For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

[Ghilleman]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

bouncing bettys are a bad idea. 2 main reasons: 1)more kill zone for clay whores. 2) if a sniper uses it protect his position, it will most likely kill him to.

[Brutus]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

For those with questions about the U.S. signing the Geneva Convention here is some info.

The U.S. has signed AND ratified every Geneva Convention with the exception of the 1st Geneva Convention in 1864 and the amended two protocols added in 1977 that further protect civilians during wartime and address armed conflicts within a nation.

The last Geneva Convention which the U.S. signed and ratified was the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Put simply, yes the U.S. is a signatory, which in itself means very little, but also Congress ratified the Geneva Convention of 1949, which is inclusive of its three predecessors.

[imported_Scarz]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

OK, people, I have been at work all day and now have about 50 different flames to contest. I cant get to all of them So i'll just make a few general points.

1. you will notice in my original post I said that the effective casualty producing range of a claymore was "SUPPOSEDLY CLASSIFIED". Notice the word "SUPPOSEDLY". Yes, I can assure all who have told me that I know that plenty of websites contain this information as well as many books. And yes, most of them are fairly accurate with their information.

2. A lot of people seem to think the word "CLASSIFIED" means something other than it does. In order to have access to classified information, an individual has to be in the armed services for about 20 minutes. Classified does not mean the same thing as "Nuclear Missile Launch Codes" OK? Basically, in layman's terms, what it means is this, "You know something most people dont, so dont go to the bar and get drunk and shoot your mouth off about it." Does that make sense to everyone who seems to think that I neglected to include the information on the grounds that I think I am some kind of super spy? CLASSIFIED JUST MEANS YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT IT.

3. One person, namely "SKWURL" took particular offense to something I said and I must have hurt his feelings really bad because I could almost feel the hot tears of rage rolling down his face when I read his post. Gee Skwurl, I'm sorry... well not really. But I will say this, What I previously refferred to as "Computer Nerds", OK, That's a little harsh and I suppose a little hypocritical considering I'm a 25 year old man on a video game forum. However I get very, VERY angry when people who seem like they have a seventh grade education in history try to inform me that i am wrong. Most of the people last night who challenged me didn't have any comebacks for me after I set them straight. Possibly because of my extensive and diverse vocabulary most of them could not understand a word of what I wrote. But I like to think It's because I was right, and they were wrong.

If I get pulled over by a cop who tells me my tags are expired, do I stand there and argue with the cop about whether liscence plate tags are actually lawful? NO. Because the cop is an expert in his particular field.
Do I walk into Operating rooms and start telling doctors how to perform surgery? NO. Because they know a lot more about it than I do.
Do I walk into clothing stores and start telling women that the outfits they are trying on make their asses look fat? NO... well, ok sometimes...

Point is, SKwurl says that I am an "arrogant prick" because somebody challenged my "oppinion" in regards to a video game and then I flamed them. The things I posted so far are not my "oppinions", but rather FACTS that I have been formally educated in. If Skwurl was an expert mechanic and told me that my universal joint on my truck was going bad I wouldn't call him names, I would look under my truck to see if he was right or not.

As for my comments about people who think they are experts on a subject because they know how to type words like "bomb" and "landmine" into a search engine, I have no appologies and certainly wont make any excuses. If I go to NASA's website and read about space shuttles, does that make me an astronaught?

Although Skwurl was right about me being an arrogant prick.... Thanks for the complement Skwurl! Mission Accomplished!

For those with questions about the U.S. signing the Geneva Convention here is some info.

The U.S. has signed AND ratified every Geneva Convention with the exception of the 1st Geneva Convention in 1864 and the amended two protocols added in 1977 that further protect civilians during wartime and address armed conflicts within a nation.

The last Geneva Convention which the U.S. signed and ratified was the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Put simply, yes the U.S. is a signatory, which in itself means very little, but also Congress ratified the Geneva Convention of 1949, which is inclusive of its three predecessors.

Thank you Brutus for helping me spank these "unedumacated" bafoons.

[truckstop]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

OK, people, I have been at work all day and now have about 50 different flames to contest. I cant get to all of them So i'll just make a few general points.

1. you will notice in my original post I said that the effective casualty producing range of a claymore was "SUPPOSEDLY CLASSIFIED". Notice the word "SUPPOSEDLY". Yes, I can assure all who have told me that I know that plenty of websites contain this information as well as many books. And yes, most of them are fairly accurate with their information.

2. A lot of people seem to think the word "CLASSIFIED" means something other than it does. In order to have access to classified information, an individual has to be in the armed services for about 20 minutes. Classified does not mean the same thing as "Nuclear Missile Launch Codes" OK? Basically, in layman's terms, what it means is this, "You know something most people dont, so dont go to the bar and get drunk and shoot your mouth off about it." Does that make sense to everyone who seems to think that I neglected to include the information on the grounds that I think I am some kind of super spy? CLASSIFIED JUST MEANS YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT IT.

3. One person, namely "SKWURL" took particular offense to something I said and I must have hurt his feelings really bad because I could almost feel the hot tears of rage rolling down his face when I read his post. Gee Skwurl, I'm sorry... well not really. But I will say this, What I previously refferred to as "Computer Nerds", OK, That's a little harsh and I suppose a little hypocritical considering I'm a 25 year old man on a video game forum. However I get very, VERY angry when people who seem like they have a seventh grade education in history try to inform me that i am wrong. Most of the people last night who challenged me didn't have any comebacks for me after I set them straight. Possibly because of my extensive and diverse vocabulary most of them could not understand a word of what I wrote. But I like to think It's because I was right, and they were wrong.

If I get pulled over by a cop who tells me my tags are expired, do I stand there and argue with the cop about whether liscence plate tags are actually lawful? NO. Because the cop is an expert in his particular field.
Do I walk into Operating rooms and start telling doctors how to perform surgery? NO. Because they know a lot more about it than I do.
Do I walk into clothing stores and start telling women that the outfits they are trying on make their asses look fat? NO... well, ok sometimes...

Point is, SKwurl says that I am an "arrogant prick" because somebody challenged my "oppinion" in regards to a video game and then I flamed them. The things I posted so far are not my "oppinions", but rather FACTS that I have been formally educated in. If Skwurl was an expert mechanic and told me that my universal joint on my truck was going bad I wouldn't call him names, I would look under my truck to see if he was right or not.

As for my comments about people who think they are experts on a subject because they know how to type words like "bomb" and "landmine" into a search engine, I have no appologies and certainly wont make any excuses. If I go to NASA's website and read about space shuttles, does that make me an astronaught?

Although Skwurl was right about me being an arrogant prick.... Thanks for the complement Skwurl! Mission Accomplished!



Thank you Brutus for helping me spank these "unedumacated" bafoons.

w0w what a typer,,,,,

[imported_Scarz]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

bouncing bettys are a bad idea. 2 main reasons: 1)more kill zone for clay whores. 2) if a sniper uses it protect his position, it will most likely kill him to.

Now THAT is a good, simple argument that makes sense! I still dont agree, but its a dam good point.

[Blades]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

Close, but no non-narcotic smokables for you.
Treaty, not Trade.
:p

DAMN! I was thinking of NAFTA. Whoops.

[Sirorange]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

I have heard of bouncing betty's and they are awesome! Major damage and all over the place!

[TriggerSpasm]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

RavenShield had good implementation of claymores, the good old clacker
I'm all for a bouncing betty in BF2!

[Metasynaptic]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

The reason the military doesn't use Bettys anymore is because all anti-personel land mines have been banned (at least by the United States and other "civilized nations"). Too many children stepping on them. The claymore is not actually a mine because, like I said, it doesn't go off by itself. It's an "Emplaced Munition".

'Banned' my glutious minimus! The US has NOT entered into any agreement banning their use of mines! IN FACT, they still use mixed mine/bomblets in cluster boimb units!

[Ghilleman]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

I believe that those bomblets now have a time sensitive charge, and disarm after X years or whatever.

[Brutus]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

The reason the military doesn't use Bettys anymore is because all anti-personel land mines have been banned (at least by the United States and other "civilized nations"). Too many children stepping on them. The claymore is not actually a mine because, like I said, it doesn't go off by itself. It's an "Emplaced Munition".

Claymores, while mainly deployed with a 'clacker' they are also deployed with a trip wire depending on the situation.

I think as far as 'game realism' a claymore is a better choice over a bouncing betty, due to the fact that a bouncing betty is omni-directional while a claymore at least provides some safety if pointing the right way.

Another thing you mentioned was about the process for gaining a classified clearance. For the sake of accuracy you do not need to be in the military, or even be from the U.S. The length of the security check depends on the level of the clearance that you are trying to obtain.

[imported_Scarz]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

'Banned' my glutious minimus! The US has NOT entered into any agreement banning their use of mines! IN FACT, they still use mixed mine/bomblets in cluster boimb units!

I'm not sure exactly what the airforce can drop, but the Army uses several kinds of scatterable minefield creating devices, such as the Volcano. It's basically a big bunch of tubes that sit on the back of a 5-ton or LMTV (those are trucks for you civies out there) or can be mounted on a black hawk. These tubes launch the mines out away from the truck and scatter over a predetermined area.

Here's whats wrong with your argument metasynaptic:

1. what the last guy said is true, these mines have self destruct mechanisms or can be remote detonated. ALSO: ALL U.S. MINEFIELDS HAVE OVERWATCH. This means that we dont just throw random mines out and forget about them but keep them closely guarded. Minefields are a DETERENT. An obstacle if you will. The United States also places barbed wire fences around ALL minefields they emplace. This is SOP. (Standard Operating Procedure) These fences have mine markers on them warning in several languages and with visual markings that warn anyone who gets close enough to see it that there is a minefield behind the fence. As I said before, MINEFIELDS ARE MEANT TO FORCE THE ENEMY TO GO AROUND THE LONG WAY, NOT JUST TO KILL PEOPLE.

2. I NEVER SAID THAT THE U.S. DOES NOT USE MINES YOU DUMBASS!!! I said that the United States no longer uses Anti Personel mines! And they DONT. Period. The mines I describe in the first paragraph are Anti-Tank mines. Anti tank mines are very different from AP mines, obviously they are a lot more powerful but also in the regard that pressure activated AT mines require a great deal more weight (up to 300-500 lbs) so only vehicles and really fat people can set them off.

3. If you are foreigner, (IE not a citizen of the United States) stop trying to tell an American War veteran what your history books and media portray as American war policy. Because you know two things about us, Jack and sh!t, and Jack left town to try to immigrate here to the most kick-ass nation on earth.

[sknight]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

AT mines require a great deal more weight (up to 300-500 lbs) so only vehicles and really fat people can set them off.

haha, I lol'd

[Hound_Dawg]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

Most of the people last night who challenged me didn't have any comebacks for me after I set them straight. Possibly because of my extensive and diverse vocabulary most of them could not understand a word of what I wrote.

Wow, I have not posted in this thread yet, but damn, full of hot air. You seem quite wanton. I'm not being sardonic.

[imported_Scarz]

Re: For realism, switch claymores to bouncing bettys!

Wow, I have not posted in this thread yet, but damn, full of hot air. You seem quite wanton. I'm not being sardonic.

yep. I cant believe this post has even lasted this long... people come in, they argue about something trivial, and then I insult them. But they keep comin back for more and finding new ways (in their own minds) to prove me wrong about anything.

Give it a rest people, you cant win. And I'm REALLY tired of this subject. Let it go...