Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Rustman

  • Rank
  1. Rustman

    3 point sling?

    We just always called it a one point sling. If there is any other names for it, then I haven't heard. I'd never chow sling (put it on my back) during combat. If I need both hands to work on something, I'd detach the weapon from my one point and lean it up against something next to me, so I can grab it quick if I need to. Probably not doable in game, but that's how I work in the real world. The only real purpose of a one point sling is so if I end up going down and someone has to drag me of the battlefield quickly, my weapon will drag with me...that's it. The biggest problem I have with tactical slings, such as a 3 point, is that you can't effectively transition between right shoulder firing and left shoulder, which is a necessity at times.
  2. Rustman

    3 point sling?

    The current state of the art in tactical slings is the blue force gear Vickers Tactical adjustible two point sling. Thats what I run on my rifles. Three point slings are a mess and tangle in everything. Single point slings are great for transitions if worn for only a short time but wear you out. Theres also that other little clip/sling strap type thing which is only about 3 inches long and clips onto your shoulder on the tacvest. That one is pretty cool too 3 pint sling...icky...yuck....no way. Actually, as a combat sling I hate anything that wraps around my body. I almost run completely 1 point slings attached by clips. I have the male end of the clip on a 3 inch strap off my weapon...and the female end attached to an adjustable Molle panel on my vest. if I'm not wearing my vest I have a sling loop with another female end attached to that. It's the only sling I will use. I also ran around Iraq for the longest time with no sling at all. It works. I like to keep my stuff flexable...and immediately detachable in an emergency.
  3. Rustman

    EOD questions?

    officially, personell are supposed to be no less than 300 meters away, the bigger the boom, the further you need to be away from it....HOWEVER...in the real world, I've had EOD blow up IED's as close as within 150 meters of the security cordon...and I've seen the actual buffalo with the robot operator within 100 meters. They operate the thing from within thier buffalo, so, realistically, they can get pretty close without any problems. The actual distance away, in the real world, is dictated more by terrain and the ability for EOD and the security team to maintain eyes on the site. As long as you aren't parked ON the IED, there really isn't any problems. We were pulling an outer cordon on an IED built from 200 pounds of rocket fuel once and they blew that thing probably 200 meters from our position and I'd say 75 meters, max, from thier buffalo. We certianly felt the concussion from the blast (it was sweet...lol), but there wasn't any injuries or damage to equipment from it.
  4. Rustman

    Explosively Formed Penetrators

    No...shape charges are completely different. Shape charge focuses the explosion on a single small point of the armor. It melts a hole with superheated gas, essentially....kind of like an extremely hot, fast moving blow torch. The EFP is a kinetic weapon. The explosion reshapes the copper plate into a big semi-solid slug traveling thousands of meters a second. It punches through on pure mass and speed..no chemical assistance needed. I was actually taking a class from a counter IED unit over here and they told me a story of one of these EFP that hit one of their trucks. The thing completely went through the up armored humvee..in one door and out the other side (thankfully it didn't hit any of the crew)..the slug kept going and took out a van of civilians 200 meters away. Vicious things those EFP's.
  5. Rustman

    US Light Infantry - a few questions

    Ok...here's from the army side...I would point out, however, that this is just our loadout in Iraq. Â Unique theaters make for unique operational requirements. Â When we'd go out it was usually 3 trucks to a squad...the team leader and the squad leader each commanded one truck with each team leader designating 2 of his guys as kinda-sorta permanent driver and gunner...the third team member is given over to the Squad Leaders truck. Â So, three squad members per truck as crew, plus a medic and sometimes an interpreter thrown into the mix. Â If we had to dismount or what not, it was usually 2 of the truck commanders, the medic, and maybe one of the drivers or gunner if we absolutely needed a 4th man, which most of the time we didn't. Â This was just for regular patrols. In our particular case, it was kind of moot most of the time...we spent our first 11 months attached to I MEF and they were kind enough to loan us enough Marines to pump our squad strength up to 12 men. Then we had quite a few dismounts. Actual specific operations, like focused raids and such were a completely different ball game. Â Obviously each operation tweaked things a little bit, but for the most part, it was basic US infantry doctrine that can be found pretty much anywhere on the internet. Â For a platoon size raid, the 3 squads would be split into 3 elements..a security element, a support element, and an assault element. Â The security and support elements were usually mounted..with security focus outward and support focused inward toward the objective..the assault squad would usually just ride in the empty seats of the other 2 squads humvees then completely dismount in order to hit the objective. Callsigns are pretty much standard across the board as 0311 pointed out...considering you aren't working any element larget than company, it would usually be company designation "Alpha", "Bravo", "Barbarian" (this was ours), "Apache"...etc. followed by platoon number and then an individual designator. Â Designators 1-4 are reserved for squads or sections, 6 is the commanding officer, 7 is the highest ranking NCO, and 5 is the XO if the element you are trying to reach has an XO..the 8 and above would be other elements if appropriote, such as other vehicles or such. Â For example, "Alpha-3-1" would be Alpha company, 3rd platoon, 1st squad..."Charlie-1-7" would be Charlie company, 1st platoon, Platoon Sergeant..."Delta-6" would be Delta Company Commanding Officer...etc. Â Easy. So, in that instance, the attached tanks or what-not would just keep thier organic callsigns..in cases where there would be some confusion...the attached unit would probably just make one up to alleviate the confusion..like 1st Plt, A Co. 1/1 armor attached to A Co. 1/43 Infantry might decide to take the callsign "Abrams" or something simple like that so everyone understands who they are on the net.
  6. Rustman

    One tweak that will change alot

    interesting topic. Seems odd they programmed the AI to track by sound. It's completely unrealistic...talking from personal experience, a person can not pinpoint a shooter by sound. not 90%...not 70% chance...zero. You can't....at all. The most precise you will ever be is "South/North/east/West somewhere"...."Somewhere in the vicinity of that village/town/neighborhood"...."The other side of that river"...etc. Ranging by sound is only slightly less imprecise. Positive identification of an enemy position comes by sight only. You see something that tells you that there is a bad guy at that position. A muzzle flash..dust being kicked up from gas discharge..the point of origin of a tracer round...a dude with a rifle pointed at you (that's a big clue right there). Ehhh...stupid.
  7. Rustman

    Psychology of killing.

    I would submit that the reaction of the untrained Argentine draftees who faced fully operant conditioned British troops in the Falklands contradicts your belief. And it is only belief; you present no statistical evidence or research to back up your assertion of what you think. While I will not question that you hold those beliefs strongly and with conviction; they count as nothing when compared to the work of people like Richard Holmes in his book Firing Line for he researched the actual firing rates in the Falklands war. To Paraphrase your own statment: The plane facts of Richard Holmes' study are that when "90% of Argentine humans holding a loaded M16 gun and faced with a blood drenched bayonet wielding maniac in the form of an operant conditioned SLR equipped British soldier running towards them screaming at the top of his lungs with murder in his eyes 90% froze and did not react" Well that's a pretty crap study then isn't it. They were holding FN's too, not M1-16's; and plenty of British Soldiers died during that bayonet charge. Neither for that matter were the Argentine conscripts "untrained". They were the Batallón de Infantería de Marina 5, the Argentinians most elite Marines. Honestly, what a laughable statistic. What did he do? Interview all the dead Argentinians and ask them if they froze? What a load of old claptrap. Do you really believe battles are decided by he who can fire the most bullets? That simply totalling up the number of bullets fired alone, can give you any great insight into the nature of a battle. In an ambush situation is the reason the victim doesn't fire back, because he is psychologically incapable or because his enemy shot him first? The superiority of the bayonet at point blank range is that it doesn't run out of ammo and it's not difficult to aim. It can be readily wielded in the confined spaces of buildings and trenches with comparative ease. Add to this that the referred to assault was at night time, in the dark, and you begin to understand why the bayonet is superior to the loaded rifle, when tactically deployed. Not much point having a loaded rifle with an effective range of 600 metres if the first time you see your enemy he is standing next to you with a spear. Bayonets mate, battle winning technology. Lesser skilled infantry never deploy them. They think it's all about firepower. Eh...the bayonet becomes less and less effective as technology gets better. Currently, I can honestly say I fight better at night than I do during the day. I can easily identify and hit targets at ranges out to 300+ meters with even 5 to 10 year old technology on my issued M-4. Does that mean that hand to hand combat should be dropped from training or that it isn't useful anymore? No...it has it's uses still. Sometimes technology fails...sometimes you just accidentally run head on into the enemy and got no other choice. The brother of one of our soldiers here received a bronze star for jumping into a drainage canal during a firefight and accidentally landing on 2 insurgents...he ended up knifing them both. But really, the day of the classic bayonet charge is over. We would never use it and those that would try it on us, even at night, better have a serious number advantage or they are getting slaughtered.
  8. Rustman

    The Iraq thread 4

    Source If Iran was sending in cobra gunships, F14's, UH-1's, CH-47 helicopters, etc the US would have alot more to worry about. LOL...hardly. Firstly, we currently DOMINATE the airspace above Iraq. We'd have interceptors on them long before they reached their target area. Secondly, as an impossible a task as it would be, in order to maintain the image of simply being a by standing witness to an insurgency they'd have to smuggle the items into the country, find people inside the country who knew how to arm, fuel, operate, and maintain not only the vehicles themselves, but an entire covert airfield....which brings another problem into play...aircraft aren't exactly inconspicuous. Their only other option is open warfare, and I really don't think Iran wants that right now, no matter how much saber rattling they are doing.
  9. Rustman

    Psychology of killing.

    Ehhh...been there, done that...got the T-shirt. Â Frankly, I believe the statistics on the number of soldiers who fired on the enemy in World War 2 is complete BS. Â I've been in a number of firefights and I can't think of single time myself, nor anyone else in my squad has ever not fired because it felt "morally wrong". Â I didn't shoot alot because I'm a team leader and, frankly, most of my combat time was spend directing fire and leading my troops...but, by god, when I wasn't busy doing that I was laying some serious well-aimed fire down on some insurgent bastages. Â In the entire year and some change I've spent in Al Anbar I can think of 1 person....ever....who hesitated behind the trigger. Â It was our platoon sergeant doing an overwatch on a stretch of road in his Bradley when they spotted about 4 or 5 children (12 to 14 years old) emplacing an IED. Â He would have been fully in his legal right to have blasted those little bastards to oblivion, but just couldn't bring himself to do it. Â That's the only time...one person in one instance over 15 months.
  10. Rustman

    Your home town/city/farm?!

    Somewhere in Minnesota, USA when I get back there...currently...few miles west of Fallujah, Iraq.
  11. Rustman

    School shooting "phenomenom"

    Well, I'm gonna respond anyway. Â Simple fact is that I do enjoy practicing my rights...I do...I really enjoy shooting. Â But that is besides the point. Â It's also a reality that chances are I won't ever NEED my gun for anything...however, should the situation arise where I do have to rely on it for survival, it makes me happy that I can carry it. Â Look, I love our police to death. Â I really do...and they do good work. Â But simple fact is that they don't prevent crime. Â Yours don't prevent crime in your country either. Â Even cops admit this. Â They are awesome at investigating and catching criminals, but it begs the question..why are they criminals and why are the police trying to lock them up? Â Because there has already been a victim, that's why. Â The damage has already been done. Â Unless your police can magically teleport themselves to the exact point of the crime at the exact moment it happens, yours are just as limited by response time as ours are. Â The best you can hope is to A) survive the encounter and, doing that, B) give the cops the best info you can to catch the guy. Â That is not crime prevention...that is crime investigation. Â Two totally different things. Â I carry to prevent my self from becoming a victim in the first place. Â You don't? Â Great..more power to ya! Â *Thumbs up* Â Just because you make that choice doesn't mean that I have to also.
  12. Rustman

    School shooting "phenomenom"

    Like I said guns are not a solution to crime. Do you think that person is mugging that woman for fun? Of course not. solve the causes of crime ie poverty, unemployment etc. Only then will the crime level drop. Also I didn't even know that a nervous person with a gun is stereotypical, I didn't even indicate such a thing. An over-confident person with a gun is also not good. Like Baddo said there's nothing wrong with applying common sense to the issue. For example one of my mates is a champion Clay Pigeon shooter, he's on the Scotland squad, so he owns a shotgun for that. That's fine. It's locked away in the local shooting club anyway. What's strange is that the Americans here can't seem to come to a compromise on the issue. After all compromise is at the roots of your country and is something you pride yourselves in. It's not an either/or argument. By all means, solve poverty, save the homeless, etc...I still have the right to carry a gun to protect myself. You are right..guns in the broad sence is not gonna stop crime...just like taking away guns is not gonna stop crime...what it does do is allow me to not be a victim while I'm working at saving the world from poverty. Me..that's why I carry...Me and my loved ones. I don't carry a gun to change the world. The shooting club thing is apples and oranges...the second amendment was not written with shooting clubs and competitions in mind...it wasn't written with hunting in mind...the second amendment was writtin with one thing in mind..the defense of self, family, and country. Nothing else. Hard to do that with your guns locked away in a shooting club.
  13. Rustman

    School shooting "phenomenom"

    The counter argument is you are absolutely right, the second amendment does not specify what arms...therefore you could to interpret "arms" in the sense of being a broad catagory covering all types of personal weapon systems....by that interpretation congress holds no authority to ban ANY weapon. You are right, however, I don't NEED and automatic or semi firearms...but "NEED" is completely irrelevant. It's whether or not I have a RIGHT to own one...which currently I do and that is a right I would like to keep, thank you.
  14. Rustman

    School shooting "phenomenom"

    lol Gun owner = Me. Better watch you 'cause i'm comin for yall! Yippy Ki-yay MF.
  15. Rustman

    1st Infantry Division

    lol...ironic. I am infantry and I have been to none of those schools. Actually, in the almost 9 years I've been in I've been to only 2 schools ever...Field Sanitiation and SFAS.