First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
Post Reply Gunslingers or Swordsmen
17879 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Online
Posted 10/18/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:

I no sure if I say beat but that no what I was getting to. I say or try to say. You have to make do with what you have. You may no beat them but you can make hell for them.


haha.... no you can't.

Let me put it to you this way:

If you gave 100 well-trained men armed with melee weapons the homefield advantage, allowing them to hide and set up in a city before being attacked.

And then you sent in a fire-team (4 people) of well-trained US Marines with M-4s.

I'd put all my money on the Marines coming out as the victors.

I wouldn't exactly call that "making hell" for them.


I would even lay odds the Marines don't loose a single man

Posted 10/18/15 , edited 10/18/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:


I am peaking another language ? I saying you can make your enemy pay dearly in urban even if you lose the war eventually. But regardless it does give you advantage. That alone can let you win a war or improve your chances. Also I have a family member who a soldier. So I am aware of what you are saying.


And I'm saying no you can't. Not with melee weapons.

And I'm saying that based on experience and training. Yes, you can with guns and explosives.... but with melee weapons, the side with the guns will still have VERY few casualties.


No offense but american and their allies aren't exactly people who will tolerate loses. Also You are assuming open areas. I am referring to close environments. That depends on the skills of the one using it. Give to a normal skill person. Yeah they die fast. Give to somebody that being strain to use the environment and good a sneaking. You are going to take loses unless you know where he/she coming from.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/15

uncletim wrote:


I would even lay odds the Marines don't loose a single man



Well.... I was factoring in a least one death, just in case one of them died laughing at someone running towards them with a sword.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/15 , edited 10/18/15

KarenAraragi wrote:


No offense but american and their allies aren't exactly people who will tolerate loses. Also You are assuming open areas. I am referring to close environments. That depends on the skills of the one using it. Give to a normal skill person. Yeah they die fast. Give to somebody that being strain to use the environment and good a sneaking. You are going to take loses unless you know where he/she coming from.

Nope... I'm factoring in an urban environment.

The fact of the matter is you will not be able to sneak up on a fire-team that is watching the rear properly.

The only chance the melee users would have is all out swarm attack.... and even then... doesn't look good for them
Posted 10/18/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:

I no sure if I say beat but that no what I was getting to. I say or try to say. You have to make do with what you have. You may no beat them but you can make hell for them.


haha.... no you can't.

Let me put it to you this way:

If you gave 100 well-trained men armed with melee weapons the homefield advantage, allowing them to hide and set up in a city before being attacked.

And then you sent in a fire-team (4 people) of well-trained US Marines with M-4s.

I'd put all my money on the Marines coming out as the victors.

I wouldn't exactly call that "making hell" for them.


Because you are assuming they are going to stand there and let you know where they are. Really you think they are going to fight you in the open ? Your gun is only effective if you know who the enemy is. Also the situation you created is no a guerrilla type but a battle royale. Meaning the best equip will win. And in that situation a guerrilla fighter best choice is to run.
17879 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Online
Posted 10/18/15
Well now the guy is just talking politics. What if it's the british or the french or hell even the Japanese who are the ones with the guns or better yet the russians who have in the past proven they are willing to throw man after man into the meat grinder to win no matter what loses they suffer?
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/15 , edited 10/18/15

KarenAraragi wrote:


Because you are assuming they are going to stand there and let you know where they are. Really you think they are going to fight you in the open ? Your gun is only effective if you know who the enemy is. Also the situation you created is no a guerrilla type but a battle royale. Meaning the best equip will win. And in that situation a guerrilla fighter best choice is to run.


No... I'm not assuming that at all. Do you know anything about SOP? Pretty much everything they do as habit is to prevent crap like this.

You seem to think that being a ninja is easy, and that people with guns are standing around ignoring their surroundings.

You are simply wrong. I quit. You are unteachable and unrealistic.
Posted 10/18/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:


No offense but american and their allies aren't exactly people who will tolerate loses. Also You are assuming open areas. I am referring to close environments. That depends on the skills of the one using it. Give to a normal skill person. Yeah they die fast. Give to somebody that being strain to use the environment and good a sneaking. You are going to take loses unless you know where he/she coming from.

Nope... I'm factoring in an urban environment.

The fact of the matter is you will not be able to sneak up on a fire-team that is watching the rear properly.

The only chance the melee users would have is all out swarm attack.... and even then... doesn't look good for them


True if that the whole situation. There nothing saying you can't be attack from above you or below you. The side even out nowhere. Doesn't need to be strait up fair ether. The dude could wear them down. Psychological warfare is a thing you know. Also the dude doesn't have to stay after killing or wounded one you guys. Then repeat again and again. Until he wins or dies. I no saying he will win but he does have a chance to fuck you up.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 10/18/15 , edited 10/18/15
Ever heard of special squads? okey then I leave.. XP
SAS, and the other ones.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/15 , edited 10/18/15

KarenAraragi wrote:


True if that the whole situation. There nothing saying you can't be attack from above you or below you. The side even out nowhere. Doesn't need to be strait up fair ether. The dude could wear them down. Psychological warfare is a thing you know. Also the dude doesn't have to stay after killing or wounded one you guys. Then repeat again and again. Until he wins or dies. I no saying he will win but he does have a chance to fuck you up.


No he doesn't. Not if the ones with the guns know what they are doing.

But you are right... there is nothing saying that they can't be attacked from above or below... unfortunately, they train for that, too.

Oh, and if someone attacks a fireteam with a sword... he's not going to get away without dying. To think that he would is kind of sad.
Posted 10/18/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:


Because you are assuming they are going to stand there and let you know where they are. Really you think they are going to fight you in the open ? Your gun is only effective if you know who the enemy is. Also the situation you created is no a guerrilla type but a battle royale. Meaning the best equip will win. And in that situation a guerrilla fighter best choice is to run.


No... I'm not assuming that at all. Do you know anything about SOP? Pretty much everything they do as habit is to prevent crap like this.

You seem to think that being a ninja is easy, and that people with guns are standing around ignoring their surroundings.

You are simply wrong. I quit. You are unteachable and unrealistic.


Yes I know what it is. But just because you can prepared for every situation, doesn't mean you can prevent all situations. Otherwise we would't have casualties on war. Or nuclear meltdowns.

Nope and nether I am assuming what you are saying.

The irony in that comment. You are the one being unrealistic and I did not ask you to teach me anything. You are mad because I say there one percent chance of happening and you implode because of it. I no saying a guy with a sword will win always or most of the time. I saying there a one percent chance of he succeeding on it.
17879 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Online
Posted 10/18/15

KarenAraragi wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:


Because you are assuming they are going to stand there and let you know where they are. Really you think they are going to fight you in the open ? Your gun is only effective if you know who the enemy is. Also the situation you created is no a guerrilla type but a battle royale. Meaning the best equip will win. And in that situation a guerrilla fighter best choice is to run.


No... I'm not assuming that at all. Do you know anything about SOP? Pretty much everything they do as habit is to prevent crap like this.

You seem to think that being a ninja is easy, and that people with guns are standing around ignoring their surroundings.

You are simply wrong. I quit. You are unteachable and unrealistic.


Yes I know what it is. But just because you can prepared for every situation, doesn't mean you can prevent all situations. Otherwise we would't have casualties on war. Or nuclear meltdowns.

Nope and nether I am assuming what you are saying.

The irony in that comment. You are the one being unrealistic and I did not ask you to teach me anything. You are mad because I say there one percent chance of happening and you implode because of it. I no saying a guy with a sword will win always or most of the time. I saying there a one percent chance of he succeeding on it.

and the guy with the sword can choke on a ham sandwich the day before the battle. What is your point?

14657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 10/18/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:

I no sure if I say beat but that no what I was getting to. I say or try to say. You have to make do with what you have. You may no beat them but you can make hell for them.


haha.... no you can't.

Let me put it to you this way:

If you gave 100 well-trained men armed with melee weapons the homefield advantage, allowing them to hide and set up in a city before being attacked.

And then you sent in a fire-team (4 people) of well-trained US Marines with M-4s.

I'd put all my money on the Marines coming out as the victors.

I wouldn't exactly call that "making hell" for them.


I would put my money on the 100 well-trained men with melee weapons...

come on now you're making the US Marines sound like super soldiers, but I'm pretty sure the odds of the US Marines winning are low IF it was only 4 well-trained US Marines with
M-4s vs a team of 100 well-trained men with home field advantage. Now in my opinion guns > swords
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/15 , edited 10/18/15

KarenAraragi wrote:
I saying there a one percent chance of he succeeding on it.


Actually, you said they could make the gun users' lives hell... which is simply false. Is there a chance that a melee weapon user will get in a hit? Sure. A small chance... but that is only because there is always a chance that the person with the gun is going to make a mistake.

Imploding? Was not aware. Mad? Again, I wasn't aware. Perplexed at your opinion? Absolutely.
Posted 10/18/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:


True if that the whole situation. There nothing saying you can't be attack from above you or below you. The side even out nowhere. Doesn't need to be strait up fair ether. The dude could wear them down. Psychological warfare is a thing you know. Also the dude doesn't have to stay after killing or wounded one you guys. Then repeat again and again. Until he wins or dies. I no saying he will win but he does have a chance to fuck you up.


No he doesn't. Not if the ones with the guns know what they are doing.

But you are right... there is nothing saying that they can't be attacked from above or below... unfortunately, they train for that, too.

Oh, and if someone attacks a fireteam with a sword... he's not going to get away without dying. To think that he would is kind of sad.

Wht this even mean ? Just because you have a gun and know how to use it. Does't mean you are going to win.

No he doesn't. Not if the ones with the guns know what they are doing.

Straining doesn't mean you can stop it from happening. It just mean you know how to deal with the situation better.

Here again with the arrogance. They are made of flesh and bone. Doesn't take much to kill a person. One hit to important area and you are done.
If you can only resort to insult over a disagreement. That even sadder. Just because soldiers with guns are strain and prepared, doesn't mean they are invincible. They are made of flesh and blood. They can still be kill and lose. I no saying a soldier with a gun will lose but doesn't mean it can't happen.

To think that he would is kind of sad.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.