[QUOTE=GunFox;35896767]4662 rounds fired without a kill isn't that impressive. Tens of thousands (and by some estimations, hundreds of thousands in our current two conflicts) are often fired in conflicts per single kill.[/QUOTE]
This article focuses on shots fired on a single man. I don't think it has anything to do with current conflicts.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35896717]I've always been a fan of the theory that James Bond was just a code name like 007, hence why he can be played by so many different actors. Its the same "Agent" but a different man at the same time. Something like Doctor Who almost. Which it would be interesting to see two Bond's together on a mission.[/QUOTE]
Maybe Bond is a Time Lord?
Maybe James Bond is the consequence of a horrible cloning experiment gone wrong, or should I say gone better than expected?
james bond is a character in a movie
James Bond is an android and shares the same memory chip.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35896858]In many ways, yeah. A 007 James Bond would be based largely around appearance and persuasion. The agent would have to be good-looking, persuasive, be highly capable in social engineering. Things of that nature.
A 004 might be based around intimidation, using brute force aggression. A 005 might be based around speed, carrying out tasks quickly, and hit-and-run style attacks.[/QUOTE]
008's are trained to betray you and defect. Also 008 wants to steal your ring
Now to count the number of fodder diving out of the way of a speeding vehicle
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35896858]In many ways, yeah. A 007 James Bond would be based largely around appearance and persuasion. The agent would have to be good-looking, persuasive, be highly capable in social engineering. Things of that nature.
A 004 might be based around intimidation, using brute force aggression. A 005 might be based around speed, carrying out tasks quickly, and hit-and-run style attacks.[/QUOTE]
I thought the 007 from the books was supposed to be more guns blazing and badass rather than based around espionage and persuasion.
[QUOTE=dagoth_ur;35899605]Reminds me, Nightfire was one of the better Jamesbonds, even if it was only just a game[/QUOTE]
Everything or Nothing man, best Bond Game.
[QUOTE=cyclocius;35905798]Everything or Nothing man, best Bond Game.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, From Russia With Love was the best one.
[QUOTE=GunFox;35896767]4662 rounds fired without a kill isn't that impressive. Tens of thousands (and by some estimations, hundreds of thousands in our current two conflicts) are often fired in conflicts per single kill.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't Afganistan something insane like 250,000?
[QUOTE=Irockz;35904596]James Bond is an android and shares the same memory chip.[/QUOTE]
All the agent's are disguised synthethics who networked together to share information.
Hence why 007 can always get the ladies. Their technique has been refined through many trial-and-error attempts.
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;35905966]Wasn't Afganistan something insane like 250,000?[/QUOTE]
The number wouldn't be anything close to that, but also keep in mind a lot of these statistics are going to be thrown off by several factors.
Suppressive fire is a huge part of almost every country's infantry doctrine nowadays, which can easily account for a few thousand rounds, if not tens of thousands over the course of a firefight/battle.
Also in the case of the Taliban, confirmed kills are rare because the Taliban remove their injured and even their dead from the battle sometimes. So people that eventually die of their wounds aren't confirmed.
At any rate, it's not too much of stretch to say the average infantryman may have only directly killed a few people over the course of several deployments. For example, an ex-royal marine I know, was a sniper, so his chances of getting accurately confirmed kills is more than an infantryman in a rifle squad, and he still only ended up with 13 confirmed over the course of two tours (I think?) in afghanistan. 13 would actually be a very high number comparatively.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.