shells as ranging
shots and when one has found the target go into salvo (half the guns
firing at once, giving a stream of shells) or broadside firing (all
guns firing together, giving a tremendous impact) if one is being
aggressive. In this case they started with a broadside. There was a
very loud bang on the ship and the shells flew off into the
distance. The target could have been anywhere between five and say
twenty miles away. After the flight time a voice came over the
radio, the voice of the forward bombardment controller who was on
the ground or in an aeroplane. His words were, "go right one mile".

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:25:05 +0000, David Hansen wrote in
<[email hidden]>, seen in uk.rec.cycling:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:49:05 +0000 someone who may be Ross Hamilton
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They could shell my house from their ships too.

Well, yes, but do you think the shells would hit your house - or the
top of Ben Nevis instead?

Sadly I do not have a radar set to detect them firing their shells,
neither do I watch the water for the arrival of the US Navy. Neither
can I ring down to the engine room for more revolutions and order a
course change. So they are more likely to hit my house than a Hunt
class destroyer.

But possibly only when *aiming* at a Hunt class destroyer. 😉

Perhaps I'm too cynical....

--
Ross, in Lincoln
Reply-to address will bounce; replace "junk-trap" with "me" for e-mail

in message <[email hidden]>, David Hansen

(') said:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:49:05 +0000 someone who may be Ross Hamilton
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They could shell my house from their ships too.

Well, yes, but do you think the shells would hit your house - or the
top of Ben Nevis instead?

Sadly I do not have a radar set to detect them firing their shells,
neither do I watch the water for the arrival of the US Navy. Neither
can I ring down to the engine room for more revolutions and order a
course change. So they are more likely to hit my house than a Hunt
class destroyer.

If you look here:

<URL:http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=250940&y=565365&z=3>

you will see the Cairnsmore of Fleet. It is a sodding *enormous* lump of
granite 711 metres high. You couldn't possibly miss it. Consequently it
is hardly surprising that on the very top of it you will find a
memorial to all the aircraft which have crashed into it over the years.
If I recall correctly (it's five years since I was up there and I can't
find a list on the Interweb), 28 of them are USAF. That's 28 aircraft,
of course. In summer of 1978 or 79, the USAF held an exercise which
included low flying in the Galloway hills. The exercise was called off
early following the loss of, again IIRC, eight aircraft in three weeks.

Of course, this is not to suggest the RAF never lose anything. They flew
a Harrier into the hill behind my house only a few years ago.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; not so much a refugee from reality, more a bogus
;; asylum seeker

Simon Brooke said:

If you look here:

<URL:http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=250940&y=565365&z=3>

you will see the Cairnsmore of Fleet. It is a sodding *enormous* lump
of granite 711 metres high. You couldn't possibly miss it.
Consequently it is hardly surprising that on the very top of it you
will find a memorial to all the aircraft which have crashed into it
over the years. If I recall correctly (it's five years since I was up
there and I can't find a list on the Interweb), 28 of them are USAF.
That's 28 aircraft, of course. In summer of 1978 or 79, the USAF held
an exercise which included low flying in the Galloway hills. The
exercise was called off early following the loss of, again IIRC,
eight aircraft in three weeks.

Of course, this is not to suggest the RAF never lose anything. They
flew a Harrier into the hill behind my house only a few years ago.

Clouds stuffed with rocks = occupational hazard for aeroplanes. Though They
do say that the RAF get altitude sickness above 500 feet while the USAF put
their collective wheels down when they get below that height....

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To guard against these and other threats three flotillas of
destroyers were patrolling the area. The outer flotillas were the
larger fleet destroyers, one from the US navy and one from the Royal
Navy. In the middle were the smaller Hunt class destroyers. These
dispositions matched the particular threat in a location with the
capabilities of the destroyers.

The Royal Navy were on top of the job and knew where everyone was.
However, the US Navy were not on top of the job. Several times a
night they would fire on the Hunts, at the same time excitedly
speaking on the radio.

So the safest place to be was probably in one of the said Hunts :~)

Quoted message said:

The only other thing they could have done to
attract attention was to turn on their lights. They never managed to
hit the Hunts, whose crews considered it a waste of ammunition.

My Dad's description of the Yanks (and he spent several happy summers with
them across North Africa and up Italy) was that they couldn't hit a barn --
even when billeted inside it.

:~)

Simon Brooke said:

In summer of 1978 or 79, the USAF held an exercise which
included low flying in the Galloway hills.

^^

Clearly a typo in the Standing Orders, then...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Tony W said:

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To guard against these and other threats three flotillas of
destroyers were patrolling the area. The outer flotillas were the
larger fleet destroyers, one from the US navy and one from the Royal
Navy. In the middle were the smaller Hunt class destroyers. These
dispositions matched the particular threat in a location with the
capabilities of the destroyers.

The Royal Navy were on top of the job and knew where everyone was.
However, the US Navy were not on top of the job. Several times a
night they would fire on the Hunts, at the same time excitedly
speaking on the radio.

So the safest place to be was probably in one of the said Hunts :~)

Quoted message said:

The only other thing they could have done to
attract attention was to turn on their lights. They never managed to
hit the Hunts, whose crews considered it a waste of ammunition.

My Dad's description of the Yanks (and he spent several happy summers with
them across North Africa and up Italy) was that they couldn't hit a barn --
even when billeted inside it.

Oh, I dunno, if any of their allies were billeted in it they'd be
in with a chance.

--
Trevor Barton

On 14 Mar 2005 12:16:33 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My Dad's description of the Yanks (and he spent several happy summers with
them across North Africa and up Italy) was that they couldn't hit a barn --
even when billeted inside it.

Oh, I dunno, if any of their allies were billeted in it they'd be
in with a chance.

Allies inside, displaying the correct recognition signals, they
would hit the barn.

Note that the Hunts had working IFF sets which were responding with
the correct codes.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

Note that the Hunts had working IFF sets which were responding with
the correct codes.

That's the problem with acronyms, they can be confusing. e.g. they do
not differentiate between the British Identify Friend or Foe and the
American Its a Foe, Fire!

Tony