|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jaron Pollard
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
76
   |
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote:Thanks for the name calling... great conversational encouragement... or did I use too big of words here for you to understand?
...and what makes you think iron sights will not go away eventually? Seems a bit presumptuous. Oh there I go again with the big words again... sorry.
Iron sights are a cheap and effective way of providing simple sighting for infantry. By today's standards, the basic design hasn't changed for a hundred years, except these days, we have the ability to illuminate them for low-light conditions. That's the only advance we've made. These are weapons that are designed to be cheap and disposable. Anything other than iron sights on the front line of a battlefield is just an expensive loss waiting to happen. Of course, eventually, you'll be able to customise these weapons a little as well, so you'll be able to choose what you're willing to lose each time you die, and how much it's going to cost.
FYI, a soldier that can learn to aim with iron sights alone will become a better marksman faster than if he or she starts with scoping equipment. |
Jaron Pollard
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
77
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
crazy space 1 wrote:Jaron Pollard wrote:Nordac Striker wrote:Thanks for the name calling... great conversational encouragement... or did I use too big of words here for you to understand?
...and what makes you think iron sights will not go away eventually? Seems a bit presumptuous. Oh there I go again with the big words again... sorry. Iron sights are a cheap and effective way of providing simple sighting for infantry. By today's standards, the basic design hasn't changed for a hundred years, except these days, we have the ability to illuminate them for low-light conditions. That's the only advance we've made. These are weapons that are designed to be cheap and disposable. Anything other than iron sights on the front line of a battlefield is just an expensive loss waiting to happen. Of course, eventually, you'll be able to customise these weapons a little as well, so you'll be able to choose what you're willing to lose each time you die, and how much it's going to cost. FYI, a soldier that can learn to aim with iron sights alone will become a better marksman faster than if he or she starts with scoping equipment. SEE, the iron sights should do that. More future stuff! I agree 100% with op but not on how to get there. You hit it on the spot though, the design hasn't changed but we've made advances. So, art team go!
That's not the point I was making. The point is, they are as good today as they are ever going to get. Iron sights were first illuminated with a spot of bright green paint back in the 60s. Today, we use glow in the dark stuff which was developed in the 70s. |
Jaron Pollard
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
77
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Skyhound Solbrave wrote:I feel like the AR could do with the cool flip-up sight the minmatar smg has. Howeve, I believe it has more to do with racial design philosophy than function.
Those kinds of sights are handy for SMGs and generally used on them as a directional aid. They are not accurate though, neither are they intended to be. Iron sights are redundant because the barrel is too short, and the SMG is technically a "bullet hose" spray-and-pray or short range suppression weapon. It's good for snipers who get dropped and need to make a break for it. Use it to make your enemy take cover, then run like hell and relocate. The RDS (red dot sight) is better for quick reference sighting than actual aiming. The iron sights on a rifle, when used well, can be very helpful. Honestly, on an assault rifle, I prefer them because you don't get the tunnel vision you do from a scope so you still have a good field of view even when aiming down sights. |
Jaron Pollard
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
77
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 18:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Karl Koekwaus wrote:every kind of sights is redundant, because suits like the caldari don't even seem to have eyes to begin with.
Your trolling is redundant. |
Jaron Pollard
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
77
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 19:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote:Jaron Pollard wrote:That's not the point I was making. The point is, they are as good today as they are ever going to get. Iron sights were first illuminated with a spot of bright green paint back in the 60s. Today, we use glow in the dark stuff which was developed in the 70s. I will have to disagree with you on this one. The fact that just about every U.S. Service Person that goes into a combat zone today is issued night vision equipment goes against your 'cheap' theory. I know... I was a GS-11 that dealt with that stuff. On top of that, being a Vietnam Combat Veteran with over 12 years of service as U.S. Marine Corp Infantry/Special Missions, the amount and cost of the equipment U.S. Service Personal drag around is a lot. Hell, I watched them test and issue weatherproofed computer keyboards that could be strapped to the Service Personnel's chest for data entry. You want to guess the cost of that? This was part of the Future Combat System the U.S. Military is using and developing now. However, what is real today may or may not reflect in today's FPS's... especially the futuristic ones. But I do find it ironic that one would spend so much ISK on a Dust Dropsuit, its Equipment and Weapons... and then just give out iron sights [grins]. But hey, this is a game and people come here to have fun. So whatever is wanted by the players. So I understand and agree that iron sights are here to stay, as I mentioned in one of my replies above. I just would like to see a more futuristic touch to the way weapons are used in Dust 514... else, it just ends up being another FPS, imo. That is all I am saying. I also understand Dust is still in the development phase and who knows what it will look like a year from now... or even ten... right? Perhaps discussions like this will help.
Well, in the Australian army, you're trained for combat without having to rely on fancy equipment, even though you get it later anyway. Of course, we all know the US spends way too much on military, and the government really only cares about the death of a soldier because it costs them money in the equipment that goes down with them (no disrespect to the servicemen intended), so they aren't really the best example of effective, efficient fighters, just an example of how to beat your enemy with superior firepower and/or technology alone. Everyone being issued night vision equipment does not go against the idea of making warfare as cheap as possible through expendability. It only makes your soldiers more expensive to lose. |
Jaron Pollard
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
79
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
11Up3Down wrote:Nordac Striker wrote:
When I was in Vietnam in '68-69, I had two R&R's in Sidney. Great city and people. I loved going there. You Aussies also maintained a battalion in Vietnam as well, I believe. I am sure they served with distinction. I would expect nothing less.
I think we can both agree that an army that is better equipped and trained will usually do well against a poorly equipped and trained one... until modern unconventional warfare. Having personally felt the sting of knowing where I once stood as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam is now controlled by the enemy is not a good feeling. But then, Vietnam is a major producer of Kenyan coffee... so that is an unexpected plus.
However, I would hope that a Warrior that is more expensive to lose would be deployed a tad more carefully, so that is a big plus... don't you think?. As for U.S. Service Personnel not being an example of effective and efficient fighters... I just hope you do not have to run up against one of us to find out. I think you will find we are just as deadly with or without the technology. I had qualified as an expert with the M16 using the old iron sights many times over... and one would need to be more than 500 meters away from me not to be in my personal killing zone. I was generally 10/10 at the 460m line on a man size target. When it comes to marksmanship, never question the U.S. Marines. Our history stands for itself. We do not need a computer to put a round between someone's running lights. The Germans in WWI did not call us 'Devil Dogs' for nothing. It was because our 1903 Springfields were hitting them at 700-800 yards. Put a little scope on our rifles, and we are really nasty. Technology only adds to our effectiveness... it does not replace it.
So anyway, back to Dust... Sorry for the rant.
Well said. As an Army and Navy vet, having been deployed to both Kosovo/Bosnia and Iraqi Freedom I can tell you boys and girls that US Troops are not trained in using weapon scopes in basic training, we are and were trained to use Iron Sights on we had to do our semi-annual (Army) weapon qualifications with Iron Sights. I dare say that a properly trained Army or Marine soldier with a properly sighted in weapon will consistently outperform a scope user within visual range. Iron Sights allow for better CQB than scopes do, even red dots. A soldier moving with his weapon in the ready position can aim and fire more accurately than a scope user. The brain has a tendency to want to position the cross hair or red dot, while with an Iron Sight, what the brain sees the brain gets, there is no visual tomfoolery going on for the brain to compensate for. That being said, there is a place for scopes in weapon uses, but scopes can never replace iron sights for quick action aim and fire.
And as I stated earlier as well, iron sights don't limit your field of view quite as much as a scope does.
|
|
|
| |
|