WildWeasel
Spaceman
In other words, you can't take power from the powerless.
Who here is a Kilrathi sympathizer?
- Thread starter Bob McDob
- Start date
In other words, you can't take power from the powerless.
Hmm .. yeah
[CLICK as magazine slides into H&K]
If you let a Kilrathi get REAL CLOSE
[grenade slides into webbing]
and you try to fight him unarmed
[K-CHKK as HK safety comes off]
you're going to lose; the answer is simple --
[RAT-TAT-TAT-TAT-TAT]
Never fight a Kilrathi unarmed.
[Radio call in background "Fire Central, this is Blue six, I need concentration 15 on Grid Square zero-five-four"]
And never let them get close
[in the distance, Kilrathi scream as big 155mm shells begin exploding in their midst, converting living cat into warm hamburger].
Respectfully,
Brian P.
LeHah
212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
"If a body makes the decision to kill someone, even though it will be very difficult, he should not go about this in a round-about way. The Way of the Samurai is one of immediacy and it is best to dash in head long."
"A real man does not think of victory or defeat. He plunges recklessly towards an irrational death"
"The Way of the Samurai is in desperateness. Ten men or more cannot kill such a man. Common sense will not accomplish great things. Simply become insane and desperate."
-Yamamoto Tsunetomo, "Hagakure"
"A real man does not think of victory or defeat. He plunges recklessly towards an irrational death"
"The Way of the Samurai is in desperateness. Ten men or more cannot kill such a man. Common sense will not accomplish great things. Simply become insane and desperate."
-Yamamoto Tsunetomo, "Hagakure"
I disagree, as Kilrathi train for combat, all forms of combat, from childhood onwards. And given the Kilrathi's origin as hunters rather than prey, I would expect them to be much better shots than Terrans.
Pendall: The KIlrathi have heavy artillery too, you know.
Nebula: A Kilrathi's huge body also has foot long claws that would turn a human into strip steak.
Best, Raptor
hmmm.... lets see....
the kilrathi don't have any artillery, neither do the humans, they rely on orbital bombardment which is more accurate and more powerful,whacking a kilrathi with a 155mm is soo sumb, by the time you finish your shells he'd probably be unscathed and would be calling down an airstrike on you, UNLESS you use cluster munitions or neutron/nuclear munitions then he's dead
kilrathi dont fare well against lead/tungsen objects piercing their skin at 500m/s from a HK speacking of which don't you use silent weapons?
the kilrathi don't have any artillery, neither do the humans, they rely on orbital bombardment which is more accurate and more powerful,whacking a kilrathi with a 155mm is soo sumb, by the time you finish your shells he'd probably be unscathed and would be calling down an airstrike on you, UNLESS you use cluster munitions or neutron/nuclear munitions then he's dead
kilrathi dont fare well against lead/tungsen objects piercing their skin at 500m/s from a HK speacking of which don't you use silent weapons?
Just a quick reminder -- this particular means of fighting was tried during WWII in the Pacific Theatre. It didn'twork particularly well. It DID, however, result in much higher casualty lists for the Japanese than they otherwise would have sustained.
The penultimate example of this would be the Battle of Bloody Ridge on Guadalcanal in 1943 or so. The Americans had a division of Marines dug in defensive position around Henderson Field's perimeter supported by artillery, machine guns and even a couple of tanks (some 10,000 men, IIRC). The Japanese sent a single Regiment of 1000 (the "Ichiki" regiment, again IIRC). They were armed with only infantry weapons, had neither food nor rice nor any support from anyone. But hey, that's okay cause we're insane and desparate, right? We'll walk right over those pansy non-warrior Americans! They charged headlong at the American lines, just as Yamamoto Tsunetomo suggested.
Result? 1000 dead Japanese. The Ichiki regiment was wiped out without achieving anything significant.
Thus -- insanity, and a courageous spirit, whether you call it elan or the spirit of Bushido, ceased to be enough to win battles around 1914 or so. A courageous spirit, together with a little common sense and some very careful planning, will do great things but courage alone only results in a body count.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
The problem with orbital vessels is that they do, in fact, have to
orbit -- which means they'll only be in range to strike your targets for a couple of hours every day. Artillery, by contrast, is sitting next to you and is immediately available all day. Artillery is also more responsive because it's less than 30 km away while an orbital vessel is probably at a minimum around 400 KM away, assuming it's in a low, fast orbit.
The vessel COULD be in Geosynchronous orbit, but this is bad for two reasons:
1. It's VERY far away (some 36000 Km, practically an earth radius),
so any bombardment is going to take a long time to get there.
2. It's staying in one place, thus making it an easy target if the enemy has any anti-orbital weapons deployed.
So artillery makes sense in a ground conflict with the Kilrathi. Granted, it is never shown but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. After all, we never see Kilrathi kitchens either but it's a safe assumption they exist as well.
An air strike and an artillery strike are, from the ground pounder's point of view, functionally identical. There are some differences:
1. Airstrikes involve aircraft which can be shot down. Shells cannot.
2. Airstrikes can usually carry far fewer weapons than an artillery strike can, since there are fewer platforms.
3. Airstrikes are faster, can be more carefully pinpointed, and can travel more quickly. However, they also tend to be more rare, as there aren't that many aircraft and they are needed in many places, not just where you are.
So I fail to see why "artillery" is bad while "air strikes" are good. They have their own advantages -- that's why every army in the world still uses it, even those countries that have powerful air forces.
As towards lethality --
A bombardment by a 155 MM battery is *far* more lethal than a strike with cluster bombs -- each shell spreads fragments far and wide, and there are a *lot* of them. An area bombarded by heavy artillery will look like the far side of a moon. There will be no unprotected survivors in the area. People undercover (in slit trenches or bunkers) will be alright unless the trench is hit directly, in which case it'll be full of strawberry jam.
Thus, an artillery bombardment will kill as much or more people than an airstrike will, while those people who would be untouched by an artillery bombardment would also be untouched by an airstrike.
Respectfully,
Brian P.