:::SILUS:::
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
I'm siding with Devil on most arguments for now. Keep it up guys, so far so good on both sides.
Elite Riot Armor, Joshua's or Armor of the 87th Tribe?
- Thread starter DoubleRubix
- Start date
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
DevilTakeMe said:
Is the equivalent of "NO U" the best reply you can come up with?
It was only brought up as an example of an unpopular war. It was not a direct comparison of any kind, that's your imagination.
Because seeing someone do something has a completely different effect than hearing about it. You might take mass media for granted; I don't.
It makes your further comparisons baseless, as it wasn't a direct comparison.
No, because Camp McCarran isn't Hoover Dam.
Actually, you're the person who brought the subject up. I merely remarked that power armor is a tank, in the figurative sense. You then went on to ramble on the unrelated subject of how tanks are used in real life, despite the fact that it is completely irrelevant to the subject of the discussion.
The I-15 is some 400 km of land from the Mojave outpost to San Diego (south of Boneyard). You are assuming that the Long 15 the player visits is near the Mojave outpost, despite the fact that there is no indication given as to where it is, except for "far away". It can't be immediately near the Mojave, as the nukes are stated to be directed against targets in heartland NCR.
See above. Also, yes. Patton has a polished, shining helmet emblazoned with four bright stars and wore perfectly fitted clothes, standing out like a sore thumb.
So? This actually supports my points. Since NCR doesn't bother camouflaging heavier, less mobile suits, it wouldn't bother camouflaging a more mobile suit.
No, I describe a tactic that's likely to be used when you have armor that can shrug off small arms like they were nothing. The entire point of the armour plating on the T-series is to give the soldier enough protection so that he can enter a firefight without having to worry about cover all the time and emerge unscathed. If you are going to deploy power armor, then make it hide behind cover all the time, the soldier might as well have worn the default combat armor.
What's your point? You write a lot without actually saying anything. Are you losing your train of thought halfway through? Try writing shorter posts that are richer in content.
Yes, tanks work on these principles. How do they apply to power armor? Power armor is not an actual tank (not known to many, I know), it's able to carry weapons one would normally put on a tank without problems, but at the same time, it retains the dimensions of a single soldier and his mobility.
What? What has that to do with anything?
Again, neither you nor I know where exactly on the Long 15 Royez' post is located. The only clue given is the enigmatic expression "targets in heartland NCR" and the large impact crater near Royez' post. You claiming over and over again that it's close to the frontlines isn't going to make it any more true.
What is this sentence trying to say?
Actually, Hanlon and several other soldiers state outright that during the First Battle the Legion launched similiar offensives as well. Camp Golf was the frontline for much of the time. The brunt of the attack was simply focused on Hoover Dam, like it is, again, in 2281.
Second, a defensive, passive stance isn't what wins wars.
AMRs aren't magical "I WIN" buttons against power armor.
DevilTakeMe
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Tagaziel said:
I'm sorry. Would you rather I have said "NO U"?
I can be childish if you'd like, but I've been ignoring the personal barbs you've been throwing my way, such as my being dense. Or your sudden demand that I declare myself being "wrong."
I've been going about this in a reasonable fashion. If you don't want to be mature enough to continue this discussion, please let me know, and I'll drop the subject and you can go about your merry way.
The simple fact is that we disagree on this point. Kimball visiting the front line is a political and public relations-related stunt in every sense of the word. You narrow it down to "a morale boosting speech," which, by the way, isn't limited solely to military personnel.
Fair enough, we disagree. There really isn't a right or wrong interpretation.
Then, I'm sorry you brought it up.
You only make mention of how Bush's politically fueled stunts require mass media like the internet or television. You'll have to explain what's different about that. Otherwise, it feels like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
I don't either, but I don't doubt the effect of available media relative to the Fallout world, either. Word of mouth tends to go a long way.
Wasteland news is not immediately there for intense gratification. But then, World War 1 or 2 didn't exactly have TV or internet, either. But look at how the responses to news were still effective, after being relayed through others.
Going back even further, you have even older speeches, like, say, the Gettysburg Address. A combination of a meaningful speech and location, reprinted and retold to be circulated later on. I'm not saying that the speech made on the Dam is that kind of speech, as there were lots of speeches that don't make as much impact, but the stories were circulated and talked about all over the country.
Baseless? Like making "indirect comparisons" as a way to reinforce your arguments?
Again, I'm sorry that you brought it up.
Does it have to be Hoover Dam? No. Again, unpopular foreign wars which you previously referenced. (Again, I'm sorry you brought it up.)
The USS Abraham Lincoln certainly isn't the reason why the US was fighting the Iraq War. Or a secured airport in Baghdad, etc. etc. Yet they both represented the area in which many lives were lost.
You want a comparison to, say, Korea. General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the Korean War effort, often made speeches about Korea. He never spent a night in Korea. He was there for one day after an initial US invasion, then spent the entire war on a ship or at his headquarters in Tokyo.
I didn't. You specifically made the comparison to "walking tanks." Sorry you couldn't back up your comparison. And it doesn't change the fact that you are the person who made the comparison, and it's not my fault you didn't think that out. You can deny making the comparison all you want. But when it comes back to turn around on you.
So, again, I'm sorry you brought it up.
Far away in Fallout changes because of walking distance. 300 miles isn't a big deal for you or I, but it is for people who have to traverse that on foot. It's a 3-4 hour trip by car. Suffice it to say, it's much longer when you're walking up mountains.
The Cajon Pass on the I-15 is a likely candidate for a nuclear strike to prevent access through the mountains on the way to Las Vegas. There are a couple towns up there on the freeway where one could build large buildings like that seen in the "Long 15" location.
Murrieta, CA is about as far south on the I-15 as you can go into NCR territory without, you know, going around nuclear impact points on different roads. Still a good ways off from San Diego. But it's not very well developed.
On the other hand, Barstow is the most likely spot for the "Long 15" location. It has developed structure, large buildings. It's the location for a logistics base, and close to Fort Irwin at a junction with the I-40, which leads East, making a prime spot for defending from incursions through New Mexico (you know, where Caesar's Legion also operates). It's also about exactly half-way between NCR's home territory and Las Vegas, making it a prime spot for travelers stopping on the I-15 on their way to New Vegas.
But that is at best an "educated guess," and I digress.
Patton also used revolvers with ivory-handled grips ("pearl-handles are for pimps"), but he, then he wore the same helmet his troopers did. And he didn't call attention to himself with bright colors, especially out on campaign.
From a distance, you wouldn't be able to pick him out particularly well. Unless, of course, he was wearing bright orange and green on his uniform.
You'd be better off using "Mad Jack" Churchill for your line of thinking, but even he didn't wear a uniform that made him stand out among his troops or specifically called his presence out to the enemy.
(Yes, that's the guy who fought World War 2 with a claymore, bagpipes, and an English Longbow - with which he has a confirmed kill.)
And again, there's the wrong mindset of making yourself a target. Purposefully exposing yourself to harm is a deathwish, and contrary to human nature.
Ask any tank commander whether he likes being under fire or not. The answer is always no, regardless if it's a kid throwing rocks at them or firing RPGs at them. Yes, their armor makes them feel more confident that they won't be harmed, not invincible. Hit them first, hit them harder, before they hit you.
Tanks are well armored, but they have to deal with the fear that they don't know what's coming at them next. You can say all you want that they feel confident against small arms, but then it's the stuff that can kill them which is what they're afraid of.
Unless those troopers have advanced sensor suites which allow them to automatically know what their enemies are armed with, they can never actually be sure. Better to be out of harm's way than have to test their armor against everything and anything.
Ask anyone who has lived through constant bombs even if they are in a safe, underground bunker, or a Vault. World War 2 veterans and survivors often talked about the fear they had to live through while bombardment is going on outside, despite them being behind reinforced walls, deep underground, etc.
Armor is there to minimize harm done to the wearer so they can carry out their mission objectives, not make the user feel invincible, although it does much to boost confidence.
Maybe too much. Again, we go back to the Brotherhood of Steel thinking that it does, and then subverting itself when those Paladins wind up dead.
Don't worry about it. It's more talk about tanks, which, again, I'm sorry about you bringing it up and then trying to deny the comparison by being "indirect."
Same principles, applied to an individual rather than a vehicle. All this protection leads to them being used in situations where common infantry would not be able to operate and perform the mission. The self-contained aspect of the armor allows power armored troops to operate in battlefield conditions such as against biological weapons, nuclear radiation, etc. Their mobility allows them to perform what infantry would be doing under "normal" circumstances.
The tradeoff is that a tank is able to traverse difficult terrain (tanks were originally designed so they could traverse trenches by simply driving over them, and then have the mass and strength to run over cars and other obstacles), but can't manage more specific tasks without exposing the crew to harm. Power armored troops have the same inability as infantry regarding difficult terrain, but are able to perform more specific tasks in hazardous situations that would kill unarmored personnel.
That if Hardin or another paladin were in charge (but they weren't), they would have most likely not have pulled out (even if he denies it). Hardin is a "hardliner" as Veronica says, and if he's in charge, he resumes anti-NCR operations. Mcnamara is the reasonable one.
The other clue is he's "Cutting the throat" of the NCR rather than stabbing the heart.
Again, it's 200+ miles between NCR territory and the Mojave. There needs to be a supply post or two between the Mojave outpost through the mountains and dry desert. Not everyone is prepared to traverse such a distance on foot without supplies, yes, but they also need to be able to stop somewhere and resupply.
You know, a supply line. Like the Divide.
That if you don't learn from history, it will repeat itself. The NCR, as presented by 1st Recon, their heavily armored troops, and Colonel Royez, are simply examples of them not learning. And they'll pay for that mistake.
Except, of course, Graham's tactics in the First Battle of Hoover Dam was just to throw waves of soldiers at the enemy defenses, rather than as an any kind of coordinated offensive. Camp Golf simply happened to be there to attack. Graham himself says so.
But then, General Oliver was even overwhelmed by that, and that's when Chief Hanlon stepped in to turn the tide and start picking off officers to incite confusion.
Oliver's tactics are again just to slug it out with more men and more firepower - again, the whole deal with the Rangers and the Heavy troopers being brought in. "General Wait and See," he's called by others in the NCR. He's the passive one, and he's not winning a war that way.
Is that a "NO U" response trying to echo a reasonbly thought-out response.
They're bringing those very weapons you said can defeat the very armor you say make them "invincible."
Not so invincible anymore, right?
James Snowscoran
Still Mildly Glowing
Vidya game lore is srs bsns
(This is why NMA is awesome)
(This is why NMA is awesome)
:::SILUS:::
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Fap, fap, fap.
DevilTakeMe said:
You are being stubborn and refuse to admit that you may have been wrong in using an incorrect expression.
I wouldn't call negation and blocks of text lacking a point reasonable. You write a lot without actually saying anything or understanding the points I raise.
Yes, there is. A leader visiting his troops is not a publicity stunt. Unless you're going to argue that eg. Caesar (the real one) inspecting his legions is a publicity stunt.
Again, a leader visiting his troops is not a publicity stunt.
What are you going on about? Again, you are going off on a tangent, losing focus. It's an offshot of your earlier claim that Kimball's visit is some sort of publicity stunt.
I didn't bring it up. I said that the Mojave campaign is unpopular in the same way Iraq and Afghanistan are. You used this as an excuse to start comparing the wars; an illogical step, since they were brought up only to illustrate my point, not compare.
Tell me, how am I supposed not to sarcastically remark about your qualities as nuclear reactor shielding, if you continuously fail to understand a very basic point? Hoover Dam is the entire reason the NCR is in the Mojave. Hoover Dam is power to heartland NCR. Hoover Dam is a stable supply of fresh, drinkable water. Finally, Hoover Dam is a symbol of the NCR harnessing the Old World legacy. I don't recall Lincoln or the Baghdad airport being the points of the Iraq War or its symbols.
So? How is he relevant? How does his existence refute my point or expand your argument?
I didn't brought it up. I used the "word" tank in relation to power armor figuratively. It's you who treated it literally and started rambling about tanks. You can't even stay consistent: in the same post you are claiming that I'm wrong when saying that power armor is (figuratively) a tank, yet argue that it should be used like one.
Yes, you are digressing. In fact, you've been digressing for most part of the discussion.
Now, ad rem. I state that you are incorrectly assuming that the Long 15 location is near the Mojave outpost. You reply by reinforcing my point (that Royez is away from the frontlines), stating that the I-15 is a long way to cover on foot, especially up mountains. I don't know if you are refuting my point, supporting it or attempting to ignore it.
Patton also used revolvers with ivory-handled grips ("pearl-handles are for pimps"), but he, then he wore the same helmet his troopers did. And he didn't call attention to himself with bright colors, especially out on campaign.
From a distance, you wouldn't be able to pick him out particularly well. Unless, of course, he was wearing bright orange and green on his uniform.
You'd be better off using "Mad Jack" Churchill for your line of thinking, but even he didn't wear a uniform that made him stand out among his troops or specifically called his presence out to the enemy.
(Yes, that's the guy who fought World War 2 with a claymore, bagpipes, and an English Longbow - with which he has a confirmed kill.)[/quote]
You do realize that you've defeated your own argument, right? At the distance I wouldn't be able to spot a shinining, polished M1 helmet with silvery stars and a perfectly fitted uniform, I wouldn't be able to spot brightly coloured details on a suit of armor either. Unless someone had a scope or binoculars, but at that point, no camouflage is going to succesfully prevent detection.
How long till you read the integral part of my argument that includes power armoured troopers drawing fire while suppressing the enemy with their heavy weapons? Or note that the entire point of military training is to suppress the instincts of a civilian (namely, to flee and save your own skin) in favour of killer instincts?
You can't really claim that soldiers won't purposefully expose themselves to harm, because that's contrary to human nature and then claim that they're soldiers. Every time a soldier is in a combat one, he's risking his life. Every time he leans out of cover to aim and fire his rifle, he is putting himself purposefully in harm's way. He is trained to do so, to take calculated risks. Same goes for any uniform wearing service out there: police, border guards, firefighters etc. This just shows how much of an armchair general you are.
All fine and dandy, except that power armor, in every fiction I've come across, in every speculative publication I read, is not treated as a tank or used like one. You are the first person I've met who claims that people clad in armor should be used like tanks.
This flies completely in the face of common sense. Power armor is designed to protect and increase the combat potential of an infantryman. It's designed to grant him increased survivability and increased firepower, whilst retaining his mobility. Your claim that power armored troops can fill the niche tanks do is akin to arguing that slapping a scope on an M16 assault rifle will allow it to fulfill the same objectives as an M21 marksman rifle.
In the bible of power armor, namely Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, the entire point of mobile suits is that they allow infantry to have extreme firepower and mobility, whilst retaining the flexibility of an infantryman. Mobile Infantry trains as infantry, moves like infantry, behaves like infantry, even shoots like infantry. Yet according to your logic, they are tanks.
So? How is that relevant?
....
You do realize that stabbing the heart and cutting the throat are both lethal actions, right?
So? That doesn't mean the Long 15 location is close to the Mojave.
How? I'm trying to follow your logic here, but I'm having problems. What mistakes did 1st Recon make? Or their heavily armored troops? Both units were crucial to victory during the First Battle for Hoover Dam.
Your argument is internally inconsistent. You claim that Graham was just sending uncoordinated waves of soldiers at the enemy. Yet in the next sentence, you state that victory was achieved by scrambling enemy ranks after their officers were picked off.
So which one it is, eh? Was the Legion uncoordinated and routed? Or was it well coordinated and routed after its chain of command was broken? You can't claim both in the same reply without being self contradicting.
Then why did you claim that one should just go about his defence to win in the previous reply? You do realize that with the above you're actually supporting my point, thus undermining your own?
Your response wasn't reasonably thought out. You simply stated the obvious fact that the Legion is bringing in some weapons that can counter heavy armour, without actually refuting my point. That wasn't a response, that was a statement.
:::SILUS:::
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Tagaziel said:
Sorry, but that's just lolable.
DevilTakeMe
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Leaders who are there to visit their troops don't have a stage built specifically for them so that they can give an award ceremony and a prepared speech, only to leave immediately afterward.
Does Kimball stop to talk with any of his troops? No. Is he rallying them for any particular reason? No. A quick speech about the importance of why they're there, a small thank you, and then he leaves as quickly as possible - again, muttering about not wanting to get shot.
Not much of a "visit" to boost morale. Unless you can point out a similar instance in history where a short trip to deliver a quick speech was regarded as a morale booster rather than a political stunt.
So again, you're being literal about speeches and political stunts and then being figurative about power armor and everything else.
Iraq and Afghanistan are unpopular wars, over what's seen as power grabs. There's a right to compare them, and if you don't want to compare them, don't bring them up.
Hoover Dam is power to Heartland NCR, which also has the Gecko nuclear power plant, wherever New Reno was getting its power, etc. They already have power, Hoover Dam is just more power, not a lifeline. The water the Dam supplies is important, too.
That's why the NCR's war is seen as unpopular, it's not a definitively "make or break" situation for their survival. The extra power the Dam provides only helps them grow.
You're even confused about the First Battle of Hoover Dam. I'm exactly right in saying that Graham's tactics were just to throw his men at the NCR defenses. Legion officers were picked off, and unable to change tactics during the fight. Without leadership on the field, the Legion simply kept pushing forward, while the NCR pulled back and suckered the disorganized Legion, who were basically mobbing their way across the dam into Boulder City. The NCR blows up Boulder City and most of the assaulting Legion with it.
So again, back to where we started. I'm sorry you used the word "tank" inappropriately. You used the Iraq War and the Afghanistan conflict inappropriately. And now all you can do is say "oh, I didn't mean it that way." Well, I used it correctly and appropriately, and you've got nothing to say except "Oh, I didn't mean it that way, it wasn't a direct comparison."
No, you said they were tanks, now you're telling me that they're infantrymen, when I just told you that they perform the functions of an infantryman while still being akin to a tank, unlike an actual tank, which cannot function individually like infantry. Or did you miss the part where I told you that power armored troops can operate in an environment where the improperly equipped infantry cannot?
And then of course, you go running off and start referencing other fiction, such as Heinlein. And again, you start talking backwards regarding your stance on power armored troops. First, you say they are tanks (but you then say you were just using them as an indirect comparison), then you say they are infantry. I'm telling you that they're a hybrid of both infantry and armored vehicle.
Again, so you don't get confused, the tradeoff is that an armored vehicle like a tank can traverse difficult terrain, while the power armored soldier cannot. Tanks cannot function as infantry, performing the same sort of work without the crew having to -get out- of the vehicle. I'm repeating it, so you can understand.
I'm sorry, you're not being clear. You're telling me that there are no tanks in the Fallout world, then quote me the Fallout timeline where power armor proved very effective against chinese tanks.
I'm sorry you don't understand basic military principles. No, a guy like Patton isn't being "disguised", but he's not being advertised as a taget, either.
You don't understand how camouflage works without a stealth boy, Camouflage is simply not bringing unnecessary attention to yourself. It's not complete disguise or even a guarantee of proof against identification as a target.
Do you think a base like Navarro remains secret for long, when it's a huge base, hidden only by a thin line of trees and a single guard at a gas station? It's a huge facility. How did they keep it under wraps for so long?
If you've ever been to an actual military base - they don't advertise that it's there, and yes, they often do put up a line of trees around them. There's signs put up that say "there's a base here", but they're off to the side, and you wouldn't see it unless you were looking for it.
The same is true for officers. Notably, officers in the legion have those bright colors on their helmets to distinguish them from the rank and file, clashing against the colors of the Mojave (real is brown). That makes them advertised as being there.
I really don't think that I can illustrate the point any better than this. But you're still trying to use Patton as an argument against me, so here:
Takes you a little more time to pick Patton out, and that's with clear conditions and a good view. Sorry I don't have a color photo of him with his troops, but I'm pretty sure the coat he's wearing isn't bright orange or neon green.
Then again, with the logic your'e presenting, they should be painting power armor like this:
(no, this tank isn't actually fielded this way. The Dutch military painted it orange in support of their football team. And of course, the Dutch aren't at war.)
I'm sorry, but the loudness of these colors is drowning out any credence that you wouldn't be able to single him out of a crowd, at a glance. The star on Royez's shoulder might as well be a point for a spotter to range a sniper's shot.
So, unless you're telling me that Royez can waste the resources of fieldable power armor by painting it garish colors for no particularly good reason, or that he's got a spare suit lying around, I'm leaning towards the idea that you're incorrect in your assertion.
All you can do is run to the authors and ask them if I'm wrong.
Does Kimball stop to talk with any of his troops? No. Is he rallying them for any particular reason? No. A quick speech about the importance of why they're there, a small thank you, and then he leaves as quickly as possible - again, muttering about not wanting to get shot.
Not much of a "visit" to boost morale. Unless you can point out a similar instance in history where a short trip to deliver a quick speech was regarded as a morale booster rather than a political stunt.
So again, you're being literal about speeches and political stunts and then being figurative about power armor and everything else.
Iraq and Afghanistan are unpopular wars, over what's seen as power grabs. There's a right to compare them, and if you don't want to compare them, don't bring them up.
Hoover Dam is power to Heartland NCR, which also has the Gecko nuclear power plant, wherever New Reno was getting its power, etc. They already have power, Hoover Dam is just more power, not a lifeline. The water the Dam supplies is important, too.
That's why the NCR's war is seen as unpopular, it's not a definitively "make or break" situation for their survival. The extra power the Dam provides only helps them grow.
You're even confused about the First Battle of Hoover Dam. I'm exactly right in saying that Graham's tactics were just to throw his men at the NCR defenses. Legion officers were picked off, and unable to change tactics during the fight. Without leadership on the field, the Legion simply kept pushing forward, while the NCR pulled back and suckered the disorganized Legion, who were basically mobbing their way across the dam into Boulder City. The NCR blows up Boulder City and most of the assaulting Legion with it.
So again, back to where we started. I'm sorry you used the word "tank" inappropriately. You used the Iraq War and the Afghanistan conflict inappropriately. And now all you can do is say "oh, I didn't mean it that way." Well, I used it correctly and appropriately, and you've got nothing to say except "Oh, I didn't mean it that way, it wasn't a direct comparison."
No, you said they were tanks, now you're telling me that they're infantrymen, when I just told you that they perform the functions of an infantryman while still being akin to a tank, unlike an actual tank, which cannot function individually like infantry. Or did you miss the part where I told you that power armored troops can operate in an environment where the improperly equipped infantry cannot?
And then of course, you go running off and start referencing other fiction, such as Heinlein. And again, you start talking backwards regarding your stance on power armored troops. First, you say they are tanks (but you then say you were just using them as an indirect comparison), then you say they are infantry. I'm telling you that they're a hybrid of both infantry and armored vehicle.
Again, so you don't get confused, the tradeoff is that an armored vehicle like a tank can traverse difficult terrain, while the power armored soldier cannot. Tanks cannot function as infantry, performing the same sort of work without the crew having to -get out- of the vehicle. I'm repeating it, so you can understand.
I'm sorry, you're not being clear. You're telling me that there are no tanks in the Fallout world, then quote me the Fallout timeline where power armor proved very effective against chinese tanks.
I'm sorry you don't understand basic military principles. No, a guy like Patton isn't being "disguised", but he's not being advertised as a taget, either.
You don't understand how camouflage works without a stealth boy, Camouflage is simply not bringing unnecessary attention to yourself. It's not complete disguise or even a guarantee of proof against identification as a target.
Do you think a base like Navarro remains secret for long, when it's a huge base, hidden only by a thin line of trees and a single guard at a gas station? It's a huge facility. How did they keep it under wraps for so long?
If you've ever been to an actual military base - they don't advertise that it's there, and yes, they often do put up a line of trees around them. There's signs put up that say "there's a base here", but they're off to the side, and you wouldn't see it unless you were looking for it.
The same is true for officers. Notably, officers in the legion have those bright colors on their helmets to distinguish them from the rank and file, clashing against the colors of the Mojave (real is brown). That makes them advertised as being there.
I really don't think that I can illustrate the point any better than this. But you're still trying to use Patton as an argument against me, so here:
Takes you a little more time to pick Patton out, and that's with clear conditions and a good view. Sorry I don't have a color photo of him with his troops, but I'm pretty sure the coat he's wearing isn't bright orange or neon green.
Then again, with the logic your'e presenting, they should be painting power armor like this:
(no, this tank isn't actually fielded this way. The Dutch military painted it orange in support of their football team. And of course, the Dutch aren't at war.)
I'm sorry, but the loudness of these colors is drowning out any credence that you wouldn't be able to single him out of a crowd, at a glance. The star on Royez's shoulder might as well be a point for a spotter to range a sniper's shot.
So, unless you're telling me that Royez can waste the resources of fieldable power armor by painting it garish colors for no particularly good reason, or that he's got a spare suit lying around, I'm leaning towards the idea that you're incorrect in your assertion.
All you can do is run to the authors and ask them if I'm wrong.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Or maybe Royez is away from the front lines, and doesn,t much care about sniper fire, especially since only a direct headshot would be lethal to him.
Or maybe this is a friggin video game and complete, explicit explanations for every single little thing is not needed? I am the first to lament the lack of details in games sometimes, but even the most detailled and researched fictions have some holes in their logic.
Or maybe this is a friggin video game and complete, explicit explanations for every single little thing is not needed? I am the first to lament the lack of details in games sometimes, but even the most detailled and researched fictions have some holes in their logic.
:::SILUS:::
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
OH MY FUCKIN IMAGINARY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!
Here you go gits:
So it's settled, the armor is just a ripoff of one of the billion retardo mods made by some Gaia Online 12 year old furry. It might as well look like this:
There is no logic in it, no hidden purposes or functions, no mystery about the origins of it's design, just a see of the endless retardation known as the INTERWEBZ.
Here you go gits:
So it's settled, the armor is just a ripoff of one of the billion retardo mods made by some Gaia Online 12 year old furry. It might as well look like this:
There is no logic in it, no hidden purposes or functions, no mystery about the origins of it's design, just a see of the endless retardation known as the INTERWEBZ.
DevilTakeMe
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Ilosar said:
Bellisario's Maxim, of course. "Don't think too hard about it."
Moff's Law, on the other hand, will be people trying to derail critical analysis by saying "It's not meant to make sense, why can't you just enjoy it for what it is?" as a way of trying to stave off criticism or critical analysis.
If Royez is stationed in an area where his presence in power armor isn't going to do any good, why is he wearing it in the first place? If it's to boost morale for his troopers or the travellers moving through his neck of the woods, so far away from the front lines, why does he need excessive decoration? Wouldn't it be better if he wore functional armor instead of tricking out his armor and being "tacticool" and show people that he's ready, and not just bored enough to turn his functional power armor into pimped out rainbow gear?
And as for his helmet, the assets are apparently in the game files, but weren't used as an item because Obsidian seemed to want to show him as being a "Marked Man" or whatever.
:::SILUS::: said:
Yes, I'm aware. Check the first page of this very thread. I pointed that out.
:::SILUS::: said:
You obviously don't know much about the military Silus.
I have to agree with Tagaziel on this one.
:::SILUS:::
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
It's nothing more then an obvious publicity stunt used for moral boosting and some cheap election points. The lowest common denominator is it's prime target and the only thing that makes that it a success. Sad, but true.
:::SILUS::: said:
No, no it's not. You obviously do not know much about how the military works.
To quote Napoleon Bonaparte: "A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon."
Edit: And yeah I'm guessing Royez is wearing that armor for the same reason military leaders wore armor like this back in the day,
DevilTakeMe
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Courier said:
Which again, is my point about why it's nonsensical for anyone in the NCR to think about it in this fashion. It's reactionary and going backwards more than a few centuries.
It makes sense for Caesar's Legion - who embrace the culture and mentality of a fighting force from two thousand years before - they wear football pads and scrap metal in order to emulate that sort of prestige in their armor. Lanius wears something like that.
It makes sense for the Brotherhood of Steel - who stylize themselves after knights from a thousand years before and treat their power armor as invincible shields in their techno-religious zealotry, like Crusaders and so forth.
It doesn't make sense for the NCR - who patterned themselves after a more modern (at least as 1950s-style modern) military. I would be okay with it if it were a non-functional "ceremonial" armor. But the suit Royez is wearing is a functioning suit of power armor, when the rest of the troopers being sent to the Mojave have their servos stripped just to make them useful.
It's a waste of a resource for a suit of "invincible" armor to have it relegated to "ceremony" or someone's personal prized possession, tricked out to look good (not that good, though, again, horrid colors).
If it's a public relations thing, like the Blue Angels/Thunderbirds, who have specially painted vehicles to drum up interest in the armed forces during air shows, Royez is way the hell out from anywhere it would do good.
DevilTakeMe said:
What? Seriously, what? Stages are an essential part of troop inspections and such visits because they are meant to make the leader visible to all soldiers, not just this next to him. Furthermore, you're again being inconsistent: you demand Kimball, a veteran soldier, to go against common sense and prolong his stay longer than it is necessary, risking more attempts on his life on top of the four that Legion tries?
That doesn't make any sense. The entire point of the Hoover Dam visit is to boost morale, to symbolically recognize the bravery of the soldiers stationed there and bolster their morale by doing that in a place that's symbolic of the struggle for the Mojave. Everyone, from the basic troops, through the Ranger security detail to the President himself, is aware that this is a risky endeavour, but undertaken despite the risks, specifically to boost morale.
You want an example? How about Adolf Hitler awarding decorations to his child soldiers in the courtyard of the New Reich Chancellory, despite the constant shelling of Berlin by advancing Soviet armies? Or pretty much any public parade or appearance by notable people of any regime. Again, a perfect example is the Tag der Freiheit. During that day, military parades took place down the St. Marcin street in Poznań, to signifiy German dominance over the city and boost the morale of its german population. Notable German politicians and military men (eg. Arthur Greiser, the motherfucker in charge) appeared routinely on stages built for this occasion, despite the inherent risks involved in exposing themselves on a stage in a predominantly (4:1) Polish city.
Yes, because that's a normal thing to do? Sometimes words are used in their literal meaning. Sometimes they are used figuratively. Context is important and it's quite obvious when I'm literal and when I am figurative.
They were brought up as illustration. And no, they aren't similiar to the Mojave in other respects than unpopularity. I don't see the USA prolonging their stay in Iraq for their oil fields or Afghanistan for its raw resources.
Where do you get the fact that Gecko is still relevant? Broken Hills, the sole supply of uranium ore for the Gecko power plant and Vault City's own nuclear power source, has dispersed a few decades before 2281 and there is no mention of either city finding a new source of fissible material for their reactors. Not to mention that there was only a single functional reactor in Gecko which, while powerful, is not enough to supply the entire NCR with power at reasonable levels.
Electricity is hard to come by in large quantities in the wastelands. It is also an essential prerequisite for standards of living above those of the 19th century. I don't think I really need to recount the benefits of having an ample supply of electricity, do I?
Nope. It's unpopular because to the citizens of eg. Boneyard it's basically taxes and graves of loved ones. It's stated several times in the game that it's the reason.
The confusion may be arising because you are claiming two inherently contradictive things:
1. Graham was just throwing people at the problem without any organization whatsoever.
2. The Legion became disorganized after their commanding officers were killed and the chain of command broke down.
Basically, you can't even decide on whether or not a chain of command existed in the Legion or not. Then you ramble on, claiming that I'm confused as to the events of the battle of Hoover Dam, despite the fact that I made no statement, at any time, about the events of the battle. I simply pointed out your self contradiction.
So instead of refuting my points, you start childishly accusing me of using words inappropriately, despite me outlining everal times now the context in which they were used and their meaning? Not a way to discuss anything.
Here kid, read about differences between literal and figurative language, courtesy of Aunt Wikipedia. I don't like her as an argument, but she's useful for explaining very basic concepts (basically Reading 101).
Actually, this shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's tanks that can't traverse difficult terrain. Nowadays they're a very specialized weapon that's useless without infantry support. To put it simply, infantry can do without tanks; tanks cannot do without infantry. Power armor, again, is about enhancing the abilities of an infantryman, both defensive and offensive to the point of him being considered a figurative tank.
What? I pointed out that Chimeras didn't exist in the reality of Fallout. I never said that the Chinese didn't own tanks.
You've started using ad hominems repeatedly. This is a sign that you're running out of reasonable arguments and start to bash me. I understand well enough how the military works or how camouflage functions. Helps being the son of a Lieutenant and the grandson of a Colonel who worked his entire life with tanks and other armored vehicles.
Navarro isn't really a huge facility by modern standards. It's just a refueling base, a waystation for Vertibirds that's located away from any major trade routes and protected by heavily armed patrols that exterminate anyone who tries to explore that region. It's also isn't overtly advertised by being in the neck of the woods, both literally and figuratively (refer to the linked Wikipedia article if you still don't understand the difference).
I've been to an actual military base, several times. There are several of them in Poznan and the surrounding environs. All of them are marked as military territory and have sing warning against tresspassing, the same is true for the proving grounds. Those outside the city are surrounded by forests (unless its the Krzesiny AFB), but military bases in the city aren't camouflaged in any way, because it's pointless.
Any locals would also know where nearby military bases are, especially in the country. It's hard to disguise soldiers and ordnance coming in.
Out of curiosity, just how much military experience do you have and how old are you?
No less than the green berets and mantles of NCR officers. Or Ranger dusters. Or Ranger campaign hats.
I really don't think that I can illustrate the point any better than this.
Is that seriously the best retort you can come up with? A picture of a clown among people in ACUs? This shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
But you're still trying to use Patton as an argument against me, so here:
Takes you a little more time to pick Patton out, and that's with clear conditions and a good view. Sorry I don't have a color photo of him with his troops, but I'm pretty sure the coat he's wearing isn't bright orange or neon green.
Then again, with the logic your'e presenting, they should be painting power armor like this:
(no, this tank isn't actually fielded this way. The Dutch military painted it orange in support of their football team. And of course, the Dutch aren't at war.)
I'm sorry, but the loudness of these colors is drowning out any credence that you wouldn't be able to single him out of a crowd, at a glance. The star on Royez's shoulder might as well be a point for a spotter to range a sniper's shot.
So, unless you're telling me that Royez can waste the resources of fieldable power armor by painting it garish colors for no particularly good reason, or that he's got a spare suit lying around, I'm leaning towards the idea that you're incorrect in your assertion.
Actually, I identified Patton immediately. The two shiny stars on his helmet are a big "I'm important" neon signed slapped on his, well, forehead.
As for the rest of the argument, it's evident that you've forgotten how the Sierra power armor looks like. It isn't covered in either bright orange or neon green. The bronze star on the left pauldron isn't large either. Any details of this colour are small and, at best, the size of a clenched fist. Below I've included a scale chart for how it would look at different ranges.
This is the Sierra power armor at ca. 25 meters. You can make out the bronze star easily, as well as the red details on the knee joints. Neon green is almost invisible.
This is the Sierra power armor at ca. 50-75 meters. The bronze star is barely visible, as are the red details. Neon green is invisible.
This is the Sierra power armor at ca. 125-150 meters. Only the general shape is visible and the overall dark colour of the armor.
At extreme ranges.
As you can clearly see, the colours you rant about are mere details that cease to be a problem at ca. 60 meters in average. This means that the colours on the armour are only ever going to be a problem in the unlikely event Royez and his men find themselves deployed into an urban setting in close combat. Engagements with the Legion in the deserts of the Mojave and the Long 15 would most likely be counted in the hundreds of meters.
I am linking an article that cites the average engagement distance in Afghanistan nowadays, which is about 500-600 meters. It is not intended as a direct comparison of the NCR-Legion War, it is intended as a source for the above statement about engagement distances in a desert setting between two sides armed with firearms. Apparently you need this kind of disclaimer and explanation to understand the reasons for such a citation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/us-rifles-not-suited-for-_n_584856.html
I don't need to ask them, because you are wrong.
Surf Solar
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Tagaziel said:
wat
DevilTakeMe
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Before I begin, I have to make note that you have this misplaced idea that I'm saying that no one would risk their lives. I said they would very like to much to not die, and that means putting themselves at Unnecessary risk, which you keep glossing over.
Calculated risks are just that, calculated. What else would they be?
Argumentum ad hominem. Something you're accusing me of. You keep trying to find errors with me personally or my views, so you attack them by trying to find contradiction, where there is none. I'm asking you to try and argue with actual arguments than short sentences just repeating how flawed you -think- the statements are.
Attempts that he or his guards DON'T KNOW ABOUT unless you inform them. They immediately evacuate Kimball should you tell the Ranger about it.
Again, he leaves in a hurry even when nothing appears to be out of order, and that it looks like the Legion isn't going to do anything to him.
"What are you waiting for? Let's go, I don't want to get shot."
Which makes it even more of a political stunt. It makes a huge statement to the Legion, who can probably hear him because of all the loudspeakers. It makes a statement to people back home that Kimball is willing to put himself out there.
Does he have to do it? No. But he's taking a calculated risk in making a speech there, before he takes off again. He, being an old soldier himself, is not risking himself any more than he needs to.
Really? You're going to Hitler for an example of military morale boosting? Wow, you're really stretching for examples.
Remember why Hitler was doing it at the Chancellory by then. He was making his statement that he wasn't going to leave. It was a building built for -him- personally. The Fuhrerbunker, the shelter where Hitler spent the last of his days, was -underneath- the New Reich Chancellory.
It was from where he considered himself safest. When he came out, he'd make a speech, give out some awards, then go back down.
How is politicians (Greiser was an SS man, not really military, SS was paramilitary) and military men making speeches not politically oriented? Patton was also known to make speeches to civilians for the same reason.
Some people -do- see American incursion into Iraq as a grab for oil, putting in a democratic government that would be more amenable to US trade for that resource in the future. "They ousted Saddam, why are they still there?" Not my view, personally, but one that has been shared by some media and politicians.
Afghanistan - a lot of folks are still wondering why the US is still there when they killed the target they were looking for in the first place.
But I digress again. It's only real comparison, then, if not a direct one, is that the wars are not quite as simple as Kimball and others would have the common population as one would believe.
Exactly. You're stating the same thing. Is the Mojave itself relevant to the inhabitants of the Boneyard? No.
You love to talk about concepts, but this one goes over your head?
You can still have a disorganized attack and still have a chain of command if your tactics are simply to bum-rush the enemy defenses. The problem, of course, is when someone is trying to reorganize and give new orders on the field. The Legion was trying to do just that, but only if you have officers still on the field, who were being picked off.
That can and has happened. There are stories of huge gaffes during the US Civil War where one officer is giving an order, only to be countermanded by another, and it takes a concerted effort to get soldiers back to where they need to be.
It's all over World War 2 when different remnants of different companies and units would rally behind an officer who decided to take charge and put order back into the chaos going on the battlefield.
Ultimately, to maintain discipline or to give new orders, you need officers. The Legion had theirs killed, so the Legion, not knowing what else to do, kept pushing forward, chasing the NCR right into the trap at Boulder City.
Semantics are the last refuge of a person who has no basis on which to stand. You don't have any rational logic to your own arguments. Your comparisons are flawed and poorly researched. Your logic is riddled with holes and fallacies. The only thing you have left is to try and throw dictionary definitions at me and try and twist them in an effort to prove me wrong by making me out to be "unintelligent" when your own comparisons and understanding of the very concepts you are telling me are being pointed out as flawed.
So, I'm sorry you brought those up. I'm trying to have a reasonable discourse here, and I'd like to continue to do so, but I keep getting these attempts to tell me I'm less intelligent than you are.
Again, you keep calling me "dense," "kid," etc. As if trying to demean me so that your points will suddenly have some sort of better impact.
I'd like to counter with the following from Wikipedia as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy) - an act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
Again, using parts or making reference "indirectly" of figurative language as a flawed comparison is a logical fallacy.
Like I'm saying, if the comparison, if figurative or literal, is not complete or accurate, I'm asking you not to use it.
That's not at all true. Tanks run over cars, can scale up rather sizable inclines. They're self-contained (meaning many can withstand conditions such as an area filled with biological weapons, even nuclear radiation). Infantry cannot do this without vehicles or specialized equipment, which they sometimes have to leave behind or unequip when they stop needing. Power armor troops can just keep it on.
Sorry, then, I guess. Must have been a different Tagaziel quoting this for me.
You've been using mostly ad hominem as responses, so you should know that it's not really a good argument. "Tu quoque".
As for knowledge because of being related to military, then you definitely should know how they work, and you know you'd agree with me.
Sorry, must've been that other Tagaziel.
Navarro is both a refuelling base and a training camp for Enclave soldiers. Or... does Drill Sergeant Dornan just like yelling at random guards?
There's an airfield, an air traffic control station, hangers, etc. It's not huge, but it's not tiny, either. In the middle of the Wasteland, that's kind of noticeable if it weren't for the tree cover and the gas station.
I've been to an actual military base, several times. There are several of them in Poznan and the surrounding environs. All of them are marked as military territory and have sing warning against tresspassing, the same is true for the proving grounds. Those outside the city are surrounded by forests (unless its the Krzesiny AFB), but military bases in the city aren't camouflaged in any way, because it's pointless.[/quote]
Because they're not disguising it. There's a difference between a disguise/camouflage and not advertising yourself.
30, lived and worked in and around military bases all my life. Worked as a military contractor, now working with veterans out of LA. Working with the US Army at the Cheatham Annex near Yorktown, VA, and the US Navy and Marine units out of Oceana AB, Norfolk NAB, and Portsmouth Naval Yards (camouflaging tanks are one thing, try camouflaging a ship!), and then again in Los Angeles (you're right, small bases inside cities aren't camouflaged, because they're buildings in a city, they're already fitting within the urban setting). No, I've never worked with a SEAL team, but I've talked with a few and have seen them on maneuvers out by the beach or driving through town.
Father's a retired US Navy Master Chief. Brother is a senior chief in the Navy, who I worked with in San Diego and Norfolk, other brother is US Army, who was based at Fort Irwin, again, not far from Barstow, CA. Cousin's a marine, brother-in-law is Air Force, etc. etc.
I could go on, but that's most of my immediate family.
It's even more idiotic with the First Recon guys wearing red berets.
Green is a bit more of a neutral color. That's why olive-drab and "camouflage green" were used in the armed forces for so long.
Which, again, is visible in clear conditions, and even smaller than your 'fist-sized' comparison below.
Your pictures aren't working for me. Even if they were, bright color.
Hills and desert are not the same. Afghanistan and Iraq are not identical, as you so like to point out when comparing to the Mojave.
I'm actually on my way to Vegas today. If you want some pictures of particular areas, I'll be snapping some photos while I'm out there. (planned trip will include the Nuclear Testing Museum off the strip and elsewhere along the way).
There's at one story of a group of soldiers on the roof of a building in Iraq, defending against an attack against insurgents armed primarily the AK-47 (which has a shorter range than the M4 or M16 platform), who were more than happy when a sniper armed with a rifle accurate out to a thousand yards to help them pick off the assault.
Just saying. Maybe you should check with the authors, just to make sure. If I'm right, so be it. I'm wrong, I can admit being wrong. But can you?
Calculated risks are just that, calculated. What else would they be?
Argumentum ad hominem. Something you're accusing me of. You keep trying to find errors with me personally or my views, so you attack them by trying to find contradiction, where there is none. I'm asking you to try and argue with actual arguments than short sentences just repeating how flawed you -think- the statements are.
Attempts that he or his guards DON'T KNOW ABOUT unless you inform them. They immediately evacuate Kimball should you tell the Ranger about it.
Again, he leaves in a hurry even when nothing appears to be out of order, and that it looks like the Legion isn't going to do anything to him.
"What are you waiting for? Let's go, I don't want to get shot."
Which makes it even more of a political stunt. It makes a huge statement to the Legion, who can probably hear him because of all the loudspeakers. It makes a statement to people back home that Kimball is willing to put himself out there.
Does he have to do it? No. But he's taking a calculated risk in making a speech there, before he takes off again. He, being an old soldier himself, is not risking himself any more than he needs to.
Really? You're going to Hitler for an example of military morale boosting? Wow, you're really stretching for examples.
Remember why Hitler was doing it at the Chancellory by then. He was making his statement that he wasn't going to leave. It was a building built for -him- personally. The Fuhrerbunker, the shelter where Hitler spent the last of his days, was -underneath- the New Reich Chancellory.
It was from where he considered himself safest. When he came out, he'd make a speech, give out some awards, then go back down.
How is politicians (Greiser was an SS man, not really military, SS was paramilitary) and military men making speeches not politically oriented? Patton was also known to make speeches to civilians for the same reason.
Some people -do- see American incursion into Iraq as a grab for oil, putting in a democratic government that would be more amenable to US trade for that resource in the future. "They ousted Saddam, why are they still there?" Not my view, personally, but one that has been shared by some media and politicians.
Afghanistan - a lot of folks are still wondering why the US is still there when they killed the target they were looking for in the first place.
But I digress again. It's only real comparison, then, if not a direct one, is that the wars are not quite as simple as Kimball and others would have the common population as one would believe.
Exactly. You're stating the same thing. Is the Mojave itself relevant to the inhabitants of the Boneyard? No.
You love to talk about concepts, but this one goes over your head?
You can still have a disorganized attack and still have a chain of command if your tactics are simply to bum-rush the enemy defenses. The problem, of course, is when someone is trying to reorganize and give new orders on the field. The Legion was trying to do just that, but only if you have officers still on the field, who were being picked off.
That can and has happened. There are stories of huge gaffes during the US Civil War where one officer is giving an order, only to be countermanded by another, and it takes a concerted effort to get soldiers back to where they need to be.
It's all over World War 2 when different remnants of different companies and units would rally behind an officer who decided to take charge and put order back into the chaos going on the battlefield.
Ultimately, to maintain discipline or to give new orders, you need officers. The Legion had theirs killed, so the Legion, not knowing what else to do, kept pushing forward, chasing the NCR right into the trap at Boulder City.
Semantics are the last refuge of a person who has no basis on which to stand. You don't have any rational logic to your own arguments. Your comparisons are flawed and poorly researched. Your logic is riddled with holes and fallacies. The only thing you have left is to try and throw dictionary definitions at me and try and twist them in an effort to prove me wrong by making me out to be "unintelligent" when your own comparisons and understanding of the very concepts you are telling me are being pointed out as flawed.
So, I'm sorry you brought those up. I'm trying to have a reasonable discourse here, and I'd like to continue to do so, but I keep getting these attempts to tell me I'm less intelligent than you are.
Again, you keep calling me "dense," "kid," etc. As if trying to demean me so that your points will suddenly have some sort of better impact.
I'd like to counter with the following from Wikipedia as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy) - an act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
Again, using parts or making reference "indirectly" of figurative language as a flawed comparison is a logical fallacy.
Like I'm saying, if the comparison, if figurative or literal, is not complete or accurate, I'm asking you not to use it.
That's not at all true. Tanks run over cars, can scale up rather sizable inclines. They're self-contained (meaning many can withstand conditions such as an area filled with biological weapons, even nuclear radiation). Infantry cannot do this without vehicles or specialized equipment, which they sometimes have to leave behind or unequip when they stop needing. Power armor troops can just keep it on.
Tagaziel said:
Sorry, then, I guess. Must have been a different Tagaziel quoting this for me.
You've been using mostly ad hominem as responses, so you should know that it's not really a good argument. "Tu quoque".
As for knowledge because of being related to military, then you definitely should know how they work, and you know you'd agree with me.
Tagaziel said:
Sorry, must've been that other Tagaziel.
Navarro is both a refuelling base and a training camp for Enclave soldiers. Or... does Drill Sergeant Dornan just like yelling at random guards?
There's an airfield, an air traffic control station, hangers, etc. It's not huge, but it's not tiny, either. In the middle of the Wasteland, that's kind of noticeable if it weren't for the tree cover and the gas station.
I've been to an actual military base, several times. There are several of them in Poznan and the surrounding environs. All of them are marked as military territory and have sing warning against tresspassing, the same is true for the proving grounds. Those outside the city are surrounded by forests (unless its the Krzesiny AFB), but military bases in the city aren't camouflaged in any way, because it's pointless.[/quote]
Because they're not disguising it. There's a difference between a disguise/camouflage and not advertising yourself.
30, lived and worked in and around military bases all my life. Worked as a military contractor, now working with veterans out of LA. Working with the US Army at the Cheatham Annex near Yorktown, VA, and the US Navy and Marine units out of Oceana AB, Norfolk NAB, and Portsmouth Naval Yards (camouflaging tanks are one thing, try camouflaging a ship!), and then again in Los Angeles (you're right, small bases inside cities aren't camouflaged, because they're buildings in a city, they're already fitting within the urban setting). No, I've never worked with a SEAL team, but I've talked with a few and have seen them on maneuvers out by the beach or driving through town.
Father's a retired US Navy Master Chief. Brother is a senior chief in the Navy, who I worked with in San Diego and Norfolk, other brother is US Army, who was based at Fort Irwin, again, not far from Barstow, CA. Cousin's a marine, brother-in-law is Air Force, etc. etc.
I could go on, but that's most of my immediate family.
It's even more idiotic with the First Recon guys wearing red berets.
Green is a bit more of a neutral color. That's why olive-drab and "camouflage green" were used in the armed forces for so long.
Which, again, is visible in clear conditions, and even smaller than your 'fist-sized' comparison below.
Your pictures aren't working for me. Even if they were, bright color.
Hills and desert are not the same. Afghanistan and Iraq are not identical, as you so like to point out when comparing to the Mojave.
I'm actually on my way to Vegas today. If you want some pictures of particular areas, I'll be snapping some photos while I'm out there. (planned trip will include the Nuclear Testing Museum off the strip and elsewhere along the way).
There's at one story of a group of soldiers on the roof of a building in Iraq, defending against an attack against insurgents armed primarily the AK-47 (which has a shorter range than the M4 or M16 platform), who were more than happy when a sniper armed with a rifle accurate out to a thousand yards to help them pick off the assault.
Just saying. Maybe you should check with the authors, just to make sure. If I'm right, so be it. I'm wrong, I can admit being wrong. But can you?