Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Garand Thumb"
channel.
-
1200
-
752
-
388
-
183
-
156
-
83
-
70
-
56
-
It's useful, if done right, following actual tactics, missions, objectives, and with everyone playing by the rules. With the intent of building teamwork, practicing specific maneuvers, or rehearsing a mission (like a large sandbox walkthrough). But if you're just playing randomly with random other people, maybe not so much.
It just all depends upon how you're using it, who you're doing it with, why you're doing it, and what you're hoping to achieve.
Good exercise, good fun otherwise.
55
-
53
-
51
-
45
-
36
-
34
-
30
-
22
-
18
-
15
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
Rule of 3s
3 hours without shelter (to include clothing, hat, gloves, etc. as well as something like a tarp/poncho)
3 days without water
3 weeks without food
in teh short term, go light on food, ditch the cooking gear, know that you might be hungry and lose a few pounds, but overall you're going to survive easily without food, or very limited amount of ready to eat food, in a 3-5day pack.
Instead of food, focus on water, including collection and filtering, and on dressing for the environment (from the cold of night, to warmth of day, to dealing with rain and wind and snow). keep it simple, keep it minimal.
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@NANA-lq5md Yes, but so does everyone else too, to b honest.
USAF still uses the U-2, F-117, B-52, F-15, F-16, A-10, F-5/T-38, C-130, C-5, etc.
Look at the E-2 and C-2 for the USN.
F-4 was only recently retired. Look how long the F-8, T-33, F4U, P-51, C-47, A-1D, A-26, Mig21, Mig17, and A-4s lasted in service around the world. Tu-95?
Look how long the MG42 family has been in service (not to mention its M60 descendant). 1911?
M113, CH-47 and OH-6 for the US Army?
CH-53 for the USMC?
2.5ton and 5ton trucks, Jeep, Humvee?
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@ElkaPME exactly. but the point is, teh US will never fight the same way we see in Ukraine. But people are shocked to know teh US anticipated everything happening in Ukraine.
We used 4 different types of small drones in OIF/OEF, as well as multiple robots, and T-MAXX RC suicide cars in my platoon. Switchblade UAV was invented during OIF/OEF. US has used suicide drones in combat since WW2 (TDR-1).
The pentagon anticipated a return to trench and underground warfare years ago and published a report on it. I also tried telling guys trench warfare wasn't dead nearly 20yrs ago, and they all thought I was crazy. I spent a LOT of time studying WW1/WW2 trench warfare, as well as fortifications and more. I have an entire library of books perfect for the war in Ukraine, that I studied religiously 20yrs ago while I was fighting in OIF/OEF. I also studied Vietnam booby traps, and we did mines and such as combat engineers too.
Nothing these guys are describing is earth shattering nor unanticipated by US personnel and the Pentagon. We just employ our systems differently since we wouldn't fight like we're seeing in Ukraine, we don't get bogged down teh same way. But make no mistake, we have been developing the sort of fighting techniques used in Ukraine for decades. We found ways to improvise things in OIF/OEF and prior wars too.
Drone spotted artillery has been done by the US longer than I've ben alive in many wars. I've been shelled in combat, but our counter battery fire was so good they couldn't sustain fire unless they wanted to die. We also developed lasers and other point defense weapons in OIF/OEF to counter RPGs, Artillery and Mortar rounds midflight. Many of the counter drone weapons you see in Ukraine were developed by the US, UK, Israel years before Russia invaded, showing that we anticipated this.
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@tuomasnurmi7353 Often times guys use night visions when natural light is more than adequate. this gives them a false sense of stealth when they are using them, thinking the enemy can't see them. There are secondary means of detection at night too, such as sound. I used this to great effect in Iraq, and my unit actually ended up changing lots of other units' night ops too as a result.
When training guys in urban ops, I'd play tricks on them to teach them what might happen. Lots of guys run their NVGs too bright, and I'd use white light to blind them temporarily, but long enough to get the advantage and destroy them. I also taught them tricks about how I personally ran my NVGs to combat/counter my own tricks. But I was turning their NVGs to My advantage, sometimes while using NVGs myself, sometimes not. People think NVGs are an automatic advantage.
I have tricks for the proper use of lights when driving, including internal lights. But to understand these, one needs to appreciate how the human eye works.
I also taught guys about night adaptation techniques.
But you have to understand the pros and cons of natural vision, how our vision works, and how the technology works and its limitations.
You can also extend this to things like weapon lights and such. They can be useful, but many people don't realize they can get you killed just as easily. Also, the type of light matters. I never used the ones we were issued because they were terrible. and had far too many drawbacks with limited to no useful applications for our mission.
Then there are thermals....
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@rsr3959 I can work with that. 5min seems a reasonable rule of thumb. I can easily sit for much longer than that, but I see where you're coming from. Yes, weather conditions dependent. sometimes I can listen in to a group of people's conversations from across the street in town, or from 1/4mile down the trail outdoors depending upon conditions. But other times it's them who can hear me and I can't hear them. When sound is an issue, I also focus Heavily on moving slowly and deliberately (you can learn a lot from watching how deer move in the woods). I also try to mask any noise with background sounds (moving along a noisy river, although that is a double edge sword), time my movements with intermittent sounds, etc. I also wear minimalist shoes all the time too, as they are much quieter than stiff soled boots/shoes, and better for your feet, balance, and other aspects of physical fitness. But they allow me to move much more quietly and make me far more mindful of what is beneath my feet and where I am stepping (becomes subconscious).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@scrotor189 exactly. some of us still prefer 20in at times. and in a purely scientific study, they are OBLIGATED to test a 20in, regardless of personal feelings on the matter.
Everyone is arguing over what is "standard" or not, when most barrel lengths tested aren't standard anywhere. Some say military standard, but the military uses exclusively 14.5" and 20", not 16". And civilians rarely use 14.5" compared to 16" or even something like 10.5" these days. But 20" barrels are still really easy to find and purchase, let alone longer barrels. what would have been proper is testing each length (say 9"-24") with the same round, and a barrel twist at that length optimized for that round. then try the same thing again with a different common round (55gr?) in barrels from 9"-24" with optimized twists.
People say, "other videos test those barrels". but you have different parameters, target placement, field conditions (temp, elevation, etc), different twists, different ammo, etc. and so data from one set of tests cannot be combined nor correlated to another wholly different study/comparison in a meaningful way.
This video had the opportunity to be THE comparison video, and failed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kirkchurchil8216 "grand thumbs vid on freezing rifles along with many other people testing this showed Al’s are way more reliable. They also look way better lol! I have no problem with AR’s but you elites are so cringe."
we're cringe? For citing facts and case examples from actual combat? For stating the Exact same things you just said?
I think you're just jealous that you don't have real world experience to back up your opinions with. Not that a person can't make an objective analysis based upon facts and scientific data. There is also bias in experience, something I strive to eliminate and form an objective final opinion without bias. But the facts are, the AK-47 is deadly (but so is a Ruger 22 pistol), but loses in so many areas to the M4 that it's not even close. M4 is far and away teh better rifle, and so many militaries use it, while few modern militaries remain who still use the AK-47.The evidence is there for any who are logical. But we have so many weak and emotional people these days, can't separate emotion from reason.
In war, to win, to survive, you have to master your craft, objectively. War doesn't give a shit what your opinions and feelings are. Win, adapt, survive. Failure to adapt your way of thinking to what works, what wins, gets you killed. No room for weak emotional fanboys in combat, they either die or man up.
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
-
@LFDNC "maybe we should take some of the heat out of this conversation."
Be the change you want to see in teh world.
"I would personally like to see good, but not vicious insults"
speak for yourself. No "viscous insults" came from me. Just facts and fair criticism.
"One interesting thing I saw in this video is the blunt force trauma from plate impact. My takeaway lesson is that armor is invaluable, but not unstoppable."
That is the way armor has Always been. We've always known this. Most armor cannot stop more than 2-3 rounds depending upon caliber. And so most ammo can penetrate body armor if you hit it multiple times. A .50cal can go through about 5 layer of military ballistic glass, and it takes a .30-06 3 shots to do the same thing, for example. Guys in my unit shot their own plates and helmets, and at close range the 5.56 from our M16s went right through. We had Level 2 and Level 3 AP plates during my deployments. Sometimes it takes 2 shots to penetrate. But size and velocity are factors in penetration. Smaller objects punch though easier than larger diameter objects. You can even penetrate things like tanks with smaller weapons like 20mm, if you keep hitting the same spot enough times. Each shot helps weaken teh armor a little more each time until something gets through. Also, not are regions of a target are equally armored.
"They suggested that the fractured rib could cause a lung puncture."
Yes, that could happen, but you'll live. In OIF/OEF, sucking chest wounds became a thing we focused on and it saved tons of lives. We also focused more on tourniquets and quick clot, than in previous wars. Combat medicine improved Dramatically after 9/11. We studied combat death statistics and everything in learning how to prevent needless deaths by knowing what injuries killed the most people and how to detect injuries and fix them. We developed procedures that were radically different too, such as stripping guys down to nothing after getting hit to ensure we didn't miss a secondary wound. Armor was redesign for quick release to get it off, and we carried combat shears to cut clothing and other gear off in a hurry. Seconds and minutes count when someone is bleeding out.
"I have heard about chest impacts causing hearts to stop (like leggy blonds), and I wonder if a high energy dump from a bullet on the sternum would cause heart stoppage."
My heart stopped once in Iraq, but not from a bullet. A 500lb IED blast knocked the wind out of me and made my heart stop. I've never heard a single real-world case of someone's heart stopping due to a bullet striking their body armor. A bullet does not carry that kind of energy.
2
-
@LFDNC "hey man, your response is exactly what I’m talking about. "
yes, clearly you're allergic to facts and scientific debate.
"You are clearly upset about something, it comes out clear in your sentence structure."
you're projecting. reading into things too much You're reading what's not there. How about you stop making false accusations and stick to facts and evidence?
" Also the fact that you took the time to select individual lines to criticize out of a good faith statement."
WTF? There is no such thing as a good faith statement", stop making up BS.
Yes, I quote specific lines so that one, people know exactly what I'm referring too, ensuring they have proper context from which to understand. And two, so that they know I'm not misquoting them. This is how debate works, maybe you should read up more on it. If you can't handle it, too bad.
"There is nothing fair about your criticism, simply because you are showing that you are not engaging in good faith. "
nothing fair? in what way? "good faith" has nothing to do with this. Stop trying to make this some sort of religious debate. Stop trying to derail the conversation with Red Herrings.
"Argue if you wish, but I bow out of that."
then what even was the point of this whole religious diatribe you wrote? Here you are arguing, yet not providing a single valid counter argument, not providing a single shred of proof of anything, just a bunch of hokey opinions and childish nonsense. Where are the facts? where is the substance that proves you right and me wrong? If you're truly right, you should be able to make your case easily. But instead you make up nonsense. You also falsely accused me of "vicious" insults, like a woke feminist would, and you failed to provide an example of such a "vicious" insult I made.
Stop whining. Stop playing the victim. You're not a victim.
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
-
think what the US military was using in the past.
1990s: Iron sights
2000s: basic red dot optics, bulky by today's standards, low battery life
2010s: starting to see thermal optics, widespread use of laser designators, red dots smaller and longer battery life, pistols with red dots, etc.
2020s: auto targeting and range finding variable power optics, auto off, battery measured in years.
2030s: range finder will get more compact/integrated, things will get lighter and smaller, more seamless thermal imaging integration, recoil controlled round counter.
edit: finished typing the above exactly as he mentioned that the XM-157 is working to integrate thermal imaging.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GarandThumb not objective enough. the bullet doesn't care if the gun has a stock or not. it doesn't even know what it's being fired out of.
These classifications are arbitrary, and pointless.
For me, only things like "smoothbore" or "rifled" matter, as they truly affect things. Putting a bullet for a rifled barrel down a smoothbore gun is not going to work so well. But pistols are typically "rifled" too, but not always, and not originally. And even the idea of a "rifle" as we think of it today would include things like a "musket", as the term "rifle" has come to generically describe a form factor more so than the barrel itself. Not everything with a rifled barrel is considered a "rifle".
A 22LR, 9mm, .500 Nitro Express, 500 S&W, 50 Beowulf, 50 AE, etc. all look a lot alike. What makes some "rifle" rounds, and others "pistol" rounds? Do they not all fire from rifled barrels? Can they not all be fired from a short pistol length barrel, or a long "rifle" length barrel?
If a caliber were originally designed for a handgun, but ended up being used almost exclusively in "rifles" (so much so most people had no idea there were any pistols that fired it), would it still be a pistol round?
I deal with this nonsense in my day job as an engineer constantly. Everyone needlessly trying to over classify things with arbitrary definitions, and all they do is serve to confuse everyone for no beneficial reason.
Gov LOVES overclassifying things, as it enables them to skirt the laws and ban things and get away with stuff they shouldn't have been able to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AdventureswithaaronB yes. depending upon fat stores in your body. one man who was obese (weighted hundreds of lbs) went 387 days without food with no ill effects. he lost a Lot of weight though. Another 21yr old girl went 40 days without food and died shortly after ending her fast. but she lacked the body mass to go more than about 20days without food before suffering ill effect. Her body started consuming muscle mass (autophagy), including her heart, and she died as a result of it (basically heart attack).
The Average person can go 3wks. About 20-40days. Some can go more, some can't do that much (too skinny, unhealthily skinny). Many people these days can likely go much longer since they are overweight or obese to some degree.
The first 72hrs of not eating are the hardest as chemical signals in your brain telling you you're hungry dissipate. After that you'll have no hunger, only thirst. But eventually your body will start giving you hunger signals again. Do not ignore those signals and eat something immediately. Learn to listen to your body, it will tell you what you need and when.
My general rule of thumb is what is the normal healthy weight for your size and age? for every 1.5lb over that you can go ~1 day without food, as your body tends to use 1-2lbs of body weight per day as energy, depending upon exertion. You body consumes fat stores and damaged cells first, and will switch into a "famine" mode after the first ~3 days of not eating. strive to avoid dropping much below the range of normal body weight to avoid the issues that 21yr old woman suffered. Someone who is "fit" but has really low body fat, may not be able to go as long at a given body weight as someone with less muscle but higher body fat %, at the same initial body weight and size. At the very least they will lose some of their muscle mass.
You still need to hydrate, and you can consume salts to replace lost minerals throughout a fast or period of not eating, which is where those liquid IVs and other drink mixes, gatorade and powerade can be crucial.
But you need to figure out what works for you. Everyone is different and can tolerate different amounts, and at different levels of exertion. there is nothing exact about this, and I can't guarantee anything. I did my on research and experimenting over teh years, and you should do some research of your own rather than trusting my word.
Personally, I regularly do 1-2 day fasts, and try to do a 3-7 day fast as often as once a month. I actually started studying the whole idea behind fasting based upon my experiences in combat, as well as studying local cultures such as fasting during Ramadan (many religions have such fasting rituals in fact).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
what purpose was this rifle designed to serve? Outside of the US military, few nations are using body armor, and the 5.56 is equally capable of penetrating body armor. Most soldiers can't shoot as accurate as the 5.56 can hit, let alone a more powerful rifle. Most soldiers already struggle to control recoil with the 5.56, let alone a more powerful rifle. Most soldiers struggle to hit past 200m even with a low recoil rifle like the 5.56 AR15/M4/M16 platform. Ammo is life. He who brings more ammo to the firefight wins, and this weapon brings Less ammo. This weapon has been tested and does not hold up to dirty conditions as well as the AR platform. It has more parts, more complexity, less reliability, and weighs more.
Again, what battlefield threats was this designed to contend with? In Ukraine they are using the AR platform just fine. The AR platform did great in OIF/OEF (for those who actually hit their targets and didn't lie and blame the rifle to cover up their lack of marksmanship skills).
The round is powerful, don't get me wrong. But what problem are we trying to solve here?
1
-
1
-
@sungukyun2608 in some ways, yes. They had better camo in Iraq for one. ACU stood out like a sore thumb and looked like crap. Marine desert digital worked great. And the uniforms look great.
But the Army often equipped themselves with stuff from home, resulting in even better gear. People constantly mistook my unit for Special Forces. We were a top unit, used marine vehicles and uniforms, and had rare prototype equipment, as well as personally modified rifles. It always threw people for a loop, and we often times used that and pretended to be special forces to get people to leave us alone.
Most of the equipment/mods I used overseas are on my personal rifle now. We changed out the handguards, triggers, selector levers, charging handles, stocks, optics, pistol grips, mags, lights, slings, mag releases, and more. We'd return them to issue spec before turning them in. I came up with a durable and effective sling mount overseas I still use as my go-to, a solution I've never seen a single other person use to-date. It was fun getting the reactions we got overseas. Kept things interesting.
1
-
1
-
@matthiuskoenig3378 "the M2 used to be worth it, but not anymore. its now in a negative goldilocks zone, it can't penetrate anything .338 can't penetrate that it actually faces on the battlefield, but doesn't have enough penetration compared to 30mm which can easily replace it on all vehicle mounts (due to 30mm RWS systems)."
this was not my combat experince with the M2. it penetrated things many weapons could not. We loved our M2, and nothing I see will replace it.
I couldn't help but notice how you completely skipped/ignored the 20mm's existence.
If you replace the M2 where it is used, such as tanks, aircraft, trucks, fixed defensive positions, etc. the RM338 is giving up tons of firepower. In WW2 the RAF had to mount 2-3x as many .30cal to cause as much damage as what 4-6x .50cal could dish out. And 6x .50cal were as good or better in certain cases than 4x 20mm.
Also, the Ohio REAPR is also 338 and lighter than an M240B, making the RM338.....OBSOLETE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1