Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I thought people might find this interesting: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3511901.ece

I'm waiting for HBMC to point out how much more effective he would have been with a plasmagun instead of a grenade launcher...

That is one waaaaay cool story though.
Thanks for the link Nurglitch!

I'm curious how guys like this get around. Seriously, he's gotta have a wheel barrel to carry around his balls. I can't imagine what his situation was like. It's also kinda bogus he can't wear the NATO medal.

Favorite quote:

"I was astonished at the state of his vehicle. There were so many holes in it, it was like a teabag."

The medic also got an award.

Kilkrazy wrote:The medic also got an award.

True. Medics are some of the unsung heros. She had to run through all that to pull him out. Very intense and brave on her part.

This is the first I've read about an automatic grenade-gun in action. I've known of their existence (since what, Nam?) but just never really thought about how awesome one could be with a genuine hardass behind it.

340 grenades per minute. Count to five... this guy could've dropped 28 grenades on you from up to 2km in the time you just spent counting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_19

There are also European versions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HK_GMG

Obviously it can only be fired from a vehicle or fixed mount, and it works like a short-range howitzer.

Strangelooper wrote:I'm waiting for HBMC to point out how much more effective he would have been with a plasmagun instead of a grenade launcher...

Kilkrazy wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_19

Hmmm:
"The Mk 19 utilizes an open bolt principle....This design has caused sporadic fatalities in the crews that operate the system. If the weapon system jams, the operator many times must remove a live round from the open bolt face. If the breech closes during this procedure, the round can detonate inside the gun, killing and/or maiming anyone nearby."

Nevermind. It is a plasmagun, with "Get's Hot" and everything...

It's always nice to see our boys being recognised for their courage underfire, he's not the 1st one out there to have done this and I have no doubt he won't be the last. One of the ultimately sad, but brave stories that sticks in my mind is about the Royal Marines who strapped themselves to the missile wings of some Apaches, and flew back to rescue a fallen comrade, who sadly was dead.

At the end of the day these guys are putting their lives on the line day in, day out. Whether you agree with the war on terror or not you should always stand by your troops. They do what they are told by the government of the time, which is the purpose of the armed services. If you think it's wrong, you put another government in power, you NEVER take it out on them.

They were on their way to help the Dutch? Are the Dutch in NATO? I thought they were one of those, you know, neutral countries.

Wolfstan: If the soldiers are following reasonable orders, then sure, of course we should support them (not like actually support them with equipment, healthcare, transitioning services, etc, but not say anything against them personally). But if they aren't following reasonable orders, either because the orders aren't reasonable or the soldiers themselves aren't behaving themselves, then they should be personally and institutionally criticized.

The Canadian Airborne regiment's torture, killing, and souvenir photographs of Shidane Arone deserves criticism not only of the participants, but of their commanders and the military in general for letting them get to the point where such activities were considered, let alone followed through on.

Likewise where I might disagree about the appalling way Canada got stuck in Afghanistan (blaming Mr. Martin's gov't and General Hillier in equal measure), I can't blame the soldiers for it and I can only sympathize because it'll be through their toil that Canada makes good in Afghanistan (and that'll take a while even if the Manley Report is acted upon). Criticizing the institutions that created the situation Canadian soldiers have to deal with in Afghanistan is supporting them, particularly if said criticism brings those problems to light and gets them acted upon.

Rbb: Maybe you should read up on NATO. Might be educational.

Wolfstan wrote:It's always nice to see our boys being recognised for their courage underfire, he's not the 1st one out there to have done this and I have no doubt he won't be the last. One of the ultimately sad, but brave stories that sticks in my mind is about the Royal Marines who strapped themselves to the missile wings of some Apaches, and flew back to rescue a fallen comrade, who sadly was dead.

At the end of the day these guys are putting their lives on the line day in, day out. Whether you agree with the war on terror or not you should always stand by your troops. They do what they are told by the government of the time, which is the purpose of the armed services. If you think it's wrong, you put another government in power, you NEVER take it out on them.

Dittos Brit. Dittos.

You're correct, if a soldier breaks international law then they deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. My point is about the pro war & anti war feelings, they should always be aimed at the government, not the armed forces. Accepting the obvious situations that way arise, the whole concept of the armed services is to obey orders, end of, you don't get to choose your war.

Going OT slightly, I was born in 68, so must of been about 7 or 8 when Vietnam ended. Having had a father who was a Royal Marine I ended up with an interest in the armed forces. So I get to 16 or 17 and start reading up on Vietnam and watching all the movies that came out. The one thing that has always stuck out to me was the appalling response from the anti war community towards American troops. Ok, a huge section of American society was against the war, but they should of aimed their anger just at the government, not at the troops.

I'm not too concerned with International Law. I'm more concerned with ethical conduct, which is a rather different thing. After all, there are plenty of unethical things one can do under international law (indeed some international law is designed to enable such things), and plenty of ethical things one can do in contravention of international law.

Take the story in question, quite aside from the guy's impressive actions, and the medic's impressive action, or the apparently irrational actions of the Taliban, I think what he did was not simply morally justified, but the right thing to do and that he should have done so regardless of whether he was held liable or legally sanctioned for it (and in fact should have done the right thing especially if there had been legal apparatus operating to the contrary).

By contrast take the actions of the Canadian military in Rwanda, for example. Canadian forces were hamstrung in their peace-keeping efforts there because they weren't allowed to fully engage Hutu extremists. Dallaire wasn't simply unsupported by the United Nations, he was actively frustrated by the unconscionable demand that he not intervene without authorization. It's no wonder he had a breakdown - the cognitive dissonance between his conditioning to obey order and doing what was right must have been incredible.

Wolfstan wrote:Going OT slightly, I was born in 68, so must of been about 7 or 8 when Vietnam ended. Having had a father who was a Royal Marine I ended up with an interest in the armed forces. So I get to 16 or 17 and start reading up on Vietnam and watching all the movies that came out. The one thing that has always stuck out to me was the appalling response from the anti war community towards American troops. Ok, a huge section of American society was against the war, but they should of aimed their anger just at the government, not at the troops.

Go to Berkeley. That hasn't gone away in certain parts of the US, unfortunately.

If it makes you feel better I knew a guy who had two parents with doctorates, and he dropped out of school to be an infantryman. I guess he had to rebel against something. Mind you, it was later said of him that his name and 'consensual' didn't belong in the same sentence. I'm just glad he has someone beside me to shoot at.