Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

-Snafu-

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1739

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by -Snafu-

  5. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    Should I report you for personal attacks & off-topic? Nah, you're not the one on the high horse of morals here, peasant, since I didn't torrent OA.

    Do run along, ole chap.

    Release date for OA was June 29th but many people in Germany received their copy early. You were banned at the time. It's unlikely you flew to Germany.

    Well, you're posts are weird. Odd, not always on topic, often goes around whatever point you're trying to make, often insulting, sarcastic, high use of the word 'peasant' etc.

    In the UK we don't have a gun ownership culture and we're fine with that. The US does and that's fine. We're happy with the way things are. People can defend themselves. It's perfectly acceptable within the law. Read:

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

    Two cases in here that demonstrate that:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-who-killed-intruder-cleared-of-murder-1915234.html

    Another:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5889125.ece

    Oh look another:

    http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/Jury-clears-man-intruder-s-murder/article-1909838-detail/article.html

    These stories don't get the same attention as the doomsday ones. They just don't sell as much papers.

  6. Posted

    Check out the UK, I think you need a license for a pepper spray. Then, they wonder why lorries drive up to their garage and steal that $30k bike in broad daylight.

    'Civilised', my ass. Gawd damn peasants. :icon_eek:

    What is it with you and your posts?

    Are you an acid?

    They're odd, only occasionally relate to the topic and hardly make sense.

    The high and mighty attitude is also funny considering you torrented OA to get your hands on it early.

    The UK is fine the way it is thank you very much.

  7. Posted

    Okay, all of us made it to mission 3 without taking casualities. But sadly we're stuck here.

    We survived the infantry attack, destroyed the observer post, secured the landing zone, broke the siege, found one mortar and took out the crew.

    Problem 1: how can I destroy the mortar? Satchel didn't work, frags didn't work

    Problem 2 Is there another mortar somewhere? I double checked the region, but couldn't find anything.

    Problem 3: Got assigned to help take out an armored column. But when I reach the crossroads to Sakhe, there are 2 friendlies there and 2 destroyed enemy vehicles. I drove all the way past Sakhe but there is nothing there. Any pointers?

    So far I like this campaign, but missing the triggers is a little frustrating ...

    There's another mortar just north of the first one that's surrounded by infantry and one vehicle.

    I don't know about Sakhe. In the previous mission I helped the friendly militia and in return they dealt with Sakhe in Heat.

  9. Posted

    When your military has ICBM's it can go anywhere in the world. China has had them for decades. Whether or not it has the capability for a minor war is another thing. That Pentagon report said they had amassed the largest stockpile of cruise missiles in the world with range on Taiwan.

    Conventional war. Nukes are a threat to the entire country and not just the military.

    With regards to submarines, there is no need for speculation. One of them surfaced uninvited and undetected, in the middle of a U.S. naval exercise. Their ability is proven.

    I thought you would mention that. None of the articles give any reason why it was undetectable. The USN is the largest and very arguably best navy in the world with a global reach. The crews, repeatedly doing large scale exercises when there is no real threat, simply might have gotten tired and let standards slip. Not all of the necessary facts are known. That incident was also at least four years ago and I fully expect the USN to have shaken up their ASW capability.

    To say the Chinese submarines are superior and can wipe out entire fleets with impunity based on that is quite a stretch.

    I agree with you about the targeting of their Sunburn equiped missiles, but it should not be lost on you however that this missile was able to successfully target a satellite in orbit. So it's clear it is within their capabilities to hit a slow moving object the size of two football pitches. That said, a satelittle is not a carrier. It must be harder to find the target and I have no idea how much telemetry is involved or the practicallity of focusing it on a ship out to sea. I read that it could be targetted buy satelitte or UAV. One would think that a carrier can be seen from space.

    The speed of the missile is known and it is known to be too fast for any anti-missile system around currently.

    The position of that satellite was known and it was also undefended. The DF-21D is still in development and might not even work out at all. Targetting will be an issue. I'm sure the USN and US have a few tricks up their sleeve too.

  10. Posted

    What is the logistics chain of an ICBM exactly?

    Nuclear war is quite a different beast to conventional war. When you say 'threat to the US military' one logically assumes you are talking about a conventional war of some sort since nuclear weapons are usually aimed at population centres. Even then I don't believe anybody other than the Chinese leadership knows what their actual nuclear capabilities are. Apart from you of course. I'm sure the US would be interested in your expert analysis.

    The Chinese have been in the position to start a shooting war with the US for decades. And anybody else for that matter.

    You are incorrect. When a nation is in the process of significantly building up its industry and military it is far away from being ready for any sort of major war. For starters the arms industry has to expand then the kit has to be developed, then said kit has to be introduced, tactical and strategic thinking needs to change etc. War is not a game of C&C. Building up a military, especially a modern one, is a lengthy and expensive process. You can't just to tell your military, 'hey go here'. It doesn't work like that.

    Let's not forget what I previously stated. The Chinese do not possess the ability to project military power across the globe like France, America and Britain. If the Chinese held the Falklands in 1982 they would not be able to take it back. The key asset in power projection is the aircraft carrier and China doesn't have one. If they are going to be in a major conventional war it will be one near their border.

    The other thing they have is the most advanced submarine force in the world. Also the most advanced anti-shipping missiles. They can defend themselves. They can destroy the U.S. logisitcal train to all it's pacific colonies.

    This is nothing but half-assed speculation. What is your source for saying they have the most advanced submarines in the world? Where is your source about them having the most advanced anti-ship missiles? They are developing a so called 'carrier killer' missile (I forget the name) and the media, surprise surprise, jumped on the hype. First of all it's not known if it can penetrate defences and do the job. Secondly there is the problem of target acquisition. In other words; speculation. Much like your statement above. In addition you also forget one key thing in your fanciful scenario; the enemy. It gets a vote too.

    There was a Pentagon report out on China's military capabilites last week. Worth checking out I expect. I haven't read it myself, just the newspaper reports of it. It pretty much says the same thing they said last year and the year before as far as I can tell.

    This year's annual report, according to the news sources, focuses on its continued military build-up and criticises China for its lack of transparency.

  11. Posted

    It could be interesting if done right but it would probably be in the spirit of the grossly inaccurate Alan Clark's The Donkeys.

    Gary Sheffield's Forgotten Victory is an excellent history of WW1 and firmly rejects many of the myths put forward as fact. That way cheesy clichés and myths would be avoided.

  12. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    The Chinese are a massive threat to the U.S. militarily they can burn every single city in the country to dust, and their submarines can sink American fleets with impunity.

    But at what price? Since America is able to reciprocate in kind.

    Have you ever heard of logistics?

    The Chinese are not a threat to the US at the moment. They are in the middle of heavy development of their military industry and armed forces. They are in no state to engage in a major shooting war with the US.

    It doesn't matter if they posses a big army with lots of weapons as they do not have the ability to project that power across the globe nor keep it supplied. If China is going to fight a major conventional war it will be one near its borders. Even then supply will still be a massive issue. It's a logistic impossibility to put such a large force in combat. With modern gear armies will be struggling to maintain the necessary ammo, spares, fuel, food etc. Industry would never get geared up in time to replace losses.

    They don't even posses an aircraft carrier. There are only three reasons to have an aircraft carrier and that is power projection, power projection and power projection. At the moment I highly doubt they are a threat to the USN and I highly doubt their submarines can, as you (apparently an expert on everything) put it, wipe out their fleets with impunity.

    They might be a threat decades down the line but certainly not at the moment.

  13. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    As for the request for police games, I want a police simulator that includes the hours and hours of paperwork that police officers have to do as well. In addition to that, I want to be forced to get a warrant before busting the bad guys. Plus, I also want one where the bad guy gets released on bail 24 hours later...and then I go and kick his ass.

    Abs

    Obviously it wouldn't be like that but something along the lines of what zachanscom said. It would be in the spirit of ArmA, realistic but not the level where you feel like hammering a nail into your head.

  16. Posted

    With Canadian military operations and history clearly outlined to the uninformed at the end of the day it's up to BIS. Depending on how successful the BAF DLC is I guess.

    If they do go with it I would not have it set in Takistan but somewhere else. Just because Takistan is similar to Afghanistan doesn't mean BIS have to model the entire ISAF contingent. Even though there are a lot of nations there the Takistan setting would get stale pretty quickly. The missions in each DLC would probably land up being largely similar to each other.

    If the BAF DLC is well received an ADF one would look like the next logical step to me. Something loosely based on East Timor would be great IMHO. Any quality DLC would be much welcomed though.

    On topic--> I would love to see Canada as a DLC. It would be a very good addon, as it is one of the only major contributers that doesn't have its own mod.

    ONS. Been around since OFP days IIRC.

  20. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    Sorry but I don't recognise these to be "facts".

    Evidence yes, facts no.

    Perhaps you will learn to be more discerning one day.

    The first report posted cites figures from the ISAF CIVCAS Database as well as utilising other databases.

    The second report which is by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) includes a section in their report detailing how they arrive at those statistics. They explain their process in information gathering and analysis. It is very thorough.

    The report by the Afghanistan Rights Monitor also includes a section to explain their methodology. Again, very thorough.

    They establish and explain that, yes, their statistics are not 100% accurate and likely never will be. Their figures, however, are reached through detailed research and analysis utilising many sources and they do their best to make sure the information is as accurate as possible.

    They do not come up with figures and sweeping statements based on half-assed perceptions and feelings.

    However since someone else here has posted evidence to contradict Pathy's evidence, your point has become entirely moot.

    Perhaps you will be able to understand now that these so called "facts" are commonly disputed and hence not "facts" at all but actually opinion.

    It does not contradict Pathy's as he has already explained. Perhaps you should have actually looked at it.

    Would it really have been so difficult for you to look this up for yourself?

    Are you serious? Why would I do your research for you?

    When you put forward an argument you provide evidence to back it up. You don't tell others to do it for you. How do you think university would go for you if you attended, handed in a report that put forward an argument, with no citations and no bibliography, and when questioned on that told the lecturer to go find it themselves?

  21. Posted

    Blah...

    You are needlessly complicating the issue.

    You made an outstanding claim. When you do that you provide evidence to back it up. Not others, they did not make that argument, but you. That is how it works. You failed to do so.

    Pathy challenged you and provided three different studies to show your assertion is false. He was not posting his 'feelings' on the topic. He was posting facts. It does not matter if you 'feel' you are right. Your feelings on the subject are irrelevant. Facts and evidence matter.

    The facts show that you are incorrect. You are right that studies should be challenged but you have not challenged them with anything other than 'if' and 'but'. You may be proven right in 50 years time when more evidence comes to light, however, the facts available to us now show that your 'feelings' are not correct.

    My opinion is that little green men killed them all. Anyone who disagrees is disseminating propaganda and bias. This is what I feel.

    I feel it is the Irish and their ancient desire for global domination.

    Beware the Clover...

  22. Posted

    Incorrect. What Pathy put forward are collated statistics that offer an opinion of a respected/recognised body of people (or 3).

    They are statistics collected from three separate studies all of which are relatively lengthy. It was not just pulled out of his arse.

    And that his representation of their findings is factual, but that is not the same thing as claiming their statements to be factual or beyond reasonable dispute.

    Of course they can be questioned but this is the same for all statistics. The war is still going and obviously not everything is 100% clear. Thirty years after the end of the war when historians can take a look at it we will know more.

    Their findings do not invalidate the findings of others in anyway, but rather add to the general overview. They provide an additional source of data from which an individual could base his own opinions and perceptions should he so wish to do.

    When one makes an argument they provide evidence to back it up. You made a claim that Allied forces kill more civilians than the insurgents. Where is the evidence?

    It might not matter to you what I feel is accurate, but it matters to me. If it does not matter to you then I repeat to you that I welcome it if you wish to ignore my remarks. Further more, I would welcome your own thoughts on the subject matter far more than I welcome your thoughts on me.

    Just because you feel something is accurate does not mean it is. You have failed to back up your assertion. What you 'feel' is irrelevant.

    To assume that Pathy has made some research and I have not is your choice to make and not one I care about enough to spend any significant time invalidating.

    It is not assumption. He has posted extracts from reports showing that he has searched for those reports and read (at least parts of) them. When historians begin to really look at the war 30 years after it has ended we will have a far better picture of almost everything but that is obviously a long time away. Pathy has made use of the facts available to us now.

    It is clear you have not done any research because you said so yourself.

    Wikileaks would be a good one, topically.

    I did briefly consider trawling Google to find one when I wrote that, but I couldn't be bothered. My remarks are based upon my own perceptions alone.

    Your 'perceptions' are not research or evidence.

    I hope in future you will be better able to distinguish when I am giving my opinion on subjects of common dispute and when I am stating the validity of empiricly measured facts.

    Unfortunately you do not make this clear.

    The only problem is we kill far more women and children than they do.

    You stated it as if it were fact, no hint at all that it is an opinion. Which doesn't really make sense as Allied forces either have or have not. That's not something that's down to opinion.

  23. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    If I felt I was, I wouldn't.

    If you feel I am, you are welcomed to ignore my comments.

    If you are unable to recognise that the nature of the subject prevents scientific accuracy, prevents solid incontestable facts then your own understanding of the subject matter is parhaps a little limited itself? Just a thought.

    Facts are facts and Pathy used what facts we have available to put forward an argument and make very reasonable conclusions.

    It does not matter if you 'feel' you are right or that you 'feel' that you know what you are talking about. Making stuff up and passing it off as fact just because one 'feels' they are correct does not slide.

    Furthermore, I am not debating the subject matter (civilian deaths) because I, like you, clearly do not know enough about the subject whereas Pathy at least did some research.

×