HE 162 Volksjager

[nrshida]

With all due respect, I really don't care that much if I've offended you.

Well let's see.


Danny voluntarily put his life on the line and served his country by taking a tour in Afghanistan. Is respectful, friendly, hard-working, well mannered and experienced both in life and in combat.

Then there's you, an attention seeking, argumentative youth that would argue with Satan himself over the temperature of Hell's furnaces, who by his own admission isn't very good in fighter aircraft in a game entitled Aces High and further by his own admission doesn't even presently have an active paying account but spends his days on this free forum being disrespectful to everyone he comes across who won't concede to his superior knowledge presumably springing from the eternally flowing fountain of the arrogance of youth.


Let me put these two things on the scales of credibility for a moment and see which way it swings...

[Scherf]

 

[danny76]

I'd say they're in combat, as they are actively engaging an enemy that is attempting to kill them, not shooting at an unpiloted bomb that isn't aimed at them.

Are they disarming some 20 something year old ordnance from when Russia was fighting the Mujahdeen, or are they disarming some ordnance thats been wired up recently and placed with the intent to do harm to US forces in Afghanistan? Is the bomb out in the middle of the desert and posing no threat to anyone, or in the city and posing a threat to civilians and military personel. Did he try and defuse it, or did it blow up as he approached or was preparing to detonate it under a controled circumstance?


All of that matters. If it was intended for the russians, and no enemy tried to detonate it against the US soldiers, then you'd have to be an idiot to list it as a killed in combat. If its in the desert, and he just decides to disarm it for whatever reason and cuts the wrong wire, as opposed to blowing it up when it poses no threat to anyone, its not killed in combat.


If an enemy blew it up, then of course its a combat death. If it poses a threat to people, or might cause colateral damage, and he tries to disarm it, its still a combat death.


With all due respect, I really don't care that much if I've offended you. I don't know you, and you're getting pissed because I don't feel that any death in any way related to an enemy automatically counts as combat. I personally don't think that firing at a bomb not even aimed at you, and that poses ZERO threat to you as is counts as combat.

Was it in the line of duty? Yes. Should the pilots be recognized for it? Yes. Was it combat? Really, I don't feel it is.


If theres a block of C4 with a cable attached to the pin on the firing device, and the cable is attached to my house, its directly my fault I'm dead if I'm stupid enough to pull the string, not directly the fault of whoever attached the C-4 to my house. He's carrying the blame, but it wasn't directly his fault. Not saying the Brits in the meteors were stupid for going after the Buzz bombs, but its a simmilar situation: I'm under potential threat, just like the meteor pilots, I'm not under actual threat (you could play football with a brick of C4 and it wouldn't go off), just like the meteor pilots, and my actions directly determine if I live or die, also like the meteor pilots.



Not all deaths result from combat, even if an enemy is involved. What if an enemy craps in a river, and a soldier drinks from it. He later comes down sick from drinking contaminated river water, and dies. Should he be listed as killed in combat? He wouldn't have died if the enemy hadn't defecated in the river. He didn't know he would die from drinking the water, and so there wasn't any choice made to sacrafice himself. That means the enemy is directly responsible for killing him, right?

So should he be listed as KIA?


What if an enemy puts a bunch of tacks on the road to interfere with trafic. A soldier goes out to help clear the road, and punctures his hand while picking up the tacks. He gets a staff infection and dies. He wouldn't have died if the enemy hadn't put the tacks on the road, so was he killed in combat?

Should he be listed as KIA?



Theres a difference between direct and indirect action, and that difference matters. Sometimes it can grow VERY sketchy, but the difference still matters.

I was mid way through writing a reply when my common sense got the better of me and I went off to calm down for a while before getting Png'd.

I am typing this thinking that I am wasting my time replying to you but there we are. I have served in two areas of conflict and in both I did very little, and the worst I have got was some scrapes and bumps, however at remembrance parade in November last year I was standing with a group of squaddies, one, a 20 year old, had no right leg or arm and was missing most of his face, his vehicle had been hit by an IED when he was en route to carry out a foot patrol, he was there in his uniform, his wife alongside him, carrying his baby in his left arm. He endured about 2 hours of standing to attention and following the parade on raw stumps because his artificial legs had only recently been fitted. He refused all assistance despite visibly trembling in pain. He had endured countless operations to that point and had to look forward to several facial reconstructive surgeries.
We had drinks afterwards which he refused point blank to let anyone pay for, despite a multitude of offers from all those around, and was making jokes about his disability that had us all crying with laughter, and just crying.

According to you, not only did he not get wounded in combat, he also brought it on himself by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would like for you to have the opportunity to discuss your opinions with him. I guarantee, despite his condition, he would sing you a lullaby. He would have to stand in line though.

This forum for the most part seems to be made up of people who have either served, are serving, or have a deep respect for the fighting men and women, whichever branch or arm they serve in. I don't know whether or not you are just attempting to provoke a reaction, or you are genuinely as pig-headed as you appear, either way, I would ask you in as reasonable a way as I can to desist, and I hope that this thread gets locked

[titanic3]

Well let's see.


Danny voluntarily put his life on the line and served his country by taking a tour in Afghanistan. Is respectful, friendly, hard-working, well mannered and experienced both in life and in combat.

Then there's you, an attention seeking, argumentative youth that would argue with Satan himself over the temperature of Hell's furnaces, who by his own admission isn't very good in fighter aircraft in a game entitled Aces High and further by his own admission doesn't even presently have an active paying account but spends his days on this free forum being disrespectful to everyone he comes across who won't concede to his superior knowledge presumably springing from the eternally flowing fountain of the arrogance of youth.


Let me put these two things on the scales of credibility for a moment and see which way it swings...

 

Tank Ace, I think it might not be too late to save face if you just keep your opinions to yourself in the future. Or you can get an account and show these guys your uber skills!

[Tank-Ace]

I'm not required to agree with any of you. Personally I don't think the meteor pilots were in combat. They weren't actively fighting anyone.

Following the letter of the NATO definition of a battle-casualty, they were not battle casualties.



Danny, I respect what you've done for the country, and I respect your squad mate. Try and guilt-trip me all you like, I still don't think firing at an unmanned bomb not aimed at you, and posing no threat to you counts as combat. Theres always going to be ambiguous cases, but those ambiguous cases aren't the rule, they are the exception.


I respect you as a soldier, but your oppinion still doesn't carry enough weight to make me do a 360 on my oppinions.


Tell me, who were the Meteor pilots fighting? The Germans that launched the bombs were in no danger what so ever, and neither were the Meteor pilots (at least not any more than usual, until the instant they pulled the trigger). They weren't shooting at anyone, or anything controlled by a human. The bombs blew up not because of what the Germans did, but because the Meteor pilots were shooting at volatile high-explosives.


Rigged to blow up if something got screwed up with the avionics, or if an aircraft came to close? Sure, cause the Germans were trying to take out anyone who interfered with the bombs. The bomb is aimed at a Meteor, or even a Meteor pilot? Sure, because again, the Germans would be actively trying to take out the meteors.


I'm not saying those pilots shouldn't be recognized for their bravery and sacrafice, but I am saying there shouldn't be just KIA, DWRIA and non-battle-casulaties, as not all of the deaths will fit into one of those three casualties.

[nrshida]

I'm not required to agree with any of you.

No you are not, and no one is requiring that from you. What we do expect and require is that you treat people respectfully even if you disagree with them. If you don't do that then expect a hostile reaction.

The secondary issue is credibility. It doesn't matter how forcefully you forward your opinion, it is merely your opinion and your age and life experience, intelligence and ability to articulate logically goes towards the weight that should be given to said opinion. You seem to be inordinately needy of attention and in my opinion you're out of your league on this point.

These comments toward you are pertinent to this Wishlist thread and all these threads that you continually post in in this way. The following is free advise, so take it or leave it, it's up to you:-

You should consider moving these activities away from the sterility and protection of this forum, and begin to interact with people face to face, join a debating club or participate in an activity in which opinions are shared or exchanged or developed in a co-creative spirit. Here you are learning a false sense of 'normal' interaction with people.

[Karnak]

Tell me, who were the Meteor pilots fighting?

The Germans.

Modern weapons, even WWII era, have moved past the point where you have to be attacking a man to be fighting.  No longer is combat what can be reached with a cloth yard shaft or broadsword.

[Tank-Ace]

The Germans.

Modern weapons, even WWII era, have moved past the point where you have to be attacking a man to be fighting.  No longer is combat what can be reached with a cloth yard shaft or broadsword.

Maybe. For all we know, the guys who launched the bombs got off duty and hit the sack the minute they were done pushing the button. You really can't be fighting someone who is asleep.

Were the Germans in combat with those Meteor pilots?

And if you mean the German people, then you could list everyone who blew up a bridge without seeing an enemy, and then later died because of pilot error as KIA. The people they were 'fighting' weren't present, but they were still taking action to do harm to the German war effort.


Is the guy sitting back in the control room in florida, piloting the UAV's in combat? Sorry, I really don't think so. If he has a heart attack because of what he sees on his screen, he doesn't deserve to be listed as KIA, and personally I think would be a bit disrespectful to those who actually, you know, died in combat.



The issue is that as soon as the first guided weapon came into service, the line became blurry. Its only grown more blurry as the weapons have grown more advanced. You think the line lies here, I think the line lies there. We're clearly not going to convince eachother, so agree to disagree?

[Butcher]

Were the Germans in combat with those Meteor pilots?

I did the research, the meteor was in combat. Wikipedia failed you sorry.

[Tank-Ace]

I did the research, the meteor was in combat. Wikipedia failed you sorry.

^^^^ reading-fail?

I didn't say a thing about the meteor seeing combat. Or are you going to try and pull another "but I said...." thing?

[M0nkey_Man]

Oh joy, here we go.

[Scherf]

 

[nrshida]

^^^^ reading-fail?

There's only one p in opinion Tank-Ace. And if you do a 360 'on' your opinion then you end up facing exactly the same direction you started out. Brain fail?


This kid's a rolling violation of not only forum rule ⌗2 but also Darwin's laws of natural selection.

Someone should invoke the sacred Raptor05121 curse: 'Someone please ban this guy'.

[danny76]

There's only one p in opinion Tank-Ace. And if you do a 360 'on' your opinion then you end up facing exactly the same direction you started out. Brain fail?


This kid's a rolling violation of not only forum rule ⌗2 but also Darwin's laws of natural selection.

Someone should invoke the sacred Raptor05121 curse: 'Someone please ban this guy'.

[titanic3]

Oh Tank Ace...if only I could've met you in game before you quit. You know how that kid from the Simpsons always goes "Ha-ha!"? Yea, that's what I would've said to you everyday.