PDA

View Full Version : Parafrag bombs



general_kalle
04-14-2006, 10:00 AM
whats the purpose of parafrag bombs?

general_kalle
04-14-2006, 10:00 AM
whats the purpose of parafrag bombs?

VVaFFenPanZZeR
04-14-2006, 10:08 AM
Parafrag Bomblets are used to destroy enemy defensive positions, troop positions, light skin armored vehicles, equipment, and also to destroy runways, bridges, roads, buildings. ...........etc.

Its obvious what their for.

RxMan
04-14-2006, 10:45 AM
Used graphically in a popular WW2 film clip droping on a small Japanese fishing village/harbor.

LEBillfish
04-14-2006, 11:10 AM
Here is some of a write-up I did which includes them......What they allowed for was the ability to hit many targets in a swath of sorts. The Parachute ******ing the forward flight helping to insure they would drop on target not bouncing off revetments drifting straight down.

The Missing Ordinance:
(know I am no expert on U.S. ordinance, yet some info I ran across)

The following information is from many sources, yet the lions share of this segment comes from "Capt. M.K.Rodman's, A War of their Own, Bombers Over the Southwest Pacific".....An excellent read that goes into great detail as to the 5th Air Force Bombers and their various configurations, weapons and tactics. (lots and lots on ship bombing as well).

Missing Japanese Bombs:

Though weapon creativity seemed to be lacking mostly due to the light loadouts and inferior planes of the Japanese Army and Navy, one weapon is sorely missing here. That being the "Anti-Bomber Phosphorous Bomb".

Though I am trying to gather more detailed information (and at this time is sketchy so not to be considered accurate), essentially the bomb I believe came in 30 & 50kg constructions and came in 2 types. Sticks of incendiaries bound together would be dropped into a formation of bombers. The first type would break up in the fall spreading out...The second would drop as a bundle then discharge casting out the sticks before their detonation.

The effects due to accuracy were iffy at best. Though documented losses of B25's, 24's, 17's, & 29's are known.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/Phosphorous_Bomb.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/Phosphorousbomb.jpg

They were also used in New Guinea toward the end of the conflict......(as a side note, before Kamikaze against ships and Taiatari (bomber ramming) were known or used over the home islands, they were actually extensively used in New Guinea though no doubt some accidents claimed to be the "ultimate sacrifice").

Missing U.S. Medium Bomber Gun Configurations:

We have many of them as AI, yet sadly some of the most extensively used aircraft in New Guinea are missing from the sim. Most notably the various B-25's who's strafing and anti-shipping efforts really are what won the air war in New Guinea/Britain.

Naturally the nose filled with .50 caliber guns guns is what did most of the work, yet others with various cannons also contributed greatly. Though we all know of the B25-G with the 75mm gun, they also came with lighter cannons and all had their place.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/B25Gdwg.jpg

Yet there was more. B25's, A-20's and A-26's also carried a vast array of rockets, cannon, and machine gun armaments that truly contributed to the "precision" attacks these aircraft were used for vs. the almost "high altitude" role relegated to here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/A20-rockets.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/A26-guns.jpg

These planes till simply equipped properly are far from how they were really used.

Missing U.S. Bombs, the criticals:

So the B-25 & A-20 are to be bombers, ok lets talk bombs. One of the more notable missing and simple to have is Napalm. Though not used till the end of the campaign, it never the less was by both to actually much more effective ends then phosphorous type weapons (though they are sorely missing discussed next)....Napalm toward the end of the war became quite a mainstay for most direct ground attack aircraft. The B25 & A20 no exception.

Phosphorous bombs however were much more then what we give them credit for here. Initially using smoke generating bombs...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/phosphorous-bomb.jpg

Quickly it was discovered the devastating effect they could have on men, equipment and buildings...which from the book above the author notes "Their construction was simple. The €œ€˜Kenney Cocktail€ . . .was a standard M-47 100-pound bomb loaded with white phosphorus which, when it burst, flung out streamers of
burning incendiary material in all directions for 150 feet [fig. 7]. Its effect upon man and machine was deadly.€50 Even before the end of 1942, €œthe Beast,€ as Radio Tokyo dubbed Kenney
and his air force, would give the Japanese in the Southwest Pacific more cause for concern."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/pre1_topl.jpg

Often detonated above the ground, the white hot debris would actually cut through man and machine setting all it came in contact with afire.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/pre1_botr.jpg

Phosphorous bombs were used extensively in New Guinea, and a dab of burning phosphorous on a fuel truck, plane or hut could often totally destroy it.

However, being we are destined to be medium to high alt bombers, where is the real weapon used by all medium and heavy bombers that really had the lions share of effect. The "Daisy Cutter" as quoted from the book above:

"Fifth Air Force modified larger bombs from those on hand to create weapons known as daisy cutters. €œTo cut up aircraft on the ground we had wrapped these bombs [300 lb. and 500 lb.]
with heavy steel wire, and we dropped them with instantaneous fuses on the end of a six-inch pipe extension in the nose. They looked good. The wire, which was nearly one-quarter inch in diameter, broke up into pieces from six inches to a couple of feet long, and in the monstration it cut limbs off trees a hundred feet away which were two inches thick.€51 Unlike
well-constructed industrial complexes, exposed targets in the open did not necessarily require attacks by large formations of bombers laden with high-explosive bombs. Smaller fragments proved more than enough to ignite aircraft and machinery as well as absolutely devour ground personnel unlucky enough to be within the fragmentation pattern."

These weapons though average in actual weight are noted to literally clear 150 yard diameter swaths taking out everything within it's radius. Dropped in combinations of instantly detonating to some lingering up to 48 hours to keep crews clear of the airfields, they if you read any amount of information were used almost as extensively as standard bomb loads.

However, we do have one actual saving grace, the Parafrag.....Or do we?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/parafragbomb.jpg

The parafrag was used extensively by B-25 crews (as they strafed) to great effect. Initially B-25's having to remove their belly turret to utilize an "internal drop tank" for fuel taking up space caused other innovations to be made to make the best use of loadouts....We I believe get 40 parafrags....Yet here is a description of a system used to drop them and spread them out......

"To facilitate the use of these weapons, Pappy Gunn €œcame up with the €˜squirrel cage€ for the B-25. This was a metal rack that looked just like a cage with columns of rods. It held parafrags in fours stacked on top of the other, nose to tail. I recall that the cage carried about 200 23 pounders and the idea was that when you were over a target you toggled the whole lot.€42 By late August 1942, planes from the 3d BG were equipped with bomb racks for parafrags, and less than a month later, these bombs made their first operational appearance".

200.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/parafrag-sally.jpg

One important aspect of this was the parafrag often tended to not go off (the problem made worse later by parademo's (next part)). Though the fuse sometimes failed to work, the effect the parafrag had on the New Guinea Air operations cannot be overstated.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/parafrag-dud.jpg

Better fuses made, the parafrag became a mainstay and inspired even larger parachute restraining bombs...the Parademo's.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/parafragfuse.jpg

Parademo's;

With the success the Parafrag had, we all know bigger must be better right? So soon larger weapons were produced with explosive force not fragments or burning phosphorous being the key. So as noted below using what was learned from Parafrags, Parademo's were made.....

"Starting in August 1943, with the idea of preventing ricochet of bombs by means of a parachute, [and] a parachute adapter capable of field production . . .[the parademo] was developed and first used on a combat mission in September 1943.€12 The fact that parademos took their parachutes directly from 23-pound parafrags simplified the process of creating a new weapon. A 100-pound bomb had one chute; the 250-pound version carried two; and the 500-pounder carried either two or four of the standard tail-mounted chutes. Developed late in the summer of 1943."

As noted coming in 100#

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/100parademo.jpg

250#

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/250parademo-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/250parademo-2.jpg

& 500# configurations,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/500parademo.jpg

The parademos were designed to work both like parafrags & or Daisy Cutters. Sometimes instantaneous fuses used, the parachute besides granting accuracy and allowing the bomb to drop straight down to avoid bouncing off revetments, they were sometimes timed for long delays as well.

Unfortunately they had their own teething problems with fuses....Quite often failing till understood why...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/parademo-dud.jpg

Yet eventually moving to contact fuses, the parademo now had the same low level accuracy as the parafrag without worry of being fragged by your own bomb or worse still having it bounce back up skipping and bite you (which had happened).


We love our fighters here, and seem to love those low level fights. The missing ordinance for both sides is almost required to the precise ground attack theme of IL2 Sturmovik, and to make the combat here like so many like it to be. A low alt brawl.

Oddly, that's just how it often was in New Guinea.

djetz
04-14-2006, 11:27 AM
I believe the correct description would be "Anti-personnel" though VVaFFenPanZZeR's description covers more territory.

Pedantry compels me to point out that VVaFFenPanZZeR typed "their" when he should have typed "they're" - the first one means "belonging to" and the second is the contraction of "they are".

LEBillfish
04-14-2006, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:
Pedantry compels me to point out that VVaFFenPanZZeR typed "their" when he should have typed "they're" - the first one means "belonging to" and the second is the contraction of "they are". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pedantry or pious primadonna?

djetz
04-14-2006, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Pedantry or pious primadonna? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what you mean.

I do correct obvious mistakes with words, when I can be bothered, but not out of any sense of superiority: I'm a high-school dropout who rarely attended school after the age of 13, so I can't claim any kind of educational authority.

I'm always ready to learn from my own mistakes, and they are many, so I try to be unembarrassed when people point them out. I respect people who are more interested in learning to improve than in appearing to know it all already.

Unfortunately, it sometimes leads to people being aggressive about their mistakes, assuming that I think I'm in some way "better" than they are because I have a grasp of basic grammar and spelling. So, to minimise that possibility, I'll over-simplify and just say I'm a pedant.

I don't correct mistakes out of rudeness, I do it out of helpfulness: people helped me to improve my use of language by pointing out my mistakes, not by ignoring them. To some extent, I'm "paying on" other people's helpfulness.

Some people will learn, some will attack me for it, in the belief that I have attacked them. Since I didn't make any personal remarks about VVaFFenPanZZeR, insulting or not, I think that my correction was perfectly legitimate.

OK, I've explained myself in detail now - so:

A: what's it to you, anyway?

B: I don't feel that I am in any way pious or primadona-like. If you feel differently, chances are that says more about you than it does about me.

LEBillfish
04-14-2006, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:
I'm not sure what you mean.........I don't feel that I am in any way pious or primadona-like. If you feel differently, chances are that says more about you than it does about me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In that I have even less of an educational background then yourself, actually now at 41 only having been able to read and write for roughly 9 years. Perhaps it being simply age, maturity or whatever else, I've found it to be a "wiser tact" to not correct without being asked for such correction.

There, their, they're, to, too, etc. etc. so often misused here it's sad. However, the topic is about "Parafrags", not proper spelling or grammar..........In the end such comments simply "embarrassing" people into correction. So hurtful no matter the intent. In kind you no doubt considering yourself "making an effort to point out such publicly", are in reality simply trying to state you "know better" therefore "are better" be it for that effort, knowledge, or whatever reason......Pious primadonna explaining it perfectly.

Educate through examples in your own posts, not by correcting others......However since this thread is about "parafrags" not the finer points of the English language, if you feel the need to debate it further lets continue in PM.

VVaFFenPanZZeR
04-14-2006, 12:50 PM
Accually where I come from, I used it in the right context. To me Bombs, missiles, any kind of round/projectile has the power of death behind it, almost like their alive. Like demons coming for you.

Saying u have a compulsive disorder, or that u dropped out, just makes u look like a fool. From now on I wouldn't act like u know so much about the english language, and what ppl are feeling when they express things, like a gang of bombs bearing down on u.

I Served with the U.S. Army, although I never seen combat, I am a noncombat Vet. I believe I can explain things of that nature the exact way I did.

djetz
04-14-2006, 01:00 PM
I will not enter into any kind of PM debate on this kind of thing. I'm really only replying to point out that you did not answer question A - what's it to you? If the person I corrected has a problem, I'll talk to him.

I went out of my way to explain my motives here, and since you've chosen to ignore what I said and to claim that you understand my "real" motives - well, obviously there's no basis for any further dialogue.

LEBillfish
04-14-2006, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:
I will not enter into any kind of PM debate on this kind of thing. I'm really only replying to point out that you did not answer question A - what's it to you? If the person I corrected has a problem, I'll talk to him.

I went out of my way to explain my motives here, and since you've chosen to ignore what I said and to claim that you understand my "real" motives - well, obviously there's no basis for any further dialogue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's it to me?.....What's it to you how he spells anything.....Naturally your desire to not debate such in PM and ending any further discussion where the gloves can come off simply firming my point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Typical....

djetz
04-14-2006, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VVaFFenPanZZeR:
Accually where I come from, I used it in the right context. To me Bombs, missiles, any kind of round/projectile has the power of death behind it, almost like their alive. Like demons coming for you.

Saying u have a compulsive disorder, or that u dropped out, just makes u look like a fool. From now on I wouldn't act like u know so much about the english language, and what ppl are feeling when they express things, like a gang of bombs bearing down on u.

I Served with the U.S. Army, although I never seen combat, I am a noncombat Vet. I believe I can explain things of that nature the exact way I did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, you're wrong. I just explained why I went to the effort of trying to help you. Sadly, looks like it was wasted.

How is "Its obvious what belonging to them for" - which is what you said, in effect - in any way correct?

What you meant is "Its obvious what they are for"

I make mistakes in english all the time, and I said so. I also said the way I learned to write better english was by accepting that I was wrong and that the person who corrected me knew more than me. If your ego can't handle that, it's YOUR problem.

A person learns by making mistakes and being corrected, not by claiming that their mistakes are correct and that the person doing the correcting is a fool. If you aren't interested in improving, if you think you're perfect already... I can't help you. I'm sorry I tried.

djetz
04-14-2006, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
What's it to me?.....What's it to you how he spells anything.....Naturally your desire to not debate such in PM and ending any further discussion where the gloves can come off simply firming my point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Typical.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already explained. Trying to help, the same way others helped me. Obviously wasted effort. No wonder teachers get so cynical.

LEBillfish
04-14-2006, 01:15 PM
LOL.....Like I said.......

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">pious primadonna </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More so, insisting on keeping it public only reinforcing that point. Otherwise you would be PM'ing folks. So now you can add hipocrisy to your accolades.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:
I make mistakes in english all the time, and I said so. I also said the way I learned to write better english was by accepting that I was wrong and that the person who corrected me knew more than me. If your ego can't handle that, it's YOUR problem.

A person learns by making mistakes and being corrected, not by claiming that their mistakes are correct and that the person doing the correcting is a fool. If you aren't interested in improving, if you think you're perfect already... I can't help you. I'm sorry I tried. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

VVaFFenPanZZeR
04-14-2006, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VVaFFenPanZZeR:
Accually where I come from, I used it in the right context. To me Bombs, missiles, any kind of round/projectile has the power of death behind it, almost like their alive. Like demons coming for you.

Saying u have a compulsive disorder, or that u dropped out, just makes u look like a fool. From now on I wouldn't act like u know so much about the english language, and what ppl are feeling when they express things, like a gang of bombs bearing down on u.

I Served with the U.S. Army, although I never seen combat, I am a noncombat Vet. I believe I can explain things of that nature the exact way I did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, you're wrong. I just explained why I went to the effort of trying to help you. Sadly, looks like it was wasted.

How is "Its obvious what belonging to them for" - which is what you said, in effect - in any way correct?

What you meant is "Its obvious what they are for"

I make mistakes in english all the time, and I said so. I also said the way I learned to write better english was by accepting that I was wrong and that the person who corrected me knew more than me. If your ego can't handle that, it's YOUR problem.

A person learns by making mistakes and being corrected, not by claiming that their mistakes are correct and that the person doing the correcting is a fool. If you aren't interested in improving, if you think you're perfect already... I can't help you. I'm sorry I tried. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, u trying to explain why I'm wrong sounds like u just smoked some crack, where are u getting ur info *******, their, doesn't mean belonging to, r u a moron.

Go back to school.

EiZ0N
04-14-2006, 03:22 PM
This thread has turned ridiculous.

As unreasonable as djetz may seem, your last post is completely ludicrous VVaFFenPanZZeR, it's obvious that you don't go to any effort whatsoever to use proper English, and you really COULD use a lesson in grammar.

They are = they're. "They're used to blow people up".

Their denotes ownership.

"It's their responsibility to improve their own grammar, nobody else's".

"They're dropping their bombs over there"

It's not correct to say "Their used to kill troops".



I don't usually comment on other people's grammar, but I think if you read this post you will learn something.

I'm not trying to put you down or any bollocks like that, there are probably hundreds of things that you could teach me, too. I do think the two of you are overreacting to djetz's original comment, though.

VVaFFenPanZZeR
04-14-2006, 03:25 PM
Its called short hand, as I already graduated from HS, with a 4.0, and have no interest in proving nothing to anyone on any message boards, about proper English.

And yes it is Thier(meaning them, and thier buddies)used to kill ppl..............

EiZ0N
04-14-2006, 03:33 PM
Tell you what, I'll give you a link.

It's pretty much the same thing as what I posted.

http://www.iolani.honolulu.hi.us/Keables/KeablesGuide/P.../Letters/T.htm#their (http://www.iolani.honolulu.hi.us/Keables/KeablesGuide/PartThree/Letters/T.htm#their)

their, there, they're:

their is a possessive pronoun;

there, an adverb meaning "in the specified place";

they're, a contraction of "they are." "They're sitting over there in their seats."

You're a linguist's nightmare my friend http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VVaFFenPanZZeR
04-14-2006, 03:58 PM
LOL, the pilots possess the Bombs

EiZ0N
04-14-2006, 04:10 PM
That's irrelevent.

VVaFFenPanZZeR
04-14-2006, 04:22 PM
VVell guess what, I really don't give a @#$% what anyone out in the WWW, really, I mean why does everyone always have to correct ppl on their speeling, O no I did it again, I can understand if I was writing out a resume, or a report for work, But then still who gives a @#$%, I make 60-70k a year, I don't need to watch my spelling, am I getting graded on this post, am I going to get a pay deduction for not spelling words correctly, or using comma's , and dollar signs the write way.

I didn't know I had to impress everyone with perfect grammar, maybe I should should get a tutor, or just stop posting all to gether.

please correct any mispelled words for me, and/or inoproper grammar. PM me and I'll edit it to correct it.

EiZ0N
04-14-2006, 05:01 PM
I only posted about the use of 'their' because someone else brought it up and then you started insisting your use was correct. I'd never have brought it up.

You were saying something that was wrong. I don't mean you were using incorrect grammar, I don't particularly care, but you were posting incorrectly about the grammatical use of their.

If you drive an unleaded car, and you personally fill it up with diesel, that's up to you, I don't care. But if you start advising people here to fill up their unleaded cars with diesel, I feel obliged to tell people that it's incorrect to do so.

Once again, I don't really care about your grammar, but if you're going to post something like "LOL go to school thats not how u use their", then I'm going to correct you if you're wrong.

VVaFFenPanZZeR
04-14-2006, 05:18 PM
Obviously, som1 doesn't really understand my statment then, because to me, it is the right context, from my point of view. I know the English language, up, and down.

To even correct som1's spelling, or use of pronouns, is an idiotic move in ur part. To not even understand The way I was using the word, where spelling "their", and using it that way in my statment. It was the correct context.

Go write a book, then have the editor slap u becuz u wrote it perfectly slackjaw.

HOWZAT_99
04-14-2006, 05:37 PM
Temper temper...

There smart people in this world, but this is not only due to education. A truely wise person will take critisism (is that how you spell it?) constructively. That guy was only trying to be helpful and increase your knowledge of the english language, just as you tried to help people with their knowledge of bombs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EiZ0N
04-14-2006, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VVaFFenPanZZeR:
Obviously, som1 doesn't really understand my statment then, because to me, it is the right context, from my point of view. I know the English language, up, and down.

To even correct som1's spelling, or use of pronouns, is an idiotic move in ur part. To not even understand The way I was using the word, where spelling "their", and using it that way in my statment. It was the correct context.

Go write a book, then have the editor slap u becuz u wrote it perfectly slackjaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Christ almighty. You complete scopey.

I was nothing but civil, yet you're still being nothing but a prat so I'm not going to hold back. yes, you are WRONG, end of bloody story.

I've never heard such **** really. "It was correct to me". Right, so is this: "wheyry porkls ejgd". Can't understand? It made sense to me, I was saying "Boiled eggs", are you fick?

Know the English language up or down... you can't even use a possesive pronoun properly, that's stuff you learn in primary school.

If you want to make up your own god damn language, go for it, but don't insist that it's sound English. Bloody insulting to hear you tell me I'm wrong.

The dude picked up on your crappy grammar. So maybe he was being pedantic, and he should have kept his mouth shut. Maybe so. The fact of the matter is though, you're so uptight that you can't even accept that you made a mistake, and you've done nothing but be an insulting ***** to me.

VVaFFenPanZZeR
04-14-2006, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">end of bloody story.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, that explains it, ur a limey..........LOLOLOL

EiZ0N
04-14-2006, 07:28 PM
Such maturity.

You're really earning everyone's respect tonight, aren't you?

VVaFFenPanZZeR
04-14-2006, 07:33 PM
I don't hang around this site to gain respect from any1, I earn it face to face.

Off topic, ur government blowz.

EiZ0N
04-14-2006, 07:37 PM
Wow, this is enlightening.

So what fantastic country with a fantastic government do you hail from?

ElAurens
04-15-2006, 12:40 AM
Children, I'll be forced to send you to bed without your cookies and milk if you don't behave.

How a thread about parafrags turned into a diatribe about proper useage of the Queen's English is utterly amazing.

It's no wonder the vast majority of players never visits here...


You are all lucky I'm not a mod.

Be sure.

faelas
04-15-2006, 03:12 AM
It's a shame some of the best threads around here somehow manage to turn into stupid arguments.

reverendkrv1972
04-15-2006, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faelas:
It's a shame some of the best threads around here somehow manage to turn into stupid arguments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed

KG51-Edelweis
04-15-2006, 06:17 AM
For those interested in the original topic,
have a look at this site: Pacific-wrecks (http://www.pacificwrecks.com/)
there you can see for what parafrags where used for, a lot of plane wrecks that clearly show they where put out of action by those bombs. I guess in that catagorie you can also put those canister bombs that are filled with hundreds of mini bomblets, they are nasty as they are armour piercing and next to impossible to difuse, except for shooting of the detonator, well that is how it was done in the unit I served in.
http://sil40.hp.infoseek.co.jp/img005.gif