Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Battle Order" channel.

well, they surely had some pent up anger to channel into focusing on winning with great efficiency.
30
@david7384 Ukraine is FAR behind. US has used TV guided kamikaze drones in actual combat since WW2. Most of the drone tech Ukraine is using was used by the US in Vietnam, Desert Storm, OIF, OEF, etc.
20
@someoneelse2472 if you're tactically smart, and use your ammo wisely (make it count), you don't need as much. I've won fights in Afghanistan and Iraq without even having to fire a shot. My unit got so good the enemy simply stopped fighting us altogether (much to the annoyment of my unit, as the guys wanted action). The enemy simply went after easier targets, units that didn't have their crap together.
12
@MatthewVanston I detest De Gaulle and his self righteous behavior even now. But most Americans idolize the French Resistance movement in WW2, even if they pick on them about surrendering. Part of the surrender jokes lie in the other generalizations about the French such as they are "lovers not fighters", and care a lot about food. But Americans pick on everyone that way. Americans also know France was the first Ally of the US in during the Revolution, and that we bought a significant portion of the US from France, and that France was once a global power (in some ways still is). But France was also one of the first enemies of the US after the Revolution, and their actions in reclaiming Vietnam after WW2 (and US looking the other way because France was our ally) gave President Johnson an excuse/opportunity to start a war to get himself elected. The history of France and the US is long and complicated. And this leads to all sorts of confusion and funny jokes. Part of the "dropped once, never fired" joke comes from the perception that since France was defeated so quickly by the Blitzkrieg that they weren't good fighters. Most people don't understand when a battle is lost due to logistics more than fighting ability. And so they don't know how else to explain the loss. But at the end of the day, France has been the first, longest, and one of the closest allies of the US through it all. So yes, we are going to have fun poking fun at France, and England, and Russia, and China, and Canada (have you ever seen the stuff we say about Canada?!?! but it's all in good fun and the Canadians know it an dish it out right back, the US loves our Canadian neighbors), and.......every other country on the planet.
10
who wants to die when they know the yare going to lose the war at this point?
8
I was in the US army and the thought of jeeps working with tanks was an insta-click as I've advocated such things when I was in the military. Not everything needs to be armored or should be armored.
8
the XM25 was fielded in combat, as they were being used when I was in Afghanistan in 2010, and called the Punisher.
7
@Jwh._ the Bible was fulfilled in Roman times... but, what do you expect from a book written by the Romans?
5
the M113 just doesn't quit Was used in OIF, Vietnam, Ukraine, and much more.
3
all this coordinated attack requires skilled, trained, and experienced soldiers who all know their roles and understand how it ties into the rest of the assault. conscripts with 3 days to 2wks of training and no leadership cannot do these things.
3
lobbing a grenade with a launcher from the hip without sights is surprisingly intuitive with a little practice. guys were putting them through car windows at 400m from the hip with only a little practice.
3
It seems they thought they could pull off a 3-day high speed blitz, like Germany did to France. shock and awe and take much of Ukraine in short order, convincing Ukraine to surrender quickly. That plan didn't work, and they are proving not to be in a position to correct their mistakes. That's partly what it seems like to me.
3
@BothandNether nope. AI software is extremely limited in ability and this is well known. Humans have repeatedly shown able to defeat it childishly easily. Still need humans.
2
@BothandNether AI hacking what exactly? can't hack and infantryman and his rifle. Can't hack an M777, can't hack an M1, can't hack a Humvee. I fought in wars and none of my equipment was capable of being hacked. but I don work in teh AI industry and have set world records and world first in the AI industry. Who do you think supplies the military with their AI? They buy their computers from civilian companies. Nobody with a brain is going to tell you anything about the top tier work on AI, specifically that is being applied to high end military applications.
2
@MatthewVanston No, De Gaulle did all sorts of things that had nothing to do with the US. I'm judging his behavior and attitude as an individual. De Gaulle was a asshole even before the US got involved, and well after WW2. Vietnam asked the US to free it from France after WW2. France no longer controlled Vietnam at that time (France had only just gotten their own country back). Since the US had liberated so many other countries from overseas and conquering rulers like Germany and Japan, the Vietnamese flt they too should be liberated. But the US was too busy trying to deal with the aftermath of WW2 and becoming the new world police, overstretched and too much new territory to preside over following the surrender of Japan, and since the US didn't want to upset it's ally, France, who was being unreasonable and rude to the other allied nations and acting like France had won WW2 (all evidence to the contrary), so the US turned a blind eye as Vietnam was reacquired by France once again. This led to the uprising against the French, followed by the dispute between North and South which Johnson took advantage of for personal gain rather than let the Vietnamese work it out themselves. Read some more history before you criticize people.
2
Soviets: nuke deep water port..... US: awesome, now it's an even bigger deep water port, thanks!
2
@BothandNether some of the top scientists in the world have given great lectures on the limitations of AI, and those lectures are free here on youtube. I also work in teh AI industry and have been part of world records and world first in AI computing. AI is not what you think, not what you've been led to beleive. What Humans excel at, AI sucks at. What AI excels at, Humans suck at.
1
@seitbekir nope. Still applies. Basic drones have nothing that can be hacked. I've been into RC cars, airplanes, drones, etc. since the 1980s, and know how to make my own motor controllers and other devices. you cannot hack them remotely if built on the cheap. nothing to hack, no way in. and nobody can deploy an AI with cellphone levels of coverage like that that actively takes over devices. passive listening and snoopng is totally different. I work in AI industry as an engineer and am a combat veteran who has used small drones and worked with larger military UAVs, and who has utilized some of the most high tech battlefield intelligence technology. combat conditions is no place for an AI. you live in a Hollywood scifi fantasy. stuff doesn't work the way you think in reality.
1
@andrerothweiler9191 the drones are not controlled by AI.
1
@simonschneider5913 Interstate TDR drone was used against the Japanese ship and land targets with incredible success in WW2. Of those launched in combat, 60% reached their targets. the 40% that didn't make it were all shot down by AAA or enemy fighters. Of the 60% that reached their targets, 100% hit their targets. The drones were guided by long-range TV remote control just like a modern day quadcopter drone, with the pilot sitting in the back of a TBM Avenger flying well behind the drone.
1
@simonschneider5913 Jamming =/= hacking Jamming is easy. But hacking requires software access. There is no wireless software access to a simple drone. And almost none of the drones in Ukraine are controlled with an AI of any kind, and having an AI computer doesn't magically make something more hackable that has no wireless software access. You cannot hack a basic RC vehicle, as their is nothing to hack, nothing able to be reprogrammed. "its a back and forth like with every other piece of tech in war..." yes, and no. but you clearly have a child's understanding of war. I'm an actual combat vet who tested prototype weapons and technology in combat and utilized drones and other "scifi" tech you still don't even know the US military possesses., Mechanical and Aerospace engineer, professional pilot, and been in the RC hobby since I was 3yrs old. There are stages of technology for RC vehicles. the first ones were literally "mechanical". the next level of evolution was more electronic, but not programable, contained no software. These levels of drones and RC vehicles make great STEM projects. Next level is getting into things like Arduino DIY remote control. Again, you can't simply wirelessly hack an arduino and reprogram it on-the-fly, if you even know how each particular set of code on each individual drone is programmed. You clearly lack comprehension of how technology works. Hollywood is BS nonsense. Reality doesn't work like they show in the movies.
1
@simonschneider5913 evolve daily? how so? give me 10 examples of how drones have evolved, how they've changed in design, function, and operation, since 2015.
1
@simonschneider5913 no, Ukraine is not at teh cutting edge of ECMs. We have far more, and far more high tech ECMs in Iraq and Afghanistan. And ECMs have limited range without a massive power generator. "all weapons get used as soon as they are effective." again, you have the understanding of a child. We have tons of weapons and tech that has still not been fielded. We will never send countries like Ukraine our best technology.
1
@canicheenrage you clearly don't understand the American view of the French in WW2.
1
@MatthewVanston That's not what I said
1
VoltigeurFR That's not what I said
1
@felix25ize by that time the war was already a forgone conclusion. The only real purpose for that is payback/revenge, which is understandable that the French would want to get in some blows before it was over. But it didn't change the outcome in any meaningful way.
1
@MatthewVanston What? Russia only survived Germany's initial attack with US help, and Hitler's stupidity. Then Russia barely held on for years in the midst of Germany splitting its attention on England and Africa and the Mediterranean. If the US hadn't taught Russia how to mass produce tanks and helped them build factories, and hadn't provided Lend Lease to feed and arm its forces, and the Allies hadn't bleed Germany in Africa, Italy, England, and elsewhere Germany would have better been able to take on Russia. And even then, with all that help for Russia, Russia still lost 24mil people in WW2 fighting the Germans and being an Axis aggressor against Poland, and Finland. Like Italy, Russia started the war, and Russia started WW2 on the Axis, not with the allies. And Russia, unlike the Allies, kept all the countries it captured in WW2, and became an aggressor worse than Hitler and Germany in the end. How many people did the Russians kill in Europe during the Cold War? How many did they kill in Gulags? How many political purges? Russia killed more people than Hitler did, started WW2, was a ember of the Axis powers, and struggled to stand against Germany even with help from the US and with Germany fighting a war on multiple fronts when Russia only had a single front to deal with. Russia is no victor or hero of WW2, they are the villain, and many Allies wanted to attack Russia before the war ended, and even the Germans wanted to join the allies at the end of the war and continue the fight against Russia. And then Russia proceeded to align and ally itself with dictators and despots around the world and threatening the world with annihilation. Russia did nothing to win the war in the Pacific either. They did nothing in Africa or the Atlantic. They had no strategic bombing capability, and benefited wholly from the US/UK strategic bombing of Germany from the very early days. Russia couldn't even defeat Finland. Russia went up against countries with little to no real industrial might and still got demolished. The T-34 was based on US tank technology. Factories were built with US help. P-40, P-39, A-20, and other aircraft were provided to the Russians which they used to great success and continued to use after WW2 into the Korean war. The Russia airforce was so bad that German Aces racked up massive kill tallies with ease. When those same aces transferred to the Western front to face US/UK fighters, they suffered mental break downs or were quickly killed in short order. Many of the top surviving aces of Germany in WW2 never faced the US/UK fighters very much, if at all, in WW2 for one reason or another. The US lost only a few hundred thousand people in all of WW2, despite fighting almost everywhere in every capacity. Russia lost 24mil, and estimated 12mil of those were killed by their own gov (the Russian gov).
1
@TTCanadaJapan I'm deluded....ok, enjoy your delusions.
1
@tbuxt3992 nice how you cherry picked one aspect of everything I said, ignoring the rest.
1
@A.B.5KRVw those "reservists" have very little actual training and prior military service. Russian Spetznaz special forces, prior to invading Ukraine, had on average 2yrs of military experience. You cannot create elite soldiers with only 2yrs of service on average. Non special forces will be even worse. Keep in mind that many of those "resrvists" are old, in bad health, have not done anything military related in decades, and military skills are perishable as with anything else, especially if they barely had much training and experience to begin with all those years ago. "they are actually quite trained and motivated." not in the slightest.
1
@jedimindtrix2142 "Once you fight and engage enough units you can tell who is going to be a problem to fight and who isn't." Exactly right. and when you want to win, you avoid what's strong and attack what is weak. " I think we are in an interesting transition period in terms of weaponry. Things are starting to change at a pretty rapid rate and the design of systems are starting to get less recognizable to their contemporary counter parts. Give it another 20 to 30 years and I think the standard kit of the military across the board will be quite different from what we currently have in the field. It seems every 50 years or so the weapons available for war take a massive leap." I'm not so sure about this. Things like targeting and sensors are improving, but the basic rifle is not changing that much. batteries are heavy, electronics are a liability (they die, get broken, are tough to ruggedize unless small enough...). Things are getting better, but weight needs to go down, not up. simplicity is paramount in combat. Need to be able to rely on your gear, and fix it in the field, or it's not worth having. I won many times in combat because of my knowledge of "old school" techniques and skills. Skills others take for granted. Now, as an engineer, I am doing the same again. Constantly able to solve problems, design solutions, and do it quickly, and others can't understand what my secret is. It's old school knowledge they deem obsolete and take for granted. But that old school knowledge and skills are harder to master, making it near impossible for my opponents to ever catch up to me or match me in skill as I have many years head start on them, and much more committed to winning than they are. The point is anyone can do as I do, if they put in the time and commitment, and people could learn a thing or two from that, with lots of military application. The basics of a rifle are what they are, hard to improve. It will improve, but how much? There is a point of diminishing returns in the evolution of a technology, improvements start to slow. Militaries need to be cheap, flexible, light, easy to train, high volume, reliable, rugged, serviceable, etc. I have many times weaponized others' technologies against them in training, to prove to them they are overly dependent upon it, and that I can still beat them without it. They need to learn the nuances of when, and when not, to use something. And they also start to fail to learn the fundamentals of war as they spend more time mastering high tech gear. And without the fundamentals, they will always lose against someone like me. Look at how long a given rifle, fighter jet, vehicle, lasts in service these days compared to history. the more advanced things get, the longer they tend to last in service as it's hard to justify teh costs necessary to replace them with something that is actually better. And eventually the price of more advanced gear is fragility, lack of reliability, difficulty of repair, high cost, low volume, etc. All the hallmarks of a failed military model. Combat always devolves into the fundamentals eventually. Just look at Ukraine. They are back to WW1 style trench/artillery fighting with almost no airpower to speak of on either side. Tanks are getting wiped out, so artillery and infantry are doing the heavy lifting, same as they did in the 1800s. And both Russia and Ukraine sucks at the fundamentals of warfare. Ukraine is noticeably better than Russia, but they still suck overall.
1
@stevenmike1878 Have you never seen the M32 grenade launcher? Military issue. 6 shots. Also, the thing that got most guys lobbing grenades with incredible accuracy from the hip in my unit was when one Sgt described it like throwing a baseball. you learn the arc much the same way you throw a baseball. lots of guys got it after that. You can watch the grenades flying through the air like baseballs too, and that really helps. Less likely to see it fly when looking down the sights.
1
@stevenmike1878 A good grenadier could do it in 1 or 2 shots. But I get what you're thinking.
1
T-80, T-90, etc, are still just based on the T-72.
1
Soviets: nuke deep water port..... US: awesome, now it's an even bigger deep water port, thanks!
1
8:00 another significant advantage is air mobility, and ease of maintenance. Name one country with "counter recon" forces when the US is on the offensive?
1
well done. could stand to see more battle videos like this one.
1
My unit used John Deere Gators in combat in Afghanistan
1