Army WO3s and RAF WO1s

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clearly not then, or you would have said what happened.
What happened in Nepal?

Why on earth would I "have said what happened"? There was an earthquake. The UK used the military to deliver some supplies and help in the relief effort. Some help was accepted, some rejected. Nepal was never an "operational theatre". You've lost what little ability for rational thought you have left.
 
Last edited:
What happened in Nepal?

Why on earth would I "have said what happened"? There was an earthquake. The UK used the military do deliver some supplies and help in the relief effort. Some help was accepted, some rejected. Nepal was never an "operational theatre". You've lost what little ability for rational thought you have left.
I’m not talking about disaster relief.

As I said, you are commenting on things you know nothing about. Just say nothing in such cases.
 
No it's not. As usual you have no idea what you're talking about but you can't stop yourself.

MACC (Military Aid to the Civil Community) covers support to disaster relief or a major incident, such as Pitchpole

MACP (MA to the Civil Power) covers support to maintain law, order and public safety, from mountain rescue to fire fighting, such as Fresco.

Both come under MACA which you should be expected to know, covered by the Civil Contingencies Act which you should also be expected to know.

That you don't but you're still bluffing your way is disappointing given your background, but no surprise given your stupidity.
 
No it's not. As usual you have no idea what you're talking about but you can't stop yourself.

MACC (Military Aid to the Civil Community) covers support to disaster relief or a major incident, such as Pitchpole

MACP (MA to the Civil Power) covers support to maintain law, order and public safety, from mountain rescue to fire fighting, such as Fresco.

Both come under MACA which you should be expected to know, covered by the Civil Contingencies Act which you should also be expected to know.

That you don't but you're still bluffing your way is disappointing given your background, but no surprise given your stupidity.
I don’t care.
 
I’m not talking about disaster relief.

As I said, you are commenting on things you know nothing about. Just say nothing in such cases.
In that case you're simply talking nonsense. Nepal hasn't been an operational theatre for British troops since the Sigauli peace treaty in 1816.

You're talking utter nonsense which has now, regrettably, become the norm for you.
 
I missed the explanation. I don't intend to search for it and I can't reasonably ask you to post it again. I have no idea where I'm going with this and the only reason I'm continuing is because it's stream of consciousness. Sorry
Beyond the Brit tours, given here and elsewhere, they were MAO (Military Assistance Overseas), which I was surprised to learn no-one posting here had ever heard of despite their 'broad' military experience. As then explained, MAO included but wasn't limited to Loan Service - which, again, the 'experts' with 'broad' military experience had no experience or the most limited understanding of at all, even denying it was possible, despite subsequently claiming to know all about it and have served with those who'd done it.
 
Rather like your posts insisting repeatedly that the RAF only have one rank badge for each rank when it's patently untrue, utter cr@p.

"Hill whinging" is covered by JSPs which are, rather obviously, JS - not unique to the Army.

MACP has involved 'Ops' for decades, going back way beyond the "good old days" of firemens' strikes well before you joined the RAF, and Fresco and the like were also joint ops, so obviously not unique to the Army.

"Framework patrolling" is COIN, hence almost invariably part of a local or limited Op, unlike other patrols which may or may not be. This has applied for decades, before you were born, going back well before Motorman and Anvil.
@p.w
See what I mean
 
The fact you used google to find what you think is the correct answer says everything and further indicates you are a liar.
I know it's the correct answer because it's not only taught but it's blindingly obvious if you know what you're talking about and trained in Milan's "operation or use in the field".

You're not, and there's no possible reason why you could, would or should be. It's simply not your field in any way. You allegedly used to be an ATO at Warminster from 1998 to 2000 and had responsibility as an ATO for Milan ammunition storage and attending some Milan firing in case of any ammunition issues.

You obviously don't know anything more about Milan's "operation or use in the field" than the bus drivers or the egg banjo flippers.

You used to be an ATO, FFS. As I've said before, it's one of the hardest, most challenging and highly respected occupations. Why on earth you now want to pretend to be something you all too obviously weren't and to know something you all too obviously don't is something I'll never understand.
 
You’re only embarrassing yourself further John by Questioning an experienced Ammunition Technician with over 500 Milan firings under his belt.

Yes John, that’s correct, I said 500, that’s 500 for than you
I'm not questioning you as a previous ATO, nor your experience as an ATO. Not my field in any way.

Nor am I questioning how many Milan firings you've attended, which gives you no more and no less knowledge of Milan's "use or operation in the field" than any other untrained spectator.

What I'm questioning is your knowledge of its "use or operation in the field" by asking you a very simple question: what was it's most important limitation in use or operation in the field in the Army from the day it was introduced?

It doesn't get much simpler than that, and there's only one possible and very obvious correct answer.

You don't know the answer. Google could help you, but only if you know what you're looking for. You don't. I can't even imagine why you're pretending you do, but the considerable respect I previously had for you has now gone, buried by your stupidity.
 
What I'm questioning is your knowledge of its "use or operation in the field" by asking you a very simple question: what was it's most important limitation in use or operation in the field in the Army from the day it was introduced?
It is a wire guided system.

Now tell us all your 6 Operational Theatres.
 
I know it's the correct answer because it's not only taught but it's blindingly obvious if you know what you're talking about and trained in Milan's "operation or use in the field".

You're not, and there's no possible reason why you could, would or should be. It's simply not your field in any way. You allegedly used to be an ATO at Warminster from 1998 to 2000 and had responsibility as an ATO for Milan ammunition storage and attending some Milan firing in case of any ammunition issues.

You obviously don't know anything more about Milan's "operation or use in the field" than the bus drivers or the egg banjo flippers.

You used to be an ATO, FFS. As I've said before, it's one of the hardest, most challenging and highly respected occupations. Why on earth you now want to pretend to be something you all too obviously weren't and to know something you all too obviously don't is something I'll never understand.
John, if you ask ambiguous questions how can you expect an answer. There is more than one constraint on Milan. No one constraint is more important than the other, they are constraints for a reason, there to ensure explosive safety. You simply can’t say “it’s ok to ignore that constraint and that constraint as long as you comply with that constraint because it is the most important”.

You need to take the cowboy spurs off fella and act a little more professionally.

In addition to constraints there is also LUMAT, which further limits use.

You could be referring to any number of constraints on the system.
 
John, if you ask ambiguous questions how can you expect an answer. There is more than one constraint on Milan. No one constraint is more important than the other, they are constraints for a reason, there to ensure explosive safety. You simply can’t say “it’s ok to ignore that constraint and that constraint as long as you comply with that constraint because it is the most important”.

You need to take the cowboy spurs off fella and act a little more professionally.

In addition to constraints there is also LUMAT, which further limits use.

You could be referring to any number of constraints on the system.
Dingerr, you don't have a fecking clue what you're talking about, and for once it's not just stupid it's actually quite funny.

Here's what I asked:
What was the most important constraint / issue with Milan for the Army from the day it was introduced?
Nothing ambiguous. There's only one possible answer (and a clear clue in the question) and you've obviously no idea at all what the answer is.

I made it even clearer for you when I replied to gf:
While there were any number of constraints and issues, as with any weapon system, there was only one which severely restricted its "operation or use in the field" for the Army
... and I even put it another way for you to make the answer even more obvious and the question even simpler:
What I'm questioning is your knowledge of its "use or operation in the field" by asking you a very simple question: what was it's most important limitation in use or operation in the field in the Army from the day it was introduced?
... and PK even repeated that. In bold :rofl:

Dingerr, it's absurd. You've got no idea what you're talking about and there's no reason you should. Stackers stack, loggies log, etc. Even in inf I wouldn't try to tell the Mor Pl Comd about mortar's "use or operation in the field" and I wouldn't expect him to tell me about Milan's. PK's inf, supposedly, and he still hasn't got a clue what the limitation is.

You were an ATO. WTF's so bad about that that you've got to pretend to know anything about Milan's "use or operation in the field" when you so obviously don't?
 
Dingerr, you don't have a fecking clue what you're talking about, and for once it's not just stupid it's actually quite funny.

Here's what I asked:
Nothing ambiguous. There's only one possible answer (and a clear clue in the question) and you've obviously no idea at all what the answer is.

I made it even clearer for you when I replied to gf:
... and I even put it another way for you to make the answer even more obvious and the question even simpler: ... and PK even repeated that. In bold :rofl:

Dingerr, it's absurd. You've got no idea what you're talking about and there's no reason you should. Stackers stack, loggies log, etc. Even in inf I wouldn't try to tell the Mor Pl Comd about mortar's "use or operation in the field" and I wouldn't expect him to tell me about Milan's. PK's inf, supposedly, and he still hasn't got a clue what the limitation is.

You were an ATO. WTF's so bad about that that you've got to pretend to know anything about Milan's "use or operation in the field" when you so obviously don't?
The thing is John, I’m the SME on Ammunition and explosives, which includes GW.

You’re a mediocre, passed over major. You’ve heard a little information and adopted it as gospel.

What constraint would you like to hear about? It being HCC 1.2F (do you know why?). It’s susceptibility to RF hazards? Constraints on trundling?

Or are you referring to pre firing checks? Which are not classed as constraints.

As I said, ambiguous, your stupidity doesn’t remove that.
 
Let me ask you an unambiguous question

What is the effective range of Milan?
 
What happened in Nepal?

Why on earth would I "have said what happened"? There was an earthquake. The UK used the military to deliver some supplies and help in the relief effort. Some help was accepted, some rejected. Nepal was never an "operational theatre". You've lost what little ability for rational thought you have left.
So what was Op LEYLAND then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top