Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: was Great Dragon now back blast
Date: Fri Aug 9 11:45:01 2002
snip

I get the impression from all the posts so far that the longer tube on the
man portable launchers are designed to protect the gunner from the flamewash
as the projectile gets up to speed. This would be less of an issue for
vehicle mounted versions which are armoured anyhow.

>>>>Last I heard it was called backblast not flamewash unless gurth (whose
location rl I dont know) is speaking termsd from another Nato Army.


Scott
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: was Great Dragon now back blast
Date: Fri Aug 9 12:00:01 2002
> >>>>Last I heard it was called backblast not flamewash unless gurth
(whose
> location rl I dont know) is speaking termsd from another Nato Army.

Me no think Gurth use technical term, and if he referring to same thing
I called flamewash he's referring to the flame from the actual rocket
after initial launch......
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Dean Peterson)
Subject: was Great Dragon now back blast
Date: Fri Aug 9 13:05:01 2002
Mr. Hyde said,

snip

>if he referring to same thing I called flamewash he's referring to the
>>>>flame from the actual rocket after initial launch......

even a singel stage engine all the way up to a 3-4 stage (at least in the US
Army) it has alwasy been back blast. It comes from training issues where
one of the steps in employing the weapon system is to look back over your
shoulder, confirm nothing is behind you in the back blast and you (if not in
a static ambush) you would call out 'back blast area clear', to alert your
squad mates that your about to light off the weapon.

the only at weapon that is still in use (in grade4-5 reserve units) that
doesnt have the socaled training thing is the M-106 Recoiless Rifle. Think
Patric Swayze in MIA.
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: was Great Dragon now back blast
Date: Sat Aug 10 05:05:01 2002
At 11:08 09.08.2002 -0600, Scott Dean Peterson wrote:

<snip>

>the only at weapon that is still in use (in grade4-5 reserve units) that
>doesnt have the socaled training thing is the M-106 Recoiless Rifle. Think
>Patric Swayze in MIA.

The german Panzerfaust 3 has no backblast, and can be fired from within a
room.

--
Arclight

Risk takers by definition often fail, so do morons.
In practice it is hard to tell the difference
- Scott Adams
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: was Great Dragon now back blast
Date: Sat Aug 10 06:25:28 2002
According to Scott Dean Peterson, on Fri, 09 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> >>>>Last I heard it was called backblast not flamewash unless gurth
> >>>> (whose
> location rl I dont know) is speaking termsd from another Nato Army.

.nl is the Netherlands. Anyway, I never called it "flamewash" -- that was
Derek
Hyde, I think, who's ex-US Army like yourself :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: was Great Dragon now back blast
Date: Mon Aug 12 05:10:00 2002
>From: Arclight <arclight@*********.de>
>>the only at weapon that is still in use (in grade4-5 reserve units) that
>>doesnt have the socaled training thing is the M-106 Recoiless Rifle.
>>Think
>>Patric Swayze in MIA.
>
>The german Panzerfaust 3 has no backblast, and can be fired from within a
>room.

That's because the panzerfaust wasn't a rocket, it was a shaped charge rifle
grenade in effect (which its own rifle built on!).

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: was Great Dragon now back blast
Date: Mon Aug 12 05:40:01 2002
According to Lone Eagle, on Mon, 12 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...

> >The german Panzerfaust 3 has no backblast, and can be fired from within
> > a room.
>
> That's because the panzerfaust wasn't a rocket, it was a shaped charge
> rifle grenade in effect (which its own rifle built on!).

The Panzerfaust 3 is a current German weapon, not the WWII model. It looks
quite a lot like a high-tech RPG-7. Not to mention that firing WWII
Panzerfausts inside a room was a definite health hazard -- early models
didn't have "Achtung: Feuerstrahl!" ("Warning: Jet of Flame!") printed
on
them for nothing...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Huh?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: was Great Dragon now back blast
Date: Mon Aug 12 05:45:01 2002
>From: Gurth <Gurth@******.nl>
>According to Lone Eagle, on Mon, 12 Aug 2002 the word on the street was...
>
> > >The german Panzerfaust 3 has no backblast, and can be fired from within
> > > a room.
> >
> > That's because the panzerfaust wasn't a rocket, it was a shaped charge
> > rifle grenade in effect (which its own rifle built on!).
>
>The Panzerfaust 3 is a current German weapon, not the WWII model.

Oops, my bad.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about was Great Dragon now back blast, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!