Page 8 of 8
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 9:08 pm
by BobTank63
mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 8:18 pm
They didn't even dispute it.
They said a single bullet has a .01% chance so a company firing a clip is 50%.
One, it's a magazine.
Two, that's not even how probability works. What, do two mags mean 100% chance? 3 mags 150%?
Three, read further on the source.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Thu May 26, 2022 10:11 pm
by mustang191
BobTank63 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 9:08 pm
mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 8:18 pm
They didn't even dispute it.
They said a single bullet has a .01% chance so a company firing a clip is 50%.
One, it's a magazine.
Two, that's not even how probability works. What, do two mags mean 100% chance? 3 mags 150%?
Three, read further on the source.
Your objections are underwhelming.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Fri May 27, 2022 3:05 am
by BobTank63
mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 10:11 pm
BobTank63 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 9:08 pm
mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 8:18 pm
They didn't even dispute it.
They said a single bullet has a .01% chance so a company firing a clip is 50%.
One, it's a magazine.
Two, that's not even how probability works. What, do two mags mean 100% chance? 3 mags 150%?
Three, read further on the source.
Your objections are underwhelming.
Your entire argument is nonsensical and not backed by any sources or proper math.
Re: Air attack effectiveness
Posted: Fri May 27, 2022 3:10 am
by mustang191
BobTank63 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 3:05 am
mustang191 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 10:11 pm
BobTank63 wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 9:08 pm
One, it's a magazine.
Two, that's not even how probability works. What, do two mags mean 100% chance? 3 mags 150%?
Three, read further on the source.
Your objections are underwhelming.
Your entire argument is nonsensical and not backed by any sources or proper math.
Same, I suppose.