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.
In the dawn of the USA, the right to keep and bear arms -- not hunting pieces, ARMS, military grade weapons and their training and ammunition -- for the people, ALL the people, not just the ones the government uses to arrest folk -- was the main bulwark against invasion.
Or tyranny.
Dukeofstuff wrote: In the dawn of the USA, the right to keep and bear arms -- not hunting pieces, ARMS, military grade weapons and their training and ammunition -- for the people, ALL the people, not just the ones the government uses to arrest folk -- was the main bulwark against invasion.
Or tyranny.
Thus allways to tyrants.
True, but lets face it, The US populace is not as heavily armed many believe..... But more armed than they might expect.
Rumors, lies, and misinformation.
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
Dukeofstuff wrote: In the dawn of the USA, the right to keep and bear arms -- not hunting pieces, ARMS, military grade weapons and their training and ammunition -- for the people, ALL the people, not just the ones the government uses to arrest folk -- was the main bulwark against invasion.
Or tyranny.
Thus allways to tyrants.
True, but lets face it, The US populace is not as heavily armed many believe..... But more armed than they might expect.
Rumors, lies, and misinformation.
Yes and no.
Its true that only 1/3 of people actually own guns. But those who do tend to own a lot, enough to arm their compatriots quickly. Plus gun ownership is most likely under-reported.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Dukeofstuff wrote: In the dawn of the USA, the right to keep and bear arms -- not hunting pieces, ARMS, military grade weapons and their training and ammunition -- for the people, ALL the people, not just the ones the government uses to arrest folk -- was the main bulwark against invasion.
Or tyranny.
Thus allways to tyrants.
True, but lets face it, The US populace is not as heavily armed many believe..... But more armed than they might expect.
Rumors, lies, and misinformation.
Yes and no.
Its true that only 1/3 of people actually own guns. But those who do tend to own a lot, enough to arm their compatriots quickly. Plus gun ownership is most likely under-reported.
Kinda where I was going. I just didn't want to put numbers to it. That would be part of the "misinformation" category.
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
Mr Nobody wrote: As a north american, we have a simple two step system.
1. The Atlantic
2. The Pacific
Fallow these simple instructions and you rarely must worry about invasion.
Shame about the 2 massive land borders you do have though, best hope the Mexicans and Canadians dont decide to invade!
I'd totally agree with natural defences perhaps being the simplest and most effective... but I did have a little chuckle at the irony since every nation (to my knowledge) in the Americas can trace their roots back to invading powers!
Well, natural barriers don't help much if there is no actual organized resistance. Plus thanks to the diseases they inadvertently brought over by the time any serious colonization was happening they were mostly settling in empty lands. Millions of natives died without seeing a single European settler because they died from a disease that got sent along the various trade routes.
The entire Mound Builder civilization in the central US was gone without a trace a couple centuries before any Europeans began exploring the area.
Truthfully, there wasn't much invading being done during the colonization of the Americas, especially North America. It was mostly just moving into unoccupied territory.
The Iroquois, Cherokee, Sioux, and Navaho would disagree with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dukeofstuff wrote: In the dawn of the USA, the right to keep and bear arms -- not hunting pieces, ARMS, military grade weapons and their training and ammunition -- for the people, ALL the people, not just the ones the government uses to arrest folk -- was the main bulwark against invasion.
Or tyranny.
Thus allways to tyrants.
And thus in 1812 the British invaded America and were easily thrown back into the sea... no, wait, they blasted straight through the defenses and militia to take Washington DC, and were only chased out by a massive storm that night.
It's also worth noting that in this age of modern weapons, your room full of ARs and ammo won't do a whole lot of good against GPS-guided rounds from a battery-six of even light 75mm howitzers. Or a single tank, for that matter.
Don't get me wrong. I support the right to bear arms, but now it's primarily a self-defense right with only symbolic use against tyrants who have access to modern military gear.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/05 23:21:19
Well you have the regular military and so many armed citizens supplementing this to worry about. It's a real enough deterant to invasion no-one wants to get stuck in a protracted guerrilla war. And no-one is going to go all genocidal because the global community would likely curbstomp their arse pretty quick.
Against a tyrannical government in the US, well I'd say a large section of the military would say: This is bs, we're not going to kill our own people.
Because it's not a country with a military geared towards suppressing its own population.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Australia's plan during WW2 was to draw a line across the continent and say this is where we'll actually start fighting. I guess the idea was their lines of supply would be stretched to breaking point before they even came to battle.
But as someone born in northern Australia it sounds like the typical cop-out someone in Canberra would think of when the Japanese were invading PNG.
Also considering the our navy any supply convoys would have to make a long and dangerous voyage to even land their cargo, and that cargo would be thousands(I'm not exaggerating) of kilometres from the front.
And I guess overextended supply lines o only a few roads makes great fodder for things like beaugfighters and commando raids.
Mr Nobody wrote: As a north american, we have a simple two step system.
1. The Atlantic
2. The Pacific
Fallow these simple instructions and you rarely must worry about invasion.
Shame about the 2 massive land borders you do have though, best hope the Mexicans and Canadians dont decide to invade!
I'd totally agree with natural defences perhaps being the simplest and most effective... but I did have a little chuckle at the irony since every nation (to my knowledge) in the Americas can trace their roots back to invading powers!
Well, natural barriers don't help much if there is no actual organized resistance. Plus thanks to the diseases they inadvertently brought over by the time any serious colonization was happening they were mostly settling in empty lands. Millions of natives died without seeing a single European settler because they died from a disease that got sent along the various trade routes.
The entire Mound Builder civilization in the central US was gone without a trace a couple centuries before any Europeans began exploring the area.
Truthfully, there wasn't much invading being done during the colonization of the Americas, especially North America. It was mostly just moving into unoccupied territory.
The Iroquois, Cherokee, Sioux, and Navaho would disagree with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dukeofstuff wrote: In the dawn of the USA, the right to keep and bear arms -- not hunting pieces, ARMS, military grade weapons and their training and ammunition -- for the people, ALL the people, not just the ones the government uses to arrest folk -- was the main bulwark against invasion.
Or tyranny.
Thus allways to tyrants.
And thus in 1812 the British invaded America and were easily thrown back into the sea... no, wait, they blasted straight through the defenses and militia to take Washington DC, and were only chased out by a massive storm that night.
It's also worth noting that in this age of modern weapons, your room full of ARs and ammo won't do a whole lot of good against GPS-guided rounds from a battery-six of even light 75mm howitzers. Or a single tank, for that matter.
Don't get me wrong. I support the right to bear arms, but now it's primarily a self-defense right with only symbolic use against tyrants who have access to modern military gear.
I am not sure if you are considering the use of guerrilla warfare can be very effective in slowing the advance of even very modern armies, that very few modern MBTs actually have engine protection to stop liquid fire damage, in other words the humble Molotov cocktail is still as useful as it always was, throw in IEDs and just the constant threat of random sniping fire and, well yeah you can frustrate a bigger force quite well. Also who uses 75mm howitzers these days? Don't they know that a Karl G is lighter and easier to move. I mean it's no howitzer but it is packing more explosive power and more usable by an infantry section. GPS guided rounds - Well it would seem like a waste to be using these in rear areas against patisans and not your frontline, against the real enemy army, so in a way the said partisan is doing their job right if they are having GPS directed rounds and MBTs redirected to them.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/05/06 06:37:27
I do understand a bit about partisans and guerrilla warfare from various studies, yes.
I also know a bit about the... shall we say, general physical condition of many Americans? Put it this way. Most of them, even the amateur outdoorsmen or ex-soldiers among them, in a guerrilla setting and that will to fight won't last terribly long once the Big Macs run out. We've grown WAY too used to a) our comforts, and b) being the biggest bully on the block.
Remember, we faced an exceptional guerrilla army over fifty years ago, and went and made the exact same mistakes not quite twenty years ago in the same situation. Something in the American psyche does not handle anything less than a stand-up fight very well anymore.
Yes, there are some really hardcore survivalists in America too, who would be magnificent guerrilla fighters. They will be a terror against those who come against their enclaves, but will be easily avoided by avoiding said enclaves.
And let's face it. If America falls far enough to realistically be invaded by someone, the rest of the world won't be in good enough shape to protest genocidal policies anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/06 13:43:36
Lets face it, if you are trying to invade modern america, it's because you want to capture it, it's absolutely no use to you if you destroy everything in it along the way, all you've acquired is a vast amount of land and rubble, at which point it just becomes an expensive liability, so bring all the heavy weapons you want, you are only hurting yourself by using them.
The exact same would be said for the UK if an enemy force decided to wipe london off the map and many other built up places around the globe.
My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog
Vulcan wrote: I do understand a bit about partisans and guerrilla warfare from various studies, yes.
I also know a bit about the... shall we say, general physical condition of many Americans? Put it this way. Most of them, even the amateur outdoorsmen or ex-soldiers among them, in a guerrilla setting and that will to fight won't last terribly long once the Big Macs run out. We've grown WAY too used to a) our comforts, and b) being the biggest bully on the block.
Culdn't even handle a short quarantine without the "survivalists" losing their mind sand marching on their own capitals.
Any halfway decent Psy-Ops program will get these guys too busy fighting themselves and their own government just as much as any "invaders".
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Vulcan wrote: I do understand a bit about partisans and guerrilla warfare from various studies, yes.
I also know a bit about the... shall we say, general physical condition of many Americans? Put it this way. Most of them, even the amateur outdoorsmen or ex-soldiers among them, in a guerrilla setting and that will to fight won't last terribly long once the Big Macs run out. We've grown WAY too used to a) our comforts, and b) being the biggest bully on the block.
Culdn't even handle a short quarantine without the "survivalists" losing their mind sand marching on their own capitals.
Any halfway decent Psy-Ops program will get these guys too busy fighting themselves and their own government just as much as any "invaders".
High opinion of your fellows , but in General i doubt that that would work.
Heck it didn't even work on us during napoleons rule and attempt at establishing a puppet state against a completely disarmed , outnumbered and divided population with serious Love Of shanking each other.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
People tend to focus on the so called militias is the US. They forget about the other groups that are technically militias: the "street gangs'. Those guys have not only the firepower but nearly perfect geographical knowledge of their 'turf' to put up a strong urban defense. Capturing one of the larger cities would be similar to the WW2 battle for Stalingrad. And while most gang members can barely use a firearm, an invasion would give them more than enough practice to "git gud".
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
If its a straight up up battle for survival against an invader then wide scale co-ordinated scortched earth tactics along with supplies cut off & harrassments.
In modern times youd ramp that up with insurgency in an urban territory with IED and hit n run tactics. Destroy the infrastructure and food supply as you leave the area and make the enemy pay 100 fold for every inch of worthless land. Let the climate and diseases do the work.
When invaded by superior force, outside of sheer dumb luck its the only thing that's ever worked in history IMO. If you look at where any invasion and occupying failed I.e. Mongols, Romans being thwarted its due to this.
The British isles were not "pacified" by the Romans near on 300 years after initial "conquest"
But currently I dont think we have conflict drivers that would warrant an "invasion". Present times, a war of conquest for "Land & resources" doesn't make sense... concrete has no real value. And if you rally wanted that resources you could just "buy" it through corruption etc. Just look at CIA relationship to latin americas for context.
So the next thing would be some sort of war of extermination or one based on ideology (Potentially religion?). But in these circumstances establishing ground control is pointless if an option to carpet bomb cities is on the table why would you ever "invade" ?
I don't think there is any country that is so rich in some sort of resource that would warrant an invasion which you could not produce or import or just work around it with technology. So from a conflict driver perspective why is the invasion taking place ? WW2 was a different animal and a much emptier world.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/06 23:49:49
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
In the edge case of severe environmental collapse, countries that still have good arable land and freshwater supplies would be very tempting to countries that are now sat on desert, but I don’t think that’s a likely scenario outside of Mad Max.
To be honest the most likely scenario in the modern world is a power hungry dictator, who sees more land = more power (see Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc.)
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
Argive wrote: If its a straight up up battle for survival against an invader then wide scale co-ordinated scortched earth tactics along with supplies cut off & harrassments.
In modern times youd ramp that up with insurgency in an urban territory with IED and hit n run tactics. Destroy the infrastructure and food supply as you leave the area and make the enemy pay 100 fold for every inch of worthless land. Let the climate and diseases do the work.
When invaded by superior force, outside of sheer dumb luck its the only thing that's ever worked in history IMO. If you look at where any invasion and occupying failed I.e. Mongols, Romans being thwarted its due to this.
The British isles were not "pacified" by the Romans near on 300 years after initial "conquest"
But currently I dont think we have conflict drivers that would warrant an "invasion". Present times, a war of conquest for "Land & resources" doesn't make sense... concrete has no real value. And if you rally wanted that resources you could just "buy" it through corruption etc. Just look at CIA relationship to latin americas for context.
So the next thing would be some sort of war of extermination or one based on ideology (Potentially religion?). But in these circumstances establishing ground control is pointless if an option to carpet bomb cities is on the table why would you ever "invade" ?
I don't think there is any country that is so rich in some sort of resource that would warrant an invasion which you could not produce or import or just work around it with technology. So from a conflict driver perspective why is the invasion taking place ? WW2 was a different animal and a much emptier world.
For historical examples (Romans, Mongols etc) I do wonder what the general lack of organised agriculture and differing environments might’ve played in seeing supply lines overtaxed?
I mean, when Romans ate Mediterranean food, because that’s where they’re from, how much of that could they have successfully farmed in Britain? Without greenhouses (I think? As always, prepared to be better educated at all times!) and selective breeding, they’d be surviving on the same grain and veggies as the natives.
Now, if the Natives lived in clans or what have you of a few hundred, spread out over their turf, how well would existing resources support invading forces the size of the Romans?
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
TLDR I'd be skeptical of the credibility of claims of overly effective British resistance to the Roman invasion/occupation.
Spoiler:
I mean Beodicca did have that revolt, but when actual legionaries, extremely discplined heavily armoured shock troops, and not town watch reservists arrived and offered battle(said legionaries were approximately outnumbered 10-1) the slaughter was basically completely one sided. This is basically what happened to Spartcus and no doubt many others history has forgotten.
I'd not say the Britian resistance to the Romans was especially effective, there was rebellions everywhere, I mean look at Judea (who were much more united than the British tribes) and how many times the legions were brought in to quell, or even Switzerland which even well into the 2nd century AD was basically a bandit filled frontieer region(being much more remote and challenging terrain).
The Romans also took plenty of auxilaries, from such regions and all over the empire, which made up most of their army, the legions were elite shock troops. You'd not send them into mountains pursuing guerrillas.
The Roman army was also extremely self sufficient, it is one of the first truely modern armies as it had such an efficient logistics apparatus, So feeding the troops for invasion of Britain? Just ship grain from the bread bowl that was Gaul at the time, and cart it up the highways that the legion itself is building. Ever wonder why a unit of 80 fighting men is called a century? Likely as not the other 20 are logistics, messenger, and command personnel.
Romans ate barley which has been grown in Britian since the Celts first got there, and particularly loved sea food(which well Britian is an Island), and even imported dates and other presurved food from the mediterrainian.
The Romans basically crushed/bribed/coerced/threatened and even befrineded the tribes, and being assimilated into the empire was not actually a bad thing (unless you're a Druid) becasue they also brought effective law and order and stopped a lot of tribal and feuding violence, and Druid style human sacrifice. They might take you as a slave, but everyone took everyone as slaves, so it was sort of expected at the time. You might be drafted as an auxilia, but then your children would be Roman citizens, with every right of a freeborn Roman. Also you have to remember that there was no real unity between the tribes and they were as likely to side with the Romans against someone they held an old grudge with, than they were to fight the Romans.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2020/05/07 10:11:42
We havent mentioned the techniques of Vlad the impaler.
Aparantly left 20 000 people impaled on spikes left as a deterrent to the Ottomans.
I'm not sure how true this is as some believe that the accounts of Vlads brutality were exaggerated or entirely fabricated by the Transylvanian Saxons.
I think that one was recorded by the Turks as the final straw in a long guerilla campaign through scorched earth.
Yeah, it looks like Vlad had a list and was crossing off points..
"Let's see...burn housing, check , poison wells, check, ferocious night raids, check block roads, check. HA! construct demoralising edifice... not check!"
You shouldn't be worried about the one bullet with your name on it, Boldric. You should be worried about the ones labelled "to whom it may concern"-from Blackadder goes Forth!
The stories about him are pretty horrifying, especially considering that Romania seems to hold him up as a national hero. I'm not one to apply modern moralistic principles to history, especially warfare, but the accounts of women and children also being impaled got to me a little.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/07 12:25:00
Well, guerilla warfare against a vastly superior foe is quite horrific as various examples across history evidence.
You shouldn't be worried about the one bullet with your name on it, Boldric. You should be worried about the ones labelled "to whom it may concern"-from Blackadder goes Forth!
Vulcan wrote: I do understand a bit about partisans and guerrilla warfare from various studies, yes.
I also know a bit about the... shall we say, general physical condition of many Americans? Put it this way. Most of them, even the amateur outdoorsmen or ex-soldiers among them, in a guerrilla setting and that will to fight won't last terribly long once the Big Macs run out. We've grown WAY too used to a) our comforts, and b) being the biggest bully on the block.
Culdn't even handle a short quarantine without the "survivalists" losing their mind sand marching on their own capitals.
Any halfway decent Psy-Ops program will get these guys too busy fighting themselves and their own government just as much as any "invaders".
High opinion of your fellows , but in General i doubt that that would work.
Heck it didn't even work on us during napoleons rule and attempt at establishing a puppet state against a completely disarmed , outnumbered and divided population with serious Love Of shanking each other.
Were I to invade America?
First thing I'd upon capturing a city is round up everyone on the Democratic voter's registration, and have agents provocateur contact the real nutcase white supremicists. Then after a few days of letting the nutcases do their worst 'purging' those they view as enemies, I'd stop them into the ground and release the Democrats. Thus, I make use of the political divide to make Americans fight themselves and do most of my work for me.
And they'd do it with gusto, believe me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: If its a straight up up battle for survival against an invader then wide scale co-ordinated scortched earth tactics along with supplies cut off & harrassments.
In modern times youd ramp that up with insurgency in an urban territory with IED and hit n run tactics. Destroy the infrastructure and food supply as you leave the area and make the enemy pay 100 fold for every inch of worthless land. Let the climate and diseases do the work.
When invaded by superior force, outside of sheer dumb luck its the only thing that's ever worked in history IMO. If you look at where any invasion and occupying failed I.e. Mongols, Romans being thwarted its due to this.
The British isles were not "pacified" by the Romans near on 300 years after initial "conquest"
But currently I dont think we have conflict drivers that would warrant an "invasion". Present times, a war of conquest for "Land & resources" doesn't make sense... concrete has no real value. And if you rally wanted that resources you could just "buy" it through corruption etc. Just look at CIA relationship to latin americas for context.
So the next thing would be some sort of war of extermination or one based on ideology (Potentially religion?). But in these circumstances establishing ground control is pointless if an option to carpet bomb cities is on the table why would you ever "invade" ?
I don't think there is any country that is so rich in some sort of resource that would warrant an invasion which you could not produce or import or just work around it with technology. So from a conflict driver perspective why is the invasion taking place ? WW2 was a different animal and a much emptier world.
Which is probably the ultimate confirmation of my point. Anyone wanting to invade America now is looking to destroy it, not conquer it. They're not going to shy from the odd megadeath if it furthers their goal of destroying America. And your room full of ARs won't do a thing to protect you from THAT.
As I said, the right to bear arms in modern times is more a self-defense issue than a resist tyranny issue. And for that, pistols are your weapon of choice for general carry, shotguns for home defense. And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/07 16:41:36
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Vulcan wrote: And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.
Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/10 00:37:45
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Vulcan wrote: And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.
Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.
Wasn’t 5.56 originally adapted from a hunting round in the first place?
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
It was, though the original .222 Remington was designed as a "varmint" cartridge, intended for long range engagement of stuff like prarie dogs, coyote, rabbits, foxes, etc. It'll do smaller deer just fine (particularly with modern hunting ammo), though the larger issue is many locales require a .30 or larger for such things by law.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Liste wrote: taking off Road-Signs seems to be a Pretty big Job for the Little time left then
On the other hand you spread the word around and if someone in every household(or every road lol) removes the closest sign well that's a lot of signs suddenly missing in a short amount of time, also if they're wooden you can just burn them
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Hunting Calibres: I guess the funny thing is in Australia is the animals you're allowed to shoot are all feral, so no-one really cares what you use. As long as the landowner is cool, you can use whatever you want.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/05/10 08:39:32
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/10 16:44:27
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
Vulcan wrote: And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.
Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.
Ah... as I recall 5.56 is ILLEGAL for deer hunting as it doesn't score a clean kill on one hit. As I recall you're required to use at least a .30 caliber of some sort. or 7.62x51/30-06. 5.56 is rated as a varmit round, for stuff like racoon, coyote, and the like. (Of course, this might be just a local regulation, YMMV.)
Now if you get an AR in 7.62 (and yes, I've seen them), THAT would be fine for deer hunting, but that's not a 5.56...
Vulcan wrote: And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.
Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.
Ah... as I recall 5.56 is ILLEGAL for deer hunting as it doesn't score a clean kill on one hit. As I recall you're required to use at least a .30 caliber of some sort. or 7.62x51/30-06. 5.56 is rated as a varmit round, for stuff like racoon, coyote, and the like. (Of course, this might be just a local regulation, YMMV.)
Now if you get an AR in 7.62 (and yes, I've seen them), THAT would be fine for deer hunting, but that's not a 5.56...
You can get an AR platform up to .50 cal, if you have the money. I know someone with a .45 cal platform he uses for hunting bear.
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
Eldar- 4436 pts
Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children 
