StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Jim Raynor wrote:One of these morons is now claiming that in Iraq, a four-man marine patrol once took out 19 Iraqi tanks with their Javelins. He didn't support this beyond saying that he heard it from some marine, and I don't think I can question his credibility there with DM as the moderator. I want to ask some of the real soldiers and military buffs here if this actually happened, or is even close to being possible. Not that it would prove his "uber special forcez" crap either way.

The questions, then, assuming his anecdote is true, are: how representative is that of general Marine ability? and why should small-unit tactics and kill-ratios in real life transfer to Star Wars?

Jim Raynor wrote:One of these morons is now claiming that in Iraq, a four-man marine patrol once took out 19 Iraqi tanks with their Javelins. He didn't support this beyond saying that he heard it from some marine, and I don't think I can question his credibility there with DM as the moderator. I want to ask some of the real soldiers and military buffs here if this actually happened, or is even close to being possible. Not that it would prove his "uber special forcez" crap either way.

Considering, afaik, the Javelin is a fire and forget weapon, to kill 19 tanks, the four man Marine patrol would need to be carrying 19 launchers. Lets just say that stretches credibility a bit.

Knife wrote:

Jim Raynor wrote:One of these morons is now claiming that in Iraq, a four-man marine patrol once took out 19 Iraqi tanks with their Javelins. He didn't support this beyond saying that he heard it from some marine, and I don't think I can question his credibility there with DM as the moderator. I want to ask some of the real soldiers and military buffs here if this actually happened, or is even close to being possible. Not that it would prove his "uber special forcez" crap either way.

Considering, afaik, the Javelin is a fire and forget weapon, to kill 19 tanks, the four man Marine patrol would need to be carrying 19 launchers. Lets just say that stretches credibility a bit.

To be fair, this may have been the patrol's combined kills during the length of hostilities or somesuch. Which would do them precisely no good if nineteen tanks came over the hill all together.

Knife wrote:Considering, afaik, the Javelin is a fire and forget weapon, to kill 19 tanks, the four man Marine patrol would need to be carrying 19 launchers. Lets just say that stretches credibility a bit.

Thanks. If this is true, then it put some serious doubt on this guy's story. Not that I believed in it in the first place.

consequences wrote:To be fair, this may have been the patrol's combined kills during the length of hostilities or somesuch.

Here's the guy's exact post:

Wampa_Jedi wrote:If you don't believe is the overwhelming force of ridiculous odds, take this story to heart...

In the current war in Iraq, there was a recon unit of Marines on patrol. This would generally indicate maybe 6 men, but I'll call it 10.

Now, while on patrol, these Marines stumbled on an Iraqi armoured column on the move. This column was comprised of 19 tanks. Iraqi tanks are 3-man units each, so you have 57 men INSIDE of heavily armoured vehicles. Standard military thinking is that you only hit armour with armour. These Marines knew reinforcements wouldn't get there in time, so they attacked.

Using the Javelin anti-tank system, a Marine recon unit destroyed 19 Iraqi tanks without taking a single casualty.

This isn't fiction. I heard this story told by one of the Marines. I believe the unit was actually stated that it was a 4-man recon, but I don't know that for sure.

He's claiming that the marines killed all 19 tanks in a single engagement. Does anyone know if Marines even patrol in groups of four?

Jim, the guy's fall of crap. He expects you to believe four guys were toting 19 of THESE

I hate the way "I heard it from a soldier" is used as an irrefutable authority statement nowadays. Soldiers have been exaggerating their claims since before any of us were born. WW2 historians use each side's own recorded losses to figure out how many planes were shot down on both sides in any given battle, because each side's account of their own kills was always heavily exaggerated. And this was on official records, never mind tales told at the bar.

Why even compare numbers against an insurgency, the Clone Wars weren't a dominant power fighting rebels. Even the curbstomping of the Iraq army initially during the war wasn't even close to technological parity the sides had in Star Wars. If anything it goes against their argument, the US has a huge advantage with smaller numbers yet can't even fully secure a "backwater" country. The main force can't even afford to move on to the next "brushfire fight".

Darth Wong wrote:I hate the way "I heard it from a soldier" is used as an irrefutable authority statement nowadays. Soldiers have been exaggerating their claims since before any of us were born. WW2 historians use each side's own recorded losses to figure out how many planes were shot down on both sides in any given battle, because each side's account of their own kills was always heavily exaggerated. And this was on official records, never mind tales told at the bar.

It's same feel as the claim "A scientist told me!"...and every other authority related claim. People when rely upon this tactic are funny because they know if you had said it, they would jump on you like white on rice to demonstrate your claim.

Though you all of us have to find some humor that this idiot that Jim is wrangling wants us to believe that four marines were carrying 19 launchers in the desert. Because like Knife and Wilkens will attest...marines are superhuman machines of doom.

Jim Raynor wrote:
He's claiming that the marines killed all 19 tanks in a single engagement. Does anyone know if Marines even patrol in groups of four?

An actual fireteam may indeed do some sort of patroling, but more than likely it'll be a security patorl rather than a combat patrol. You'd want a mininum of a squad for that.

If they were on a recon patrol, there is no way they'd engage the enemy at all unless discovered and unable to slip away; let alone fucking tanks. Call in arty or CAS missions? Sure, but not engage them themselves. That's retarded.

And if you play with the wording a bit and say they were Recon Marines, it's even more retarded because they wouldn't be carrying that many javelins nor would they bother. Rather use non organic fire support if not just mark the enemy pos and move on.

Vympel wrote:Jim, the guy's fall of crap. He expects you to believe four guys were toting 19 of THESE

It is possible as they likely had a hummer or some other vechicle (loaded with 19 or 20 Javelins ), and the kill rate is also possible as at the first shot, the Iraqi column, not knowing the strength of then enemy could have turned and run, and had their tanks taken out from behind.

Possible... but so is me winning the last 17 million dollar lotto powerball (I didn't btw).

I have heard the same story about a column of 19 Iraqi tanks being taken out at over 4 to 1 odds, except it was a platoon for 4 M1 Abrams tanks that took them out... lol well I guess it's not quite the same story is it

The level of dishonesty shown by pricks like Dark Moose really make the mind boggle.

All the twists and turns they have to make to get "3 million" troops to make any kind of sense is staggering. But changing two little numbers (like was done before with the Executor's class and size) is totally out of the question.

No matter how many sources conflict with them, no matter if most sources who even use these numbers, don't treat the CW as limited conflicts (thus creating internal story-contradictions along the way), no matter if GL pumps out dozens upon dozens of big battles in the upcoming series, that gets added to the ones already chronicled, nope, the clones can apparently revive themselves and fight over and over again. It's a wonder Anakin didn't go to them for advice upon preventing death instead of Palpatine.

I also like how time was taken out to track down my accounts on different sites, as if that had any bearing upon the discussion. Nice bit of internet-stalking there, douchebags.

I also like Dark Moose's attempts at flame-baiting, not to mention WampaJedi and his "random" comments about the validity of books he's never read. (That goes double for Dark Moose, btw.)

EDIT: I saw the use of "Insider 84 came out last, so that makes it more official" because newer sources trump older ones in a conflict. Well, SW:CL came out in October, while I84 came out in September, so, shit on you, then.
And I'm not using the words and speculations of a antisocial, deranged clone as some kind of "evidence" (from "Odds", or, as I like to call it, "Author with a Grudge")

Dark Mooseshit has once again lowered my already low opinion of him. Remember his "criticize ideas, not people" bullshit? I called the 3 million number "silly," in a post explaining why, and Wampa_Jedi took offense to that. He accused me of belittling his opinion, which he is entitled to. That's right, the dumbass treats this debate as a matter of opinion, and not facts. I used DM's own rhetoric against Wampa, saying "I'm calling an idea silly, not a person." DM had this to say about that:

Dark Moose wrote:Agreed Jango, and in the past this was enough for me. But given the history of this topic, I've asked for stricter measures in this thread.

I'll just ask that whenver possible, we avoid the descriptives - myself included. Less a rule of the site, more an agreement. If you can't comply, that's fine, but its just a measure that will escalate all sides. I'd rather stay far away from that line, much less see anyone cross it.

I'm surprised he didn't just come out and label it as a new rule. Though, if the debate drags on and he's backed into a corner, I wouldn't be surprised if he did start punishing people for attacking IDEAS (a.k.a. escalating the conflict).

Some guy called Pip50 (Vympel, is that you?) called Wampa_Jedi on his Javelin bullshit, demanding evidence that a 4-man team would be deployed with so many missiles. That's also apparently a no-no:

Dark Moose wrote:I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands. This is a discussion, not a deposition, and that sort of rhetoric leads us down the same path the SSD thread went. So we're not using it here.

That's right, we can't demand evidence anymore!

I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands.

Dishonest debating? From Dark Moose? Perish the thought!

I wonder if Mooseknuckle will figure out who's posting as "blueskinredeyes"?

So naughty of me to slip a ban....

You shouldn't have said that in public.

Who'll join the discussion next? PaulaUrqart?

I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands.

As to the 4 soldiers killing 19 tanks, just reply that you heard from a soldier that it is an urban legend, something said to make US troops seem unstoppable.

If he demands proof, just refer to DM's post above.

Bah. Why not start with the
"1 SAS soldier can kill a hundred Iraqis" joke?


Oh wait..... KT actually did do that...............

Jim Raynor wrote:

Dark Moose wrote:I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands. This is a discussion, not a deposition, and that sort of rhetoric leads us down the same path the SSD thread went. So we're not using it here.

That's right, we can't demand evidence anymore!

Really? Perfect! 'Cause I read in a magazine where Lucas said that the 3 million figure was "way, way off from what I had in mind."

If no one has to present evidence, how the fuck are you supposed to even have a discussion? "Alright, guys, side A says the sky is blue, and side B says it's red. We've discussed."

As for his bullshit about not even being able to belittle an idea, there's no reason why anyone should have to abide by that. He even said it's an agreement, but it's an "agreement" that one side had no influence on. Just keep calling the idea bullshit.

Master of Ossus wrote:If no one has to present evidence, how the fuck are you supposed to even have a discussion? "Alright, guys, side A says the sky is blue, and side B says it's red. We've discussed."

People like that think that a "reasonable" debater is one who does not hold firm to any position, and regards everything as negotiable. Mind you, even by that horrible standard, Dark MooseShit still fails. But it's a very common attitude, particularly among "no evidence" types. People like that don't like it when you demand evidence or provide it, because then it implies that there is actually a way to determine what is correct through objective means rather than negotiation and democracy.

I have found that people like this tend to support similarly "negotiated" settlements in issues like creationism vs evolution, homosexuals vs homophobes, sexual freedom vs puritanism, etc. They reject the whole notion of determining whether something is true using facts and logic, and prefer to replace it with "well, I have 50 people who agree with me and you only have 30, so I win" or "let's meet halfway".

Compromise like that is more a form of politics than it is to do with facts or reason and more with ideology and consensus. In a sense, thats very much the case: those other forms are very heavily into "politicking" of some sort: mouthing a "party line", suppression of dissenting opinions (particularily through abuse of power), rhtetoric and appeals to emotion, compromise or "point of view" ambiguity bullshit, etc. And of course, butt-kissing and favor-currying among those with status or influence. And the only way to "exist' on forums like that is to be able to "play the game" as it were.

That would mesh with how they often treat canon facts (or even EU facts that contradict their position) as subjective "interpretations" ("hey your viewpoint is just as valid as mine, and evidence can mean more than one thing so you can't ascribe a fixed meaning to it. Excecpt for what I think is true.") It also makes sense why they think its perfectly acceptable to play "fast and loose" with canon, logic, etc. (Because its "politics" and everyone else does it, in their mind.) c

They want compromise? How's this:

Given that droids can self-replicate, and the CIS was gearing up for war for a while(demonstrably since Phantom Menace), I see no reason they shouldn't have 1 Googol of battledroids. We can compromise down to quintiliions.

They want "compromise" on their terms. As I said its politics, and all good politicians want to manipulate things to suit their world-view or purposes.

Dark Moose wrote:I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands. This is a discussion, not a deposition, and that sort of rhetoric leads us down the same path the SSD thread went. So we're not using it here.

Woah uh... is he actually making the implication that correcting errors is a bad thing?

Regarding the "discussion not deposition" comment... what the hell? Last time I heard, you were supposed to discuss things in a discussion. That's why it's called a "discussion" and not "lip-service." Why not start a thread "discussing" Super Star Destroyers, but using these rules?

First post: "Super Star Destroyer is not a ship class. Discuss. Thread rules are the same as in thread XX,YY."

Those new rules can only mean that he's afraid of an evidence-based discussion. And we all know what sort of person is afraid of an evidence-based discussion.