Politics

[PHOENIX PHIL]

It isn't a good or a bad thing- it's a reality. While preventers are needed, clearly given the number of bad actors in the world, it must be remembered that every dollar spent for a preventer could have been spent on a producer.

No doubt, but it’s the situation we have. See my previous post.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

Regarding the military industrial complex…..

I hate war. It is without question the most moronic thing we as humans have invented. But unfortunately there are Hitlers and Stalins amongst our species. And there will continue to be more as evidenced by Putin.

I wish indeed that WWII had ended as it did with victory for the free world. But the result of the USA (not entirely the USA, but mostly) becoming the policeman to the world, man that has saddled us with a lot of cost. Worth it? I don’t know, maybe. But such a high cost.

It ultimately however defeated the USSR and has kept China in check. I do not want to take away credit from the likes of @Red Leg and his colleagues and the role they have played in the post WWII period, but blood, brains and courage were not enough alone to maintain that status.

While I hate war, I was never opposed to working for defense contractors. My first job as a co-op/intern engineer was working for a facility of IBM during the late 80’s. That facility was responsible for the development of naval submarine sonar systems the likes of which were unmatched at least at that time. Not only was I not opposed to working on those products, I was damned proud of my newbie engineering efforts.

Following graduation from college I went to work in Ft Worth, TX for General Dynamics. I was working on the F-16 aircraft, specifically on the software used by the avionics on board. I took that job damned seriously, and I loved it. I was even recognized by USAF officers for my efforts. Unfortunately there came this giant cut on DoD spending under the first President Bush and his SecDef Dick Cheney. The writing on the wall made it appear that my future there was short lived.

So what did I do? I went to work for Westinghouse in nuclear power. This resulted in a job in Idaho at what was then called the INEL. It is the location of the birthplace on U.S. Naval nuclear propulsion. But unfortunately due to budget, the future appeared glim working for U.S. defense.

It was at this point in time I turned to the field of commercial electronics. I had a wife to support and plans for children too afterall. And this has been my field for the last 28 years. And I’m not alone, many of my fellow engineers left defense work. With that, much potential experience has been lost.

At this point in time I could be an extremely valuable asset in the defense industry, but I’m not. There has certainly been those who stuck it out, but not like it could’ve been.

The point to my little diatribe here is what you may ask? The point is you don’t develop these defense systems with new engineers alone. It requires seasoned leadership to develop those systems while also training the kids. Those new grads of today become the leaders of tomorrow. It takes time and it takes money. Cutting the money isn’t a short term effect, it has long term detrimental effects. Overcoming the years of developing that talent in turn also takes years. Do you really want to let our competition catch up or surpass us?

This is why the greens and liberals are so dangerous, they utterly miss the point that it takes generations of hard, intelligent work to develop and maintain strategic advantage. And why do you need it? The world isn't naturally evolving to a green utopia, it is rapidly trying to turn red. They should realise that if unicorns were real that horn wouldn't be for decoration.

 

[steve white]

Regarding the military industrial complex…..

I hate war. It is without question the most moronic thing we as humans have invented. But unfortunately there are Hitlers and Stalins amongst our species. And there will continue to be more as evidenced by Putin.

I wish indeed that WWII had ended as it did with victory for the free world. But the result of the USA (not entirely the USA, but mostly) becoming the policeman to the world, man that has saddled us with a lot of cost. Worth it? I don’t know, maybe. But such a high cost.

It ultimately however defeated the USSR and has kept China in check. I do not want to take away credit from the likes of @Red Leg and his colleagues and the role they have played in the post WWII period, but blood, brains and courage were not enough alone to maintain that status.

While I hate war, I was never opposed to working for defense contractors. My first job as a co-op/intern engineer was working for a facility of IBM during the late 80’s. That facility was responsible for the development of naval submarine sonar systems the likes of which were unmatched at least at that time. Not only was I not opposed to working on those products, I was damned proud of my newbie engineering efforts.

Following graduation from college I went to work in Ft Worth, TX for General Dynamics. I was working on the F-16 aircraft, specifically on the software used by the avionics on board. I took that job damned seriously, and I loved it. I was even recognized by USAF officers for my efforts. Unfortunately there came this giant cut on DoD spending under the first President Bush and his SecDef Dick Cheney. The writing on the wall made it appear that my future there was short lived.

So what did I do? I went to work for Westinghouse in nuclear power. This resulted in a job in Idaho at what was then called the INEL. It is the location of the birthplace on U.S. Naval nuclear propulsion. But unfortunately due to budget, the future appeared glim working for U.S. defense.

It was at this point in time I turned to the field of commercial electronics. I had a wife to support and plans for children too afterall. And this has been my field for the last 28 years. And I’m not alone, many of my fellow engineers left defense work. With that, much potential experience has been lost.

At this point in time I could be an extremely valuable asset in the defense industry, but I’m not. There has certainly been those who stuck it out, but not like it could’ve been.

The point to my little diatribe here is what you may ask? The point is you don’t develop these defense systems with new engineers alone. It requires seasoned leadership to develop those systems while also training the kids. Those new grads of today become the leaders of tomorrow. It takes time and it takes money. Cutting the money isn’t a short term effect, it has long term detrimental effects. Overcoming the years of developing that talent in turn also takes years. Do you really want to let our competition catch up or surpass us?

And then Clinton gave the Chinese stealth sub technology for NOTHING and we have to ratchet up another notch.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

And then Clinton gave the Chinese stealth sub technology for NOTHING and we have to ratchet up another notch.

Don’t get me started.

 

[ofbiro]

Sure, this side of the pond the governments preferred to delegate defense to the U.S. instead of spending their own money for their security.
Anyway, when I look at a pseudo American product, actually made in PRC (e.g. a range finder) I think that several American companies saved a couple of $ transferring technology to Red China and training the Chinese to compete better with the West.
The ground is covered with first stones waiting to be thrown.

 

[Ray B]

Question for those with more up to date information: In 1967-68 I was attached to a 155 battery, The guns were M109s (short tube version) capable of shooting a 98# HE bullet slightly over 10 miles. the only guidance they had was the aiming they received at the time of firing. The housing of the gun was primarily aluminum and was by no means bullet proof. The track and carriage units were sufficient to travel on dirt roads or fairly level packed dirt.
From what I've read, am I to understand that the new 155 guns shoot bullets that have cameras in them and means of guidance to a specific target? this feature would mean that on gun with a guided bullet could be as effective in some situations as the old battery 6. Additionally, the tracks are now better for cross country travel and the housing is more resistant to enemy fire, One thing I think would be easily corrected from the 1960 models is the electronics on laying the guns- that is placing the guns so that the points of quadrant and elevation on the gun match those in the fire direction center,
So is this stuff so?

 

[ofbiro]

Question for those with more up to date information: In 1967-68 I was attached to a 155 battery, The guns were M109s (short tube version) capable of shooting a 98# HE bullet slightly over 10 miles. the only guidance they had was the aiming they received at the time of firing. The housing of the gun was primarily aluminum and was by no means bullet proof. The track and carriage units were sufficient to travel on dirt roads or fairly level packed dirt.
From what I've read, am I to understand that the new 155 guns shoot bullets that have cameras in them and means of guidance to a specific target? this feature would mean that on gun with a guided bullet could be as effective in some situations as the old battery 6. Additionally, the tracks are now better for cross country travel and the housing is more resistant to enemy fire, One thing I think would be easily corrected from the 1960 models is the electronics on laying the guns- that is placing the guns so that the points of quadrant and elevation on the gun match those in the fire direction center,
So is this stuff so?

Yeah, Ray B, as an old gunner (105 mm pack in 1968-1969) I am as astonished as you are when reading of the new prodigies. The shell can guide itself to hit a spot lit by a laser marker. There are loitering shells (descending from the old RAP) than can wait in the area for a short time before descending to laser mark.
GPS military navigators have an error margin smaller than a one meter, while in our time a 25 m error was the minimum possible.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

In the economic realm there are two types of activities: Those that produce and those that prevent. Those that produce are the ones that generate products and add to the supply side of the supply-demand curve. Those that prevent are needed because there are things that need to be prevented. The prevention of things doesn't generate supply, it merely prevents a product from being destroyed. They do not add to the supply.
Examples of producers are farmers, miners, steel and other metal mills, manufacturing as well as distribution- truckers, trains, shipping and marketing.
Examples of preventers are police, fire suppression, health services and military. While their services are needed since the world is not a perfect society, they do not add to supply.
One of the reasons Japan recovered so ashes to become a world class economy was that Japan's expenditure on military was very limited. The result was the preponderance of its national product was invested in producers, very little going to preventers.

Guns or butter

 

[Hogpatrol]

 

[Red Leg]

Question for those with more up to date information: In 1967-68 I was attached to a 155 battery, The guns were M109s (short tube version) capable of shooting a 98# HE bullet slightly over 10 miles. the only guidance they had was the aiming they received at the time of firing. The housing of the gun was primarily aluminum and was by no means bullet proof. The track and carriage units were sufficient to travel on dirt roads or fairly level packed dirt.
From what I've read, am I to understand that the new 155 guns shoot bullets that have cameras in them and means of guidance to a specific target? this feature would mean that on gun with a guided bullet could be as effective in some situations as the old battery 6. Additionally, the tracks are now better for cross country travel and the housing is more resistant to enemy fire, One thing I think would be easily corrected from the 1960 models is the electronics on laying the guns- that is placing the guns so that the points of quadrant and elevation on the gun match those in the fire direction center,
So is this stuff so?

Yeah, Ray B, as an old gunner (105 mm pack in 1968-1969) I am as astonished as you are when reading of the new prodigies. The shell can guide itself to hit a spot lit by a laser marker. There are loitering shells (descending from the old RAP) than can wait in the area for a short time before descending to laser mark.
GPS military navigators have an error margin smaller than a one meter, while in our time a 25 m error was the minimum possible.

Artillery has gone through an incredible evolution since the second half of the 20th century. The M109 Paladin is a great example of how these weapons have evolved.

At first glance it looks very similar to the gun that you and I saw either in Vietnam or the beginning of my career.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the chassis is an ancient design and has a hard time maintaining pace with the Bradley and Abrams. We tried to replace it around 2000 with the Crusader, but Rumsfeld killed the program because air power would handle all that fire support for the army. That hasn't worked out so well, so the Army keeps evolving the M109.

As I am sure you remember, firing artillery was a survey exercise. Survey had to be extended to the firing location so that the aiming circle - a survey instrument - was set up on a known point. Each gun was then surveyed in individually by the battery XO using the aiming circle and the gunner's sight on the gun. The crew then put out aiming stakes which became the aiming point for each gun. When the XO finished laying the battery, all the guns tubes were pointed in the same direction. Firing commands to engage a target were in elevation and deflection - number of mills (fractions of degrees) deflected from the aiming stake.

An equally arcane science took place in the fire direction center where the fire direction team used a large protractor to measure range and direction to target, the map provided height of target, and slide rules for various shells and powder charges provided elevation. Of course, lots of other things like weather (met), earth rotation, and tube wear went into the final firing solution. Even with all that, the rounds usually were adjusted onto the target before the whole battery fired for effect.

Today, the Paladin system is far more accurate and far faster. The howitzer itself, is equipped with a GPS navigation system. This means the gun does not require anyone to survey it into position. It also means that that the gun "knows" where its gun tube is pointed at every moment. It also has an onboard firing solution computer. So unlike the kabuki dance in the fire direction center of old, the Paladin simply needs a target grid.

As you can imagine, this makes artillery far more responsive than the Vietnam or even Gul War eras. It also means that the guns can be dispersed and far less easily targeted by counter fire. Instead of the old call for fire "Hey you this is me, Fire Mission!", the observer, whether FO, UAV (drone), radar, etc sends a digital target location to the Fire Direction Center. This is a burst transmission - no words are spoken. In the FDC the target, based on the priority of fires determined by the commander, is allocated to a section, battery or battalion for attack. The target grid is then passed digitally to the computer on the designated guns which instantly process the fire mission and point the tube in the correct direction. The crew loads the round, adds the appropriate charge, and fires the designated number of rounds.

The howitzer can then immediately scoot to a different firing position in a situation where a peer enemy might have counterfire radars.

The firing computer on the howitzer is constantly provided through those same digital communications with updated met data while monitoring its own gun tube wear. Unlike the observed corrected fire you knew, virtually all missions are fire for effect with first rounds on the target area, and all of that with the "dumb" munitions you knew.

Ammunition also has gone through a real revolution that is still evolving. Back in the Vietnam or Gulf War era, it would take pure luck or a large number of rounds to kill a tank with a howitzer. Those were called destruction missions, and though effective on bunkers, it was a rare tank that would sit around and wait for us to take six rounds to incrementally walk one onto it.

The initial solution was dual purpose improved conventional munitions (DPICM). These put a cluster of bomblets inside the shell which distributed them over the target increasing the chances of a direct hit on an armored vehicle. From a MLRS rocket, each carrying 640 bomblets, they were devastating. But so few could be packed into a 155 round that they were of limited effectiveness from a howitzer.

The next step in evolution was a shell that used laser guidance. These were quite accurate for killing armored vehicles or bunkers, but of course one needs a human with eyes on the target to keep the laser focused on the impact spot to "fly" the round onto it. Also clouds, fog, and dust (particularly in the Middle East) limited the actual battlefield effectiveness of these rounds. The Air Force had the same issues during Desert Storm trying to fly laser guided bombs onto targets.

The real breakthrough came with the miniaturization of GPS so that it could be contained in the fuse of an artillery shell. The most accurate of the new munitions is the Excalibur round which entered service with the US Army in 2007 and was used extensively in Afghanistan and Iraq where the target was typically a specific building or terrain feature. They are being used now by Ukraine to kill Russian armor with one-shot kills.

It generally looks like a normal round, except upon firing, guidance fins deploy. The fins also give it some lift, so that it has a 40 KM (24 mile range). It will hit inside an unclassified 2-5 meter radius of the target grid it was given at that max range. Because it is getting one shot kills on tanks and BMPs you can get a sense of its actual accuracy. The same firing process is used as a regular round, except the digital target location is further passed from the gun's computer to the tiny brain in the shell itself. The gun fires as usual at the target and the on board GPS guidance system flies the shell to the exact designated point. It also tells the shell whether to detonate as a PD (ground), delay, or proximity (3-5 meter high) burst. Obviously target location has to be as accurate as the shell.

I should add, even the towed M777 howitzers like those we have provided Ukraine are equipped with gun computer systems which enable both the use of Excalibur rounds and high accuracy employment of traditional rounds. The Russians, on the other hand, are still almost completely using pre-planned mass fires of Soviet era munitions.

Because of this remarkable evolution in guns and munitions, artillery can carry out its traditional role as well as become the most lethal armor killer on the Ukrainian battlefield. It is why Ukraine has been able to achieve artillery superiority in much of the battle space in spite of only initially having a tenth of Russia's artillery inventory.

 

[bowjijohn]

Artillery has gone through an incredible evolution since the second half of the 20th century. The M109 Paladin is a great example of how these weapons have evolved.

View attachment 501550

At first glance it looks very similar to the gun that you and I saw either in Vietnam or the beginning of my career.

View attachment 501554

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the chassis is an ancient design and has a hard time maintaining pace with the Bradley and Abrams. We tried to replace it around 2000 with the Crusader, but Rumsfeld killed the program because air power would handle all that fire support for the army. That hasn't worked out so well, so the Army keeps evolving the M109.

As I am sure you remember, firing artillery was a survey exercise. Survey had to be extended to the firing location so that the aiming circle - a survey instrument - was set up on a known point. Each gun was then surveyed in individually by the battery XO using the aiming circle and the gunner's sight on the gun. The crew then put out aiming stakes which became the aiming point for each gun. When the XO finished laying the battery, all the guns tubes were pointed in the same direction. Firing commands to engage a target were in elevation and deflection - number of mills (fractions of degrees) deflected from the aiming stake.

An equally arcane science took place in the fire direction center where the fire direction team used a large protractor to measure range and direction to target, the map provided height of target, and slide rules for various shells and powder charges provided elevation. Of course, lots of other things like weather (met), earth rotation, and tube wear went into the final firing solution. Even with all that, the rounds usually were adjusted onto the target before the whole battery fired for effect.

Today, the Paladin system is far more accurate and far faster. The howitzer itself, is equipped with a GPS navigation system. This means the gun does not require anyone to survey it into position. It also means that that the gun "knows" where its gun tube is pointed at every moment. It also has an onboard firing solution computer. So unlike the kabuki dance in the fire direction center of old, the Paladin simply needs a target grid.

As you can imagine, this makes artillery far more responsive than the Vietnam or even Gul War eras. It also means that the guns can be dispersed and far less easily targeted by counter fire. Instead of the old call for fire "Hey you this is me, Fire Mission!", the observer, whether FO, UAV (drone), radar, etc sends a digital target location to the Fire Direction Center. This is a burst transmission - no words are spoken. In the FDC the target, based on the priority of fires determined by the commander, is allocated to a section, battery or battalion for attack. The target grid is then passed digitally to the computer on the designated guns which instantly process the fire mission and point the tube in the correct direction. The crew loads the round, adds the appropriate charge, and fires the designated number of rounds.

The howitzer can then immediately scoot to a different firing position in a situation where a peer enemy might have counterfire radars.

The firing computer on the howitzer is constantly provided through those same digital communications with updated met data while monitoring its own gun tube wear. Unlike the observed corrected fire you knew, virtually all missions are fire for effect with first rounds on the target area, and all of that with the "dumb" munitions you knew.

Ammunition also has gone through a real revolution that is still evolving. Back in the Vietnam or Gulf War era, it would take pure luck or a large number of rounds to kill a tank with a howitzer. Those were called destruction missions, and though effective on bunkers, it was a rare tank that would sit around and wait for us to take six rounds to incrementally walk one onto it.

The initial solution was dual purpose improved conventional munitions (DPICM). These put a cluster of bomblets inside the shell which distributed them over the target increasing the chances of a direct hit on an armored vehicle. From a MLRS rocket, each carrying 640 bomblets, they were devastating. But so few could be packed into a 155 round that they were of limited effectiveness from a howitzer.

The next step in evolution was a shell that used laser guidance. These were quite accurate for killing armored vehicles or bunkers, but of course one needs a human with eyes on the target to keep the laser focused on the impact spot to "fly" the round onto it. Also clouds, fog, and dust (particularly in the Middle East) limited the actual battlefield effectiveness of these rounds. The Air Force had the same issues during Desert Storm trying to fly laser guided bombs onto targets.

The real breakthrough came with the miniaturization of GPS so that it could be contained in the fuse of an artillery shell. The most accurate of the new munitions is the Excalibur round which entered service with the US Army in 2007 and was used extensively in Afghanistan and Iraq where the target was typically a specific building or terrain feature. They are being used now by Ukraine to kill Russian armor with one-shot kills.

It generally looks like a normal round, except upon firing, guidance fins deploy. The fins also give it some lift, so that it has a 40 KM (24 mile range). It will hit inside an unclassified 2-5 meter radius of the target grid it was given at that max range. Because it is getting one shot kills on tanks and BMPs you can get a sense of its actual accuracy. The same firing process is used as a regular round, except the digital target location is further passed from the gun's computer to the tiny brain in the shell itself. The gun fires as usual at the target and the on board GPS guidance system flies the shell to the exact designated point. It also tells the shell whether to detonate as a PD (ground), delay, or proximity (3-5 meter high) burst. Obviously target location has to be as accurate as the shell.

I should add, even the towed M777 howitzers like those we have provided Ukraine are equipped with gun computer systems which enable both the use of Excalibur rounds and high accuracy employment of traditional rounds. The Russians, on the other hand, are still almost completely using pre-planned mass fires of Soviet era munitions.

Because of this remarkable evolution in guns and munitions, artillery can carry out its traditional role as well as become the most lethal armor killer on the Ukrainian battlefield. It is why Ukraine has been able to achieve artillery superiority in much of the battle space in spite of only initially having a tenth of Russia's artillery inventory.

What a truly fascinating summary

something I knew absolutely nothing about

thanks

j

 

[Red Leg]

Another one of these very short vignettes which speak volumes. The target is a Russian patrol moving in the open along a tree line. They halt and all bunch together in the same spot. They are targeted by one or two Ukrainian mortars. The first round is long, the second is short. The third and fourth rounds are directly on target. It is a perfect example of the lack of training of the Russians being thrown into combat and the growing professionalism of Ukraine.

Trained infantry, would be moving through the trees (much more tiring) with significant dispersion between the members of the patrol. Halting in the open and then gathering in a group while in mortar range of an enemy is something trained infantry would never do.

As the first round impacts they hit the ground and huddle together. The third and fourth rounds almost certainly killed or wounded the whole group.

From the Ukrainian perspective, their mortar team and observer work are superb. They were obviously tracking the Russians, and as soon as they halted and gave them a non-moving target, the initial round was on the way. Instant changes to the firing data based on first and second round impact are the actions of a well trained crew.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/z1u8wn

 

[Brent in Az]

 

[spike.t]

 

[RTG]

Mental illness on display. Don’t give they/thems guns, especially they/thems that would have been in jail in any sane nation. Ohh but wait, it’s Trumps fault.

Report: Colorado Gay Nightclub Shooting Suspect Identifies as Non-Binary

The suspect who allegedly killed five people at a Colorado gay nightclub reportedly identifies as non-binary and uses “they/them” pronouns.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Hogpatrol]

Mental illness on display. Don’t give they/thems guns, especially they/thems that would have been in jail in any sane nation. Ohh but wait, it’s Trumps fault.

Report: Colorado Gay Nightclub Shooting Suspect Identifies as Non-Binary

The suspect who allegedly killed five people at a Colorado gay nightclub reportedly identifies as non-binary and uses “they/them” pronouns.

www.breitbart.com

Non-binary, an imagination gone wild. Whoever made up that term could qualify for government mental health benefits.

 

[BSO Dave]

Certainly Trump and his dedicated followers believe that. It is the same argument that has been made about the Afghanistan debacle. We'll never know, though Trump's Afghan plan had us withdrawing even more precipitously than Biden. That is a fact by the way. How he may have managed the actual process we'll never know. With his public issues with Zelensky, I am not sure Russia would have seen him as any more of a deterrent than Biden. But, we will never know that either.

No, actually, lots of folks beyond Trump's base believe this according to several different polls. But as you say, the fact is that we will never know. What we do know is that it's an incredible coincidence that Russia planned it's invasion after Trump left office and after Brandon's Afghan debacle.. I would think out of all people, a former military leader like yourself would acknowledge the affect of the demonstration of weakness and fecklessness will have on an adversary. Trump was many things, but the portrayer of weakness, fecklessness, or indecisiveness in the eyes of our adversaries was not one of them.

Your comment about Zelensky is curious. I would guess to the majority of the Western world he is one of the most credible leaders on the planet. He had the opportunity to flee Ukraine at the start of the Russian invasion, and chose to stay and lead his people in the defense of their independence. I have enormous respect for what he has accomplished in marshalling his own people and broad international support.

I don't question Zenlensky's bravery or patriotism for his own country. However, bravery and reckless behavior or not mutually exclusive. In martialing support of his own cause, he has brought the rest of the free world dangerously close to WW3. His hyperbolic rhetoric is growing bolder each day with a call for escalation over this missile debacle being the latest example, and you call that credible, responsible leadership? Sorry, I simply do not agree with this perspective, and I'm kinda surprised you see it this way?

If Zelinsky has called for nuclear strikes on Russia please provide your source. I do not believe this to be true, but if it is I would like to see it.

@WAB,
If you think I post bullshit, you must not have ever read much of my content here.. I'm the last guy that needs to be fact-checked.. Zelensky has made many crazy, inflammatory statements since the beginning. Obviously he does this to garner as much support as possible, but he has done so with false and dangerously hyperbolic statements and claims that scream for escalation. Then, just like Brandon's handlers, his public relations people attempt to walk-back his rhetoric as if he didn't actually mean what he just said as plain as day..

You can easily find several of his reckless, inflammatory sound bites all over the internet which I am not going to post. Feel free to do your own research as I do.. This clip is just one one of many.

This is his latest rhetoric on the missile strike.. This is not the kind of commentary to admire and respect.. This is irresponsible and reckless..

 

[WAB]

Not calling BS, just wanted the source as I did not know this to be true. I’m probably a little biased on Ukraine having spent a lot of time there through the process of adopting our daughter, and sponsoring another Ukrainian through a US education.

As an interesting aside, our adopted daughter is from Poltava, is Rus, and is no fan of Zelensky.

 

[bowjijohn]

View attachment 501668

Though that pic looks like a still from a bad trailer for a porno film

it is in fact of 3 lads from RLI

they knew a thing or two about bush warfare

 

[spike.t]

Though that pic looks like a still from a bad trailer for a porno film

it is in fact of 3 lads from RLI

they knew a thing or two about bush warfare

Yup