Dunk128

With hindsight it was a bad decision to build a completely new rifle, but hind sight is a great thing. SA80 isnt as flimsy as it once was and its very accurate, im sure you could find a lot of people complaining that their m16 jams too often...besides which the sa80 is the least of our problems. ain't that the truth.... But when the army was screaming out for the M16 or an updated SLR, the politicians deliver.....The SA80 then cut the defence budget to such a degree that it, or indeed anything could never be developed/upgraded/replaced effectively...

Nah - it's missing some neons, a coffee machine and a little fan to keep the operator cool.. Then it'd be a gun! Reminds me of the Naked Gun 33 1/3 bit with OJ bolting things to his .45 until he ends up with an 88 Field Gun!

Maybe you should develop this thread further and look at why the British Government decided on the SA80 Bullpup Rifle instead of the M16 when the old and excellent SLR was phased out. Did anyone in the army want the SA80? -- Apparently not! Can left handed people fire the SA80? -- No! Is the SA80 so badly built that after 10mins in the field it will normally crack or break its stock/scope/furniture -- Yes! Was there anything wrong with the SLR? -- No, most people thought it brilliant Why not the M16 then? -- Politics! The M16 thing sounds strangely like the SLR/SA80/M16 debate

Adding my 2p to this alarmingly bigotted discussion Both my Grandfathers served in WW2, as did two of my great uncles. Grandfather #1 served with the Coldstreams and was a regular/professional at outbreak of hostilities in '39. He saw service in many parts of the globe and always had respect for the Germans - saying on numerous occassions that they were just chaps like him doing their bit for what they believed in. He took the view that most professional soldiers seem to take - it's nothing personal, just business. Grandfather #2 served with the London Rifles - but was a volunteer. Again seeing service in a couple of theatres. He never said anything about the Germans, but was immensely angry at the 'powers' that drove him into a situation where he had to kill, and to lose so many of his friends. One of my great uncles served with the RAF as a tailgunner in bomber command - he took part in the appalling and arguably pointless destruction that was the Dresden Firebomb raids and in later years once the truth emerged was greatly disturbed by what he had done, and again was angry at the 'powers' that put him in that situation. To rile against the Germans for what happened 60+ years ago is a stupid thing to do. The world was a vastly different place then and WW2 was really a continuation of WW1 - an effort by many of the antagonists to resolve the issues left wide open by the 1918 armistice and the treaty of Versailles. To have any opinion on the why's and wherefore's of atrocities I think you must first appreciate the situation that many people found themselves in during the late '20s and '30s and which ultimately led to war. Similarly the clash of cultures - such as east and west in Burma and the Pacific was bound to have an effect - read about Japanese culture prior to 1900. Surrender was the most humiliating thing to happen to a warrior, and those that surrendered, or indeed were captured were considered beneath contempt. I'm not condoning the actions of any of the nations of WW2 I'm simply saying that we see things through the informed eyes of the 21st century. 60 years ago it was a different matter.

Well it depends on what you term special forces doesn't it? If you want your SF teams to be the razor's edge to your armies sword then you need equipment heavy lunatics If you want your SF to be an independant organisation operating like a surgeons knife to cut out problems before they arise then you need covert, intelligent, deniable ops such as the SAS. The SAS compliment the British Army very well - having been borne from the need to operate in nasty places on a shoe-string budget and with limited support, or in reasonable co-operation with the Army such as in places like Northern Ireland. Ghurkas are a regiment of the line in the British Army. They've earnt their reputation in blood in almost all of the conflicts the British Army has fought in over the last 100yrs. Read up about them and their conduct in Burma fighting the Japanese in WW2 - absolutely shocking bravery and sacrifice. They're elite in that their inherent sense of discipline and duty is almost unique in today's British Army.