posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Retseh
Originally posted by PaddyInf
A large proportion of the overall sample size.
Define "large proportion" in terms of the articles on Strategy Page.
A large proportion is a subjective term and may mean different things to different people. However for me if something is being cited as a source then
it shouldn't have any more than 10-20% of articles with basic errors.
You see, this happens to be a respected source of weaponry related developments,
By who exactly? I only ask because it seems a bit 'basic' for want of a better word, and doesn't contain information that isn't available from
newspapers etc. Indeed, some of the content seems to be written in journalistic tones, as though this is where it sources its' information. I'm not
saying this is the case, but just how it strikes me.
and apart from the 2 reports you reference, of which more later, I'd like to know exactly what your justification is for writing off this
entire website as having a "huge number" of errors,
I sampled a number articles from the ground combat section of the website (admittedly the only section I have any significant knowledge of). From
these articles I was able to pick out obvious mistakes or misinterperatations from at least half of them. The most obvious mistakes that I noticed
were from those regarding British military issues, but that's probably just me. Now if 50% of randomly chosen articles from any source contain such
omissions or mistakes then that suggests to me that the source may be less than reliable.
These are only article that I may have quite in depth knowledge of the subject in hand. I cannot pass comment on those I have no real background
Concepts that would be regarded as basic or elementary to someone with a basic concept of the subject. An example may be
this one which completely disregards the usefulness of the bayonet (despite
numerous recent reports of its' use), and spends half the article singing about underbarrel shotguns! It also forgets to mention that the bayonet is
only being removed form basic training, not infantry training.
Don't confuse opinion with fact, it is a fact that the US Army has now removed bayonet drill from basic training, it is the author's opinion that an
underslung shotgun would do a better job.
His report however is factual.
He states that the main use for the bayonet is now crowd control, which is quite simply wrong. He implies that the bayonet is no longer used for
engaging the enemy, which is wrong. The bayonet has been used to kill the enemy in numerous contacts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, with several medals
being given out to some involved. The bayonet is used to give extra length to the weapon and an immediate solution to stoppages in OIBUA, to control
PWs by reducing weapon grabs etc. Not to mention the teaching of controlled aggression and to bring home the fact that we may have to kill the enemy
face to face, not just from X hundred metres. These are all factors relating to the debate, but are not mentioned by the author.
There are others, but lets not derail the thread
When it's my thread, and you question one of my sources, what do you expect.
I'm sure that it's my right to question a source that I believe contains numerous errors. My intention was to bring the thread back in line with the
question posed, not debate the merits of Strategypage.com. However, as you say it is your thread and you can do what you like to it.
Now can we get back to talking about the subject at hand?
[edit on 7-4-2010 by PaddyInf]