- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I deserved that. 
- Status
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I don't get everything from the internet. please do not assume that i sit here and gather information by google-ing it. I get a lot of my information from respected authors, academic journals such as Jane's Defence Weekly and i try to stick to the better sites out there (fas.org, casr dnd 101). Just because i don't have any firsthand experience with the MGS doesn't mean i can't think it has shortcomings. certainly that's not unreasonable. i'll try not to be so brash in the future, but i don't think my earlier post in this thread suddenly becomes 100% incorrect because i haven't seen or operated an MGS
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
So you read and regurgitate OTHER people's opinions and try to pass that off as legitimate knowledge or experience?
I myself have done a great deal of research about medecine, surgery, various ailments, etc., but would NEVER walk into a convention of doctors and talk to them about my opinions of their surgical techniques. That would make me about as much of an armchair surgeon as you're trying to be an armchair general.
Just because i don't have any firsthand experience with the MGS doesn't mean i can't think it has shortcomings.
Yes, actually it does. You've never used it, you have never used anything similar, you have no experience on which to draw, you have no basis of comparison, and only have read about other people's opinions on the matter.
I get a lot of my information from respected authors, academic journals such as Jane's Defence Weekly and i try to stick to the better sites out there (fas.org, casr dnd 101).
You know, I've read a lot about the military as well, and DO have experience to draw from, but having never used the MGS, let alone even laid my eyes on one, I'm hardly in a position to tell those with genuine experience about what I think its shortcomings are.
You have been asked numerous times by the DS of this forum to either remove the title "defence analyst" from your title, or back it up with some genuine credentials. This is the last time you will be asked.
I myself have done a great deal of research about medecine, surgery, various ailments, etc., but would NEVER walk into a convention of doctors and talk to them about my opinions of their surgical techniques. That would make me about as much of an armchair surgeon as you're trying to be an armchair general.
Just because i don't have any firsthand experience with the MGS doesn't mean i can't think it has shortcomings.
Yes, actually it does. You've never used it, you have never used anything similar, you have no experience on which to draw, you have no basis of comparison, and only have read about other people's opinions on the matter.
I get a lot of my information from respected authors, academic journals such as Jane's Defence Weekly and i try to stick to the better sites out there (fas.org, casr dnd 101).
You know, I've read a lot about the military as well, and DO have experience to draw from, but having never used the MGS, let alone even laid my eyes on one, I'm hardly in a position to tell those with genuine experience about what I think its shortcomings are.
You have been asked numerous times by the DS of this forum to either remove the title "defence analyst" from your title, or back it up with some genuine credentials. This is the last time you will be asked.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I'd like that very much. thanks for the second chance.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
LordOsborne I will also make a suggestion. Get rid of defence analyst in your tag it will only give you grief.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I thought it was all right to keep it once i explained it was a hobby title more than anything else, but i respect your wishes and i've changed it to something i AM. i'm not sure if my career path will take me to becoming a real analyst, but if i do, i wanted to have that firsthand experience i'm so painfully lacking.
Now, i fully understand what you mean about regurgitating other people's opinions, but to a certain extent, we all do it. now, when i said "having 18 rounds for the autoloader's magazine is a shortcoming", i thought it was a generally accepted fact. i backed my opinion up with information i read in other places, although i didn't explain myself (and i probably should have, in hindsight.. :-\ ). why is it a shortcoming? well, i drew on examples of combat vehicles in the past who have also had a similar problem. Case in point, the Iosef Stalin 2 "Victory Tank" of the second world war. its large 122mm gun had only 28 rounds to keep it going (Encyclopedia of Armoured Fighting Vehicles 2002 edition, pg. 386) and experience during the war proved that the crew frequently ran out of ammunition during combat. Other era tanks had a much larger ammunition storage capacity (partly because of the smaller size of the ammunition). now, running out of ammunition in combat is obviously a bad thing... Logic would suggest that having less ammunition is probably still a handicap today as it was 60 years ago. that, i think, is "legitimate knowledge".
Now, i fully understand what you mean about regurgitating other people's opinions, but to a certain extent, we all do it. now, when i said "having 18 rounds for the autoloader's magazine is a shortcoming", i thought it was a generally accepted fact. i backed my opinion up with information i read in other places, although i didn't explain myself (and i probably should have, in hindsight.. :-\ ). why is it a shortcoming? well, i drew on examples of combat vehicles in the past who have also had a similar problem. Case in point, the Iosef Stalin 2 "Victory Tank" of the second world war. its large 122mm gun had only 28 rounds to keep it going (Encyclopedia of Armoured Fighting Vehicles 2002 edition, pg. 386) and experience during the war proved that the crew frequently ran out of ammunition during combat. Other era tanks had a much larger ammunition storage capacity (partly because of the smaller size of the ammunition). now, running out of ammunition in combat is obviously a bad thing... Logic would suggest that having less ammunition is probably still a handicap today as it was 60 years ago. that, i think, is "legitimate knowledge".
- Status
Similar threads
