Elmar Bijlsma

Was I the only one to think that c3k missed a "T" at the end of his thread title? Seriously, I came here looking for a rant. Dammit, now I want my rant!

Well, I think the lack of popularity might be because it's a bulky piece of kit which six shot capacity doesn't dramatically increase capability over the M203/M320. Soldiers REALLY dislike carrying more stuff then they need. And when it comes down to it I would rather hold a rifle+UGL then a dedicated grenade launcher, for those unexpected moments. *edit* http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86449

Current dithering should be interpreted as twisting Karzai's arm in to satisfying the doubts about his legitamacy one way or the other. As for the vid, I am assuming he is talking about civilian intelligence services and anti-terror projects.

That's why we should have ready access to 15 inch naval guns in every scenario. A few big craters but absolutely no trees, vegetation or buildings to keep track off. Watch those file sizes shrink!

Could be a B-10, though it's hard to be 100% sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0MQcMCuYgM&feature=PlayList&p=7B7F730DA50F78E1&index=31

*drops Steve's cock and removes head from Charles' rectum* Yes, it would be fluff in the game. What servicemen think of this item being excluded won't make the game any better. That's not meant to be disrespectful to them, I'm pretty sure I've spend more time with Normandy veterans then you, even if both your grandfathers were veterans of Normandy. And believe me, they have my respect. But again, that's not the issue. The upcoming Normandy title is meant to be a game, not some kudo for everyone who steered a landing craft on to a hostile shore. There is only so many work on models that's going to be done. How wise do you think it is to spend that time on something that saw a few hours worth of action? In a game that's aiming to stretch from June to September that's a bit short. Would you really want to give up having the Churchill Crocodile in the game so you can have the LCA? Heck, even the DUKW would see marginal use. It's not that I wouldn't like to have it, I just would like other things more. And then there is the manner in which they were involved in the actions of D-Day. Landing craft would serve as little more then target practice for the German player. Then they dump their cargo on the beach and that's it. Done! Any real fighting would start when a landing craft ceased being of any use. So why have it in a combat game? Yes, assault rafts were in before. And how often did you see them, hmmm?

How much fighting do you think was done on the beaches? A few hours worth, little of it of tactical interest to a gamer. The beaches are more suited to being modelled in a shooting gallery then a tactical wargame. So I fully support BFC forgoing such fluff and instead focussing on more important stuff.

1) Early 2010. 2) I'm not sure. There will be a Commonwealth module but I can't recall if we get specific nations with that or more generic Commonwealth units. 3) Try the updated demo, it's the best way to be sure. 4) Please hold... 5) No hardware requirements have been given yet. Best to try the demo for that too, it's the only way to be sure these days.

Calm down? I don't think anyone isn't calm. Tackling fascism is hardly the point. Public perception is. In the age of the soundbyte, it's just not wise to joke around like that.

Oh, I understood the spirit in which it was said as will most sane and reasonable people, which by the way isn't as large a percentage of the internet as you'd think. But know this, if you get quoted out of context with much of the middle paragraph, no "Hey, that's out of context!" is going to make it look good PS Yuk, Beer! *pours himself some red red wine*

Dude, don't even say that as a joke. Seriously, you might want to edit that.

Hehe, well, this is good news for me to hear. Good, you say? Well, yes. I encountered the new M$ additions some time ago and deleted them on the spot. I felt a bit paranoid at the time, but it seems it's still true: "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you".

I always recommend turning off shadows. It's a big resource hog without really adding stuff you need or making existing things much prettier. I'd also recommend putting AA to x2 or x4. Putting AA at a higher setting tends to fo unnoticed by me except for performance.

I think the lesson in Vietnam was that it mattered not just who you were opposing, but who you were supporting. Then as now, the alternative to the bad guys isn't that good. Karzai is just terrible and the unwillingness of the US to come down hard on the guy lost the war. He's not quite as bad as the Taliban but still pretty ghastly, but worse, corrupt an ineffectual. The US should have cut the self serving bastard lose the second it became clear what the guy was about.

As for if we can win this? No, we can't win in Afghanistan. But the Pakistan Taliban is rapidly losing support inside Pakistan, both popular as government support (ISI, predominately) so while we might not win it, the Taliban are set to lose it. Because if they lose Pakistan, it's all over for them. They'll no longer be a movement, but a terror group. And when that happens, that's it for the Afghani Taliban too.

Osama himself eventually admitted to the 9/11 attacks, which were a quite valid casus belli. So how was this a fake war? Even I knew on September 11 that Afghanistan was in for it, you'd have to be completely ignorant of the situation not to link AQ with the attacks. Weither OBL was a wanted peson is irrelevant, as this was a war against AQ and the Taliban who actively sheltered and supported them. Whether there was an arrest warrant on OBL is irrelevant in this context. And I doubt he wasn't officially on the wanted list anyway. But in the end a nation ALWAYS has the right to defend itself against foreign aggression. The UN agreed this was a just war, NATO did too. What else would you require of a nation before it can take action against foreign aggression? Really, what is your beef? Because your views are not supported by fact in any way, shape or form.

For me there doesn't seem that big a difference between "shooting from the hip" and carefully observing. 4.5 and 4.2 respectively.

New thread, new bone?

Well, there was a lot of gloating about Airbus' troubles with the A380 at the time, particularly from our Trans-Atlantic Friends. All I can say is I'm happy there were two bananas peels and Boeing seems to have happily obliged. And I agree with the general tenor that managers managing often do not add value of their own and can frequently get in the way of those who do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Armed_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan Casualties+contact reports.

Think of the competition the Kiwis have: Californians, Rednecks, Bostonians, New Yorkers, Ozzies, Canadians and South Africans. You'd be hard pressed to come off looking bad compared to those.

I doubt weapon reliability was a major contributor to what happened at Wanat. Nor do I think the M4 is bad. However, it is a rather mediocre weapons system. There's much better available, bullpup or otherwise. The US army could do worse then sell theirs stocks of M4 and buy replacements. Given the current firearms prices in the US, the replacement programme would fund itself.

I thought the hits near the edge of the metal plate were especially educational. Really showed the manitude of the forces at work.

Dammit, even the lurker joins in with his FiPo to mock me. And what's worse, he's right in doing so! Welcome! ... But don't make habit of that. In future, just nod and agree with me.