luderbamsen
-
Posts
259 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by luderbamsen
-
-
OK, this thing has 300 ripoff written all over it. But hey, limbs hacked off in slow motion and Lucy Lawless nekkid? Yeah, count me in.
-
I thought the caseless round had been dropped - the brass case from a standard round takes a goodly amount of heat with it when ejected; without this, the weapon heats up too quickly.
Well, the old G11 was dropped ages ago, but low intensity work on caseless munitions continue. There are just too many interesting opportunities in caseless and case telescoped ammo for the boffins to give up on the idea. And historically, major small arms advances have started with the ammunition, from the Mini Ball of the American Civil War to the 7.92mm Kurtz round of the Sturmgewehr 44
-
Hi Harry
I´m from Denmark. But apart from me, there´s only one active CM-player in Denmark, that I´m aware of (from this forum). His nick is "LuderBamsen". RobO. who made the brilliant spread sheet campaign system is from Denmark too, but as far as I know, he doesn´t play CM anymore.
So I wouldn´t exactly say there´s lots of action around here. What did you have in mind?
Cheers
Umlaut
My CM status is currenty "inactive", sorry. (I'm also utter **** at it anyway
) -
Having little to no knowledge on the subject of the pro's & con's of fully automatic weapons, what are the alleged advantages of a bullpup style design compared with a more 'traditional' type design of a fully automatic weapon?
One thing I noticed on that link to the Russian site was how advanced (for its day) the British EM-2 assault rifle was and clearly how much it influenced the Steyr design. Seemed like a great opportunity lost by the British army when they decided not to proceed with its acceptance as the standard weapon to arm their forces considering they ended up with the often derided SA80 design with all the problems associated with that weapon.
Regards
KR
In addition to what the others mentioned, barrel length is important when using the 5.56mm round, because muzzle velocity (which relates directly to lethality) depends heavily on barrel length. Much of the criticism of 5.56mm lethality comes from the prolific use of shorter barreled M4 carbines over the full length M16.
A common shortcoming of the bullpup design is that it is right hand only: If you fire something like the Steyr or SA80 from the left shoulder, the brass will eject straight into your face. The Steyr can be made left handed by changing a few parts, while the French FA MAS can do so by simply rotating the bolt and switching the cheek pad to the other side (covering the ejection port on one side and exposing it on the other) or so I've heard.
While certainly not perfect, the current version of the SA80, the L85A2, is a vastly improved weapon, and generally troops are pleased with it. Some of the problems were due to the design and the bullpup configuration, others were down to horrible management of the whole programme.
I am actually disappointed I didn't know that there was a 6.8 round. Guess I haven't been gun shopping enough lately.There's also a round called the 6.5mm Grendel with superior long-range performance. And work is still being done on advanced munitions types: Caseless and case telescoped rounds.
To be honest, I'd rather get the M468 or something of a 6.5 or 6.8 caliber.
Barrett has now moved on to the REC-7: Basically the same weapon, but now with a gas piston system and some minor changes.
-
Yet another proof that math geeks don't get laid. Ever.
-
Yes, we do. The point is, there are times when it is essential that we tell the truth - if your justice system is set up to try to arrive at the truth of a circumstance, in order to effectively administer justice, then there is a need to provide witnesses with a motivation to not lie. If your justice system cannot deliver justice, say good-bye to a law abiding society and hello to the general poverty and misery that accompanies a lawless one.
Dude, I was just quoting "House"...
-
"Everybody lies..."
-
Moon,
From there you get the browser bar option. Everything is ticked by default.
If this is how it is set up (have not tried the demo yet), just put on your Flak vest and take it as it comes ...
Best regards,
Thomm
Indeed. Unreasonable or not Moon, we really do hold BFC to a higher standard than your run-of-the-mill developer/publisher. And you should take that as a compliment.
-
Clearly, the best tank in WW2 was the M113 Gavin...
*dives for cover*
-
Somehow, I'm not entirely comfortable with sentinent robots being created by the same people who gave us tentacle porn...
-
Intresting side-note: Julius Rosenberg, an American spying for the Soviet Union, delivered just such a radio proximity fuze to his KGB handler.
-
The reaction of the troops is pretty nice.
Awwww, that's just so darn cute. You'd have to be a complete rat bastard not to acknowledge the salute.
-
Good stuff, JasonC
The fact that US tank production numbers were well over what they could actually get to the battlefield and use makes it even more frustrating (at least in retrospect) that the Sherman was such a crappy tank killer with self-igniting ammo storage. Puts a new spin on the quality vs. quantity thing.
-
There are plenty of grogs here that can give you the long story, but the short one goes like this: Yes, it's a historical fact. AFAIK, the yellow colour is actually different from the tan colour used in North Africa. Along with the yellow base coat, units were issued red-brown and green paste (to be mixed with water or gasoline) and were then to paint camouflage patterns as they saw fit.
-
The real tragedy is that eBay bowed to this lone idiot and renamed the yellow star.
-
I'm pretty sure we've never had this discussion on this forum before. Ever.
Anyhoo, the T-34 FTW. No, it was far from perfect, but don't forget the first vehicles rolled off the factory floor in 1940. What tanks were other nations building in 1940?
If we ignore such details as cost, ease of maintenance etc. the Panther wins; Good gun, good armour, good mobility.
-
FWIW, I took that picture for what I presume is exactly what it was: A teaser/screenshot from the next game. It confirms that there will be fields of wild flowers, trees and late production Tigers in the next game. Which isn't exactly shocking news.
I do have a question thoug: Not having kept current on CMx2 developments, will it be possible for modders to do "real" reskins this time, i.e. real turret numbers et. al.?
-
Leto;1122022']So let me get this straight: Tiger = sexy that rhymes with good marketingexy?
Or: we were just shodding around and had a pickie of a Tiger from the new game that we were messing around with (because we oh so love Tigers, they are sexy!) and decided to post one up?
Albeit that all the above is quite superfluous to the flesh and blood of the new game, it's been a fun discussion.
Cheers!
Leto
FWIW, I have a hard on for Tigers in general, and late-production Tigers in Normandy in particular.
-
What does a M113 with modern upgrades cost?You mean the Gavin?
Oh dear God, let's not go there.
-
Just to make sure this isn't misunderstood more than it already has been:
The Gears of War issue was not, repeat not, DRM-related. It was a bit of bad programming that tied the digital certificate to the games anti-cheat feature. Also, the problem has now been fixed.
-
TBH, this smacks of scaremongering. Now that the Red (i.e. Communist) Menace has evaporated, someone's looking for a new bogeyman to get all riled up about. Seriously, I've read more believeable stories from John Kettler.
-
You say that like there are no other theories in the world of science, or as if to be 'merely' a theory was somehow a bad thing.
You also say it as if corralling enough facts somehow turns a theory into ... erm ... something else.
Heres a quickie lesson, by analogy, on the difference between 'facts' and 'theories'.
Evolution is a fact. It has been observed repeatedly in real time, over long times spans, and in the fossil record. There is no (rational) debate about the fact of evolution.
Evolution by natural selection (EbNS), on the other hand, is a theory. It is the theory seeks to explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ (NOT ‘if’) evolution occurs in the ways that have been observed. As it happens, it's a pretty good theory, and the observable facts 'fit' (“can be explained by”) the theory pretty well. But it's still just a theory. There is no doubt in my mind that it will continue to be refined and improved, as a theory, albeit in fairly small amounts, and mostly to deal with fringe cases. It is even possible that someone may come up with a whole different theory that explains the facts of evolution, and which completely discards the theory of evolution by natural selection. Very unlikely, I think, but possible.
Likewise, global warming / climate change is a fact. Actually, not just one fact, but loads of facts. So to say there are "no facts" is ... disingenuous. Global warming / climate change by human causes is the theory which seeks to explain that global warming, in whole - or more likely - in part. However, unlike EbNS, human driven climate change (HDCC) is not the only viable theory in the field. But then, EbNS is some 150 years old, while HDCC is, what, maybe 20 years old? I would expect HDCC to continue to change and evolve (heh), in occasionally significant ways, over the next decades. It may even be totally refuted. But that will not suddenly mean that the observed global warming / climate change has not happened.
Nobody is disputing the fact that climate changes happen (hello? ice age?). But this is about the Human influence on climate change. Based on what we know, it is probable that human activities influence the global climate to some extent. Could be a little, could be alot. But what's really disingenous is claiming that human activity is the cause of global warming as if that was a fact. We just don't know. It could be the global average temperature will continue to rise for decades, caused by CO2 emissions. It could be that this is just a short heat spell before a new ice age. Or something else. We just don't know. And it's not a case of "we don't know with 100% absolute certainty so we should do nothing". It's a case of "we don't have a friggin' clue".
Hindsight? Those in power in 1930's Britain could not know there would be a war, they however did feel it prudent to anticipate to a degree that investment in defence needed to be made. Inspired guesswork on their part?Re: Russia. Attacking another country on the possibility they may be up to no good is a far more recent idea for democracies. : )
Anyway you say I cannot equate history and hindsight with guesswork. I thought those who failed to learn from history repeated the errors. The great potato famine in Ireland, the wiping out of the French vineyards and nowadays we have a virulent wheat rust, and bananas that require 40 sprays a crop and our still under threat. Monocultures are not a good thing. Particularly if you are a small poor country reliant on the crop as your main cash earner.
The fact that we are talking global crops in the 2000's rather than single countries in the 1800's does not diminsh the lessons that ought to have been learned.
I find it curious that whilst there is widespread acceptance that bad weather follows major eruptions:
People are happy to maintain that the activities of 6.75billion people have no effect at all on the planets weather. Seems a difficult act to reconcile.
Fair enough. I misread your WW2 analogy, apologies. It's still silly though. "Something might happen, we think, maybe, so we should totally do something about it" is a lousy way to run a planet. In fact, your Iraq hint is a better analogy: Drastic action based on dodgy information can have very unfortunate consequences.
And, again, there are plenty of perfectly good reasons why we should reduce fossil fuel consumption and invest more in alternative, renewable energy sources. For one thing, people first began to look into solar and wind power in earnest back in the 70's when OPEC got bitchy with oil production and pricing (pardon my gross distortion of history to make a point). Reducing oil dependency made sense then. It still makes sense today. If there is a beneficiary side effect to the global climate, so much the better.
-
Herr Hitler is re-arming Germany. I do not think it necessarily correct though to expedite arms expenditure or research. After all caution and anticipating contingencies is silly.
We Europeans might feel that having Mr. Putin turning off and on the gas tap for Europe means that action is required - and digging coal or relying on oil is perhaps shortsighted. That additionally Europe could generate new industries AND reduce emissions which have a reasonable likelihood of affecting the earth atmosphere tends to make it fairly no-brainer in my book.
To return to my comment that it is irrelevant whether we can currently "prove" that the agreed warming over the last 100 years is man made or natural. What needs to be thought through is the effects of dislocation of global trade that will occur if weather becomes more extreme, temperature rises reduce plant productivity, low lying lands are flooded.
Given how interdependent many countries now are on other regions of the world it is foolish to think that the West would be unaffected.
I'm sorry but the cautionary principle is still silly. And you can't equal historical facts and half a century of hindsight with acting upon guesswork. If you must, invading the Soviet Union just in case Stalin was up to no good would make a better analogy.
But it's irrelevant. As I noted, there are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to reduce reliance on fossil fuel without resorting to climate disaster scaremongering, based on more wild ass guesses than anything else. For one thing, being less in the pocket of Putin, Chavez, House of Saud and whomever is in charge in Nigeria these days would make a good start.
-
Man-made global warming is a highly politicized subject, though that doesn't make it any less wrong. Or right.
First the facts: Well, there aren't any. There are theories. Objectively, it is very likely that human activity does have some influence on the climate. The big question is how much? Nobody knows. Those who claim they do (whatever side they lean to) either don't have a clue what they're talking about, or are lying through their teeth. The graph that correlates global warming with CO2 emissions makes no more sense than the one that correlates global warming with the number of pirates.
Dieseltaylor advocates erring on the side of caution. That is, with all due respect, silly. "Dogs cause cancer in humans. Well, probably not, but the consequences are too dire if we don't err on the side of caution, so we should eradicate dogs from the face of the Earth".
That doesn't mean he's wrong about the rest though. Lower emission standards will NOT bankrupt the global economy. Mankind has adjusted to the abolition of slavery (suddenly you had to pay people to pick cotton/harvest sugar canes etc.), industrialisation (massive growth in production) and the massive destruction of two world wars. Surely we can adapt to skimping a bit on fossil fuels and spending some money on alternative energy research. If anything, the secondary benefits (less reliance on fossil fuels, new technologies) would likely outweigh any gains from lower emissions.
Which pretty much brings us to the end of the reasonable part of the debate and straight into the politics.
As others have noted, the fossil fuels energy industry is only too happy to throw money at anyone with any shred of credibility (and some without) willing to question the prevalent CO2-causes-global-warming sentiment, whether their opinion is based on decades of scientific research or reading tea leaves. Just as how the fast-food industry will support anyone who says eating burgers three times a day doesn't make you fat.
But where do the environment movements (for lack of a better term) get their money from? The tooth fairy? No, from contributors. So they need to sell their message too. Why do you think it's called "Climate Change" and not "Global Warming" these days? Because "Climate Change" stir up images of hurricanes, tsunamis, desert storms and a new ice age. "Support our cause! Be afraid of the dangerous, unknown climate change! Think of the children! Give us your wallet! (or credit card number)". In comparison, "Global Warming" sounds a bit lame, attractive even, especially on a cold January day like this. What do you think gets the most contributions? A lengthy, reasoned discourse laying out all the pro/con facts, or shock tactics? It's no different than when wildlife conservation organisations asking for money show you a picture of a sad panda, rather than some discusting poisonous centipede that's probably even more threatened from extinction. They're selling a product just as much as Big Oil is.
Now, I'm not saying Al Gore is wrong (I don't know, and neither does anyone else, including himself) or insincere. But one should not be blind to the massive political capital (and a nice bit of personal wealth) his "Inconvenient Truth" [sic] has brought him. Not bad for a failed presidential candidate with a political future in tatters. Same goes for various other less well-known politicians and environmentalists.
I guess I'm saying make your own mind up. Your guess is as good as anyone else's. Just don't believe any old crap someone's trying to sell you.
)
Neet Picture
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
The Crusader and the NLOS Cannon are two different weapons systems, this being the NLOS-C. Just FYI