You seem to have a misconception about how
things in military nuts are usually discussed among the regulars in
here. My point in here is not to make you admit that you are wrong
and I am right, neither is it about winning or losing for as far as
things go on the internet there is this rather interesting picture
about what kind of Olympics win/lose debate on the internet is
like.
Hence my debate with you is hardly
personal, and you seem to misread my return jabs at you as “getting
worked up”… if I recall they are simply measured and justified
reprisals in kind to a violation of the unwritten rules in this
forum- ie. We do not resort to ad
hominem arguments to
make our point, instead we assume that our opponent, disagree as we
might is an honorable, rational and competent person, abet one with
different views, and one who should be judged soley on the merit of
his points and not on the fact if he was a rangerat, a storeman, or
an infantry specialist.
Hence
you seem to be mistaken… I am not trying to “win” you, there is no
prize and neither do I expect to get some “you are right I am
wrong” post out of you. My point is quite simply this: after all
the nonsense and crap has been distilled out in this thread, I’ll
let what that truly matters remain have the final say- and that is
the main gist of my argument and points against
yours.
While
I’ve built my case out of several very rational and logical points,
ie. The sheer tactical advantages and utility of dedicated modular
sighting systems versus a budget integral 1.5x scope on the SAR, as
well as explored the reasons why the SAF kept with it for now
(mainly logistical simplicity and cost), and as well as worldwide
trends (the shift from integral sights to modular systems), as well
as future SAF intentions (the eventual replacement with dedicated
modular systems in the ACM concept) to
make a case for the fact that the purpose for the 1.5x on the SAR
is better serves the grunt replaced by a modular
system.
Unfortunately your case in here is far less comprehensive. It is
mostly a case of reactionary tactics, delving shallowly into the
points raised, and trying to question the validity of the points
raised by the tried and tested method by those who have more steam
in them then solid points, and that is via the path of the ad
hominem argument.
In
this case, your “infantry spec cannot shoot man 50m in front of him
hence need red dot” is a perfect example of an ad hominem argument
which is only reserved for the likes of lionnoisy (who are not
really in here for rational discourse anyway). Not only is this
argument shallow, it is an attempt to drag the entire discourse
into something that is far more ambiguous and illogical: basically
you are trying to imply, or argue as such:
Infantry specs ought to be good shooters
and be able to shoot with the 1.5x scope
Good shooters do not require a red dot
sight to engage targets at such range.
Hence:
If a person argues for a red dot scope he’s
not a good shooter
Hence:
SingaporeTyrannosaur is arguing so much for
a red dot sight (which is actually untrue… I am totting the
superiority of modular sighting systems in general over the SAR
integral) because he is a bad shooter
Ie(sideline argument)
SingaporeTyrannosaur cannot shoot with
anything but a red dot.
Of course in setting this up you are
implying a second argument:
The opinion of bad shooters on sighting
systems are less valid then good shooters
Let’s break this down:
Firstly right off the bat we can tell your
first axiom is already quite incorrect. Firstly it assumes that
preferring a 1.5x over a reflex system cannot be interpreted in any
other way then the shooter is deficient, which is quite wrong.
Plenty of more rational alternative explanations exist… but which I
suspect you are unwilling to explore because they weaken the ad
hominem argument you are trying to set up.
If your argument was to be followed with
its logical conclusion it would mean that the USMC are worse shots
then the SAF grunt because they will not shoot with anything other
then things like ACOG, Aimpoint or MARS and would not really
appreciate the idea of using our 1.5x.
It would also mean that
if Carlos
Hathcock argued for using a scope
versus iron sights to carry out his duties in Vietnam (which he
certainly would), it would imply that he is not good shooter at all
and is making that argument on the basis that he is not confident
with any other system.
As far as my qualifications go as a
shooter, I think they are pretty satisfactory and reflective of the
general level of skill in the SAF of grunts who go through typical
shooting. I can hit targets at 300 meters with iron sights so I
think it’s pretty safe to say that I am not arguing for a red dot
because I am incompetent with the 1.5X.
Of course if the rest of your
points were to be truly examined they will draw plenty of
ridiculous conclusions: For example your rangerat as a true measure
of what works in the field other then practical and actual training
in tactical firefighting. This would mean going by your logic
whatever Zaytsev says about his role
and how to carry them out ought to be invalidated every time you
see ought to contradict him by the fact that he almost certainly
received virtually no formal training and certainly far less formal
training then you, having learnt his craft quite practically in the
Urals.
No, we can see this is quite
not the case. Regardless of the speaker, a good point made stands
on its own merit and does not require a constant running to
oh-i-was-a-rangerat land.
But fortunately for everyone in here they
pretty see through this. And as it stands you still haven’t
really justified the following except
to go
i-is-an-saf-officer-its-good-enough-so-listen-to-me:
How do you justify then the reliance of the
SAR in night fighting and FIBUA on the LAD given your obession on
anything that is electronic isn't for the average enlisted man? How
would you justify then further given the SAF is actually intending
to increase the amount of mission-critical electronics in the SAF
infantryman?
How do you justify the utility of the SAR
scope in the face of other dedicated advanced sighting systems like
red dot, reflex, or ACOG systems?
How would you justify the fact that despite
your stickiness to the basic SAR scope, that armies around the
world are shifting to adopting a modular system that can
adapt to different dedicated sighting systems to suit the mission
profile?
How would you justify the contuined utility
of the basic SAR scope in light of the fact that it is the SAF's
eventual intention to phase out the basic budget scope in favour of
dedicated sighting systems such as the ACOG or (horrors of horrors
for you!) reflex system sights in their implementation of the ACM,
which will be the basic SAF grunt for the near
future?
