Origins Modern Friction

Origins Modern Friction
There is no doubt we live in a fast-paced society that does not show any signs of slowing down any time soon. To relieve some of the stress associated with always being on the go, many people have turned to online to find ways of pampering themselve and looking good. Here at A Woman"s Place Too.com we offer a variety of skin care services, which are listed above. Use this list to help you determine what products you may be interested in. We bring you the latest break throughs in skin care technology at an affordable price. We are committed to helping you improve and maintain skin wellness. Our focus is on anti-aging treatments and looking younger and more beautiful without surgery. Specialty products include laser hair removal, microderm abrasion, Acne Blemish Control, Aromatherapy, Cellulite Treatments, Massage items, Anti-Aging Products, and finally Scar & Stretch mark Reduction. We hope you enjoy our treatments and enjoy shopping!

Intelligence Collection Management

Collection Disciplines

Main article: List of intelligence gathering disciplines

See individual articles on major collection disciplines, some of which are more postprocessing of raw data than collection, are:

Human Intelligence (HUMINT)

Imagery Intelligence (IMINT)

Signal Intelligence (SIGINT)

Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT)

Technical Intelligence (TECHINT)

Open Source Intelligence (OSINT)

In order to break down the collection stovepipes it is necessary to increase responsibility at the highest level. If the various types of collection are not managed more coherently across the board, current problems will compound and efforts to achieve collection synergy and to improve all-source analysis will erode further.

Unique, and often highly sensitive, technologies need to be developed to keep a first-rate intelligence capability in a major power. Even small nations may have unique strengths.

At the same time, the stovepipe mentality of the IC has also led to a situation in which there is duplication and increased costs that could easily be avoided. Commonality in items now as basic as data processing remains the exception rather than the rule.

Collection Guidance

Possibly at the direction level and possibly in the collection organization, depending on the particular intelligence service, the process of collection guidance assigns the collection requirement to one or more source managers. They might order reconnaissance missions. They might provide extra budget for agent recruitment. They might do both, recognizing that they are taking away reconnaissance missions from another target.

Research in Collection Guidance

This is often an art, and sometimes an auction for resources. There is joint UK-US research on applying more formal methods. One effort is using semantic matchmaking based on ontology, a field of study originally in pure philosophy, but now finding a number of applications in intelligent searching. Specifically the researchers map missions to capabilities of available resources . They define ontology as "a set of logical axioms designed to account for the intended meaning of a vocabulary."

The requester is asked the question "What are the requirements of a mission?" These include the type of data to be collected (as distinct from the collection method), the priority of the request, and the need for clandestinity in collection.

Collection system managers, are asked, in parallel, to specify the capabilities of their assets. Preece's ontology is focused on ISTAR technical sensors, but also considers HUMINT, OSINT, and other possible methodologies.

The intelligent model then compares "the specification of a mission against the specification of available assets to assess the utility or fitness for purpose of available assets; based on these assessments, obtain a set of recommended assets for the mission: either decide whether there is a solution single asset or combination of assets that satisfies the requirements of the mission, or alternatively provide a ranking of solutions according to their relative degree of utility."

Starting with their example of matching a request for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to a mission, they define "the UAV concept encompasses kinds of UAV, which may range in cost from a few thousand dollars to tens of millions of dollars, and ranging in capability from Micro Air Vehicles (MAV) weighing less than one pound to aircraft weighing over 40,000 pounds...

Small UAV (SUAV), designed to perform ver-the-hill and round-the-corner reconnaissance

Tactical UAV (TUAV), which focuses on the close battle, providing targeting, situation development and battle damage assessment in direct response to the brigade/Task Force commande

Endurance UAV, aimed at the deep battle, supporting the division to 150 Km and the Corps battle to 300 Km. This class has two subclasses of the Endurance UAV:

Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAV, designed to operate at altitudes between 5000 and 25000 feet

High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAV, which are designed to function as Low Earth Orbit satellites.

From a logical standpoint, the subclasses of UAV are disjoint. A UAV cannot belong to more than one subclass. There exists a resource list and schedule of available platforms, which shows the following UAVs available:

A Pioneer, which is a TUAV

A Predator, which is a MALE-UAV

A Global Hawk, which is a HALE-UAV.

Now suppose that as part of a given mission a Persistent Surveillance task over a wide area is required to detect any suspicious movement. This kind of tasks is best served by an Endurance-UAV, since it is able to fly for long periods of time. From just the concept definitions we know that:

the Pioneer is not an endurance UAV (because of the disjoint relationship among Endurance-UAV and TUAV)

both the Predator and the Global Hawk are Endurance-UAVs (because of the subclass relationships).

Both the Predator and Global Hawk meet the basic requirements. An additional rule checks the weather forecast, and determines that storms are likely during the planned mission time. That links to another rule, which states that in the event of bad weather, assuming the platform has a weather-penetrating sensor, a platform should be selected that can fly "above" the weather. In other words, a platform with high-altitude capability is needed. The Global Hawk is the only available platform that meets all these requirements.

To go to a finer-grained level of matching, the project used information containment relationships, with examples from the ISTAR domain. Even beyond that technique is ordinal ranking of matching.

"Q denotes a query which specifies some intelligence requirements to be met, and S1 S5 denote the specification of ISR assets (sensors and sensor platforms) to be matched against Q.

"our query specifies two basic requirements to be met:

Provide Infrared (IR) Imagery

Carry out a Night Reconnaissance task"

Their article describes the rank ordering, with an exact match of Sn to Q, a perfect match of the requirement to the collection platform, down to the other entirely. A less desirable alternative meets the flight profile requirements, but it carries synthetic aperture radar rather than IR, and a platform that only has visual-spectrum television and no night capability is completely unsuited.

It is to be noted that the requirements are what are critical, not the particular platform. For the specific requirements, they also might be met with a manned long-endurance aircraft (e.g., P-3 Orion or Nimrod R), or relays of aircraft, or with satellites with appropriate orbits and sensors. These were not included in the ontology used for demonstration.

NATO Collection Guidance

In NATO, the questions that drive the entire collection management process are Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIR). PIRs are a component of Collection Coordination and Intelligence Requirements Management (CCIRM), focused on the collection process. They tie the intelligence effort to the operational scheme of maneuver through Decision Points (DPs). These questions, further refined into Information Requirements (IRs), enable the Collection Manager (CM) to focus assets on a defined problem. Without this synchronization with the operational plan, it would be impossible to ensure the intelligence focus is meeting the Commander's requirements and priorities .

Collection Discipline Selection

Once a PIR, defining the raw information to be collected, exists, then both discipline specialists and resource schedulers need to select the appropriate collection system and plan the collection mission. capabilities and limitations of our collection platforms. Even with modern technology, weather, terrain, technical capabilities and enemy counter-measures all play a part in determining the potential for successful collection. Through a detailed understanding of all available platforms, all tied to specific questions related to the PIR, the collection manager (CM) synchronizes available assets, Theatre and Corps collection, individual national capabilities, and coalition resources such as the Torrejon Space Center to maximize capabilities.

Finding Alternative Collection Disciplines

Often, despite the desirability of a discipline, the information required may not be collectable due to some mitigating circumstance. The most desirable platform may not be available. For example, weather and enemy air-defense might limit the practicality of using UAVs and fixed wing IMINT platforms. If air defense is the limitation, planners might request support from a national-level IMINT satellite. Even if a satellite will do the job, the orbits of available satellites may not be suitable for the requirement.

If weather is the issue, they might need to substitute MASINT sensors that can penetrate the weather and get at least some of the information. SIGINT might be desired, but terrain masking and technical capabilities of the available platforms might call for using a space-based or long-range sensor, or exploring if HUMINT assets might be able to provide the information. The collection manager must take these effects into consideration and advise the Commander on the degree of situational awareness available for planning and execution.

Other sources may take considerable time to collect the necessary information. MASINT depends on having built a library of signatures of normal sensor readings, such that deviations stand out. Cryptanalytic COMINT can take an unknown amount of time, with no guarantees, to gain significant entry into a cryptosystem.

Collection Support Resource Management

Having a collection platform of the right type available does not mean it will be useful, if the facilities needed to receive and reduce the information is not available. Two factors directly affect this process, the physical capability of the intelligence systems and the training and capability of the intelligence section.

Collection platforms able to collect tens of thousands of pieces of information per hour need to have receivers that can accept that volume. Today's impressive collection capability, even with greater self-generating reports, stands to quickly overwhelm inexperienced or understaffed analysts. While the CM is primarily concerned with the collection phase, the CM also needs to be aware if the analysis function for the requested system has the resources to reduce and analyze the sensor data in a useful time period.

IMINT and SIGINT ground stations may be able to accept sensor data, but are the networks and information processing systems adequate to get the data to the analysts and commanders? The biggest violator of this issue is imagery intelligence derived from UAVs and fixed wing IMINT platforms. In recent years Commanders and staffs have become accustomed to receiving quality imagery products and UAV feeds for planning and execution of their missions. On exercise this is often facilitated by high-speed fixed networks however in a mobile and fluid battle it would be nearly impossible to develop a network capable of carrying the same amount of information.

The CM must decide if an analytic report rather than the imagery itself will answer the question, and when a hard copy image or video is required, the CM must inform staff members of the cost to the IT network and HQ bandwidth.

Ultimately, Collection Management is the cornerstone upon which intelligence support to ARRC operations is built. Since the start point for the collection process is the Commander's PIRs, they serve as a critical component of the staff planning process, validating that they directly support the Commander's decision-making.

CIA Collection Guidance

Intelligence requirements are a formalism introduced after WWII. After an initial phase where the field personnel decided priorities, an interim period began in which requirements were considered "as desirable but were not thought to present any special problem. Perhaps the man in the field did, after all, need some guidance; if so, the expert in Washington had only to jot down a list of questions and all would be well."

In a third phase, by the early 1950s, a consensus was established that a formal requirements structure was needed. Once that machinery was set up, however, the challenge was developing "specialized methodologies" for requirements management. Those methodologies were first felt needed against the Sino-Soviet Bloc, and the radical changes in the threat environment may make some of those methodologies inappropriate.

Requirements can be cast in terms of the analysis technique to be used, or of a proposed collection method, or on subject matter, or on source type, or on priority. Heffter's article says that not every problem is a special case, but may be a problem that is "central to the very nature of the requirements process. One cannot help feeling that too little of the best thinking of the community has gone into these central problems-into the development, in a word, of an adequate theory of requirements.

"But there is often a conspicuous hiatus" between concepts of requirements, produced at a high managerial level, "and the requirements produced on the working level. Dealing with general matters has itself become a specialty. We lack a vigorous exchange of views between generalists and specialists, requirements officers and administrators, members of all agencies, analysts in all intelligence fields, practitioners of all collection methods, which might lead at least to a clarification of ideas and at best to a solution of some common problems."

The problem of priorities

The challenge is to present needs based on priorities, and then determine the best way to meet those prioritized needs based on effective use of the collection means available. Heffter's paper is centered on the management of priorities for the use of collection assets, and the three factors that need to be brought into balance are:

administration and system (i.e., the top-level directive);

intellectual discipline, involving analytical method and an appropriate [method of specifying needs in a formal way];

training and responsibilities of the individual intelligence officer.

"...Each of the three kinds answers a deep-felt need, has a life of its own, and plays a role of its own in the total complex of intelligence guidance." Since Heffter focused on problem of priorities, it must concern itself chiefly with the policy directives, which set overall priorities. Within that policy, :requests are also very much in the picture since priorities must govern their fulfillment."

Kinds of Requirement

In the most general formulation, collection requirement as simply "a statement of information to be collected." There are several tendencies that really do not help add precision:

Analysts publish list of all their needs in the hope that somebody will satisfy them.

Theorists and administrators want a closely knit system whereby all requirements can be fed into a single machine, integrated, ranged by priorities, and allocated as directives to all parts of the collection apparatus.

Collectors demand specific, well-defined requests for information, keyed to their special capabilities.

These differing needs can cause friction or can complement one another. These tendencies are capable of complementing each other usefully if brought into reasonable balance, but their coexistence has more often been marked with friction.

What characterizes a requirement?

Need

Compulsion or command; stated under authority

Request, without the connotation of command, but a specific intelligence meaning

Request is the same as "require." Both come from the same root, along with "inquire," "question," and "query." In intelligence this meaning has again come into its own. Under this interpretation, one equal (the "customer") makes a request or puts a question to another (the collector), who fulfills or answers it as best he can.

There is a sort of honor system on both sides-with a dash of mutual suspicion.

The requester vouches for the validity of the requirement

The collector is free to reject it.

If he accepts it, the collector gives an implied assurance that he will do his best on it,

this the requester is free to doubt.

In any event the relationship is a mutual one, and in its pure form is free from compulsion. The use of direct requests appeals particularly to the collector, who finds that it provides him with more viable, collectible requirements than any other method. It sometimes appeals also to the requester-analyst, who if he finds a receptive collector is able by this means to get more requirements accepted than would be possible otherwise. Again, it is sometimes disillusioning to both, if the collector comes to feel overburdened or the analyst to feel neglected.

These three connotations of need, compulsion, and request are embodied in three kinds of collection requirement, to which we shall arbitrarily give names: the inventory of needs, addressed to the community at large and to nobody in particular; the directive, addressed by a higher to a lower echelon; and the request, addressed by a customer to a collector.

The Requirement as Inventory of Needs

Current intelligence watch centers, as well as interdisciplinary groups such as the Counterterrorism Center, can create and update requirements lists. Commercial Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software or the more powerful Enterprise Relationship Management (ERM) might be adapted, quite flexibly, to managing the workflow, with separation from the most sensitive content. No collector is directed ("required") to collect against these lists; the lists are not addressed to any single collector. CRM, ERM, and social networking software routinely help build ad hoc alliances for specific projects. Also see NATO Collection Guidance.

Simple business relationship as with CRM and ERM. Compare to semantic web and mind maps with related but different functions.

Some responsible individuals in clandestine collection (branch chiefs and station chiefs) have refused to handle the PRL's on the grounds that they are "not really requirements," i.e., they are not requests to the clandestine collector for information which only he can provide.

In most cases, however, the PRL's are selectively utilized for guidance despite their character as inventories. There are several reasons for this. Revised three times a year, they are the most up-to-date of requirements.

Their main subject, current affairs of chiefly political significance, is one which engages the interest: the inventory of needs can have great value as an instrument of analysis within the intelligence production office that originates it. The one thing it can not do is to contribute significantly to the resolution of the priorities problem.

The Requirement as Directive

At various times in intelligence history, directives for collection missions flow from the top-level interagency policy boards. They are almost always short and clearly prioritized. Directives, a word implying the exercise of authority, often come from lower managerial levels.

Directives are most practicable in the following circumstances:

(a) where a command relationship exists;

(b) where there is only one customer, or where one customer is incomparably more important than the others;

(c) where a single method of collection is involved, and where this method has very precise, limited, and knowable capabilities.

Technical collection methods are the most unambiguous, and priorities have real meaning because they deal with real resources that can be scheduled. HUMINT, however, is flexible but involves a much wider range of methods. In short, it combines a maximum need for direction with a minimum of the characteristics that make direction practicable.

Agencies with requirements for HUMINT also prepare lists of priorities, whose benefits include: they have established goals, provided a basis for planning, and summarize some of the most critical information needs of consumers. When most useful, these lists also are clearly prioritized.

The Requirement as Request

Most requirements fall in this category, including a large majority of those bearing requirement tracking identifiers in the community-wide numbering system administered by a central group. A request may range from a twenty-word question to fifty-page questionnaire. It may ask for a single fact or thousand related facts. Its essence is not in its form or content but in the relationship between requester and collector.

An important variant on the request is the solicited requirement. Here the request is itself requested, by the collector. The collector, possessing a capability, informs the appropriate customer of the capability and asks for specific requirements "tailored" to it. The consumer and collector then negotiate a requirement and priority. In clandestine collection, the solicited requirement is regularly used for legal travelers, for defectors and returnees, and for other sources whose capability or knowledgeability can be exploited only through detailed guidance or questioning.

The solicited requirement blends into the jointly developed requirement. Here collector and consumer work out the requirement jointly, usually on a subject of broad scope and usually on the initiative of the collector.

System and Administration

A department or agency which engages in collection primarily to satisfy its own requirements generally maintains an independent requirements system for internal use, with its own terminology, categories, and priorities, and with a single requirements office to direct its collection elements on behalf of its consumer elements. The same requirements office that performs these internal functions (or perhaps a separate branch of it) represents both the collector and the consumer elements in dealing with other agencies. See NATO Collection Guidance.

Where, as in CIA, the consumer components are dependent on many collectors and the collection components are in the service of consumers throughout the community, no such one-to-one system is possible. Each major component (collector or consumer) has its own requirements office.

Requirements offices are middlemen, and must have some understanding of the problems not only of those whom they represent but of those whom they deal with on the outside:

consumer requirements officers must find the best collection bargain he can for his analyst client;

collector requirements officers must find the best possible use for the resources he represents, while protecting them from unreasonable demands.

Informality sometimes greases the wheels. Matters of substance are regularly discussed by one requirements officer with another. Requirements offices may not see negotiated requirements until the consumer and producer agree.

Where the collection situation is such that effort on a low-priority target does not actually detract from the effort that can be made on a high-priority target, little harm can be done. Or where analyst and collector are both highly knowledgeable and responsible, the results can be excellent. But priorities are slippery.

If the collector should show no interest in a requirement marked "urgent," the requester may try proof, persuasion, or pressure. He may indeed, in anticipation of resistance, have originally indicated a relationship between his requirement and one of the Priority National Intelligence Objectives. He is almost certainly right that a relationship exists, but there may be question of its cogency. It is possible to tie a very small requirement to a very big objective. Early warning is important, but not everything described as early warning is equally important. The collector may still be unimpressed.

A committee concerned with requirements might intervene. Historically, these committees included

Economic Intelligence Committee

Scientific Intelligence Committee

Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee

Guided Missile and Astronautics Intelligence Committee.

There might be equivalent requests today from the Counterterrorist or Counterproliferation Centers. The requirements situation has many other significant systems and phenomena:

the special, closed requirements systems governing technical methods of collection

Watch Committee with its General Indicator List

Critical Collection Problems Committee

Discipline: Method and Language

To illustrate problems in method, we may draw once more on the experience of the top-level body. The system consists of three priorities, based on the degree to which a nation could be benefited by the achievement of an objective or harmed by the failure to achieve it.

One, which top-level committees have tried to resolve, is that two priorities simply do not provide enough span. By various devices-arranging certain related targets in an internal order of importance; describing certain targets as substitutes for others; treating targets as subordinate to "basic requirements" which are sometimes expanded into several paragraphs.

A second difficulty is that a requirement related to a given priority level is really not necessarily more important in itself than another requirement. In some cases, the reasonable choice is to concentrate on a lower-priority yet informative requirement, which is easier to satisfy than one of arbitrarily higher priority.

Still a third difficulty is that a requirement meriting a given priority in the context of total U.S. security interests does not necessarily merit the same priority in the context of a particular collection method. The economic stability of a certain friendly country may be of great importance, yet may not require clandestine collection at all, but lend itself to OSINT, possibly outsourced OSINT.

Words as objective, requirement, target, and request can be relied on to mean at least approximately the same thing to everybody. This happy state can not be attained by promulgating official glossaries, but only through continued, careful discussion of common problems by persons from all parts of the community.

The final aspect of the language question, and perhaps the most important, is the skill with which requirements themselves are expressed. What are needed here are not different words, but surer ways of communicating the essence of a matter from one mind (or set of minds) to another. There is no formula for this but a trained alertness to the perils of misunderstanding. Training is essential.

Source Sensitivity

Intelligence is taken from such extremely sensitive sources that it cannot be used without exposing the methods or persons providing such intelligence. One of the strengths of the British penetration of the German Enigma cryptosystem was that no information learned from it was ever used for operations, unless there was a plausible cover story that the Germans believed was the reason for Allied victories. If, for example, the movement of a ship was learned through Enigma COMINT, a reconnaissance aircraft was sent into the same area, and allowed to be seen by the Axis, so they thought the resulting sinking was due to IMINT. Once an adversary knows that a cryptosystem has been broken, they most often change systems immediately, cutting off a source of information. Sometimes, and perhaps this is even worse, they leave the system in place to deliver disinformation apparently from a genuine source (Layton 1985). See Handling Compartmented Information

In the context of strategic arms limitation, a different sort of sensitivity applied. Early in the discussion, the public acknowledgement of satellite photography reflected a concern that the "Soviet Union could be particularly disturbed by public recognition of this capability [satellite photography]...which it has veiled." In the Soviet political context, revealing that "spies" could traverse the "Motherland" without being stopped by the Red Army, or the "Sword and Shield" of the organs of state security, was immensely threatening to the leadership.

Separating Source from Content

Early in the collection process, the specific identity of the source is removed from reports, to protect clandestine sources from being discovered. A basic model is to separate the raw material into three parts:

True source identity; very closely held

Pseudonyms, cryptonyms, or other identifier(s)

All the reports from the source

Since the consumer will need some idea of the source quality, it is not uncommon, in the intelligence community, to have several variants on the source identifier. For the highest level, the source might be described as "a person with access to the exact words of cabinet meetings." At the next lower level of sensitivity, a more general description could be "a source with good knowledge of the discussions in cabinet meetings." Going down a level, the description gets even broader, as "a generally reliable source familiar with thinking in high levels of the government."

Ratings by the Collection Department

In US practice , a typical system, using the basic A-F and 1-6 conventions below, comes from (FM 2.22-3 Appendix B, Source and Information Reliability Matrix). Raw reports are typically given a two-part rating by the collection department, which also removes all precise source identification before sending the report to the analysts.

Source Rating

Code

Source Rating

Explanation

A

Reliable

No doubt of authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency; has a history of complete reliability

B

Usually Reliable

Minor doubt about authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency; has a history of valid information most of the time

C

Fairly Reliable

Doubt of authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency but has provided valid information in the past

D

Not Usually Reliable

Significant doubt about authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency but has provided valid information in the past

E

Unreliable

Lacking in authenticity, trustworthiness, and competency; history of invalid information

F

Cannot Be Judged

No basis exists

Information Content Rating

Code

Rating

Explanation

1

Confirmed

Confirmed by other independent sources; logical in itself; consistent with other information on the subject

2

Probably True

Not confirmed; logical in itself; consistent with other information on the subject

3

Possibly True

Not confirmed; reasonably logical in itself; agrees with some other information on the subject

4

Doubtfully True

Not confirmed; possible but not logical; no other information on the subject

5

Improbable

Not confirmed; not logical in itself; contradicted by other information on the subject

6

Cannot Be Judged

No basis exists

An "A" rating, for example, might mean a thoroughly trusted source, such as your own communications intelligence operation. That source might be completely reliable, but, if it intercepted a message that other intelligence proved was sent for deceptive purposes, the report reliability might be rated 5, for "known false". The report, therefore, would be A-5. It may also be appropriate to reduce the reliability of a human source if the source is reporting on a technical subject, and the expertise of the subject is unknown.

Another source might be a habitual liar, but gives just enough accurate information to be kept in use. Her trust rating would be "E", but if the report was independently confirmed, it would be rated "E-1".

Most intelligence reports are somewhere in the middle; a "B-2" is taken seriously. Sometimes, it is impossible to rate the reliability of source, most commonly from lack of experience with him, so an F-3 could be a reasonably probable report from an unknown source. An extremely trusted source might submit a report that cannot be confirmed or denied, so it would get an "A-6" rating.

Evaluating Sources

In a report rating, the source part is a composite, reflecting experience with the source's historical reporting, the source's direct knowledge of what is being reported, and the source's understanding of the subject. In like manner, technical collection means can have uncertainty that applies to a specific report, such as noting partial cloud cover obscuring a photographic image.

When a source is completely untested, "then evaluation of the information must be done solely on its own merits, independent of its origin." A primary source passes direct knowledge of an event on to the analyst. A secondary source provides information twice removed from the original event; one observer informs another, who then relays the account to the analyst. The more numerous the steps between the information and the source, the greater the opportunity for error or distortion.

Another part of source rating is proximity. A human source that participated in a conversation has the best proximity, but lower proximity if the source recounts what a participant told him was said. Was the source a direct observer of the event, or, if a human source, is he or she reporting hearsay? Technical sensors may directly view an event, or only infer it. A geophysical infrasound sensor can record the pressure wave of an explosion, but it may not be able to tell if a given explosion was due to a natural event or an industrial explosion. It may be able to tell that the explosion was not nuclear, since nuclear explosions are more concentrated in time.

If, for example, a human source that has provided reliable political information sends in a report on technical details of a missile system, the source's reliability for political matters only generally supports the likelihood that the same source understands rocket engineering. If that political expert speaks of rocket details that make no more sense than a low-budget science fiction movie, it can be wise to discount the report. This component of the source rating is known as its appropriateness.

Evaluating the information

Separately from the source evaluation is the evaluation of the substance of the report. The first factor is plausibility, indicating that the information is certain, uncertain, or impossible. Deception always must be considered for otherwise plausible information.

Based on the analyst's knowledge of the subject, is the information something that reasonably follows from other things known about the situation? This is the attribute of expectability. If traffic analysis put the headquarters of a tank unit at a given location, and IMINT revealed a tank unit at that location was doing maintenance typical of preparation for an attack, a separate COMINT report indicating that a senior armor officer was flying to that location, an attack can be expected.

In the previous example, the COMINT report has the support of traffic analysis and IMINT.

Confirming Reports

When it is difficult to evaluate a report, confirmation may be a responsibility of the analysts, the collectors, or both. In a large and complex intelligence community, this can be a tense matter. In the US, NSA is seen as a collection organization, with its reports to be analyzed by CIA and DIA. In a cooperative or small system, things can be less formal.

One classic example came from WWII, when the US Navy's cryptanalysts intercepted a message in the JN-25 Japanese naval cryptosystem, clearly related to an impending invasion of "AF". Analysts in Honolulu and Washington differed, however, if AF referred to a location in the Central Pacific or in the Aleutians. Midway Island was the likely Central Pacific target, but the US commanders needed to know where to concentrate their forces. Jason Holmes, a member of the Honolulu station, knew that Midway had to make or import its fresh water, so arranged for a message to be sent, via a secure undersea cable, to the Midway garrison. They were to radio a message, in a cryptosystem known to have been broken by the Japanese, that their desalination plant was broken. Soon afterwards, a message in JN-25 said that "AF" was short of fresh water, confirming the target was Midway.

See also

Intelligence analysis

Intelligence analysis management

Intelligence cycle management

References

^ "An Ontology-Based Approach to Sensor-Mission Assignment" (PDF). 2007. http://www.usukita.org/files/1569048201.pdf. Retrieved 2007-10-31. 

^ MQ-1 Predator (or RQ-1 Predator) and RQ-9 Predator B (or MQ-9 Reaper).

^ Grebe, Carl. "ARRC [Allied Rapid Response Corps Intelligence Collection Management Process"]. http://www.arrc.nato.int/journal/april03/inteligence.htm. Retrieved 2007-10-28. 

^ a b c Heffter, Clyde R., "A Fresh Look at Collection Requirements", Studies in Intelligence (Kent Center for the Study of Intelligence), https://cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v04i4a03p_0001.htm, retrieved 2007-10-29 

^ Laird, Melvin R. (June 8, 1972). "Memorandum for Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Subject: Revelation of the Fact of Satellite Reconnaissance in Connection with the Submission of Arms Limitation Agreements to Congress" (PDF). http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB231/doc02.pdf. Retrieved 2007-10-02. 

^ US Department of the Army (September 2006). "FM 2-22.3 (FM 34-52) Human Intelligence Collector Operations" (PDF). http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm2-22-3.pdf. Retrieved 2007-10-31. 

^ Layton, Edwin (1985). "And I Was There: Breaking the Secrets - Pearl Harbor and Midway". William Morrow & Co. ISBN 0688048838. 

v  d  e

Intelligence cycle management

Intelligence

collection

management

HUMINT/

Human Intelligence

Clandestine HUMINT (recruiting  operational techniques  Covert action  Direct action  Clandestine cell system)

Special reconnaissance (organizations)

Espionage (Agent handling  Black bag operation  Concealment device  Cryptography  Cut-out  Dead drop  Eavesdropping  False flag operations  Honeypot  Non-official cover  Interrogation  Numbers messaging  One-way voice link  Steganography  Surveillance)

SIGINT/

Signals Intelligence

SIGINT by Alliances, Nations and Industries  SIGINT Operational Platforms by Nation  SIGINT in Modern History  TEMPEST  Direction finding  Traffic analysis

MASINT/

Measurement and

Signature Intelligence

Electro-optical  Nuclear  Geophysical  Radar  Radiofrequency  Materials  Casualty estimation

Others

OSINT/Open Source Intelligence  IMINT/Imagery Intelligence  GEOINT/Geospatial Intelligence  FININT/Financial Intelligence  TECHINT/Technical intelligence

Intelligence

analysis

management

Intelligence analysis  Cognitive traps for intelligence analysis  Words of Estimative Probability  Analysis of Competing Hypotheses  Intelligence cycle (target-centric approach)

Intelligence

dissemination

management

Intelligence cycle security  Counter-intelligence  Counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism organizations  List of counterintelligence organizations  Counterintelligence failures

Categories: Intelligence gathering disciplines | Intelligence analysis | Military intelligence collection | Intelligence (information gathering)
About the Author

I am an expert from China Crafts Suppliers, usually analyzes all kind of industries situation, such as isuzu oem parts , oil hose reels.

FN FAL - Induction Coil - Water Valves

History
In 1947, the first FN FAL prototype was completed. It was designed to fire the intermediate 7.92x33mm Kurz cartridge developed and used by the forces of Nazi Germany during World War II (see StG44 assault rifle). After testing this prototype in 1948, the British Army urged FN to build additional prototypes, including one in bullpup configuration, chambered for their new .280 British caliber intermediate cartridge. After evaluating the single bullpup prototype, FN decided to return instead to their original, conventional design for future production.
In 1950, the United Kingdom presented the redesigned FN rifle and the British EM-2, both in .280 British calibre, to the United States for comparison testing against the favoured United States Army design of the time - Earle Harvey's T25. It was hoped that a common cartridge and rifle could be standardized for issue to the armies of all NATO member countries. After this testing was completed, U.S. Army officials suggested that FN should redesign their rifle to fire the U.S. prototype '.30 Light Rifle' cartridge. FN decided to hedge their bets with the U.S., given that the UK appeared to be favouring their own EM-2.
In 1951, FN even made a deal with the U.S. that they could produce the FAL royalty-free in the U.S. This decision appeared to be correct when the British Army decided to adopt the EM-2 and .280 British cartridge in the very same month. This decision was later rescinded after the Labour Party lost the General Election, was ousted from control of Parliament and Winston Churchill returned as Prime Minister. It is believed that there was a quid-pro-quo agreement between Churchill and U.S. President Harry Truman in 1952 that the British accept the .30 Light Rifle cartridge as NATO standard in return for U.S. acceptance of the FN FAL as NATO standard. The .30 Light Rifle cartridge was in fact later standardized as the 7.62 mm NATO; however, the U.S. insisted on continued rifle tests. The FAL chambered for the .30 Light Rifle went up against the redesigned T25 (now redesignated as the T47), and an M1 Garand variant, the T44. Eventually, the T44 won out, becoming the M14. However, in the meantime, most other NATO countries were evaluating and selecting the FAL.
FN created what is possibly the classic post-war battle rifle. Formally introduced by its designers Dieudonne Saive and Ernest Vervier in 1951, and produced two years later, it has been described as the "right arm of the Free World." The FAL battle rifle has its Warsaw Pact counterpart in the AK-47, each being fielded by dozens of countries and produced in many of them. A few, such as Israel and South Africa, manufactured and issued both designs at various times. Unlike the Russian AK-47 assault rifle, the FAL utilized a heavier full-power rifle cartridge. In the West, FAL's primary competitor was the German Heckler & Koch G3. Design details
The FAL operates by means of a gas-operated action very similar to that of the Russian SVT-40. The gas system is driven by a short-stroke, spring-loaded piston housed above the barrel, and the locking mechanism is what is known as a tilting breechblock. To lock, it drops down into a solid shoulder of metal in the heavy receiver much like the bolts of the Russian SKS carbine and French MAS-49 series of semi-automatic rifles. The gas system is fitted with a gas regulator behind the front sight base, allowing adjustment of the gas system in response to environmental conditions, and can be closed completely to allow for the firing of rifle grenades. The FAL's magazine capacity ranges from 5 to 30 rounds, with most magazines holding 20 rounds. In fixed stock versions of the FAL, the recoil spring is housed in the stock, while in folding-stock versions it is housed in the receiver cover, necessitating a slightly different receiver cover, recoil spring, and bolt carrier, and a modified lower receiver for the stock.
FAL rifles have also been manufactured in both light and heavy-barrel configurations, with the heavy barrel intended for automatic fire as a section or squad light support weapon. Most heavy barrel FALs are equipped with bipods, although some light barrel models were equipped with bipods, such as the Austrian StG58 and the German G1, and a bipod was later made available as an accessory.
Among other 7.62x51mm NATO battle rifles at the time, the FN FAL had relatively light recoil, due to the gas system being able to be tuned via regulator in fore-end of the rifle, which allowed for excess gas which would simply increase recoil to bleed off. In fully-automatic mode, however, the shooter receives considerable abuse from recoil, and the weapon climbs off-target quickly, making automatic fire only of marginal effectiveness. Many military forces using the FAL eventually eliminated full-automatic firearms training in the light-barrel FAL. Production and use
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2009)
The FAL was made by Fabrique Nationale de Herstal (FN) in Lige, Belgium and under license in a number of countries. A distinct sub-family was the Commonwealth inch-dimensioned versions that were manufactured in the United Kingdom and Australia (as the L1A1 Self Loading Rifle or SLR), and in Canada as the C1. The standard metric-dimensioned FAL was manufactured in South Africa (where it was known as the R1), Brazil, Israel, Austria and Argentina. Mexico assembled FN-made components into complete rifles at its national arsenal in Mexico City. The FAL was also exported to many other countries, such as Venezuela, where a small-arms industry produces some basically unchanged variants, as well as ammunition. By modern standards, one disadvantage of the FAL is the amount of work which goes into machining the complex receiver, bolt and bolt carrier. Additionally, the movement of the tilting bolt mechanism tends to return differently with each shot, affecting inherent accuracy of the weapon. The FAL's receiver is machined, whilst most other modern military rifles use quicker stamping or casting techniques. Modern FALs have many improvements over those produced by FN and others in the mid-20th-century (for comparison, see a photo of a modern Para-style FAL).
While no production numbers are known, it is estimated that FAL production (in all of its variants) has exceeded 1,000,000 units. Argentina
The Argentine Armed Forces officially adopted the FN FAL in 1955, but the first FN made examples did not arrive in Argentina until the autumn of 1958. Subsequently, in 1960, licensed production of FALs began and continued until the mid to late 1990s, when production ceased.
Argentine FALs were produced by the government-owned arsenal FM (Fabricaciones Militares) at the Fabrica Militar de Armas Portatiles "Domingo Matheu" (FMAP "DM") in Fray Luis Beltrn, located a few miles north of Rosario. The acronym "FAL" was kept, its translation being "Fusil Automatico Liviano", (Light Automatic Rifle). Production weapons included "Standard" and "Para" (folding buttstock) versions. Military rifles were produced with the full auto fire option. The rifles were usually known as the FM FAL, for the "Fabricaciones Militares" brand name (FN and FM have a long standing licensing and manufacturing agreement). A heavy barrel version, known as the FAP (Fusil Automatico Pesado, or heavy automatic rifle) was also produced for the armed forces, to be used as a squad automatic weapon. The Argentine 'heavy barrel' FAL, also used by several other nations, was found to frequently experience a failure to feed after firing two rounds from a full magazine when in automatic mode.
An FAL offspring chambering the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge was developed in the early 1980s; it was dubbed the FARA 83 (Fusil Automatico Republica Argentina). The design borrowed features from the FAL such as the gas system and folding stock. It seems to have been also influenced to some degree by other Western rifles (the Beretta AR70/223, M16, and the Galil). An estimated quantity of between 2,500 and 3,000 examples were produced for field testing, but military spending cuts killed the project in the mid 1980s.
There was also a semi-automaticnly version, the FSL, intended for the civilian market. Legislation changes in 1995 (namely, the enactment of Presidential Decree N 64/95) imposed a de facto ban on "semi-automatic assault weapons". Today, it can take up to two years to obtain a permit for the ownership of an FSL. The FSL was offered with full or folding stocks, plastic furniture and orthoptic sights.
Argentine FALs saw action during the Falklands War (Falklands-Malvinas/South Atlantic War), and in different peace-keeping operations such as in Cyprus and the former Yugoslavia. Rosario-made FALs are known to have been exported to Bolivia (in 1971), Colombia, Croatia (during the wars in former Yugoslavia during the 1990s), Honduras, Nigeria (this is unconfirmed, most Nigerian FALs are from FN in Belgium or are British-made L1A1s), Peru, and Uruguay (which reportedly took delivery of some Brazilian IMBEL-made FALs as well). Deactivated ex-Argentinean FALs from the many thousands captured during the Falklands War are used by UK forces as part of the soldier's load on some training courses run over public land in the UK.
The Argentine Marine Corps, a branch of the Argentine Navy, has replaced the FN/FM FAL in front line units, adopting the U.S. M16A2. The Argentine Army has expressed its desire to acquire at least 1,500 new rifles chambered for the 5.56x45mm NATO SS109/U.S. M855 (.223 Remington) cartridge, to be used primarily by its peacekeeping troops on overseas deployments.
Soldiers from the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) fire their FN FALs on a range while taking part as the opposing force (OPFOR) during the Tradewinds 2002 Field Training Exercise (FTX), on the island of Antigua. Australia
The Australian Army, as a late member of the allied rifle committee along with the United Kingdom and Canada adopted the committee's improved version of the FAL rifle, designated the L1A1 rifle by Australia and Great Britain, and C1 by Canada. The Australian L1A1 is also known as the Self-Loading Rifle (SLR), and in full auto form, the Automatic Rifle (AR). The Australian L1A1 features are almost identical to the British L1A1 version of FAL, however the Australian L1A1 differs from its British counterpart in the design of the Main Body (Upper Receiver) lightening cuts. The lightening cuts of the Australian L1A1 most closely duplicate the later Canadian C1 pattern, rather than the simplified and markedly unique British L1A1 cuts. The Australian L1A1 FAL rifle was in service with Australian forces until it was superseded by the F88 Austeyr (a licence-built version of the Steyr AUG ) in 1988, though some remained in service with Reserve units until late 1990. The British and Australian L1A1s, and Canadian C1A1 SLRs were semi-automatic only, unless battlefield conditions mandated that modifications be made.
The Australians, in co-ordination with Canada, developed a heavy-barrel version of the L1A1 as an Automatic Rifle variant, designated L2A1. The Australian heavy-barrel L2A1 was also known as the Automatic Rifle (AR). The L2A1 was similar to the FN FAL 50.41/42, but with a unique combined bipod/hand-guard and a receiver dust-cover mounted tangent rear sight from Canada. The L2A1 was intended to serve a role as a light automatic rifle or quasi-Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). The role of the L2A1 and other heavy barrel FAL variants is essentially the same in concept as the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) or Bren, but the Bren is far better suited to the role of a fire support base for a section, being designed for the role from the start. In practice many considered the L2A1 inferior to the Bren, as the Bren had a barrel that can be changed, so could deliver a better continuous rate of fire, and was more accurate in the role due to its greater weight and better stock configuration. It is noteworthy that most countries that adopted the FAL rejected the Heavy Barrel FAL, presumably because it did not perform well as either a light rifle, or a SAW. Countries that did embrace the Heavy Barrel FAL included Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, and Israel.
Unique 30 round magazines were developed for the L2A1 rifles. These 30-round magazines were essentially a lengthened version of the standard 20-round L1A1 magazines, perfectly straight in design. Curved 30-round magazines from the L4A1 7.62 NATO conversion of the Bren are interchangeable with the 30-round L2A1 magazines, however they reputedly gave feeding difficulties due to the additional friction from the curved design as they must be inserted "upside down" in the L2A1. The L4A1 Bren magazines were developed as a top-mounted gravity-assisted feed magazine, opposite of what is required for the L2A1 FAL.
The Australian L1A1/L2A1 rifles were produced by the Small Arms Factory, Lithgow, with approximately 220,000 L1A1 rifles produced between 1959 and 1986. L2A1 production was approximately 10,000 rifles produced between 1962 and 1982. Lithgow exported a large number of L1A1 rifles to many countries in the region. Notable users were New Zealand, Singapore, and Papua New Guinea.
Many Australian soldiers used the SLR rifle during the Vietnam War. Many Australian soldiers preferred the larger calibre weapon over the American M16 because they felt the SLR was more reliable and they could trust the NATO 7.62 round to kill an enemy soldier outright. Australian jungle warfare tactics during the Vietnam War were far more successful than those employed by U.S. troops[citation needed], and often determined by the strengths and limitations of the SLR and its heavy ammunition load.
Another interesting product of Australian participation in the conflict in South-East Asia was the field modification of L1A1 and L2A1 rifles by the Australian Special Air Service Regiment SASR for better handling. Nicknamed "The Bitch", these rifles were field modified, often from heavy barrel L2A1 automatic rifles, with their barrels cut off immediately in front of the gas block, and often with the L2A1 bipods removed and a XM148 40 mm grenade launcher mounted below the barrel. The XM148 40 mm grenade launchers were obtained from U.S. forces. For the L1A1, the lack of fully-automatic fire resulted in the unofficial conversion of the L1A1 to full-auto capability by simply filing down the selector as it works by restricting trigger movement.If pulled only slightly, which semi-auto position allows, the disconnector is caught by the notch on the hammer, and upon releasing the trigger, it pushes the disconnector over the edge of the top of the trigger, giving it the necessary clearance to disengage the hammer and release upon pulling it again.l.
Australia produced a shortened version of the L1A1 designated the L1A1-F1. It was intended for easier use by soldiers of smaller stature in jungle combat, as the standard L1A1 is a long, heavy weapon. The reduction in length was achieved by installing the shortest butt length (there were 3 available, short, standard and long), and a flash suppressor that resembled the standard version except it projected a much smaller distance beyond the end of the rifling, and had correspondingly shorter flash eliminator slots. The effect was to reduce the length of the weapon by 2 1/4 inches. Trials revealed that, despite no reduction in barrel length, accuracy was slightly reduced. The L1A1-F1 was provided to Papua New Guinea, and a number were sold to the Royal Hong Kong Police in 1984. They were also issued to female Staff Cadets at the Royal Military College Duntroon and some other Australian personnel. Austria
After evaluating both the Spanish CETME and American Armalite AR-10, the Austrian Army adopted a variant of the FAL under the designation Sturmgewehr 58 (StG 58) until it was replaced by the Steyr AUG in 1977. Produced locally by Steyr Mannlicher, the StG 58 was outwardly similar to the German G1, featuring the same slimmer horizontally-ribbed sheet metal handguard and bipod, but using a different combination flash suppressor/grenade launcher spigot that is ribbed and longer than the Argentine and Belgian type. Belgium
Belgium was the first country to adopt both the FAL and FALO (heavy barrel FAL) for its armed forces in the 1950s. Both rifles were kept in service until the FN FNC was introduced into combat units in the late 1980s. The FAL finally disappeared from inventory around 1995. Bolivia
The Bolivian military currently uses the FN FAL as its main service rifle, having purchased large numbers of surplus FN FALs from the Argentine military. Brazil
Brazil took delivery of a small quantity of FN-made FAL rifles for evaluation as early as 1954. Troop field testing was performed with FN made FALs between 1958 and 1962. Then, in 1964, Brazil officially adopted the rifle, designating the rifle M964 for 1964. Licensed production started shortly thereafter at the Indstria de Material Blico do Brasil, or IMBEL, in Itajub in the state of Minas Gerais. The folding stock version was designated M969A1. By the late 1980s/ early 1990s, IMBEL had manufactured some 200,000 M964 rifles. Later Brazilian made FALs have Type 3, investment-cast receivers, a feature that simplifies production and lowers cost. Early FN made FALs for Brazil are typical FN 1964 models with Type 1 or Type 2 receivers, plastic stock, handguard, and pistol grip, 22 mm cylindrical flash hider for grenade launching, and plastic model "D" carrying handle. Brazilian-made FALs are thought to have been exported to Uruguay. A heavy barrel version, known as the FAP (Fuzil Automtico Pesado, or heavy automatic rifle) was also produced for the armed forces, to be used as a squad automatic weapon.
Main article: IMBEL MD2
Brazil's current service weapon is a development of the FAL in 5.56x45mm. Known as the MD-2 and MD-3 assault rifles, it is also manufactured by IMBEL. The first prototype, the MD-1, came out around 1983. In 1985, the MD-2 was presented and adopted by the Brazilian Armed Forces and Military Police. Its new 5.56x45mm NATO chambering aside, the MD-2/MD-3 is still very similar to the FAL and externally resembles it, changes include a change in the locking system, which was replaced by an M16-type rotating bolt. The MD-2 and MD-3 use M16-compatible magazines, but have different buttstocks. The MD-2 features a FN 50.63 'para' side-folding stock, while the MD-3 uses the same fixed polymer stock of the standard FAL.
IMBEL also produced a semi-automatic version of the FAL for Springfield Armory, Inc. (not to be confused with the US military Springfield Armory), which was marketed in the US as the SAR-48 (standard model) and SAR-4800 (with some military features removed to comply with new legislation), starting in the mid-1980s. IMBEL-made receivers have been much in demand among American gunsmiths building FALs from "parts kits." Cambodia
Used by the Khmer Republic during the Cambodian Civil War since 1963-1975 and in limited use by the Royal Cambodian Army special forces. Canada
The C1A1.
Canadian soldier with C2 light machine gun. The C2 is the Canadian version of the FN FAL, with a heavier barrel than the regular FN FAL and C1.
The Canadian Forces operated a number of versions, the most common being the FN C1A1, similar to the British L1A1 (which became more or less a Commonwealth standard), the main difference being that rotating disc rear sight graduated from 200 to 600 yards. The trigger guard was able to be folded into the pistol grip, this allowed the user to wear mitts when using the weapon. It was manufactured under license by the Canadian Arsenals Limited company. Canada was the first country to use the FAL. It served as Canada's standard battle rifle from the early 1950s to 1984, when it began to be phased out in favor of the lighter Diemaco C7, a licence-built version of the US M16. The Canadians also operated an automatic variant, the FN C2A1, as a section support weapon, which was very similar to the Australian L2A1. It was similar to the FN FAL 50.41/42, but with wooden attachments to the bipod legs that work as a handguard when the legs are folded. The C2A1 used a tangent rear sight attached to the receiver cover with ranges from 200 to 1000 meters. The C1 was equipped with a 20-round magazine and the C2 with a 30-round magazine, although the two were interchangeable. Variants of the initial FN C1 and the product improved C1A1 were also made for the Royal Canadian Navy, which was capable of automatic fire, under the designations C1D and C1A1D. These weapons are identifiable by a "A" for automatic, carved or stamped into the buttstock. Boarding parties for domestic and international searches used these models. Germany
A West German soldier on a joint exercise with American troops. The Germans used the FAL briefly in the late 1950s and early 1960s under the designation Gewehr G1.
The first German FALs were from an order placed in late 1955/early 1956, for several thousand FN FAL so-called "Canada" models with wood furniture and the prong flash hider. These weapons were intended for the Bundesgrenzschutz (border guard) and not the nascent Bundeswehr (army), which at the time used M1 Garands and M1/M2 carbines. In November 1956, however, West Germany ordered 100,000 additional FALs, designated the G1, for the army. FN made the rifles between April 1957 and May 1958. G1s served in the West German Bundeswehr for a relatively short time in the late 1950s and early 1960s, before they were replaced by the Spanish CETME Modelo 58 rifle in 1959 (which was extensively reworked into the later G3 rifle). The G1 featured a pressed metal handguard identical to the ones used on the Austrian Stg. 58, as well as the Dutch and Greek FALs, this being slightly slimmer than the standard wood or plastic handguards, and featuring horizontal lines running almost their entire length. G1s were also fitted with a unique removable prong flash hider, adding another external distinction. It has been alleged that the main reason for the replacement of the G1 in Germany centred around bitterness stemming from World War II and the refusal of the Belgians to grant a license for production of the weapon in Germany. Many G1 FALs were passed on to Turkey after their withdrawal from German service. Of note is the fact that the G1 was the first FAL variant with the 3mm lower sights specifically requested by Germany, previous versions having the taller Commonwealth-type sights also seen on Israeli models. Greece
Adopted the FAL and FALO under license by the Pyrkal factories before using Hellenic Arms Industry-made G3A3s. This move was due to lack of support by the Greek government on Pyrkal. It was in use with the Greek special forces and the IV Army Corps in the Evros region from 1973 to 1999. From 2000, the FAL was replaced by the M16A2 and M4 series in the special forces. At this time, the use of the FAL is reserved to the Greek national guard, Police and Coast Guard. India
Since the late 1950s, the Indian armed forces had been equipped with a FAL variant alleged to be reverse-engineered, which is designated the 1A SLR (Self Loading Rifle). This copy is considered to be a distinct weapon (although certainly not an original design) which has features from both Commonwealth inch-dimensioned versions as well as metric FALs. It was the mainstay rifle of the Indian Army for almost 45 years, and first saw combat use during the 1965 war with Pakistan. The variant manufactured in India is restricted to semi-automatic fire. The replacement for the 1A is the INSAS family of rifles, carbines and light machine guns - partially derived from the SLR but also with AK features, but in 5.56 mm. Considerable number of SLRs continue to be used by paramilitary, constabulary and police forces of India. Indian 1A SLRs have been provided to Nepal. Israel
After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) had to overcome several logistical problems (the supply of ammunition, repairs, spare parts and so on), which were a result of the wide variety of old firearms that were in service. In 1955 the IDF adopted the IMI-produced Uzi submachine gun. To replace the Mauser Kar 98k and some British Lee-Enfield rifles, the IDF decided in the same year to adopt the FN FAL as its standard-issue infantry rifle, under the name Romat ("), an abbreviation of "self-loading rifle". The FAL version ordered by the IDF came in two basic variants, both regular and heavy-barrel (automatic rifle), and were chambered for 7.62 mm NATO ammunition. In common with heavy-barrel FALs used by several other nations, the Israeli 'heavy barrel' FAL (Makleon), , was found to frequently experience a failure to feed after firing two rounds from a full magazine when in automatic mode. The Israeli FALs were originally produced as selective-fire rifles, though later light-barrel rifle versions were altered to semi-automatic fire only. The Israeli versions are distinguished by a distinctive handguard with a forward perforated sheet metal section, and a rear wood section unlike most other FALs in shape, and their higher 'Commonwealth'-type sights.
The Israeli FAL first saw action in relatively small quantities during the Suez Crisis of 1956, and by the Six-Day War in June 1967, it was the standard Israeli rifle. During the Yom Kippur War of October 1973 it was still in front-line service as the standard Israeli rifle, though increasing criticism eventually led to the phasing-out of the weapon. Israeli forces were primarily mechanized in nature; the long, heavy FAL slowed deployment drills, and proved exceedingly difficult to manouvre within the confines of a vehicle. Additionally, Israeli forces experienced repeated jamming of the FAL due to heavy sand and dust ingress endemic to Middle Eastern desert warfare, requiring repeated field-stripping and cleaning of the rifle, sometimes while under fire, though the reasons for the reputed performance issues are still debated. During the later stages of the Yom Kippur War, it was noted that some Israeli soldiers had informally exchanged their FALs for Soviet Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles taken from dead and captured Arab soldiers. Though the IDF evaluated a few modified FAL rifles with 'sand clearance' slots in the bolt carrier and receiver (which were already part of the Commonwealth L1A1/C1A1 design), malfunction rates did not significantly improve. The Israeli FAL was eventually replaced by the M16 and the Galil (a weapon using the Soviet Kalashnikov operating system, and chambered in either 5.56x45 or 7.62 NATO), though the FAL remained in production in Israel until at least 1981. Ireland
The Irish Defence Forces used it as the main rifle from the 1960s until 1988 where it was replaced by the Steyr AUG for use by Permanent Defence Forces, however it was not until 2000/2001 that the FN FAL was retired by the Reserve Forces. It is currently in storage for use as an emergency national reserve. Kuwait
The Kuwaiti Army used the FN FAL including para and HBAR models and L1A1 rifles from 1957 until 1995. Used by many Kuwaiti soldiers. After the Liberation of Kuwait in 1991 FN FAL rifles were slowly withdrawn from service until 1996, with most of them being given to museums for display or ending up in storage. Kuwaiti Military announced that the FN FAL and L1A1 rifles are to be replaced by the FAMAS[citation needed]. Malaysia
The Malaysian Army adopted the L1A1 SLR rifle from the British Commonwealth circa 1970 to replace the elderly bolt action Lee Enfield rifle and Sten sub-machinegun. It was also adopted by Royal Malaysian Police for its Paramilitary Field Force (Pasukan Polis Hutan/GOF). Communist Party of Malaya cadres had been found with the FN FAL as well, most of them looted from dead or wounded Malaysian soldiers. This rifle was used until in the 1990s with the adoption of the HK 33, Beretta AR70 and M16A1 rifles before FALs were withdrawn from service and transferred to second line units (Rejimen Askar Wataniah). Many Malaysian Army veterans said it was one of the finest battle rifles, rugged and easy to maintain as they found the 7.62x51 NATO calibre to be effective in combat with Communist Party of Malaya cadres armed with Type 56 assault rifles and older weapons like the Lee Enfield. Netherlands
Dutch FN FAL with an infrared light and scope, exhibited at the Legermuseum in Delft.
The Royal Netherlands Army adopted the Belgian rifle with bipod but without fully-automatic capability in 1961, being called Het licht automatisch geweer , but usually known as the 'FAL' in Dutch service. They had unique sights (hooded at the front) and the German style sheet metal front handguard. A sniper version, Geweer Lange Afstand, also existed and was standard with a scope of Dutch origin produced by the Artillerie Inrichtingen and without the bipod. The scope was introduced as Kijker Richt Recht AI 62. The heavy-barrel FAL 50.42 version was also adopted later as a squad automatic weapon as the Het zwaar automatisch geweer. This rifle was replaced in the 1990s by the Diemaco C7. New Zealand
The New Zealand Army used the L1A1 Rifle (see United Kingdom below) as its standard service rifle for just under 30 years. The Labour government of Walter Nash approved the purchase of the L1A1 as a replacement for the No. 4 Mk 1 Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifle in September 1958. An order for a total of 15,000 L1A1 rifles was subsequently placed with the Lithgow Arsenal in Australia which had been granted a license to produce the L1A1. However the first batch of 500 rifles from this order was not actually delivered to the New Zealand Army until 1960. Thereafter deliveries continued at an increasing pace until the order for all 15,000 rifles was completed in 1965. After its adoption by the Army, the Royal New Zealand Air Force and the Royal New Zealand Navy also eventually acquired it. Unlike L1A1s in Australian service, New Zealand L1A1s later used British black plastic furniture, and some rifles even had a mixture of the two. The carrying handles were frequently removed . The British SUIT (Sight Unit Infantry Trilux) optical sight was issued to some users in infantry units. The L2A1 heavy barrel was also issued as a limited standard, but was not popular due to the problems also encountered by other users of heavy barrel FAL variants. The L4A1 7.62mm conversion of the Bren was much-preferred in New Zealand service. The New Zealand Defence Force began replacing the L1A1 Rifle with the Steyr AUG assault rifle in 1988. The Steyr AUG is currently in use across all three services of the New Zealand Defence Force. Nigeria
Nigerian troops in Somalia with FALs.
The Nigerian Army uses FN FAL assault rifles under license by DICON (Defence Industries Corporation) as the NR-1 (Nigerian Rifle 1) in 1989. Philippines
It is known that Libya has shipped over a thousand FN FAL's to the Moro National Liberation Front and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Portugal
Though Portugal eventually adopted the G3 rifle (Espingarda Automtica m/961) as its primary infantry weapon, the country had a long history of issuing substitute standard weapons to its elite combat units, and this practice continued during Portugal's conflict with guerilla forces in its colonies of Angola, Portuguese Guinea-Bissau, and Mozambique. In 1960, the country's airborne battalions adopted the Artillerie Inrichtingen ArmaLite AR-10, and the Army issued quantities of light-barrel FN and West German G1 FAL rifles to several of its elite commando forces, including the Companhias de Caadores Especiais (Special Hunter [Ranger] companies). The latter often expressed a preference for the lighter FAL over the Portuguese-manufactured version of the H&K G3 rifle when on ambush or patrol. In Portuguese service, the FN FAL was designated Espingarda Automtica 7,62 mm FN m/962. Rhodesia
Rhodesian soldiers on patrol with FAL rifles during the 1970s.
Like most British colonies and Commonwealth Nations of the time, the colony of Southern Rhodesia's military forces were issued the British semi-automatic version of the FAL, the L1A1. However after the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from Great Britain in 1965, the new country of Rhodesia was unable to obtain further supplies of L1A1 SLRs. Instead, numbers of South African R1 rifles were procured from that country. These two rifles would be the primary infantry small arm of the Rhodesian Security Forces during the Rhodesian Bush War of 1965-80. As the SLR L1A1 is inch-dimensioned, the metric FAL (including the R1) is not fully interchangeable with it. However, the international arms export embargo on Rhodesia and the eventual loss of support from the South African government meant that the supply of FALs would dry up. To make up for this shortage of arms, numbers of G3 rifles were procured from Portuguese colonies. The FAL, however, remained far more popular with the Rhodesian "Troopie" and G3s were generally restricted to police, Guard Force, and other paramilitary units. South Africa
After a competition between the German G3 rifle, the Armalite AR-10, and the FN FAL, the South African Defence Force adopted three variants of the FAL: a rifle with the designation R1, a "lightweight" variant of the FN FAL 50.64 fabricated locally under the designation R2, and a model designed for police use not capable of automatic fire under the designation R3. The R2 was built by Lyttleton Engineering Works and Armscor. The FN FAL also formed the basis of the 7.62 mm LMG, with a heavy barrel and hence unanimously known as the "swaarloop". The R1 rifle in South African service was superseded around the mid-1980s with the locally built 5.56 mm R4 assault rifle, a license-built version of the Israeli Galil. Sri Lanka
The Sri Lankan Army adopted the L1A1 SLR rifle in the 1970s to replace the elderly bolt action Lee Enfield rifle and Sten sub-machinegun. It was widely used in the early stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War before being replaced by the AK 47 and Type 56 assault rifles. It was also used by the Sri Lanka Police. Thailand
FAL was used by Royal Thai Police Forces since the 1960s and designation as "Rifle Type 05" (1962). The FN FAL had been seen with limited use due to the availability of lighter rifles like the M16 and HK 33. Turkey
The Turkish Armed Forces used the FAL as the main rifle until the late 1960s when it was replaced by the H&K G3. (Many of Turkey's FAL were former West German G1, which had been replaced by the G3.) However, the FAL remains in use as a training rifle by the Turkish Army, Turkish Air Forces Infantry Brigade, Turkish Navy Infantry Brigade, and Turkish Police Commanders. United Kingdom
British L1A1 SLR
The United Kingdom developed its own variant of the FN FAL, designating it the L1A1 Self Loading Rifle (SLR). While in production it was manufactured by the Royal Small Arms Factory Enfield, Birmingham Small Arms and the Royal Ordnance Factory. Replacement components were made by Parker Hale Limited. The SLR was fitted with a lug so that it could facilitate a bayonet, and a rifle grenade launcher. The L1A1 SLR served the British Armed Forces from 1954 until 1985, being replaced by the L85A1.
The British SLR was graduated using Imperial measurements and included several changes from the original Belgian FN FAL. The most prominent change from the original FAL, was that the L1A1 operated in the semi-automatic mode only. Other changes included the introduction of a fold-flat cocking handle, an enclosed flash suppressor and a folding rear sight. Minor changes included sand-clearing modifications to the body, breechblock and the breechblock carrier, a gas regulator, an integral fold-away trigger guard and pistol grip, strengthened butt-stock and an enlarged fire selector and magazine catch along with a modified take-down release lever to prevent unintended activation and top-cover retainer tabs to prevent forward movement.
Later production SLRs were produced with synthetic handguards, such as the pistol grip, forward hand grip, carrying handle and buttstock. The synthetic material was produced from Maranyl pastic, a nylon 6-6 and fiberglass composite. The SLR's synthetic furniture was of an anti-slip texture, and the buttstock included the feature of a replaceable butt-pad, depending on an individual user's "length of pull". The wooden furniture was present in early production SLRs, and was available in two different patterns of forward hand grip, the first being solid wood similar to the Belgian original with flat faces and two oval shaped cooling apertures, with the second having two and of a more rounded profile. Some of the modifications reflected those on the Canadian C1 and C2 Rifle, Australian L1A1 and L2A1, and to a lesser extent the Indian 1A SLR.
The SLR was produced so the fire selector featured two settings, being safety and semi-automatic, rather than the original Belgian FN which featured automatic fire. The magazine from the 7.62 mm L4 light machine gun was able to fit the L1A1 SLR. However, the L4s system was designed for gravity assisted downwards feeding, and were unreliable on the upwards feeding system of the SLR. Commonwealth magazines were produced with a lug brazed onto the front to engage the recess in the receiver, in the place of a smaller pressed dimple of the metric FAL magazine. Meaning, that FAL magazines can be used with the Commonwealth SLR, but SLR magazines will not fit the metric FAL.
Despite the British, Australian and Canadian versions of the FN being manufactured using machine tools which utilised the Imperial measurement system, they are all of the same basic dimensions. Incompatibility between the original FAL and the L1A1 are due to pattern differences, not due to the different dimensions as incorrectly thought. Confusions over the differences has given rise to the terminology of "metric" and "inch" FAL rifles, which originated as a reference to the machine tools which produced them. Despite this, virtually all FAL rifles are of the same basic dimensions, true to the original Belgian FN FAL. Due to this, the term of "metric FAL" refers to the original Belgian FAL, whereas "inch FAL" refers to one produced with the modified, British, Australian and Canadian L1A1 pattern.
United States Marine with a British L1A1 SLR, during a training exercise as part of the Gulf War's Operation Desert Shield.
Late production SLRs were produced to accommodate two additional sighting systems. The first being the "Hythe Sight" which featured a dual-aperture day and night sight, and was developed for use at close range and in poor lighting conditions such as during dusk or the night. The sight incorporated two overlapping rear sight aperture leaves and a permanently glowing tritium insert for improved night visibility, which had to be replaced after a period of time due to radioactive decay. The second sight being the L2A1 "Sight Unit, Infantry, Trilux" (SUIT) was attached to the modified receiver cover. The SUIT featured a fixed-focus scope and had a four-times magnification setting. The SUIT featured a prismatic offset and inverted tapered sight, the prismatic offset design reduced the length of the site and improved clearance around the action. Also, the SUIT helped to reduce parallax errors and heat mirage from the barrel, if it were to get hot during firing. The inverted sight post allowed rapid target re-acquisition after the recoil of the firearm raised the rifle barrel. Despite the SUITs weight, the scope was durable and robust. During the Cold War, the UK SUIT scope was copied by the Soviet Union and designated the 1P29 telescopic sight.
The L1A1 SLR was replaced in 1987 by the introduction of the bullpup L85A1, firing the 5.56 mm cartridge. Between 1987 and 1991, L1A1 rifles were phased out either being destroyed or sold on, with some going to Sierra Leone. United States
A T48 rifle made by FN for trials in the United States.
The USA tested the FAL in several forms; initially as manufactured by FN in experimental configurations, and later in the final T48 configuration as an official competitor for the new US Light Self-Loading Rifle intended to replace the M1 Garand. The US Army procured T48 rifles from three firms for testing, including two US based companies in an effort to assess the manufacturability of the FN design in the USA. The T48 was manufactured for testing by Fabrique Nationale (FN), of Herstal, Belgium; Harrington & Richardson (H&R) of Worcester, Massachusetts; and the High Standard Company of Hartford, Connecticut. The United States also received a small number of FAL Heavy Barrel Rifles (HBAR) (either 50.41 or pre-50.41) for testing, under the designation T48E1, though none of these rifles were adopted by US.
The T48 competed against the T44 rifle. The T44 was a heavily modified version of the earlier M1 Garand. Testing proved the T48 and the T44 comparable in performance, with no clear winner. However, the supposed ease of production of the T44 upon machinery already in place for the M1 Garand and the similarity in the manual of arms for the T44 and M1 ultimately swayed the decision in the direction of the T44, which was adopted as the M14 rifle.
In the wake of World War II, the NATO "Rifle Steering Committee" was formed to encourage the adoption of a standardized NATO rifle. The Committee and the US interest in the FAL proved to be a turning point in the direction of the FAL's development. The US and NATO interest in small arms standardization was the primary reason why the FAL was redesigned to use the newly developed 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge, instead of the intermediate cartridge designs originally tested by FN. Two political factors are worth noting: the US Government tacitly indicated to NATO, and specifically to the United Kingdom, that if the FAL were redesigned for the new US 7.62x51mm cartridge, then the FAL would become acceptable to the US, and the US would presumably adopt the FAL rifle. Secondly, FN had indicated that it would allow former WWII Allied countries to produce the FAL design with no licensing or royalty costs as a gift to the Allies for the liberation of Belgium. Ultimately, the US chose to part with the other NATO members and adopt the M14 rifle, while the majority of NATO countries immediately adopted the FAL.
Century Arms FN-FAL rifle from a parts kit
During the late 1980s and 1990s, many countries decommissioned the FAL from their armories and sold them en masse to United States importers as surplus. The rifles were imported to the United States as fully-automatic guns. Once in the U.S., the FAL's were "de-militarized" (upper receiver destroyed) to eliminate the rifles' character as an automatic rifle, as stipulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA 68 currently prohibits the importation of foreign-made full-automatic assault rifles prior to the enactment of the Gun Control Act; semiautomatic versions of the same firearm were legal to import until the Semiautomatic Assault Rifle Ban of 1989). Thousands of the resulting "parts kits" were sold at generally low prices ($90 $250) to hobbyists. The hobbyists rebuilt the parts kits to legal and functional semi-automatic rifles on new semi-automatic upper receivers. FAL rifles are still commercially available from a few domestic firms in semi-auto configuration: Entreprise Arms, DSArms, and Century Arms. Most notably Century Arms created a semi-automatic version L1A1 with an IMBEL upper receiver and surplus British Enfield inch-pattern parts. Venezuela
Venezuela was the first country after Belgium to adopt the FN FAL in 1954 and until recently it was the main assault rifle of the Venezuelan army. The first batch of rifles to arrive in Venezuela were chambered in 7x49mm (also known as 7 mm Liviano or 7 mm Venezuelan). Essentially a 7x57mm round shortened to intermediate length, this caliber was jointly developed by Venezuelan and Belgian engineers motivated by a global move towards intermediate calibers. The Venezuelans, who had been exclusively using the 7x57mm round in their light and medium weapons since the turn of the century, felt it was a perfect platform on which to base a caliber tailored to the particular rigors of the Venezuelan terrain.
Eventually the plan was dropped despite having ordered millions of rounds and thousands of weapons of this caliber. The decision was not based on the attributes of the round, which was actually quite good, but in fact to political motivation. As the Cold War escalated, the military command felt it necessary to align with NATO despite not being a member, resulting in the adoption of the 7.62x51mm cartridge and the rechambering of the 5,000 or so FAL rifles that had already arrived in 7x49mm by 1955-56.
The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, recently bought 100,000 AK-103 assault rifles from Russia in order to replace the old FALs. Although the full shipment arrived by the end of 2006, the FAL will remain in service with the Venezuelan Reserve Forces and the Territorial Guard. Variants FN Production Variants FAL 50.41 & 50.42
Also known as FALO;
Heavy barrel for sustained fire with 30-round magazine as a squad automatic weapon;
Known in Canada as the C2A1, it was their primary squad automatic weapon until it was phased out during the 1980s in favor of the C9, which has better accuracy and better ammunition capacity than the C2;
Known to the Australian Army as the L2A1, it was replaced by the FN Minimi. The L2A1 or 'heavy barrel' FAL was used by several Commonwealth nations and was found to frequently experience a failure to feed after firing two rounds from a full magazine when in automatic mode.
The 50.41 is fitted with a plastic buttstock, while the 50.42's buttstock is made from wood. FAL 50.61
Folding-stock, standard barrel length FAL 50.63
Folding-stock, shorter-barrel paratrooper version;
Two variants with differing barrel lengths: 458 mm versus 436 mm. The shorter version was requested by Belgian paratroopers. This allowed the folded-stock rifle to fit through the doorway of their C-119 Flying Boxcar when worn horizontally across the chest. FAL 50.64
Folding-stock, standard barrel length, 'Hiduminium' aluminum alloy lower receiver See also
Sturmgewehr 57
Heckler & Koch G3
RFB Carbine
GRAM 63 battle rifle
FM 1957 battle rifle
M14 rifle
AR-10
AR-18
MAS-54 rifle series
Howa Type 64
SVT-40
IMBEL MD2 References
^ Hogg, Ian (2002). Jane's Guns Recognition Guide. Jane's Information Group. ISBN 0-00-712760-X.
^ Popeneker, Maxim & Williams, Anthony. Assault Rifle The Crowood Press Ltd. (2005) ISBN 1-86126-700-2.
^ FN-FAL pictorial
^ http://www.mg0815.com/FALinfo.htm
^ Service Rifles. Retrieved on May 13, 2008.
^ Ezell, 1988, p. 83
^ South African Military History Society Newsletter (June 2006) http://samilitaryhistory.org/6/06junnl.html
^ a b c Bodinson, Holt, Century Golani Sporter: The Israeli-designed AK Hybrid is a Solid Performer, Guns Magazine, July 2007
^ a b Weapons Wizard Israeli Galili, Soldier of Fortune Magazine, March 1982
^ Ezell, 1988, p. 276
^ Multiplying the Sources. Retrieved on October 5, 2008.
^ Nigeria: Arms Procurement and Defense Industries. Retrieved on October 5, 2008.
^ DOSSIER - The Question of Arms in Africa. Retrieved on October 5, 2008.
^ Dead on Time - arms transportation, brokering and the threat of human rights. Retrieved on October 5, 2008.
^ Nigeria Arms Procurement and Defense Industries. Retrieved on October 5, 2008.
^ Afonso, Aniceto and Gomes, Carlos de Matos, Guerra Colonial (2000), ISBN 972-46-1192-2, pp. 183-184, 358-359
^ Afonso, Aniceto and Gomes, Carlos de Matos, Guerra Colonial (2000), ISBN 972-46-1192-2, pp. 358-359
^ Ezell, 1988, p. 328
Afonso, Aniceto and Gomes, Carlos de Matos, Guerra Colonial, 2000
Ezell, Clinton, Small Arms of the World, Stackpole Books (1983)
Pikula, Maj. Sam, The Armalite AR-10, 1998
Stevens, R. Blake, The FAL Rifle, Collector Grade Publications (1993) External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: FN FAL
FNforum - FN Resource
Additional information, including pictures at Modern Firearms
Remtek FN FAL Info
The FAL Files
Stefan Janson's FAL involvement
The FN/FAL & L1A1 FAQ
DSA Inc.
Buddy Hinton FAL Manual Collection
FN FAL Rifle Ejector Photos
FAL Pictorial
Metric and Inch FAL Comparison
Video of operation at YouTube (Japanese) Video links
Nazarian`s Gun Recognition Guide (FILM) FN FAL "Paratrooper" model Presentation (.MPEG)
v  d  e
Current UK individual weapons and cartridges
Pistols
L9A1 L106A1 L117A2
Assault rifles
carbines
Designated marksman rifles
L85A2 IW L86A2 LSW L22A2 L129A1 L119A1 HK 417
Sniper rifles
L96A1, L118A1 L115A1, L115A3 L82A1 L121A1 Arctic Warfare Covert
Submachine guns
L80A1 (MP5K), L90A1 (MP5K A1) L91A1 (MP5 A2/A3), L92A1 (MP5 SD2/SD3)
Shotguns
L74A1 L128A1
Machine guns
L108A1, L110A1 L7A2 L2A1 (M2HB), L111A1 (M2HB-QCB)
Grenade
less-lethal launchers
L17A1/A2 L67A1 L134A1
Rockets
LASM LAW 80 M3 Carl Gustav L2A1 (ILAW) L142A1 (AT4CS HP)
Guided missiles
MILAN FGM-148 Javelin Starstreak SAM (shoulder launched or 3-shot mutiple launcher)
Mortars
L9A1 M6-640 L16A2
Modern cartridges used
5.56x45mm NATO 7.62x51mm NATO 12.7x99mm NATO .338 Lapua 9x19mm Parabellum 12 gauge
v  d  e
Weapons of the British Empire & Commonwealth of Nations 17221965
Handguns
Beaumont-Adams Revolver  Webley Revolver Mk. II  Enfield No. 1 & No. 2 Revolvers  Browning Hi-Power
Rifles and carbines
Brown Bess Musket  Ferguson rifle  Baker Infantry Rifle  Brunswick rifle  Enfield 1853 Rifled Musket  Snider-Enfield  Martini-Henry  Martini-Enfield  Lee-Metford  Lee-Enfield  L1A1 SLR  Lee-Enfield No.5 Mk.I "Jungle Carbine"  De Lisle Commando Carbine
Submachine guns
Lanchester  Sten  Owen gun  Sterling L2  F1 submachine gun
Rapid-fire weapons
Nordenfelt gun  Gatling gun  Gardner gun  Maxim gun  QF 2 pdr "Pom-Pom"  Vickers Gun  Lewis Gun  Charlton Automatic Rifle  Bren gun
Anti-tank weapons
2 pdr Anti-Tank Gun  6 pdr Anti-Tank Gun  PIAT  Rifle, Anti-Tank, .55 in, Boys  L6 Wombat
Field guns
and other weapons
25 pdr Field Gun  Congreve rocket  SBML 2-inch Mortar  Ordnance ML 3 inch Mortar  No.2 "Lifebuoy" Flamethrower  Stokes Mortar Categories: Assault rifles | Battle rifles | Cold War rifles | Semi-automatic rifles | Fabrique Nationale de Herstal firearms | Weapons of Belgium | Military equipment of the British Empire | Modern weapons of Canada | 7.62 mm firearms | Cold War infantry weapons | Falklands War infantry weapons | Vietnam War infantry weapons of AustraliaHidden categories: Articles needing additional references from July 2009 | All articles needing additional references | Self-contradictory articles from July 2009 | All self-contradictory articles | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from November 2009
About the Author

The e-commerce company in China offers quality products such as Induction Coil , Water Valves, and more. For more , please visit pneumatic equipments suppliers today!

Tags: .com, Acne Blemish Control, break, care, Cellulite Treatments, delish, delishliving, fast paced society, focus, Friction, lang, Laser Hair Removal, Microdermabrasion, online, origins, origins modern friction, origins modern friction acne, origins modern friction dermabrasion, origins modern friction ingredients, origins modern friction reviews, skin, skin care services, skin care technology, skin wellness, skincare, source article, stretch mark, surgery, technology, time

Tags: .com, Acne Blemish Control, break, care, Cellulite Treatments, delish, delishliving, fast paced society, focus, Friction, lang, Laser Hair Removal, online, origins, origins modern friction, origins modern friction acne, origins modern friction dermabrasion, origins modern friction ingredients, origins modern friction reviews, skin, skin care services, skin care technology, skin wellness, skincare, source article, stretch mark, surgery, technology, time