| |
| Author |
Topic Options
|
Posts: 4451
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:52 pm
peck420 wrote: I never said that Chinese rockets were IED's.
I said that they were used to make IED's.
Similar to how artillery shells have been used today to make IED's.
Apparently (as there is no hard evidence, purely anecdotal stories) they would take the powder from the rockets and make explosives to line gates and passes.
First recorded use of land mines (distinguished only by the fact they are manufactured as a landmine from the get go) is approx 100 years later.
Personally, I think they developed and manufactured the land mines based on the success of the IED's during the previous century. I really want to hear how you think IEDs are constructed, Im sure you have no clue and are just pulling all of this out of your ass (or are just parroting incorrect information someone has spoon fed you). Again if you could show me anything which describes how these landmines were created.
|
Posts: 571
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:40 pm
I have no idea how a modern IED is made, and truth be told, I hope to never learn.
That, however, doesn't change the fact that most historians classify all pre-Ming mines as IEDs.
You will have to excuse me if I take their word on what constitutes and IED over yours.
|
Posts: 4451
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:59 pm
peck420 wrote: I have no idea how a modern IED is made, and truth be told, I hope to never learn.
That, however, doesn't change the fact that most historians classify all pre-Ming mines as IEDs.
You will have to excuse me if I take their word on what constitutes and IED over yours. IED has become a buzz word, so much so that some dont really know what it stands for or what makes an IED. I wonder what did these historians call them pre 1970? You can chose to be wrong that is your prerogative, I just ask that you find some better informed historians. By your definition the mining charges used in WWI were IEDs as well. 
|
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:17 pm
The I is the important part in the term. Improvised. You take the materials you can get your hands on to make something go boom...pipe bombs, fertilizer bombs, gas bombs..... anything that's available and can do the job.
|
Posts: 4451
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:21 pm
ShepherdsDog wrote: The I is the important part in the term. Improvised. You take the materials you can get your hands on to make something go boom...pipe bombs, fertilizer bombs, gas bombs..... anything that's available and can do the job. Exactly, you should listen to Shep, peck, he has an idea about what he is talking about. ![Drink up [B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif)
|
Posts: 571
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:55 pm
Pre-1970 they were listed by their Chinese names, usually colourful and usually not very descriptive of the function of the weapon. They have started to do this with most of the ancient Chinese weapons to make it easier to learn.
Ie: They now just say ancient Chinese musket/gun, vs 'fire lance', fire pole', 'fire tube', 'dragon tongue', etc.
As for land mines, pre-Ming they have no names, no drawings, etc. Simply references from their use by Ming historians/generals.
As for the 'I', I will try to keep in mind that taking a part of one weapon and making an entirely different weapon is not improvising.
|
Posts: 4451
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:25 pm
peck420 wrote: Pre-1970 they were listed by their Chinese names, usually colourful and usually not very descriptive of the function of the weapon. They have started to do this with most of the ancient Chinese weapons to make it easier to learn.
Ie: They now just say ancient Chinese musket/gun, vs 'fire lance', fire pole', 'fire tube', 'dragon tongue', etc.
As for land mines, pre-Ming they have no names, no drawings, etc. Simply references from their use by Ming historians/generals.
As for the 'I', I will try to keep in mind that taking a part of one weapon and making an entirely different weapon is not improvising. It's not. Again you dont know what you are talking about, you should stop pretending you have the vaguest idea that you do.
|
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:48 pm
Quote: As for the 'I', I will try to keep in mind that taking a part of one weapon and making an entirely different weapon is not improvising.
Thank you for you inexpert opinion on the matter. Don't get insulted, but is your job devoted to spreading ignorance? Please revisit the term 'improvised' and try and retain its meaning Quote: Again you dont know what you are talking about, you should stop pretending you have the vaguest idea that you do.
![Drink up [B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif) Quote: IEDs may incorporate military or commercially-sourced explosives, and often combine both types, or they may otherwise be made with homemade explosives (HME). Even wiki can get it straight.
|
Posts: 4451
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:14 pm
I tried to find a picture of the M24 or even a article of the Canadian version the C-18. You will have to settle for this picture of what claims to be an UK off route mine.  As you can see it is just a retooled (what I suspect is an) AT-4, with a sensor package added to it instead of the manual trigger. This looks like the unmodified version. 
|
|
Page 10 of 10
|
[ 144 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests |
|
|