Whatever

[bluesky]

Coming from iajdani the ugliest looking self-claimed "mongol" in the world...

I have seen may times this guy @TopCat talks about his heredity as Mongol. Why does he think like that?

 

[TopCat]

I have seen may times this guy @TopCat talks about his heredity as Mongol. Why does he think like that?

Because I am the direct descendant of (Genghis Khan)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

 

[Maarkhoor]

Because I am the direct descendant of (Genghis Khan)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

And Mongols looked like this....

 

[Centaur]

Because I am the direct descendant of (Genghis Khan)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

বাহ ভাল তো। তা ভাই আপনি কোন খান?
(which Khan are you then?) @TopCat

 

[Michael Corleone]

I brought @Skies here because he seems to have picked up on bluesky tack, nuance and response style too. Plus you, skies and I have agreed on much esp when conversation is not about BD specifically (but larger concepts of morals, religion, society etc)

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/at-c...a-income-by-2020.560772/page-15#post-10536793

I am sure others like @Ashes and @Mage are not going to rush to declare bluesky as false flagger or hacked account either....because again they are more perceptive it seems to bluesky nature.

But too many of you are not....and any slight nuance + mirror holding over time = complete 180 reversal in short space of time because that is your perception bias on the matter.

And no why would I limit what you guys want to say and declare about him? It is simply showing up what a major BD society weakness is in the first place that has always been there lurking. You guys are doing a much better job showing all observers that than I could ever dream.....how quick you are to only want one narrative only when it comes to certain matters and it shows BD society is very brittle....actual nuance and full debate on every issues seems to be anathema.

Don't bother responding, its fine.

@Michael Corleone what do you say, has @bluesky been compromised/hacked?

Truth be told, my reaction towards members of this forum are like the caption above... whatever...

I only log in to read new developments in the region.

 

[bluesky]

Because I am the direct descendant of (Genghis Khan)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

Pray, can you elaborate your claim? I thought you are also a descendant of Alexander, because he took Persian and Turkic Princesses as wives. Please tell us the reality.

 

[Michael Corleone]

And Mongols looked like this....

Lmao

Seriously though... why would a Bengali think he’s a mongol!? (Considering there has been a lot of mixes in bengal people... from Caucasian to mongols to other sub groups like dravidians)

 

[bluesky]

I see the resemblance for sure:

Yep totally looks like:

What was your horde named? There was golden horde, chagatai, yuan and ilkhanate to name a few big ones....was yours... great bong horde?

Once, Yajdani claimed himself to be handsome. Now, by seeing his photographs above I believe he is handsome in any standard. But, he lacks knowledge in history. He thinks, Chengiz Khan or Ogetai came to Bengal to eat jackfruits, took multiple wives and here he is a Mongol.

Jochi, Ogetai, Chagatai and Tolui were the sons of Chengiz. Mughals in India were related to Chaghatai, but called themselves Chaghatai Turk. By the way, Turks and Mongols look similar, but they are separated by history and language.

 

[Alpha1]

The last time i posted on this forum was 4 years ago. damn

hey @livingdead

 

[ghazi52]

 

[Nilgiri]

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/shad...ws-and-discussion.561012/page-9#post-10539588

Let us continue here @Genesis (if you want)

I would say you are right, but you have to put it into perspective. Things are relative. In WW1 France and Germany had Machine Guns and Heavy Artillery. Do they work? In the sense that these killing machines work yes, however a doctrine was not developed to fit these weapons.

Same thing here, Chinese weapon systems have not been tested no, it means Chinese officers have only a theoretical understanding of how to deploy these ships and how to use the weapons to their full potential.

The weapons themselves still work. China is catching up, so it's not like China has to come up with the requirements. China is simply copying their standards, and applying to ours.

Hence the sales of our ships around the globe. Even Russia bought our turbines.

I would agree with this overall. But a military is much more than the sum of its components/assets. It is how they network + work together (and thus their effective individual realised power level scaling) in a time of conflict that is a huge X-factor that simply no direct proof exists for w.r.t China and most non-NATO militaries.

Actually you are just not paying attention, our small arms are continuously proven in African and the ME. Our SAMs, tanks and submarines have gone against major military powers in arms bids and won. Our drones have proven once and for all, that it works as advertised in Iraq and else where. Our trainer jets, APC, and much much more has already been proven to work.

Well none of these are really C4I sensitive proof....nor were the sales really in large enough number to countries with developed C4I. Individual components to piecemeal importers only mean so much....especially for hypothetical major power conflicts....the very nature and use of these technologies by these importers is way different to how a major power would go about using them anyway.

If you said China has no idea how to conduct a naval war like America and Japan did in WW2. Fair and accurate. However, a weapon system, especially one based on American doctrine, doesn't perform to standard is frankly not informed.

Well the proof is in the pudding as always. Integrating, networking and deploying aside....even a stand alone unit has to have the requisite importance and significance in operation. I don't see enough intense validation of Chinese technology by other major countries...the few big ticket items are not really deployed in warfare on the scale/integration needed to bring out the X-factors major powers typically harness by economies of scale and operation....I'm talking GW1 scale at least with massive coordination and integration.

Performing to some standard, no matter what its based/engineered w.r.t to.... needs direct proof....till then its some level of assumption...because ultimately we are going on someone's word regarding it.

Did you ever think conquering India was a possibility for even the US? The point is on an island to island basis, for example Mauritius, we can move 700 troops with equipment per LPD. India cannot move one. that means in terms of power projection outside of anything that isn't connected to India by land, it's pretty much a non starter.

Fair enough. But I am talking more about the power projection that is relevant to the hypothetical conflict at hand. India would not use LPD for mauritius or the Maldives tbh. It would be operation cactus style (paradrops etc), there is no real strategic requirement for large number of LPD in the current Indian doctrine. But saying we cannot move even one is wrong. We have 1 LPD, the Jalashwa (USN Austin class) which can deploy ~ 1000 troops depending on the payload detail. China has 4 Type 71, planning total of 6 right? Well those are not going to play much role in a conflict with (for example) India given the range and distances of the logistics and support. It will take much more time to cultivate the foreign naval bases needed to make them some threat (i.e make the range much lower and support + C4I much easier), and by that time India would have developed counters anyway.

China on the other hand has massive numbers of potentially adversial islands all around it and close to it threatening its vital sea lanes that make these LPD's much more relevant and useful in the immediate and near future environment. But this does not mean these LPDs are really suitable/relevant for true blue water use (past the malacca straits and ASEAN islands) given the massive logistics and scale of C4I projection needed for that (that only USN has, and royal navy and french navy to some much more limited degree). I am talking about LHD/LHA/LSD like say the Wasp class of the USN along with its corollary assets would be needed for longer range and relevant power projection. China is only now commencing on building its 1st one (type 75). Rest of China's seabourne assets are similarly of more relevant use to the closer island chains (given the logistics of supporting them in other oceans sustainably). Deploying them past that environment in the numbers needed to make some impact on a conflict with a major power is no easy task...and neither are these adversaries going to stay static on their defensive counters (taking advantage of their much closer logistics and C4I support for them) either.

However, you have to admit, no one, not even the US has any experience in terms of modern naval combat.

I disagree. The US had very potent, intense and continuous deployment of blue water assets all throughout the cold war. It may not have been outright conflict, but it was a very relevant experience and networking scale that no other country quite has today....given the quantitative (but not as qualitative) scale the Soviets deployed in the open waters too. There is a reason why the USN/RN command structure keep their perisher courses very closely guarded secrets....especially for their submarine doctrines and training....but for all warships more generally. The closer a country is to USN, the more credible I would find its realised operation capability as a result (provided there is a good C4I) on a per unit basis (power projection, defensive etc). This is not meant as an insult to other major powers (incl China, India etc), they just need to directly establish more proof from their end on this for cross-calibration. Till then basing a unit versus unit correlation on broader stated performance specs/stated doctrine/design etc (esp for use in major power vs major power environment) is largely an exercise in potential rather than actuality...and then it depends on perspective on how you treat the relevance of the former and the latter....which is definitely something left to the individual to decide upon given the larger powers dont commit to any fight which would verify it.

British was the naval power in WW1, but in Jutland, it suffered a bad setback against a state that has never engaged in a meaningful modern naval battle.

That was a battle though. A larger war is a series of battles as WW2 showed. Again there is much left for China to prove itself operationally and realised validation (given the nature of a modern conflict today) when talking about a war.

But it is an interesting point you bring up, given it would also apply to China versus some other country (deemed to not be as powerful) in the context of a sea engagement.

You mentioned 1979, that's your bias showing. There's two possibilities here, either you think nothing has changed since 1979, between Vietnam and China. Or you think things have changed and you chose to ignore them.

Actually its neither of those. Simply stating that was the last time any large operation of China had a visible calibration to try measure upon. Of course China has since changed much, but there is no way to have direct proof of how it all stacks up together....given again we cannot just sum up already hypothetical (to some scale according to ones bias/perspective) unit power levels...basically both the components and methodology are flawed compared to actual conflict theater realisation.

@Vergennes @jhungary @gambit @Hamartia Antidote @AUSTERLITZ

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/shad...ws-and-discussion.561012/page-9#post-10539588

Let us continue here @Genesis (if you want)



I would agree with this overall. But a military is much more than the sum of its components/assets. It is how they network + work together (and thus their effective individual realised power level scaling) in a time of conflict that is a huge X-factor that simply no direct proof exists for w.r.t China and most non-NATO militaries.



Well none of these are really C4I sensitive proof....nor were the sales really in large enough number to countries with developed C4I. Individual components to piecemeal importers only mean so much....especially for hypothetical major power conflicts....the very nature and use of these technologies by these importers is way different to how a major power would go about using them anyway.



Well the proof is in the pudding as always. Integrating, networking and deploying aside....even a stand alone unit has to have the requisite importance and significance in operation. I don't see enough intense validation of Chinese technology by other major countries...the few big ticket items are not really deployed in warfare on the scale/integration needed to bring out the X-factors major powers typically harness by economies of scale and operation....I'm talking GW1 scale at least with massive coordination and integration.

Performing to some standard, no matter what its based/engineered w.r.t to.... needs direct proof....till then its some level of assumption...because ultimately we are going on someone's word regarding it.



Fair enough. But I am talking more about the power projection that is relevant to the hypothetical conflict at hand. India would not use LPD for mauritius or the Maldives tbh. It would be operation cactus style (paradrops etc), there is no real strategic requirement for large number of LPD in the current Indian doctrine. But saying we cannot move even one is wrong. We have 1 LPD, the Jalashwa (USN Austin class) which can deploy ~ 1000 troops depending on the payload detail. China has 4 Type 71, planning total of 6 right? Well those are not going to play much role in a conflict with (for example) India given the range and distances of the logistics and support. It will take much more time to cultivate the foreign naval bases needed to make them some threat (i.e make the range much lower and support + C4I much easier), and by that time India would have developed counters anyway.

China on the other hand has massive numbers of potentially adversial islands all around it and close to it threatening its vital sea lanes that make these LPD's much more relevant and useful in the immediate and near future environment. But this does not mean these LPDs are really suitable/relevant for true blue water use (past the malacca straits and ASEAN islands) given the massive logistics and scale of C4I projection needed for that (that only USN has, and royal navy and french navy to some much more limited degree). I am talking about LHD/LHA/LSD like say the Wasp class of the USN along with its corollary assets would be needed for longer range and relevant power projection. China is only now commencing on building its 1st one (type 75). Rest of China's seabourne assets are similarly of more relevant use to the closer island chains (given the logistics of supporting them in other oceans sustainably). Deploying them past that environment in the numbers needed to make some impact on a conflict with a major power is no easy task...and neither are these adversaries going to stay static on their defensive counters (taking advantage of their much closer logistics and C4I support for them) either.



I disagree. The US had very potent, intense and continuous deployment of blue water assets all throughout the cold war. It may not have been outright conflict, but it was a very relevant experience and networking scale that no other country quite has today....given the quantitative (but not as qualitative) scale the Soviets deployed in the open waters too. There is a reason why the USN/RN command structure keep their perisher courses very closely guarded secrets....especially for their submarine doctrines and training....but for all warships more generally. The closer a country is to USN, the more credible I would find its realised operation capability as a result (provided there is a good C4I) on a per unit basis (power projection, defensive etc). This is not meant as an insult to other major powers (incl China, India etc), they just need to directly establish more proof from their end on this for cross-calibration. Till then basing a unit versus unit correlation on broader stated performance specs/stated doctrine/design etc (esp for use in major power vs major power environment) is largely an exercise in potential rather than actuality...and then it depends on perspective on how you treat the relevance of the former and the latter....which is definitely something left to the individual to decide upon given the larger powers dont commit to any fight which would verify it.



That was a battle though. A larger war is a series of battles as WW2 showed. Again there is much left for China to prove itself operationally and realised validation (given the nature of a modern conflict today) when talking about a war.

But it is an interesting point you bring up, given it would also apply to China versus some other country (deemed to not be as powerful) in the context of a sea engagement.



Actually its neither of those. Simply stating that was the last time any large operation of China had a visible calibration to try measure upon. Of course China has since changed much, but there is no way to have direct proof of how it all stacks up together....given again we cannot just sum up already hypothetical (to some scale according to ones bias/perspective) unit power levels...basically both the components and methodology are flawed compared to actual conflict theater realisation.

@Vergennes @jhungary @gambit @Hamartia Antidote @AUSTERLITZ

I’m not going to come here and say their equipment is junk. I’m sure they are not completely incompetent and have tested their stuff. I would expect their Navy to be able to do the job. However the Russians didnt really have any heavy experience in Naval battle damage so yes if the Chinese are basing their surface Navy on the trial and error info from the Russians it isn’t going to help them much. But even then some assumptions that appear foolhardy end up being the correct route.

For instance the British had armored flight decks during WW2 that resisted bombs pretty well. Meanwhile US carriers decks ended up like Swiss cheese. However it was found because of the armored decks the whole hull of the boat ended up twisted from the shock...meanwhile the US ships hulls were intact...well if they werent sunk.

 

[Metanoia]

Good stuff. Watch till end.

 

[Nilgiri]

@Ashes @Mage

They have progressed the conspiracy theory to @bluesky being some account of mine? or someone else.something else like that? All because bluesky refused to accept any credibility of the kangaroo court set up by some self-appointed feelz-authority? @Gibbs

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/japa...-in-aid-next-week.561721/page-2#post-10541682

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/japa...-in-aid-next-week.561721/page-2#post-10541798

Gee @Michael Corleone where have we seen that before?

The funniest part is the 300 Taka tea CGI guy talking about (me?) supposedly posting at odd hours, when he is posting at 1 am his time (if he really is in cali) this conspiracy chit lol.

@madokafc @Centaur

 

[S.U.R.B.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1004020916022599681