Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "WarLeaks - Military Blog" channel.

That describes most of my time in the US military overseas. No air support, no coms, etc. My unit did our own missions, recon, recovery, QRF, etc. The US soldier is very good at figuring things out on their own.
50
@jiminauburn5073 Absolutely, a coordinated effort can be devastating to the opponent. that I agree with completely. But you work with what you have. And lots of Americans are also experienced hunters too, and so in this case some of those skills can come in handy as well.
5
This is how every single one of our M2s functioned when I was in the military. Flawless and reliable. nothing stopped the M2. Everyone talking about having constant malfunctions must have been doing something wrong.
2
@HNTR308 did I say they were dead? You clearly did not comprehend th question I posed.
2
you can't know that. lots of easily severed critical systems inside the aircraft.
1
@Kozak806 You clearly don't know anything about the difference between Critical and Catastrophic. Aircraft with critical damage return to base all the time, especially Su-25, A-10, and others.
1
My unit rarely operated with air support, artillery, backup etc in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US soldier knows full well how to operate like this. And if he doesn't, he'll adapt quickly to it.
1
Su-25 is equivalent to the A-10, it's tough.
1
attacking from such a shallow angle greatly increases teh likelihood of missing the target. but flying higher exposes you to more manpads in teh area at the same time.
1
trying to figure out why the Russians felt they needed to be eliminated? what was on Snake Island to justify the attack?
1
@HNTR308 Serving what military value?
1
@HNTR308 why? make the case. Why attack a worthless target? is it really a military target if it has no military value? Should we attack daycare centers and autoparts stores too, since they are of no military value? Why did it need to be attacked? why expend effort and resources on it?
1
@HNTR308 so, you'd waste resources hunting down veterans and reservists in their homes too? I'd love to fight any enemy like you in a war, i'd win so easily, just as ukraine is defeating russia.
1
@HNTR308 now you're just making stuff up and changing the subject entirely.
1
@HNTR308 deflecting. that comparison was to point out the flaws in your argument. but I get that you wouldn't understand. You have no argument so your deflecting, avoiding answering, trying anything and everything to avoid being wrong. I'm certain insults are about to ensue.
1
@HNTR308 And what military value did snake island represent? you still can't answer that. Seems to me that installation was as useless as a town full of veterans. In the US, a town full of veterans represents anywhere from a full company to a full battalion of fully armed, equipped, and trained infantry. So, yes, targeting such veterans in their homes is as valuable as going after snake island. I left the military at age 25 with years of combat experience. Most guys I fought with overseas are still in their 30s and 40s in age, and keep up on military skills and knowledge. They are fit and would fight again in a heartbeat. And we were better equipped as civilians than were were in combat. In fact many of us brought our own gear from home on combat deployments instead of what we were issued because it was better. Yes, I would love to face enemies like yourself on a battlefield. Not to come after you personally, but because someone such as yourself who clearly lacks sufficient knowledge in these things would be like fighting a war on easy mode for someone like me. Unlike you, I know combat logistics, strategy at the global and theater level, battlefield tactics, squad tactics, combined arms tactics, and even intelligence gathering, guerilla warfare, etc. I spent many years of my life striving to master all aspects of warfare, as do many people i served with. we study history of other conflicts, we develop novel tactics, we know camouflage and concealment, psychology of warfare, deception, communications, armored and anti-armor tactics, recon, etc. And then there are all the noncombat factors such as public support, international response, economics, manufacturing, medical, food, shelter, economic, political, transportation and shipping, working with allies, etc factors that play into all of it. Warfare is the single hardest profession in the world to master.
1
@HNTR308 you're getting upset about a bunch of nonsense, and can't even stay on topic and answer the question. Better people believe you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
1
@LiquidfirePUA Of course. I was merely responding to the claims that the US soldier can only be effective on a battlefield with air superiority and tech dominance, and that just isn't true, Because of the independent mindedness and creativity of the individual soldier, and their ability to adapt, and their personal motivations and convictions behind why they fight. We fight differently based on teh situation and circumstances. Without air superiority, without air support, and such, we fight differently, but still effectively.
1
We used Humvees like that in the US army to repel ambushes. No more exhilarating feeling than charging an ambush with a Humvee and heavy machine gun with a good crew that knows what they are doing. We'd usually hit them from two directions with multiple vehicles.
1