Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. 33
  2. 9
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11.  @SonsOfLorgar  which proves my point and validates my analysis that the Russians, even back in February, were largely inadequately trained. If they had been properly trained, they'd have fought better like the Scandinavians. I had a total of 8months training over a 2yr period prior to my first year-long combat deployment to Iraq, and my unit fought in the fiercest period of that conflict in the hottest locations and we came away with multiple unit awards and achieved unmatched success on the battlefield. We did it again on my second deployment as well. Generals and Admirals alike were amazed by how good we did because no other unit was matching our success. We were highly motivated, very skilled and intelligent, and adapted and developed new tactics daily. We were always 1-3 steps ahead of our enemies and other units. Duration of training alone isn't what matters. It also matters the intelligence and discipline of your recruits before they enter service, the skills and knowledge they already possess when they enter service, and the quality of the training they receive (that's a whole debate that can last for days as to what is and is not good/useful training). But Whatever training the "professional" Russians had, it was less and worse than I got in 7 months prior to my first combat deployment. There are other factors that affect it too such as experienced NCOs, long term retention of professional soldiers (we had guys with combat experience from Panama, Bosnia, Grenada, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan in my unit alone on my first deployment).
    1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1