Saint_Fuller
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Saint_Fuller
-
-
-
It'd be more like "Jag har rätt", I think. IDK, "jag är i rätt" just flows really awkwardly to me.
-
Just now, Armorgunner said:
So when someone doesent say what you want to hear, you become a little Child. And want to bashing heads? I know for sure what Im speaking about. But im not native english speaking, so maybe there can be some missunderstanding.
You're wrong, and more importantly you're bullheadedly obstinate about admitting you're wrong, even when obviously more knowledgeable people are telling you that you are. There's no point in dissecting your posts into spaghetti to address every single point and explain why it's wrong, because going by just this thread you'll just ignore any attempts to tell you why you're wrong, shrug off any evidence that doesn't fit your viewpoint, and keep asserting your asinine claims. In short, it's debating in bad faith.
And trying to debate against someone who does that is a profound waste of time. Hence why people are unwilling to engage with you. -
1 minute ago, Armorgunner said:
Is there a problem of having a discussion on a Mature level here.
Your arguments are being given all the consideration they deserve. :^)
1 minute ago, Armorgunner said:Be more specific. Incorrect assumption on What?
To be honest, turning this into a spaghetti-posting feast to address all the points where you're wrong individually would just be a waste of time.
-
On 9/8/2017 at 9:30 AM, MikeyD said:
Just for fun, here's the American 'Armata' circa 2002. based on the Abrams. Crew-in-hull, overhead gun, autoloader. It looks like the ammo was still stored in-hull and God knows what it was using for optics.
Indeed, TTB had a carousel autoloader in the turret basket, holding 44 rounds (see first picture), and the sight assembly consisted of three electro-optical sight groups (presumably similar to the regular M1's gunsight): two on the sponsons near the front, and one on the turret. Said sight units are visible on the second photo.
Anyway, iirc the concept died (and the tank ended up forgotten in some yard) because a robotic turret with 1980s technology didn't work too well: having to rely solely on low-res, narrow FOV, cameras as your only means of observing the outside was slightly detrimental to situational awareness, for one.
-
1 minute ago, DreDay said:
There have actually been quite a few very public cases that involved Russian servicemen going on trial for crimes that they had supposedly committed in Chechnya. Not sure where you have been looking for this information; but I guarantee you that it is out there.
Do you have any kind of a source regarding this?
I'm actually slightly dubious here to be quite honest with you, because the general understanding I've gotten of it from perusing HRW and various other stuff (including news articles and some later stuff relating to ECHR judgments on the matter around 2007) is that a lot of these incidents were barely investigated at all (the outright opposite even - the HRW page for Novye Aldi mentions that the surviving civilians in the town were threatened to silence by Russian troops), and that no real action was taken to bring those responsible to justice. As I said, I wasn't able to find anything that really mentioned anyone getting taken to court over it, but I admittedly didn't look that hard either.
So yeah if you have any sources that'd be nice.
-
12 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Duly noted, do you have links to reports of the incidents you describe? I'm not putting anyone on a pedestal here as I thought my comments made clear.
Conversely here in the UK we had the case of Marine A, who was recently (and rightly IMHO) released.....These things are never simple.
PS - Just noted your Avatar/Name, don't suppose you are a fan of Charles Stross at all? Or is it just the tank thing?
It's the tank thing more or less. I'm kind of a treadhead, and I thought it was a neat thing.
That aside, yes, there are reports.
The HRW on the executions in Staropromyslovsky.Besides one man (and that case never actually took shape because he went underground and it got suspended in 2005 because of his disappearance), no one was taken to court, let alone convicted, for any of these massacres to my knowledge.
-
3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Meet Mosul: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/war-torn-mosul-july/?utm_term=.0f530e120e2d
Believe me, when your opposition is on the upper floors of buildings that have civilians in the basement and you are using JDAMs, 155mm artillery, TOS-1 Buratino and Mi-35s, not to mention the rather less precise IRAM to kill them, then no, there is not a 'bit of a difference'.....Ask the citizens, you'll find their own words in the article and elsewhere, what they feared most was the air-strikes, just like the citizens of Aleppo. I guess random unstoppable mega-death in the night can effect you like that after a while.
"American officer convicted in shooting deaths of 2 Afghans". "American army soldier convicted of killing Iraqi detainees". "Soldier sentenced to life without parole for killing 16 Afghans".
I tried to find anything about Russian soldiers involved in the various massacres of civilians in Chechnya being taken to court or convicted for these murders, but I couldn't find anything. There's definitely nothing here that relates to any point I've made. :^)
-
42 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
are you suggesting that it's only Russia that f***s up in war.....Pretty confident the population of Mosul, Falluja, Ramadi etc. etc. etc. would thoroughly disagree.
There's a bit of a difference between civilian targets getting hit by mistake as you conduct operations in urban terrain against insurgents, and burning a city to ash block by block with zero regard for anyone in the target zone as revenge for getting ****ed up the last time you tried to take it.
The difference in how Americans and Russians conduct urban operations is in the difference between Cordon & Search and Cordon & Smerch, so to say.
:^)6 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:And those with an alternative perspective could make an equally heartfelt and equally valid claim about countless western media including the BBC
So they could.
They'd be wrong, but they could definitely make that claim.
-
Clearly, what's needed is something like a triple hull carrier that's at least 360,000 tons.
And it'll have an arsenal of railguns and lasers to shoot at everything in the way.
And tracks, so it can drive up onto a beach for amphibious assault.
And it'll carry the Marines. Not Marines, as in an MEU or some such.
it'll carry the entire Marine Corps.
*nods*
-
19 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:
because if we will destroy those kids from DPR right away
"M-merely pretending".
I'm sure this is why the Ukrainian Army kept pissing away opportunity after opportunity to win the war - again, why did they sit around blockading Slavyansk for two months, outnumbering Strelkov 15 to one and vastly outgunning his men? Why did they literally fail to feed their paratroopers to the point a bunch of them crossed over to Strelkov literally for cookies? Why did they let Strelkov escape with two battalions' worth of troops driving down the highway where in any sane universe they should have been shattered with artillery? Why did they not press the advantage of the First Battle of Donetsk Airport, when the DPR leadership had already fled and there were ten to fifteen rebel fighters defending the rebel government headquarters?
The Ukrainian Army was an army in horrifying shambles which proved itself incapable of crushing the DPR even when the extent of Russian support amounted to funnelling weapons and shooting some artillery across the border. The reason for this is very simple: for 23 years Ukraine has methodically destroyed its own armed forces. Partly it was due to pro-Russian agents in government, partly due to corruption, but primarily it was due to a general attitude among the Ukrainian public that **** it, it's not like there's going to be a war, lol.
19 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:Think about concept of StarCraft - you got 3 sides they are different and the game play is different. Now this game is not RTS right? But, if each side would have more Unique features then the gaming experience would be 3 times more interesting. Yes the initial concept was that Ukrainian side is not that important - and thats why I was asking for more equipment because: 1 it will make the game more interesting 2 because there are tons of new equipment in Ukrainian military and 3 because initial concept can be adjusted - more content leads to more clients. Afterall more Ukrainians will play, that will bring more money man and Im surprised that I need to explain that.
The Ukrainian army in-game is perfectly competitive, to be quite honest with you. It's not capable of matching the other two armies in a straight-up fight, perhaps, but it is perfectly workable to use - not least because the UA already gets a bunch of stuff that it doesn't have IRL in order to make it competitive. There is really no need to start adding more stuff the Ukrainian Army doesn't have IRL when it's already competitive enough.
-
12 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:
Ukraine should be a powerhouse.
I'm sorry, but this is pure fantasy. Ukraine's troops are poorly trained (There were interviews of Ukrainian troops that were sent to the front in 2014 who had only shot their rifle off once or had never shot a firearm before, and it wasn't all that long ago that Ukraine decided to step training time down again to a ludicrous 2-3 days of classroom instruction and 1-2 days of range time to learn all of Ukraine's small arms), poorly motivated (there have been Ukrainian troops who have deserted to the enemy for literal cookies because they weren't getting fed), and very poorly handled (there is no other way to describe the fiascos that were things like the blockade of Slavyansk, where the Ukrainians sat around for two months while outnumbering the defenders 15 to 1, or the First Battle of Donetsk Airport, when the DPR leadership had already fled and there were ten to fifteen rebel fighters defending the rebel government headquarters, and yet the Ukrainians failed to press their advantage).
In a scenario where Russia and the US are investing serious forces like in the game's storyline, Ukraine's army is more or less irrelevant. Up until late 2014, when actual battalion-strength Russian units started coming in, Ukraine could have crushed the rebels decisively and yet it continued to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory time and time again. Why do you imagine it's going to be capable of competing with the US and Russia, exactly?
-
43 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
I beg to differ. I found that if you're in Panther, you should avoid hull down at ranges up to 500m, since the hull armour is stronger than the mantlet. Against basic Shermans, a Panther is nearly invulnerable as long as it is not hull down, but if it is, it will often quickly be taken out by a turret hit, usually disabling the main gun. At ranges longer than 500m there's an increasing chance that the enemy tank will not hit the turret, but at closer ranges it's nearly assured.
Rule of thumb: At close range, only go hull down if your turret is stronger than the hull, or if you are at long range (at least 500m plus).
Here's something for you to contemplate.
Going hull down reduces your tank's silhouette, which in turn reduces your chance of being seen and hit. Not getting hit is always better than being hit, for obvious reasons: your tank being able to take the hit doesn't really matter if your crew gets spooked by the hit and bail out at first opportunity, and there's always the possibility your armour can't take it.
That anecdote about Panthers being more vulnerable when hull-down seems kinda dubious, to be entirely honest.
I mean, yeah, maybe the gun is more likely to be damaged if it takes a hit when hull-down instead of fully exposed, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the probability of it getting hit in the first place when hull-down is lower than when it's fully exposed...
Tactical Lifehack
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
I'd say it depends on the situation how wise it is to displace when artillery fire starts coming in - sometimes it can pay off to hunker down and wait it out in your foxholes/trenches, to avoid getting caught by enemy direct fire when moving back into your positions or something like that.
), and it's worked surprisingly well to keep my units alive even under heavy airburst barrages so far.
I usually use Hide paired with an indefinite Pause (to prevent any unwanted displacing - don't want a squad to decide it's better to be in the open than in the trench while it's raining HE-F
Just my 2c TBH, I might just be stating the obvious though.