TexasCHLforum.com

bronco78 wrote:Direct fire IED detonation was specifically forbidden almost 4 years ago. The JOINT IED DEFEAT center, and EOD center of excellence found that it created a more hazardous situation for EOD personal if the IED did not detonate, then if the team dealt with the IED in a more standard procedure. Additionally., IED's in use after about 2004 were / are much less susceptible to a direct fire engagement. Add in to it the need to reduce collateral damage.. and all good reason to not attempt to do direct fire IE D detonation. All that said,,, sure there are still wanabe heroes that do it anyway.. More often than not creating an unstable mess that an EOD tech has to then move to and emplace a charger for a controlled detonation.

gregthehand wrote:

bronco78 wrote:Direct fire IED detonation was specifically forbidden almost 4 years ago. The JOINT IED DEFEAT center, and EOD center of excellence found that it created a more hazardous situation for EOD personal if the IED did not detonate, then if the team dealt with the IED in a more standard procedure. Additionally., IED's in use after about 2004 were / are much less susceptible to a direct fire engagement. Add in to it the need to reduce collateral damage.. and all good reason to not attempt to do direct fire IE D detonation. All that said,,, sure there are still wanabe heroes that do it anyway.. More often than not creating an unstable mess that an EOD tech has to then move to and emplace a charger for a controlled detonation.

Sure enough but the film was supposed to have taken place in 2004. So when they were still shooting stuff to blow it up.

I was just pointing out that it was conceivable that they would know how to operate the rifle and shoot it accurately.

AndyC wrote:Film-makers don't want truth - they're not shooting a documentary. They want art.

As this is strike two in this thread for me.. I’ll step away from it, and leave the discussion to others.

bronco78 wrote:

gregthehand wrote:Yes Sir, no argument or dispute.. My apologies if it came off that way.

I see posts and threads like these and have a long 24 year career, intuitionally trained urge to clarify errors, remarks, or just points of reference. I mean no disrespect to anyone here. Nor am I attempting to be antagonistic in my replies.
As this is strike two in this thread for me.. I’ll step away from it, and leave the discussion to others.

AndyC wrote:

cling wrote:The reputation of the Gurkhas makes me think of the "one riot, one ranger" quote.

I sure wouldn't want to provoke one

A Gurkha soldier in the British Army has been removed from duty in Afghanistan after he beheaded a dead Taliban commander with his ceremonial kukri knife.

The Nepalese private decapitated the dead man with the intention of returning to base with the head so the Taliban fighter could be identified by senior officers as a 'high value target'.

cbr600 wrote:

AndyC wrote:

cling wrote:The reputation of the Gurkhas makes me think of the "one riot, one ranger" quote.

I sure wouldn't want to provoke one

Apropos. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... attle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Gurkha soldier in the British Army has been removed from duty in Afghanistan after he beheaded a dead Taliban commander with his ceremonial kukri knife.

The Nepalese private decapitated the dead man with the intention of returning to base with the head so the Taliban fighter could be identified by senior officers as a 'high value target'.

RiverCity.45 wrote:If I may draw your attention to the fact that this was not a documentary, but a film for entertainment, that may put it in the proper perspective.

If I may draw your attention to the fact that this was not a documentary, but a film for entertainment, that may put it in the proper perspective.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

If I may draw your attention to the fact that this was not a documentary, but a film for entertainment, that may put it in the proper perspective.

This is true.

However, if a film was made "based" upon your life, and you were portrayed as a wife beating, child abusing, satanic, crack-dealing transvestite prostitute who kills puppies, drives drunk, and shoplifts for sport and entertainment, you would probably not be too happy with the portrayal, despite the fact the film was made for entertainment.