Hearted Youtube comments on Task & Purpose (@Taskandpurpose) channel.
-
17000
-
17000
-
16000
-
15000
-
13000
-
11000
-
10000
-
10000
-
8800
-
8200
-
8100
-
7700
-
7500
-
7200
-
7200
-
7200
-
7100
-
7100
-
7000
-
6800
-
6400
-
6100
-
6000
-
6000
-
5900
-
5700
-
5500
-
5500
-
5400
-
5300
-
5300
-
4800
-
4800
-
4700
-
4700
-
4700
-
4600
-
4500
-
4500
-
4500
-
4400
-
4400
-
4300
-
4300
-
4200
-
4200
-
4100
-
4100
-
3900
-
3900
-
3900
-
3900
-
3800
-
3700
-
3700
-
3700
-
3600
-
3600
-
3600
-
3600
-
3600
-
3600
-
3400
-
3400
-
3400
-
3400
-
3400
-
3300
-
3300
-
3300
-
3300
-
3200
-
3200
-
3200
-
3100
-
3100
-
3100
-
3100
-
3000
-
3000
-
3000
-
3000
-
3000
-
3000
-
3000
-
2900
-
2900
-
2900
-
2900
-
2900
-
2800
-
2800
-
2800
-
2800
-
2800
-
2800
-
2800
-
2800
-
2700
-
2700
-
2700
-
2700
-
2700
-
2700
-
2700
-
2700
-
2700
-
2600
-
2600
-
2600
-
2600
-
2600
-
2600
-
2600
-
2600
-
2600
-
2500
-
2500
-
2500
-
2500
-
2500
-
2500
-
2500
-
2500
-
2400
-
2400
-
2400
-
2400
-
2400
-
2400
-
2400
-
2300
-
2300
-
2200
-
2200
-
2200
-
2200
-
2200
-
2200
-
2100
-
2100
-
2100
-
2100
-
2100
-
2100
-
2100
-
2100
-
2100
-
2100
-
2100
-
2000
-
2000
-
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
-
2000
-
2000
-
2000
-
2000
-
2000
-
2000
-
2000
-
2000
-
2000
-
1900
-
1900
-
1900
-
1900
-
1900
-
1900
-
1900
-
1900
-
1900
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
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
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
Brit here. These are, in my opinion, the main issues we have with defence:
- An incredibly wasteful procurement process. Far too much spend with far too little to show for it. AHEM, AJAX.
- A lack of mass. In the number of platforms, stockpiles, our active and reserve forces, we don't have enough. 148 Challenger 3's is a joke.
- A lack of continuity. Even with the war in Ukraine very clearly demonstrating to us that industrial scale warfare is still very much in fashion, we have still been slow to recapitalise our DIB and provide the long term guarantees (ie, contracts) required to get the cogs of industry turning once again
- Lazy recruitment. Delegating recruitment to Capita (a private company) is a dereliction of duty
- Widespread complacency. Peace is taken for granted and the need for readiness is dismissed. Hell, when the government announced that it would be testing a nationwide alert system, there was widespread panic about "warmongering". People need to understand and accept that we live in a more dangerous world, and that we need to be prepared.
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1600
-
1600
-
1600
-
1600
-
1600
-
1600
-
1600
-
1600
-
1600
-
1600
-
1600
-
1600
-
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
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
I can give you a real good reason to use artillery instead of JDAMS…. Authorization for an artillery strike requires authorization from an O-4 and arrives on target in 1 to 3 minutes and nothing will stop it. If you need to put a JDAM down, first you need to get a jet allocated to your mission which is an O-6 or O-7 authority, then you need to validate your position and the position of the enemy, then the pilot needs to confirm your position and the enemies, then he can drop… “But muh JTAC.” The jets on his card are assets allocated to a region but not specifically chopped to you (unless your tier-1 and maybe not then). When you’re in a TIC and CAS is a good option you radio back to the armor, bust out your Controller or TACP, who starts doing his thing. Total time is 10 minutes for best case, but could easily be 30+ minutes, and if the jets get weathered or the tanker has a mechanical issue they may never arrive at all. I’m not putting the Air Force on blast, I’m in the Air Force, but CAS is a Ferrari and sometimes it’s nice to have a good old fashioned Toyota Camry.
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
I was a BMP1 driver, here is my experience: BMP is not a tank, it has not made for fighting, it was made to transport infantry to the front line as fast as possible and cover them for a while if necessary. So it is basically just for fast transportation or a hit and run weapon if anything.
Crossing lakes and rivers is surprisingly safe, some leaks here and there but nothing that could be dangerous even in half an hour, so that never was a concern. I have never experienced that nose-heaviness, never stuck anywhere because of that, so that was not a concern either.
Our concerns were: the fuel tank in the middle of the crew space between the seats, that made everyone VERY uneasy, the additional fuel tanks in the doors at the back, that are either filled with fuel so then the vehicle is completely unable to get into action or filled with sand that make the whole design useless, the tracks tend to dislocate at sharp turns on hard, frozen and uneven ground, the protective grille around the tower inside the vehicle could catch gears, weapons or limbs of inattentive soldiers sitting by it, thus not cause not only damages and injuries but also interrupts the turning of the tower and last but not least, the ridiculously weak armour. The best chance for a BMP to survive in an actively hostile enviroment is to keep on moving very fast so the enemy cannot deliver a hit, or to hide behind cover.
It was nicked "Bunny Bus" since the infantry was just called "rabbits" :)
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
An amphibious landing these days would be even more difficult than back in WWII. Today there are long-range anti-ship missiles. The range of such missiles can reach all the way from Taiwan to China. Troop transport/ferry ships have no significant missile defense, and would depend on any nearby destroyers and cruisers to provide defense. Given the size of these troop transport/ferries, losing just a few of them would result in tremendous losses.
Taiwan currently has some anti-ship missiles, and has recently signed agreements to obtain more. But, they seriously need to build up a larger arsenal. Also, Taiwan needs WAY more anti-air and anti-missile capabilities.
I believe that any invasion by mainland China would start with a truly epic barage of long-range missiles launched from the mainland to knock out as much of Taiwan's defensive capabilities as they can, so a robust defense of Taiwan starts with robust anti-air & anti-missile capability.
Combine that with robust anti-ship missile batteries, lots of sea mines, plus a bunch of anti-tank weapons, such as Javelin, to deal with any that manage to land, and Taiwan's existing land army should be sufficient to deal with any infantry that manage to land.
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
I can give you some insight to Special Forces and why we use the M-4. I’m retired now, but spent some time with the AUG since I was an 18B. Part of it is muscle memory, we all came from big Army and transitioning to an M4A1 over an M4 or M16 was a natural. The trigger on the AUG was terrible, it made a 1970s kid’s cap gun feel good. The optic was basically hated, as with the M4 we could put whatever optic we wanted on it, ACOG, EOTech, Aimpoint, LPVO, or anything else that you can think of, and we got pretty much what we wanted. Also, the M4 is more modular and has rails everywhere, adding a light or PEQ-15 was stupid simple. There was also a supply line issue, if we needed magazines for example we could get them from big Army, Marines, or whoever else was around us. The AUG just never evolves into anything that we found particularly useful, and we had very good reliability with our M4s.
All of that being said, I do have an AUG in my personal collection, and I like it, but it spends a lot more time in the safe than my AR variants.
1200
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
997
-
995
-
994
-
990
-
989
-
983
-
975
-
969
-
966
-
965
-
956
-
956
-
955
-
950
-
950
-
943
-
943
-
937
-
934
-
934
-
922
-
922
-
921
-
919
-
917
-
917
-
916
-
915
-
904
-
889
-
883
-
882
-
882
-
874
-
872
-
870
-
868
-
861
-
853
-
851
-
851
-
850
-
849
-
847
-
845
-
841
-
837
-
835
-
834
-
834
-
832
-
830
-
827
-
827
-
825
-
824
-
822
-
820
-
817
-
817
-
813
-
811
-
808
-
807
-
805
-
804
-
803
-
802
-
801
-
799
-
799
-
797
-
796
-
791
-
790
-
787
-
787
-
786
-
786
-
784
-
783
-
782
-
781
-
780
-
779
-
774
-
766
-
764
-
763
-
763
-
761
-
760
-
760
-
760
-
756
-
754
-
754
-
754
-
754
-
753
-
751
-
751
-
748
-
747
-
747
-
746
-
745
-
744
-
743
-
743
-
742
-
739
-
739
-
738
-
733
-
730
-
727
-
721
-
718
-
716
-
715
-
712
-
711
-
710
-
709
-
706
-
702
-
694
-
691
-
688
-
688
-
688
-
687
-
675
-
673
-
670
-
670
-
668
-
668
-
666
-
666
-
660
-
660
-
660
-
659
-
659
-
657
-
655
-
654
-
652
-
648
-
647
-
646
-
646
-
646
-
644
-
644
-
643
-
641
-
641
-
636
-
632
-
632
-
632
-
630
-
629
-
629
-
627
-
627
-
627
-
626
-
622
-
622
-
620
-
619
-
616
-
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
-
614
-
614
-
611
-
610
-
609
-
608
-
608
-
607
-
607
-
606
-
603
-
598
-
598
-
597
-
597
-
596
-
593
-
593
-
592
-
590
-
589
-
588
-
588
-
587
-
586
-
585
-
585
-
584
-
584
-
583
-
582
-
581
-
579
-
578
-
577
-
575
-
575
-
574
-
573
-
571
-
571
-
570
-
567
-
563
-
563
-
562
-
558
-
557
-
555
-
555
-
551
-
546
-
544
-
543
-
541
-
540
-
538
-
538
-
532
-
531
-
524
-
524
-
524
-
Cappy, as a civilian, I know nothing about how a fire team, squad, group, battalion, whatever is composed. So while this looks cool to me, I don’t really understand how the saw, 240, etc are currently employed. If you get time, could you do a video breaking down how all these different regiments add up to each other, and how the saw, 240, etc fit in with our current doctrine? I love seeing the gun, but it’s hard to understand what it really means for our guys in the field. Thanks!
521
-
519
-
517
-
515
-
513
-
513
-
513
-
513
-
513
-
512
-
511
-
511
-
511
-
510
-
510
-
507
-
506
-
503
-
502
-
501
-
500
-
500
-
Good video and mostely accurate. Let's get some facts straigth. (I've used the FAMAS for several years, and I used to be an instructor on it)
- FALSE, not a ton of plastic parts, and not prone at all to break
- PARTIALLY TRUE, the mags were designed to be disposable, but were ALWAYS reused. Not often. Biggest problem of that weapon system.
- FALSE 25 rounds mags was the maximum amount of rounds you could packin a straight mag, hence lead to easier stockage and packing.
- FALSE No soldier swears by the FELIN system. Maybe we admit that it is good for static defensive tactics, yes, but otherwise no. This is too heavy and too bulky. And relies on fragile electronics. And we very rarely run the FIR/FIL (the big thermal scope).
- FALSE the rifle grenades are accurate, and reliable. They are a huge addition to firepower. The APAV 40 is anti personnel and anti vehicle and is used with regular rounds. The AC 58 however is rarely used, has armor piercing capabilities, but requires a special magazine with blank launching rounds.
- FALSE the nickname Clairon has never been used by the troops. That's a nickname journalists gave to it.
499
-
498
-
498
-
493
-
493
-
492
-
491
-
491
-
487
-
486
-
486
-
486
-
483
-
483
-
482
-
481
-
481
-
481
-
479
-
478
-
478
-
478
-
478
-
477
-
476
-
475
-
475
-
472
-
470
-
469
-
467
-
466
-
466
-
464
-
464
-
464
-
462
-
461
-
461
-
461
-
460
-
459
-
457
-
456
-
456
-
456
-
455
-
455
-
454
-
454
-
454
-
453
-
452
-
452
-
452
-
452
-
452
-
451
-
451
-
449
-
448
-
447
-
447
-
446
-
445
-
445
-
443
-
442
-
442
-
441
-
441
-
440
-
433
-
433
-
431
-
431
-
430
-
430
-
430
-
426
-
426
-
426
-
425
-
425
-
423
-
423
-
421
-
420
-
420
-
419
-
419
-
419
-
Correction, Estonia made the switch to an LMT rifle designating it R-20 "Rahe", my battalion(you feature us prominently in the vid) was actually the first to get it. Spent a fair amount of time with both rifles and gotta say, the galil is still definitely my favorite AK variant, everything on it just makes sense, the charging handle, the safety, it was very pleasant to operate(didn't have the cap opener though, we had a pic mount :) ). The R-20 is a really good AR imho, not the HK416 but still very nice. Though how light and compact it felt in hands after the Galil was astonishing.
Former Sargeant, paramedic in the Estonian Scout battalion for 3 years
419
-
418
-
417
-
416
-
415
-
415
-
415
-
414
-
413
-
411
-
409
-
While the video is generally stays true to the facts, it has many little inaccuracies
I.e. Zlobin's AK-12 never had a quick chamge barrel, nor a "hyperburst" capability (and 900rpm is not a HYPERburst by any means). The 60-round magazines are 4-stack.
Also, Kalashnikov concerh is mostly controlled by private investors, and ROSTEC only holds blocking share (25%+1 share)
New chief designer who managed the "new" AK-12 is Sergey Urzhumtsev
The competing design from Kovrov (the A-545 / 6P67) is completely missed in the story, which is directly related to the "unusual 2-round burst mode" (because military wanted a balanced action rifle, and requirements for the "Ratnik" trials were written accordingly)
Some KM-AK videos are mixed into the lot at roughly 10:00
And while you are correct that optics is important. the key feature is that AK12 can mount ANY modern optics, domestic or imported, and while 1P87 red dot is current standard issue, there are a number of better sights (Night/IR, LPVO and red dots) in the works, which could be seamelessly integrated onto any AK-12
And no, Zlobin's AK-12 was NOT revolutionary at all. it was just a more "westernized" (think "cargo cult") version of the older system, but much more expensive and much less reliable than expected.
407
-
406
-
404
-
404
-
404
-
403
-
402
-
401
-
I'm really grateful you made this video. I was with 1st ID, we RIP'ed out the 173rd at Camp Blessing. My platoon was slated to RIP out with the platoon at Wanat. The day we were supposed to deploy from Ft Hood, our aircraft had an issue and we went on a 24hr stand down. Went out to dinner that night, and at the bar in the restaurant the TV was on and CNN was showing. Breaking news happened, it was the battle at Wanat. My heart sack so deep, knowing that those men were mere days from coming home, days from handing off the battle to us. Not ashamed to admit I cried that night. Not out of fear, but due to heartache for those men. I never knew the backstory as you told it, really interesting. We never went back to Wanat, we focused our efforts out west in the Chapadarra District. I remember seeing AAR's on the SIPR about the battle, and I remember always feeling like it was a serious command failure. Those guys were too far from any QRF, woefully undermanned and under resourced, and overall were put in a tragic and unnecessary situation. I'll never forget this battle. Thanks again for the video, more people need to know about this.
400
-
400
-
400
-
400
-
400
-
398
-
398
-
398
-
398
-
398
-
397
-
396
-
396
-
396
-
395
-
394
-
393
-
390
-
390
-
389
-
388
-
386
-
386
-
385
-
384
-
382
-
382
-
381
-
380
-
380
-
378
-
378
-
378
-
377
-
376
-
376
-
375
-
374
-
374
-
373
-
372
-
371
-
371
-
370
-
369
-
368
-
368
-
368
-
367
-
366
-
366
-
362
-
360
-
359
-
359
-
359
-
358
-
356
-
354
-
353
-
353
-
353
-
351
-
351
-
350
-
350
-
347
-
347
-
345
-
345
-
345
-
344
-
343
-
342
-
341
-
340
-
340
-
339
-
339
-
339
-
338
-
338
-
337
-
337
-
335
-
335
-
334
-
330
-
The WaPo article was also scrutinized by Ukrainian war correspondents. There was also a third direction of the offensive towards Vasylivka, to cover the western flank of the operation. In hindsight, Gen Milley’s idea to concentrate all of the available forces in the main direction of Robotyne would have been a huge gamble that would have also failed but with bigger losses because of the exposed flanks. Regardless, the elephant in the room is that the amount of military aid to Ukraine is absolutely inadequate for conducting offensive operations, despite the huge stockpiles of weapons the US has accumulated during the Cold War. The US has over 6000 tanks, over 11000 IFVs, 1400 MLRS, and so on. The fraction it has made available to fight Russia is so minuscule makes you question its intentions in supporting Ukraine.
WaPo article also has an element of a political request to shift the blame to the Ukrainian army. But how do you expect a combined arms offensive to work without air support and without combined arms? Ukraine simply did not have enough armor in the direction of Robotyne: 100 Bradley’s, 18 Leopard 2s, and Soviet tanks. This is nothing. And, drones were apparently an even bigger problem than mines.
329
-
329
-
326
-
326
-
326
-
326
-
325
-
324
-
323
-
322
-
321
-
320
-
318
-
318
-
318
-
316
-
316
-
315
-
315
-
314
-
314
-
314
-
313
-
313
-
312
-
312
-
312
-
311
-
311
-
309
-
308
-
308
-
305
-
305
-
305
-
305
-
305
-
304
-
304
-
303
-
303
-
303
-
302
-
301
-
301
-
300
-
300
-
300
-
299
-
299
-
299
-
299
-
298
-
297
-
297
-
296
-
294
-
293
-
292
-
292
-
290
-
289
-
289
-
289
-
288
-
288
-
286
-
286
-
284
-
283
-
282
-
281
-
281
-
280
-
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
-
279
-
279
-
279
-
278
-
277
-
277
-
277
-
276
-
276
-
275
-
275
-
274
-
274
-
271
-
271
-
271
-
271
-
271
-
270
-
270
-
270
-
269
-
268
-
268
-
268
-
267
-
264
-
264
-
264
-
263
-
262
-
262
-
261
-
260
-
260
-
259
-
258
-
258
-
258
-
258
-
257
-
257
-
256
-
256
-
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
-
256
-
256
-
256
-
255
-
255
-
254
-
253
-
252
-
252
-
251
-
251
-
251
-
250
-
249
-
248
-
248
-
248
-
247
-
247
-
246
-
246
-
246
-
246
-
246
-
246
-
245
-
244
-
244
-
244
-
243
-
243
-
242
-
242
-
242
-
242
-
242
-
241
-
241
-
241
-
240
-
240
-
240
-
239
-
239
-
238
-
238
-
237
-
236
-
236
-
236
-
234
-
234
-
233
-
232
-
232
-
232
-
232
-
232
-
232
-
230
-
230
-
230
-
229
-
229
-
225
-
225
-
224
-
224
-
224
-
223
-
223
-
223
-
221
-
221
-
220
-
220
-
220
-
219
-
219
-
219
-
217
-
215
-
215
-
214
-
214
-
213
-
213
-
213
-
213
-
213
-
212
-
212
-
211
-
211
-
210
-
210
-
210
-
209
-
209
-
209
-
208
-
207
-
206
-
206
-
205
-
203
-
203
-
203
-
203
-
203
-
200
-
200
-
200
-
200
-
200
-
200
-
199
-
199
-
Very informative analysis.
Admittedly, I find it surreal to be watching images of artillery shells and tanks and to be hearing them being talked about in terms of sheer, cold numbers. 1000 per day, 3000 per day etc. I see the reason why it is all treated like that, but whenever such images show up I can't prevent my head from going back to the moments in march 2022 when colleagues of mine and I took care of freshly wounded ukranian soldiers that had been transported to the hospital I have been working in order torelieve overwhelmed hospitals from poland and vicinity. One in particular had an artillery shell explode not far away from him and came with shrapnel in his brain, lungs, abdomen arm and legs, paralized from the neck down, barely stable after the first round of the necessary surgeries had been done as best as they could in ucraine before sending him to us with the helicopter.
And that's my point. Each of this shell is potentially a dozen or more lives violently torn apart, dozens of relatives mourning, generations to come deeply scarred in their psyche. It's daunting, depressing and infuriating to think humanity cannot come to a better solution to conflict.
199
-
198
-
198
-
197
-
196
-
196
-
196
-
195
-
195
-
195
-
194
-
194
-
194
-
194
-
194
-
193
-
192
-
192
-
192
-
192
-
191
-
191
-
191
-
190
-
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
-
189
-
188
-
187
-
187
-
187
-
186
-
186
-
186
-
186
-
186
-
185
-
184
-
184
-
183
-
181
-
181
-
180
-
180
-
I know you've mentioned it before, but really the m16 wasn't the problem, it was the corrosive ammo and magazines that were the cause if most of it's infamous issues. From my limited understanding, I believe it's a similar case for the m9.
That being said, the m9 needed replacing. However, I think sig was the wrong choice. Striker fire handguns have been around for about 40 years, and glock really hasn't had the difficulties with it that sig has.
True, the army wanted a modular handgun, and the sig is that. But honestly, it's just a handgun. Your ability to change calibers, add lights, lasers, suppressors, ect., is NOT a game changer on the battle field. It's a cool guy factor.
It's the ACR, the XM8, and the SCAR all over again. The military asks for a VERY specific do-all weapon, with infinite functionality and adaptability, then proceeds to utilize zero of its "modular" features, which then just become a hindrance.
The army asked too much of it's new handgun, trying to make it into something it's not, instead of picking the gun that is great at being what it is: a basic 9mm pistol.
180
-
180
-
179
-
179
-
179
-
178
-
178
-
178
-
176
-
175
-
174
-
174
-
173
-
173
-
172
-
172
-
171
-
171
-
171
-
170
-
170
-
169
-
169
-
169
-
168
-
168
-
168
-
168
-
168
-
168
-
167
-
167
-
166
-
166
-
165
-
165
-
164
-
162
-
162
-
162
-
161
-
160
-
160
-
160
-
159
-
159
-
159
-
Troops sitting on top... I believe the reason is because it's more comfortable than sitting inside it and it's a lot easier and faster to dismount. BTR has that tiny doors on the side and top that are hard to pass through, especially if the vehicle is moving.
Being safer when a missile hits you on the outside? Very unlikely... Yes, HEAT works by focusing that inverted cone into a small area, but it is still activated by explosion. And explosion tends to go all the way, spherically. Plus, the pieces of the missile will fragment and go all over the place. With top attack ammo, even worse cos it will detonate more or less right among the guys sitting there. APFSDS might be a different story cos it's basically a dart. However, since BTR is lightly armored, the amount of spalling on the inside is very likely to be low. It will just whizz through and exit the other side. Like shooting a cardboard with a rifle from 2-3m away...
As landmine precaution... Maybe, but I'm still sure the shock wave and the power of explosion will cause a lot of internal damage to the exposed soldiers, throwing them to fly through the air in the process...
So, yeah... I'd say the reason is comfort and ease of dismounting, with the type of protection called "pray we don't get hit". That is why it is more useful as fire support rather than troop transport.
159
-
159
-
159
-
158
-
158
-
158
-
This channel has the best coverage of the NGSW rifles anywhere on the net, honestly. You've been covering this stuff better than the entire mainstream media, and that's worth something right there.
The GD rifle looks better than the Sig bid from where I'm standing - comparing with the video of the Sig contender, the difference in recoil is astounding. Overall, the GD system seems to be a lot more compact, and probably a lot better for use in MOUT without sacrificing it's capabilities on open terrain.
The only possible issues I could see with the GD bid is the recoil damper system with the reciprocating barrel getting out of whack in field conditions and accuracy getting degraded, the possibility of case failures or really nasty ejection failures, and the possibility of much lower quality trigger because it's a bullpup design that has to make use of a long trigger bar.
Those last two, I think there's probably an easy answer. Obviously you know how the trigger felt, so I'd be curious to hear your comments on it. Additionally, you got to handle the ammo, so you could probably say whether or not it seems as tough as brass ammo. As long as it's as tough (or better yet, tougher) than brass cases, it seems like a pure improvement, no downsides.
157
-
157
-
157
-
157
-
156
-
156
-
156
-
156
-
155
-
155
-
155
-
OK, the thing about us (🇬🇧) not using APCs before the cold war.
During the second world war we built and used the 'Universal Carrier'
Tracked, lightly armoured (7-10mm) 3 ton open top vehicle.
It is, in fact, the single most produced fighting vehicle in existence at
👉👉 113,000 👈👈
Ford 4.0L petrol V8
Many different configurations, Scout, Machine Gun, Mortar, Artillery, Battle Taxi, 40mm anti-tank, flamethrower.
Used by 33 different nations from my 1935 to 1960.
154
-
154
-
153
-
153
-
153
-
153
-
152
-
Man,,,, I carried the M60, 23 pounds, 45 pounds with tne and tripod. Also my assistant gunner carried my extra barrel, we split the 1500 rounds which was the required basic load.
These new weapons systems are so much lighter, better for negotiating terrain and buildings, but if they could get away from the disassembled split link belt system that would cut down on more weight as well.
I used to hump that M60 with 110 round assault packs in 100 degree weather in dense foliage, never could gain weight back then, lol!
Props to the new weapons systems and the M60 also fired from the open bolt position, have a good one and keep widdling the short timers stick, God bless!
151
-
151
-
151
-
151
-
150
-
150
-
150
-
150
-
150
-
149
-
149
-
149
-
148
-
148
-
Well done. 2 additional points:
1. Toys. JK, but the acquisition system was revolutionized. In ‘03-‘04 I rode around Baghdad in soft skinned Humvees with the doors off, and was one of the few with SAPI plate armor. I had an M16A2 with no optics and wore tricolor desert camo , blue force tracker sometimes worked, and to talk over the horizon we had an ET phones home thing with an umbrella looking dish that took 10 minutes to set up, and you guessed it never worked. (think Generation Kill type gear). By 2006, there were uparmored Humvees, Mraps, body armor, optics, new coms, etc. granted, the advancements were to meet increasing threat, but I was in combat development from 2001-2003 and most of that stuff wasn’t even on the radar. How many lives were saved?
2. POGs in combat: Yup. As a loggie in the 90s we practiced some asymmetric battle, in the 101st we actually did convoy live fires, MOUT (CQB now) and such, but this practice was not common across the entire army. And it was once or twice in a 4 year tour there. I was still nowhere’s near the level of prep I needed the first time I cleared a building.
I hope we continue to invest in the equipment and training of All soldiers. Because even in peer or near peer battles, ‘POG’s will be in regular contact with enemy special ops and irregular forces.
148
-
148
-
148
-
148
-
147
-
147
-
147
-
147
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
145
-
145
-
145
-
145
-
144
-
143
-
143
-
143
-
143
-
142
-
142
-
141
-
141
-
141
-
140
-
140
-
140
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
138
-
138
-
138
-
138
-
138
-
138
-
138
-
137
-
137
-
137
-
137
-
136
-
136
-
136
-
136
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
133
-
132
-
132
-
132
-
131
-
131
-
131
-
130
-
130
-
130
-
129
-
129
-
129
-
129
-
128
-
127
-
127
-
127
-
127
-
126
-
126
-
125
-
125
-
125
-
124
-
124
-
124
-
123
-
122
-
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
-
122
-
122
-
121
-
121
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
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
-
119
-
118
-
118
-
118
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
115
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
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
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
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
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
As an ex-mortarman, the CV-90 size turret ring can accommodate the twin barrel 120mm mortar system. This devastating, as well as crew protected design sold me on the CV90yrs ago. Exposed troops has become such a non-reason due to current technological standards, that any fellas that don't have a good reason to have cover, has come down to pure negligence these days. Particularly when one's under the threat of counter battery fire, time is just something you no longer have! There are some really good choices these days, that I could see the final pick coming down to something of a simple reason as being the ability not to do it's initial task, but an additional ability that the others don't. I.E. better ATGM's, additional armour, passive or hard-kill protection systems, who knows what else, that's just some of the armament things not to mention weight, cost, availability, the list goes on and on. Glad I live in Canada, lol...
102
-
101
-
101
-
101
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
The bradley is a good addition, but they need more of them. I think the optics will help immensely. My suspision is that just like in pretty much every part of the military, the US's electronics far outpaced what the Soviets could, and then the subsequent Russians, could bring to the table.
The Soviets would try to check boxes to get better chances of exporting their equipment, but the reality is that their ability to design and manufacture good electronics packages has, and remains, far behind what the US could/does field.
I was never in the military, but as someone with a degree in Russian/soviet history, I think people do not really understand how far behind the Soviet economy/military was when it comes to electronics. Anything that relied on microprocessors was either much harder to come by, worse than what the US had, and in all honesty, usually both worse and less available. The soviets were great at heavy industry, but terrible when it came to electronics.
The russians, having in herited mostly 80s soviet military equipment have tried to modernize it with more advanced electronics, with some success, but they don't have the same emphasis on optics, firecontrol systems, guided munitions, avionics, etc. that the US has, its simply not in Russian military culture, and combined with coruption, I think the bradley will be in a great position, even the older M2A2s, to dish out some serious pain.
83
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
as an austrian who have seen quite a lot of military personal by now, i can say a few things about the AUG:
1. the special forces of austria does not use the standard army aug, they use custom build ones with extra stuff, like bigger rail space for attachments or a bigger magazine-button.
2. the standard aug has such a heavy pull, because every guy in the austrian army i talked to hated it when a rifle-trigger is lightweight, especially since the aug has a 2 stage trigger. i guess we austrians just have very muscular fingers or something like that.
3. the biggest downgreat of the aug is that it needs a lot of time to master - reloading in the stock, using the safety, having a heavy trigger, using the 2 stages trigger, all that are things that have to be learned and trained. the austrians from the military use this gun like a 3rd hand, because they are used to it. this is why a lot of special forces turn this gun down, because a bullpop isn´t a very intuitive design by todays standards - but i can tell you, it is certainly a very deadly one if it is in the right hands
80
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
The Malyutka, also known as the AT-3 Sagger is something that I was trained on when I was in the Q Course as a weapons specialist, 18B. We didn’t use the actual missies, too hard to get in the late 1980s and expensive, but the simulator showed us all one thing, it’s extremely difficult to hit a target with it. The TOW we trained with as well and it was much nicer, again, a simulator. My best friend was an 11H before becoming an 18B and loved it, he actually got to fire the real thing a few times. The only thing that he didn’t like about it was when a new company commander decided that training should involve manpacking it, at the time we had M151s instead of HMMVs. We were both in the 82nd Airborne at the time, me as an 11B, and I had more fun laughing him hauling that thing around. One thing that we mutually agreed on though was the Dragon, it was a real POS, the misspelling flew at the speed of nothing and like the TOW it was wire guided which required the gunner to stay upright and sighted in on the target while everyone could see him firing it and shoot at him.
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
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
-
A little clarification: the Griffon and Serval APCs as well as Jaguar armoured recon vehicles targets haven't changed. 1,872 Griffon, 2,038 Serval and 300 Jaguar and 200 modernized Leclerc XLR are all still scheduled to enter service.... just not in 2030 as planned in the 2019-2025 military programming law but in 2035 instead. 1,300 Griffon, 978 Serval, 200 Jaguar and 160 Leclerc XLR are the targets for 2030 now (in the new 2024-2030 military programming law adopted in July 2023).
Also, France only bought a few Javelin units as an urgent requirement for service in Afghanistan as the MILAN was getting old and didn't have a fire-and-forget capability. France has developed a new ATGM to replace the MILAN and Javelin, which is already in service since 2018: the Akeron MP. 400 launchers and 3,000 missiles were ordered so far. So that part of the video is a bit misleading but I guess you took the 2017 report, which didn't feature the Akeron yet. A new simpler and less costly system is also under development to complement the state-of-the-art Akeron in order to increase mass (a result of Ukraine feedback).
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
There is a incorrect statement in this video, and it's about Mideval full plate armor, the armor was actually gave you good mobility, and protection, from things like, arrows, Swords, spears, and to some extent, maces and axes, and yes they were decorated but that did not effect the strength and protection of the armor. And it's not that heavy it's about 60 pounds, and the 60 pounds are not all on your shoulders iit's evenly distributed.
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
A couple of things, firstly the Textron offer isn't caseless, but is "Cased-Telecopic Ammo", which was developed for the LSAT Program, along side a caseless option. Also, while I like the Sig, one potential issue is the Military not wanting to go with one company for ALL of their small arms, since they just recently went with Sig for the new pistol. That being said, I would lean between the Textron and Sig options. While I think I like the Textron option better, I also think that Sig may have a slightly better chance, despite the above issue of contracts.
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
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
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
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
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
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
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
In regards to your quote/theory about 5.56 maybe sticking around in a PDW capacity, I think the PDW-R concept would be an excellent choice for tight-quarters CQB, it would be able to be very small, but still keep a 12-ish inch barrel for decent velocity, and if you could give it as high rate of fire for CQB purposes (say, roughly 900rpm) then you could unleash absolute hell in close quarters from a small rifle, and have a little added lethality from more rounds hitting the target in quick succession, catching 4-5 rounds faster than you can blink would be a devastating wound even wearing body armor, your ribs are now broken, you can't breathe, and the fight has literally just begun.
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
Embrace the suck.
You will feel like every muscle of your body is screaming for mercy. You will get cold, wet, hungry, tired (so tired you will literally fall asleep in your uniform, sitting on your bed, trying to untie your shoelaces) you will feel beat up. You will question your life choices. You will want to quit.
But
When you make it through, and you look back on all the pain and suffering. And you realize that YOU made it through.
You will understand that all that sweating, all that hardship, was molding you. You are no longer a civilian, you are a soldier. You have been through things you never knew you could. But now you know. Now you know, that if you embrace the suck, it will be your greatest teacher and ally. And you are ready to become all that you can be.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
For The United States Marine Corps and Army Infantry, as well as Special Operations Forces, to grow and develop into a lethal Land Warfare Force, 🔥 Arms, Equipment, and even Uniforms and Apparel must be updated and upgraded, that includes the new 6.8mm Rifle and the Sig Sauer M17 Pistol. I AM Prior Service USMC and US Army, and, I will miss the Colt M16A2 and M4A1, and Beretta M9, but, Task and Purpose, I understand that the older gear must be replaced in order to meet new threats on the Battlefield.🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🗽🔫🗡️⚔️💣💥🔥☠️💀
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Just finished, have to say this was my favorite of your videos having watched all the ones on Russia’s war. I will say, you’ve had a bit too much of a contrarian stance as it relates to the media. You also often characterize the media just off of the headlines, all the articles I read have loads of qualifications and skepticism towards the idea Russia is pulling back. Yes, it’s hazardous to form opinions off of headlines, but I think the media has done a good job showing where Russia has done well and where they haven’t, it seems you were less accurate in the previous videos about Russia’s performance. I think everything you had to say was useful, that’s why I’ve watched all of them, but I think a bit more humility in the presentation would be apt.
Hope you keep making these, just wish a bit more due diligence in handling of western media sources. I thought you improved compared to the other videos, still felt prompted to share my observation.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha! What a saga with the Goat Guns! I really enjoy your youtube channel.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Ok so I'm not insulting, you more pointing out something to take into account, from your video I'm watching, you take alot of recoil, its moving you back almost, I dont think this is poor handling on your part, I'm thinking it's the fact the your underweight for your frame to properly control the recoil from a rifle, not that you cant it just may be far harder because, you lack enough muscle mass in the right places to handle the bounce back from that position, again not an insult dont have to be a built dude or woman to fire a gun, but it does help manage recoil, which in the long run would come out on the flavor of the rifle or firearm
12
-
12
-
12
-
@Taskandpurpose Yeah, and we all love the channel for that reason. But you offer analysis and opinon.
I've alwaus appreciated how you are always clear when you're stating a fact, and back it up with your sources. And when you are offering additional analysis or citing someone else's that adds context, historical, economic,, diplomatic, and potential future considerations. And most importantly, when you move from facts and evidence based analysis, into personal opinion, you make that just as clear.
The topics you cover, like national military spending, international conflicts, US-China relations. war, and anything involving Israel or Ukraine, seem to attract content creators who have no scruples citing absurd unverified claims as facts, and disguising their opinions, or opinions of those they agree with, as facts. While at the same time, when someone holds an opinion they disagree with, they claim they aren't just holding a belief different than their own, they're lying, and acting in bad faith.
Always great knowing when I put on one of your videos, it's going to clear, concise, educational, and I won't have to screen for propaganda and lies. Keep up the great work.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
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
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
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
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
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
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Well, armor for armor, of course US/NATO systems are vastly superior--and, as you said Chris, it's about crews, training, tactics, etc. Long term, however, that countermeasure-in-depth concept (not unlike how we layer the way we fight in the air) will have to continue evolving to keep these monsters relevant. It matters because they still have enormous firepower/maneuver value in the right battlespace. LTG Crocker (big time Abn guy) once said, "We only really need tanks about once a generation, but when we need'em, boy, we really need'em."
My knowledge is dated now, but I can tell you some specifics about tanks destroyed in Iraq in -'03-'05, discussions with the actual armor nerds at that time, and unclass info on the armor development, if you're interested.
I can also say that tank crews were killing adversary tanks at 4km both in Desert Storm and OIF actual.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
C'mon Cappy, I've been a long-time fan but that Russian Aggression map is very dishonest. Most of them were invaded either generations before NATO (Like France, as an example, was invaded by a whole European alliance during the Napoleonic wars after Napoleon invaded all of Europe all the way to Moscow) and then a ton of them were "invaded" (most of them liberated and simply passed through) during WWII alongside other allies to defeat Nazism. If we made a similar map of countries invaded by America it would literally include Russia (during the northern Expedition after the Russian revolution in 1917 and during the Russian civil war) as well as almost every single country on that list plus more in every continent. NATO expansion relies partly on Russian aggression, sure, but it also relies on US worldwide power, and is generally a tool of our foreign policy. You personally experienced the first time we activated Article 5, it was 9/11 and it resulted in many countries being pulled into Iraq and Afghanistan and destroying them so thoroughly that it will be many generations before they are the same again. Countries definitely want protection from Russia's aggression, and they are right to, but I don't think it helps to pretend like NATO has served as a simple, common-sense alliance to protect national sovereignty. You know first-hand that is a bogus supposition.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
What do you mean that NATO should stop messing around on Russians doorstep? that statement makes no sense when you know how NATO works. NATO is not forcing or asking countries to become members, countries apply for membership, shouldn't a free country be free to apply to what ever "club" they want to be a part of? Or do you believe that your neighbours has the right to decide what you chose to do? You opinion on NATO is spreading misinformation, NATO is NOT forcing membership on anybody, on the other hand they are turning down countries that are in conflict with among other Russia, which is also why Ukraine was not able to become a member, because they had a conflict with Russia in Crimea..... Anyways, we clearly disagree on this issue, and i dont think you should make it sound like NATO is going around forcing or asking countries to become members that is not the case, its a democratic alliance that you can apply to. BUT other than that, i really like your videos they are very informative, keep up the good work :)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Chris Capelluto and Company does it once and again, with yet another awesome possum video, this time, on " The History of Military Body Armor". I AM Prior Service USMC and US Army ( 1987-1998), and, I do not remember ever wearing SAPI Plates underneath My PASGT Flak Jacket, Woodland Camouflage, issued with a Desert Camouflage Cover for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. One thing You Youngsters in The Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard have are neat Uniforms, and awesome possum weapons and armor and equipment. Thank You Very Much, Task & Purpose.🇺🇸🦅🗽🔫🗡️⚔️💣💥🔥☠️💀
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Abrams-the best tank, not nearly, most likely avarage and slightly above avarage with the latest upgrades. American tankers best trained in the world is much more likely. Look at saudis, they clearly have no clue on how to use a tank, and their M1s burn left and right, while UAE soldiers are happy with their computerised Leclercs and sustained only minor casualties. So, most likely, it's not Abrams itsef, but it's crew made it so succesfull. Some say, if during the "desert storm" US tankers were crewing saddam's T72 and iraquis-M1s, americans would still win.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Great video, brother! I wish we would've had Stryker's when I was in the Army, back in 1980-84! I was leg - infantry, in 2nd Infantry.Korea. Scout Platoon in 9th Infantry, Fort Lewis, WA. And mechanized infantry, with 3rd Infantry Division,.in Aschaffenburg, West Germany! In Scout Plt we ran around in the old jeeps, like in "Rat Patrol" and in Germany we had the M113 Armored Personnel Carrier! They talked about the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, but didn't get them until after I ETSed!! Anyway, I love your videos! Keep up the good work!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Chris Capelluto, did You ever, as an Army Infantry Soldier, get a chance to attend and graduate from RANGER School? Just asking. Meanwhile, this is a great video, Again, on the Next Generation 6.8mm Service Rifle ( NGSW). I will miss the M16A2 and M4A1 Weapons Systems, but, Task and Purpose, The Marine Corps and Army, as well as Special Operations Forces, need new Infantry Rifles. Thanks Again, Young Man. John Rodriguez, Roger Out!!🇺🇸🦅🗽🔫❤️
3
-
3
-
With Textrons bid, why does it have to be so complex? I don’t get it - why not just make a modified M16/M4 variant that uses the new 6.8mm telescoped round? There’s nothing wrong with that. The M16 by itself is already a very light weapon system, so it’s not like the military would actually care if they did that.
If anything, the design that they went with is arguably worse than what we currently have, because of the possibility of bigger costs, and less reliability as a result of its complexity.
Not to mention that from the current prototypes that they have hold like 20 rounds, as opposed to the standard issue 30 round mags that the M16 uses.
Tell me, what’s the point of replacing 5.56x45mm bullets with a lighter and more advanced round if you can’t even carry as much of it in magazines? Shouldn’t the magazine capacities be in the 30’s? I mean that’s why we originally changed from the 7.62 to the 5.56, because soldiers could carry much more of it.
I know that the rounds are supposed to be bigger than the 5.56, but even with the experimental HK G11 (which was a similar idea using caseless ammunition), even that had much bigger ammo capacities per magazine (45-50 rounds). And that was during the Cold War, so what’s Textrons excuse?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Sorry man. But in the moment where the explosion is shown, if you act smarter and look at the same maps, it turns out that that explosion was in the "Dneprovka" area, which already means that the Russians did not shoot at any nuclear power plant, I can only assume that you draw your conclusions on foundation of Ukrainian propaganda. Of course, I will not argue that Russian propaganda is being played on Russian TV channels, but I do not exclude the existence of Western or American propaganda. The next time you look at the information that you are told, just know that it can be a lie - like the video of stuck Russian tanks, which was filmed back in 2020 at military exercises near the Ukrainian border. As a person who served in the Russian army and is familiar with the Russian order in the army, I can say that if the boss gives the order to shoot at civilians, you have 3 options: 1 Obey the order and become an accomplice in a war crime, 2 Refuse to carry out this order because it is a war crime, which excludes it from "direct military duties", 3 (extreme case, if there are witnesses of an attempt to force you to carry out a criminal order, using force or threat of personal violence) Shoot the commander on the spot.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Did Pelosi's jet have escort fighters then, at any point? Also, why does Taiwan sell microchips to China? Taiwan provides, If I remember correctly, 14% of the world's supply of chips (far surpassing other individual countries), with European countries being their biggest buyers, but yet China buys them too. China, at the very least, emposes trade embargoes on Taiwan, has been violating Taiwanese airspace with fighter jets for months, allowing for multiple first strike options, and basically flexing it's bully muscles via clandestine economics and majorly fueling the global arms race we've all been partaking in. The PRC considers Taiwan, and Tibet not only as part of China, but as "wayward children," who need to fall in line or else (barely paraphrasing). So yeah, why would Taiwan sell anything to China at all? I believe I have a general idea, but what does everyone else think? Keep in mind Taiwan has no shortage of East Asian, or other global trade countries they can rely on and flourish from.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Chris Capuletto: Forward Observers ( USMC MOS 0861 and US Army MOS 13F) , Forward Air Controllers, and JTAC - Qualified Air Force Special Operations Combat Controller Teams and Tactical Air Control Party Special Warfare Airmen, are a Blessing of YHWH Sabaoth, GOD of Hosts, to all Army, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Forces Units, bringing a fusion of 🔥 power and fury to the Enemy Aggressor on the Battlespace. DEATH FROM ABOVE, SEND THE PAIN BELOW , WEAPONS HOT, DANGER CLOSE, AND FIRE FOR EFFECT!!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🗽🗡️⚔️🔫💣💥🔥💀☠️
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Your content is always informative, clear and compelling; and this episode was at the top of the range.
If you're interested in the history/meta of this subject, I'd recommend "There's a War to Be Won" by Geoffrey Perret. The first half of which recounts the shift from WWI thinking and planning to where we found ourselves at the beginning of WWII, and how the Army fundamentally restructured itself, built command structures and officer training infrastruture during the interwar years, essentially making it possible for us to create, train, equip, suppport and project the Army we had at the end of WWII out of the (frankly paltry) Army with which we started WWII.
It"s full of detail about how the M1 was developed, the Jeep, the Sherman ...the DUKW -- so many iconic systems -- and then we had to figure out how to use them. When the Armored Force was created in 1940 it consisted of 2 divisions ... and no doctrine (other than 1. don't send tanks into a town or forest and 2. don't move tanks forward unless there's infantry between them. Full stop). Chock full of real stories about the technology, lessons and personalities that made it all happen.
I am not a paid spokesperson. Trent Hone has written a great book, "Learning War" about how the US Navy learned, improvised, adapted and won... but I'm not sure how welcome res navalis are here.
Keep up the great work!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hay Crappy! (Tell me, Cappy, how many times have you heard that one? The "Hay!"; not "Crappy") but, even though having personally used "Hay!" a thousand-million times (that's 903, right?) (or is it British ((they don't speak "English," ya know)) for "The Big B"?) ... Oh, never mind. Even @71 I've yet to learn never to play on someone else's sandlot ... or, at least, don't bet on it. This is pinned under a video I actually watched a year-or-so ago, but you are a really gifted young man (remember, I'm 71, and can say such - with a touch of remorse, of course.) and so while awaiting the latest Task & Purpose, YouTube sent me on a retreat. THIS retreat. Honestly (after a bunch of lies already, what does a little "honestly" matter?), I'd like to see where you find yourself in another 20 years but, methinks, the odds dictate I'll be long gone. Good luck, My Man. I've really enjoyed your stuff (that is, "I've learned a bunch)(Oh, and laughed a bit at your style, too). Later. DC.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is an extremely interesting topic two me because there is no middle ground for the most part. You are either very well protected, and limited in motion and speed, or utterly vulnerable and agile. And then since our goals include full protection in a slim, mobile and human looking suit, it will soon beg the question on why we don’t just send robots to do our deeds. We’re getting very close to full AI warfare it seems like, with drone strikes, overall more tactical warfare and even straight of robots learning what we instill in them. If our soldiers and Marines become fully protected in a suit that is only limited by their endurance, why not just send a robot who can’t get hurt, or tired, and possibly will even be controlled by a human. Excluding malfunctions, we’re trying to make these biotic-exo-skeleton-sci-fi-out-of-this-world advances and it almost seems silly to even have humans risk life at all. That’s my 2 cents, I just find that an interesting outlook on things.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Video Topic Suggestion: The End of the Manned Armored Vehicle & Large Artillery Era
In the mid 1930s, aircraft were too slow and unable to carry enough firepower to really threaten battleships - but aviation technologies (airframes, engines, weapons) were exploding at that time and 10 years later it was apparent to everyone that the era of the battleship was well and truly over.
Today, drone technology is exploding (smaller size, greater range, less weight and volume, more loiter time, man portable, more explosive force, easier to use, fire-an-forget, AI target identification, drone swarms, wider range of sensors (including TV, IR, radar, motion detectors), etc.) and the Ukraine war is conclusively demonstrating that the era of tanks, armored personnel carriers, and large artillery pieces (both stationary and mobile) is over. For the weight of one (1) main battle tank - 100,000 lbs - you can fly in 1,000 to 2,000 Javelin or Stinger missiles. It is hard to come to any other conclusion that we are witnessing the "Pearl Harbor" moment for manned armored vehicles and large artillery pieces that will largely chase them off of future battlefields.
As a student of warfare, you might want to think about (if you haven't already) what modern armies will look like and of what they will be composed in the next 10, 20, and 30 years. In this case, I emphasize the relative near term because the changes we are seeing are so dramatic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sorry this is bs. 1) russia telegraphed all its moves for over a year before they attacked, and I'm sure that both sides had spies in each others territories. So the Ukrainians had lots of time to plan how to meet this attack.
2)with 290000 active 150000trained reservists,and at last count 17000 foreign volunteers that's 457000 trained soldiers,so the russians are outnumbered almost 3:1 on the ground. And that's not counting 100's of thousands of armed civilians.
3) the Ukrainians have completely taken the initiative, they are dictating the entire tempo of the war so far, they choose the where and when to attack, when to stand and when to retreat
3) The pissed away all their advantages by attacking on 5 different axis, not one of which is mutually supported. The are also launching up to another dozen smaller attacks as well.
4)They have crap logistics, only in the south,which is essentially empty prairie, have they made any kind of progress. Everywhere else they've gotten nowhere and ran out of fuel while bearly Inside the country
5) their morale and command and control sucks,no evidence of proper combined arms coordination at all and these issues are cancerous to an army.
So all in all,not only are the Ukrainians holding their own I think that they even have a shot at winning this
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Cappy, you're wrong about the ZK 476! The Czech ZK 476 WAS adopted not just by the then Czechoslovakian Armed Forces (which originally designated it as the samopal vzor 48 vysadkovy or Sa vz. 48b or, in English, "submachine gun model year 1948 para", but later decided to rename it the Sa 23, Sa 24, Sa 25 & Sa 26 but it's most famously known as the CZ Model 25!), but also by, among others, Lebanon, Libya, Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, Poland, Syria, Vietnam, & even South Africa! Believe it or not, it was even used by the CIA-backed Cuban counterrevolutionary exiles during the failed Bay of Pigs invasion! So, NO, the CZ 25 is NOT a failure but a clear SUCCESS! That's why the Israelis copied & improved on it to produce the Uzi! Pretty much the same way the much later Galil assault rifle was actually derived from the Finnish RK 62 assault rifle, which itself is actually a much modified & improved AK-47! Also, if you've seen the latest iteration of the Uzi, the Uzi Pro, the damned thing sort of resembles the latest toy laser pistol used in Laser tag! Remember that game? If you don't believe me, look it up! ENJOY!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Your knowledge of the AK series is certainly mediocre. Stg is not related to AK in any way. And the AK-47 never existed at all.
Learn at least the chronology of the names of the main AK of the Soviet Army. 1947-1960: AK, AKS; 1957-1980: AKM, AKMS, AKMSU, AKMN; 1974-2012: AK-74, AKS-74, AKS-74U, AK-74N, (since 1986, automatic weapons began to be disguised in plastic), since 1991: AK-74M, AK hundredth series for export and special services of Russia (AK-101, AK-102, AK-103, AK-104, AK-105, AK-107 and AK-108). In 2012, they adopted the AK-74MK with Picatinny bars, since 2015, the AK-12 began to be bought into the Russian army
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The music turns me off. Voting thumbs down. The music is to manipulate the viewer's emotions. "It gives it a professional polish, don't you think?" I would imagine the maker of the video wants to maximize the profits, and I don't criticize him for that, but I'm spoiled by informational videos that put out information without fluff. I also understand that some people need fluff, because, otherwise, they get bored, or that information is, to them, a medicine best sweetened with music. I think they're missing out, because story telling, and that's what you get when you listen to an interview or lecture without the emotional music, is actually interesting. This is my last criticism, you'll be happy to read, since I'm configuring out "Tank & Purpose".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This video lacks the fact that this was a massive victory for America. It’s not chaos. This is an elimination of chaos. Right-wing commentators, especially Russian backed propaganda in media in Russia or on Fox News, or SkyNews have been labeling this as “chaos”.
This is the RESOLUTION OF PREVIOUS CHAOS for democracy. But they aren’t on our side so they call it chaos. It’s solidifying. Not chaos. There’s no real mention of it. It might be complicated, but this thing clearly went all the way around between Biden, Blinken, Erdogan, Netanyahu, Lebanon, and Hezbollah about to be wiped out if not agreeing to a ceasefire, at that point the Kurds and Iraq were an afterthought because they would love it anyway. This is a masterpiece of Biden’s engineering. It wouldn’t have happened without his blessing. And at the worst all you have to do is look at the Bathist-Sadamist style torture proof to know it couldn’t get any worse. Whatever Biden got them to agree with, it’s more that anyone thought they would publicly acknowledge.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Cappy, do not bullshit man, in the gulf war the Bradley could see 3km, other units weapon systems could see what brand sigarettes Saddam was smoking. Now some facts, almost all friendly fire incidents where caused by the Americans, seeing a vehicle 3km away or 30 meters does noet make a different if you can not identify it. You Americans could see everything including Saddams safs, yet could not find the scud missiles Iraq was firing. Yes the Bradley is a good vehicle, its big, uses a lot of fuel and needs a lot of maintenance. It was amfibic so it could cross rivers, had a low profile so it would not been seen 3 km away, and it had speed to keep up with the Abrams tank. In fact it is so good that the next ifcv will not be of U.S origin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I enjoy definitively your channel. Keep up the great work!!! However, I take issue with your categorization of ALL AUS officers. Having served as a Marine infantry officer once in command of 2dANGLICO, then the largest airborne unit in the Corps, I had the honor to serve with many fine Army contemporaries, (18th Abn Corps [82d Airborne], 24th Mech ID, 75th Ranger Regt, and the 7th SF Grp. While there were certainly a few exceptions, most of these Army officers truly cared for the soldiers they were entrusted to lead and wanted to bring them back home alive notwithstanding the necessity of accomplishing the mission. I would challenge you to count the total number of infantry officers you served immediately with. Whatever the number, compared to the thousands of officers serving during your enlistment, is your categorization of officer carelessness towards wasting a soldier’s time based on personal experience or more akin to the barracks ‘scuttlebutt’ forming from the ‘love/hate’ and different role relationship. LtCol Y.R. USMC(Ret), 0302/9962.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brother, I'm a Marine 68-72, one of my sons (1 of 4) is also a Marine 2011-2015 (Helmand, Afghanistan), and my dad was an 0811 canon cocker, USMC, (41-46 - in the Pacific). I say that because your video footage had a USMC 0-3 (Capt) on the range, ostensibly in N.E. Jordan. You said only AF/Army in Jordan. Which is it? Bad info, or stock footage? If it's the second, shame on you! I can understand being wrong, but stock military footage from someone who says they are Task and Purpose, give me a break! Your viewers (at least this one) know real from fake!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1