Thread: on the replacement for the perenties

to Hamish, you never "led" your troops....you ordered them around. I never saw an army officer lead troops from a point of respect.....only authority.....now many an NCO had the unfailing respect of his troops. I also saw many a sight picture being taken on an officers back, but never on an NCO. Officers would come into a unit (that was highly trained and skilled) and **** the men off and screw them around so much morale would instantly drop and the unit would basically become unworkable......and the officer would blame the troops.

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

to Hamish, you never "led" your troops....you ordered them around. I never saw an army officer lead troops from a point of respect.....only authority.....now many an NCO had the unfailing respect of his troops. I also saw many a sight picture being taken on an officers back, but never on an NCO. Officers would come into a unit (that was highly trained and skilled) and **** the men off and screw them around so much morale would instantly drop and the unit would basically become unworkable......and the officer would blame the troops.

Mate, you have obviously had a bad experience with a junior officer, most of us who have served have, however, don't judge all officers by that experience.Just to put things in perspective, please read a book by Paul Ham, " Kokoda", my Dad was involved as a 16 year old private, reading this book might help help you understand we are all just flawed Human beings, and we really need to support each other. By the way , I met a man called Stan Bisset one Anzac Day, and I know more than one SOLDIER who knew him would take offence at what you said. Bob

Is it true that the reason they're moving to alloy wheels is that when hit by an IED the alloy wheels just melt in a puddle unlike the steel wheels which send hot chunks of metal flying in all directions to maim and kill?

Originally Posted by bob10

Mate, you have obviously had a bad experience with a junior officer, most of us who have served have, however, don't judge all officers by that experience.Just to put things in perspective, please read a book by Paul Ham, " Kokoda", my Dad was involved as a 16 year old private, reading this book might help help you understand we are all just flawed Human beings, and we really need to support each other. By the way , I met a man called Stan Bisset one Anzac Day, and I know more than one SOLDIER who knew him would take offence at what you said. Bob

Said the Warrant Officer to the Reo LT "I'll follow you Sir,....but only for the humour value"!
When I was a junior Soldier, most LT were contrite and genuinely believed that their success was contingent upon the success of the men. I now believe that most LT are pompous SOB's with a 'born to rule' mentality,all the faults of Gen Y and that the troops are simply tools to assist them to achieve their career milestones.

Ralph

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Is it true that the reason they're moving to alloy wheels is that when hit by an IED the alloy wheels just melt in a puddle unlike the steel wheels which send hot chunks of metal flying in all directions to maim and kill?

This has been discussed much earlier in the thread. The use of alloy rims has nothing to do with them melting in an explosion caused by an IED. There would simply not be enough 'instantaneous' heat produced to cause them to melt. You need a quite hot fire to do that which may follow the explosion but at a time long past the flying metal stage. It is my understanding that the alloy rims are frangible. This means that they the break-up into small pieces. The frangible metal "absorbs" more energy in an explosion thus limiting the extent of the force. Another consideration is that many quite small pieces of metal with relatively lower potential energy are likely to be less destructive than fewer large pieces with higher potential energy (think of the difference between being shot with a bullet and being shot with an equivalent weight (to the bullet) of fine talcum powder).

Cheers
KarlB

Originally Posted by LOVEMYRANGIE

I would kill for one of the SAS buggies!! Imagine peak hour traffic with one of the slug pumps hanging over the top!!!! GONE!!!!

I thought Digger was at the head of the line.......so we all have to wait until he has made his selection.

Originally Posted by KarlB

This has been discussed much earlier in the thread. The use of alloy rims has nothing to do with them melting in an explosion caused by an IED. There would simply not be enough 'instantaneous' heat produced to cause them to melt. You need a quite hot fire to do that which may follow the explosion but at a time long past the flying metal stage. It is my understanding that the alloy rims are frangible. This means that they the break-up into small pieces. The frangible metal "absorbs" more energy in an explosion thus limiting the extent of the force. Another consideration is that many quite small pieces of metal with relatively lower potential energy are likely to be less destructive than fewer large pieces with higher potential energy (think of the difference between being shot with a bullet and being shot with an equivalent weight (to the bullet) of fine talcum powder).

Cheers
KarlB

The alloy would be 'softer' too wouldn't it....thus limiting it's collateral penetration power?!

Our fire toyota have had alloys fitted to reduce rego wieght.I noticed to spare still is a split rim.

someone thought that 90% of maximum wieght was a good safety limit---bu they didnt design the vehicle.

I would speculate a been counter did.