Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Garand Thumb"
channel.
-
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