Sometimes the old standbys out fight hightech.

In this case bayonets!!!!

more and more info.


Holy sh1t, batman!!!!

[Edited on 22-5-2004 by HowardRoark]

go the arguyll and sutherlands !
excellent names
we scots are the crazyiest guys in the uk

Bayonet training is not so common these days, fewer and fewer soldiers inthe Army are getting that kind of training. I can only think of two MOSs and mine was one of them.

Close quarters engagements need to be well circulated in the training. Sure it's bloody, nasty and personal, that's the way it should be. Just like in the old days before black powder, I bet if war was more upclose, less people would have the nads to fight.

my old stand bys are my two fists which I wish I could use right now to beat down a few b****'s here on ATS

Originally posted by devilwasp
go the arguyll and sutherlands !
excellent names
we scots are the crazyiest guys in the uk

Couldnt aggree more, your all nuts lol

We scots have always been fierce fighters, if they keep this up the rebels will be running away from those guys.

Maybe we should send them an arabic version of "Braveheart."

I bet if war was more upclose, less people would have the nads to fight.

According to recent research, there's very few have the "nads" to fight, as you put it, anyway. The percentage of soldiers in war who actually shoot to kill is so negligeble as to be way, way down in the minority. Most will either not fire their weapons or will miss targets which were easily attainable in training. Of those who are able to attempt kill shots a good fifty percent are certifiably sociopathic, with no part of the brain which deals with compassion for their fellow man. Think you might want to reconsider all that macho bull# you've been raised on.

dont think i could be that close and personal to kill some 1. picking them off from a distance sorta saves u all the gory details.

but they dont like it up em !!!

Originally posted by Oisin

I bet if war was more upclose, less people would have the nads to fight.

According to recent research, there's very few have the "nads" to fight, as you put it, anyway. The percentage of soldiers in war who actually shoot to kill is so negligeble as to be way, way down in the minority. Most will either not fire their weapons or will miss targets which were easily attainable in training. Of those who are able to attempt kill shots a good fifty percent are certifiably sociopathic, with no part of the brain which deals with compassion for their fellow man. Think you might want to reconsider all that macho bull# you've been raised on.

That was research done in the Second World War. Now modern soldiers are trained with realistic targets - the ubiquitous charging soldier target, I'm sure you've seen something like that. Now it's more like 95%.

Intelligence gathered since the bayonet charge suggests it shocked the militia fighters, who expected the outnumbered Scots to flee.

In 1967, Argylls commander Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell known as Mad Mitch stormed a rebel stronghold in Yemen.

Accompanied only by 15 pipers playing Scotland The Brave, he recaptured Crater Town, the commercial heart of Aden, which had been in enemy hands for two weeks.

Get him, Scotty! Gnaw on him! Arrr!!

Ah, it's good to know that I'm the only nutter around here. Too bad they didn't have any blue woad to daub on their faces. Oh, that's right, we stopped doing that nearly two millennia ago. Muuuahahahaaahaaa!!!

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by Lampyridae]

heh

taking it back to the old school ways

i can just see their commander riding up and down in a jeep giving them a speech about freedom

good old scotts

and i have to admit, their names are very badass sounding