Magpie_Oz
-
Posts
1,553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Magpie_Oz
-
-
Still .............................
don't ...........................
get..........................
pausing in a real .............................................................................................
time game..........................
-
AA was chock-full of women, going right back to at least 1940.
Yeh for sure but I had always thought they were just in the British Isles never knew they went to Europe
-
Oh so tempted to say ALL English soldiers are girly but I won't but NOW I understand why the community is so keen to have AAA included in the game !
On a more serious note I had no idea that women were allowed in what was pretty much a combat role way back then.
-
Posted that almost accidentally whilst looking for accidental gun deaths, and suicides. I am concious that shooting a would-be assailant would not be included in murder figures!
Or would it? !
I think it would because the stats are for homicides, which include all forms of killing, except for state sanctioned execution.
Culture plus access? Suicides feature very largely in European death figures with about 80% due to that.Most of Australia's firearms deaths are suicides now days largely because farmers are one of the largest groups still with wide access to firearms and also one of the largest groups subject to considerable socio-economic pressures. They were also one of the groups most vocal about removal of weapons from the general populace. Sadly they shoot themselves more than the pigs, foxes and kangaroos
-
Bogan rock I can do without...fag rock I do without also.
Listen to Triple J and get yerself an education. http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/media/listen.htm?show=listen
JJJ = artsy fartsy uni student bollocks
They sold out. Used to play really great stuff and break alot of the new tracks but since then (when I was an artsy fartsy uni student) they have gone completely downhill.
How many acts from the J's started in the 1970's and are still going today?
How many groups can do that at all?
I can see you need some cleansing after your trip to 'Merkania , eat 5 vegemite sandwiches, 3 lamingtons and 3 VB (VB is drastic I know but I think required under the circumstances) and make an appointment to whacko the diddelo.
-
Sure but riding a horse will never turn you into a triathlete you'll get very good muscles for riding a horse, just the same as you get good muscles for driving a car. Racing car drivers for example need a very high level of fitness to succeed.
As for the health I am not really meaning diseases but of course they are an important factor but more along the lines of the types of food people eat, amongst the nobility fresh vegetables were considered beneath them and the consumed mainly meat so they did not a very balanced diet. Water at the time was potentially lethal so rarely consumed. They also slept and lived in dank, cold conditions and little to no understanding of basic hygiene.
-
Bit of a funny one really isn't it.
Standard doctrine in an assault is to leave wounded and keep going otherwise everyone ends up a casualty, on the other hand tho' some one gets hit and the first call is MEDIC ! and everyone stops to sort him out.
I did see suggested in another thread that opening up with area fire or grenades on the wounded did solve the loss of tempo problem..............
-
ah mr english teacher is back ..... dont care, i dont read your posts.
and if you have to say something smart, then please talk about you and dont start your sentences with "we" ... or are you a whole club and you talk for many others ?
How do you know his sentences start with we if you don't read his posts?
Actually Blackcat is one of the few who actually has something to say that is worth listening to, so might be a good plan to no be so petulant and take on board a bit of what he has to say.
-
It beats the pants off sitting on the sofa flicking the remote, or even sitting in a car flicking the indicator.
There is not alot of difference really, maybe a bit more effort in riding a horse but not a hell of alot. Certainly not enough to make up for the bad food and appalling conditions.
-
this is a game
Who's objective is to model or possibly simulate reality. Many of the answers you are looking for are based on what is perceived to happen in reality.
I offer suggestions as to why things might be as they are in the game, not answers.
also not good and human things are realistic or do you think a war is aslo only a game where everyon acts like in a hollywood movie ?I have no idea what you are talking about can you explain a little more what you mean?
The stuff you put in red is a comment I made mainly because it contrasts markedly with another thread on the forums where a number of players find their game play suffers because they feel compelled to spend a lot of time caring for the casualties, something they never did in earlier incarnations of the game. The red bit was also directed at JSB as it was he who suggested the buddy aid problem could be fixed with high explosive, thought that was obvious, my bad.
-
Buddy aid can be done by anyone, in a lot of cases players use the XO for buddy aid so the rest of the unit is not delayed. This does have an impact on whether weapons are retrieved or not. Not sure on what happens if units from other platoons give buddy aid in terms of guns and ammo.
While "running into the deadly zone an doing first aid for a long time" may not be what you want to have happen but I cannot imagine a situation where a solider would simply take the weapons and ammo off a live buddy without attempting some form of aid. Nice touch there is "solve" a problem by killing your men. Even if dead it will take an appreciable time to get ammo etc of a body.
Weapons and ammo are retrieved, but the nature of what is taken and under what circumstances, including the pros and cons of taking enemy weapons has been debated at length with varying opinion as to what constitutes "real" behaviour and what doesn't.
As always BFC have made a choice that seems to cover many likely situations.
-
And the fact that it is the Noblemen who were the Knights
-
I think the idea of the buddy aid before picking up is to give a certain degree of choice to the player as to whether they pick up the weapons or not.
I guess it simulates the process of getting the weapon and ammo etc
-
How many 20 mile horse rides cross country do you go on, just to get to the pub or visit a friend.
Are you kidding? There was no call for gyms because their entire life was a fitness regime, from dawn to dusk. Lifting heavy things, walking everywhere, riding horses, going on hunts ... even just having a bath or taking a dump.
Horse riding, while tiring is not a really good fitness activity, well not for you, the horse maybe.
Busy or labour intensive lifestyle is not conducive to battle fitness in particular but also has little to no impact on your Aerobic fitness and don't forget I am talking nobility here who were, in general, pretty idle.
Sure there maybe some examples of individuals who were particularly fit, there are always stand outs, but viewed overall I cannot see any reason to suggest that they would have been fitter then than now.
-
The old notion of tank catching fire more easily because they use petrol is a bit of a myth, sure is it flammable as opposed to combustible (considerably higher ignition temperature) but the temperatures in a tank cook up don't make the difference a significant issue. The "Ronson" moniker of the Sherman was more about its vulnerable ammunition and it wasn't the only tank to suffer this affliction, the Panther was another.
But for sure the Bren Carrier was an open topped lightly armour vehicle so everything in it was vulnerable including the fuel tank.
I'd look at them more as a tracked jeep rather than a tankette.
-
I think the first video is pretty obviously a reenactment. However, some of the tank footage looks quite realistic. I put it in there for an example of the copious backblast from the Panzerfaust.
It is certainly a real tank but not a real enemy tank manned by Soviets and filmed by Germans.
I was meaning that if the whole video is staged we can't take much credence from the amount of backblast as that is fabricated as well.
I'd even go so far as to say as the backblast in the "real" video is actually far greater than the first.
-
Magpie suggested de-escalation, in which access to firearms is harder - much harder - for everyone, meaning encountering firearms in any given hostile encounter becomes exceptional rather than expected.
True enough but what I was really meaning is that if someone pushes you in a pub and says " 'oo you lookin' at?" you can say either of 2 things, " A complete twat !" or "Sorry mate"
What happens next in each case will be different. In the first a barfight, in the second nothing he thinks he is king dick and you get back to your beer and your mates.
If someone points a gun at you nothing will be solved by drawing your own gun and by the same token wide spread gun availability merely increases the prospect of guns being present in a confrontation. I've got one 'cos he's got one ignores the fact that he's got one because I've got one.
-
This is from the foggy recesses of my brain, but ISTR that part of the reason that the airborne infantry carried the M1919A6 rather than the BAR is that the BAR did not break down easily into parts that could be fit into an airborne drop bag, while the M1919A6 could be relatively easily broken down into buttstock, receiver, and barrel packages. But I can't find confirmation of this at the moment...
At any rate, IMHO the M1919A6 isn't a huge advantage over the BAR as a squad automatic weapon. The belt feed was a definite improvement over the BAR Magazine feed, but it's significantly heavier than a BAR (14.7kg vs. 8.8kg for the BAR). In an attempt to keep the weight down, they also put a lighter barrel on the M1919A6 (as compared to the M1919A4), and it still didn't have any quick change barrel feature. So the advantage of the belt feed was severely limited by the barrel heating problem.
Overall, I doubt the sustainable ROF from the M1919A6 was that much higher than the BAR. To be sure, having a the belt feed means that a gunner can get more rounds down range for at least a brief period, and this is an advantage. I'm just not sure this relatively modest improvement is worth the additional 8kg in weight...
Another thing that limits its rate of fire is that is fires from a closed bolt and thus is more prone to cook off after sustained fire. 6kg (?) extra weight of gun means 6kg less ammunition too
-
Problem with percentages is that they really don't tell the whole story. You need to look at how many of the assaults were defended with guns or knives. At a guess I would say very few, which would skew the figures.
-
Buy nothing, that will mess with his head !
-
Just as an aside, do you think that the first of those videos is a modern re-enactment and the second a real one?
The quality of the first doesn't look very 1940's to me and the camera is surprisingly steady for someone who can actually see an enemy tank. The blast effect on the tank doesn't look right either.
Also in the first one the weapon is fired off the shoulder like the modern M72 is but the second video shows the firers holding it under their arm as I believe was the Wehrmacht doctrine.
?????
I note too the Belon Cooper Video shows a burning Panther from the famous Cologne Pershing video
-
The Airborne were on e of the first units to use the A6 bipod 30cal variant but I don't think they had it until the Rhine crossings?
-
i would recommend you to accept other peoples opinions, if in super native english or in chinese.
people who start their answers with words like "rubbish" arent woth to talk with them and i guess its better that such morones dont recommend something to other people.
The word is actually spelt moron and if you want people to think you are talking about your balls go right ahead.
Thing is you are stuck on the assertion that firing at real people in combat is the same as firing at targets on a range and that is simply not true as a number people who have actually been in that situation have pointed out.
The idea is to to put together a series of inputs to determine whether the game is accurate or not but if you have already made up your mind... why bother discussing it?
-
Overall, when a woman attempted to protect herself in any way the rape was "not completed" in more than 4 out of 5 cases. When the woman made no attempt to resist the rape was successful 2/3 of the time.
Ok so there you have it. If the woman resists in some way, gun or not she stands an 80% chance of not being raped. So they don't need guns. The only difference a gun would make is to make her assailant more scared and likely to shoot her. So better to scream or best yet kick 'em in the nuts
Multymegaton ****storm :) Could the Germans win the war?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Ok just a couple of things, in 1945 the Japanese still held vast areas that they had conquered in 41/42. This was largely due to the Japanese conquering them when they we more or less undefended and being especially difficult to root out. The ALLIES (you weren't alone here) bypassed most of the captured islands and only took the few required to cripple Japan in the Pacific Theatre and made steady gains in the South East Asian Theatre.
True enough though the ALLIES had choked off any form of logistical supply to or from the mainland. The dropping of the atomic bomb of course saved numerous lives, both ALLIED and Japanese and did lead to the ALLIED occupation and rebuilding.
Having said all that I cannot see how Japan could have been considered to have "done much better". They had strategic surprise and achieved some rapid gains for about 9 or 10 months and the lost just about every major engagement from that point on. They may have "kept" their gains but they were at a loss to use them in anyway. Bit like have a really great car but someone keeps blowing up your driveway.