Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Oligo

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    954

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Oligo

  1. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tydium @ Nov. 15 2002,12:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What comes to the Finnish army leadership training the biggest problem is the service time. Nowadays normal grunts serve 6 months while NCO's and reserve officers serve 12 months. It's difficult to get enough competent people in the NCO school because most people want to get out of the army in the shortest possible time. Of course they could force them to go but that would have serious affect to their motivation.

    And of course for those who was trained to squad leaders and reserve officers the army's leadership training is only the beginning of learning process that will continue in reserves.<span id='postcolor'>

    Yes, nowadays the situation is even more fucked than when I served. But I am from the old school, so the currrent situation does not apply to me.

    The problem is that those who are chosen to the NCO and officer school are not necessarily the true leaders of the bunch. A short example:

    Our measuring squad was initially trained by the trainer regular officer to be an efficient measuring squad. Then they send us the NCO from the NCO school and the ofiicer from the officer school. It turns out that in the real measuring situation, both of those "leaders" were totally incompetent. So this one private of the squad ends up commanding this whole outfit. In the end they made him PFC. Would it have not been better to send this one private to officer school, since he clearly had the most leadership potential?

  2. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 15 2002,10:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for it being unguided, nobody really knows. There is a 'light' Shkval-E (export) version that is unguided and slower. The Russian Shkval II can reach speeds of over 700 km/h.<span id='postcolor'>

    Traveling 700 km/h underwater is possible, because the projectile creates a sheath of steam around itself. No sound can pass through that and furthermore all info from the surroundings of the torp is drowned by the background noise of the torp itself. A simple matter of signal to noise ratio.

    Anyway, I read from Jane's that ruskies are selling a semi-guided Shkval, which travels to target area unguided and then slows down to conventional speeds in order to search for a target.

  3. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 15 2002,11:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is not so surprising. A mortar element is a support unit and taking own initiative can only lead to bad things. The tactical decisions are not made by the mortar units but from the ones who call in your support. Your only important function is that you have high mobility and a good delivery on target. Therefor it is not surprising that you only focus on the physical and operational part. That's your role. Different styles of leadership exist for different combat roles.<span id='postcolor'>

    Ahh, but you've misunderstood what I meant by lack of initiative.

    I served in the heavy mortars, that is we have a 120mm tube to operate. This thing cannot be very easily carried around, so we generally transported it by towing with a truck. And like you pointed out, our most important function is high mobility and a good, fast delivery on target. This requires traveling into the (preferably prepared) positions and putting up the tubes as fast as possible, firing and then packing up and rolling ASAP.

    But this is not as simple as it sounds. All kinds of shit can come up, like trouble with the terrain, trouble with communications, trouble with the fact that enemy troops have overrun the prepared positions... The fact is, every time there was a problem, our dear leaders froze, because they needed to make a decision and they could not, because they were afraid of making the wrong call and being chewed by the superior officers.

    All this resulted in us having a poor mobility and slow delivery on target, which in combat means death by enemy counterbattery fire. Even a mortar element needs initiative in overcoming unexpected situations. Rear-echelon units can become front-line units in case of an enemy breakthrough. There you need bloody initiative.

    Oh, yeah, the lack of initiative also resulted in major pissed offedness factor in the troops. Our fucking platoon leader could not even decide where to put up the fucking tents without asking the regular officer who was our platoon trainer.

  5. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 14 2002,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the issue is leadership.

    even in a rigid environment like the armed forces, with its wall between officers and enlisted men, there are true leaders on both sides of the wall.

    in every crowd there are some that others are more willing to listen to than others. it lies in the personal makeup of a leader that he attracts followers.

    let's say people can have a "leadership quotient" of between 1 and 10.

    a 5 will never willingly follow a 1 or a 2 or a 3 or a 4.

    he will want to follow a 6 or 7...

    now, when you have a real leader among the NCOs and only follower quality types among the officers, you have yourself a problem.

    I admit that I personally have a very hard time to follow somebody's order which I percieve to be inferior because I can come up with a better alternative myself.

    I only want to submit to folks I look up to.

    (good thing I command an army of one  wink.gif  )<span id='postcolor'>

    You have a very good point there. I think the problem in the finnish army emerges from the fact that low-rank officers and NCOs are picked from the fresh conscripts only after ten weeks of service. There is no way that true leaders can be picked from the crowd in that time. So what we end up with is a bunch of physically fit and military life-style appreciating (qualities that are easy to screen) officers and NCOs. These people then go to separate units to train for their commission and then come back to command their peers, who have meanwhile trained for the art of grunt. The problem with these peope is that they're arrogant because they have been trained to feel superior to the common grunt, they totally lack initiative, because they have been crushed mentally in the officer/NCO academies and that very few of them are natural leaders that people automatically look up to. God save us from ever going to war with these leaders.

    The problem with the regular higher-ranking officers is that the military in Finland is totally underpaid, so officer salary is poor. Furthermore, finnish army never fights anywhere, so the military is just a pointless exercise in stupidity. Thus no "cream of the crop" never want to go to the army to become a regular officer. All they get is a bunch of idealistic, sadistic, no-leadership material morons.

    The end result is that the finnish grunt is trained to the max (as much as is possible with a conscription army of peacetime), because they never do anything else except hone their actual war fighting skills. (As a result I can fire that mortar in my sleep in only so few xeconds.) But it is only after this period of training that true leaders start to emerge from among the grunts. Unfortunately the receivers of brass have been picked a long time ago...

  6. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 14 2002,09:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is not derertion, its disobeying an order and perhaps

    cowardness in the face of an enemy or something similar.

    I don't know what system you have in Finland, but in Sweden we trust our squad leaders and platoon leaders to do tactical decisions. Withdrawing from an impossible battle is one of those. But when you give your men that liberty, you must also know that you can trust them and that they wouldn't chicken out just because that they wouldn't want to fight. It is a two way street  - my squad leaders and platoon leaders have a lot of autonomy, but I must know that they are always doing their best.

    Why that hateful attitude towards officers? Did some officer pee in your corn flakes? The funny thing is that I have several Finnish friends who have served in your military and they have about the same opinion as you. Makes you think how good state the Finnish military is in. A military where the men don't trust their officers can't be in good health.<span id='postcolor'>

    I'd call the Äyräpää situation "reluctancy to be uselessly slaughtered".

    It is too bad (very good actually) that Sweden hasn't been to war for hundreds of years. You cannot look back at battle accounts and learn from them. Luckily (not luckily actually) Finland has made war about 60 years ago, so we can always look back at the recollections of those who participated to see how it actually goes in a REAL war (no peacekeeping).

    In a perfect world officers and NCOs are supposed to make good decisions. But they definitely do not nearly always do so in the real world, because they are blinded by glory, duty, patriotism, idealism or something else. This applies to all the armies I know, including finnishs and swedish armies. That's why you cannot give the execution rights to officers, period. Besides, I'd fight for Finland partially because we are not barbaric enough to use the death penalty. If the bastards used death penalty in wartime, I'd lose my motivation to defend my country.

    When I served, most of my officers and NCOs were sadistic shits. There were only a few I'd follow to battle, because they took care of their men. Thus any new officer or NCO would first have to earn my respect before I would consider him my leader. I don't just want to follow the insignia, because those trinkets are way too easy to come by at least in the finnish army.

    But that's even traditional, because the past has shown that officers and NCOs who are not first into the fray are not followed by his finnish men, because finns do not have much fear of authority.

  7. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 14 2002,00:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually I estimate it more likely that the deserter will get shot by his squadmates sooner then by an officer. Your trying to make this an enlisted vs. officer thing, which it isn't. As I said, I was much more militant on that point when I was an NCO then I am now. And I also know that the enlisted men that I have served with agree with me.<span id='postcolor'>

    I only say this: As an officer or a NCO, execute one of your men and the rest will hate you.

    For example in Äyräpää, when finns were retreating across a river and a Major decided retreat was not an option. This was a direct order, so according to your ideals Denoir, it should have been obeyed. The result no doubt would have been the slaughter of the whole unit by the soviets. The men, however decided to retreat regardless of the order given by the Major. So the Major aided by the military priest (!wink.gif started to shoot his own men with a rifle and since back then execution of deserters was legal, he was acting perfectly legally. Luckily "soviet snipers" killed both the Major and the priest in a very short time and the unit was saved by the retreat.

    The point is, the more power the officers have, the easier it is for them to abuse it. I thank the lucky stars that the idiot politicians have realized this and abolished death penalty even in war time in both Sweden and Finland.

  8. Posted

    Sven Hassel once wrote: "The reason for shooting deserters is this: After the first day of war, all grunts from boths sides would want to go home. And where would that lead? The officers would be left standing stupidly on the fields of glory. All those generals ashamed with no army to lead. That's why we shoot deserters."

    I have served in a conscription unit and at least 25% of the people in there would definitely desert. Hell, they would not even report for duty if there was a war. Instead of cursing these people, I am GLAD that they would do that, because I would definitely not want to be in a foxhole with a man, whose only motivation is to avoid being shot by his own leaders. These men do not make good soldiers. A soldier with good motivation does not desert his buddies. So I want to fight with motivated men, not with intimidated man.

    Ran, I would definitely want you as my squad leader in a war situation.

    Denoir, you can foam away about shooting deserters, but remember this: Also grunts have justice. It is surprising how often hated officers are found shot in the back by the "enemy" while "running away" from the battlefield. Do not piss off a bunch of people with assault rifles, when you're only wielding a Glock.

    I have read about the executions of deserters during WWII in Finnish army. And in all instances, the fighting spirit of the unit went down instead of up, because the troops understood that not even their own officers are on their side.

  9. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 09 2002,23:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the other hand I did my service with the kustjägarna (costal rangers). We were taught and trained and I am a firm believer that desertion is the most contemptible act possible. My comrades and superiors must be able to trust me, just as I must be able to trust my comrades and those who serve under me. Although the current Swedish policy is to arrest deserters during war time, I would not hesitate one second of executing a deserter on the spot. As a soldier you don't have the big picture. The ones that you have your responsibility to is to the men next to you and the men under you.<span id='postcolor'>

    A typical officer attitude: "I would not hesitate to shoot a deserter." What the hell would it accomplish, except make your men hate you? Do you really think that a soldier who does not desert just because he does not want to be shot by his officer is a useful soldier? I think not.

    Deserting is not a honorable thing, but I'd rather see those who would still desert be kicked out of the unit, than fight next to me. A person forced to fight at gunpoint is not a good soldier whom I would trust with my life.

    So rethink your officer stupidity, Denoir.

  10. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Oct. 10 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Six are knwon to be dead, and two more wounded, and all the police have is a shell cassing and what might be a message that points towards the fact that he may be a 5 star nutter if true, but if he has gone crazy, he is still very under control. Thaa is a fact that makes this all the more harder to apprehend the sniper and any possible conatcts it might have(Although he says 'I am god' so that could point to the fact its a loner)<span id='postcolor'>

    I think a little joke is in order:

    A man is driving past an insane asylum, when his car breaks down. He's at a total loss about what he should do. Then, a person in pyjamas looks out through one of the widows of the asylum. "Did your car break down?" the pyjama-dressed person asks. "Yes it did. I don't know what I should do." the man replies. The person obeying the hospital dresscode thinks for a while and then proceeds to instruct the man how to repair his automobile.

    With the job complete and the auto back up and running, the man is throughoutly greatful: "Thank you so much! How can they have possibly committed you to an insane asylum?" "You see, I might be crazy, but I am not stupid." the insane person replies.

    Never underestimate crazy people.

  11. Posted

    Heh, it sure is something to serve in a conscription army. Mostly it's waste of time, because everything is taught at the pace of the slowest one. And then the rest of the time is filled with auxilary action like mopping the floors or raking the yards. The officers don't really think that anybody under them is capable of thought, because they think brass makes them experts in everything.

    But hell, there are no worries and no reponsibility. Easy living.

  13. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sweeper @ Oct. 09 2002,13:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And that statement about loving the country is a fact but if nobody loved the country there wouldn't be any war I disagree.

    War is engaged by politics as usual Bush is now the spark and we others are the fuel.<span id='postcolor'>

    There definitely would not be any wars, if nobody was willing to die for their respective countries. Have you ever heard the phrase: "Some day they will make war, but nobody will come"? The point is that you need gullible grunts to do the dying and enforcing. No grunts = no war.

  14. Posted

    How ironic that a guy called "Sweeper the Mercenary" would talk about loving thy country. It's even more ironic that it is possible to derive this conclusion from your statement: "If nobody loved their respective countries, there would be no war."

    Something to think about. wow.gif

  15. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Oct. 07 2002,21:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just my opinion, but regardless of when this drone may have been born, I have a hard time imagining him as anything other than a complete weasel.

    One difference to keep in mind is that [soldiers are] not trained to kill for "fun."

    (Not pickin' on ya Oligo; some folks are just more fun to bicker with.  wink.gif )<span id='postcolor'>

    I don't know about the weasel part, but at least this guy is not stupid as his success in avoiding the cops clearly shows. Anyway, why is it so hard for people to understand that some of us like to kill for sport. They get genuine enjoyment from hunting (just like any other rabbit shooter out there), but they just go for the most intelligent game around. And since these people are most likely psycopaths (unable to feel empathy), killing people doesn't mean more to them than swatting flies does to us "sane" people.

    Or maybe it is a political statement. What I'm trying to say is that there are thousands of possible reasons for a random killing spree.

    I am well aware that soldiers are not trained to kill for "fun", since I have been trained by an army myself (we have conscription). They taught me to fire mortar shells with great accuracy and speed. They even taught me to feel pride about this simple act by making everybody compete against each other. Why the hell should you care whether your mortar is faster than the one next to you? I don't know, but you DO when you're there. Must be the male instinct of competition.

    So you do your little act, which you even feel proud about, without considering that you're training to hit other flesh-and-blood humans with fragmenting ordinance. If you stop and think about that, well, I think it is something that shouldn't be taught to anybody ever.

    Soldiers are not trained to kill for fun, but they're trained to kill nevertheless. If you happen to have an innate tendency to enjoy killing, well, you have found your calling.

  16. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 07 2002,14:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What goverment does not lie? What goverment has not done something hypocritic?<span id='postcolor'>

    Good point. All governments are full of wankers. Why? Because in order to get to governments, you have to be a power-hungry bastard willing to sacrifice your whole life for the quest for power.

    Therefore, Dubya and his cronies are no better than Saddam and his cronies.

  17. Posted

    Also, mortars are the preferred mode of attack against dug-in enemy. Since mortar rounds travel in very high arcs, the rounds tend to hit the bottom of foxholes (very lethal) much more often than arty rounds which travel in a shallow arc.

    Most common mortar munitions are HE and Smoke. Mortar muzzle diameters range from 60mm to 120mm.

    A finnish heavy mortar company (for example) has 2-3 platoons consisting of three mortars each. (Never ever call a mortar platoon a battery BTW).

    A mortar company typically fires the first rounds simultaneously after which each mortar slams the rounds in as fast as possible (experienced crews can really let it rip, 5 seconds a shot). The final round is again fired simultaneously by each mortar.

    Recently fully automated mortar systems have become available. A single one of these puppies can put six rounds to a target simultaneously by varying the charge and angle of the shots fired. Pretty neat-o.

    My avatar displays a 120mm puppy in action.

  18. Posted

    Now that I thought about it, the actions of our fucked up hero the sniper are still ultimately beneficial for even our modern society, because criminal activity promotes change and prevents stagnation. If there was no crime, it would mean that everybody always follows the rules. If everybody always followed the rules, there wouldn't ever be any new ideas around, good or bad. Disobedience is the root of all great or horrible ideas. Disobedience is also the root of crime. Thus they are inseparable and I doubt that one can be rooted out without rooting out the other as well.

    A very good practical example of what I said above is the comparison of the 9/11-upheaval to efforts of pollution reduction. 9/11 was a fine example of a bunch of people breaking a bunch of rules in a very spectacular manner. And a lot of change has emerged as a result of their actions. Unfortunately the results seem to be U.S. rampaging around the world on their little crusade, but stagnation has definitely been prevented.

    Now compare this to the ever continuing efforts of agreeing on anything having to do with pollution reduction. Continuing pollution has the potential of totally ending our civilization. But since this threat does not spring from criminal activity (no blame game is possible), nobody agrees on anything. No change is made. Meanwhile we are stagnated to continuing our little pollution thingy.

  19. Posted

    Yes, people are born different. But you calling them "fucked up" is just a matter of context. They're "fucked up" in the context of the modern society, but in the context of some other society, they might be the best of men.

    Let's say our fucked up hero of a sniper had been born to the ancient Rome for example. He'd maybe be a gladiator, brutally slaughtering other men on the Colosseum. He'd be the hero of the people, who would cheer him and look up to him because of his ability to kill without remorse. High-class women would pay gold to get to screw with him. Or maybe he would be a soldier killing "barbarians" in the neverending wars of expansion Rome had. His killer instinct would benefit his society.

    What if our sniper character had been born to a clan of early Homo Sapiens? He would be the champion of the clan, endlessly looting, raping and killing the neighboring clans and thus being beneficial for his own clan.

    But here he is, our seriously twisted hero. Born into the modern society. He maybe went to receive military training, maybe he was a police. But although this training provided him with the means to kill, he was not provided with targets. And yet inside him, the urge to take lives he was born with was strong. In the end, he followed that urge. In the end, we label him "fucked up".

  20. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Oct. 07 2002,04:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The United States could double it's land mass.  <span id='postcolor'>

    No you couldn't. There are (at least) two reasons for this:

    1. You're not the only one who has enough nukes to blow the whole world up.

    2. The tolerance of your public to the attrition of occupation is minimal.

  21. Posted

    It's funny how the public tends to blame new things like games and TV, when somebody goes ballistic. Nobody blames institutions like the armed forces, which teaches people to kill real people with real guns with maximum efficiency.

    Considering how many people with military training there are in the world (especially in countries with conscription), I'm surprised this shit happens as little as it does.

  22. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Oct. 01 2002,00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Old news, and its not true seeing how two brown haired parents can still have blond kids ..... or my sister isnt really family ...... Would explain allot! biggrin.gif<span id='postcolor'>

    Brown haired parents can have blond kids because:

    There are two copies of the hair gene in a human cell. Let's call the dominant brown hair gene B and the recessive blond hair gene b. Thus people who are either BB, Bb or bB are all brown haired, whereas only bb people are blondes.

    Now let's assume that two brown haired Bb people mate to produce offspring. Since kids randomly get one of the genes from both parents, the offspring produced can be BB, Bb, bB or bb. Thus there is a 1/4 chance of producing blonde offspring.

  24. Posted

    That Pan person is just simply a little on the weird side. Nothing to be so disgusted or threatened about. Unless of course you are not secure about your own sexual orientation...

    Be careful or you might feel attracted to Pan. tounge.giftounge.giftounge.gif

  25. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Sep. 30 2002,11:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes first thing I like to do when I meet a girl is to lick her armpit to see if we're compatible, strangely I've not been compatible with any yet  confused.gif   biggrin.gif<span id='postcolor'>

    Which is not what you have to do, since you can instinctively pick up the "funk" from a normal conversational distance. You're not aware of it, but it affects your decision making.

×