Hearted Youtube comments on Task & Purpose (@Taskandpurpose) channel.

  1. 17000
  2. 17000
  3. 16000
  4. 15000
  5. 13000
  6. 11000
  7. 10000
  8. 10000
  9. 8800
  10. 8200
  11. 8100
  12. 7700
  13. 7500
  14. 7200
  15. 7200
  16. 7200
  17. 7100
  18. 7100
  19. 7000
  20. 6800
  21. 6400
  22. 6100
  23. 6000
  24. 6000
  25. 5900
  26. 5700
  27. 5500
  28. 5500
  29. 5400
  30. 5300
  31. 5300
  32. 4800
  33. 4800
  34. 4700
  35. 4700
  36. 4700
  37. 4600
  38. 4500
  39. 4500
  40. 4500
  41. 4400
  42. 4400
  43. 4300
  44. 4300
  45. 4200
  46. 4200
  47. 4100
  48. 4100
  49. 3900
  50. 3900
  51. 3900
  52. 3900
  53. 3800
  54. 3700
  55. 3700
  56. 3700
  57. 3600
  58. 3600
  59. 3600
  60. 3600
  61. 3600
  62. 3600
  63. 3400
  64. 3400
  65. 3400
  66. 3400
  67. 3400
  68. 3300
  69. 3300
  70. 3300
  71. 3300
  72. 3200
  73. 3200
  74. 3200
  75. 3100
  76. 3100
  77. 3100
  78. 3100
  79. 3000
  80. 3000
  81. 3000
  82. 3000
  83. 3000
  84. 3000
  85. 3000
  86. 2900
  87. 2900
  88. 2900
  89. 2900
  90. 2900
  91. 2800
  92. 2800
  93. 2800
  94. 2800
  95. 2800
  96. 2800
  97. 2800
  98. 2800
  99. 2700
  100. 2700
  101. 2700
  102. 2700
  103. 2700
  104. 2700
  105. 2700
  106. 2700
  107. 2700
  108. 2600
  109. 2600
  110. 2600
  111. 2600
  112. 2600
  113. 2600
  114. 2600
  115. 2600
  116. 2600
  117. 2500
  118. 2500
  119. 2500
  120. 2500
  121. 2500
  122. 2500
  123. 2500
  124. 2500
  125. 2400
  126. 2400
  127. 2400
  128. 2400
  129. 2400
  130. 2400
  131. 2400
  132. 2300
  133. 2300
  134. 2200
  135. 2200
  136. 2200
  137. 2200
  138. 2200
  139. 2200
  140. 2100
  141. 2100
  142. 2100
  143. 2100
  144. 2100
  145. 2100
  146. 2100
  147. 2100
  148. 2100
  149. 2100
  150. 2100
  151. 2000
  152. 2000
  153. Its important to note that the term "Russian" Jew as used in Israel, the US, and Germany doesn't always mean actual Russian Jews. Ukrainian Jews, Azeri Jews, Moldovan Jews, Belarussian Jews, Uzbek Jews, etc are all lumped into the category of Russian Jews. Zelenesky's family is an example of this. He is from a Jewish family and his parents live in Israel. Most Ukrainian Jews didn't speak Ukrainian so ironically the parents of the President of Ukraine were probably counted in that "Russian" Jewish statistic that you quoted. The reason for this is most Jews in the Russian Empire spoke Yiddish. When Yiddish started going out of favor most Jews learned Russian and sometimes learned the local language of the land they were staying in. In Ukraine this never really happened because Russian was so widespread even among Ukrainian locals. Thats why many Jews who are from Ukraine and live around the world actually consider themselves Russian Jews. Its also important to note that just because Russian Jews have a connection to Russia that doesn't mean they feel the same warm fuzzy feelings about Russia as some other non Jewish Russians feel. It was a struggle for Jews to leave the Soviet Union and Jews had many of their rights suppressed. While the Russian Jews of today are a lot more integrated into Russian culture then their religious Yiddish speaking ancestors a lot of them will stay say they felt as if they were "alien" up until the moment they left. The modern Russian Jewish identity is extremely complex. Entire books, studies, and essays have been written about that topic. They are a group that has been influenced by rapidly changing from being distinctly Jewish to being more Russian, being influenced by the culture in the USSR which no longer exists, and being influenced by becoming large diasporas in Israel, Germany, and the US. Sadly the unique circumstances that created them no longer exist. So its unlikely this identity will survive this century. Russian Jews are really a great case study for comparing how nationality, ethnicity, and religion influence hoe we identify ourselves.
    2000
  154. 2000
  155. 2000
  156. 2000
  157. 2000
  158. 2000
  159. 2000
  160. 2000
  161. 2000
  162. 2000
  163. 1900
  164. 1900
  165. 1900
  166. 1900
  167. Hello. Iranian from inside Iran here( internets back up on a limited scale) . I feel the need to mention something. In regards to people fed up with the sanctions and their effects on the commoner, I ve seen two major mindsets so far. One with people seeing the west as the ultimate tyrant, aiming to spread distrust between people and their "caring " government only to cause the downfall of the regime by turning the people on their " protectors " holding every action committed by the regime so far to be justifiable one way or another. The other mindset sees the sanctions as rational and expected reactions of a foreign world our leaders and politicians have been purposefully aggrevating, so they can feed off the reactions by portraying them as unprovoked warmongers ( as all oppressive systems need an obligatory sworn enemy, most may resort to creating one. And given the history, theres none better than the us. ) the second group believes if it werent for the radical views of the regime along with the belief they were god's destined few to lead the world to the truth( actual propaganda) we wouldnt have casted our selves out from the world. So the regime needs to change. Recent protests in iran are being held by the second group, with the regime supporting the heavily outnumbered first group. The clips you see on iranian national TV( FULLY regime controlled) are of the first group. The recent protests( captured on phones mostly) show the second group. Theres a lot more detail I can get into but this comments already pretty long.
    1900
  168. 1900
  169. 1900
  170. 1900
  171. 1900
  172. 1800
  173. 1800
  174. 1800
  175. 1800
  176. 1800
  177. I was a Marine platoon commander in Vietnam 1968-69. The NVA had some serious AA weapons that they dragged down from the North over muddy dirt roads and trails. It was impressive how tenacious they were. During the Tet Offensive, they even managed to bring down SAM's which caught the US by surprise and changed CAS tactics. I learned many lessons that year. One of the more important is to never underestimate the enemy's ability to surprise you and hit you hard when you least expected (e.g., the Tet Offensive caught everyone off guard and the NVA/Viet Cong came damn close to achieving their objective. Personally, I'd like to see more emphasis on making everything as stealth/difficult to detect. I read recently that Russia has developed an new material for their uniforms to dramatically reduces a person's IR signature. Our close in helicopters need a lot more stealth and built-in defenses against missiles, jamming, etc. I can relate to your comment about trouble getting a resupply of AA batteries. In Vietnam, my platoon had one 1st generation starlight scope. It couldn't be used 80% of the time because their special batteries were rarely in the supply chain. You'd laugh at some of the stone age technologies we had back then. One was the seismic intrusion device. It was a receiver (requiring batteries) and 6 sensors identified by 1, 2, or 3 and 4,5 and 6 dots on top. The idea was in an ambush, you put 3 sensors along both sides of a trail. Theoretically, as the enemy walked down the trail, they would set off the first sensor with one beep on the receiver. As they got closer, they'd set off the second sensor with gave 2 beeps in the receiver. And then they would set off the nearest sensor with 3 beeps. The problem was that the artillery were firing H&I all night setting off all the sensors at once plus critters coming down the trail would set them off as well. I'm 75 now. I've been impressed with the high speed, low drag equipment the soldiers and Marines were using in the Middle East; including the Men in Black sunglasses. By comparison, in Vietnam we looked more like survivors from the Bataan death march with our mostly WW II and Korean War equipment. Our uniforms would literally rot off. Due to terrain, weather, and enemy; resupply was a roll of the dice and so one C-Ration had to last 2-3 days. Water was from wherever we could find it. Throw in 3-4 purification tables and ignore the smell and you were good to go. Some C-Rations were marked 1945 though most were made in the 1950's. Anyway, I enjoy your commentary. Might be interesting to occasionally do a "then and now" comparison. It will make you feel a lot better about what you had and what is coming.
    1800
  178. 1800
  179. 1800
  180. 1800
  181. 1800
  182. 1800
  183. 1800
  184. 1800
  185. 1800
  186. 1800
  187. 1800
  188. 1800
  189. 1700
  190. 1700
  191. 1700
  192. 1700
  193. 1700
  194. 1700
  195. 1700
  196. 1700
  197. 1700
  198. 1700
  199. 1700
  200. 1700
  201. 1700
  202. 1700
  203. 1700
  204. 1700
  205. 1700
  206. 1700
  207. 1600
  208. 1600
  209. 1600
  210. 1600
  211. 1600
  212. 1600
  213. 1600
  214. 1600
  215. 1600
  216. 1600
  217. 1600
  218. 1600
  219. FINALLY, SOMEONE HAS COVERED THIS I AM AN EGYPTIAN AND I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR AGES FOR SOMEONE TO FINALLY COVER THIS STORY SA’KA 🇪🇬🇪🇬🇪🇬🇪🇬🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅 My thoughts: This video covers the topic very well from a non-biased point of view. However it only covers operation sinai and operation eagle, it does not cover the history of islamists and the egyptian people. This is a story that spans back to the 1900s Here are some points that the video overlooked. Morsi was not “affiliated” with the islamic brotherhood or associated with them. He was THE islamic brotherhood. His administration was essentially the islamic brotherhood. When morsi took power the country was almost crippled, christians being massacred on facebook left and right, all development ceased, nothing was running anymore. Churches and mosques being blown up in “the name of allah”. Children being thrown of rooftops. Even prior to morsi, after mubarak’s fall the islamists had opened up every single prison in egypt, we were following iraq’s story bit by bit. Egypt was the wild west between mubarak and morsi, during morsi it was the sharia abiding diddy party. The people never wanted morsi in power, and the military did not want the islamists in power. So the military hand in hand with the people overthrew morsi. I remember when i was a child during the riots against morsi, i was kidnapped during one but my dad and family took me back from my captors. God knows what would have happened to me. I remember we had my sister’s volkswagen and id be sitting on the roof of the car waving an egyptian flag amidst all the chaos, it really was a chaotic time. When the riots ended and el sisi took power, a complete shift against the islamists happened. We were gangbanging islamists everywhere from sinai, to the western desert, east and west europe (clandestine GIS operations) until today where they squirm like worms in the dirt. This is a war on every front, military, economic, political, and even cyber. This was a masterclass in counter-terrorism Edit: some updates on the islamist situation in egypt Islamists have planted their way of thinking into almost everybody, they have corrupted islam as a religion. Unfortunately everybody subscribes to at least one or two of their ideas without even knowing it (thank you sheikh al-azhar for being a certified cuck) Economically they control much of the businesses and money in egypt. The thing about the muslim brotherhood is that half of them are not devout muslims. There are rich boujee billionares who put diddy to shame that are affiliated with the brotherhood. Its just an organization that exists to destroy this nation. They run many of the big businesses in egypt and control most of the money, their competitor is the military in all markets Politically, its complicated. Islamists hold almost no political power here in egypt except for one slight change as of this year. The newly appointed minister of education (Mr mohamed abdel latif) is the founder of a prestigious school called nermein ismail. This school is also associated with islamist ideologies and generally hosts many islamist teachers and graduates. He himself is an islamist i am very sure of this. Especially when he cancelled philosophy as a subject for high school. I don’t know who appointed this guy, but i hope they know what they’re doing. Militarily? Oh our eagles are soaring waiting for one slip up. One slip up and BOOM we get to test the new SIGs we got last year. Im genuinely waiting for them to try something.
    1600
  220. 1500
  221. 1500
  222. 1500
  223. 1500
  224. 1500
  225. 1500
  226. 1500
  227. 1500
  228. 1500
  229. 1500
  230. 1500
  231. 1500
  232. 1500
  233. 1500
  234. 1500
  235. 1500
  236. 1500
  237. 1500
  238. 1500
  239. 1500
  240. 1400
  241. 1400
  242. 1400
  243. 1400
  244. 1400
  245. 1400
  246. 1400
  247. 1400
  248. 1400
  249. 1400
  250. 1400
  251. 1400
  252. 1400
  253. 1400
  254. 1400
  255. 1400
  256. 1400
  257. 1400
  258. 1400
  259. 1400
  260. 1400
  261. 1400
  262. 1400
  263. 1300
  264. 1300
  265. 1300
  266. 1300
  267. 1300
  268. 1300
  269. 1300
  270. 1300
  271. 1300
  272. 1300
  273. 1300
  274. 1300
  275. 1300
  276. 1300
  277. 1200
  278. 1200
  279. 1200
  280. 1200
  281. 1200
  282. 1200
  283. 1200
  284. 1200
  285. 1200
  286. 1200
  287. 1200
  288. 1200
  289. 1200
  290. 1200
  291. 1200
  292. 1200
  293. 1200
  294. 1200
  295. 1200
  296. 1200
  297. 1200
  298. 1100
  299. 1100
  300. 1100
  301. 1100
  302. 1100
  303. 1100
  304. 1100
  305. 1100
  306. 1100
  307. 1100
  308. 1100
  309. 1100
  310. 1100
  311. 1100
  312. 1100
  313. 1100
  314. 1100
  315. 1100
  316. 1100
  317. 1100
  318. 1100
  319. 1100
  320. 1100
  321. 1100
  322. 1100
  323. 1100
  324. 1000
  325. 1000
  326. 1000
  327. 1000
  328. 1000
  329. 1000
  330. 1000
  331. 1000
  332. 1000
  333. 1000
  334. 1000
  335. 1000
  336. 1000
  337. 1000
  338. 1000
  339. 1000
  340. 1000
  341. 1000
  342. 997
  343. 995
  344. 994
  345. 990
  346. 989
  347. 983
  348. 975
  349. 969
  350. 966
  351. 965
  352. 956
  353. 956
  354. 955
  355. 950
  356. 950
  357. 943
  358. 943
  359. 937
  360. 934
  361. 934
  362. 922
  363. 922
  364. 921
  365. 919
  366. 917
  367. 917
  368. 916
  369. 915
  370. 904
  371. 889
  372. 883
  373. 882
  374. 882
  375. 874
  376. 872
  377. 870
  378. 868
  379. 861
  380. 853
  381. 851
  382. 851
  383. 850
  384. 849
  385. 847
  386. 845
  387. 841
  388. 837
  389. 835
  390. 834
  391. 834
  392. 832
  393. 830
  394. 827
  395. 827
  396. 825
  397. 824
  398. 822
  399. 820
  400. 817
  401. 817
  402. 813
  403. 811
  404. 808
  405. 807
  406. 805
  407. 804
  408. 803
  409. 802
  410. 801
  411. 799
  412. 799
  413. 797
  414. 796
  415. 791
  416. 790
  417. 787
  418. 787
  419. 786
  420. 786
  421. 784
  422. 783
  423. 782
  424. 781
  425. 780
  426. 779
  427. 774
  428. 766
  429. 764
  430. 763
  431. 763
  432. 761
  433. 760
  434. 760
  435. 760
  436. 756
  437. 754
  438. 754
  439. 754
  440. 754
  441. 753
  442. 751
  443. 751
  444. 748
  445. 747
  446. 747
  447. 746
  448. 745
  449. 744
  450. 743
  451. 743
  452. 742
  453. 739
  454. 739
  455. 738
  456. 733
  457. 730
  458. 727
  459. 721
  460. 718
  461. 716
  462. 715
  463. 712
  464. 711
  465. 710
  466. 709
  467. 706
  468. 702
  469. 694
  470. 691
  471. I stayed in China for 6 months in the past and I attended a public event hosted by the provincial police. It featured Chinese SWAT members with crossbows. I talked to my Chinese partner about this and he said something interesting. 1. Crossbows are a mainstay weapon in the police establishment due to easier maintance (i.e. generally less legally restrictive) and any standoffs with hostages in China will likely hurt the hostages when using firearms, including silenced firearms. 2. Not enough police officers that have the desired SWAT-level accuracy with sniper rifles, but there are plenty of them with better accuracy with crossbows that have good scopes. 3. Chinese officials are generally not that comfortable issuing police officers pistols/revolvers with the stopping power of 9mm Parabellum or higher in their daily routines. Hence, a taboo-ish attitude against firearms among the police establishment in general. But they have no problem with cold weapons like batons or crossbows. I don't know about the military and paramilitary (AKA People's Armed Police and others) aspects of crossbows in China. It's all boiled up to the current civic and police practices there. If you think about it, even with the crossbow-related concerns, today's China is not that different from the Ming/Qing dynasty. Of course, anybody can understand that there is a very profound contituity of the Chinese society if one actually lived in China. I guess this is the reason why today's China will stay as today's China for quite a long time.
    688
  472. 688
  473. 688
  474. 687
  475. 675
  476. 673
  477. 670
  478. 670
  479. 668
  480. 668
  481. 666
  482. 666
  483. 660
  484. 660
  485. 660
  486. 659
  487. 659
  488. 657
  489. 655
  490. 654
  491. 652
  492. 648
  493. 647
  494. 646
  495. 646
  496. 646
  497. 644
  498. 644
  499. 643
  500. 641
  501. 641
  502. 636
  503. 632
  504. 632
  505. 632
  506. 630
  507. 629
  508. 629
  509. 627
  510. 627
  511. 627
  512. 626
  513. 622
  514. 622
  515. 620
  516. 619
  517. 616
  518. Voice from Poland: thank you for this material! Even before seeing it, I can say that the authorities in Belarus seek to establish an agreement with China. Much like us, they desire a powerful ally who is distant enough not to pose a direct threat of conquest, but who also can prevent other nations from subjugating them. The Belarusians aspire to be what Poland was during the communist era—a strong ally of China in Eastern Europe. This positioning allows them to counteract Russia from multiple angles (they are already present in Central Asia and will likely extend to the Caucasus), akin to how the USA uses Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan to contain China. Moreover, it is important to remember that Russian drones have already violated Belarusian airspace twice. Lukashenko is afraid, which is beneficial, as this fear might compel him to loosen his ties with Russia by leveraging his relationship with China. Admittedly, the scale of these operations is incomparable, as US naval ships can comfortably traverse the Pacific to reach Taiwan, for instance. To challenge Russia via Belarus, Polish or Lithuanian assistance would be necessary to deliver any aid. Thus, Poland shares a common interest with China, as both nations benefit from preventing Belarus from becoming a part of Russia. For us, this alignment has profound implications. If an independent Poland is significant not only to the USA and Europe but also to China, this considerably strengthens our strategic position. This is why President Duda of Poland received a more ceremonious welcome in China than Putin.
    616
  519. 614
  520. 614
  521. 611
  522. 610
  523. 609
  524. 608
  525. 608
  526. 607
  527. 607
  528. 606
  529. 603
  530. 598
  531. 598
  532. 597
  533. 597
  534. 596
  535. 593
  536. 593
  537. 592
  538. 590
  539. 589
  540. 588
  541. 588
  542. 587
  543. 586
  544. 585
  545. 585
  546. 584
  547. 584
  548. 583
  549. 582
  550. 581
  551. 579
  552. 578
  553. 577
  554. 575
  555. 575
  556. 574
  557. 573
  558. 571
  559. 571
  560. 570
  561. 567
  562. 563
  563. 563
  564. 562
  565. 558
  566. 557
  567. 555
  568. 555
  569. 551
  570. 546
  571. 544
  572. 543
  573. 541
  574. 540
  575. 538
  576. 538
  577. 532
  578. 531
  579. 524
  580. 524
  581. 524
  582. 521
  583. 519
  584. 517
  585. 515
  586. 513
  587. 513
  588. 513
  589. 513
  590. 513
  591. 512
  592. 511
  593. 511
  594. 511
  595. 510
  596. 510
  597. 507
  598. 506
  599. 503
  600. 502
  601. 501
  602. 500
  603. 500
  604. 499
  605. 498
  606. 498
  607. 493
  608. 493
  609. 492
  610. 491
  611. 491
  612. 487
  613. 486
  614. 486
  615. 486
  616. 483
  617. 483
  618. 482
  619. 481
  620. 481
  621. 481
  622. 479
  623. 478
  624. 478
  625. 478
  626. 478
  627. 477
  628. 476
  629. 475
  630. 475
  631. 472
  632. 470
  633. 469
  634. 467
  635. 466
  636. 466
  637. 464
  638. 464
  639. 464
  640. 462
  641. 461
  642. 461
  643. 461
  644. 460
  645. 459
  646. 457
  647. 456
  648. 456
  649. 456
  650. 455
  651. 455
  652. 454
  653. I was involved in the development of the M26 MASS. A few interesting facts: 1. The initial push for the dual capability (underslung / stand alone) came from the Military Police, who wanted the ability to have less lethal rounds for crowd control with immediate overwatch / transition to lethal capability. Breaching was the #2 application which was eventually pushed into #1 by the infantry community. The MASS requirement did help get Mossbergs into the force in large numbers ass an interim solution at 2 per squad -- though I've lost track of what the basis of issue for the MASS is now. Because the Mossberg is such a good weapon, after buying them there was thought of limiting the M26 to only MP units. 2. The first early prototype MASS systems were deployed to Afghanistan with 10th MTN Division as a rapid development ... except nobody issued the stand alone kits or trained how to remove the shotgun from the carbine. The units kept the shotguns in the underslung mode and humped the combined weapon up and down mountains. You can imagine that didn't result in good feedback about the system. 3. The competition for the MASS requirement included the KAC MasterKey system. Because that solution was so much heavier, it performed very poorly in the underslung mode because of all that weight far forward on the carbine and what is now the M26 won the competition. 4. It's possible to rapid-fire the MASS in either underslung or stand-alone mode -- it takes a little practice, but the technique is basically this: get a good stock weld with the right hand pulling the weapon into the shoulder; the left hand is held palm flat, fingers upward, flat against the side of the weapon with the bolt in the pocket between the thumb and forefinger. Rapidly cycle the weapon by sliding the left hand fore-and-aft along the receiver. I've been able to empty the shotgun as fast as I can pull the trigger with this technique. 5. At one point there was a prototype for a pump-action mechanism that would fit on the barrel of the M26 and attach to the bolt to allow a traditional pump-style action to cycle the weapon instead of the protruding bolt. There was a lot of concern about the safety of this approach since it put the operator's forward hand very close to the muzzle of the weapon. I don't know what happened to that initiative since.
    454
  654. 454
  655. 453
  656. 452
  657. 452
  658. 452
  659. 452
  660. 452
  661. 451
  662. 451
  663. 449
  664. 448
  665. 447
  666. 447
  667. 446
  668. 445
  669. 445
  670. 443
  671. 442
  672. 442
  673. 441
  674. 441
  675. 440
  676. 433
  677. 433
  678. 431
  679. 431
  680. 430
  681. 430
  682. 430
  683. 426
  684. 426
  685. 426
  686. 425
  687. 425
  688. 423
  689. 423
  690. 421
  691. 420
  692. 420
  693. 419
  694. 419
  695. 419
  696. 419
  697. 418
  698. 417
  699. 416
  700. 415
  701. 415
  702. 415
  703. 414
  704. 413
  705. 411
  706. 409
  707. 407
  708. 406
  709. 404
  710. 404
  711. 404
  712. 403
  713. 402
  714. 401
  715. 400
  716. 400
  717. 400
  718. 400
  719. 400
  720. 398
  721. 398
  722. 398
  723. 398
  724. 398
  725. 397
  726. 396
  727. 396
  728. 396
  729. 395
  730. 394
  731. 393
  732. 390
  733. 390
  734. 389
  735. 388
  736. 386
  737. 386
  738. 385
  739. 384
  740. 382
  741. 382
  742. 381
  743. 380
  744. 380
  745. 378
  746. 378
  747. 378
  748. 377
  749. 376
  750. 376
  751. 375
  752. 374
  753. 374
  754. 373
  755. 372
  756. 371
  757. 371
  758. 370
  759. 369
  760. 368
  761. 368
  762. 368
  763. 367
  764. 366
  765. 366
  766. 362
  767. 360
  768. 359
  769. 359
  770. 359
  771. 358
  772. 356
  773. 354
  774. 353
  775. 353
  776. 353
  777. 351
  778. 351
  779. 350
  780. 350
  781. 347
  782. 347
  783. 345
  784. 345
  785. 345
  786. 344
  787. 343
  788. 342
  789. 341
  790. 340
  791. 340
  792. 339
  793. 339
  794. 339
  795. 338
  796. 338
  797. 337
  798. 337
  799. 335
  800. 335
  801. 334
  802. 330
  803. 329
  804. 329
  805. 326
  806. 326
  807. 326
  808. 326
  809. 325
  810. 324
  811. 323
  812. 322
  813. 321
  814. 320
  815. 318
  816. 318
  817. 318
  818. 316
  819. 316
  820. 315
  821. 315
  822. 314
  823. 314
  824. 314
  825. 313
  826. 313
  827. 312
  828. 312
  829. 312
  830. 311
  831. 311
  832. 309
  833. 308
  834. 308
  835. 305
  836. 305
  837. 305
  838. 305
  839. 305
  840. 304
  841. 304
  842. 303
  843. 303
  844. 303
  845. 302
  846. 301
  847. 301
  848. 300
  849. 300
  850. 300
  851. 299
  852. 299
  853. 299
  854. 299
  855. 298
  856. 297
  857. 297
  858. 296
  859. 294
  860. 293
  861. 292
  862. 292
  863. 290
  864. 289
  865. 289
  866. 289
  867. 288
  868. 288
  869. 286
  870. 286
  871. 284
  872. 283
  873. 282
  874. 281
  875. 281
  876. 280
  877. Okay Cappy, I'll get this in so maybe you'll actually see/read it. I worked this exact mission ~a decade ago. Obviously, the specifics have changed, but a lot of the trends and imperatives have not. My thoughts: -Yes, the GBU-57(which we have endlessly tweaked) is probably not able to get to the deepest stuff. The -72 wouldn't be in development or have $7B thrown at it if that weren't the case (although I suspect the need to defeat Chinese super-concrete elsewhere may be a driver as well). The double-tapping idea is new. That would require REALLY damned precise guidance. I'm sure it's possible or it wouldn't be mentioned. Wonder if that works as well on rock as concrete. -The REAL challenge for some time now is less about how deep and hardened their facilities are; more about their program's breadth and redundancy. This is a major reason Israel wants us to do this mission--they know they don't have the capacity anymore. But really, neither do we. Because... -This is not, nor will it ever be a mission to "take out" their nuclear capability. That ship sailed a long time ago. Their program is too-evolved; too redundant. This mission is a first strike to take out what is deemed to be a "sprint" by them to get to the finish line, so we can set their program back a MAXIMUM of ~two years. They absolutely could rebuild it, even if we're hugely successful. And taking that stuff out is a TALL order. CAN we penetrate and successfully prosecute a lot of this? Yes, but we'd almost assuredly not get it all. It's a LOT of shit. -That CSIS notional plan is already huge. It makes this more than a first strike. It makes it all-out war. Big consideration. -No, their ADA is crap. Barely a consideration a decade ago; probably even less now. -Missile hunting has been/is/always will be a high-failure game...until we get precision strike. -The Iranian strategy is to always have the OPTION to build weapons. This is not contestable. Also not contestable is whether or not Iran is TRYING to build weapons. This is farcical. Iran has NEVER decided to "build a weapon," only to continue maturing & thickening its CAPABILITY such that, when/if it ever does it can do so despite all efforts to stop it. It has intentionally used this issue as an opaque Sword of Damacles (Kori Schake wrote about this 26 years ago. TWENTY-SIX) since the 90s. That basic reality has not changed.
    279
  878. 279
  879. 279
  880. 279
  881. 278
  882. 277
  883. 277
  884. 277
  885. 276
  886. 276
  887. 275
  888. 275
  889. 274
  890. 274
  891. 271
  892. 271
  893. 271
  894. 271
  895. For your question about why we decided to build our own IFV, there are hundreds of reasons. Primarily- We have brilliant engineers and companies that are capable of producing these kinds of vehicles. We are a world leader in thermal and IR optics, both vehicle and weapon mounted. Other IFVs simply put suck and aren't designed to operate specifically on our terrain. We need the ability to cross water, which this does. It has an unmanned turret, and cannons can be swapped between 30 and 40mm. Additional armor packages are included. There are plans to use the chassis as a foundation for a light tank with 120mm cannon in the future. We needed a domestic design to give our people jobs and keep the money at home. We need all this to expand our capabilities even further and take the next step into designing our own MBT in the next 2 decades. As it currently stands, this is on paper and in practice from the tests that were done, the best IFV on the planet so far in terms of what it can do. Krabs will have programmable ammunition in the future, but for now we have the gap covered with drones. We specifically have a huge drone program that will allow us to use them to designate enemy formations and correct fire. Basically the drones will work in conjunction with the artillery units and will communicate back and forth. This also includes the use of our new suicide drones which will play a very important role in stopping convoys and finishing off anything that didn't get killed by the arty.
    271
  896. 270
  897. 270
  898. 270
  899. 269
  900. 268
  901. 268
  902. 268
  903. 267
  904. 264
  905. 264
  906. 264
  907. 263
  908. 262
  909. 262
  910. 261
  911. 260
  912. 260
  913. 259
  914. 258
  915. 258
  916. 258
  917. 258
  918. 257
  919. 257
  920. 256
  921. 256
  922. I have a ton of experience with the HoloLens, am a former Airmen, insider with Microsoft, and demoed it to some national guard units back in 2016/2017 and really tried to push for an IVAS, as I saw the possibilities first hand for war fighters. First, it's worth understanding that the Navy and Air Force have both procured HoloLens style devices for maintenance/training, I'd love to see an update there. The capabilities for aircraft maintenance are immense: an AI plus a SME can be pinged at any time to review my terrible safety wiring job and reprimand me for it. It can watch me do a tire change or refueling operation, ensuring compliance with technical orders. A couple things: IVAS needs a specialized helmet, and in it's current form it's integrated into standard helmets, a terrible idea. The Army and Microsoft couldn't figure out they needed a partner like Team Wendy to come in. It needs to be integrated into a helmet that can be mixed with a gas mask and other PPE. You can't have all of your IVAS soldiers screwed because someone lit off a CS grenade. Another problem was the controls, it took a while for Microsoft to figure out the control surfaces and joystick models that would be durable enough, and IMHO they still haven't nailed it. IVAS is really best for training, as you can record a live combat operation and have new members of your unit spend time in training "replaying" the actual combat operation your team went through as a augmented reality recreation. Your leadership and unit can review all aspects of a combat operation - all you need is a dark aircraft hanger - the actual combatants mapped to AI reactions. Every new boot in the unit can witness in every battle the unit ever engaged in, even moving side by side with their team. Giving every soldier an IVAS is unnecessary IMHO, it ought to be a specialist equipment for a new type of soldier focused on recon and electronic systems who embeds with combat infantry. The rest of the soldiers just have advanced combat optics and smart phones. In a future 2035 situation the soldiers won't need to fire their gun very often, they'll identify targets with their optics and drones and the actual targets will be engaged with tasked resources, such as a 40mm air burst smart ammo mounted on a walking drone 2km away, or an FPV drone with anti-tank munitions, or a JDAM.
    256
  923. 256
  924. 256
  925. 256
  926. 255
  927. 255
  928. 254
  929. 253
  930. 252
  931. 252
  932. 251
  933. 251
  934. 251
  935. 250
  936. 249
  937. 248
  938. 248
  939. 248
  940. 247
  941. 247
  942. 246
  943. 246
  944. 246
  945. 246
  946. 246
  947. 246
  948. 245
  949. 244
  950. 244
  951. 244
  952. 243
  953. 243
  954. 242
  955. 242
  956. 242
  957. 242
  958. 242
  959. 241
  960. 241
  961. 241
  962. 240
  963. 240
  964. 240
  965. 239
  966. 239
  967. 238
  968. 238
  969. 237
  970. 236
  971. 236
  972. 236
  973. 234
  974. 234
  975. 233
  976. 232
  977. 232
  978. 232
  979. 232
  980. 232
  981. 232
  982. 230
  983. 230
  984. 230
  985. 229
  986. 229
  987. 225
  988. 225
  989. 224
  990. 224
  991. 224
  992. 223
  993. 223
  994. 223
  995. 221
  996. 221
  997. 220
  998. 220
  999. 220
  1000. 219
  1001. 219
  1002. 219
  1003. 217
  1004. 215
  1005. 215
  1006. 214
  1007. 214
  1008. 213
  1009. 213
  1010. 213
  1011. 213
  1012. 213
  1013. 212
  1014. 212
  1015. 211
  1016. 211
  1017. 210
  1018. 210
  1019. 210
  1020. 209
  1021. 209
  1022. 209
  1023. 208
  1024. 207
  1025. 206
  1026. 206
  1027. 205
  1028. 203
  1029. 203
  1030. 203
  1031. 203
  1032. 203
  1033. 200
  1034. 200
  1035. 200
  1036. 200
  1037. 200
  1038. 200
  1039. 199
  1040. 199
  1041. 199
  1042. 198
  1043. 198
  1044. 197
  1045. 196
  1046. 196
  1047. 196
  1048. 195
  1049. 195
  1050. 195
  1051. 194
  1052. 194
  1053. 194
  1054. 194
  1055. 194
  1056. 193
  1057. 192
  1058. 192
  1059. 192
  1060. 192
  1061. 191
  1062. 191
  1063. 191
  1064. 190
  1065. I'm going to just dump a small essay here since armour is a big interest of mine. First off I assert that the armour worn by medieval knights in the High to late medieval was the most effective armour out of all armour within its historical context. The disadvantages were also the same things that made it good, for example each plate harness was made to fit one individual, meaning there's little to no interchangeability, but also it gives the most complete coverage without restraining your ability to move and fight. The maintenence also required at least one or more servants for a knight to be able to get in and out of his armour and have it cleaned to prevent rusting, and to fix any dings and dents. All of the problems with medieval plate harness will be problems for modern body armour IF it is made to provide maximum coverage and be able to stop high velocity rifle rounds reliably, and that's assuming it's light enough to carry. Which is most likely why we won't see infantry wearing heavy armour for the foreseeable future. In my opinion, which is only based on reading and whatever video information I can get, the ceramic plate is probably the best armour for an infantryman today. For its protective ability it's lightweight, multiple plates can provide coverage for the vital organs from almost every side. The only thing that can compete with it and perhaps in some situations is better, is ar500/ar550 steel plates, which in function are very similar to ceramic plates. When it comes to protection I think we're at a point that innovation will lead to soldiers not having to expose themselves to the enemy to engage them. One example of this is the foxhound in the British army where it can travel extremely fast off-road, whilst being impervious to small arms. Then being able to going into a stationary formation that essentially creates a miniature fort. Then there's unmanned weapon systems as well, or unmanned surveillance to make indirect fire more effective. In short, gadgets, gizmos and things with engines make body armour less crucial than it used to be.
    190
  1066. 189
  1067. 188
  1068. 187
  1069. 187
  1070. 187
  1071. 186
  1072. 186
  1073. 186
  1074. 186
  1075. 186
  1076. 185
  1077. 184
  1078. 184
  1079. 183
  1080. 181
  1081. 181
  1082. 180
  1083. 180
  1084. 180
  1085. 180
  1086. 179
  1087. 179
  1088. 179
  1089. 178
  1090. 178
  1091. 178
  1092. 176
  1093. 175
  1094. 174
  1095. 174
  1096. 173
  1097. 173
  1098. 172
  1099. 172
  1100. 171
  1101. 171
  1102. 171
  1103. 170
  1104. 170
  1105. 169
  1106. 169
  1107. 169
  1108. 168
  1109. 168
  1110. 168
  1111. 168
  1112. 168
  1113. 168
  1114. 167
  1115. 167
  1116. 166
  1117. 166
  1118. 165
  1119. 165
  1120. 164
  1121. 162
  1122. 162
  1123. 162
  1124. 161
  1125. 160
  1126. 160
  1127. 160
  1128. 159
  1129. 159
  1130. 159
  1131. 159
  1132. 159
  1133. 159
  1134. 158
  1135. 158
  1136. 158
  1137. 157
  1138. 157
  1139. 157
  1140. 157
  1141. 156
  1142. 156
  1143. 156
  1144. 156
  1145. 155
  1146. 155
  1147. 155
  1148. 154
  1149. 154
  1150. 153
  1151. 153
  1152. 153
  1153. 153
  1154. 152
  1155. 151
  1156. 151
  1157. 151
  1158. 151
  1159. 150
  1160. 150
  1161. 150
  1162. 150
  1163. 150
  1164. 149
  1165. 149
  1166. 149
  1167. 148
  1168. 148
  1169. 148
  1170. 148
  1171. 148
  1172. 148
  1173. 147
  1174. 147
  1175. 147
  1176. 147
  1177. 146
  1178. 146
  1179. 146
  1180. 146
  1181. 146
  1182. 146
  1183. 146
  1184. 145
  1185. 145
  1186. 145
  1187. 145
  1188. 144
  1189. 143
  1190. 143
  1191. 143
  1192. 143
  1193. 142
  1194. 142
  1195. 141
  1196. 141
  1197. 141
  1198. 140
  1199. 140
  1200. 140
  1201. 139
  1202. 139
  1203. 139
  1204. 139
  1205. 138
  1206. 138
  1207. 138
  1208. 138
  1209. 138
  1210. 138
  1211. 138
  1212. 137
  1213. 137
  1214. 137
  1215. 137
  1216. 136
  1217. 136
  1218. 136
  1219. 136
  1220. 135
  1221. 135
  1222. 135
  1223. 135
  1224. 135
  1225. 135
  1226. 133
  1227. 132
  1228. 132
  1229. 132
  1230. 131
  1231. 131
  1232. 131
  1233. 130
  1234. 130
  1235. 130
  1236. 129
  1237. 129
  1238. 129
  1239. 129
  1240. 128
  1241. 127
  1242. 127
  1243. 127
  1244. 127
  1245. 126
  1246. 126
  1247. 125
  1248. 125
  1249. 125
  1250. 124
  1251. 124
  1252. 124
  1253. 123
  1254. 122
  1255. Edit note: in terms of my predictions, ye this is spot on. There is no illusion. Russia will win eventually, this take is more on the possibility that the sanctions might spur them to more reckless action, as the old Soviet handbook teaches. Best case scenario from down below is either Russia collapses before the war ends (which I doubt suggesting China is starting a lifeline to them), or Ukraine and Russia agree to an unstable ceasefire. There are no winners anymore in this conflict for anyone, just survivors. The issue with following Soviet doctrine is that yes this works, when you have a healthy economy and a pure ideological superiority. The Soviets had literal suicidal loyalty in their soldiers and a populace that was willing to sacrifice their own comfort for the war. The Soviet era of soldiering is an antiquated concept. In a world where Russia could support itself, this would be technically light distraction and mild speed bumps. The Russian economy is gushing blood this moment. Also another thing you didn’t cover that I guess you didn’t hear: they activated the reserves in anticipation. It seems now that the Russian advance is taking such losses they need to replace them with reservists. There is Russian state media of Reservists saying they’re headed to Ukraine. Putin may be a calculating spy, but he’s never faced a significant loss before. He’s never really lost. He doesn’t know how that feels like. Everything he’s done up until this point, has been a resounding success or a mild in between. He has never reached a roadblock of this size, and with his own age (guys like 70 now, I think he’s reaching that threshold of acknowledging his own mortality) catching up to him alongside the crumbling of his economy, his nation, his army’s spirit, and even the spirit of the populace, he might be inclined to do what the Soviets did against the Germans and just throw everything all at once, which would be suicidal. Again, I have no doubts the Russians are reaching for round 2, getting that huddle together to go for second half, I mean Belarusian troops are joining in, whatever that means logistically is up to you I think they’re just coming in to 2v1 Ukraine honestly, but these hypotheticals are based upon the fallacy that the Russian homeland is doing just fine, which it is not. They did not anticipate this much hatred from the West, and now there is no turning back the clock. Putin probably feels he’s in a death spiral now, and he is probably willing to sacrifice the entirety of his armed forces in a mad dash for some semblance of victory. One more thing. According to the Ukrainians and US intelligence, the Ukrainians have a mole inside the FSB that’s feeding them info. More down below. Edit: also the Chechen claim that there are no casualties is so absurdly false after it was confirmed by multiple sources that a spec ops team of Chechens sent to assassinate the President were not only found out and killed, but they said that this was found out due to a “contact within the FSB”. As it stands all the Chechens were killed and there are gruesome photos to prove it, along with photos of other Chechen corpses who can be seen clearly with the markings of their respective units. Also many generals and even the foreign policy director are coming out with how badly they feel the war has gone. These are generals, veterans of countless conflicts from the 90’s to the 2010’s. Also his chief Spy got grilled on LIVE NATIONAL TELEVISION when he screwed up saying that negotiations were an abject possibility to achieve some form of “victory.” Obviously Putin didn’t like that so later the guy apologized on state TV and said he was in full support of whatever Putin was doing. Putin is being fed by sycophants at this point, enabling his madness. All these yes men constantly bowing their heads is getting to him, and the thought of losing a war- no, he can’t lose. He never loses. Putin doesn’t lose. One last thing: I fervently believe and will be surprised to see one NATO/EU soldier actually step foot in Ukraine. Everyone’s clamoring for the bigger powers to help. Beyond weapons and supplies, let’s get real folks. As much as it’d be cool to have a Gondor moment where Kyiv is magically saved by Texans in tanks and Polish special forces assisted by the NATO nations all descending on Russia. That’s a pipe dream. They will never do anything beyond putting out lawn chairs and watching. And I will drink my prized wine if I see one of those blue helmet idiots figure out where Ukraine is on a map.
    122
  1256. 122
  1257. 122
  1258. 121
  1259. 121
  1260. 120
  1261. 120
  1262. 120
  1263. Cappy some errors: 1) Primary issue with the T-72B3 (which is the most common variant) is the lack of good optics and good comms. 500.000 USD price tag means they ain't gonna have the best. 2) Soviet "Fulda Gap love session" Tactics involved tactical nukes. Full stop. This means the numbers game is meant to be like "you murdered half of us with a davy crocket but we're still 1.5x your number. Before you took the nuke to the face too.". The manual you cite is out of date, I think it even came out before the wall fell. 3) T-72 is based on the T-64. But made to actually work and be affordable. The T-62 was a stopgap measure made to hold over the USSR until the T-64 came out in sufficient, and reliable enough, numbers. Morozov was actually the man behind the T-64 and he considered the T-72 a cheap knockoff. The T-72 is the design that won, from UVZ, the competition that was held for something that actually worked rather than the T-64 which, mind you, until the T-64A still had the 115mm. 4) Fun fact: The T-72 was never given to Romania because we were too western friendly. The T-125 is a reverse engineered and improved T-72, if I remember right, Ural. Shame it never went into mass production... we wouldn't have the most notorious deathtraps in NATO rn if we made at least 200 of the 125s. 5) Svinets would go straight through the side of the hull on the M1A2 Sepv3 Cappy. The Abrams is a well armored tank but it's not got more than 100mm effective on the side of the hull. Heck even old Mango rounds could go through which is why in Desert Storm US armor never engaged in any action where they risked taking hits from the flanks. 6) A complete redesign of the T-72 was needed? Yeah, it's called the T-90. Which is basically a T-72, vastly improved in many ways, with a fair amount of tech from the T-80. You should check out the T-90AM for an idea what they're doing in terms of improving their tank force but... well the T-90AM was ordered, first, like a few years back and most of the units with those tanks are being held in reserve in case NATO goes Leeroy Jenkins.
    120
  1264. 119
  1265. 118
  1266. 118
  1267. 118
  1268. 116
  1269. 116
  1270. 116
  1271. 116
  1272. 116
  1273. 115
  1274. 114
  1275. 114
  1276. 114
  1277. 113
  1278. 113
  1279. 113
  1280. 112
  1281. 112
  1282. 112
  1283. 111
  1284. 111
  1285. 111
  1286. 111
  1287. 111
  1288. 111
  1289. 110
  1290. 110
  1291. 110
  1292. 110
  1293. 109
  1294. 109
  1295. 109
  1296. 109
  1297. 109
  1298. 109
  1299. 109
  1300. 109
  1301. 108
  1302. 108
  1303. 108
  1304. 107
  1305. 107
  1306. 107
  1307. Ok, so firstly, good take overall. One thing to note is that China don't usually sell their best equipment as exports. And referring to the airborne AESA radar doesn't necessarily translate into ground search/track radar. Albeit I don't think the radar detection range is very crucial to this system. And no I don't think this thing is designed to combat anything more than 10km even with the missile systems. It is more likely to engage shorter range targets than PGZ09 (Gepard like system). It would likely of limited use against fighter jets, but rather specialized in combating drones. As you can see in the footage there's proximity fuse shells from the gatling gun that burst before the target, this is already very good since many older systems, world wide as well, don't even have such options given even larger calibers. This emphasizes its effectiveness against drones. However, since it's acting like such a layer in the air defense sphere, being capable in its own responsibility is already sufficient. I don't see it as a All-in-one system that can cover a multitude of ranges and different targets at once. For longer ranges, as you mentioned there's HQ17 (Improved Tor) and other systems. For combating close range aircraft and helicopters there's PGZ-09 (Gepard) and similar systems. It doesn't have to have capabilities to deal with high altitude aircraft. If such scenario happens, that this 625 system is in dire need to deal with high altitude jets, that probably indicates the air defense sphere has already collapsed and shouldn't be considered as a design failure, but a strategic failure. My take is that, it is, "Seemingly", a good system that covers the special need for destroying drones in the very contemporary battlefield environment. And to have such a system to fulfill a role like that is already visionary and before many other nations' attempts even started. Pantsir and S300V etc. are all capable systems, but really none of them provide precisely targeted solution to the drone threats. We've seen the amount of Tunguskas destroyed in Ukraine. It seems that Russian army do miss a layer of air defense that is in most dire need, which is specifically the role of the 625 system's design philosophy. That's why, I think this system may prove very useful in a modern context. And another note is that, if we look at history, do not underestimate Chinese army, especially the ground forces.
    107
  1308. 107
  1309. 107
  1310. 107
  1311. 106
  1312. 106
  1313. 106
  1314. 106
  1315. 106
  1316. 105
  1317. 105
  1318. 105
  1319. 104
  1320. 104
  1321. 104
  1322. 104
  1323. 104
  1324. 104
  1325. 103
  1326. 103
  1327. 103
  1328. 103
  1329. 103
  1330. I see several references to "gunpowder" here. Gunpowder, sometimes called black powder, is a propellant made from charcoal, sulfur, and potassium nitrate (saltpeter). Except for muzzle loader hobbyists, its use in firearms is largely obsolete because it makes big clouds of smoke, leaves a lot of residue in the weapon, is prone to failure under damp conditions, and does not have the power of more modern propellants. What Russia is using is guncotton, or more technically, cellulose nitrate. It's made by reacting cleaned and finely chopped cotton (cotton pulp, often made from waste fibers from textile thread spinning) with a mixture of sulfuric and nitric acid, followed by a careful cleaning process to remove all traces of residual acid. It is critical that the fibers be broken down and carefully cleaned so that they are no longer hollow because acid trapped in the fibers or other impurities make the product inconsistent and unstable. That's why there are problems with the shells from North Korea; they obviously have poor process quality control (what do you expect from slave labor, anyway?). Guncotton was discovered in 1832, reportedly by accident when a chemist named Braconnet used cotton to wipe up a nitric acid spill and put it on the hearth to dry, only to be startled later when it spontaneously exploded. It took several decades to develop a safe and reliable production process. (Source: Encyclopedia Americana, 1941 edition, except for the details of the discovery; I don't recall where I read that.)
    103
  1331. 102
  1332. 102
  1333. 102
  1334. 102
  1335. 102
  1336. 102
  1337. 102
  1338. 102
  1339. 101
  1340. 101
  1341. 101
  1342. 100
  1343. 100
  1344. 100
  1345. 100
  1346. 99
  1347. 99
  1348. 99
  1349. 98
  1350. 98
  1351. 98
  1352. 98
  1353. 98
  1354. 98
  1355. 98
  1356. 97
  1357. 97
  1358. 97
  1359. 97
  1360. 97
  1361. 96
  1362. 96
  1363. 96
  1364. 96
  1365. 96
  1366. 95
  1367. 95
  1368. 95
  1369. 95
  1370. 94
  1371. 93
  1372. 93
  1373. 93
  1374. 92
  1375. 92
  1376. 92
  1377. 92
  1378. 92
  1379. 92
  1380. 91
  1381. 91
  1382. 91
  1383. 91
  1384. 91
  1385. 91
  1386. 90
  1387. 90
  1388. 90
  1389. 90
  1390. 90
  1391. 90
  1392. 89
  1393. 89
  1394. 89
  1395. 89
  1396. 89
  1397. 89
  1398. 89
  1399. 88
  1400. 88
  1401. 87
  1402. 87
  1403. 87
  1404. 87
  1405. 87
  1406. 87
  1407. 87
  1408. 87
  1409. 87
  1410. 87
  1411. 87
  1412. 86
  1413. 86
  1414. 86
  1415. 86
  1416. 86
  1417. 86
  1418. 85
  1419. 85
  1420. 85
  1421. 85
  1422. 85
  1423. 84
  1424. 84
  1425. 84
  1426. 84
  1427. 84
  1428. 84
  1429. 84
  1430. 84
  1431. 83
  1432. 83
  1433. 83
  1434. 83
  1435. 83
  1436. 82
  1437. 82
  1438. 82
  1439. 82
  1440. 82
  1441. 82
  1442. 81
  1443. 81
  1444. 81
  1445. 81
  1446. 80
  1447. 80
  1448. 80
  1449. 80
  1450. 80
  1451. 80
  1452. 80
  1453. 80
  1454. 79
  1455. 79
  1456. 79
  1457. 79
  1458. 79
  1459. 79
  1460. 79
  1461. 79
  1462. 79
  1463. 79
  1464. 78
  1465. 78
  1466. 78
  1467. 78
  1468. 78
  1469. 78
  1470. 78
  1471. 77
  1472. 77
  1473. 77
  1474. 77
  1475. 77
  1476. 77
  1477. 77
  1478. 77
  1479. 77
  1480. 77
  1481. 77
  1482. 76
  1483. 76
  1484. 76
  1485. 76
  1486. 76
  1487. 75
  1488. 75
  1489. 75
  1490. 75
  1491. 75
  1492. 75
  1493. 75
  1494. 74
  1495. 74
  1496. 74
  1497. 74
  1498. 74
  1499. 73
  1500. 73
  1501. 73
  1502. 73
  1503. 73
  1504. 73
  1505. 73
  1506. 73
  1507. 72
  1508. 72
  1509. 72
  1510. 72
  1511. 72
  1512. 72
  1513. 72
  1514. 72
  1515. 71
  1516. 71
  1517. 71
  1518. 71
  1519. 71
  1520. 71
  1521. 71
  1522. 70
  1523. 70
  1524. 70
  1525. 70
  1526. 70
  1527. 70
  1528. 70
  1529. 69
  1530. 69
  1531. 69
  1532. 69
  1533. 69
  1534. 69
  1535. 69
  1536. 69
  1537. 68
  1538. 68
  1539. 68
  1540. 68
  1541. 68
  1542. Hey T&P, always love your videos. I've always wanted to join the military & finally spoke to a recruiter for the branches im interested in multiple times. I ended up not joining any branch, however, bc the military kept giving md Red Flags and reasons not to join. I have a college degree, nearly donr with my bachelors, experience in cyber security, and i wanted to go for an officer position in army cyber. However, unfortunately doing that would literally hamstring my career. People like me, even woth only an associates, start at minimum 60 to 70k to START. MINIMUM. I routinely get offers between 70 and 85k, even without a completed bachelors. my only reasons to join are duty & love of country, but that doesnt oay the bills, buy a house, or put food on table for my new family. The military benefits are kinda overhyped for people who aren't low Lower Class. plus the new recruiters are all kinda whack. i told them exactly what i needed for me to enlist, and i guaranteed them i would enlist if they could answer my questions about cyber. instead, they all repeated the same rehearsed questions and lines. I also found out the specific recruiters only were interested in finding specific recruits for specific job quotas. The army recruiter wanted me to go Armor or Logistics, even though i was only interestdd in cyber, networking, electronic warfare etc. They also ONLY push Enlisted. All (100%) of my military friends told me to NEVER join as Enlisted, if i can go officer. Plus about disqualifiers. I recently disqualified myself after the fact by getting a diagnosis for long undiagnosed ADHD. The army recruiter, when i mentioned i was speaking to my DR investigating ADHD symptoms, told me in double speak that they cant recruit me if in diagnosed and medicated, so i would have to either stop the process or go unmedicated. I really genuinely wanted tojoin, and still do even right now, but everytime i look for a reason to join the military gives me 6 more reasons not to. in the end, I might not be the target audience. However, it pains me dearly knowing that i can bring value to my country and am disqualified, yet russia and china and israel pump out hackers like its no tomorrow. Shame.
    68
  1543. 68
  1544. 68
  1545. 68
  1546. 67
  1547. 67
  1548. 67
  1549. 67
  1550. 67
  1551. 67
  1552. 67
  1553. 67
  1554. 66
  1555. 66
  1556. 66
  1557. 66
  1558. 65
  1559. 65
  1560. 65
  1561. 65
  1562. 65
  1563. 65
  1564. 65
  1565. 64
  1566. 64
  1567. 64
  1568. 64
  1569. 64
  1570. 64
  1571. 63
  1572. 63
  1573. 63
  1574. 63
  1575. 63
  1576. 62
  1577. 62
  1578. 62
  1579. 62
  1580. 62
  1581. 62
  1582. 62
  1583. 62
  1584. 61
  1585. 61
  1586. 61
  1587. 61
  1588. 61
  1589. 61
  1590. 61
  1591. 61
  1592. 61
  1593. 61
  1594. 60
  1595. 60
  1596. 60
  1597. 60
  1598. 60
  1599. 59
  1600. 59
  1601. 59
  1602. 59
  1603. 59
  1604. 59
  1605. 59
  1606. 58
  1607. 58
  1608. 58
  1609. 58
  1610. 58
  1611. 58
  1612. 58
  1613. 58
  1614. 58
  1615. 57
  1616. 57
  1617. 57
  1618. 57
  1619. 57
  1620. 57
  1621. 57
  1622. 57
  1623. 6B23 armor was retrofitted with ceramic plates instead of steel, which is class IV. Even before ceramic plates 6B23, we've had 6B4 and 6B5 armor in Afghanistan\Chechen era, more than capable of holding 5,45\5,56 at decent range. Also, there are 6B13 armor vests on pics in the video, which is again, an adequate protection for the conflict. Which is to say, more than adequate to fight against Georgian weaponry. It was just the time to revamp and unify the equipment to modern standarts. >Russia invading Georgia Imagine believing in this horseshit, while showing PM troops photographs at the same time. >No armor 6B23 vs FULL GEORGIAN ARMOR!!11 Lmao. >Showing osetia's troops as russian troops What a clusterfuck, jesus christ. >They wore no armor, and picked up georgian armor Lmao, while its true that we've had a lot of trophied equipment from georgians, it was exactly a trophy equipment, not the old bullshit like "german troops dropped their MP-40s to pick up PPSH-41". Every single russian soldier was properly equipped. Ossetian army, on the other hand - not as good as them. Anyways, who need to wear a deadmen's vests after you kill him? What kind of logic is that? Supply troop will fuck you in the ass if you will "lose" your armor vest and "gain" some Interceptor vest from georgian soldier. Anyways: 1. The 'lessons learned' part about inadequate equipment and lack of overall teamwork between different forces was done in Chechnya, not Georgia. Atleast in the Chechen era, if someone trying to bullshit you with "see that plate carrier? it has no plate inside!" or "see that tank with reactive armor? It has no explosive inside of it!", you would most likely believe in that, than in hot takes like "no armor 6B23", kek. Also main lesson learned was to build a proper fucking army instead of sending in guards\police regiments in a war, covering it as anti-terrorist operation, with proper equip and proper chain of command. Georgian war in 2008 was pretty much one-sided, Osetian army and Russian PMs held out the georgian advance, then came the main troop and fucked them in the ass. There is nothing left to discuss about Georgian conflict. Chechen war and Caucasus conflicts uncovered much more issues with modern Russian army than any other conflict. 2. Ratnik is not a wunderwaffe equip, its just more unified and tech-upped. Active headphones are meh, radios are meh, helmets need some work with mounts and fitting, vests need proper plates, etc, the point is - its the new base for more upgrades. Old shit was either you have it, or you don't. I would've gladly traded in some shit like SPHERA on new Ratnik's helmet, just because its more comfy to wear. On the bright side - NVGs are more available now, rigs are not clusterfucky to use, we get a proper secured squad radio now, and yeah all this fluffy handheld computer bullshit. Also new backpacks, and new boots, wew. 3. Sadly, we still need the conscription because of large border size. We are not japan, we can't just set up 2-3 JSDF bases and be happy because we're living on a small island, regions are hundreds of kilometers apart from each other, we need to keep atleast some sort of the army potential in the case of enemy invasion, BEFORE main troops come and help to the front. That means, there ought to be some sort of a militia troop in emergency cases, built from the reserve of people who did the mandatory army service. On another hand, this service is worthless, because its 1-year long, and most of the time you just learn the stuff that you will forget next year without proper practice. What we really need is to abolish conscription and move onto more lax gun laws, cultivating gun culture. But then again, too many social issues to allow such gun laws.
    57
  1624. 57
  1625. 56
  1626. 56
  1627. 56
  1628. 56
  1629. 56
  1630. 56
  1631. 56
  1632. 56
  1633. 55
  1634. 55
  1635. 55
  1636. 55
  1637. 55
  1638. 55
  1639. 55
  1640. 54
  1641. 54
  1642. 54
  1643. 54
  1644. 54
  1645. 54
  1646. 54
  1647. 54
  1648. 54
  1649. 54
  1650. 54
  1651. 54
  1652. 54
  1653. 54
  1654. 54
  1655. 54
  1656. 53
  1657. 53
  1658. 53
  1659. 53
  1660. 53
  1661. As for the Iranian Nuclear deal, you failed to mention the controversy over the limitations of inspections. That was the biggest stated reason for pulling out of the deal, NOT the fact that Iran kept developing Ballistic Missiles or funding terrorists with the money (although those were factors). The fear was that because inspections had to be declared up to around 2 months in advance AND only a specific set of agreed upon locations were even available for inspection, that Iran would just: 1. Hide evidence of nuclear weapons development ahead of inspections where possible 2. Continue development at locations outside of the agreement where option1 was impractical 3. Use the eased sanctions to actually speed up their nuclear program much like North Korea apparently did in the mid-90's to early 2000's Maybe this video was rushed and your research guys missed this one, but leaving that out of the video (given it's importance to the argument) in favor of minor argument points makes this video appear biased and manipulative on that issue. That's the gotcha of controversial political videos. You pretty much have to be an investigative reporter these days to do one that can stand up to the massive scrutiny it will receive from both sides. Maybe set aside more time for research and discussion on videos like these than you would for your bread and butter content in the future? This is and honest suggestion as I don't believe this is something you and your crew did on purpose or because of your own political bias.
    53
  1662. 53
  1663. 53
  1664. 53
  1665. 53
  1666. Not a vet, so take my thoughts with a healthy dose of salt. Also thanks for your service and your content! Personally, I like the idea of plastic casings, but as you pointed out, the reliability falls into question, especially since earlier versions had issues with plastic softening under high heat; given the last dozen or so active military operations and occupations occurred in the hot (SERIOUSLY HOT) middle eastern theatre, not to mention all firearms get HOT when fired repeatedly, these early versions certainly do not inspire much confidence. However, IF these new versions can perform under high heat and in the varied conditions of war our modern infantryman can expect to face, then weight savings is a HUGE pro. Also, if the plastic casings, produced en-mass cost substantially less per round to fire (plastic is cheaper and lighter than brass, right), then I think plastic casings/non-casings are definitely the future. Of course, I can already see substantial ecological impacts of millions of plastic bullet condoms arising as unforeseen consequences of the change. With brass, there is a little bit of money to be made collecting it, if not for the military itself or its rehab contractors, then certainly for locals impacted by the war. No such benefit for plastic, we can't even pay china to take our plastic anymore. Plastics would allow soldiers to carry more ammo, coupled with a slower rate of fire and more accuracy, this allows soldiers the ability to put more lead down range into Charley's face before needing resupply (of ammo at least). The polymer casing is another interesting one and inspires a bit more confidence than the straight-up plastic-cased rounds, however, plastic is a polymer and generally calling a polymer a polymer is just a fancy marketing tactic devised to squeeze out higher margins per round. The steel-brass hybrid is probably my favourite, as I imagine it remains compatible with traditional brass cased rounds of the same calibre. What I didn't see in any of the proposals was the ability to swap out barrel and carrier to accommodate theatre specific rounds. I remember watching a program some years ago on history channel where such an assault weapon was expoed, and I have always liked the idea. It allows infantrymen to load out for the theatre they'll be fighting in such that they can utilize captured enemy munitions in their own weapons. Few strategies have in history been so decisive as cutting an enemy off from their supply lines and besieging them until they have run out of weapons and food. Of course, airdrops have made this a little less significant of a worry. My other major concern other than ammunition is durability in war. The relative simplicity of an M4 or M16 allows it to be field stripped, cleaned, repaired, and slapped back together without too much difficulty. The more complex receiver and chambering mechanisms on the new weapons concern me not only in terms of rate of fire but also in the number of potential jam inducing catches. Also, while I love the idea of electronics helping steer and balance the weapon for accuracy, electronics also provide possible failures due to poor handling (no infantryman has ever landed on his weapon running out of a personnel carrier or jumping out of a chopper) and could prove to be a significant weakness in a war between nuclearized nations. If the electronic weapons perform AS WELL as the current standard fare among current infantry assault weapons, with the electronics powered off, then this might be a moot point. However, if the weapons use the electronics as a crutch and become weaker than current assault weapons when the batteries die or when an EMP knocks out the circuitry, I think this might be a significant con to infantry adoption. I think any weapon on the list could prove valuable to the infantry combat role, as each offers weight reduction (allowing infantry to haste with a little more speed), each offers improvements to handling, and each promises lighter rounds (some lighter than others) which increases the ammo carry capacity of the average infantryman. It remains to be seen if such weapons which employ more plastics and polymers will stand up to decades of abuse by the infantry, whether they'll match the ease and reliability of current M16 and M4 rifles in real-world combat conditions, and whether the new round designs will prove to be mere marketing gimmicks or whether they'll prove to be as reliable as traditional round designs and provide real-world benefits to our infantry.
    52
  1667. 52
  1668. 52
  1669. 52
  1670. 52
  1671. 52
  1672. 52
  1673. 51
  1674. 51
  1675. 51
  1676. 51
  1677. 51
  1678. 50
  1679. 50
  1680. 50
  1681. 50
  1682. 50
  1683. 50
  1684. 50
  1685. 50
  1686. 49
  1687. 49
  1688. 49
  1689. 49
  1690. 49
  1691. 48
  1692. 48
  1693. 48
  1694. 48
  1695. 48
  1696. 48
  1697. 48
  1698. 48
  1699. 48
  1700. 48
  1701. 47
  1702. 47
  1703. 47
  1704. 47
  1705. 47
  1706. 47
  1707. 47
  1708. 47
  1709. 47
  1710. 47
  1711. 47
  1712. 47
  1713. 46
  1714. 46
  1715. 46
  1716. 46
  1717. 46
  1718. 46
  1719. 46
  1720. 46
  1721. 46
  1722. 46
  1723. 46
  1724. 46
  1725. 45
  1726. 45
  1727. 45
  1728. 45
  1729. 45
  1730. 45
  1731. 45
  1732. 45
  1733. 45
  1734. 45
  1735. 45
  1736. 45
  1737. 45
  1738. 44
  1739. 44
  1740. 44
  1741. 44
  1742. 44
  1743. 44
  1744. 44
  1745. 43
  1746. 43
  1747. 43
  1748. 43
  1749. 43
  1750. 43
  1751. 43
  1752. 43
  1753. 43
  1754. 43
  1755. 43
  1756. 42
  1757. 42
  1758. 42
  1759. 42
  1760. 42
  1761. 42
  1762. 42
  1763. 42
  1764. 42
  1765. 42
  1766. 42
  1767. 41
  1768. 41
  1769. 41
  1770. 41
  1771. 41
  1772. 41
  1773. 41
  1774. 41
  1775. 40
  1776. 40
  1777. 40
  1778. 40
  1779. 40
  1780. 0:42 No, the program was started in 1996 and Afghanistan was never an influence on the program. 1:04 No, it was never supposed to be a simple upgrade to the Marder. It was always supposed to completely replace the Marder. 1:34 It failed? In 2021 it was certified to be combat ready for the VJTF. 2:53 Again, wrong. The origins of the Puma begin in 1996 and the "Neue Gepanzerte Plattform". 3:01 Please, never try to pronounce those words again. 3:25 Why would they want a bigger cannon? That would only reduce ammo capacity and increase the weight even further. For the role they have in the German army they really don't need anything bigger. 3:37 So? Statistically, 98 % of German soldiers fit into the vehicle just fine. The real problem is that bigger soldiers would fit but if a mine explodes under the vehicle they would suffer head and neck injuries. Not really considered to be a problem by the German army. 3:45 That is true for every vehicle. To get into a Leopard 2 you have to be small too. To be a fighter jet pilot, you have to be under a certain height. Again, not really a problem and not different from virtually any other vehicle. 3:47 Vollmer was Inspector of the Army and not Chief of Staff. The roles are similar but not the same. 4:54 Well, for the German army it is. Especially in missions like Afghanistan. Basically all German soldiers that have died since WW2 died due to mines or IEDs. For the same reason, the Leopard 2 received an extensive overhaul and mine protection in the Version 2A6M (M meaning mine protection). 5:15 So just because the US thinks sand backs are enough to protect the lives of their soldiers, Germany should repeat the same mistake? Mine protection IS important... 5:35 Those have been replaced years ago but with night- and thermal vision black and white is all you need. The images provided by the sensors are black and white 95 % of the time anyway. 5:59 Yes, in 2018. That was solved via Software Update already back in 2018. 7:10 Never, try to pronounce that word again. Never. 7:18 That is not even a bad value for a new system and the Bundesrechnungshof is known to see the entire Bundeswehr as a waste of money so one should take everything they say with caution. 7:34 Why should it be obsolete? Now that NATO and Germany are deploying troops in the Baltic the Puma has become more important than ever before. 7:45 The Marder was never supposed to be completely replaced. Actually, the number of Marders was supposed to be much higher. Those investments are relatively unrelated. 8:14 Where they wrong? Have you ever seen a program that wasn't delayed and over budget? Now the US has spent billions and still hasn't found a replacement. Is that really better? Remember, you still have to use Sand instead of real protection. 11:20 Thats already been done.
    40
  1781. 40
  1782. 40
  1783. 40
  1784. 40
  1785. 40
  1786. 40
  1787. 40
  1788. 40
  1789. 40
  1790. 40
  1791. 39
  1792. 39
  1793. 39
  1794. 39
  1795. 39
  1796. 39
  1797. 39
  1798. 39
  1799. 39
  1800. 39
  1801. 38
  1802. 38
  1803. 38
  1804. 38
  1805. 38
  1806. 38
  1807. 38
  1808. 38
  1809. 38
  1810. 38
  1811. 38
  1812. 38
  1813. 38
  1814. 38
  1815. 37
  1816. 37
  1817. 37
  1818. 37
  1819. 37
  1820. 37
  1821. 37
  1822. 36
  1823. 36
  1824. 36
  1825. 36
  1826. 36
  1827. 36
  1828. 36
  1829. 36
  1830. 36
  1831. 36
  1832. 36
  1833. 36
  1834. 36
  1835. 36
  1836. 36
  1837. 35
  1838. 35
  1839. 35
  1840. 35
  1841. 35
  1842. 35
  1843. 35
  1844. 35
  1845. 35
  1846. 35
  1847. 35
  1848. 35
  1849. 35
  1850. 35
  1851. 35
  1852. 35
  1853. 35
  1854. 34
  1855. 34
  1856. 34
  1857. 34
  1858. 34
  1859. 34
  1860. 34
  1861. 34
  1862. 34
  1863. 34
  1864. 34
  1865. 33
  1866. 33
  1867. 33
  1868. 33
  1869. 33
  1870. 33
  1871. 33
  1872. 33
  1873. 33
  1874. 33
  1875. 33
  1876. 32
  1877. 32
  1878. 32
  1879. 32
  1880. 32
  1881. 32
  1882. 32
  1883. 32
  1884. 32
  1885. 32
  1886. 32
  1887. 32
  1888. 32
  1889. 32
  1890. 32
  1891. 32
  1892. 31
  1893. 31
  1894. 31
  1895. 31
  1896. 31
  1897. 31
  1898. 31
  1899. 31
  1900. 31
  1901. 31
  1902. 31
  1903. 31
  1904. 31
  1905. 30
  1906. 30
  1907. 30
  1908. 30
  1909. 30
  1910. 30
  1911. 30
  1912. 30
  1913. 30
  1914. 30
  1915. 30
  1916. 30
  1917. 30
  1918. 30
  1919. 29
  1920. 29
  1921. 29
  1922. 29
  1923. 29
  1924. 29
  1925. 29
  1926. 29
  1927. 29
  1928. 29
  1929. 29
  1930. 29
  1931. 28
  1932. 28
  1933. 28
  1934. 28
  1935. 28
  1936. 28
  1937. 28
  1938. 28
  1939. 28
  1940. 28
  1941. 28
  1942. 28
  1943. 28
  1944. 28
  1945. 28
  1946. 28
  1947. 28
  1948. 28
  1949. 27
  1950. 27
  1951. 27
  1952. 27
  1953. 27
  1954. 27
  1955. 27
  1956. 27
  1957. 27
  1958. 27
  1959. 27
  1960. 27
  1961. 27
  1962. 26
  1963. 26
  1964. 26
  1965. 26
  1966. 26
  1967. 26
  1968. 26
  1969. 26
  1970. 26
  1971. 26
  1972. 26
  1973. 26
  1974. 26
  1975. 26
  1976. 26
  1977. 26
  1978. 26
  1979. 26
  1980. 26
  1981. 25
  1982. 25
  1983. 25
  1984. 25
  1985. 25
  1986. 25
  1987. 25
  1988. 25
  1989. 25
  1990. 25
  1991. 25
  1992. 25
  1993. 25
  1994. 25
  1995. 25
  1996. 25
  1997. 25
  1998. 25
  1999. 25
  2000. 25
  2001. 25
  2002. 25
  2003. 24
  2004. 24
  2005. 24
  2006. 24
  2007. 24
  2008. 24
  2009. 24
  2010. 24
  2011. 24
  2012. 24
  2013. 24
  2014. 24
  2015. 24
  2016. 24
  2017. 24
  2018. 24
  2019. 24
  2020. 23
  2021. 23
  2022. 23
  2023. 23
  2024. 23
  2025. 23
  2026. 23
  2027. 23
  2028. 23
  2029. 23
  2030. 23
  2031. 23
  2032. 23
  2033. 23
  2034. 23
  2035. 23
  2036. 23
  2037. 23
  2038. 23
  2039. 23
  2040. 23
  2041. 22
  2042. 22
  2043. "...this was the first ballistic protection against rifle rounds, that could be realistically worn." I would like to correct you on that statement. There was one particular superpower that went to war in Afghanistan from 1979-1989 before the Americans did. That conflict was actually the first time a modern army begin issuing plate carriers that can stop assault rifle rounds. I would say the first true modern plate carrier is the 6B3 vest developed by the former USSR. Please note that I am personally not familiar with Russian nomenclature for infantry kit and that some modern Russian non-plate carrier equipments also share "6B" designation. The first vest of the 6B series was the 6B1, introduced into service in 1957 but in limited numbers, this vest consists of hexagonal aluminum plates imbedded with aramid fabric. Its NIJ equivalent is roughly II or IIA. The next one is 6B2, introduced in 1981, it was the first mass issued vest of the USSR. It consists of layers of aramid fabric and small thin titanium plates roughly 1.25mm thick imbedded. Its protection level was equivalent to NIJ II. Later in 1984 the 6B3 vest was introduced. It is the first plate carrier designed to stop intermediate rifle rounds. It consists of aramid fabric and underneath layers of overlapping pouches held together by velcro that can insert titanium plates thats about 4x4 inches and thickness of 6.5mm or boron carbide plates. Its protection equivalent is NIJ III, weight is approx. 10kg. The latest next generation plate carrier introduced by Russia is the 6B45 as part of the Ratnik program, which was debuted to the world when Russian troops went into Crimea wearing these new kits. Surplus Soviet plate carriers and the ballistic plate inserts can still be bought online and are actually not that rare. Information on Soviet and Russian body armor are scarce in the West so it is a bit tricky to find more information. Google "realitymod Russian Body Armor?" yields some good bit of information if you like to know more.
    22
  2044. 22
  2045. 22
  2046. 22
  2047. 22
  2048. 22
  2049. 22
  2050. 22
  2051. 22
  2052. 22
  2053. 22
  2054. 22
  2055. 22
  2056. 22
  2057. 22
  2058. 22
  2059. 22
  2060. 22
  2061. 22
  2062. 22
  2063. 22
  2064. 22
  2065. 21
  2066. 21
  2067. 21
  2068. 21
  2069. 21
  2070. 21
  2071. 21
  2072. 21
  2073. 21
  2074. 21
  2075. 21
  2076. 21
  2077. 21
  2078. 21
  2079. 21
  2080. 21
  2081. 21
  2082. 21
  2083. 21
  2084. 21
  2085. 21
  2086. 21
  2087. 21
  2088. 21
  2089. 21
  2090. 20
  2091. 20
  2092. 20
  2093. 20
  2094. 20
  2095. 20
  2096. 20
  2097. 20
  2098. 20
  2099. 20
  2100. 20
  2101. 20
  2102. 20
  2103. 20
  2104. 20
  2105. 20
  2106. 20
  2107. 20
  2108. 20
  2109. 20
  2110. 20
  2111. 20
  2112. 20
  2113. 20
  2114. 20
  2115. 20
  2116. 20
  2117. 19
  2118. 19
  2119. 19
  2120. 19
  2121. 19
  2122. 19
  2123. 19
  2124. 19
  2125. 19
  2126. 19
  2127. 19
  2128. 19
  2129. 19
  2130. 19
  2131. 19
  2132. 19
  2133. 19
  2134. 19
  2135. 19
  2136. 19
  2137. 19
  2138. 19
  2139. 19
  2140. 19
  2141. 19
  2142. 19
  2143. 19
  2144. 19
  2145. 19
  2146. 19
  2147. 19
  2148. 19
  2149. 19
  2150. 19
  2151. 19
  2152. 18
  2153. 18
  2154. 18
  2155. 18
  2156. 18
  2157. 18
  2158. 18
  2159. 18
  2160. 18
  2161. 18
  2162. 18
  2163. 18
  2164. 18
  2165. 18
  2166. 18
  2167. 18
  2168. 18
  2169. 18
  2170. 18
  2171. 18
  2172. 18
  2173. 18
  2174. 18
  2175. 18
  2176. 18
  2177. 18
  2178. 18
  2179. 18
  2180. 18
  2181. 18
  2182. 18
  2183. 18
  2184. 18
  2185. 18
  2186. 18
  2187. 18
  2188. 18
  2189. 17
  2190. 17
  2191. 17
  2192. 17
  2193. 17
  2194. 17
  2195. 17
  2196. 17
  2197. 17
  2198. 17
  2199. 17
  2200. 17
  2201. 17
  2202. 17
  2203. 17
  2204. 17
  2205. 17
  2206. 17
  2207. 17
  2208. 17
  2209. 17
  2210. 17
  2211. 17
  2212. 17
  2213. 17
  2214. 17
  2215. 17
  2216. 17
  2217. 17
  2218. 17
  2219. 17
  2220. 17
  2221. 17
  2222. 17
  2223. 17
  2224. 17
  2225. 16
  2226. 16
  2227. 16
  2228. 16
  2229. 16
  2230. 16
  2231. 16
  2232. 16
  2233. 16
  2234. 16
  2235. 16
  2236. 16
  2237. 16
  2238. 16
  2239. 16
  2240. 16
  2241. 16
  2242. 16
  2243. 16
  2244. 16
  2245. 16
  2246. 16
  2247. 16
  2248. 16
  2249. 16
  2250. 16
  2251. 16
  2252. 16
  2253. 16
  2254. 16
  2255. 16
  2256. 16
  2257. 16
  2258. 16
  2259. 16
  2260. 16
  2261. 16
  2262. 15
  2263. 15
  2264. 15
  2265. 15
  2266. 15
  2267. 15
  2268. 15
  2269. 15
  2270. 15
  2271. 15
  2272. 15
  2273. 15
  2274. 15
  2275. 15
  2276. 15
  2277. 15
  2278. 15
  2279. 15
  2280. 15
  2281. 15
  2282. 15
  2283. 15
  2284. 15
  2285. 15
  2286. 15
  2287. 15
  2288. 15
  2289. 15
  2290. 15
  2291. 15
  2292. 15
  2293. 15
  2294. 15
  2295. 15
  2296. 15
  2297. 15
  2298. 15
  2299. 15
  2300. 15
  2301. 15
  2302. 15
  2303. 15
  2304. 14
  2305. 14
  2306. 14
  2307. 14
  2308. 14
  2309. 14
  2310. 14
  2311. 14
  2312. 14
  2313. 14
  2314. 14
  2315. 14
  2316. 14
  2317. 14
  2318. 14
  2319. 14
  2320. 14
  2321. 14
  2322. 14
  2323. 14
  2324. 14
  2325. 14
  2326. 14
  2327. 14
  2328. 14
  2329. 14
  2330. 14
  2331. 14
  2332. 14
  2333. 14
  2334. 14
  2335. 14
  2336. 14
  2337. 14
  2338. 14
  2339. 14
  2340. 14
  2341. 14
  2342. 14
  2343. 14
  2344. 14
  2345. 13
  2346. 13
  2347. 13
  2348. 13
  2349. 13
  2350. 13
  2351. 13
  2352. 13
  2353. 13
  2354. 13
  2355. 13
  2356. 13
  2357. 13
  2358. 13
  2359. 13
  2360. 13
  2361. 13
  2362. 13
  2363. 13
  2364. 13
  2365. 13
  2366. 13
  2367. 13
  2368. 13
  2369. 13
  2370. 13
  2371. 13
  2372. 13
  2373. 13
  2374. 13
  2375. 13
  2376. 13
  2377. 13
  2378. 13
  2379. 13
  2380. 13
  2381. 13
  2382. 13
  2383. 13
  2384. 13
  2385. 13
  2386. 13
  2387. 13
  2388. 13
  2389. 13
  2390. 13
  2391. 13
  2392. 13
  2393. 13
  2394. 13
  2395. 12
  2396. 12
  2397. 12
  2398. 12
  2399. 12
  2400. 12
  2401. 12
  2402. 12
  2403. 12
  2404. 12
  2405. 12
  2406. 12
  2407. Ayup mate. Just to add a bit to your video. Unfortunately whatever one does to the SA80 ultimately you can’t polish a turd! I used the A1 (absolute shite) and the A2 marginally better but still extremely flawed. Ergonomically it’s the equivalent of trying to to drive a car with the gear lever in the back while your in the front. The safety catch and the change lever and the bolt release are in the wrong place, it’s heavy and uncomfortable to carry and it feels like it could fall to pieces if drop it. Also (and the technique used to remedy this flaw is unworkable in a real situation) you can’t fire it left handed unless you want to lose your front teeth! I personally hated it but like you said many like it (mainly in the British Army) I was in the Marines and we hated it and were constantly told to be quiet and stop morning about it. Used anywhere other than the range it just wasn’t up to the job. And bearing in mind it was the main tool for the job in mine and many of my mates opinion it was as much use as a Chocolate tea pot! The most annoying thing was that people who didn’t have to use it for anything other than the annual combat marksmanship test would say how great and accurate it was. Due to the fact that it also was slightly and I mean slightly more reliable in tests than the M4 they would cling to this fact and say it was better. I return to my original point you can cover a turd in glitter and gold but it’s still a turd! Thank god I used the C8 for many years. (Canadian version of the M4) cheers bud keep making the vids👍🇬🇧🇺🇸
    12
  2408. 12
  2409. 12
  2410. 12
  2411. 12
  2412. 12
  2413. 12
  2414. 12
  2415. 12
  2416. 12
  2417. 12
  2418. 12
  2419. 12
  2420. 12
  2421. 12
  2422. 12
  2423. 12
  2424. 12
  2425. 12
  2426. 12
  2427. 12
  2428. 12
  2429. 12
  2430. 12
  2431. 12
  2432. 12
  2433. 12
  2434. 12
  2435. 12
  2436. 12
  2437. 12
  2438. 12
  2439. 12
  2440. 12
  2441. 12
  2442. 12
  2443. 12
  2444. 12
  2445. 12
  2446. 12
  2447. 12
  2448. 12
  2449. 12
  2450. 11
  2451. 11
  2452. 11
  2453. 11
  2454. 11
  2455. 11
  2456. 11
  2457. 11
  2458. 11
  2459. 11
  2460. 11
  2461. 11
  2462. 11
  2463. 11
  2464. 11
  2465. 11
  2466. 11
  2467. 11
  2468. 11
  2469. 11
  2470. 11
  2471. 11
  2472. 11
  2473. 11
  2474. 11
  2475. 11
  2476. 11
  2477. 11
  2478. 11
  2479. 11
  2480. 11
  2481. 11
  2482. 11
  2483. 11
  2484. 11
  2485. 11
  2486. 11
  2487. 11
  2488. 11
  2489. 11
  2490. 11
  2491. 11
  2492. 11
  2493. 11
  2494. 11
  2495. 11
  2496. 11
  2497. 11
  2498. 11
  2499. 11
  2500. 11
  2501. 11
  2502. 11
  2503. 11
  2504. 11
  2505. 11
  2506. 11
  2507. 11
  2508. 11
  2509. 11
  2510. 11
  2511. 11
  2512. 11
  2513. 11
  2514. 11
  2515. 11
  2516. 11
  2517. 11
  2518. 10
  2519. 10
  2520. 10
  2521. 10
  2522. 10
  2523. 10
  2524. 10
  2525. 10
  2526. 10
  2527. 10
  2528. 10
  2529. 10
  2530. I'm not one to diss something just because it's new, but this looks pretty awful. Let's break it down, starting with the good stuff. Plastic ammo, fine. There's no reason it can't work, and it can probably be made to work well. I've worked with enough high strength polymers to have a real respect for what they can do, and I think there's real potential here. As far as the layout and controls, making everything ambi is fine. Changing the manual of arms isn't a huge issue either, and though that layout doesn't look particularly ergonomic, it's not as awkward as some of the other bullpup designs out there. The bullpup design allows for a longer barrel in a rifle of the same or shorter length than a traditional rifle configuration, and the short recoil operating system will run cooler and cleaner than a direct gas impingement system. And yeah, the suppressor looks like a potato, but honestly it's past time when we started making those things standard issue. They're just too damn useful. Now for literally everything else, starting with the operating system. Short recoil operating systems have been around for ages, and they can be extremely reliable. As mentioned, they don't tend to heat up as quickly as a gas system, and they run cleaner, too. The downside is lots and lots of reciprocating mass. A lot of what we feel as the recoil impulse when a gun is fired comes down to the parts that move backwards to cycle the weapon. On pistols, it's usually the slide. On rifles, the bolt, or in this case, the bolt and barrel. On a platform like the Ma Deuce, which has the dual virtues of firing a massive bullet with lots of energy, and being mounted to a tripod, pintle, or other hardpoint, this isn't an issue. There's enough excess energy in the system to keep it moving reliably come hell or high water, assuming you've set your headspace and timing correctly. And since it's mounted, the reciprocating mass isn't going to hugely affect the point of aim for followup shots. This thing, on the other hand, looks like a handful, even on semiautomatic fire. You're already firing a spicy round compared to the AR/M4 platform, and the last thing you need is having a couple of pounds of steel jostling the weapon. Despite that, if the ejection pattern is anything to go by, this sucker's on the struggle bus just to cycle reliably. I guess you can't call it undergassed if it's a short recoil system, but that's effectively what it looks like. It might run cleaner than a DI gun, but when it does get dirty, there's not enough surplus energy to power through. That's going to lead to reliability issues as soon as you get it out in the field. Then there's the whole bullpup thing. There's a reason hardly anyone uses the damn things, despite prognosticators declaring them the way of the future every couple of decades. For all the theoretical advantages, they're just not as good as a traditional rifle layout. Reloads are awkward, which can be trained around, but that only goes so far. I've heard the economy of motion arguments, but I don't buy them, especially not with modern body armor. You pretty much have to take the thing off your shoulder to get the magazine well out of the way of the armor and any pouches you may have in the region. Then there's the trigger, which is a twofold problem. The linkages themselves are more prone to breaking, which is another ding in the reliability department, but you also have to consider things like pull, break, and feel. They tend to be much heavier, much less crisp, and less predictable. That's not a huge issue at short ranges, but the whole point of the 6.8 is to increase the effective range of the average soldier over the M4 platform. The further out you go, the more important having a good trigger becomes if you want to land accurate, reliable shots. This is only scratching the surface, but honestly, I've ranted long enough. This thing looks like the M14 all over again, and I mean that in the worst, most historically accurate way possible.
    10
  2531. 10
  2532. 10
  2533. 10
  2534. 10
  2535. 10
  2536. 10
  2537. 10
  2538. 10
  2539. 10
  2540. 10
  2541. 10
  2542. 10
  2543. 10
  2544. 10
  2545. 10
  2546. 10
  2547. 10
  2548. 10
  2549. 10
  2550. 10
  2551. 10
  2552. 10
  2553. 10
  2554. 10
  2555. 10
  2556. 10
  2557. 10
  2558. 10
  2559. 10
  2560. 10
  2561. Great assessment, I thought your synopsis at the very end, stating that the PL strategy is to hold off and tie down RUS advances until NATO forces arrives captures so well a lot of the strategic role of PL. I did think that you downplayed the role of the EU, especially given its role in economic and political restructuring and reform, and which way beyond continuing direct assistance in infrastructure, municipal, and agriculture budgets, has allowed and promoted huge investment of EU country firms in the country, as well as trade of people and goods across markets. The EU economic driver, along with a sensible welfare and tax policy, has allowed the country to prosper, and thus more properly rearm, a great thing. The borderline-extreme, right-wing tendencies in the latest governments have indeed reduced civil liberties, judicial independence and media freedom in PL, but I agree with you generally that it is quite a stretch to say that the TDF's purpose is to bring some type of dictatorship. On UKR refugees, even though over 3 million went to PL, a large amount of these headed to GER (over 700k), CZ (c.330k), and other countries, and some have returned to UKR, so the proportion is probably around 40-50%, and the absolute number probably closer to 2mill--still a very, very large number, and one to admire for the kindness and humanity of the PL people. (To put in perspective, it would be the equivalent to the US receiving over 16 million refugees!). Again, awesome work on your end! Very informative! Thanks!
    10
  2562. 10
  2563. 10
  2564. 10
  2565. 10
  2566. 10
  2567. 10
  2568. 10
  2569. 10
  2570. 10
  2571. 10
  2572. 10
  2573. 10
  2574. 10
  2575. 10
  2576. 10
  2577. 10
  2578. 10
  2579. 10
  2580. 10
  2581. 10
  2582. 10
  2583. 10
  2584. 10
  2585. 10
  2586. 9
  2587. 9
  2588. 9
  2589. 9
  2590. 9
  2591. 9
  2592. 9
  2593. 9
  2594. 9
  2595. 9
  2596. 9
  2597. 9
  2598. Dude, you really dont know anything about what happening there, do you? The reason they cant move directly forward from Donbas is because the majority of the Ukrainian military is there and has been there since 2014, which is when the war actually began. Those are the best equipped and experienced units. The move from the south, after Mariupol and from the north after Kharkiv, will be to encircle them. Or option B - Lay siege on Kiev to force them to move to Kiev in support, at which point they will be forced to leave their positions, split and be more vulnerable to strikes, which will further disorganize the Ukrainian forces. Any actual advance into Kiev by Russians is unlikely to happen. Wouldnt really make sense. The convoy, if actually true to the scale suggested (which I doubt is accurate) might actually be the gamble Russians make to force the UA positions to move to Kiev. As for looting and such, Ukrainians do plenty of that themselves. Its an inevitable part of any conflict. Some mayors of cities most affected by it have issued a "shoot to kill" order for looters. Especially since authorities handed out tens of thousands of guns to everyone who wanted one. Its very likely Russians will up the airforce use. The initial phase was kind of shock and awe with cruise missile strikes. They expected that to be enough, but it wasnt. Unfortunately many Ukrainian units, especially the nationalist battalions, are deliberately using civilian areas for cover, often to the outrage of locals. As for the destroyed equipment. Its common practice to abandon vehicles if they break down or are disabled by fire. Hence the large number of them, often without a scratch, but with no bodies in sight. There are two sides to every story, you will never get the full picture if you sick to just one. As fucked up as this is, again, why it ok for America to invade and bomb but not for anyone else? Are we just jealous they are cutting in on our hobby or what? This situation is pretty much an exact remake of Serbia - Kosovo. What did we do there? We bombed Serbia to "bring the Serbs to peace" over their continued war in Kosovo. Remember? Exact same thing now - Russia goes into Ukraine over the Donbas conflict that has lasted 8 years. Not to mention shit like Iraq, which was a war for nothing build on a fabrication that no one got punished for. As much as we like to pretend, we are not always the good guys. In fact, we rarely are. No one mentions the OSCE reports of continued shelling of Donbas by the Ukrainian forces since 2014, no one mentions the 1 million Ukrainian refugees that fled to Russia from their own army and their own government that decided they are "terrorists" for disagreeing with the government. Its sad that the media and most people around the world pick and choose facts that suit their preferred narrative. Meanwhile 13,000 civilians have been killed in Donbas by Ukrainian attacks over the last 8 years. And did anyone say a word about it? No... Just shows how much one really cares about the Ukrainian people. i.e. not at all.. What they do care about is weakening Russia. Now, while that is a good thing, for us anyway, it wont be successful. All it will do is push Russia and China closer together. Sucks.
    9
  2599. Chris. I’d disagree with you thinking that a 9 man squad is the perfect size. Hear me out here. One of the biggest reasons they cited as to why they decreased the size of the squad was the fact that 12 people is harder to control by conscripted NCOs and replacement conscripts will find it easier to integrate with a smaller squad. However we haven’t had conscripts since 1973, 47 years ago. They also made the incorrect assumption they’ve always made that “weapons development will increase individual firepower and compensate for the lack of firepower in the squad.” Like when they took out the BAR when the M1 was adopted. And even if this is a correct assumption, those improvements are also true for the adversaries of the US, thus negating that advantage and presenting a new disadvantage of having less firepower and personnel in the squad level and making them more susceptible to attrition. Several discontinuities since 1949, 71 years ago, necessitates the rethinking of the legacy 9 man squad. The improvements in the accuracy of fires, targeting, and reconnaissance systems used by peer and near peer adversaries of the US necessitates in future engagements the use of the squad as the smallest primary unit for fire and maneuver instead of the platoon in the battle space. We might see the 12 man army rifle squad come back again bois. Another discontinuity is the increase growth of urbanization and how it will affect attrition of personnel. Engagements against a conventional adversary in urban terrain will incur higher attrition levels than what the US has faced in recent decades against insurgents or non-peer conventional forces.
    9
  2600. 9
  2601. 9
  2602. 9
  2603. 9
  2604. 9
  2605. 9
  2606. 9
  2607. 9
  2608. 9
  2609. 9
  2610. 9
  2611. 9
  2612. 9
  2613. 9
  2614. 9
  2615. 9
  2616. 9
  2617. 9
  2618. 9
  2619. 9
  2620. 9
  2621. 9
  2622. 9
  2623. 9
  2624. 9
  2625. 9
  2626. 9
  2627. 9
  2628. 9
  2629. 9
  2630. 9
  2631. 9
  2632. 9
  2633. 9
  2634. 9
  2635. 9
  2636. 9
  2637. 9
  2638. 9
  2639. 9
  2640. 9
  2641. 9
  2642. 9
  2643. 9
  2644. 9
  2645. 9
  2646. 9
  2647. 9
  2648. 9
  2649. 9
  2650. 9
  2651. 9
  2652. 9
  2653. 9
  2654. 9
  2655. 9
  2656. 9
  2657. 9
  2658. 9
  2659. 9
  2660. 9
  2661. 9
  2662. 9
  2663. 9
  2664. 9
  2665. 9
  2666. 9
  2667. 9
  2668. 9
  2669. 9
  2670. 9
  2671. 9
  2672. 8
  2673. 8
  2674. 8
  2675. 8
  2676. 8
  2677. 8
  2678. 8
  2679. 8
  2680. 8
  2681. 8
  2682. 8
  2683. 8
  2684. 8
  2685. 8
  2686. 8
  2687. 8
  2688. 8
  2689. 8
  2690. 8
  2691. 8
  2692. 8
  2693. 8
  2694. 8
  2695. 8
  2696. 8
  2697. 8
  2698. 8
  2699. 8
  2700. 8
  2701. 8
  2702. 8
  2703. 8
  2704. 8
  2705. 8
  2706. 8
  2707. 8
  2708. 8
  2709. 8
  2710. 8
  2711. 8
  2712. 8
  2713. 8
  2714. 8
  2715. 8
  2716. 8
  2717. 8
  2718. 8
  2719. 8
  2720. 8
  2721. 8
  2722. 8
  2723. 8
  2724. 8
  2725. 8
  2726. 8
  2727. 8
  2728. 8
  2729. 8
  2730. 8
  2731. 8
  2732. 8
  2733. 8
  2734. 8
  2735. 8
  2736. 8
  2737. 8
  2738. 8
  2739. 8
  2740. 8
  2741. 8
  2742. 8
  2743. 8
  2744. 8
  2745. 8
  2746. 8
  2747. 8
  2748. 8
  2749. 8
  2750. 8
  2751. 8
  2752. 8
  2753. 8
  2754. 8
  2755. 8
  2756. 8
  2757. 8
  2758. 8
  2759. 8
  2760. 8
  2761. 8
  2762. 8
  2763. 8
  2764. 8
  2765. 8
  2766. 8
  2767. 8
  2768. 8
  2769. 8
  2770. 8
  2771. 8
  2772. 8
  2773. 8
  2774. 8
  2775. 8
  2776. 8
  2777. 7
  2778. 7
  2779. 7
  2780. 7
  2781. 7
  2782. 7
  2783. 7
  2784. 7
  2785. 7
  2786. 7
  2787. 7
  2788. 7
  2789. 7
  2790. 7
  2791. 7
  2792. 7
  2793. 7
  2794. 7
  2795. 7
  2796. 7
  2797. 7
  2798. 7
  2799. 7
  2800. 7
  2801. 7
  2802. 7
  2803. 7
  2804. 7
  2805. 7
  2806. 7
  2807. 7
  2808. 7
  2809. 7
  2810. 7
  2811. 7
  2812. 7
  2813. Yes please make more. But can you make it about infantry and squad tactics? Like compare how you guys took iraq or whatever in terms of city and state levels, then can you also make a separate detailed video about urban combat, and both videos based on the equipment both sides have and are using? Like how you showed the map of Ukraine and the highway, then talked about tanks and how roads csn be booby trapped etc. Do a whole video just on that kinda stuff. Focus on the weapons like AK12 and night sites and what pros and cons each side have and what their tactics and strategies will be as a result of their equipment and limitations etc. Maybe another video can be about the whole geopolitical situation starting from 2014 or even before. You can't really deny that usa had a hand in the 2014 coup, you can search for Victoria nulands leaked audio where she basically admits it. When even John McCain a US senator goes to Ukraine to make political statements and other stuff, it's pretty obvious usa is involved and meddling. It's like if some Russian or Chinese senator went to usa and was backing or supporting some opposition rebel militia group in usa that wanted to split from USA, or even worse, overthrow it's whole government and replace it. That's how Russia sees Ukraine from 2014 to now. You claim the 2014 gov and before was a Russian puppet. Why not just say they were pro Russian? They were legitimately elected, and I don't think anyone doubts that. So regardless of everything else, the statement of "Ukrainians legitimate democratically elected government was overthrown" is objectively true and not disputable. Accusations of corruption from the leader or whatever is irrelevant. It's like saying because trump or whoever is corrupt, Russia can then meddle and can overthrow the whole usa gov or actively support opposition groups and arm opposition militias etc. That's just ridiculous but I'm guessing Americans think that it's their god given right to make accusations of corruption or human rights abuse and just invade and overthrow any other sovereign country anytime they want since that's what USA has been doing since forever and still doing. Russia just copied usas playbook this time and usa and eu cannot say anything. How is Russia copying usas playbook? They said luhansk and Donetsk had a referendum and voted to be independent, so they are supporting self determination. They said they are going in to be peacekeepers to protect Russian ethnics from violence and genocide. Again copying usa making genocide accusations with zero evidence whatsoever. Just like usa did to china except instead of invasion usa and west did sanctions. Luckily china is strong enough to defend itself nowadays from both invasion and sanctions. Usa and west and especially Ukraine is reaping what they sowed. Can't believe Ukraine is still talking tough saying they will defeat anyone and everyone. They could have avoided all this by just negotiating with Russia and giving security guarantees like not joining nato or hosting us or eu troops and weapon systems, and declaring neutrality. They at least had some leverage before war started. Now they got nothing, and will be taking massive damage and deaths, and in the end they will have to make even more concessions than if they made them at the start. I guess it's not easy to admit you're weak and have less leverage before the fighting evne starts and ends, but that's why you need a good leader with foresight and not just talk tough and ignore reality, and hoping that usa or nato will fight your war and die for you. Ukraine was always the one who would be dying and who would be destroyed, not russia, not usa, not other eu countries. They took a risk that usa or eu would protect them anyone with half a brain cell knows that would never happen. Russia is a nuclear superpower in military terms, no one is fighting Russia unless they have no other option. Unless your name is zelensky and you're an idiot who can only talk tough to keep their job while their people will be the one dying, but I digress. Good video Cappy. Hope you can make more on this topic and do the ones I mentioned above.
    7
  2814. 7
  2815. 7
  2816. 7
  2817. 7
  2818. 7
  2819. 7
  2820. 7
  2821. 7
  2822. 7
  2823. 7
  2824. 7
  2825. 7
  2826. 7
  2827. 7
  2828. 7
  2829. 7
  2830. 7
  2831. 7
  2832. 7
  2833. 7
  2834. 7
  2835. 7
  2836. 7
  2837. 7
  2838. 7
  2839. 7
  2840. 7
  2841. 7
  2842. 7
  2843. 7
  2844. 7
  2845. 7
  2846. 7
  2847. 7
  2848. 7
  2849. 7
  2850. 7
  2851. 7
  2852. 7
  2853. 7
  2854. Interesting video but there are certain points to be made : Russia does not have sufficient troops across the border, for a large scale invasion of Ukraine and has no reason to invade, unless provoked by Ukraine. They are using power politics, making it clear that they will not accept NATO in Ukraine. The main problem is that eastern Ukraine is inhabited by Russians that are Ukrainian citizens and not Ukrainians. Western Ukrainians are actually of Polish Lithuanian origin and hate the Russians. However Kiev was historically the area were Russians originated and were called Kievan Rus. Much later through Mongol, Teutonic and Polish Lithuanian invasions the Russians were pushed to the East. During WW2 the Ukrainians initially saw the Nazis as liberators, but the German's brutality turned them back to the side of the Soviets. Crimea was part of Russia, until Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev donated it to Ukraine, for their contribution in WW2, after all they were all Soviet comrades at the time. Crimea has always been a flash point in the region and numerous wars between Russia and the Ottoman empire were fought over it. In the most famous one, the British were involved on the side of the Ottomans and is the war that the charge of the light brigade took place. For the west Crimea has always been of interest because it is the only major warm water port Imperial Russia, the Soviet Union and now Russia again have, that can be operational year round. Frankly, I think that the Russians are justified to fear the West, after all the invasions of Russia by the western powers, from the Teutonic Crusaders to Napoleon and Hitler. The current situation is not handled well by the US, you cant boss around a nuclear superpower and it is not to the best interest of any one for the US to go against the two largest countries of the world at the same time: Russia, the largest country in area and China the country with the largest population. A war in Europe will not stay only in Europe. In my opinion the thing to do in order to have everyone to save face, would be to invite both Russia and Ukraine to join NATO, in accordance to the saying: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". This would work both ways, for the West and the Russians, in addition to keeping the Far East stable. This is a most interesting video about the history of the Russians, that is directly influencing recent events : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0Wmc8C0Eq0
    7
  2855. 7
  2856. 7
  2857. 7
  2858. 7
  2859. 7
  2860. 7
  2861. 7
  2862. 7
  2863. 7
  2864. 7
  2865. 7
  2866. 7
  2867. 7
  2868. 7
  2869. 7
  2870. 7
  2871. 7
  2872. 7
  2873. 7
  2874. 7
  2875. 7
  2876. 7
  2877. 7
  2878. 7
  2879. 7
  2880. 7
  2881. 7
  2882. 7
  2883. 7
  2884. 7
  2885. 7
  2886. 7
  2887. 7
  2888. 7
  2889. 7
  2890. 7
  2891. 7
  2892. 7
  2893. 7
  2894. 7
  2895. 7
  2896. 7
  2897. 7
  2898. 7
  2899. 7
  2900. 7
  2901. 7
  2902. 7
  2903. 7
  2904. 7
  2905. 7
  2906. 7
  2907. 7
  2908. 7
  2909. 7
  2910. 7
  2911. 7
  2912. 7
  2913. 7
  2914. 7
  2915. few corrections man, (vids pretty good btw). Lance 2.0 sports Mk30/2 main gun, same as Puma (as name suggests its a 30mm autocannon, good airburst rounds though). koreans use base form K21 (which AS21 is based of, better gun IMO, being 40mm and all no missile launcher though, PIP will solve that problem though, that + KAPS hard-kill). Griffin III is ASCOD chassis (spanish/austrian joint project, hence the name btw, companies making it were later bought by GD), not Ajax, that thing itself is also based from ASCOD chassis (see the thing literally everywhere on the net these days), updated 2 model (by updated i mean bigger) and in all fairness that thing is FUGLY although i guess nice way to mod it for i dunno, a light tank, (Griffin II), if it can be modded like that (not 100% sure on that part). as for APS (not correction or anything, just a opinion) think hard-kill is better despite problems it poses for dismounts, because hard-kills can face larger variety of threats, be it RPG or ATGM. because soft-kill systems might or might not affect the incoming missile (depends on system and missile its facing). israelis did adjust their infantry tactics when working with Merkava 4M (has trophy APS the same one new M1s are fielding) Main battle tanks, so i don't see why US shouldn't follow suit. outta the 4 platforms though? i think i'd take KF41, good autocannon, pretty "modular" (ugh can't escape that one, can i?) can carry a full rifle squad? perfect. although knowing US national pride might get in the way.
    7
  2916. 7
  2917. 6
  2918. 6
  2919. 6
  2920. 6
  2921. 6
  2922. 6
  2923. 6
  2924. 6
  2925. 6
  2926. 6
  2927. 6
  2928. 6
  2929. 6
  2930. 6
  2931. 6
  2932. 6
  2933. 6
  2934. 6
  2935. 6
  2936. 6
  2937. 6
  2938. 6
  2939. 6
  2940. 6
  2941. 6
  2942. 6
  2943. 6
  2944. 6
  2945. 6
  2946. 6
  2947. 6
  2948. 6
  2949. 6
  2950. 6
  2951. 6
  2952. 6
  2953. 6
  2954. 6
  2955. 6
  2956. 6
  2957. 6
  2958. 6
  2959. 6
  2960. 6
  2961. 6
  2962. 6
  2963. 6
  2964. 6
  2965. 6
  2966. 6
  2967. 6
  2968. 6
  2969. 6
  2970. 6
  2971. 6
  2972. 6
  2973. 6
  2974. 6
  2975. 6
  2976. 6
  2977. 6
  2978. 6
  2979. 6
  2980. 6
  2981. 6
  2982. 6
  2983. 6
  2984. 6
  2985. 6
  2986. 6
  2987. 6
  2988. 6
  2989. 6
  2990. 6
  2991. 6
  2992. 6
  2993. 6
  2994. 6
  2995. 6
  2996. 6
  2997. 6
  2998. 6
  2999. 6
  3000. 6
  3001. 6
  3002. 6
  3003. 6
  3004. 6
  3005. To those who question quality vs quantity, WWII between Germany and USSR is a good example of outcome. Also conflicts like ambush in Nigeria when four American green berets were killed when a mobile group of trained country men on motorbikes armed with AKM rifles completely destroyed "anti terrorist" forces which had all the modern technology, intelligence and even air support!... and there are many many more examples... In order to benefit from optical sights on infantry assault rifle, first of all you have to see and even know where exactly is your target, and from that distance you will barely see and even know because they will hide everywhere it's possible to hide, and when you inevitably come in closer contact your optical sights will be the reason you will be shot faster than you should have been otherwise... The delusion some experts get, because during modern missions for the most part NATO troop infantries are being used just to shoot a little bit from long distances so less risk is involved, there isn't goal to take over that place at all, and air strikes with rockets do all the job. While in a real war scenario you would have to bring your infantry deeper into territory, and then your problems and different war begins... That's why armies can't conquer Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, North Korea... yes you can destroy all infrastructure with rockets, but then you are just criminal evil and not powerful conqueror as most big empires would like to be... and without infrastructure guerrilla fighters gain even more advantage over regular army of invaders...
    6
  3006. 6
  3007. 6
  3008. 6
  3009. 6
  3010. 6
  3011. 6
  3012. 6
  3013. 6
  3014. 6
  3015. 6
  3016. 6
  3017. 6
  3018. 6
  3019. 6
  3020. 6
  3021. 6
  3022. 6
  3023. 6
  3024. 6
  3025. 6
  3026. 6
  3027. 6
  3028. 6
  3029. 6
  3030. 6
  3031. 6
  3032. 6
  3033. 6
  3034. 6
  3035. 6
  3036. 6
  3037. 6
  3038. 6
  3039. 6
  3040. 6
  3041. 6
  3042. 6
  3043. 6
  3044. 6
  3045. 6
  3046. 6
  3047. 6
  3048. 6
  3049. 6
  3050. 6
  3051. 6
  3052. 6
  3053. 6
  3054. 6
  3055. 6
  3056. 6
  3057. 6
  3058. 6
  3059. 6
  3060. 6
  3061. 6
  3062. 6
  3063. 6
  3064. 6
  3065. 6
  3066. 6
  3067. 6
  3068. 6
  3069. 6
  3070. 6
  3071. 6
  3072. 6
  3073. 6
  3074. 6
  3075. 6
  3076. 6
  3077. 5
  3078. 5
  3079. To me the ammo development is still the most interesting feature of most of these designs. But. Considering the designs themselves without ANY of them haveing saw conflict ANYWHERE is somewhat foolish and moot. Actual combat, even on a small scale,for a prolonged period of time would give the best indicator of which is the best design. Aside from actual test to utter destruction. For my own two cents though. I'd lean toward the more conventional Sig designs. It's conventional enough to NOT require too much of a retrain/retain period on its operation. And is put out by a company the U.S. military is already doing business with. However. The .338 offering......which I'm figuring is .338 Lapua to us civvies. Is interresting. But not something I'd ever wanna have to lug around along with belted rounds of ammunition. It's less like a true SAW and more like a slightly lightened LMG from WW1 or WW2. And I don't think that 7.62x51 is what we should be considering replaceing the most here anyways. As its had a fairly good track record at putting down bad guys and punching holes through light equipment for almost as long as the venerable .50 cal Browning. WITH THE PROPER BULLET/CARTRIDGE DESIGN combo!!! And most of its existing ammo and LMG weapon types are already combat proven and can be carried and fielded by one, two, or three, individuals effectively....if the situation merits it. Without necessarily needing 8 other guys and a pet monkey to help carry ammo.... alone. But the 40+ year old 5.56 on the other hand is a prime candidate for replacement. Especially when considering the fact that ANY future conflict could very well find the U.S. going up against peer group adversaries. Who's likely more numerous infantry will also very likely be wearing equivalent or better body armor and packing harder hitting, longer ranged, intermediate calibered rifles and carbines. Like those chambered in 6.5 or 6.8.. Of which both China and Russia have weapons/cartridge combos that they are either fielding on a limited or wholesale basis.
    5
  3080. 5
  3081. 5
  3082. 5
  3083. 5
  3084. 5
  3085. 5
  3086. 5
  3087. 5
  3088. 5
  3089. 5
  3090. 5
  3091. 5
  3092. 5
  3093. 5
  3094. 5
  3095. 5
  3096. 5
  3097. 5
  3098. 5
  3099. 5
  3100. 5
  3101. 5
  3102. 5
  3103. 5
  3104. 5
  3105. 5
  3106. 5
  3107. 5
  3108. 5
  3109. 5
  3110. 5
  3111. 5
  3112. 5
  3113. 5
  3114. 5
  3115. 5
  3116. 5
  3117. 5
  3118. 5
  3119. 5
  3120. 5
  3121. 5
  3122. 5
  3123. 5
  3124. 5
  3125. 5
  3126. 5
  3127. 5
  3128. 5
  3129. 5
  3130. 5
  3131. 5
  3132. 5
  3133. 5
  3134. 5
  3135. 5
  3136. 5
  3137. 5
  3138. 5
  3139. 5
  3140. 5
  3141. 5
  3142. 5
  3143. 5
  3144. 5
  3145. 5
  3146. 5
  3147. 5
  3148. 5
  3149. 5
  3150. 5
  3151. 5
  3152. 5
  3153. 5
  3154. 5
  3155. 5
  3156. 5
  3157. 5
  3158. 5
  3159. 5
  3160. 5
  3161. 5
  3162. 5
  3163. 5
  3164. 5
  3165. 5
  3166. 5
  3167. 5
  3168. 5
  3169. 5
  3170. 5
  3171. 5
  3172. 5
  3173. 5
  3174. 5
  3175. 5
  3176. 5
  3177. 5
  3178. 5
  3179. 5
  3180. 5
  3181. 5
  3182. 5
  3183. 5
  3184. 5
  3185. 5
  3186. 5
  3187. 5
  3188. 5
  3189. 5
  3190. 5
  3191. 5
  3192. 5
  3193. 5
  3194. 5
  3195. 5
  3196. 5
  3197. 5
  3198. 5
  3199. 5
  3200. 5
  3201. 5
  3202. 5
  3203. 5
  3204. 5
  3205. 5
  3206. 5
  3207. 5
  3208. 5
  3209. 5
  3210. 5
  3211. 5
  3212. 5
  3213. 5
  3214. 5
  3215. 5
  3216. 5
  3217. 5
  3218. 5
  3219. 5
  3220. 5
  3221. 5
  3222. 5
  3223. 5
  3224. 5
  3225. 5
  3226. 5
  3227. 5
  3228. 5
  3229. 5
  3230. 5
  3231. 5
  3232. 5
  3233. 5
  3234. 5
  3235. 5
  3236. 5
  3237. 5
  3238. 5
  3239. 5
  3240. 5
  3241. 5
  3242. 5
  3243. 5
  3244. 5
  3245. 5
  3246. 5
  3247. 5
  3248. 5
  3249. 5
  3250. 5
  3251. 5
  3252. 5
  3253. 5
  3254. 5
  3255. 5
  3256. 5
  3257. 5
  3258. 5
  3259. 5
  3260. 5
  3261. 5
  3262. 5
  3263. 5
  3264. 5
  3265. 5
  3266. 5
  3267. 5
  3268. 5
  3269. 5
  3270. 5
  3271. 5
  3272. 4
  3273. 4
  3274. 4
  3275. 4
  3276. 4
  3277. 4
  3278. 4
  3279. 4
  3280. 4
  3281. 4
  3282. 4
  3283. 4
  3284. 4
  3285. 4
  3286. 4
  3287. 4
  3288. 4
  3289. 4
  3290. 4
  3291. 4
  3292. 4
  3293. 4
  3294. 4
  3295. 4
  3296. 4
  3297. 4
  3298. 4
  3299. 4
  3300. 4
  3301. 4
  3302. 4
  3303. 4
  3304. 4
  3305. 4
  3306. 4
  3307. 4
  3308. 4
  3309. 4
  3310. 4
  3311. 4
  3312. 4
  3313. 4
  3314. 4
  3315. 4
  3316. 4
  3317. 4
  3318. 4
  3319. 4
  3320. 4
  3321. 4
  3322. 4
  3323. 4
  3324. 4
  3325. 4
  3326. 4
  3327. 4
  3328. 4
  3329. 4
  3330. 4
  3331. 4
  3332. 4
  3333. 4
  3334. 4
  3335. 4
  3336. 4
  3337. 4
  3338. 4
  3339. 4
  3340. 4
  3341. 4
  3342. 4
  3343. 4
  3344. 4
  3345. 4
  3346. 4
  3347. 4
  3348. 4
  3349. 4
  3350. 4
  3351. 4
  3352. 4
  3353. 4
  3354. 4
  3355. 4
  3356. 4
  3357. 4
  3358. 4
  3359. 4
  3360. 4
  3361. 4
  3362. 4
  3363. 4
  3364. 4
  3365. 4
  3366. 4
  3367. 4
  3368. 4
  3369. 4
  3370. 4
  3371. 4
  3372. 4
  3373. 4
  3374. 4
  3375. 4
  3376. 4
  3377. 4
  3378. 4
  3379. 4
  3380. 4
  3381. 4
  3382. 4
  3383. 4
  3384. 4
  3385. 4
  3386. 4
  3387. 4
  3388. 4
  3389. 4
  3390. 4
  3391. 4
  3392. 4
  3393. 4
  3394. 4
  3395. 4
  3396. 4
  3397. 4
  3398. 4
  3399. 4
  3400. 4
  3401. 4
  3402. 4
  3403. 4
  3404. 4
  3405. 4
  3406. 4
  3407. 4
  3408. 4
  3409. 4
  3410. 4
  3411. 4
  3412. 4
  3413. 4
  3414. 4
  3415. 4
  3416. 4
  3417. 4
  3418. 4
  3419. 4
  3420. 4
  3421. 4
  3422. 4
  3423. 4
  3424. 4
  3425. 4
  3426. 4
  3427. 4
  3428. 4
  3429. 4
  3430. 4
  3431. 4
  3432. 4
  3433. 4
  3434. 4
  3435. 4
  3436. 4
  3437. 4
  3438. 4
  3439. 4
  3440. 4
  3441. 4
  3442. 4
  3443. 4
  3444. 4
  3445. 4
  3446. 4
  3447. 4
  3448. 4
  3449. 4
  3450. 4
  3451. 4
  3452. 4
  3453. 4
  3454. 4
  3455. 4
  3456. 4
  3457. 4
  3458. 4
  3459. 4
  3460. 4
  3461. 4
  3462. 4
  3463. 4
  3464. 4
  3465. 4
  3466. 4
  3467. 4
  3468. 4
  3469. 4
  3470. 4
  3471. 4
  3472. 4
  3473. I've only watched a few of your videos and I'm enjoying them. Your presentation is creative and the production quality is very good. The information ... well, you're reporting the news, not responsible for the accuracy of the information. A lot of other people in positions of authority within the US Military are only anecdotally aware of ballistics and weapon mechanics, particularly evident in this video. If you're a TL;DR, you can stop here The US Military as a group of organizations knows practically zero about handguns. Specific members know a great deal about handguns and have been instrumental in educating the shooting public. However, the organizations are not listening to them and are making gun decisions for other reasons than how they function. All of the things mentioned on the reason the Sig P320 was chosen are not special, in fact, Sig is rather late to the party on many of them, having resisted change until the past year or so. The proprietary rear sight set-up as an example, specific to only the M17/M18 variants, only makes it easier to attach the Sig Sauer optic and makes it difficult to mount other (better) optics except for the Leupold because of its similar geometry. In fact, the only benefit to the P320 design (which they're being sued for copyright infringement for) is the ability to remove the removable mechanical group and mount it into a chassis to give it a completely different mission profile. Otherwise, their design is a convoluted interpretation of the M17 program's parameters. You know damn well that the pistol you get issued is in the configuration you are stuck with. No armorer is going to swap out parts to make it easier to deploy, they'll just swap out pistols IF you've filled out the right forms and are in a duty assignment calling for that specific set-up. So, the "modularity" as interpreted by Sig will never come into play in the way it has been sold.
    4
  3474. 4
  3475. 4
  3476. 4
  3477. 4
  3478. 4
  3479. 4
  3480. 4
  3481. 4
  3482. 4
  3483. 4
  3484. 4
  3485. 4
  3486. 4
  3487. 4
  3488. 4
  3489. 4
  3490. 4
  3491. 4
  3492. 4
  3493. 4
  3494. So its hard to be replaced because: 1. its fast: In which case exactly is this an argument? You can develop new Vehicles which are fast as fuck. There comes a problem with that... where is the protection compared to the bradley or the Weapon with a stabilizer or the ATGM mounted to the Turret. Well there is non so yeah that comparison is a little bit mhm. I mean you can refit it but yeah bye bye Speed. 2. firepower and situational awarness: More modern vehicles can give you more Firepower (LYNX, Puma, Boxer with Lance turret) and even older once do. You have an fu*king 30mm CLIP FEEDED Rarden "Autocanon" which is not even stabilized and the vehicle has not even a ATGM. and situational awarness, nah i dont think so when there isnt even a NV system integrated and more modern vehicles have much more modern electronic systems. 3. historic wartime performance: Ok now what? The Bradley had too. So did the BMP 2. But systems are getting old and more modern tech comes. You cant just upgrade an existing Plattform to the no go until it wont drive anymore. At sometime you have to build a new platform even if it did a good job. The Leopard 2 will get replaced by the MGCS in some decades even if the leopard 2 was a potent tank it has to be replaced reaching its upgrade limit. 4. potential of upgrading it: Yeah well read point 3... They tried it but in favor for a new more modern System which will fit the new Reform more they cancelled it and the Warrior will get replaced. And now to the Ajax: There is no Ajax IFV variant, just an APC variant (ARES) or the Recon Variant which is not an IFV (AJAX) Is it better than the Bradley?: Well which version are we talking about? Is no stabilizer but 5mm more on the gun better? Not really. Lets shit on those 5mm when you have a tow on the standard model. There is no NV system? Another negative point for the warrior. Its not that armored compared to the Bradley? well another point for the Bradley. So what are the pros of the Warrior in my eyes? Its fast, small and can carry one more guy. I like the warrior but it reached its point of destination like the Bradley will or the Marder did
    4
  3495. 4
  3496. 4
  3497. 4
  3498. 4
  3499. 4
  3500. 4
  3501. 4
  3502. 4
  3503. 4
  3504. 4
  3505. 4
  3506. 4
  3507. 4
  3508. 4
  3509. 4
  3510. 4
  3511. 4
  3512. 4
  3513. 4
  3514. 4
  3515. 4
  3516. 4
  3517. 4
  3518. 4
  3519. 4
  3520. 4
  3521. 4
  3522. 4
  3523. 4
  3524. 4
  3525. 4
  3526. 4
  3527. 4
  3528. 4
  3529. 4
  3530. 4
  3531. 4
  3532. 4
  3533. 4
  3534. 4
  3535. 4
  3536. 4
  3537. 4
  3538. 4
  3539. 4
  3540. 4
  3541. 4
  3542. 4
  3543. 4
  3544. 4
  3545. 4
  3546. 4
  3547. 4
  3548. 4
  3549. 4
  3550. 4
  3551. 4
  3552. 4
  3553. 4
  3554. 4
  3555. 4
  3556. 4
  3557. 4
  3558. 4
  3559. 3
  3560. 3
  3561. 3
  3562. 3
  3563. 3
  3564. 3
  3565. 3
  3566. 3
  3567. 3
  3568. 3
  3569. 3
  3570. 3
  3571. 3
  3572. 3
  3573. 3
  3574. 3
  3575. 3
  3576. 3
  3577. 3
  3578. 3
  3579. 3
  3580. 3
  3581. 3
  3582. 3
  3583. 3
  3584. 3
  3585. 3
  3586. 3
  3587. 3
  3588. 3
  3589. 3
  3590. 3
  3591. 3
  3592. 3
  3593. 3
  3594. 3
  3595. 3
  3596. 3
  3597. 3
  3598. 3
  3599. 3
  3600. 3
  3601. 3
  3602. 3
  3603. 3
  3604. 3
  3605. 3
  3606. 3
  3607. 3
  3608. 3
  3609. 3
  3610. 3
  3611. 3
  3612. 3
  3613. 3
  3614. 3
  3615. If you want to know a bit more why French infantry choices were so dumb. There is a good start """It is especially limited by its long-standing presupposition of underestimating human capacities. According to the article in the Encyclopédie written in the mid-18th century by the philosopher Jaucourt, the French soldier was recruited from the vilest part of the nation1. From the Restoration onwards, he was no longer even a volunteer, but was drawn by lot from the poorest and most uneducated backgrounds to spend six to eight years in the army. The term "just between man and thing" was used. The idea persisted for a long time of the low intellectual or moral value of the "simple" soldier and this had considerable strategic consequences. The first - and this was particularly the case in France, at least until recently - was that it was considered of little use to push technical training very far. Before the First World War, artillerymen serving the 75 mm gun only learned three types of fire during their time in service, whereas the war would show that they were capable of mastering more than twenty. In the same way, it was considered that the French infantryman was necessarily a mediocre shooter and no particular effort was made to raise his level, preferring collective shooting. Under these conditions, and although prototypes of automatic rifles, i.e., those that could be rearmed on their own, existed before the Great War, they refused to equip the men with them in order to avoid the waste of ammunition that would result unnecessarily from this high rate of fire. The under-armament of French infantrymen was a constant in the 20th century, with the human cost that one can imagine. It was not until 1938 that the first machine pistol appeared, albeit a mediocre one. It was not until 1938 that the Viet Minh units had more firepower than ours that a new generation of light weapons appeared, but they missed the revolution of the assault rifle, which was not adopted until the end of the 1970s - among the last modern armies. This limitation is also considered to be moral. In 1914, the French command was convinced that there would be about 15% of draft evaders, but only 0.4% of them would be mobilized. He refused the parachute, convinced that the pilots would take advantage of it to escape from combat by jumping. In the autumn of 1914, he was wary of the appearance of these "humanitarian" trenches whose "comfort" would inevitably lead to a softening of the situation if care was not taken. The attacks were therefore multiplied, as deadly as they were often useless, in order to maintain the "momentum" through incessant charges. The French infantry thus ended 1915 terribly bruised and exhausted, on the verge of collapse. It was only at this point that they began to take into account such necessities as rest and recognition through awards such as the Croix de Guerre. At the time of the mobilization of 1939, the postulate was more or less the same, but with an opposite effect, since this time the soldiers were not asked to do too much, especially during training, convinced that they would not be able to bear it. This conception of a moral gap between the officer corps, heir to aristocratic values, and the rest of the troops has not necessarily disappeared completely. In 1989, one of my instructors at the Joint Military School introduced the ethics and deontology course by saying that ethics was what differentiated the officer from the NCO. Another consequence is that with this vision of man, to form an acceptable soldier requires time. Since the 19th century, the French command has estimated that it takes a minimum of two years to train an acceptable soldier and units capable of conducting offensive combat, which is considered the most complex. This is one of the reasons why the French active-duty officer corps fiercely opposed Jaurès' militia army project, neglected the reservists and switched from the hyper-offensive doctrine of 1914 to an increasingly defensive doctrine as the length of service was reduced between the wars.2 Even Colonel de Gaulle, who had been a member of the French army since the Second World War, was not a member of the French army. Even Colonel de Gaulle, when he envisaged his rapid reaction armoured force in 1934, did not conceive that it could be served by conscripts. It took the experience of the Second World War and the examples of armies created from nothing, such as the American army, to understand that it was possible to build effective units, including armoured divisions, in less than a year, starting from nothing but with an appropriate""" organization""""" It is from Michel Goya a French Colonel . French army has always seen his infantry as good-for-nothing meat shield and honestly the camo was not the worse problem for the ww1 conscript. The utter lack of competence coming from French officer corps was way much more lethal than color of clothes. Actualy french green camo were tested in 1910 http://www.maquetland.com/article-2485-france-1911-tenue-reseda-paris But yea the boomer of the officer corps never actualy adopted it for dumb fucking aesthetic problem and also because of the fear of not seeing the soldier the command in the battle field becaus they were mentaly blocked in Napoleonic wars. And NGL the fact that higher up were co opted by freemanconery (grand orient de France) for political purposes and not skill and merits explain a lot of the problematic in 1900 french amry and the the sacking of 40% of generals in ww1.
    3
  3616. 3
  3617. 3
  3618. 3
  3619. 3
  3620. 3
  3621. 3
  3622. 3
  3623. 3
  3624. 3
  3625. 3
  3626. 3
  3627. 3
  3628. 3
  3629. 3
  3630. 3
  3631. 3
  3632. 3
  3633. 3
  3634. 3
  3635. 3
  3636. 3
  3637. 3
  3638. 3
  3639. 3
  3640. 3
  3641. 3
  3642. 3
  3643. 3
  3644. 3
  3645. 3
  3646. 3
  3647. 3
  3648. 3
  3649. 3
  3650. 3
  3651. 3
  3652. 3
  3653. 3
  3654. 3
  3655. 3
  3656. 3
  3657. 3
  3658. I think your analysis has been proven wrong, as the front is about 25 (!) km away from the city. It also contradicts some other experts (NATO generals and alike) which I've listened to yesterday and today, along with several reports that seem to confirm that this is obviously not a planned traffic jam. Yes, of course they want to encircle the cities they can not easily take. But why didn't they do that until now? Wait, why did they even lose ground in that encirling movement and had to retreat in some places? The Russian army tries to attack and hold (!) a land comparable with France with only about 150.000 soldiers. That alone seems a bit too less...but when you know that the Ukrainian army now has almost one million soldiers under weapons, not counting the voluntarys, just regular army and reservists...the best tank army in the world won't help you in the cities. And it's not like the Ukrainian army is a dub, they have a lot of heavy and modern weapons as well. What I also critizise is that you think, Putin is doing what he is doing because he has reasons, if real or imaginative. But this old man - he will turn 70 this year - is a psychic. He is a liar and narcissist all the way through. He does not care about the victims (proven by Grosny, Aleppo and now this), he does not care about Russia (proven by not caring about the sanctions) and there is one thing that he can never ever do, period: lose. Yes, this will be a war of attrition, but Putin is fighting on several fronts: the military, the econonical and the home front, where might be powerful people who just realize what damage he does to Russia...and that he is already a very old man, who didn't even care who or what would come after him.
    3
  3659. 3
  3660. 3
  3661. 3
  3662. 3
  3663. 3
  3664. 3
  3665. 3
  3666. 3
  3667. 3
  3668. 3
  3669. 3
  3670. 3
  3671. 3
  3672. 3
  3673. 3
  3674. 3
  3675. 3
  3676. 3
  3677. 3
  3678. 3
  3679. 3
  3680. 3
  3681. 3
  3682. 3
  3683. 3
  3684. 3
  3685. 3
  3686. 3
  3687. 3
  3688. 3
  3689. 3
  3690. 3
  3691. 3
  3692. 3
  3693. 3
  3694. 3
  3695. 3
  3696. 3
  3697. 3
  3698. 3
  3699. 3
  3700. 3
  3701. 3
  3702. 3
  3703. 3
  3704. 3
  3705. 3
  3706. 3
  3707. 3
  3708. 3
  3709. 3
  3710. 3
  3711. 3
  3712. 3
  3713. 3
  3714. 3
  3715. 3
  3716. 3
  3717. 3
  3718. 3
  3719. 3
  3720. 3
  3721. 3
  3722. 3
  3723. 3
  3724. 3
  3725. 3
  3726. 3
  3727. 3
  3728. 3
  3729. 3
  3730. 3
  3731. 3
  3732. 3
  3733. 3
  3734. 3
  3735. 3
  3736. 3
  3737. 3
  3738. 3
  3739. 3
  3740. 3
  3741. 3
  3742. 3
  3743. 3
  3744. 3
  3745. 3
  3746. 3
  3747. 3
  3748. 3
  3749. 3
  3750. 3
  3751. 3
  3752. 3
  3753. 3
  3754. 3
  3755. 3
  3756. 3
  3757. 3
  3758. 3
  3759. 3
  3760. 3
  3761. 3
  3762. 3
  3763. 3
  3764. 3
  3765. 3
  3766. 3
  3767. 3
  3768. 3
  3769. 3
  3770. 3
  3771. 3
  3772. 3
  3773. 3
  3774. 3
  3775. 3
  3776. 3
  3777. 3
  3778. 3
  3779. 3
  3780. 3
  3781. 3
  3782. 3
  3783. 3
  3784. 3
  3785. 3
  3786. 3
  3787. 3
  3788. 3
  3789. 3
  3790. 3
  3791. 3
  3792. 3
  3793. 3
  3794. 3
  3795. 3
  3796. 3
  3797. 3
  3798. 3
  3799. 3
  3800. 3
  3801. 3
  3802. 3
  3803. 3
  3804. 3
  3805. 3
  3806. 3
  3807. 3
  3808. 3
  3809. 3
  3810. 3
  3811. 3
  3812. 3
  3813. 3
  3814. 3
  3815. 3
  3816. 3
  3817. 3
  3818. 3
  3819. 3
  3820. 3
  3821. 3
  3822. 3
  3823. 3
  3824. 3
  3825. 3
  3826. 3
  3827. 3
  3828. 3
  3829. 3
  3830. 3
  3831. 3
  3832. 3
  3833. 3
  3834. 3
  3835. 3
  3836. 3
  3837. 3
  3838. 3
  3839. 3
  3840. 3
  3841. 3
  3842. 3
  3843. 3
  3844. 3
  3845. 3
  3846. 3
  3847. 3
  3848. 3
  3849. 3
  3850. 3
  3851. 3
  3852. 3
  3853. 3
  3854. 3
  3855. 3
  3856. 3
  3857. 3
  3858. 3
  3859. 3
  3860. 3
  3861. 3
  3862. 3
  3863. 3
  3864. 3
  3865. 3
  3866. 3
  3867. 3
  3868. 3
  3869. 3
  3870. 3
  3871. 3
  3872. 3
  3873. 3
  3874. 3
  3875. 3
  3876. 3
  3877. 3
  3878. 3
  3879. 3
  3880. 3
  3881. 3
  3882. 3
  3883. 3
  3884. 3
  3885. 3
  3886. 3
  3887. 3
  3888. 3
  3889. 3
  3890. 3
  3891. 3
  3892. 3
  3893. 3
  3894. 3
  3895. 3
  3896. He missed two key issues. 1. College scholarships from the GI Bill - Many who join the military, do so for the future college benefits of the GI Bill. If the President and/or Congress, offers (or gives signals about offering) to pay off all college debts, then this GREATLY reduces this incentive. Why join and give up 4-6 years for something you can get for free??? In 2007-8 I was the top Air National Guard (ANG) recruiter in the country in a voluntary incentive program they had back then. Well over 90% of the new ANG recruits want the help of the GI Bill and are actually college students! Its not just in this one branch - most new recruits are looking to improve their future and if there are easier ways to get college scholarships then this reduces or eliminates that recruiting tool. Future college scholarship help from the GI Bill is a key recruiting tool. 2. Military culture and lifestyle are reducing retention - if the military took better care of its people, then they wouldn't need as many recruits. The military leadership has become addicted to getting huge numbers of easy recruits. So, they can ignore lousy living conditions, low pay and don't push back against political experimentation in the military. The military is NOT A SOCIAL EXPERIMENT and further attempts to make "try new things" are causing some to leave that might have stayed. Make the military better and more will stay in. Finally, I love this channel but I wish Task & Purpose would be more honest in his commentary. In the effort to be less biased and moderate, he glosses over key points. Why not say what he really thinks???? For instance, for the almost entire history of the volunteer force (over 50 years) the tv recruiting has sold the military as an ADVENTURE, PATRIOTIC, EXCITING, "SEE THE WORLD"etc. THAT WORKED!!! Why change it? Now they put out cute cartoons that aren't even aimed at the core group of recruits: MEN. These ads were largely mocked in the media and contrasted in comparison to our main enemies tv ads. Why not say that? Today over 80% of the U.S. military is still men, so you still need to appeal to that group. Cappy - by saying nice and boring comments like , "we need to tell recruits why defending the nation is important" you are making point but missing the bigger picture. Recruiting is selling a story or dream. Tell the truth, such as "Go back to what worked in prior tv recruiting"! You are a voice of the ex-military, and you have an important voice. But lately your commentary is diluted by trying to be less partisan. No Woke crowd people are watching your youtube because of what you were before! You're losing your core audience of ex-military by trying to present both sides, when you know your side is correct and worked for 3 generations.
    3
  3897. 3
  3898. 3
  3899. 3
  3900. 3
  3901. 3
  3902. 3
  3903. 3
  3904. 3
  3905. 3
  3906. 3
  3907. 3
  3908. 3
  3909. 3
  3910. 3
  3911. 3
  3912. 3
  3913. 3
  3914. 3
  3915. 3
  3916. 3
  3917. 3
  3918. 3
  3919. 3
  3920. 3
  3921. 3
  3922. 3
  3923. 3
  3924. 3
  3925. 3
  3926. 3
  3927. 3
  3928. 3
  3929. 3
  3930. 3
  3931. 3
  3932. 3
  3933. 3
  3934. 3
  3935. 3
  3936. 3
  3937. 3
  3938. 3
  3939. 3
  3940. 3
  3941. 3
  3942. 3
  3943. 3
  3944. 3
  3945. 3
  3946. 3
  3947. 3
  3948. 3
  3949. 3
  3950. 3
  3951. 3
  3952. 3
  3953. 3
  3954. 3
  3955. 3
  3956. 3
  3957. 3
  3958. 3
  3959. 3
  3960. 3
  3961. 3
  3962. 3
  3963. 3
  3964. 3
  3965. 3
  3966. 3
  3967. 3
  3968. 3
  3969. 3
  3970. 3
  3971. 3
  3972. 3
  3973. 3
  3974. 3
  3975. 3
  3976. 3
  3977. 3
  3978. 3
  3979. 3
  3980. 3
  3981. 3
  3982. 3
  3983. 3
  3984. 3
  3985. 3
  3986. 3
  3987. 3
  3988. 3
  3989. 3
  3990. 3
  3991. 3
  3992. 3
  3993. 3
  3994. 3
  3995. 3
  3996. 3
  3997. 3
  3998. 3
  3999. 3
  4000. 3
  4001. 3
  4002. 3
  4003. 3
  4004. 3
  4005. 3
  4006. 3
  4007. 3
  4008. 3
  4009. 3
  4010. 3
  4011. 3
  4012. 3
  4013. 3
  4014. 3
  4015. 3
  4016. 3
  4017. 3
  4018. 3
  4019. 3
  4020. 3
  4021. 3
  4022. 3
  4023. 3
  4024. 3
  4025. 3
  4026. 3
  4027. 3
  4028. 3
  4029. 3
  4030. 3
  4031. 3
  4032. 3
  4033. 3
  4034. 3
  4035. 3
  4036. 3
  4037. 3
  4038. 3
  4039. 3
  4040. 3
  4041. 3
  4042. 3
  4043. 3
  4044. 3
  4045. 3
  4046. 3
  4047. 3
  4048. 3
  4049. 3
  4050. 3
  4051. 3
  4052. 3
  4053. 3
  4054. 3
  4055. 3
  4056. 3
  4057. Love the humor :D Some lighthearted fun is always appreciated :D A few comments. Reason why Galil was made with machined receiver was simple: Israelis encountered arab-made AKs and arab metallurgy at the time (and to this day) sucked. One could literally crush the receiver by stomping on it. Hence the machined receiver. Soviets didn't like the extra weight of the machined receiver since they understood the loads on the infantry soldier. In fact they TO THIS DAY don't like extra weight on a rifle. To such an extent that after trying out the KM-AK kit on AK-74M, they stopped buying it: it made the rifle too heavy in their eyes, especially when one saw how much more is hanged off a soldier these days. As soon as they managed to get technological process down pat to make it all reliable and strong long-term, they made it stamped. These days you can run AK over with a car and it won't crush. Russian-made one mind you. In terms of tolerances. Manufacturing TOLERANCES were actually lineball. What was different was the chosen CLEARANCES which are DELIBERATELY included. It's a popular myth propagated by the misunderstanding and confusion of terms. AKs were built to a far higher specifications relative to what was built in WW2 when larger tolerances were acceptable. In fact the machining on AKs was very accurate, given the fact that equipment to make them was mostly brand new and made in USA in many cases. Russian introduction of 5.45 was inspired by M-16 in Vietnam, and not the Galil in middle east. Also the stock was made the way it was because original AKM stock was more a shoulder brace than stock, so a better-shaped side-folder was introduced. It's also wholly different to Israeli model in terms of construction and the mechanism. Safety selector that Russians use on the AK is done that way for several reasons. One is that it was easy to operate in all conditions, especially below 30 degrees C. Secondly you always knew what the selector is set to, unlike the Galil that you encountered and commented on. Funnily enough Kalashnikov Concern attempted to use that same type of a safety selector on the initial and well-publicised model of AK-12, but it was disliked for its poor operability and for the fact that it was hard to read without actually looking at. Hence abandonment of it on later AK-12. Galils accuracy advantage of AKMs was due to being 5.56 vs 7.62. Also military rifles mechanical accuracy is often down not to the rifle but to ammo. Military ammo isn't particularly accurate. In fact the requirement is to be within around 5MOA with iron sights. AKM and AK-74 had no problem achieving that. In fact military reps at the factory would check each batch of rifles for reliability, sight straightness and group sizes. If 2 rifles failed, the whole batch was rejected. Bolt catch on Galil ACE: it became a thing thanks to an enormous amount of M16/STANAG magazines with appropriate followers that made such an inclusion viable. Reason for why it's not necessary? If you ever have a failure to fire or out of ammo, you ALWAYS duck into cover or concealment to clear the malfunction, whatever it is. Also the position which you are in while reloading and location of the replacement magazine will affect your reloading speed more than having a bolt catch. And if you are prone or on your back, that bolt catch won't matter at all when you are fighting to find the mag and get it out of the pouch.
    3
  4058. 3
  4059. 3
  4060. 3
  4061. 3
  4062. 3
  4063. 3
  4064. 3
  4065. 3
  4066. 3
  4067. 3
  4068. 3
  4069. 3
  4070. 3
  4071. 3
  4072. 3
  4073. 3
  4074. 3
  4075. 3
  4076. 3
  4077. 3
  4078. 3
  4079. 3
  4080. 3
  4081. 3
  4082. 3
  4083. 3
  4084. 3
  4085. 3
  4086. 3
  4087. 3
  4088. 3
  4089. 3
  4090. 3
  4091. 3
  4092. 3
  4093. 3
  4094. 3
  4095. 3
  4096. 3
  4097. 3
  4098. 3
  4099. 3
  4100. 3
  4101. 3
  4102. 3
  4103. 3
  4104. 3
  4105. 3
  4106. 3
  4107. 3
  4108. 3
  4109. 3
  4110. 3
  4111. 3
  4112. 3
  4113. 3
  4114. 3
  4115. 3
  4116. 3
  4117. 3
  4118. 3
  4119. 3
  4120. 3
  4121. 3
  4122. 3
  4123. 3
  4124. 3
  4125. 3
  4126. 3
  4127. 3
  4128. 3
  4129. 3
  4130. 3
  4131. 3
  4132. 3
  4133. 3
  4134. 3
  4135. 3
  4136. 3
  4137. 3
  4138. 3
  4139. 3
  4140. 3
  4141. 3
  4142. 3
  4143. 3
  4144. 3
  4145. 3
  4146. Listen up, T&P. I'm gonna do you a favor in the form of advice, but you're not going to like it. It's good advice that runs against the grain of YouTube conventional wisdom. But YouTube conventional wisdom has it HEAD UP ITS ASS just like many YouTubers do. Ready ? STOP EDITING YOUR VIDEOS SO THEY ARE A CONSTANT, NON-STOP STREAM OF TALKING SUCH THAT THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO PAUSES OR BREAKS. I am fully aware that this type of editing that results in a non-stop stream of language has become de rigueur on YouTube, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK AND YOU NEED TO FIGURE OUT THAT IT DOESNT WORK -- despite the fact that virtually everyone is doing it. It's booolschytte, it doesn't work, and you need to stop it. Why doesn't it work ? Because the human mind cannot follow a non-stop stream of language for more than about two minutes before it needs a break to process what it just heard. THIS NON-STOP KRAPPE DOES NOT WORK. After about three minutes the listener's eyes gloss over because the mind cannot continue to follow the non-stop stream of language. Ask any professor of communications at any college about this. In Communications 101, which is speech class, one of the first things they teach you is the value of the occasional pause. It should be 5 to 6 seconds, every few minutes. And if you have the occasional 2 to 3 second pause in-between the longer ones, it helps your audience keep up with the lecture/language stream even better. Talking at a natural pace works. Editing out every silence that is longer than a quarter-of-a-second so that the listener is assaulted with a relentless, non-stop stream of language for 5, 10, or 15 minutes DOES NOT WORK. IT'S ENTIRELY UNWATCHABLE. Don't take my word for it. Take this video to any college communications professor and have him watch it and tell you what he thinks. He'll tell you exactly what I'm telling you: the human mind cannot follow this style of relentless, rapid, non-stop language flow for more that two minutes without a pause/break, and it would be better if it were not edited to have such a rapid pace to begin with. Speak at a normal pace and put in a 5 to 6 second pause every 3 to four minutes. And ignore what all the other YouTubers are doing to make their own videos unwatchable.
    3
  4147. 3
  4148. 3
  4149. 3
  4150. 3
  4151. 3
  4152. 3
  4153. 3
  4154. 3
  4155. 3
  4156. 3
  4157. 3
  4158. 3
  4159. 3
  4160. 3
  4161. 3
  4162. 3
  4163. 3
  4164. 3
  4165. 3
  4166. 3
  4167. 3
  4168. 3
  4169. 3
  4170. 3
  4171. 3
  4172. 3
  4173. 3
  4174. 3
  4175. 3
  4176. 3
  4177. 3
  4178. 3
  4179. 3
  4180. 3
  4181. 3
  4182. 3
  4183. 3
  4184. 3
  4185. 3
  4186. 3
  4187. 3
  4188. 3
  4189. 3
  4190. 3
  4191. 3
  4192. 3
  4193. 3
  4194. 3
  4195. 3
  4196. 3
  4197. 3
  4198. 3
  4199. 3
  4200. 3
  4201. 3
  4202. 3
  4203. 3
  4204. 3
  4205. 3
  4206. 3
  4207. 3
  4208. 3
  4209. 3
  4210. 3
  4211. 3
  4212. 3
  4213. 3
  4214. 3
  4215. 3
  4216. 2
  4217. 2
  4218. 2
  4219. 2
  4220. 2
  4221. 2
  4222. 2
  4223. 2
  4224. 2
  4225. 2
  4226. 2
  4227. 2
  4228. 2
  4229. 2
  4230. 2
  4231. 2
  4232. 2
  4233. 2
  4234. 2
  4235. 2
  4236. 2
  4237. 2
  4238. 2
  4239. 2
  4240. 2
  4241. 2
  4242. 2
  4243. 2
  4244. 2
  4245. 2
  4246. 2
  4247. 2
  4248. 2
  4249. 2
  4250. 2
  4251. 2
  4252. 2
  4253. 2
  4254. 2
  4255. 2
  4256. 2
  4257. 2
  4258. 2
  4259. 2
  4260. 2
  4261. 2
  4262. 2
  4263. 2
  4264. 2
  4265. 2
  4266. 2
  4267. 2
  4268. 2
  4269. 2
  4270. 2
  4271. 2
  4272. 2
  4273. 2
  4274. 2
  4275. 2
  4276. 2
  4277. 2
  4278. 2
  4279. 2
  4280. 2
  4281. 2
  4282. 2
  4283. 2
  4284. 2
  4285. 2
  4286. 2
  4287. 2
  4288. 2
  4289. 2
  4290. 2
  4291. 2
  4292. 2
  4293. 2
  4294. 2
  4295. 2
  4296. 2
  4297. 2
  4298. 2
  4299. 2
  4300. 2
  4301. 2
  4302. 2
  4303. 2
  4304. 2
  4305. 2
  4306. 2
  4307. 2
  4308. 2
  4309. 2
  4310. 2
  4311. 2
  4312. 2
  4313. 2
  4314. 2
  4315. 2
  4316. 2
  4317. 2
  4318. 2
  4319. 2
  4320. 2
  4321. 2
  4322. 2
  4323. 2
  4324. 2
  4325. 2
  4326. 2
  4327. 2
  4328. 2
  4329. 2
  4330. 2
  4331. 2
  4332. 2
  4333. 2
  4334. 2
  4335. 2
  4336. 2
  4337. 2
  4338. 2
  4339. 2
  4340. 2
  4341. 2
  4342. 2
  4343. 2
  4344. 2
  4345. 2
  4346. 2
  4347. 2
  4348. 2
  4349. 2
  4350. 2
  4351. 2
  4352. 2
  4353. 2
  4354. 2
  4355. 2
  4356. 2
  4357. 2
  4358. 2
  4359. 2
  4360. 2
  4361. 2
  4362. 2
  4363. 2
  4364. 2
  4365. 2
  4366. 2
  4367. 2
  4368. 2
  4369. 2
  4370. 2
  4371. 2
  4372. 2
  4373. 2
  4374. 2
  4375. 2
  4376. 2
  4377. 2
  4378. 2
  4379. 2
  4380. 2
  4381. 2
  4382. 2
  4383. 2
  4384. 2
  4385. 2
  4386. 2
  4387. 2
  4388. 2
  4389. 2
  4390. 2
  4391. 2
  4392. 2
  4393. 2
  4394. 2
  4395. 2
  4396. 2
  4397. 2
  4398. 2
  4399. 2
  4400. 2
  4401. 2
  4402. 2
  4403. 2
  4404. 2
  4405. 2
  4406. 2
  4407. 2
  4408. 2
  4409. 2
  4410. 2
  4411. 2
  4412. 2
  4413. 2
  4414. 2
  4415. 2
  4416. 2
  4417. 2
  4418. 2
  4419. 2
  4420. 2
  4421. 2
  4422. 2
  4423. 2
  4424. 2
  4425. 2
  4426. 2
  4427. 2
  4428. 2
  4429. 2
  4430. 2
  4431. 2
  4432. 2
  4433. 2
  4434. 2
  4435. 2
  4436. 2
  4437. 2
  4438. 2
  4439. 2
  4440. 2
  4441. 2
  4442. 2
  4443. 2
  4444. 2
  4445. 2
  4446. 2
  4447. 2
  4448. 2
  4449. 2
  4450. 2
  4451. 2
  4452. 2
  4453. 2
  4454. 2
  4455. 2
  4456. 2
  4457. 2
  4458. 2
  4459. 2
  4460. 2
  4461. 2
  4462. 2
  4463. 2
  4464. 2
  4465. 2
  4466. 2
  4467. 2
  4468. 2
  4469. 2
  4470. 2
  4471. 2
  4472. 2
  4473. 2
  4474. 2
  4475. 2
  4476. 2
  4477. 2
  4478. 2
  4479. 2
  4480. None of these will ever replace anything in current service due to a laundry list of issues with each weapon/cartridge configuration. The most likely thing to come of this is a decision on the next generation cartridge configuration. I doubt that any of these (current configurations) will see service even in small numbers. Sig has the best rifle in my opinion but the cartridge and machinegun are not substantial improvements over currently existing(not necessarily fielded) 5.56/7.62mm systems. General dynamics has a great looking rifle (should have made it eject downward like keltec) in arguably the best cartridge configuration but the fact that it's a bullpup will almost certainly (unofficially) disqualify this design. The textron system is just asking to be shelved. The telescoped round while super lightweight is just asking for dirt to fill up the open cavity at the front of the cartridge. The textron weapons appear to be a product of someone who cares more about the question of "can we make a telescoped cartridge work" rather than "should we even try". The only thing textron has going for it is the large sums of money and man hours the military has already wasted on these designs. Idk how we've arrived back at 6.8mm again. It seems like a step backwards. What ever happened to the 6.5mm rounds they experimented with a few years back? I just hope the jackasses that picked UCP instead of multicam isn't in any way involved in this selection process or our boys and girls might have real issues in the future. What's with these requirements??? 130+ grains is far too heavy, especially for their target velocity of 3000fps. 6-6.5mm bullets give you better armor penetration potential as well as external ballistics for equal sectional density and/or overall length. I would think these would be things to look for in a "next-generation weapon system" don't you? 100-120 grains in 6-6.5mm @2800-3000fps feels much more reasonable and achieves all the same goals at lower weight. With all the improvments velocity, sustained energy, weight, recoil and trajectory any difference in downrange performance would be easily thwarted. If Sig had teamed up with true velocity they'd have stood a chance, instead this competition will just fade in to obscurity like all the previous attempts to "replace" the M4/M16.
    2
  4481. 2
  4482. 2
  4483. 2
  4484. 2
  4485. 2
  4486. 2
  4487. 2
  4488. 2
  4489. 2
  4490. 2
  4491. 2
  4492. 2
  4493. 2
  4494. 2
  4495. 2
  4496. 2
  4497. 2
  4498. 2
  4499. 2
  4500. 2
  4501. 2
  4502. 2
  4503. 2
  4504. 2
  4505. 2
  4506. 2
  4507. 2
  4508. 2
  4509. 2
  4510. 2
  4511. 2
  4512. 2
  4513. 2
  4514. 2
  4515. 2
  4516. 2
  4517. 2
  4518. 2
  4519. 2
  4520. 2
  4521. 2
  4522. 2
  4523. 2
  4524. 2
  4525. 2
  4526. recoil will be an issue, to achieve fire superiority in a firefight you need to be able to keep a higher volume of fire than the enemy is throwing at you, and I know even the strongest soldier will be affected a bit by this, but the problem is not in the individual soldier, its an overall kind of thing, if a soldier's ability to fire rapidly gets affected by lets say just 5 % it seems like an ok tradeoff for a more accurate longer range more powerful rifle, but now you need to apply that -5% to every soldier in the armed forces and also the women and scrawny soldiers will get more affected than the arbitrary 5% , that coupled with the lowering of standards for PT and the new carebear approach the armed forces are adopting, will result in weaker soldiers overall, yes you gain more accuracy, you gain more range, you gain more stopping power, but the average grunt is not a precision shooter by any means and having a more accurate rifle wont make him any more lethal because the first component of accuracy is the training of the individual. In other words the gun is only as accurate as you are. So in recap you got weaker soldiers and higher recoil, what could go wrong? I wonder. Anyhow we are better suited with just upgrading our m4 carbines with 6.8 uppers instead of getting an unproven firearm, also looking at the magazine it looks like its a 20 rounder so you get less capacity, also you get to carry less ammo, less crates per truck less trucks per ship etc etc etc. I say Issue this to designated marksman and just find a different cartridge to convert our existing guns to that is an in between.
    2
  4527. 2
  4528. 2
  4529. 2
  4530. 2
  4531. 2
  4532. 2
  4533. 2
  4534. 2
  4535. 2
  4536. 2
  4537. 2
  4538. 2
  4539. 2
  4540. 2
  4541. 2
  4542. 2
  4543. 2
  4544. 2
  4545. 2
  4546. 2
  4547. 2
  4548. 2
  4549. 2
  4550. 2
  4551. 2
  4552. 2
  4553. 2
  4554. 2
  4555. 2
  4556. 2
  4557. 2
  4558. 2
  4559. 2
  4560. 2
  4561. 2
  4562. 2
  4563. 2
  4564. 2
  4565. 2
  4566. 2
  4567. 2
  4568. 2
  4569. 2
  4570. 2
  4571. 2
  4572. 2
  4573. 2
  4574. 2
  4575. 2
  4576. 2
  4577. 2
  4578. 2
  4579. 2
  4580. 2
  4581. 2
  4582. 2
  4583. 2
  4584. 2
  4585. 2
  4586. 2
  4587. 2
  4588. 2
  4589. 2
  4590. 2
  4591. 2
  4592. 2
  4593. 2
  4594. 2
  4595. 2
  4596. 2
  4597. 2
  4598. 2
  4599. 2
  4600. 2
  4601. 2
  4602. 2
  4603. 2
  4604. 2
  4605. 2
  4606. 2
  4607. 2
  4608. 2
  4609. 2
  4610. 2
  4611. 2
  4612. 2
  4613. 2
  4614. 2
  4615. 2
  4616. 2
  4617. 2
  4618. 2
  4619. 2
  4620. 2
  4621. 2
  4622. 2
  4623. 2
  4624. 2
  4625. 2
  4626. 2
  4627. 2
  4628. 2
  4629. 2
  4630. 2
  4631. 2
  4632. 2
  4633. 2
  4634. 2
  4635. 2
  4636. 2
  4637. 2
  4638. 2
  4639. 2
  4640. 2
  4641. 2
  4642. 2
  4643. 2
  4644. 2
  4645. 2
  4646. 2
  4647. 2
  4648. 2
  4649. 2
  4650. 2
  4651. 2
  4652. 2
  4653. 2
  4654. 2
  4655. 2
  4656. 2
  4657. 2
  4658. 2
  4659. 2
  4660. 2
  4661. 2
  4662. 2
  4663. 2
  4664. 2
  4665. 2
  4666. 2
  4667. 2
  4668. 2
  4669. 2
  4670. 2
  4671. 2
  4672. 2
  4673. 2
  4674. 2
  4675. 2
  4676. 2
  4677. 2
  4678. 2
  4679. 2
  4680. 2
  4681. 2
  4682. 2
  4683. 2
  4684. 2
  4685. 2
  4686. 2
  4687. 2
  4688. 2
  4689. 2
  4690. 2
  4691. 2
  4692. 2
  4693. 2
  4694. 2
  4695. 2
  4696. 2
  4697. 2
  4698. 2
  4699. 2
  4700. 2
  4701. 2
  4702. 2
  4703. 2
  4704. 2
  4705. 2
  4706. 2
  4707. 2
  4708. 2
  4709. 2
  4710. 2
  4711. 2
  4712. 2
  4713. 2
  4714. 2
  4715. 2
  4716. 2
  4717. 2
  4718. 2
  4719. 2
  4720. 2
  4721. 2
  4722. 2
  4723. 2
  4724. 2
  4725. 2
  4726. 2
  4727. 2
  4728. 2
  4729. 2
  4730. 2
  4731. 2
  4732. 2
  4733. 2
  4734. 2
  4735. 2
  4736. 2
  4737. 2
  4738. 2
  4739. As a former member of the UK armed forces, both reserve and regular, and having worked in the civilian-run UK defence equipment organisation, I’m following the progress of the NGSW project with interest. Before I start, appreciation to Chris Cappy for the time and effort in making these videos – it takes a lot of work and he’s bringing some interesting insights into the subject for us all. There’s a lot said about the advantages/disadvantages of bullpups, and I sense a deep conservatism among some US forces personnel against bullpups and in favour of conventional layouts. Some of the criticisms about bullpups have merit, but others really don’t. One of the experiences I had in the UK forces was the switch over from the conventional layout L1A1 SLR (ie. the UK’s version of the FN FAL) to the bullpup SA80. The SA80 famously had reliability issues, but that only applied to the A1 version and were pretty much fixed from the A2 version onwards. Besides, the reliability issues didn’t have anything to do with the bullpup as a concept. So, leaving aside the reliability thing, what were the experiences and advantages of moving to a bullpup and away from a conventional layout? In a word – good. Actually, very good. It might surprise some viewers but everybody, from cooks and clerks to elite infantry, could carry it, operate with it (ie. go in/out of buildings and vehicles), shoot it, hit targets and generally be more effective with the bullpup SA80 than the SLR. The long barrel inside the short, compact, weight-to-the-rear weapon and a x4 optical sight is what generated these advantages. It was so easy to shoot that training times were shorter and accuracy standards were revised upwards. Yes, there were the old-school grunts who complained about it not being switchable to the left shoulder and the (supposed) lack of punch of the 5.56mm round. But the tactical doctrine of Western armies is that tactical dominance and manoeuvre is achieved by suppression not simply out-and-out power, which in turn requires sustained accurate fire. In my experience, a bullpup achieves these things better than a conventional layout rifle. In fact, the British personal I spoke with who had come back from Afghanistan praised the SA80 and even felt that when it was replaced it should be with another bullpup. In sum, I think the US forces should take a very close look at the General dynamics RM-277 and not allow innate conservatism of some areas of the military, or some of the myths around bullpups, to prevent them from having what could well be a real improvement in their combat effectiveness. The RM-277 gets my vote.
    2
  4740. 2
  4741. 2
  4742. 2
  4743. 2
  4744. 2
  4745. 2
  4746. 2
  4747. 2
  4748. 2
  4749. 2
  4750. 2
  4751. 2
  4752. 2
  4753. 2
  4754. 2
  4755. 2
  4756. 2
  4757. 2
  4758. 2
  4759. 2
  4760. 2
  4761. 2
  4762. 2
  4763. 2
  4764. 2
  4765. 2
  4766. 2
  4767. 2
  4768. 2
  4769. 2
  4770. 2
  4771. 2
  4772. 2
  4773. 2
  4774. 2
  4775. 2
  4776. 2
  4777. 2
  4778. 2
  4779. 2
  4780. 2
  4781. 2
  4782. 2
  4783. 2
  4784. 2
  4785. 2
  4786. 2
  4787. 2
  4788. 2
  4789. 2
  4790. 2
  4791. 2
  4792. 2
  4793. 2
  4794. 2
  4795. 2
  4796. 2
  4797. 2
  4798. 2
  4799. 2
  4800. 2
  4801. 2
  4802. 2
  4803. 2
  4804. 2
  4805. 2
  4806. 2
  4807. 2
  4808. 2
  4809. 2
  4810. 2
  4811. 2
  4812. 2
  4813. 2
  4814. Corruption is everywhere. For example, do you remember Donald Rumsfeld claiming that 2.3 trillion dollars was missing just before 9/11? On September 10, 2001, then U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld disclosed that his department was unable to account for roughly $2.3 trillion worth of transactions. The next day, the U.S. sustained the terrorist attacks that changed the world, and this startling revelation was forgotten. When an account discrepancy occurs that cannot be traced, it’s customary to make what is called an “un-documentable adjustment.” This is similar to when your checkbook balance is off by, say, ten dollars; you add or subtract that amount to make everything balance with the bank. In 1999, the amount that the Pentagon adjusted was eight times the Defense Department budget for that year; it was one-third greater than the entire federal budget. By 2015, the amount reported missing by the Office of the Inspector General had increased to $6.5 trillion—and that was just for the army. Using public data from federal databases, Mark Skidmore, a professor of economics at Michigan State University, found that $21 trillion in unsupported adjustments had been reported by the Defense and Housing and Urban Development departments between 1998 and 2015. That’s about $65,000 for every American. There is no sign that the government’s internal auditors have made much headway in finding the missing money. Jim Minnery of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service traveled the country in 2002 looking for documents on just $300 million worth of unrecorded spending. “We know it’s gone. But we don’t know what they spent it on,” he said. He was reassigned after suggesting that higher-ups covered up the problem by writing it off. He’s not the only who thinks so. “The books are cooked routinely year after year,” says former defense analyst Franklin C. Spinney. According to a 2013 Reuters report, the Pentagon is the only federal agency that has not complied with a 1996 law that requires annual audits of all government departments. The Pentagon has spent tens of billions of dollars to upgrade to more efficient technology in order to become audit-ready. But many of these new systems have failed and been scrapped. Predictably, the government did not race to correct the problem even after investigators sounded the alarm. Skidmore contacted the Office of the Inspector General but was not permitted to speak to anyone who had worked on the corruption report. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office assured him that congressional hearings would have been held if there was a significant problem. When Rumsfeld eventually did appear before Congress in March 2005, his testimony offered no substantive answers.
    2
  4815. 2
  4816. 2
  4817. 2
  4818. 2
  4819. 2
  4820. 2
  4821. 2
  4822. 2
  4823. 2
  4824. 2
  4825. 2
  4826. 2
  4827. 2
  4828. 2
  4829. 2
  4830. 2
  4831. 2
  4832. 2
  4833. 2
  4834. 2
  4835. 2
  4836. 2
  4837. 2
  4838. 2
  4839. 2
  4840. 2
  4841. 2
  4842. 2
  4843. 2
  4844. 2
  4845. 2
  4846. 2
  4847. 2
  4848. 2
  4849. 2
  4850. 2
  4851. 2
  4852. 2
  4853. 2
  4854. 2
  4855. 2
  4856. 2
  4857. 2
  4858. 2
  4859. 2
  4860. 2
  4861. 2
  4862. 2
  4863. 2
  4864. 2
  4865. 2
  4866. 2
  4867. 2
  4868. 2
  4869. 2
  4870. 2
  4871. 2
  4872. 2
  4873. 2
  4874. 2
  4875. 2
  4876. 2
  4877. 2
  4878. 2
  4879. 2
  4880. 2
  4881. 2
  4882. 2
  4883. 2
  4884. 2
  4885. 2
  4886. 2
  4887. 2
  4888. 2
  4889. 2
  4890. 2
  4891. 2
  4892. 2
  4893. 2
  4894. 2
  4895. 2
  4896. 2
  4897. 2
  4898. 2
  4899. 2
  4900. 2
  4901. 2
  4902. 2
  4903. 2
  4904. 2
  4905. 2
  4906. 2
  4907. 2
  4908. 2
  4909. 2
  4910. 2
  4911. 2
  4912. 2
  4913. 2
  4914. 2
  4915. 2
  4916. 2
  4917. 2
  4918. 2
  4919. 2
  4920. 2
  4921. 2
  4922. 2
  4923. 2
  4924. 2
  4925. 2
  4926. 2
  4927. 2
  4928. 2
  4929. 2
  4930. 2
  4931. 2
  4932. 2
  4933. 2
  4934. 2
  4935. 2
  4936. 2
  4937. 2
  4938. 2
  4939. 2
  4940. 2
  4941. 2
  4942. 2
  4943. 2
  4944. 2
  4945. 2
  4946. 2
  4947. 2
  4948. 2
  4949. 2
  4950. 2
  4951. 2
  4952. 2
  4953. 2
  4954. 2
  4955. 2
  4956. 2
  4957. 2
  4958. 2
  4959. 2
  4960. 2
  4961. 2
  4962. 2
  4963. 2
  4964. 2
  4965. 2
  4966. 2
  4967. 2
  4968. 2
  4969. 2
  4970. 2
  4971. 2
  4972. 2
  4973. 2
  4974. 2
  4975. Slim chance of you reading this, but here is a thing that has been overlooked in my opinion when it comes to handguns: Why is slide-less (or rather, internal slides) not a priority? That way you can rest your index finger along the barrel, even with indents to guide it parallel, you pull the trigger with your middle finger (which is, all things considered, stronger in pull than the index finger). We have millions of years of evolution in "pointing index finger at something" that such a hand-eye-coordination is so ingrained, that you can point at things you're not even directly looking at. On a biological and evolutionary level, the index finger is the "go there" finger. Our brain is wired as such. Now you have one phalange less to grip the pistol, true, yet that brings the recoil more in line with the rest of your arm. Recoil basically is just leverage. The grip introduces recoil, as it gives the force that thrusts backwards the lever since we hold the grip. The shorter the lever, the less recoil. It's a nobrainer on rifles, since there are no moving parts that can slice your index finger or gloves open. You direct the rifle with your index finger of your grip hand. This is something how lefties can get much more out of their bullpup. The right goes to the trigger, the left holds the rifle, but with an index finger parallel to the barrel, guiding the weapon with it. Why ingrained evolution like index finger pointing and recoil reduction based on lever physics are not more of a thing when designing new firearms is beyond me. Maybe you have experience, have something to share. Especially as to why the military is reluctant with something like this. If you show that to a "civilian" who have good hand-to-eye coordination, they immediately benefit from it in their accuracy from the limited tests I observed. Granted, we're not talking expert level of shooting here, however I'd say it's just a matter of training. Just like soldiers who are trained on bullpups will have less trouble with it than soldiers who were trained on regular rifles and then try to switch to bullpups. What say you?
    2
  4976. 2
  4977. 2
  4978. 2
  4979. 2
  4980. 2
  4981. 2
  4982. 2
  4983. 2
  4984. 2
  4985. 2
  4986. 2
  4987. 2
  4988. 2
  4989. 2
  4990. 2
  4991. 2
  4992. 2
  4993. 2
  4994. 2
  4995. 2
  4996. 2
  4997. 2
  4998. 2
  4999. 2
  5000. 2
  5001. 2
  5002. 2
  5003. 2
  5004. 2
  5005. 2
  5006. 2
  5007. 2
  5008. 2
  5009. 2
  5010. 2
  5011. 2
  5012. 2
  5013. 2
  5014. 2
  5015. 2
  5016. 2
  5017. 2
  5018. 2
  5019. 2
  5020. 2
  5021. 2
  5022. 2
  5023. 2
  5024. 2
  5025. 2
  5026. 2
  5027. 2
  5028. 2
  5029. 2
  5030. 2
  5031. 2
  5032. 2
  5033. 2
  5034. 2
  5035. 2
  5036. 2
  5037. 2
  5038. 2
  5039. 2
  5040. 2
  5041. 2
  5042. 2
  5043. 2
  5044. 2
  5045. 2
  5046. 2
  5047. 2
  5048. 2
  5049. 2
  5050. 2
  5051. 2
  5052. 2
  5053. 2
  5054. 2
  5055. 2
  5056. 2
  5057. 2
  5058. 2
  5059. 2
  5060. 2
  5061. 2
  5062. 2
  5063. 2
  5064. 2
  5065. 2
  5066. 2
  5067. 2
  5068. 2
  5069. 2
  5070. 2
  5071. 2
  5072. 2
  5073. 2
  5074. 2
  5075. 2
  5076. 2
  5077. 2
  5078. 2
  5079. 2
  5080. 2
  5081. 2
  5082. 2
  5083. 2
  5084. 2
  5085. 2
  5086. 2
  5087. 2
  5088. 2
  5089. 2
  5090. 2
  5091. 2
  5092. 2
  5093. 2
  5094. 2
  5095. 2
  5096. 2
  5097. 2
  5098. 2
  5099. 2
  5100. 2
  5101. 2
  5102. 2
  5103. 2
  5104. 2
  5105. 2
  5106. 2
  5107. 2
  5108. 2
  5109. 2
  5110. 2
  5111. 2
  5112. 2
  5113. 2
  5114. 2
  5115. 2
  5116. 2
  5117. 2
  5118. 2
  5119. 2
  5120. 2
  5121. 2
  5122. 2
  5123. 2
  5124. 2
  5125. 2
  5126. 2
  5127. 2
  5128. 2
  5129. 2
  5130. 2
  5131. 2
  5132. 2
  5133. 2
  5134. 2
  5135. 2
  5136. 2
  5137. 2
  5138. 2
  5139. 2
  5140. 2
  5141. 2
  5142. 2
  5143. 2
  5144. 2
  5145. 2
  5146. 2
  5147. 2
  5148. 2
  5149. 2
  5150. 2
  5151. 2
  5152. 2
  5153. 2
  5154. 2
  5155. 2
  5156. 2
  5157. 2
  5158. 2
  5159. 2
  5160. 2
  5161. 2
  5162. 2
  5163. 2
  5164. 2
  5165. 2
  5166. 2
  5167. 2
  5168. 2
  5169. 2
  5170. 2
  5171. 2
  5172. 2
  5173. 2
  5174. 2
  5175. 2
  5176. 2
  5177. 2
  5178. 2
  5179. 2
  5180. 2
  5181. 2
  5182. 2
  5183. 2
  5184. 2
  5185. 2
  5186. 2
  5187. 2
  5188. 2
  5189. 2
  5190. 2
  5191. 2
  5192. 2
  5193. 2
  5194. 2
  5195. 2
  5196. 2
  5197. 2
  5198. 2
  5199. 2
  5200. 2
  5201. 2
  5202. 2
  5203. 2
  5204. 2
  5205. 2
  5206. 2
  5207. 2
  5208. 2
  5209. 2
  5210. 2
  5211. 2
  5212. 2
  5213. 2
  5214. 2
  5215. 2
  5216. 2
  5217. 2
  5218. 2
  5219. 2
  5220. 2
  5221. 2
  5222. 2
  5223. 2
  5224. 2
  5225. 2
  5226. 2
  5227. 2
  5228. 2
  5229. 2
  5230. 2
  5231. 2
  5232. 2
  5233. 2
  5234. 2
  5235. 2
  5236. 2
  5237. 2
  5238. 2
  5239. 2
  5240. 2
  5241. 2
  5242. 2
  5243. 2
  5244. 2
  5245. 2
  5246. 2
  5247. 2
  5248. 2
  5249. 2
  5250. 2
  5251. 2
  5252. 2
  5253. 2
  5254. 2
  5255. 2
  5256. 2
  5257. 2
  5258. 2
  5259. 2
  5260. 2
  5261. 2
  5262. 2
  5263. 2
  5264. 2
  5265. 2
  5266. 2
  5267. 2
  5268. 2
  5269. 2
  5270. 2
  5271. 2
  5272. 2
  5273. 2
  5274. 2
  5275. 2
  5276. 2
  5277. 2
  5278. 2
  5279. 2
  5280. 2
  5281. 2
  5282. 2
  5283. 2
  5284. 2
  5285. 2
  5286. 2
  5287. 2
  5288. 2
  5289. 2
  5290. 2
  5291. 2
  5292. 2
  5293. 2
  5294. 2
  5295. 2
  5296. 2
  5297. 2
  5298. 2
  5299. 2
  5300. 2
  5301. 2
  5302. 2
  5303. 2
  5304. 2
  5305. 2
  5306. 2
  5307. 2
  5308. 2
  5309. 2
  5310. 2
  5311. 2
  5312. 2
  5313. 2
  5314. 2
  5315. 2
  5316. 2
  5317. 2
  5318. 2
  5319. 2
  5320. 2
  5321. 2
  5322. 2
  5323. 2
  5324. 2
  5325. 2
  5326. 2
  5327. 2
  5328. 2
  5329. 2
  5330. 2
  5331. 2
  5332. 2
  5333. 2
  5334. 2
  5335. 2
  5336. 2
  5337. 2
  5338. 2
  5339. 2
  5340. 2
  5341. 2
  5342. 2
  5343. 2
  5344. 2
  5345. 2
  5346. 2
  5347. 2
  5348. 2
  5349. 2
  5350. 2
  5351. 2
  5352. 2
  5353. 2
  5354. 2
  5355. 2
  5356. 2
  5357. 2
  5358. 2
  5359. 2
  5360. 2
  5361. 2
  5362. 2
  5363. 2
  5364. 2
  5365. 2
  5366. 2
  5367. 2
  5368. 2
  5369. 2
  5370. 2
  5371. 2
  5372. 2
  5373. 2
  5374. 2
  5375. 2
  5376. 2
  5377. 2
  5378. 2
  5379. 2
  5380. 2
  5381. 2
  5382. 2
  5383. 2
  5384. 2
  5385. 2
  5386. 2
  5387. 2
  5388. 2
  5389. 2
  5390. 2
  5391. 2
  5392. 2
  5393. 2
  5394. 2
  5395. 2
  5396. 2
  5397. 2
  5398. 2
  5399. 2
  5400. 2
  5401. 2
  5402. 2
  5403. 2
  5404. 2
  5405. 2
  5406. 2
  5407. 2
  5408. 2
  5409. 2
  5410. 2
  5411. 2
  5412. 2
  5413. 2
  5414. 2
  5415. 2
  5416. 2
  5417. 2
  5418. 2
  5419. 2
  5420. 2
  5421. 2
  5422. 2
  5423. 2
  5424. 2
  5425. 2
  5426. 2
  5427. 2
  5428. 2
  5429. 2
  5430. 2
  5431. 2
  5432. 2
  5433. 2
  5434. 2
  5435. 2
  5436. 2
  5437. 2
  5438. 2
  5439. 2
  5440. 2
  5441. 2
  5442. 2
  5443. 2
  5444. 2
  5445. 2
  5446. 2
  5447. 2
  5448. 2
  5449. 2
  5450. 2
  5451. 2
  5452. 2
  5453. 2
  5454. 2
  5455. 2
  5456. 2
  5457. 2
  5458. 2
  5459. 2
  5460. 2
  5461. 2
  5462. 2
  5463. Good topic. Good video. Good comments.... but you can't talk about clearing rooms without mentioning CQB in the same breath. Just sayin'. MOUT/UW and FIBUA/OBUA are basically the same thing. Same required capabilities and means to operate within an urban environment. Same considerations. Same mindset. Same toolbox. Same 360° threat. A long time ago, I was told that there were three main approaches to Room Clearing: The British way. Demo and drop the building that the room was in then move on to the next fight. P for plenty and a hot brew after. The Israeli way. Call in Close Air Support and let a Helicopter-launched TOW missile take out that pesky room and everything in/ around it. The US way. Dynamic entries utilizing violence of action aka CQB. The Bum Rush. MOUT was more about stuff like how to move around tactically. How to look out for booby traps and danger areas. Most US soldiers only had a taste of MOUT from BCT. Some units would send soldiers to MOUT School. A short course in Molotov Cocktails 101 and what it feels like to have a tank drive over you as you held that newly made Molotov in your sweaty hand. Gave you a saggy wooden plank to cross from one building to another, usually a few stories up. Mostly it was about familiarization and awareness building. Posts had MOUT Sites but it seemed that units didn't really use them that much. At that point, CQB was only done by a few units in the US Military. Mostly SOFs. Then, the Battle of Mogadishu happened in 1993 and MOUT changed not long after. Fragging Out was removed from the playbook. CQB and Gunfighting became a thing in it's place. MOUT was never about fighting a less technological force or even near-peer threats. It was more of battlespace/ environment awareness training. Then it became more about addressing the likelihood of having to fight an embedded enemy which would be mixed in with a friendly civilian population. MOUT became more hearts and minds, big picture kind of stuff. Things that successful outcomes are made of. Hence, the usage of terms with Surgical added. Hence, the ROEs and lack of Frag Outs. CQB became the new way of making things happen in MOUT. There were Assault Teams and Support Teams. Support did Overwatch. Assault Teams would leapfrog and maintain a push while Support would be outside covering the most likely exit. At that time, the idea was to play Batman. Using grappling hooks, enter high and force the enemy down. Give them a way out, rather than corner them and having them fighting to the death. Better to channelize them so they could be smoked en masse, outside. Teams moved around as a 4 man Stack and held each other by the LBE with weapons staggered. Maximizing firepower and control. Using each other for shields. Another thing of mention, was that if you got shot, the guy behind had hold of your LBE and could get you off the X. Number 1 Man had the short end of the stick but it was an important slot. Wanted your best shooter up front, walking point and first to fight. He was always first man in. The critique at around 13:07 is not fair though. Anything front would have been shot at by the 1st Man as he was entering and transitioning to working his corner. Also, Number 2 Man would be engaging as his rifle would be positioned, level and over the Number 1 Man's shoulder. Number 3 Man would have his weapon canted high, for anything on rooftops while doing outdoor movement. Inside, it would be a modified one handed high carry. After the 1 and 2 Men split, he would go down the center and be ready to take up the slack if they got hit. 3 Man was also Breacher. Number 4 Man was Rear D and was also called the Door Man. After a room was entered, the 4th Man would always check doors before the room could be called Clear. There's a trick to it which I won't mention but the fellow who showed it to me had a steel plate in the back of the his head, from that time he failed to check the door. Reading wise, there was FM 90-10 Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain and FM 5-31 Boobytraps. Still good nuggets to sift. While others will often cite Khe Sanh, Stalingrad has lots more stories and wisdom. Battle of Kapyong, too. Keep your E-Tool sharp on one edge and handy! Grozny is another great more-modern well to draw from, also. Looking back at that time, there was a lot of work done out on the MOUT sites. Lots of time in the Kill House. Weapons used were M249s, M16A2s, M231s, and an M60. At one point DA and Discovery had film crews documenting stuff as it was going down. Lots of think-tanking with input asked from all. Was an exciting time. Doctrine was changing and evolving. After reading a recent breakdown of MOUT on Globalsecurity.org, seems like things have come full circle. Same problems. Same critiques. smh. Thanks for your video which allowed me to travel down Memory Lane. Liked and subbed. Here's a classic CQB video from the early 1990s: 2nd batalion 1st special warfare training group CQB https://youtu.be/klbaL8N_VQ0
    2
  5464. 2
  5465. 2
  5466. 2
  5467. 2
  5468. 2
  5469. 2
  5470. 2
  5471. 2
  5472. 2
  5473. 2
  5474. 2
  5475. 2
  5476. 2
  5477. 2
  5478. 2
  5479. 2
  5480. 2
  5481. 2
  5482. 2
  5483. 2
  5484. 2
  5485. 2
  5486. 2
  5487. 2
  5488. 2
  5489. 2
  5490. 2
  5491. 2
  5492. 2
  5493. 2
  5494. 2
  5495. 2
  5496. 2
  5497. 2
  5498. 2
  5499. 2
  5500. 2
  5501. 2
  5502. 2
  5503. 2
  5504. 2
  5505. 2
  5506. 2
  5507. 2
  5508. 2
  5509. 2
  5510. 2
  5511. 2
  5512. 2
  5513. 2
  5514. 2
  5515. 2
  5516. 2
  5517. 2
  5518. 2
  5519. 2
  5520. 2
  5521. 2
  5522. 2
  5523. 2
  5524. 2
  5525. 2
  5526. 2
  5527. 2
  5528. 2
  5529. 2
  5530. 2
  5531. 2
  5532. 2
  5533. 2
  5534. 2
  5535. 2
  5536. 2
  5537. 2
  5538. 2
  5539. 2
  5540. 2
  5541. 2
  5542. 2
  5543. 2
  5544. 2
  5545. 2
  5546. 2
  5547. 2
  5548. 2
  5549. 2
  5550. 2
  5551. 2
  5552. 2
  5553. 2
  5554. 2
  5555. 2
  5556. 2
  5557. 2
  5558. 2
  5559. 2
  5560. 2
  5561. 2
  5562. 2
  5563. 2
  5564. 2
  5565. 2
  5566. 2
  5567. 2
  5568. 2
  5569. 2
  5570. 2
  5571. 2
  5572. 2
  5573. 2
  5574. 2
  5575. 2
  5576. 2
  5577. 2
  5578. 2
  5579. 2
  5580. 2
  5581. 2
  5582. 2
  5583. 2
  5584. 2
  5585. 2
  5586. 2
  5587. 2
  5588. 2
  5589. 2
  5590. 2
  5591. 2
  5592. 2
  5593. 2
  5594. 2
  5595. 2
  5596. 2
  5597. 2
  5598. 2
  5599. 2
  5600. 2
  5601. 2
  5602. 2
  5603. 2
  5604. 2
  5605. 2
  5606. 2
  5607. 2
  5608. 2
  5609. 2
  5610. 2
  5611. 2
  5612. 2
  5613. 2
  5614. 2
  5615. 2
  5616. 2
  5617. 2
  5618. 2
  5619. 2
  5620. 2
  5621. 2
  5622. 2
  5623. 2
  5624. 2
  5625. 2
  5626. 2
  5627. 2
  5628. 2
  5629. 2
  5630. 2
  5631. 2
  5632. 2
  5633. 2
  5634. 2
  5635. 2
  5636. 2
  5637. 2
  5638. 2
  5639. 2
  5640. 2
  5641. 2
  5642. 2
  5643. 2
  5644. 2
  5645. 2
  5646. 2
  5647. 2
  5648. 2
  5649. 2
  5650. 2
  5651. 2
  5652. 2
  5653. 2
  5654. 2
  5655. 2
  5656. 2
  5657. 2
  5658. 2
  5659. 2
  5660. 2
  5661. 2
  5662. 2
  5663. 2
  5664. 2
  5665. 2
  5666. 2
  5667. 2
  5668. 2
  5669. 2
  5670. 2
  5671. 2
  5672. 2
  5673. 2
  5674. 2
  5675. 2
  5676. 2
  5677. There is something else you didn't, and probably can't, cover. And, that is how reliable these systems are in actual usage. First, it has to actually work and stay working. How good is the software? What is the mean time between failure for the various systems? And, second, the systems have to work as advertised. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. Any time that a weapon leaps generations in multiple fields simultaneously, I expect a multi-year litany of teething problems. One lesson we definitely learned in the Cold War was that much of the Soviet threat was hype. Many of their weapons just didn't consistently work as advertised, and many just couldn't be kept running. The US often (and appropriately, but that's another story) prepared to face opposition that existed mostly in propaganda. Can they make even a small number of these tanks work as advertised? We don't know - just as we didn't know during the Cold War how effective much Soviet weaponry was. So, where does that get us? I have no idea. The impression I get is that our armed forces are in decline, that systemic failures around poor leadership and poor equipment choices (I'm more a student of naval history than army - so please bear with me here) is on the verge of relegating our armed forces not only to being expert at fighting the last war (not the next one) but also having equipment that no longer serves the purpose. Back in WWII, weapons could be designed and brought into service remarkably rapidly - that is no longer the case. We can't build a war-winning military in a year or two as was possible 80 years ago. Current technology requires far too long a lead time.
    2
  5678. 2
  5679. 2
  5680. 2
  5681. 2
  5682. 2
  5683. 2
  5684. 2
  5685. 2
  5686. 2
  5687. 2
  5688. 2
  5689. 2
  5690. 2
  5691. 2
  5692. 2
  5693. 2
  5694. 2
  5695. 2
  5696. 2
  5697. 2
  5698. 2
  5699. 2
  5700. 2
  5701. 2
  5702. 2
  5703. 2
  5704. 2
  5705. 2
  5706. 2
  5707. 2
  5708. 2
  5709. 2
  5710. 2
  5711. 2
  5712. 2
  5713. 2
  5714. 2
  5715. 2
  5716. 2
  5717. 2
  5718. 2
  5719. 2
  5720. 2
  5721. 2
  5722. 2
  5723. 2
  5724. 2
  5725. 2
  5726. 2
  5727. 2
  5728. 2
  5729. 2
  5730. 2
  5731. 2
  5732. 2
  5733. 2
  5734. 2
  5735. 2
  5736. 2
  5737. 2
  5738. 2
  5739. 2
  5740. 2
  5741. 2
  5742. 2
  5743. 2
  5744. 2
  5745. 2
  5746. 2
  5747. 2
  5748. 2
  5749. 2
  5750. 2
  5751. 2
  5752. 2
  5753. 2
  5754. 2
  5755. 2
  5756. 2
  5757. 2
  5758. 2
  5759. 2
  5760. 2
  5761. 2
  5762. 2
  5763. 2
  5764. 2
  5765. 2
  5766. 2
  5767. 2
  5768. 2
  5769. 2
  5770. 2
  5771. 2
  5772. 2
  5773. 2
  5774. 2
  5775. 2
  5776. 2
  5777. 2
  5778. 2
  5779. 2
  5780. 2
  5781. 2
  5782. 2
  5783. 2
  5784. 2
  5785. 2
  5786. 2
  5787. 2
  5788. 2
  5789. 2
  5790. 2
  5791. 2
  5792. 2
  5793. 2
  5794. 2
  5795. 2
  5796. 2
  5797. 2
  5798. 2
  5799. 2
  5800. 2
  5801. 2
  5802. 2
  5803. 2
  5804. 2
  5805. 2
  5806. 2
  5807. 2
  5808. 2
  5809. 2
  5810. 2
  5811. 2
  5812. 2
  5813. 2
  5814. 2
  5815. 2
  5816. 2
  5817. 2
  5818. 2
  5819. 2
  5820. 2
  5821. 2
  5822. 2
  5823. 2
  5824. 2
  5825. 2
  5826. 2
  5827. 2
  5828. 2
  5829. 2
  5830. 2
  5831. 2
  5832. 2
  5833. 2
  5834. 2
  5835. 2
  5836. 2
  5837. 2
  5838. 2
  5839. 2
  5840. 2
  5841. 2
  5842. 2
  5843. 2
  5844. 2
  5845. 2
  5846. 2
  5847. 2
  5848. 2
  5849. 2
  5850. 2
  5851. 2
  5852. 2
  5853. 2
  5854. 2
  5855. 2
  5856. 2
  5857. 2
  5858. 2
  5859. 2
  5860. 2
  5861. 2
  5862. 2
  5863. 2
  5864. 2
  5865. 2
  5866. 2
  5867. 2
  5868. 2
  5869. 2
  5870. 2
  5871. 2
  5872. 2
  5873. 2
  5874. 2
  5875. 2
  5876. 2
  5877. 2
  5878. 2
  5879. 2
  5880. 2
  5881. 2
  5882. 2
  5883. 2
  5884. 2
  5885. 2
  5886. 2
  5887. 2
  5888. 2
  5889. 2
  5890. It would be a knee jerk reaction to replace the already highly proven Bradley system. I feel that the Bradley could still be upgraded for the interim period till 2030 while a domestic company is able to develop a whole new platform that will be the true successor to the Bradley in every way. IFVs seriously doesn't need 42 tons ot near 50 tons like the Lynx. Even with the heavier armor and increased size, these larger MBT like IFVs are a bigger sight picture and most of all, still lacking armor to be relevant on the battlefield where even a 105mm medium gun from an anti tank wheeled destroyer will easily knock out the entire crew and the infantry on board from the front, from 2-3km away. Infantry in the modern era as well, are all well equipped with top down strike capable ATGM which are portable and can penetrate on the average 700mm and above. A top down strike means that the IFV will have no chance even with active protection system as they do not cover that arc of attack on their weakest point. If the APS is able to do that, that places the surrounding supporting mechanized infantry in grave danger as those shrapnel is going to maim and kill them, defeating the purpose of safely using such a technology. Instead, a lighter 20 ton to 30 ton replacement should be sought after, one that is able to back up the Abrams and the future MBTs, one that can be manufactured in mass numbers for overwhelming support that defines quantity and quality to bamboozle enemy formations. One that can mount that 50mm system alongside with multiple general purpose machine guns and a large stowage for ATGMs against the hardest targets. Speed should be essence, so weight should drop, APS is needed against some ATGM and RPG/handheld AT weapons, sufficient protection against 20-30mm fire with ERA. Lastly, enough space for 7 troops in the rear. The turret should be fully unmanned, implementing an autoloading system. Separate variants that will have 40-50 ton will be the "unmanned" break out IFVs that will lead the charge taking on the enemy head on like robots should. The manned lighter versions will follow behind to follow up and provide that infantry deployment and superior fire support for the breakout unmanned IFVs. Instead of wasting multi billions of dollars on foreign, lightly innovated, heavy IFVs which really are soon to be obsolete by 2030, develop the next generation with creativity, industry and with a vision in mind. These to me aren't really solutions for the long term nor worthy successors to the highly proven Bradley platform
    2
  5891. 2
  5892. 1
  5893. 1
  5894. 1
  5895. 1
  5896. 1
  5897. 1
  5898. 1
  5899. 1
  5900. 1
  5901. 1
  5902. 1
  5903. 1
  5904. 1
  5905. 1
  5906. 1
  5907. 1
  5908. 1
  5909. 1
  5910. 1
  5911. 1
  5912. 1
  5913. 1
  5914. 1
  5915. 1
  5916. 1
  5917. 1
  5918. 1
  5919. 1
  5920. 1
  5921. 1
  5922. 1
  5923. 1
  5924. 1
  5925. 1
  5926. 1
  5927. 1
  5928. 1
  5929. 1
  5930. 1
  5931. 1
  5932. 1
  5933. 1
  5934. 1
  5935. 1
  5936. 1
  5937. 1
  5938. 1
  5939. 1
  5940. 1
  5941. 1
  5942. 1
  5943. 1
  5944. 1
  5945. 1
  5946. 1
  5947. 1
  5948. 1
  5949. 1
  5950. 1
  5951. 1
  5952. 1
  5953. 1
  5954. 1
  5955. 1
  5956. 1
  5957. 1
  5958. 1
  5959. 1
  5960. 1
  5961. 1
  5962. 1
  5963. 1
  5964. 1
  5965. 1
  5966. 1
  5967. 1
  5968. 1
  5969. 1
  5970. 1
  5971. 1
  5972. 8:37 being Lazy? Zooming out a bit on the map, you will see, that the area captured during that period, in those areas, are negligible, or at least comparable to other periods of offensives during this war. Offensives by both parties even. Krasnohorivka (pre war population ~15K) is still heavily contested over 1 month after Russia entered its outskirts. I'd assume, that the fall of Avdiivka (~25km away) in February, was a bigger contributer to the general difficulties for Ukraine on that front. Side note: I've seen reporting a few days ago. That a General responsible for the Avdiivka front, is sacked and being investigated for being Pro-Russian. And having purposefully budged the defence of that city. I take this with a giant grain of salt. But if proven true. It might explain some of what we have seen on that front. No single weapons system is to blame for Russias recent "success". But rather each of their innovations/adaptations, along with the imployed strategy, including risk willingness (by both sides), target vectors, terrain type, and Ukraines uncertainty as to future US deliveries. All play a part in events on the battlefield. I'd personally argue that the disparity in artillery shells available to each party. Has been the biggest single factor in shaping the battlefield, during the past 6+ months. This based on historic casualty data, from the past 100+ years, and the possibly unreliable data from this current war. All saying that artillery is the primary killer in conventional war. I think most experts agree on 5:1 (ballpark), in favor of Russia, during that period. Second most important factor on the front line, is Ukraines lack of Air defence. Which is also a major factor in the strategic war.
    1
  5973. 1
  5974. 1
  5975. 1
  5976. 1
  5977. 1
  5978. 1
  5979. 1
  5980. 1
  5981. 1
  5982. 1
  5983. 1
  5984. 1
  5985. 1
  5986. 1
  5987. 1
  5988. 1
  5989. 1
  5990. 1
  5991. 1
  5992. 1
  5993. 1
  5994. 1
  5995. 1
  5996. 1
  5997. 1
  5998. 1
  5999. 1
  6000. 1
  6001. 1