Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Task & Purpose"
channel.
-
678
-
325
-
255
-
78
-
51
-
@jaylee5692 were you ever issued thermals? We had individual thermals in Afghanistan, and thermal scopes on all the M2, Mk19, and M240.
Then the cost of the M4, and for some reason they issued my unit 1 Aimpoint M2, 1 Trijicon, and 1 Eotech PER SOLDIER in Afghanistan. I ended up running the Eotech with 3X zoom. Don't forget weapon lights, and some units get lasers. then radios and GPS units (Dagger/plugger).
Then there is the M203s we had, and the AT-4s, M249, uniforms, rucks, poncho, sleeping bags, cold/wet wx gear, boots, body armor (front/rear/side plates, carrier, and helmet), first aid kit, combat life saver bags (everyone in my unit was trained), etc.
That stuff isn't cheap.
42
-
37
-
32
-
26
-
25
-
21
-
19
-
@shwethang4347 Most deployed soldiers are terrible shots, and blame the ammo for failing to hit the target. 5.56 has tons of "stopping" power.
But, please explain, objectively, and scientifically, what you think stopping power is? And then explain why the 5.56 doesn't have it.
I deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, fought as a front line grunt for years. The M4 worked just fine for us. We also had the M2 and 240B if we needed to reach out and touch someone. Or, we could get support for helicopters, artillery, marksmen, etc.
I was hitting 500m with Ease in Afghanistan with my M4, and could have hit further if necessary.
also, 5.56 penetrates body armor that will stop a 6.8, 7.62, etc.
18
-
14
-
14
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@kurtwicklund8901 wrong. they understood that steep mountains are not good for tanks. notice the lack of US armor in the steep mountains of Afghanistan.
Also, transporting tanks and offloading them on islands is hard. the smaller and lighter the tank though, the easier it gets, and the more you can transport.
Look at the tiny tankettes Italy used to fight in the mountains.
China, Korea, SE Asia, pacific islands, are not friendly to heavy armor. the terrain is too steep, too wet, lots of rivers to cross, and it's hard to move large armor to islands. Large tanks are sitting ducks in the terrain china will fight in.
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@waefawawrgaw2835 who is starving in the US? I can feed an adult for less than $30/month. We have food banks and charities, welfare, etc. Stop telling lies.
Poverty was all but eliminated in the US. Almost every job is paying well above poverty line.
Poverty in the US today is a CHOICE.
US healthcare is the best in the world, and that's a fact. it's also expensive due to corporatism of the insurance companies, doctor's union, and big pharma like pfizer colluding with the gov to keep prices high and stamp out any competition. I drew up a business plan a few years ago to offer MRI for $40 each, and Xrays for $20 each, and it was hugely profitable, but illegal in my state.
US spends the most on education in the world, the failure is due to gov run education, no child left behind, stripping teachers of authority and discretion, lack of parenting, woke nonsense being taught rather than history and math, and emphasis on testing rather than actual learning. Private schools in the US are doing FAR better on Far less money, and the students, parents, and teachers are all happier. Also, homeschooling is an option and homeschooled kids overall outperform their public school peers in college due to a variety of factors.
So stop whining, stop lying, stop making excuses, and stop spreading false propaganda.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@oceanbytez847 Neither does 6.8 or 7.62 carry armor piercing power at those ranges. What other militaries regularly wear body armor? Body armor is for urban CQB fighting, not for sprawling open terrain, forest, jungle, etc warfare. if you're regularly fighting at such distances, they won't be regularly wearing armor, and there is artillery and other long range weapons to provide support. Most soldiers in China, Russia, etc, don't even have marksmanship skills at that range, even if their rifles are capable of it, same as the 5.56 M4.
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
-
@randomdude2832 when the pilot is already trained to do the task, they only have to learn the new switch positions. their reactions and procedures are already there. I know, as I've done it many times.
most people are capable. but yes, the inept and lazy or undisciplined individuals that don't pay attention fail. but they aren't fighter pilots either. fighter pilots are selected from the best individuals to ensure they are serious and capable people. But yes, my unit Excelled in combat with almost no training at all, as all our equipment was so new that no one even knew what it looked like, and our job was new so their were no formal tactics or procedures yet, so we had to just make it up as we went. Came away with 5 unit awards. People even thought we were some sort of special forces unit at times. It doesn't take superhumans, just average joes with good leadership, motivation, and discipline.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nicholasbrown668 " ive asked twice now what your plan is and you go on another Pierre Sprey rant"
you've responded to me numerous times, never once specifically asking what teh solution was. usually you're just hurling baseless insults. And who is Pierre Sprey anyways? you keep brining him up. Did he hurt you?
"Also I proved you wrong on ideology"
not in the slightest. you simply stated it's been around a long time. that doesn't make me wrong.
"if you've actually studied Pashtunwali you'd understand why it has survived millinea against dozens of empires and kingdoms, hundreds of ideologies and religions"
I have studied the past conflicts, and not one fo them Ever attempted anything like how I would attempt it.
"The Taliban use Pashtunwali with Deobani to bring together all the groups both liberal and radical, Deobani Fundamentalism has been rooted in the educated class and the religious classes for a hundred years now and is heavily taught in their religious schools"
lot of talk, lot of BS there. Taliban use VIOLENCE and murder to force people to comply. Many people in Afghanistan oppose Taliban rule, but simply lack the will to stand up to them. Outsiders will stand up to them, but lack understanding hot to actually defeat them. Taliban are not fantasy warriors of magical intellect and invincible military strategy. When I was in Afghanistan, they stopped even trying to attack my unit, and me specifically, as they learned we couldn't be beaten. We did similar in Iraq too with Al Qaeda. But it takes hours to explain to people how we achieved that. But it too is simple, once you understand the details.
"Again how as an outsider and invader do you expect them to comply with you dictating your religion? You said you were raised religious yes? How would you feel if an outsider came to your country and started dictating how your priests and preachers taught? Would you comply with that and be happy? Would you submit to that?"
Well, I wouldn't be dictating religion to them at all for one.
Being raised religious does not mean I am religious, nor am a religious zealot, nor would I impose religion on anyone. I am a Constitutionalist, and freedom of religion is paramount (so longa s you do not try to impose it upon others). But any person with common sense would have known this and not made such baseless and false accusations against me.
The US never dictated to Afghans how they should practice their religion (aside from teh violence). We specifically avoided their places of worship and avoided the religious issues entirely. And my solution has nothing to do with religion, changing religion, imposing religion, etc. But you'd know this if you actually read what I wrote, as I never once made a claim of this nature. You're projecting your own feelings onto me, and making up false arguments, false accusations.
If I were living in Afghanistan under Taliban rule and the US came to oust the Taliban, I'd be doing everything in my power to help them and to implement my plan in the Taliban's absence. It's all about who is the "bad guy", which determines who I choose to support in a given situation. The US was not actually the bad guy, and many people liked that we ousted the Taliban....until Biden pulled us out like a moron.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@omnomnom5359 No, we defeated the Spanish and took the Philippines from them, then allowed them self governance and promised them their independence and followed through. A colonial power would have taken control and kept control.
We also gave back Japan, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and many more countries we could have colonized or kept, but didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
500 tanks sent back for repairs over more than 20yrs. Doesn't really tell you much at all. If you can REPAIR a tank and is worth repairing, well, I guess it survived overall, didn't it? Russia's lost tanks in Ukraine are not repairable at all.
Repairs could include things like wear and tear from years of prolonged use, rollovers and other accidents, upgrades, damage that isn't field repairable, cracks developing in the armor, etc., not just battle damage.
We had one tank in Iraq taken out when an insurgent got a grenade inside a tank with a cracked turret hatch. The tank was intact and repairable, but the crew was no so well off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chuapg1518 Bullets? sure, they better be able to make those.
It's well known Russia turned to North Korea weeks ago for artillery ammo. Artillery ammo is basic, and is russia can't mass produce artillery ammo, they have much more serious issues. A rifle is far more complex than artillery ammo.
Russia does keep a lot of stuff is deep storage, but not good sealed storage. T-62 and T-55 tanks have not been produced for decades, yet Russia is still digging them out for use in Ukraine none the less. they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for equipment, especially things they can't produce under sanctions.
A russian draftee/conscript showed video from his phone of the rifle he was given and it was an old soviet era AK-47 (modern Russian military uses AK-74 variants), that had corrosion on teh barrel, gas tube etc. The barrel and tube will be fine, but the corrosion on the receiver and top cover was really bad, and who knows how bad the corrosion inside the action is. The rifles were clearly not stored properly, and if that one is so badly corroded, you know the others kept with it are too.
Stuff corrodes, I know this as both a combat veteran and as a mechanical engineer, some of it wont affect performance, some will. But it speaks to the complete lack of proper equipment and logistical support the russians have. you have to take the sum total into consideration and see the bigger picture, and everything I brought up is directly related to what you said, even if you personally didn't bring it up or mention it.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spencerchristie4000 war =/= elk hunting.
spoken like someone who knows nothing about warfare.
in war both sides know where the strategic and tactical objectives are. they know where we are, where we're going, and we know what they are forced to defend if they don't want to lose. We know where they are, and they know what we want. sometimes speed is more important that stealth.
When ground is too rough for 4+ wheeled vehicles, motorcycles are better. When the terrain elevation is too high for helicopters, motorcycles are better, and you can deploy them out of helicopters as well, unlike most other vehicles.
Motorcycles also allow for dispersal of your personnel to make it harder to deal with, as they can attack from multiple angles simultaneously, and staggering them also disperses the noise signatures so that the sound is coming from all around them.
Motorcycles are superior for flanking maneuvers. Motorcycles allow you to operate off beaten paths and make it harder for them to anticipate your path of approach, thus difficult to place obstacles, ambushes, mines, etc.
Lots of ways to use motorcycles that other solutions can't do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kaimalino528 nobody here said the Philippines owes the US anything, except you.
The point was about colonialism, claiming 40+ years when that isn't completely accurate.
Philippines wanted their independence, we gave it to them. Don't complain when you get what you wanted.
Japan was a defeated nation, unconditionally surrendered itself to the US. the US could have kept all of Japan and made it a state if it wanted. It had won total control over all of japan. But the US chose to follow Abraham Lincoln's example and rebuild Germany and Japan, and work on a path to reconciliation rather than decimation. That involved forgiving many wrongs, rebuilding their countries so people could move on with their lives, and putting those countries on a path to being stable and non-hostile to other nations.
Philippines were conquered by Spain, and the US inherited that by defeating Spain. Philippines wanted freedom, we granted it. Japan conquered Philippines, US liberated them. What more was the US supposed to do?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jintsuubest9331 "Literally every literature, testing institute, actual shooting, whatnot shows 556 lacks in penetration."
You need to get out more if you think the 5.56 lacks penetration.
I cite military experience only when people who have none cite other vets to try to shut me up. I've been in combat, I've trained many soldiers on multiple weapons, and I've seen military issue body armor of multiple types (plates, helmets, etc) penetrated by 5.56 for real. Not hypothetical, not some study.
I do not defy physics. I am an engineer as well as a combat vet, and have actually done the math on some of these issues in teh past for people who were clueless and had no understanding of the nuances of science. In one circumstance armor will stop a round, in another it will not. You have to understand more than black and white concepts of armor and physics.
1
-
@kurtisb100 "Yes, that’s the formula for KE, but velocity is a function of force and area. The energy contained in a given case is essentially a constant (as it’s volume is not changing), and it is imparted to a projectile as velocity. Heavier projectile for a given diameter means less velocity; but not less energy. However, a larger diameter results in more applied force to the projectile for a given pressure. "
You have no clue what you're talking about. the equation of velocity is change in distance over change in time. Has nothing to do with area or volume.
v = dx/dt
A heavier bullet has more mass, but in the same cartridge it will go slower due to the same max chamber pressure of the given size cartridge. The same powder charge pushing a heavier object will not accelerate it as much and therefore you lose velocity, which has a bigger impact on energy. Energy is what was claimed increases by increasing bullet size. if larger bullets went faster, you see far fewer cartridges with necked down shell casings.
F=PA=ma
Yes, there is more area acted upon, increasing the force for a given pressure (F=PA). But now you increased the mass for that increased Force too, reducing acceleration (F=ma). Also, a larger bullet has a larger frontal area, and therefore has greater drag acting upon it in flight to slow it down more. Also, that larger diameter means that the impact energy on target is spread out over a larger area, reducing PSI and thus reducing the penetration for a given total energy compared to a smaller bullet with the same energy on impact with the target.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scottwatrous I'm a combat vet, weight matters. Try carrying a combat load for 10+hrs every day, and then having to fight an ambush when you are exhausted. Adrenaline helps, but all grunts end up with physical injuries for life.
Never has a grunt asked for More weight. No amount of weight lifting will protect you from injuries due to carrying excessive weight. Doubling the weight of a rifle is Huge. And we did change our weapons overseas to reduce weight. Many guys stopped running all sorts of issued accessories as they deemed the weight not worth it.
The XM7 is like carrying a SAW or 2x M4 rifles at once. And for added capabilities most guys don't need, or lack the skill to use. Most guys can't hit 300m with an M4. And most engagements occurred inside 200m where the M4 has Significant advantage over the XM7 (speed, weight, maneuverability, rate of fire, controllability, mag capacity, total ammo capacity....). And the US remains one of the only countries on earth that uses body armor. No enemy we've faced issues body armor. And body armor doesn't cover the vast majority of teh body such as the pelvis, gut, and head.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ledzepandhabs the history has already been written. You can't erase the examples above, as well as others from history through denial.
Please name one such world record teh CCP or USSR has in hypersonic aerodynamics?
The only hypersonic missile Russia used was a Cold War relic missile that is older than I am and is not of the type being developed by the US and CCP. It is more just a large AIM-54 missile than it is the scramjet or glide bomb types now in development.
US is right to focus on defense of these overly expensive missiles. The US can already intercept and destroy aircraft, missiles, rockets, mortars, artillery rounds, ICBMs, satellites in orbit, and everything in between with a variety of weapons (that have been demonstrated and are known to the public), and hypersonics fall within that engagement envelope in terms of speed and altitude.
Also, the CCP and Russia brag about tech and abilities they don't actually have, while the US keeps secret the actual abilities it Does already have in service.
The CCP tests have so far missed their targets (stationary targets at that), and the US tracked their tests as well.
1
-
@ledzepandhabs but we're not talking about cruise missiles now are we? If you want to win a debate, you have to argue the correct topic.
But, seeing as you brought it up, military analysts are saying the Kalibre missiles are failing to reach their targets 50% of the time. That's a really bad failure rate.
Russia has a miniscule fraction of the budget the US does, and unlike Russia, the US can mass produce as many of its own weapons and vehicles it likes. US has fired cruise missiles for decades without running out. And the US doesn't waste missiles striking hospitals, churches, schools, and other nonmilitary targets like Russia does. Russia is using up stockpiles of missiles that are older than I am. It took them decades to build and amass that many missiles. Russia cannot produce a single new missile of any kind right now. Once they've run out, that's it. Russia has no ability to manufacture the chips required, let alone the other technical parts needed. For example, the Su-35 computers, radar, etc. were built using Chinese and US made chips. None of it was made in Russia.
Now, getting back on topic, what is your argument about hypersonic missiles?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hobbitronic Iraq had THE densest air defenses on the planet in 1991. If you can operate there, you can operate anywhere.
most people don't understand that, "air superiority doesn't mean uncontested airspace". and they wrongly claim the A-10 cannot operate nor survive in contested airspace. They also lack understanding of how teh US conducts air warfare. We never send in single assets, there are always supporting aircraft. (SEAD, CAP, CAS, refuelers, ELINT, AWACS, etc.)
"to compare the Iraqi and modern Russian air forces and anti air capability is just silly"
why? neither the Iraqis in 1991 nor Russia in 2023, controls the airspace over their battlefields.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cedriceric9730 " to be fair to the iraqis , NOBODY had ever fought against stealth and gps guided munitions before , "
False. Stealth was not used to shoot down aircraft nor to conduct SEAD. The F-117 was first used in combat in 1989 in Panama.
the B-2 did use the first ever GPS guided bomb, but it was not used to take out SAMs either. And prior to that the military had already used inertial guidance, laser guidance (Vietnam), TV guidance (WW2), remote control (WW2), etc. for precision munitions. Most munitions in 1991 were ballistic, laser guided, TV guided, Radar guided, or thermal guided.
Most SAMs in 1991 were destroyed with HARM and ballistic Cluster Bombs, and 20mm cannons. The HARM was an evolution of the Shrike used in Vietnam.
In WW2, the US used a TV guided kamikaze drone carrying 2000lb+ of explosives against teh Japanese. of the total number launched, 60% reached their target, and of those that reached their target, 100% hit their targets. The 40% that didn't make it were all lost to enemy AAA and fighters. This is a higher success rate than Russia's Best cruise missiles and smart weapons in Ukraine (including their S300/S400 missiles).
but you're getting off topic and into the weeds now
1
-
1
-
@ChucksSEADnDEAD an A-10 can eat a strela and keep going. A-10s have survived worse.
but also, Strelas are only so good, and the A-10 isn't the only one getting low and at risk. So too did teh F-16 get low, and they couldn't eat a strela.
low speed means little. Many fighter jets can't go mach 1 at sea level, and fewer still are going mach 1 in CAS.
A-10 has the best visibility of any jet as to what threats are on the ground. It's visibility is no worse than any F-15, and its speed and altitude permits a better look.
"The A-10 force, flying more than 8,000 combat sorties, suffered only five A-10s destroyed (a loss rate of . 062 percent). Twenty of these aircraft returned with significant battle damage, and forty-five others returned with light damage that was repaired between sorties."
5 aircraft, 20 ate missiles and AAA. No fighter jet like the F-15, F-16, F-4, etc. can match that.
How come so few A-10 have been shot down by strelas since 1991? They've had decades of chances to shoot at it. Why can't they kill it with a strela?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
but what is gained in all of this? more complex and fragile weapons? a meager reduction in weight? there are better areas to focus to reduce individual soldier weight right now. I see nothing here that makes me think, "wow, that is way better than the M4!". In fact, i see nothing desirable in all of this. The silencers are good, the low recoil high power machine gun is cool. But just not seeing anything revolutionary here that doesn't cause me real concern about durability, reliability...
Revolutionary is guided bullets, high tech optics like the one that fires the gun only when on target, remote targeting, thermal imagery, improved accuracy and penetration, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marveliciousgoku4343 Wrong. Military servicemembers sacrifice their lives and bodies for the country. And do more for the country than just war fighting.
Most people who serve never get a pension, never get free healthcare (and it's crap healthcare on it's best day too, gov healthcare sucks hard). The Housing is sub par and most servicemembers end up paying for their own housing anyways.
Reserves and National Guard get nothing for their housing and such. Of all the people that serve this country, military members do the MOST for what they get in return. Teachers, Postal Workers, Politicians, etc. all give less, do less, in exchange for their benefits. Far more Firemen, Police, Postal Workers, etc. get their pensions and benefits. Far more is spent on politicians and welfare programs from noncontributing citizens who pay net negative taxes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicholasbrown668 I mimic no one by myself. my opinions are my own, informed by experience and lots of research.
Where as you have nothing but insults. You have no actual counter arguments and failed to point out a single thing that I said that was wrong, nor proved how it was wrong.
"Hows that M4 doing with its high rate of overall failure?"
proof you have no clue. I've never once had a military issued M16 or M4 fail on me or anyone in my unit. It was always improper handling, bad ammo, or a bad magazine. They do fail, but rarely. I've also never had a civilian AR15 fail on me either, but I've not shot the super low quality crap either (stuff that isn't even to spec in the first place).
"But lemme guess you are one of those "if it ain't broke dont fix it" types?"
Kind of, but no, not really. I'm more of the, if you are going to "fix" it, it had better be Actually Better than the thing you're replacing. For example, the XM5 is WORSE than the M4 in many ways.
1. Less reliable
2. More moving parts
3. More expensive
4. Harder to produce
5. Doesn't really offer any extra performance you can't already get out of an AR15 or AR10.
6. Lower mag capacity
7. Heavier
8. Higher recoil making average Joes shoot even worse than they already do (I've trained a LOT of soldiers on marksmanship over the years).
Why would i switch from what works, to something that cost taxpayers money and doesn't actually improve my odds in combat?
You know what else was a "fix" that didn't work? ACU camo.
Another "fix"? MRAPS replacing HUMVEEs. When you're not fighting an insurgency, it makes no sense to be using monster trucks to drive around post.
1
-
@nicholasbrown668 "you avoided answering it again just to spout a bunch of nothing, are you going to tell the plan or just keep saying "they didnt attack me specifically because they knew they would lose" im quoting you there btw. I'm guessing with that pridefulness you think you are invincible huh?"
Wrong again. you quoted me, yes, do you want a gold star for that?
it's not about being prideful, its about having a proven track record of my ideas working, notably against the Taliban specifically.
No, I'm not invincible, and jealous people like yourself always make that leap. I'm simply smart enough to know how to stack the deck in my favor, only fight when I can win, choose my battles, etc.
"also stop the pridefulness its really unbecoming"
That's your opinion, and it matters not. I will make whatever arguments I need t make to prove my point. you are not an arbiter here. You are no one.
" if you refuse to give the details of your plan again, it just proves my point of you being a Pierre Sprey, who screams and screams of how genius he is and how he can solve everything, without ever providing proof"
I'll take the time to spell out my plan when you stop behaving like a spoiled child, when you are ready to hear it, and not a moment sooner.
I never claimed to have all the answers or able to solve everything. That is you making false and baseless accusations once again. I make you feel inadequate and so you hate me for it and start projecting your feelings of inadequacy onto others. I never claimed to be a genius either. I claimed to have a specific solution, to a specific problem, based upon years of personal experience, and decades of study.
"Also to change Deobanism you would have to interfere with the religion lmaoooo so again are you going to say what your plan is or avoid giving the details of it just so you can keep up your ego?"
this entire idea is 100% irrelevant to my plan. And since you have no idea what my plan is, entails, or how it works, maybe you should refrain from making a fool of yourself by acting like you know everything about an argument you haven't even heard yet. You're wasting your breath on this nonsense and are too stupid to realize it.
"Also I was in Afghanistan as well, they wouldn't attack american units after awhile, but they would attack places that we left, and they would attack them IMMEDIATELY after we left, most of the rural population doesn't care for Americans in fact a lot of the rural population despises Americans (for the exact reasons I listed that you hilariously glossed over) if "most afghans" opposed the Taliban, we wouldn't have seen thousands upon thousands of people join their offensive as it tore through the country we would have seen people rising up"
you may have been there, but you don't understand much. Most Americans oppose woke BS, climate alarmism, etc. yet we're still being subjected to it. If we have the majority, why not stop it? Becasue human psychology is not so simple. there is both individual and group psychology. people afraid to stick their neck out. It takes a few to sacrifice themselves to motivate the larger group to action. need a tipping point, trigger event, catalyst, and you need adequate motivation to carry through.
American units were attacked constantly. the units in our AO got attacked daily. Our replacements suffered casualties within days of taking over our AO. the moment my unit left, they started attacking hard again. Same thing happened when my unit left Iraq too.
Iraq is in disarray not because of the invasion, but because of the Obama pull out to Destabilize Iraq, enable ISIS to form, in order to destabilize Syria in a bid to overthrow Assad. The invasion of iraq was not the cause.
Kidnapped kids? Who did? and for what reason? and where did they take the kids?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RoCK3rAD I'm aware of that, and well know that the USMC and USN have a lot of helicopters and V-22.
but they have Fighters, cargo planes, Attack aircraft, and more, just like the USAF. The US Army lacks all of that, except helicopters.
US Army cannot shoot down Chinese aircraft in a dogfight, the USN, USMC, and USAF can. US Army cannot deploy paratroopers in a large scale assault without help from USAF, or USMC C-130, C-17, etc. The US Army cannot carry out SEAD missions, the USN, USMC, and USAF can. The US Army cannot transport its cargo by air for thousands of miles without help from the USMC or USAF.
1
-
@RoCK3rAD The Marines are leaving the armor to the army because they never needed tanks, and becasue they are few in number, and becasue we're gearing for a war in the pacific with china where tanks are all but useless.
"The army operates all of our anti air operations without having a bird in the sky." I guess that depends upon what you classify as an anti-air operation? Patriot batteries have shot down friendlies multiple times, proving birds in the sky. And with U-2, Global Hawk, Predator, Reaper, Shadow, Puma, Raven, AH-64, aerostats, AWACS, E-3, and more almost always airborne over the battlefield at all times, that's a lot of birds in the sky.
Most of the US anti-air assets are the F-22, F-35, F-15, F-16, F-18.... US has famously neglected Army antiair for decades other than the Patriot and Stinger predominantly.
I was with the USMC in Iraq, USN in Afghanistan, and served in the Army. So, I'm not picking sides here. I'm commenting only on the realities of the distribution of assets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1