Youtube comments of The Immortal (@theimmortal4718).
-
1600
-
1500
-
1200
-
1200
-
1000
-
1000
-
976
-
872
-
686
-
684
-
647
-
612
-
563
-
544
-
445
-
413
-
404
-
382
-
348
-
326
-
292
-
285
-
260
-
251
-
248
-
246
-
239
-
233
-
231
-
228
-
224
-
215
-
214
-
210
-
207
-
190
-
185
-
182
-
179
-
178
-
176
-
173
-
170
-
170
-
156
-
156
-
154
-
153
-
143
-
139
-
134
-
130
-
128
-
125
-
125
-
124
-
123
-
119
-
119
-
117
-
117
-
116
-
115
-
114
-
109
-
109
-
107
-
106
-
105
-
105
-
103
-
101
-
98
-
97
-
96
-
96
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
91
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
83
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
77
-
77
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
54
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
It's no picnic for MOST women. Divorce is bad for men, women, and children. My ex wife sure didn't exactly come out on top. She ended up miserable and alone.
I think the real point is to think with your brain instead of your d*ck.
If you decide to be with a woman, make sure your values align and that you have good values yourself. Having a spine.
Honor, integrity, courage, loyalty, and discipline. Money, status, health can all be taken from you, but values and standards can only be given up willingly.
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
We use the Carl Gustaf for this. Can fire HE, HEDP, airburst, rocket assisted rounds, HEAT, smoke, illumination, and incendiary. Way more flexible.
We have 2 per platoon.
We can kill everything from drones, troops, armored vehicles, and bunkers with it. It's the ultimate Swiss army knife, and the newly issued one is 15 pounds empty. That's half the weight of this weapon
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I didn't carry an extra ounce I didn't have to in combat.
Armor and helmet is 28 pounds, water 10 pounds, radio, headset and extra battery another 5, rifle and ammo 16, 203 and 12 bombs another 10, not to mention good, maintenance gear, medical, along with 60mm mortars and belts of ammo for the SAW and 240 or an AT4.
Yeah, that sh*t is heavy. Around 100 pounds or so.
If an M250 becomes organic to each squad, it would be way too heavy to support with ammo. I believe it would end up being the sole MG for the squad and everybody carrying belts for that. Same with the carbine- maybe one per fire team, as other guys would be carrying AT weapons/rounds, grenade launchers, or a stinger for drone defense. The ammo is just too heavy for universal issuance, but I could see it replacing 7.62 in the role it's already used.
The lighter machine gun will be welcome, but the carbine would at best replace the M110A1.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
DGK201
No, I'm not mistaken.
The SIG round is 6.8x51mm, much different that the 6.8 SPC II which is 6.8x43mm.
According to SIG, the 6.8x51mm round fires a 125 grain bullet at 3000 fps and has a total cartridge weight of 24 grams.
The current issued 7.62x51mm round, the M80A1, fires a 130 grain bullet at 3000 fps, and has a total cartridge weight of 24 grams.
The only difference is that SIG claims they get their velocity from a 4" shorter barrel. They increased the chamber pressure from 60,000 psi to an extremely dangerous 75,000 psi. That's like have a potential bomb in the gun, shearing locking lugs, cam pins, and extractors.
As far as bullet construction, I seriously doubt it will be anything revolutionary. It will most likely be an EPR projectile like the M80A1, with a steel penetrator.
I fail to see how the same sized bullet, going the same speed will perform massively different, especially at 600 meters! Lol
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@saltyfloridaman7163
You don't understand combat, and it shows.
You mean the Chinese soldiers who don't wear body armor and fire 5.8x42mm weapons (comparable to 5.56)? Those Chinese troops? We already outrange them.
Wait- aren't you the guy who claimed 338 is just as powerful as 50 BMG, even though that's nowhere near the truth?
The generals who are pushing this program, including Gen Milley, are idiots and just gage up Afghanistan wholesale. They had no clue what was happening on the ground, bullgeadedly didn't listen to troops in daily contact with the ANA, and assisted the corruption there for 20 years. These guys have made careers getting every single thing wrong. Everytime. And ground troops are supposed to listen to people who've never fought there about what we should be doing better? The only times American troops were in disadvantaged positions were directly the result of idiots not understanding the fight. We had every weapon we could ever possibly need, but if you're placed in the tactically worst situations possible ( KOP Keating), none of it matters.
I can guarantee that, in 20 years of fighting, it's doubtful I was ever fired on by someone with a zeroed weapon. Anything over 100 was area fire for them. I was in Iraq 3 times ('03, '05, and 07/08), Afghanistan 2 times ('11 and 2013), and I was in Syria last year.
The mess we are in isn't due to improper weapons and ammo. You don't honestly think that success the next war will be hinged on what ammo we use, to you?
That these would have helped at all to accomplish our mission? I certainly don't.
Our government has terminal cancer, and bee weapons programs aren't going to cure it. We'd just be leaving these guns behind in whatever warzone our generals fail in next.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
rockn roll
Incorrect, again.
7.62x39 is in the same class as 6.8x43 SPC, 7.62x35 (300 BLK), 6.5x39 Grendel, 5.56x45 and 5.45x39, which are all assault rifle cartridges. They fit in AR15 or AK sized magazines. They all have muzzle energies from 1200 ft lbs to 1800 ft lbs.
6.8x51is a full powered cartridge, like 7.62x51, 7.62x54r, 30-06, 6.5x55, etc. They fit in actions such as the AR10, Dragunov, FAL, M14 and M1 Garand. They have muzzle energies of 2500 ft lbs to 2800 ft lbs.
7.62x39 and 6.5Creedmoor are in completely different cartridge classes and will not fit in the same type of gun. A battle rifle fires a full powered cartridge, and an assault rifle shoots a smaller, shorter "kurtz" round.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@trevorellis1704
130 million Americans are already treated exclusively by government ran healthcare (Medicaid, Medicare, and the VA).
That's 40 percent. Do you think those people are getting the best care? Do you want the entire country on that?
The reason those who are in poor health in the US are that way is not the fault of the medical system.
It's because they don't take care of themselves. Lack of exercise, overeating shitty food, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, etc.
Obesity isn't caused by our healthcare.
Neither is COPD, type 2 diabetes, drug overdoses, heart disease, or any of the other major health problems slowly killing Americans. You can go to the doctor everyday, but if you don't listen to him, it matters fuck all.
Doctors don't cure people or make them healthy. They try the best they can to prolong life despite the shitty way people fuck up their bodies on the daily.
The single most costly health issue in the US is Type 2 diabetes, which is caused by obesity. 92-95% of all diabetics are that way because they eat garbage and don't work out. No doctor is going to fix that.
Want to be healthy?
Get a healthful diet, excercise daily, keep a low bodyfat percentage, avoid drugs and smoking, and avoid alcohol.
The plan of demanding a free medical system to fix your bloated, chunky, wheezing, clogged artery having dumpster fire of a body after years abuse is going to get you nowhere but to an early grave.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@m1garandMUSIC
Yeah I get what the intent is, but I doubt it works out well. Even 40x53mm isn't great on even lightly armored vehicles. The hole made by them is tiny and doesn't have much effect if it gets through. The only reason a grenade machine gun would be a threat to light armor is that you can shoot it 20 or 30 times.
Grenades also have a huge amount of wind drift and spin drift. They fly off course easily.
They don't fly to the target nearly as well as you'd think. Even a bushmaster 25mm has pretty bad drift at 1000 meters, and it's pushing 3X the muzzle velocity of these grenades.
The US abandoned this concept for several reasons. Inaccuracy, lack of sufficient effect on target, excessive weapon weight, and expense were the main ones.
We have put our efforts into the M3E1 Carl Gustaf for this role, instead. The weapon weighs 1/3 as much, has the aid of computerized sights including a laser range finder, has more economically sound ammo, is more accurate, better range, and hits way harder.
It's also more flexible and every light infantry platoon has two in the weapons squad. The Goose can fire HE, HEDP, Airburst, incendiary, HEAT, tandem HEAT, flechette, rocket assisted, smoke, illumination, and even laser guided missiles. Rounds range from 7 to 10 pounds, with effective ranges from 500 meters out to 2500 meters.
The Chinese have nothing like it.
The HE 448 round is a real monster. You can wipe out a whole squad in the open or in defilade at a km with an airburst. Other rounds can knock out drones, troops, armor (including tanks), and bunkers. Before long, SAAB will also have a loitering munition round with a 10 km range. It's amazing.
This Chinese weapon has little utility and doesn't seem worth the weight for what it offers.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@slaytanic921
The worst part is that ammo is only a fraction of your weight. Weapons, water, radios, batteries, armor, PVS14s, PAS13s, tripods (AGs), rations, CW/WW gear, explosives, AT rounds, etc, make up the bulk of our loads. The average guy is carrying 100 pounds. It sucks balls.
The most mags I carried for my carbine was 13. 6 on my vest and a 6 mag bandoleer I'm my assault pack, one on the gun.
The saying that goes around the infantry is "my ammo is for you, your ammo is for me", since we rely so much on our buddies providing cover fire while we're moving.
The last thing I want is for one squad to go dry while my squad is moving forward.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
free stuff
I get what you're saying. What do you consider a low level job? UAW jobs pay over 100k a year. Even a handyman can make 60 or 70 a year in the US. Same with a car mechanic. It all comes down to motivation. People who aren't motivated to get out there and work naturally will have a hard time doing so. Even taking 4 or 5 semesters at a community college can get you a machinist's certificate that can land a person a 20 dollar an hour job. Of course, if someone isn't interested in improving their situation or put in the time, these skills seem insurmountable. It is not a fact that high paying, high skill jobs have reached a peak. Quite the opposite- many businesses have a hard time finding qualified applicants, especially in STEM fields. There are plenty of jobs in the US if you're intelligent, hard working, motivated, presentable, and have a solid work ethic. The difficulty is in finding jobs that pay a decent living for people with limited IQ, a criminal record, drug problems, no high school diploma, tattoos, and guages in their ears. The overwhelming number of college educated people that work low paying jobs as you say, have absolutely worthless degrees in fields for which nobody wants to pay them
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mrhellotherehowareu1384
Where did you get that? Lol. I never said any of that. In fact, quite the opposite.
I've been in this war from the beginning, and did 6 combat tours as an infantryman in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nowadays, I'm no longer in a line platoon, but I'm on my 7th deployment right now.
And yes, I did my time on the line. Everything from SAW Gunner, rifle team leader, Bradley gunner, Squad Leader, WSL, Platoon Sergeant, and now company 1SG.
Did my time like everyone else.
Do you have a problem with GWOT vets?
You seem to like watching gun channels created by them just fine.
I was never SOCOM or anything like that, but I did do my part.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bill thorn
I don't think that's true.
Whenever you find someone offering the binary, black and white, only 2 choices claim it's not true.
This is similar to the claim that if whites aren't anti white, they're racists. Or that it's the 1% of wage earners vs the 99%. They'll state some hard rule, and ignore the majority that don't fall in that category at all.
No, it doesn't mean that if you have an attractive wife, she somehow is in charge of the relationship. What it means is that the husband displayed a lot of weakness in the relationship. The times I've seen the woman in charge most often in a relationship are cheaters gamblers, and drunks. Of course, those guys will tell you they are angels.
Hearing stories about horrific car wrecks doesn't keep me from driving. It just makes me he a more cautious drivers and avoid driving like an asshole, drunk driving, and speeding. No different for dating. Rather than quit, just be cautious and avoid the pitfalls. Millions of people drive everyday without dying, and millions of guys are happily with women without their lives bring destroyed.
One thing I've learned more than anything about people is to not take their relationship stories at value. People don't want to tell you what they did wrong, but love to talk about how much of an innocent victim they are.
3
-
3
-
@bill thorn
In schools I was quiet. I did get attention from girls, but not without them getting to know them first. I got involved with track and field and had a job to spend as little time in my abusive household as possible (mom was schizophrenic). Both had girls there I could get to know. I was not in the "popular" crowd.
I joined the army at 17 years old to get out of a bad situation and joined the infantry.. I got stronger, more fit, and gained alot of confidence. It also gave me a group of guys to hang out with, as opposed to seeking out women for basic companionship. As I rose through the ranks in my late teens/early 20s, I got more female attention. I was making more money, had developed a body women like (strong legs, chest, shoulders, and arms), and had a better air of competence and assertiveness. I was a really skinny kid growing up, do this was a change.
I'm by no means a picture perfect man. In fact I have some videos on my channel of my wife and I. Not saying that even the average woman I meet finds me really attractive. We don't need that, though.
We just need a few to. I'm not trying to go out there and sleep with 50 or 100 women.
I also am not wealthy. When I was dating, I was only making about the median income for the time. My wife sure didn't marry me to get rich, but my income did show I was competent and was doing what I wanted to go to make money. In fact my belief in what I was doing for a career probably attracted her more than money, as it's so rare to meet people nowadays who have found a purpose in their lives.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Don't forget there's something such as amrams- missiles designed to hit radars and jammers. Purpose designed loitering drones they do the same thing soon. Use EW, get an explosive kamikaze drone on your head.
Also, drones are layered.
Ground UGVs-
1. Ground drones with claymores
2. Ground drones with antitank mines
3.missile and machine gun armed ground drones
4. Recon and radio repeater drones
5. Engineer drones for mine clearance
6. Supply drones carrying food, ammo, water, and other goodies to troops
7. Patrol drones for anti drone defense
8. Antiarcraft drones networked together that are on sentry duty and periodically change locations
UAVs-
1. Micro copters at squad level for recon
2. Platoon level quad copters for overwatch and targeting
3. FPV drones with AT/AP warheads to knock out bunkers, armored vehicles, and HVTs
4. Loitering drones for long range targets
5. Drone defense copters with ramming ability for hitting small drones plus explosives if helicopters are in the area
6. Anti fighter drones with rocket assisted terminal attack phase for hitting low flying aircraft
7. Radar and jammer seeking drones
8. Long range stealth loitering munitions for theater based operations
I'm GWOT, we were constantly aware of the IED threat. The saying was that the design and implementation of IEDs were only limited by the imagination.
This is next level IEDs, except now, they come at you at 100 mph
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@quellenathanar
Yes, it is more powerful. We've had a round very similar in power for decades. There's several reasons we don't field it to every infantryman.
Overall, if you bring an assault rifle to a battle space where most contacts are past 500 meters, you will struggle to hit.
If you bring a battle rifle to a battle space where most contacts are under 300, you will lose firepower superiority, run out of ammo, and get rolled up quickly. We know this already.
We also know one hard rule learned in blood- carry too much weight, and you're combat ineffective. The most a soldier can effectively carry on the approach march is 50% of his body weight, and 25% in a fight.
A 200 pound man can only effectively fight with 50 pounds of gear.
If a soldier carries 25 pounds of armor, 12 pounds of water, and a 13 pound weapon, he's already at 50 pounds.
6.8x51mm ammo (21.5 grams) is nearly twice the weight of 5.56x45mm ammo (12 grams). A simple load of 300 rounds in 5.56 is 10 pounds. It's nearly 20 pounds in 6.8.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The most important components of modern combat vehicles in modern war are its optics and targeting systems. The vehicle that can detect, target, and hit a threat first wins. Protection is secondary, as it is defensive.
Better thermals and day optics, stabilization, more precise range finding, and more accurate weapon trump's anything else.
A low profile, quieter and cooler engine signature, better camouflage, lower ground pressure, and speed to quickly displace are more important than thick armor and APS.
By the time you rely on those, you've already failed most of your priorities. I'd much rather engage a threat vehicle first with a devastating hit than get in a gunfight in a phone booth
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Highway Jay
And there it is. The modern dim witted ignorant strike out with words like "racist " or "bigot" that which they refuse to acknowledge as truth.
Racism is universal and can be acted upon by every human being. It's a human condition, not a white one. This is a fact. A fact that modern leftists choose to ignore in order to recreate their own alternate, fictional reality where non whites are incapable of racism. Just the act of assuming the white, female manager was racist in her decision to ask these men to either buy a 3 dollar coffee or leave is a racist act. She has been judged solely upon the color of her skin.
Nothing I have said is racist or bigotted. If you believe that pointing out that non whites have the priveledge to do whatever they want and, if criticized or hindered, they can use racism as an explaination, you are the bigotted one.
This training focused on racism, and perceptions of racism, experienced ONLY by non whites. Whites experience racism as well, but we're not allowed to talk about that, right?
3
-
Highway Jay
Ah, so it's funny to you, is it?
This was much more serious than being asked to by a coffee. You proved my point . You don't actually care about racism.
How about the Chris Newsone and Channon Christian murders? Raped, tortured, and murdered for being white.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom
These are acts of REAL personal racism. You fail to comprehend the concept. Has nothing to do with institutional racism. Anyone can be racists, including blacks , and many are daily.
Whites are berated, cursed, beaten, robbed, denied jobs, denied social services, and murdered by non whites regularly. The fact that you are ambivilant, cold, and unempathetic to it doesn't change anything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The NLAW and the Javelin are used much differently. The NLAW is much better for close range hits, but struggles past 600 meters, which means you have to get pretty close to an armored force. The Jav can hit way past 2k, ensuring a higher chance the gunner will survive.
If I were fighting in the woods near the roads and fields in the Ukrainian countryside, I would prefer to have my force to be equipped with javs to ambush tanks moving to contact in file.
If I were fighting in the built up urban areas, I would prefer to be equipped with AT4s and NLAWS, as longer range shots will most likely not be offered to us, and the lighter weight would allow us to move faster in the streets.
I wouldn't prefer an either or choice. You want both, in reasonable numbers. The US Army uses the AT4, The M3 Carl Gustaf, the M72A6 LAW, the Javelin, and the Tow, all for different uses.
The lighter weapons are for squad sized elements, while the Jav is a platoon level weapon. Heavier weapons like the TOW are generally mounted or company level weapons. You want layered weapons with different capabilities. Generally, it's range to targets that dictates the weapon, not cost or target type. I'll hit a BMP2 with the same weapon I would hit a T80, if it's past 500 meters.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@josephdeliz3455
You are mistaken.
In the army, heavy weapons companies only exist in light infantry divisions.
It's not the same as in the corps.
Yes, I have been in the line most of my career, aside from being in a BN sniper section for 2 years. I was also a WSL in the 101st for 2 years. I've now been in fir nearly 20 years and am currently a company first sergeant.
We brought out javelins several times in my time in Iraq (3)and Afghanistan (2). In fact, we often used the CLU as a night observation device separate from the missile. My platoon fired 2 in 2003 and 1 in 2005.
I'm Afghanistan, I watched them being employed twice. All of these were while in line platoons with both 3-15 INF and 1-327
Not all line platoons in the army are the same. We have light, heavy, and Stryker platoons. Light platoons carry javelins only when armor is expected, but heavy carries one in the back of every Brad. Stryker platoons have 2 javelin teams in the TO&E of every weapons squad, though they also are usually stored in the Stryker.
My greater point is that just because a weapon might need to be crossloaded if the issued soldier goes down isn't any reason to negate it's usefulness.
If the SAW Gunner goes down, another soldier will grab it and his ammo.
If a 240 Gunner goes down, another soldier will do the same.
I feel it would be much more effective going forward for each squad (3 per platoon) to carry one M32 than 2 single shot 320's. The ability to reengage without breaking off the sight picture is much more effective than a 320 Gunner doing so after each shot. A dedicated Gunner also means he'll be firing grenades, like he should, rather than firing a rifle. In my experience, most grenadiers act like they forgot they have one until their team leaders screams at him that he needs HE somewhere.
Our biggest problem us that we don't train enough with our GL's. Due to regulations involving live fire ranges and impact areas, you can't fire GLs on the same ranges as the rest of your weapons. We can fire chalk rounds on squad lanes, as we did this current train up for our current deployment. Unfortunately, the GL is seriously underestimated and neglected, treated as an afterthought. In fact, during a training cycle, it's difficult to get our gunners to a qual range more than twice.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BlargeMan
The SIG rifle has alot of steel inserts throughout to stand the increased pressure. Their rifles can possibly stand the pressure (thorough testing would be needed) but converting any existing weapon to this caliber would be unlikely.
The 6.8x51mm (commercially known as .277 Fury) uses a higher BC match bullet to gain much of it's touted ballistic performance. The military requires them to field an EPR projectile, with a lower BC.
Overall, the main difference between the 6.8 and the current 7.62 round is 100 fps additional muzzle velocity. Lethality on target would be nearly identical, and so would it's armored piercing capability. Any advantage the 6.8 would have over 7.62 wouldn't come into play until at least 600 meters.
Replacing 5.56, it's much worse. A soldier will either have 50% less ammo or twice as much weight to carry for an equivelant number of shots. Suppressive fire would be much more difficult, which is the foundation of fire and manuever..
Switching to this 6.8 would logistically be no different than going back to 7.62, since it weighs exactly the same as the current M80A1 round we currently field at 24 grams. Full powered rounds are great for our weapons squads and Designated Marksmen, but is a terrible idea for our assaulters. The Marines have a much better idea in fielding only 5 56 rifles for the squad. If we want to continue to field a belt fed SAW, I would prefer a KAC LAMG at 8.5 lbs, than a 12 pounds 6.8 with double the weight in ammo (it's more accurate, too).
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The fact that he was prosecuted, had 2 million bail, was decried as an active shooter, racist, white supremacist, white nationalist, racist, mass shooter, murderer, etc., in the media and even the president make me absolutely sure the world is fucked.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Our military planners are fossilized dinosaurs planning on fighting in the 1990s.
Drones, drones, drones, drones, drones.
How do you get an extra 100 ships without spending a trillion dollars?
Unmanned ships.
Up to 80% of the tonnage of a ship, and it's cost, is to accommodate a crew.
Very soon, we will be operating task forces comprises of mostly unmanned ships that barely come about the water line, made mostly of composite materials, carrying a mix of antiarcraft missiles, long range anti ship missiles, and long range loitering munitions.
They will be nearly impossible to see unless you either have air assets above them or subs below them.
Aircraft carriers will only carry a couple dozen F35 s, a half dozen helicopters, and several dozen types of high endurance armed or refueler UAVs.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@trumpanzeehunter9505
No. You're a flunkie.
Amendments aren't "established", they're ratified, you idiot.
The 14th amendment made all slaves and their descendents citizens.
That's it.
Repealing the 14th amendment won't change that. It was a one time deal.
In fact, it only applied to African slaves, and nobody else. American Indians had to wait until 1924, and the Indian Citizenship Act, to become citizens.
The 14th has been misinterpreted to mean that every person born on US soil is automatically a US citizen, which is incorrect.
There's only 2 ways to become a citizen
1. Be born to a US citizen, regardless of location of birth
2. Be naturalized
The 14th needs to be repealed to prevent foreign nationals from claiming their children as US citizens, whether they be from Finland, Russia, Zaire, or Mexico.
Other countries aren't committing this insanity. Even Mexico isn't THIS stupid.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lalmuanpuiijahau7531
Yes, of course, IEDs are included.Those are mines.
90% of all casualties are due to explosives. Grenades, mortars, rockets, artillery, missiles, bombs, mines, etc.
This idea that we need to ditch the assault rifle and issue battle rifles comes from the tendency to fight the last war. Afghanistan.
As you said, we can't rule out being in a battlespace where fights are occuring in a matter of feet, not hundred of yards, as in urban and jungle environments.
Guys just will not be laying down in a good supported prone position laying sniper fire at enemy positions 800 meters away.
Yes, we have different firearms for different uses. Just in the rifle platoon, we have carbines, grenade launchers, AT4s, SAWs, GPMGs, and DMRs. Replacing the SAW with a GPMG and the carbine with a DMR isn't good use of resources. All of those classifications are designed for a niche, and when you try to press one into the other's role, you're going to have problems.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kd1s
I know exactly what I'm talking about. There's a multitude of reasons electric cars aren't taking off, and no, it's not because of a conspiracy. A Chevy volt isnt an all electric car. It's a hybrid. These cars have massive problems with range, complexity, overheating, etc. They're way more complex than a combustion engine, not simpler. They're also much more expensive. What's worse, the batteries lose capacity over time. Your range decreases the longer you own the car.
If you want to get good mileage, and be more green, it makes much more sense to have a small engine conventional car, or better yet drive a scooter. You can get 100 miles to the gallon on one. That's 2-3 cents a mile.
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
-
@WilliamOPearce
That's not even close to the truth. The fact is, the US Army and Marines have been steadily upgrading the entire time. We're using everything people would consider high tech, from scout drones, loitering munitions, top attack antitank missiles, the most heavily armored IFVs in use, AI net centric communications and sensor packages, long range Himars, etc.
Ukraine isn't the US vs Russia.
It's the third most powerful military in the world being stalled by a weak nation with NATO weapons deliveries. The fact that Ukraine has lasted this long against Russia is amazing. It's the equivalent of Steve Erkul lasting 10 rounds in the ring with Mike Tyson. The fact they've gone from having Russians attacking all over their country, to containing them, to striking deep into Russia is quite a development.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nivek2192
Why would it be watered down?
Same round, same length and taper of barrel, yet reduced weight, improved optics mount and fire controls.
What do you THINK I was talking about?
I wouldn't call the Kord a "watered down 50 Cal".
What can it do better than an m240?
How about shoot a 650 grain bullet at 2900 fps with over 4 times the energy and over 3 times the penetration of armor and hard barriers, all at twice the range.
We already use the M2. It's time to make it more shootable. On unstable gunnery, it's very difficult to hit targets at even moderate distances unless locked in with a T&E with the M2. Giving the gun a proper buttstock and optics mount will allow gunners a better chance of hitting while free gunning.
I don't understand the resistance to modernizing the heavy machinegun. We modernized the 1917 machinegun, to the 1919, and eventually adopted proper GPMGs. The 50 can be modernized to the same degree, allowing a more accurate, lighter, and easier to shoot HMG.
It's a no brainier and something the US military has been promising for decades to the infantry.
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The 30mm turret is absolutely necessary, whether it be on a tracked or wheeled IFV.
Not only can they punch holes in much larger vehicles at 1600-2000 meters, it has HE that hits like a grenade launcher for soft skin vehicles, fortifications, and dismounted troops in the area. It's the best weapon for killing or suppressing anti tank teams.
This allows the vehicle to either transport a full rear compartment full of troops, with a little bit of firepower, or just carry a couple of troops with the crew, and a lot of extra ammo.
I do think that the Protector MCT is the most though out remote operates 30mm turret out there right now. It's the one being installed on the Stryker Dragoon. Remotely operated. Easy to reload from in the hull, fantastic optics and sensors, expandable, has room for spike or javelin ATGMs, and network capable.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mojothemigo
Yes, I agree. Heavy armored vehicles fighting right up on the frontline are going to have to be lighter and smaller. No more heavy MBTs. Fuel consumption is one of the largest concerns. Heavy armor guzzles fuel, so it makes them very dependent on refueler trucks not very far behind them
If APS ends up being as effective as predicted, the vehicle can afford to have less armor. In dropping weight, the large caliber tank gun might be phased out due to the huge firing signature vs other types of weapons.
Most tanks on the battlefield are destroyed by artillery and infantry, not by other tanks.
It's not necessary to field MBTs in order to be successful at defeating them.
With scout drones, armed drones, kamikaze drones, guided mortar and artillery rounds, and guided missiles at a western armies disposal, heavy armor can easily be hunted down and engaged at their assembly point, let alone their approach.
But in the end, it all comes down to a vehicles maintenance, ammo, fuel, commo, food, water, and medical support being constantly provided. The soft underbelly. If you are able to avoid a forces most fearsome weapons and hit their support, that inflicts long lasting damage. Most MBTs have to sit still most of the day because they would need to refuel twice a day if in constant fighting. That's it's Achilles Heel.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brandonlevy8680
None of that is true.
An M3E1 Gutaf weighs 15 pounds unloaded, with no sight.
This weighs 28 pounds, unloaded with no sight.
In other words, the Gutaf with 2 rounds weighs the same as this unloaded.
A squad can have as many 84mm rounds as they're willing to carry.
Gustafs can fire HE, HEAT, HEDP, airburst programmable HEDP, tandem HEAT, smoke, illumination, flechette rounds, and a laser guided HEAT missile with a 2500 meter range.
Rounds can be rocket assisted and come in CS confined space rounds that can be fired from within a room.
The Gustaf can also have a computerized FC that can predict flight path to each round, sending environmental and even the temperature of the round in the breech.
A Gutaf can easily destroy a whole squad in the open with an airburst 448 round at 1500 meters. Only one shot needed peppers everything within 25 meters with 4000 fragments. All from a round that weighs 6 pounds.
The Gutaf is superior in every way, and we have 2 per light infantry platoon.
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
-
2
-
@tilepusher
Honestly, the next service rifle is way down on our priorities, and I'm carrying one every day right now. im on my 6th deployment as an infantryman and I'm on my 20th year in the army.
Replacing our machineguns with more accurate, lighter ones should've our highest priority right now, along with getting the M3E1 Carl Gustav and M110 DMR down to every infantry squad.
For what we need it to do, the M4A1 with M855A1 ammo are about perfect for the role for which we use them
Bullet drop and BC do matter, because it increases hit probability. Soldiers do often enough shoot past 300 meters, and 5.56 has a flatter trajectory
The US military won't be going back to lead cored bullets. The EPR is the way forward from now on. They both penetrate deeper and have a lower fragmentation threshold than a conventional design. A M855A1 round will fragment past 400 meters from an m4, something that even the 77 grain M262 Mod 1 cannot do. They're accurate enough at around 2 MIA from our guns. That gives us a 50% hit probability at 600 meters.
Overall, if we had 12 man squads, with one team supporting a lightweight 7.62 machinegun and the other supporting a recoiless rifle, that would give us the most flexibility. Add a drone operator, with everyone carrying M4s and ammo for those 2 guns, and you have a very lightz responsive squad with both CQB and Long range fires.
I honestly don't think a caliber change us in order. A great mix of 7.62 and 5.56 weapons gives us the best of both worlds. That's what all other armies are doing as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tilepusher
Yeah, this is more about what our military needs as apposed to for civilian uses.
The xm-8 and xm25 were proposed military weapons.
For civilian fighting rifles, the 5.56 AR variants and the 7.62 AK variants are the most practical for the relatively close ranges and limited fire needed. Civilians aren't going to be getting into fights involving dozens of men using fire and manuever with mortar, machineguns, and CAS.
Honestly, for civilians , any round would be fine (6.8, 5.56, 6.5, 7.62, whatever) as they don't have to carry hundreds of rounds or move miles in a day with it. Shooting a home intruder with any of those rounds at living room distances would produce about the same results.
An AR15 carbine loaded with Speer Good dot 75 grain, Barnes Vor-tx 70 grain (optimized Brown tip), or 62 grain Federal trophy bonded bear claw ammo is about ideal for a fighting rifle/ammo combination for civilians. Keep a couple mags loaded and practice with plain Jane FMJs.
If I were to use an AK, I'd go with Hornady 7.62x39mm 123 grain SSTs. That seems to be a solid performer that expands well at fighting distances.
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davitdavid7165
Yeah, those 130 pound WW2 infantryman must have never been able to carry and shoot one, huh,? Please. Touch grass.
In Iraq, i carried my SAW, 800 rounds, 4 smoke grenades, armor, water, and nods.
That weighed over 90 pounds.
Tell me again how a 10 pound SMG and a dozen one pound 20 round mags is just too heavy to carry 😂
Even if you carried 20 mags, a Thompson, 2 canteens, 4 frags, a helmet, and a knife, you'd come out carrying half of what I did sprinting from doorway to doorway.
How weak do you think men are?
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
guyf321
well, there you go. It's debate able whether or not the conclusions garnered by the 97% of scientists (the vast majority of which are not climate scientists) are conclusive. That figure includes geologists, sociologists, chemists, biologists, botanists, entomologists, etc, etc, etc. They have as much expert opinion as pretty much anyone.
They are not climatologists, who are the only ones who's opinion really matters on the subject.
There is no 97% consensus with climatologists that the earth is significantly warming due to anthropomorphic causes, and there is no consensus on what will happen in the future. a that's the reason the 97% of scientists figure is used and not 97% of climatologists.
You question the validity that IQ is measureable, and I question the validity that climate change is being measured correctly. Neither of us is an expert in either subject, so our opinions weigh the same. You reject a supposed consensus and so do I. No difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Davinel Ulin-Vega
I see you use the same debating strategy that 9/11 truthers, flat earthers, neo nazis, and every other extremist online uses- accuse your opposition of being paid opposition rather than realizing that there are 7 billion people in the world and you can't expect everyone to see the world the way you do. Can I assume your being paid to shill by GE, the UN, and the Democrat party? Really, that is a juvenile perspective.
I seriously doubt that you have ever taken an honest inventory of your belief structure and challenged it. This used to be mandatory in college, but not anymore. Now, students are taught to find evidence to confirm their concrete view of the world and ferociously attack anyone who dares to question the authority of their statements. Just at face value, it's an affront to logic and reason. Nowadays, people would rather sit back and watch a video that says "see, I told you I was always right!"
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whoa dude watch the mouth. No I'm not an idiot. You haven't been to Palestine, probably, and you don't have to, to know the facts about it. It was a defacto creation of the surrounding Arab countries when they invaded Israel. They don't give a shit about those people and deny them the ability to become citizens.
The Muslim world wants those camps because as long as those people live there, they have a talking point. The US pays half of the upkeep on those camps, with the end result of the UN calling the US and Israel brutal.
In my opinion, we should cut all funding to Israel AND the UN. Israel could do fine without our $, and there would no longer be any accusations of us " funding" Israel. Furthermore, the UN would have to shut down those camps and Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt would have to deal with the mess they made.
I don't expect you to absorb that or change your mind. You probably will ignore all I said and call the Israelis " maz us" or some other leftist blabber, but whatever. They will do what they have to not get exterminated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Muslims during the dark ages couldn't even build their own cannons. They had to hire traitorous Europeans to do it for them.
I tell you, leftists and Muslims are a broken record. Every time someone disagrees, it's like a Tourette's tick. They scream " FOX NEWS! jEWS! ZIONIST! NEOCO!"
Come up with some original material. You accused me of being in favor of Israel, though I said we should stop funding both sides. I don't watch Fox News, or any tv news, for that matter. I am not a member of the Republican Party, and not a neocon.
I do not believe we, as in the US, should have anything to do with the Middle East.
Yet, because I believe your religion is false. Evil, and dangerous, you cannot fathom that I would might be outside if the box your mind needs to put me in. Stop reading your Koran. There is nothing in there worth it. Free your mind.
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
-
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
-
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
-
faultroy
haha more pajoritives due to you having a srupid, weak argument.
Absolutely nothing you have said refutes the fact that Mexicans citizens ARE voting in large numbers abd yes, it IS voter fraud.
In fact, you clearly agreed that non citizens are voting. You agreed with me that non citizens are voting. The only difference is you claim "so what?".
In every state, it is clearly printed on the registration form -" are you a legal citizen?" If the answer is NO, then it is illegal to register. However, it is not asked of anyone to show proof that they are. Thus, there are millions if Mexican citizens voting in US ekections. Wealthy Democrats love this, since illegals vote for them. If they were voting against them, they woukd be screaming foul.
I have never met a masculine, real man who voted on a democrat ticket. It is the absolute definition of a cuckold pussy. I'm a career US Army Ranger with 6 combat deployments and have a channel of my own, not an avatar and shitty opinion like you.. Suck it, fag.
1
-
faultroy
you are spending your whole time arguing against a strawman, while using emotional arguments all the while.
What "histeria" are you speaking if? I never claimed such a thing or have stated and "world view" for you to be angry over. I simply stated that of course there is voter fraud with non citizens voting and you agree. So what are you angry about if we agree on that point?
Name ONE emotional argument I have made. You have made over a dozen.
I know very well how the real world works in US politics. Our system is bring influenced by many Mexican citizens voting in it, it has been made impossible to tabulate how many ir stop them, and our country has no intentions of recognizing, let alone changing that fact.
Another point on which we agree.Mexican citizens have been, are, and will continue to vote here to influence elections. That us something most democrats refuse to admit.
You've filled your posts with pajoritives, accusations, curse words, and hate specifically because you have filled your mind and heart with anger. It makes it impossible for to discuss opposing viewpoints without acting like a child. You should be ashamed, but I know you aren't.
It is the very behavior and mindset you have displayed that is wrong with our political arena. It's why people resort to rioting and violence. It's the era of jerry springer and you happily participate in the over emotional circus. How dare someone say something you don't like! They must be tge worst people in your mind, since anyone you disagree with us the enemy, huh?
Grow up, dude.
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
-
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
-
Haroon Abdul Majeed
Here's the entire quote from Trump that the liars kept from you-
"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
The mainstream media didn't let you hear that. How does that make you feel that they lied to you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don't forget that any replacement for 7.62 is going to have an EPR projectile. All copper with a steel penetrator. Lower BC, and lower bullet weight.
The 130 grain 7.62 EPR M80A1 us the same length as the 147 grain lead cored M80, with a MV of 3050 fps.
A 130 grain 6.5 Creedmoor is slower, at 2950 fps, and would be even slower in EPR form, since it would take up more case capacity.
A 6.5 Creedmoor MG barrel would also have a 50% lower barrel life, and would heat up quicker, necessitating more frequent barrel changes in the middle of a fight.
In truth, we shouldn't be having dismounted troops shooting anything bigger than 7.62 for machineguns, and 6.5 us completely inappropriate for anything other than precision guns.
As far as .338 goes, the ammo weight is too much to carry on foot, and us outperformed by .50 BMG in every single way, from antimateriel rifles, to machineguns. It has higher BCs, more payload for API and explosive rounds, and penetrates deeper in armor.
Stick to 5.56 up to 500 meters, 7.62 to 1000, and .50 for light armor and fortifications.
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
-
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
-
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
-
I'm not sure if the paradigm isn't shifting
Armor is vulnerable to ambush by ATGMs and infantry while on the move, and in the defense they are very vulnerable to artillery and drones.
The USMC is replacing their 120mm mortars with the Hero 120 midrange loitering munition. Precision strikes from up to 60K with a javelin warhead in a 40 pound package. They can carry a dozen in a small truck. Small platoon sized elements can carry these, along with javelins and stingers, and still have a stealthy signature on the battlefield.
The HiMARS will replace most tube artillery in the USMC, hitting high value targets and move quickly before suffering counter battery fire.
It's possible that combat will rely on a forces ability to move quickly, deliver precision firepower onto targets beyond line of sight, and avoid detection by air. The armored vehicles heavy weight and tracks make it easy to track by drone to it's hiding spot.
Lighter vehicles with minimal or no armor leave a much lighter footprint and are easier to camouflage with netting.
Nowadays, direct fire fights with an enemies tanks isn't necessary, as you can destroy them 10 kilometers before they ever get in range with their main guns.
I imagine the use of MRAZR, Flyer 60, or the Infantry Squad Vehicle will increase. They can carry anything from drones, machine guns, grenade launchers, 30mm cannon, etc.
With the number of tanks lost in this war to precision strikes, I'd hate to be an armored crewman in this most modern war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheNinjaMarmot
Artillery doesn't have to stay in the same firing position. A modern SPAG can set up, fire 6 rounds, and pack up in less than 4 minutes. 6 laser guided 155mm shells weighing 90 pounds flying 25 miles to their targets. Vehicles painted by drones are hit on the first shot, whether they are moving or not. Once the tanks are spotted from the air, there's nowhere to run or hide.
Yes, I've seen videos of many tanks and vehicles hit with kamikaze drones. This will increase as more examples of loitering drones like the Hero 120, Lancet 3, Harop, or Phoenix Ghost makes it onto the battlefield.
They're especially good at stripping away air defense and artillery emplacements.
Tanks can try to hide if they want. A large tank is pretty difficult to keep hidden from air observation. A modern medium range, medium altitude UCAV will still see the thermal signature and ruts the tracks dug in the ground from thousands of feet up.
Drones that are very hard to see on radar, if you want to turn one on before it locks on an amram on the signal.
Even small quad copters dropping small bombs on the tanks are destroying them. They usually carry multiple bombs, so it's got several shots to make the kill. Usually it's through an open turret hatch (exploding the ammo), or on the engine deck setting the tank on fire. Dozens of these are probing the lines at any time. At less than 100K, they're expendable. If it only kills one tank, it's paid for itself.
That's not even discussing fire and forget, top attack, man portable ATGMs like the Javelin or SPIKE. The firer has the potential of engaging tanks outside the range of their main guns (greater than 2 miles). A small team in a covered and concealed position is a lot harder to detect than a multiton vehicle.
Some ATGM systems don't even have to be located near the firers position. They are fired remotely, so the crew can stay hidden.
Precision guided weapons might kill the idea of the large armored vehicle. Speed, stealth, and a smaller supply and maintenance tail might become more important than protection and firepower. The less ammo tonnage and fuel that needs to be delivered down to the company, the better. Less total men needed to be in the field, the fewer the number of support they have to have.
Active protection systems are very expensive but they will be mandatory going forward. They won't defend against quad copter attacks but it would give at least a fighting chance against missiles and possibly guided artillery.
Air defense will have to advance quickly. The drone threat is so massive that individual vehicles will have to have some sort of air defense capability. Whether that's a man portable stingers, radars with air burst autocannon, air defense drones, or lasers, if the drone threat isn't mitigated it's going to be difficult to survive in a tank.
All of this doesn't replace the man on the ground. It's just now these weapons will be what he's using to destroy fighting positions and vehicles whenever they see them while performing recon. Men moving more like sniper teams than a charging rhino. Destroying a bunker with a one shot 40 pound drone from 5 miles away is much safer than bringing up a tank within the line of sight of a potential ATGM team.
Flying that same drone up to find a hidden mortar team, an armored vehicle, helicopter, or building is just as easy.
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
-
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
-
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
-
There's no way 6.8x51 can replace 5.56 for most roles, but it seems it could easily replace 7.62 in DMRs and GPMGs. We still need to retain 5.56 for everyone else.
Your rifle is only one of many weapons and a ton of equipment soldiers need to carry.
The Spear LT with a 11.5" barrel and the folding stock would be a logical choice to replace the M4, maybe call it the M6.
I can't imagine carrying the 13 pound M5 on top of carrying a Javelin, an M320 with 24 grenades, a Carl Gustaf, or hauling ammo for the GPMGs.
This gun, I can see filling that role. 6 pounds stripped means by the time you add the 1-6x SIG Tango optic, IR Laser, loaded mag, and suppressor, the weapon would be 9.5 pounds and only 22 inches with stock folded. Very light and compact for the ranges most troops engage. Further than 300, the 6.8 weapons are utilized.
For most troops who aren't in combat roles, a simple red dot like the current issued CompM4 would keep the gun around 7.5 pounds loaded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheOriginalJAX
I have made entirely structured arguments, including examples. I've done everything but draw you schematics.
Instead of saying "IFV and tank armor is thin", I have you actual dimensions and a detailed description of how that armor is composed. I can tell you anything you want to know about the capabilities of these systems, but you haven't even asked a question.
The truth is, civilians watch these videos about military weapons and jump to the conclusion that this or that weapon is amazing or garbage based on what they heard on the internet. When guys who've had to fight in combat tell the realities on the ground, they bristle.
Many people use the example of Ukraine as proof that a weapon like this would be useful. Where would it be useful, where other weapons would be less appropriate to carry?
If you're ambushing armor, you want dedicated anti armor weapons, including drones. If you're reacting to contact against troops, belt fed machine guns are your best option, as they saturate the kill zone with much denser fire. Bunkers are best engaged with anti structural munitions with tandem warheads. If your sniping at long range, you want a weapon that is capable of 1 moa and isn't highly effected by wind and bullet drop.
Rather than trying to look for a scenario in which this weapon would fail, it would be more useful to come up with a scenario in which this would succeed where another weapon would fail. Are there any that come to mind?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lucybrown1929
Conservatives actually gave a name for them-
RINOs. Republicans in name only
They're Republicans that hold some views in common with the American left
The accusation made to them the most is "if they consider themselves conservative, what exactly have they conserved?"
To the right, they feel as if America is going left nomatter who is president.
Examples would be politicians like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, John McCain, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, George W. Bush, etc.
Many Republicans are referred to as RINOs for either giving in to Democrat policies or promoting them themselves.
It's a purity test not unlike what is going on today in the Democrat party, defining candidates as either establishment/corporate or progressive.
I'm trying to explain how the right sees things, as many on the left really don't understand the right and think they are evil if they stand up for something in which they strongly believe. Many on the right see the left as evil for the same reason.
It's the most polarizing aspect of our politics and the reason we end up in a two party system.
1
-
@lucybrown1929
Believe it or not, many people voted for Trump because of what they see on social media and the news pertaining to the culture war. Antifa and BLM riots, La Raza, cancel culture, noise over trans issues including bathrooms and misgendering, etc. It's distasteful to many normal middle Americans not in that atmosphere. The most vocal far left don't understand how bizarre their behavior looks to those who aren't , including quite a few center left voters.
The behavior of the left since the election has solidified that choice with voters since then, as well. Every action that Democrats see as fighting against the right and making headway such as protests and investigations makes them look even worse to voters and is driving them to either stay home or vote for Trump.
Yet, since 2016, the left has apparently decided they haven't gone far enough and that more extreme views is what will convince voters to cast the ballot for them. They're doubling down , not realizing those actions are the very thing that makes so many people appalled and repelled.
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
-
@Jimothy-723
It's about incremental improvements. Over the years, there's been enough advancements in certain areas to leave room for other designs. Lighter weight polymer materials, steel inserts for high wear areas, adjustable gas regulators, fully Amby controls, folding stocks, easily replaced barrels, mono recievers, etc., are just getting combined into one weapon.
I personally think weapons like the SCAR, ACR, Grom, GK43, Spear, and other weapons like it are good examples of this.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@romanianturk2101
Cope, cope, cope, cope, cope, cope, cope, cope, cope.
Same pattern, over and over.
You'll be saying "it's just a retreat" when Crimea is back in Ukrainian hands, too.
It's like watching the black knight from Monty Python - "tis just a flesh wound", with all 4 limbs chopped off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kschleic9053
A CRWS can be networked to any system that can share coordinates. You would still want two separate operators for the systems, just like we do with drones and artillery. Not only for safety reasons, but also in order to not lose the drone and so you have someone loading the gun, clearing malfunctions, etc.
But, yeah, what you describe can be done. It's a pretty good idea. A MK19 is a good gun for hitting dead space, and networking the two would make corrections really fast.
It would be really cool for anti drone work, too. Friendly drones spotting threat ones, sharing data to multiple guns, and each firing airburst rounds as the enemy drones come into range. Pretty awesome.
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
-
1
-
@musikSkool
The 5.56 is plenty lethal for infantry combat.
There's no place on the human body that, if hit from a more powerful round like a 308, would be deadly but not with 5.56.
A hit to the head, heart, spine, liver, kidneys, would be a fatal wound with 5.56 as much as any other round. It's light, deadly out 500 meters, and relatively inexpensive. It's easy to carry 300-400 rounds, too. Most soldiers aren't firing all that far, and having a lot of rounds is more important than more energy or long range performance.
I predict that a hybrid steel/brass 5.56 with 80,000 PSI will be forthcoming soon from SIG. That would be enough pressure to push a 77 grain 5.56 round at 3000 fps from a 16" barrel.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@ThatsMrPencilneck2U
Well, like lighter AT weapons are less effective at any range. The Javelin is a top attack weapon, so it hits the lighter armor. It also has 2 warheads, so it defeats ERA better. Plus, it's guided, so it has better hit probability. Light AT generally aren't very accurate past about 200 meters.
Light antitank weapons are great in urban environments, especially if you can fire from a second floor room down onto the armor, and they're cheap enough to be used against personnel and fortifications.
Generally, the further out you can pop a tank, the better. He's got a lot of firepower that can really put a hurt on you. No infantryman would voluntarily choose to wait for armor to get close, unless he had no other choice.
An MBT can soak up a lot of RPG rounds, if they're the lighter the PG7VL rounds. Some Abrams were known to take a dozen hits and still be FMC.
Light AT are squad weapons, while ATGMs are platoon level weapons. You want both.
It's not an either, or dichotomy.
1
-
@ThatsMrPencilneck2U
Oh, I know there is. This is what I do for a profession. There's no free lunch. ATGMs and artillery are the preferred weapons for killing tanks, but like you said, in urban, it's sometimes beneficial to use light AT.
An RPG7 or an M3E1 Gustaf weigh about 16 pounds unloaded, and 3 rounds weigh about 18 to 30 pounds, depending on the ammo. It might take multiple rounds to knock out one armored vehicle.
A single NLAW or RPG29 weighs between 25 to 27 pounds, but can knock out heavy armor with one shot.
A Javelin is the lightest of all heavy AT weapons at 35 pounds each missile, and the CLU is 15, but you get a lot for it
With the Jav, you can scout with the FLIR without the missile attached, including using it to spot for artillery corrections or ID targets for friendly armor and aircraft.
It also can kill helicopters in direct fire mode past 2000 meters. If enemy air is your sector, that's a real asset.
We carry two AT4s by SOP in every squad, and two Javelins in weapons platoon along with our two M240s. We also keep a Gustaf in the trucks.
The RPG7 is a great universal weapon, able to be anti armor and anti personnel, but it's very limited compared to the Javelin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is the Democrat party going to swear off George Soros, Tom Steyer, Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg, Donald Sussman, James Simmons, Fred Eychaner, Deborah Simon, Reid Hoffman, George Marcus, Karla Jurvetson, Paul Skjodt, Ron Conway, Reid Hoffman, Deven Parekh, Don't stinks Moskovitz, Sam Altman, and hundreds of other billionaires that will contribute 5 BILLION dollars to Democrats this election cycle?
Please, the dems love big money and are in the pockets of most of the super wealthy in this country
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
-
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
-
@mooppymcd
You don't have to headspace or time the M2A1 .50 Cal anymore. No more screw in barrels.
Honestly, we should replace the M2A1 with another 50 with all of the properties of the Russian Kord. Buttstock, pistol grip, bipod, proper optics mount, lighter weight, the ability to feed from right or left side.
They replaced their DshK HMGs over two decades ago with them and it's the right choice.
Against troops, the 338 LM does great out to 1500 meters and is a great choice for ultra long range sniping. It can also fit in a much lighter rifle (15 pounds vs 30).
As an anti material round, it's severely lacking. It's not big enough to fit a payload like incendiary loads or massive tungsten penetrators. The 50 has twice the energy of the 338 LM and not much changes downrange since 50 Cal rounds have such high BCs.
I'm of the opinion that 5.56mm, 7.62,mm and 12.7mm all fulfill their roles perfectly as is (short, medium, long range) and we shouldn't replace them. Finding rounds that fit in-between them and try pulling double duty is misguided and a waste of resources.
The US military would be better served with purchasing lighter, more accurate, more controllable machineguns to replace the ones we have, but retain current calibers.
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
-
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
-
@MRIWILLPLAY
And even back then, artillery was crushing tanks. Even at the beginning of the war, neither the Javelin or the NLAW were the deadliest ATGMs against Russian armor. That title goes to the Ukrainian Stgna-P laser guided missile. Those have to be fired from a remotely operated tripod or from a vehicle, though. The Ukrainians have been fighting this fight since 2014, and Stugna-P has been employed the whole time.
The NLAW is a fantastic high caliber, short range man portable missile, but struggles with moving targets at range.
The Javelin is a fantastic medium range, man portable missile, but it's expensive.
What is great about systems like these is that they can be used by maneuvering light infantry, which is what they're designed for. But no missile is going to be a hack of all trades.
The Stugna P has greater range at 5k, is fired remotely so the operator isn't in danger and can watch the sector for a long time. He can be in a bunker while the launcher is 50 meters away on a powered tripod.
It's also much cheaper per shot, at $20,000 USD, which is half the cost of an NLAW and a quarter of the price of a Javelin.
No missile has killed more Russian tanks in Ukraine than the Stugna-P.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Drew Peacock
Laser Range Finder. You scout for enemy, identify, laze, send 10 digit grid coordinate to fire support. It's done all the time.
Stealth is going to be very important in the next wars. Being small, lithe, silent, with a low heat signature is of upmost importance.
Anything up to high will be targeted and blown out of the sky. Everyone can see it.
Yeah, we already have armed drones. Including loitering munitions. The Israelis have been very successful in developing the harpy, which can be used for armed recon.
Every size of quad copter drone, from as small as a hand, to the size of a car is going to be fielded. The large ones can carry a decent sized amount of ordinance. Laser guided bombs work well on something like that.
Advances in AAA and C-RAM mean that aircraft will have a hard time out there, drone or manned. Anti drone drones, with short range SAMs, or just made to crash into the other drones and knock them out of the air.
Maybe even drones camouflaged to look like living birds in the air, drafting on the air currents. Maybe even land them on power lines or tree branches for mission endurance. Possibly even use them to drop incindiary grenades onto enemy encampments prior to an assault.
There's a lot of possibilities out there. The armies been looking for a light armed recon helicopter because the AH64 is expensive to operate. Not sure how this is going to be necessarily cheaper. I'd rather see more investment in drone tech than this.
1
-
@Drew Peacock
Oh, you seem to be talking about long range support weapons. This video is about armed recon. That means aircraft right over the enemy, low to the deck. It's not taking about missile ships or artillery.
These are the aircraft that scout for armored brigades on the battlefield. Many will be replaced with drones, but we still need eyes close to the fighting.
I do think that artillery is advancing quickly, and drones and light helicopters In Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, Armenia, etc., can spot for everything from mortars, towed artillery MLRSz and SP artillery. The Russians used drones to scout for MLRS, which is defended by armor and AAA.
This combined arms concept is nothing new, but it does show that light aircraft that are unarmored and lightly armed, if all, still have their place amongst supersonic jets and armored gunships
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
As far as the virus goes, it makes ght have been different if we had been told the truth from the beginningz or even right now.
We know for a fact that getting vaccinated doesn't stop or even slow down the spread of the virus. Destiny seems to still think it does. Also, it's shaky on whether or not it's effective in keeping people out of the hospital. There's no way to say that if you hadn't been vaccinated, it would have been worse.
Everybody will eventually get the virus. That's a fact, unless you live in a plastic bubble. The president spread disinformation when he claimed that if you got the vaccine, you would get it, spread it, or need a mask.
None of that is true. In fact, the vaccine is so inneffective, that they are now telling people to get a third shot, with more on the way.
None of what they have told us has been true, including it's origins and whether or not the US Government helped create 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
-
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
-
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
-
@gingerfox7143
My head? Lord, no. But I do pay attention to this war, as it's my profession. Like I said, the problems that Europe and the US are having have very little to do with Putin at all. That's actually the excuse that Biden gives all the time. "it's Putin's fault". No, it is not. You're giving the Biden excuse, now?
Aside from not selling gas to Europe, that's all they can do. And that actually hurts Russia more than Europe, as Europe can get other sources, especially as time goes on.
Russia, on the other hand, will struggle very badly with reduced sales. You don't make money by selling less products, and a large chunk of Russians GDP relies on petroleum and gas. Russia is a poor country with an economy that's shrunk by half in past 6 months. That's nothing to be celebrating, but that's how it is.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@SportZFan4L1fe
Not only that, the training level of the active Russian troops is horrible. They not a well trained army. Any reserves or new contract soldiers will be even worse. The troops and weapons they have in Ukraine are worn out after nearly 7 months of fighting. It all has to be serviced, rested, and refurbished. Parts have to be replaced. None of that is happening. Not only that, but their effectiveness is being worn down over time. The lack of western chips means they've run dangerously low on precision weapons.
There's no evidence present for you to have a sunny outlook on the Russian progress and every reason to see it's going to get worse for them. With the arrival of HIMARS, NATO SPAGs, and HARMs, the ukrainians are methodically destroying ammo supply point, anti-aircraft radars, Command Posts, and bridges. The ukrainians get better equipment every month, while the Russians are digging out worse and worse weapons from storage. At least 2 dozen nations are supporting Ukraine, all much richer than Russia with better technology. Russia has a GDP smaller than Iran. It's just a matter of time until they lose, now. Time isn't on their side.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Taskandpurpose
The corps got the M27 because it better suits their tactics. Light, maneuverable, reliable, and easy to reload on the move. All heavier weapons are up at company and brought out for specific missions. I think it's a good choice for them.
The issue I had was that they compared the M27 to the m249 without considering other 5.56 belt fed lmgs on the market.
The army needs to abandon the idea of changing calibers all together. 5.56 is an ideal 300 meter and less caliber and 7.62 is great past where an enemy can even be identified. Dismounted soldiers have absolutely no reason to be shooting past a kilometer with anything but mortars and antitank weapons.
The people who are excited about these heavier calibers aren't the people who have to carry them and they have no personal experience in combat to explain the need for them. I would guarantee that 99% of the people claiming we need bigger rounds have never been in a gunfight and certainly haven't trudged around a battlefield with armor, radios, NVGs, water, packs, AT weapons, MGs, mortar rounds and the 100+ pounds of shit we carry.
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
-
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
-
@martmet8688
I don't listen to either. I've heard what she has to say ad neaseum. yes, she has very little power, yet TYT is touting her as being the opposite.
I realize her words are hardly her own, and that both medicare for all and the green new deal are both proposals from career politicians that have been in Congress for decades, though it's sold as her ideas by shows like TYT.
What concerns me is how many people are taking these proposals seriously without really caring about the damage they can cause, especially the GND. The damage and costs are minimized, and the details are avoided.
I've watched her speeches, town halls, webcasts, and interviews. I'm astounded at her ignorance as much as I'm shocked at Trump's. It insane the things these politicians are saying, yet their die hard supporters eat it up. It really speaks to just how dumb the electorate has become.
We're sliding into Idiocracy territory.
Brawndo- it's what plants crave.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lalmuanpuiijahau7531
Warfare is changing rapidly. Expecting line dogs to take 800-1000 meter shots us just not going to happen.i saw it when they gave those M14s out. Those guys weren't hitting shit past 500. Fir real. No joke.
The long distance attacks that coalition forces experienced were nearly exclusively harassing fire with no casualties.
90% of all casualties in war are due to explosives. The Carl Gustav is a much better solution for infantry squads to hit enemy positions at range. Airbursting a 3.5 pound charge 5 meters over their heads at 1000, hitting them with the power of a claymore mine is much more effective, especially with the thermal computerized sight.
Individual riflemen need to be lightly armed and carrying ammo for the big guns like the GPMG and Recoiless, while remaining light for the assault.
If anything, we should be going the direction of the Marines in the army. High sustained fire carbine, Gustav, and drone operator to find the enemy, lase him, and call precision fire from the Arty, mortars, or aircraft.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gnrnrvids
Hahaha sure you'd, bud, sure you did. Are you off your meds?
It's amazing how many schlongs crawl out of the woodwork quoting shit they read in gun forums. They're always the guy who was on some program or another. Just on this channel alone there's probably 20 guys just like you.
There are actually real people actually using these guns everyday. In fact, we're out in the field right now and running the carbine range tomorrow. I've been carrying some version of the AR for the past 22 years. I see every single issue we have with our weapons, and the M4's are rarely a problem.
We shoot a metric shit ton of ammo through these guns in a training cycle. On range 33 on Bragg, we have 70k of loose 5.56 to expend between zero, practice, qual, night fire, CBRN day and night and reflexive fire over the next 2 days for an infantry company of 135 men.. That's over 500 rounds per soldier. Usually, not one single carbine will go down, and it's rare that a soldier will really experience a malfunction. None of that will be full auto or heating the rifle past it's sustained ROF. In fact, we have way more issues with back up irons and optics shitting the bed than the actual guns. In a year, we shoot somewhere around 5k per carbine and notice no degradation of accuracy.
And you're here telling me our guns are going to be shot out soon? These guns havent had new barrels in 3 years and are still chugging along. According to you, we should have swapped out barrels 3 times already.
Really. You have no idea what you're talking about. Wikipedia will only get you so far with your BS. One thing I've observed is that the soldiers who have the least time on the guns and the least training also have the lowest confidence in the weapons. Support Joe's who shoot 100 rounds a year and have never had a solid NCO to give them a PMI, let alone mentorship out at the range. Those are the guys who spend time telling anyone who will listen that it's the gun, not them. That's the issue here. You don't know what you don't know.
Meanwhile, a ton of pimple faced teenagers who sit on the internet have huge opinions on what weapons our soldiers should rely on to defend their lives in combat. Will they ever be carrying them thousands of miles from home in a combat zone? Not a chance.
I'm sure you can burn an M4 barrel out in 5000 rounds, with sheared locking lugs, broken cam pins, etc. You know how it happens, for real? Crappy leadership over allocates ammo and they don't want to turn in the excess because it's too much work. Instead they burn it off shooting full auto mag after mag and destroy their carbines in short order shooting them as if they were SAWs. That'll do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wedunneedbadgers
He wasn't there for a confrontation at all.
That's s is why you say you didn't watch the trial, or you'd know that.
He was at the car source long before the riot got there.
Kyle wasn't an active shooter. He shot a crazed maniac that treated him, chased him, and tried to grab his gun. Kyle hadn't shot at all before that. How was he an active shooter if he hadn't shot anyone?
The rest weren't chasing an active shooter, either. They were chasing a guy who had shot 4 rounds over a minute before and was running TOWARDS the cops. Tell me ONE similar instance in which a mob STOPPED an active shooter from getting to the police.
After Kyle told Grosskreutz he was running to the cops, he yells to the crowd "get him!".
Please, these guys weren't trying to disarm any active shooter. They were repeatedly attacking a kid that had already fended off one attack. Nothing more.
Show me a picture of Rosenberg, Huber, Grosskreutz, or Freeland ever cleaning up graffiti.
Out of the people involved, Rittenhouse was the ONLY person there with good intentions.
1
-
@wedunneedbadgers
So what? How, exactly, would that change anything? If that had been admitted, the door would have been opened to review the criminal records of everyone involved.
Violence, child rape, domestic abuse, drug abuse, anger problems, theft, burglary, etc. All that would come out.
Rittenhouse put out fires, cleaned graffiti z and rendered aid that day. He was chased down and attacked for that. By people who had come to smash and burn everything on the streets of Kenosha.
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
-
@kd1s
It's not ad hominen.
You clearly don't understand the meaning of the term.
Electric vehicles are not the most efficient means of transportation. Their power to weight ratio is terrible, they have caustic chemicals used for energy storage, they take 12 hours to charge, and they rely on the grid to charge. They are powered by whatever the grid uses, whether it be renewables, nuclear, coal, natural gas, etc.
Cars don't even make up the largest portion of CO2 production by a long shot. Those would he electrical generation and manufacturing.
What we really should he doing is developing the most advanced forms of nuclear power possible. Jumpstart nuclear power to the 21st century instead of using dangerous power plants built in the 1970's. We need fourth generational nuclear power to meet the growing energy demands without using natural gas peak generation plants.
Power consumption is on the rise, and introducing electric cars with no additional way to generate enough electricity to charge them is foolhardy.
Consider this as well-being if the majority of America charged their electric cars on the grid at night, the transformers wouldn't have time to cool, as there wouldn't be anything such as non peak hours. They'd blow and you'd have constantly blackouts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kd1s
Subsidies might help, but maybe not. The volt was heavily subsidized as was the EV1. The best way to get a new technology to compete on the economy of scale is to get rich people to buy it first, like exactly the way the automobile became commonplace in the first place. Same with the PC, cell phone, plasma/led tv , etc. It started with the wealthy, and of course, government use.
I'd be interested to see a maximum size/efficiency for an electric vehicle. Could they power a 18 wheeler truck? They would have to he able to haul the same weight for 600 miles before recharge to compete. I would think for all electric to really take a market share in the US, pickup truck designs would need to be offered.
I've seen many all electric scooters in Beijing, but they travel much less in much slower traffic than Americans do. Of course, those are ultimately coal powered, as well.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@liquid0ify
Can you prove that foreign nationals didn't vote?
What would stop them? You don't even have to show an ID, let alone proof if citizenship.
In fact, states like California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Vermont, and Washington), the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico all issue drivers licenses to foreign nationals. Even photo ID couldn't stop them from voting.
So how would you know illegal aliens aren't voting?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elisadicarlo9538
No, obviously you didn't watch any of the trial and are ignorant of basic facts.
1. His mother didn't drive him to Kenosha.
He drove himself the day before to Dominic Blacks house after finishing his shift as a lifeguard there in town. He stayed the night at Dominic's house and they all went down to clean graffiti that afternoon.
Of course, you "knew" that because you watched the trial, right?
2. The rifle was never in Illinois. It was always in Kenosha. It was kept in Dominic Blacks dad's gun safe. Rittenhouse never took the weapon out of state.
Of course, you "knew" that, too, because you watched the trial, right?
3. If he just wanted to shoot someone, he had a weird way of doing it.
Every single person that he shot was assaulting him and touching the barrel of the gun. Was that his plan? To go down there and hope some people try to beat and shoot him to death so he could kill them?
Of course, you "knew" that, too, because you watched the trial, right?
Stop lying. You didn't watch the trial. You're just parroting garbage you read on social media. You were lied to, and you're happy about that.
That says more about you than anything.
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
-
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
-
@The_Foxymew
You dont understand the reason the reflekt missile was procured in the first place.
It's for tanks in the defense to have greater range PAST sabot rounds (>2500 meters) to either ambush or just outrange the opposing force.
It's not missile vs gun, as the gun has to be potentially exposed to fire for up to 2 km of movement while not being in it's maximum effective range. Once THAT happens, the tanks in defense are loaded with SABOT.
The missile allows that tank to fire from a well camouflaged fighting position, without giving it away, for at least the first couple of shots before switching to sabot.
It's also useful in a battle space with enemy helicopters. While sabot would have to much drop after 2.5- 3 KM, the missile can still achieve a hit out to 5 KM.
Armored vehicles are very confining for the senses. They're loud, so a missile launch wouldn't even register. A soft launch like the reflekt has nearly no flash and very little smoke and dust. Harder for attack air to see, as well.
You're not going to see an incoming missile, either. You have the gunners site, commanders site, and unmagnified vision ports. Can't trace a wire back while a TOW is coming at you, yet there are laser warning systems for laser guided missiles. All that might do is tell you the direction, but you're dead in a few seconds, regardless. And the system only works for the targeted vehicle, not ones near it. And if it's outside sabot range, the gun can't shoot back anyway.
That's why the missile exists. You can argue that there's no need for a tank to have 5000 meters of direct fire effect range, but not that you can kill a tank firing reflekt missiles at you from 4km-5km with a sabot with a max effective range of 2.5km-3km.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The most obvious use would be for recon and hunter/killer teams armed with a Javelin launcher, a couple of MGs, and drones.
Drones are used to scout ahead and avoid chance contacts, while weapons can be dismounted as the vehicle is hidden and camouflaged for a quick exfil.
2 IISVs can carry a 9 man section, supplies for 72 hours, 40 gallons of extra fuel cans, 4 M240s with 1000 rds each, and 2 Javelins with 4 missiles each. 4 spotter drones on each vehicle can scout positions and direct artillery fire. A heavy armored vehicle would be more difficult to conceal, lower situational awareness, attack fire, and lower off-road mobility.
I predict a move towards smaller and lighter armed vehicles for the foreseeable future. The tracked and 8 wheeled IFVs, and large supply and fuelers will be phased out in militaries with smaller 6x6 vehicles capable of add on armor packages depending on mission requirements. The Pandur is a prime example.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scoutdynamics3272
That's not true at all.
Where is a hit on the body lethal with a bigger round, but not lethal with 5.56?
You still haven't answered that. Modern 5.56 fragments in the body and penetrates deeply out to 350 meters. It punches right through cars, level 3 body armor, and engine blocks.
A soldier with a magnified optic has no problem engaging targets at 500 meters.
Any place a bigger round would kill, so would 5.56.
Soldiers use carbines for personal defense weapons while operating other systems, for close quarter fighting, and cover fire while maneuvering. The main weapons in a platoon are the GPMGs, Javelins, drones, and Gustav's. Having a long range rifle round isn't that important for rifles, and neither is barrier penetration. That's what the AT weapons and machine guns are for.
What most troops need is folding stocked, 12 inch barreied 5.56 with a suppressor, folding stock, a clear 1-6 day optic with the ability to add a clip on thermal. Maybe a quick change barrel for marksmen to add an 18" barrel in minutes. Make the carbine and ammo under 15 pounds with 210 rounds.
Most guys will be carrying MG ammo, 84mm ammo, and AT/AA missiles. A heavier carbine round just adds weight with little benefit. I'd rather be able to get 20" 5.56 performance from a 12" barrel and have a light weapon.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ostiariusalpha
Lol. You really are shilling for this round aren't you?
Where are you getting that it's capable of doing that at all? In fact, what you are doing right now is completely ignorant of physics or the history of ballistics.
This round will not be replacing 5.56, because it weighs twice as much, and the USMC has heavily invested in the M27.
It won't replace 7.62 because it can't be fired from existing 7.52 weapons, since it has a chamber pressure of 80,000 k MAP.
The only guns that even claim to fire it are SIGs. The US Army is investing heavily in the M110A1 to every squad, and it fires the M80A1 just like our MGs do.
The US military isn't going to field 5.56, 7.62, AND 6.8, and sure aren't getting rid of either of those other rounds.
Face it. This program is a pipe dream of Generals who don't understand combat, colluding with a weapons industry out to make a buck. This idea of the universal combat round fired by every weapon was tried with 7.62x51 and it failed. The military realized it needed 2 separate and distinct cartridges through combat experience. Trying to revive that idea is foolishness. The one size fits all cartridge should remain a relic of the long dead era of the 1950s.
1
-
1
-
This necessity for armor penetration is misguided, and ultimately will cause the program to be cancelled. It's a boondoggle in the making .
Specifically, Dr. James Newill of the Army Research Laboratory seems to have gotten it in his head that armor penetration is of paramount concern and that his ambitious project (with performance up to 5,000 J muzzle energy) is the way to solve it. This was preceded by a gun industry effort to push armor as the central issue for small arms development, with the idea that it would lead to an AR-10 pattern weapon in 7.62 or 6.5 being adopted with lucrative sole-source contracts to follow. ICSR is my evidence for this, a program Newill was evidently not involved at all in but which was very much armor focused and (gun) industry-driven. I also have heard gun industry advocates impugn the 5.56mm caliber as an armor penetrator in Senate testimony (specifically, Ret. Maj. Gen. Scales, a long time covert salesman "consultant" for HK). The gun industry in general spoke positively of ICSR, despite the program being utterly ridiculous and completely off-base as far as I'm concerned. Taking recent history in view, it does not seem the industry much cares what direction the Army takes, so long as it ditches the M4 and gives them the opportunity to get lucrative sole-source contracts for whatever the next weapon may be.
Many, many, arms programs have gotten further than this and tanked.
- Interim Combat Service Rifle program
- HK XM8 rifle
- XM Objective Individual Combat Weapon
25mm GL
- Advanced Combat Rifle trials
- XM806 50 Cal MG
- HK Close Assault Weapons System
shotgun
- Special Purpose Individual Weapon
- HK MK23 Offensive Handgun
Some of these weapons were even fielded and then cancelled. The 6.8x51 will meet the same fate.
That's just with small arms.
The US has spent hundreds of billions on cancelled weapons programs.
Everything from the Sgt.York, RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter, the XM2001 Crusader 155mm Cannon, the Brilliant Antitank Munition, Future Combat System, Future Warrior 2000, the Ground Combat Vehicle, AH 56 Cheyenne Helicopter, Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS), etc.
That's just to name a few, and just from the Army. The military has spent 50 billion in the last 10 years on cancelled projects.
Why in the hell do you think the NGSW has any more legs than any of these other programs? They built all of these and now they're POOF! gone.
1
-
1
-
@ostiariusalpha
Wow, you seriously ARE an idiot.
You claim that 6.8 ADVAP has already been proven in tests to defeat Lvl 4 armor in tests.
I ask you to provide the results of those tests.
You provide
1. A document from 1998 describing the parameters for testing armor (MIL STD 376A)
2. A 2005 Army Research Lab study of the feasability of various composites for armor
3. A 2016 study of the effectiveness of .50 caliber AP against Boron Carbide
You didn't even read your own links! Jesus fucking Christ you're dishonest, too.
Face the facts that others who have been studying ballistics a lot longer than you already have- these rounds had limited ability to penetrate lvl 4 armor at modest distances, let alone at 600 Meyers even with the original program requirement of 3400 fps. That velocity requirement was downgraded, and now these proposed weapons are only reaching velocities of 3000 fps. The SIG carbine doesn't even reach that lower requirement.
We already know that M993 is defeated at 2850 fps, which is at approximately 100 meters, and Russian B32 AP 7.62x54r is defeated at 10 meters,
Even if the 7.62 XM1158 was twice as effective as M993, and a 6.8 ADVAP was twice as effective as XM1158, it STILL wouldn't reach the technical requirement to pierce lvl 4 armor at 600 meters.
And what will come of producing super armor piercing bullets for millions of dollars? Thicker plates will be issued.
That's it. 25% thicker plates, and the program fails, even at close range.
How do you not get that?
The objective of the program is stupid. It adds heavier weapons (the lightest is the SIG carbine at 12 pounds) and ammo that weighs twice as much. Soldiers are already carrying too much weight.
My average infantryman is already carrying 80-90 pounds in their fighting load, let alone their approach load.
And when will you be carrying these weapons?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ostiariusalpha
Well, damn. I typed a long response but it didn't post.
Listen, these weapons and ammo will add more and more weight to already overburdened soldiers. People who have abd will never carry all this shit are always really opinionated on what new, heavy assed piece of shit they want to see us carry next.
I have guys climbing mountains with 130 pound loads while the enemy is doing it with 30. The musculoskeletal injuries alone will cost the country hundreds of billions.
Do have any idea how frustrating it is to see billions wasted on this shit when we can't get the support we actually DO need?
Fighting for ammo at ranges to actually train our troops, our armor and packs suck, our NODS are old, and are vehicles are too complexed. Yet, were constantly told they don't have it in the budget.
How much more weight do you want us to carry? This program adds TEN more pounds to the already overburdened rifleman, and EIGHTEEN pounds to the automatic rifleman. Fuck me, right?
When are YOU going to carry a 13 pound 6.8 rifle/AR , 30 pounds in armor, 40 pounds in ammo, HE (rockets/mortars), water, rations, NODS, batteries, radios, THOR, mine detector, grenades, and all the other shit we are supposed to carry?
When is enough, enough?
We should be making our loads lighter, not heavier. The Marines have the right idea, while the Army has the heads up their asses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Donald Martin
From what I've read, hydrostatic shock is a myth.
Hydrostatic shock is the concept that a penetrating projectile can produce a pressure wave that causes "remote neural damage", "subtle damage in neural tissues" and/or "rapid incapacitating effects" in living targets.
That just isn't true.
Now, if a projectile is going fast enough, the temporary stretch cavity will be much bigger than from a slow one. A fragmenting bullet will shred those stretched tissues, resulting in more pronounced wounding.
Handgun bullets produce a very small temporary stretch cavity compared to higher velocity rifle rounds. That low velocity causes them to be less effective.
Of course, the effectiveness of one bullet over another using anecdotes isn't entirely convincing. If one subject is shot in the lungs with one round and the other is shot in the brain, it would be easy to say the round that hit the brain was more effective, when in reality it was the shot that was.
Fmj handgun rounds have very narrow permanent wound cavities and penetrate through both sides of a target. The difference between 45 and 9mm fmj wounds are negligible.
Now, when we speak of hollow points, that another story entirely. While many 9mm HPs can expand to .60 Cal, there are .45 HPs that expand up to an inch. That's a significant hole in your chest, there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimmyjones4985
Not really. If "they" means people who don't fight with or carry these guns, yeah "they" are interested in 6.8.
.338 us being used by some snipers for RANGE, as in, it shoots farther than 7.62.
On the ground in MGs and DMRs, 7.52 will continue to dominate. In fact, the US Army and Marines are phasing in their newest rifle, the M80A1 in 7.62, not in either of those calibers.
The M4 in 5.56 has as much energy as a 44 magnum, at roughly 1200 ft pounds. Nobody in their right mind would describe the 44 Mag as underpowered. It has 3X the energy of a Thompson SMG, and nobody has ever called it a weak, underpowered gun.
Shit, a 338 magnum DOES have more power than 5.56, but only a complete jackass would choose one to fight from room to room or down a Street.
7.62x39 only has about 20% more muzzle energy than a 5.56, but both rounds are hitting with the same EXACT force at 300 meters.
In truth, these weapons will go nowhere and 5.56 and 7.62 will remain the mainstay in the Infantry platoon. The 6.8 is a non starter from the get go, as it presents no advantage of 5.56 or 7.62.
338 might gain more traction as a long distance sniper round, but that's about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By that standard, so is every other country that ever had an empire, including Italy, France, England, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, China, Russia, etc.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@CCM1199
The driver, TC, Crows .50, gunner, two rear cameras, and I think one more, might be wrong. They have varying capabilities, based on size. Obviously the driver and rear cameras have less range but can probably spot a dismount at 300. The gunner, TC, and Crows all have independent optics that have long range capability and can scan different sectors. Many armored vehicles across the world are upgrading to this capability.
The tank has the same challenge the ATGM team does- stay undetected, see the enemy first, shoot first, and kill. The tank will use it's superior optics and electronics and ATGM teams will use it's small size and mobility.
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
-
@maksimzlo7812
They're losing troops at 3 to 1, as well, and they don't have an unlimited amount of men.
Neither side does.
Ukraine and Russia have negative birth rates. Every man that dies in combat will never, ever be replaced. Both ethnicities are going extinct slowly, and this is just accelerating that process. Men that should be working in fields and factories and have children never will. The population will continue to shrink and be replaced with foreigners
You know who will win this war? The Muslims in the caucuses and central Asia. They will inherit the land that the Slavic people used to live in.
Russia is failing at all of their goals. Drunk, incompetent, demoralized, and undersupplied. The Russians have no ability to replace either their equipment and precision ammunition. They're buying ammo from Iran and North Korea, for gods sake.
Before this war, Russia had an economy the size of Italy. Now, it's the size of Greece. Flat broke and locked out of the international finance structure. This war was the worst thing to happen to Russia in decades.
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
-
@dalec305
Dude, listen to yourself. Do you really think using terms like rapeublican or drumpfster make you sound witty, informed, or smart?
Trust me, it doesn't. It sounds just as cringy as "libtard". Just, stop.
I'm a multi tour GWOT veteran. I've seen plenty of IED's. They were also described by the FBI bomb experts. No initiator, timers connected to nothing, filled with non explosive sulfur, no firing device or trigger. Yes, they were non functional. You can he emotional all you want, but it won't change the fact that either the manufacturer didn't want to kill, or he's absolutely incompetent.
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
-
@scottcharney1091
A ton of people come down to states like North Carolina from Pennsylvania, new York, and new Jersey.
The property taxes my sister pays in Pittsburgh are nearly ten times what I do in Raleigh for the same home value. With no discernable increase in services, either.
I grew up in LA, and would never go back. The disparity between the wealthy and poor are the worst in the country in California. Got sick of the crime, overcrowding, and shitty roads.
North Carolina is a better state, in my opinion, than California in nearly every way. We have a large tech industry, better taxes, better schools, lower crime, less pollution, and far less people in poverty.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@Painfulwhale360
The "90% of combat within 300 meters, and half under 100 meters" statistic is correct, and it's not based on the capabilities of the weapon.
Combat distances are most often dictated for small arms by the terrain, not weapons.
If your terrain constricts you to observing out to 300, that's as far as you can possibly meet contact.
Another variable is weather. It will often keep you from seeing far.
Yet another is the actions of the enemy. He has a vote in how the contact develops. He will most likely be using cover and concealment along his whole approach. He's not trying to get killed.
Of course, the true answer is now ground troops are under constant threat of being spotted by manned and unmanned aircraft, especially in a peer fight. Troops must constantly have some kind of air & antiair coverage themselves, and to send out their own drones to locate the enemy beyond masking terrain features. From now on, infantry will have to be able to have long mission endurance, be well camouflaged, and be constantly using drones to locate the enemy first. Then, launch guided mortars, missiles, or kamikaze drones into the enemy without giving away their position.
If they are detected, they will either receive fire similar to what they were dealing out themselves, or be discovered at relatively close range. They need their small arms, which by this point are simply personal defense weapons, to be short, light, and easy to tuck out of the way while they are carrying and operating much larger, more effective weapons.
That's not the environment custom made for a long range shooter. Open up with small arms at long range, and some kind of high explosive is going to blow your head off.
But, sure, let's field the gun the army wanted in order to fight the Taliban.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you read all the comments, the attitude seems to be very clear from most of them.
- discount ANY experience by men actually doing the job RIGHT NOW
- discount price, completely, because they imagine units have unlimited budgets
- discount any discussion of actual combat ranges
- discount the fact that small arms are the real killers in combat
- discount the fact that these weapons and ammo haven't been issued at all, so we don't even know how well they actually work
- discount weight, because civilians here will never see one, let alone have to carry then
- discount durability, because they think combat is like shooting on the flat range
- discount the fact that METT-TC dictates range to targets, not the optic
- discount the fact that our generals are morons who don't know what they're taking about
Despite all of this, you guys still have this idea that privates who are still learning their jobs, for which shooting a rifle is maybe 10%, will be Carlos Hathcock if you had them one of these. They won't. The rifle doesn't shoot itself.
If you would have the wisdom to listen to men who have killed for a living, you will understand that the 6.8 round and this optic will not ever be general issued to most of a rifle company, let alone anyone else.
It can, at best, replace current 7.62 weapons in service. It certainly won't replace the 5.56 individual carbine.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@verdebusterAP
That's not how the US military fights at all. At no time will you ever see american infantry pushed out kilometers forward of their armor. In fact, 99% of the time American armor is operating, it doesn't have any dismount support. The armor is used as spearheads, they aren't in the rear.
A dismount can't stop a missile launch from 2K away with a carbine with 300 meter range.
I've spent half my career in heavy brigades. I know very well the resistance of career armor soldiers to the concept that the days of the MBT are nearing, just as battleships were considered necessary in warfare before aircraft carriers and guided missiles.
There are just better tools for the job, now.
Guided artillery rounds and guided missiles have made the main gun irrelevant.
The first layer of the threat onion is "don't be seen". Just as in aviation, stealth has now become much more important than raw firepower. Since the second layer is "don't be aquired", camouflage and thermal masking are where vehicles will need to adapt the most. Armor will need to be low profile, masked, be lighter, and much faster.
1
-
@verdebusterAP
In FMs, yes. In practice, not so much.
The scouts end up staying in the Brads, fighting mounted. That's exactly what they did in OIF I.
In 2022, yes, scouting ahead of the armor is done with mostly UAVs. This greatly enables complexes and layered fires, which is the actual combat firepower. It's exactly the way we fought in Syria and the past few years in Afghanistan.The addition of loitering drones exacerbates this problem.
Because the armored force isn't the only ones possessing this technology,
Armored vehicles still have a place, for sure.
I'm saying the MBT doesn't.
The tank gun is no longer needed to effectively reduce fortifications or kill armor.
The fuel consumption is a massive liability.
Tanks are impossible to hide from aerial observation. As soon as they set into any kind of defense, they become huge immobile targets with big heat signatures.
The concept of the tank will have to be lighter, faster, burn less fuel and incorporate stealth. All of these criteria demand armored vehicles to be lighter. Focus more on the outer layers of the threat onion rather than protection.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tilepusher
No, you're not wrong. I just disagree with some of your points. Others, I completely agree with. There's a difference.
The AR15 is a great rifle, and probably one of the most adaptable of any invented. It's actually my favorite rifle.
The 5.56 is such a low recoil round that almost anyone can shoot it. Like I said, calibers like 6.8 SPC, 25-45 and 6.5 G are great for hunters and target shooters, just not for militaries. I would say out of the 3, 6.5 is the best for hunting, but I wouldn't prefer it over 5.56 or 7.62 for infantry combat. It'll continue to enjoy success in the civilian shooting world, but it's a dead end for armies.
The same seems to be true for a lot of these more modern firearms designs. Guns like the SCAR, G36, Famas, Galil, etc., that were supposed to be the next great evolution in combat firearms really haven't, and most are fading from use over time. Yet, the AK and AR live on.
Personally, if i were to have any AR chambered in a caliber other than 5.56, it would be an AR10 in 7.62x51.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kingangel3252
Lol. You're kidding, right? The average man is obese. There you go with your delusions, again. Did I strike too close to home?
Yes, American men are fat asses. They're so fat that most arent fit for military service. A life of alcohol, drugs, junk food, and video games is a deadly combination.
Men AND women have gained 30 pounds over the last 50 years.
"bs numbers" is what these delusional women call it, too.
Fat men don't deserve fit women any more than fat women deserve fit men. Half of these MGTOW men are 3 or 4s looking for a 10 and are angry that reality doesn't match their sense of entitlement. They're no different than these women.
Don't be that guy. Be the one in a hundred, not the other 99%. To fit people, fat asses are invisible, as they should be. No reason to date a cow unless you're a cow yourself and it's all you could get. Sadly, for most guys it is all they can get.
The myth of the guy who gets better looking with age needs to die. It's a unicorn situation perpetuated by guys who make money selling it to the hopeless and the weak.
1
-
@kingangel3252
Might as well say Western man- Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, US, and all of Europe. Why would we be talking about Asia or Africa? None of these people here are living there.
The countries with the highest obesity, for BOTH sexes, are the US, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom, Canada and Ireland. The lands of the "my 600 pound life". Were you under the impression these people are talking about dating in Ethiopia?
Here you go again with the delusions and distractions. Would you take that kind of deflection from these women, even for one second? You're no different at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SkorpioVenom
And I'm trying to explain to you those reasons, and you're in complete denial and offering excuses as to why they can continue to rip students off.
When a university is conducting research, the tuition of every student is paying for that past grants. When professors are speaking at conferences and peer reviewing papers, students are paying for that. When they build a new state if the art gym or dining hall, tuition is paying for that. Recruiters, the Chancellor's expensive parties, administrators making 500k-600k)yr, security, maintenance, luxury dorms, etc. Yes, alumni offer donations, and states pay a portion,but the rest is covered by tuition.
The longer a professor teaches, the higher their pay goes up. Statistically, professors, college administrators, abd sports coaches are the highest paid state employees.
30 years ago, the ratio of administration positions vs professors was 1 to 1.
Now, it's 2 to one. That's a large increase in the budget to pay all those people.
The education hasn't gotten any better, but it's gotten a lot more expensive. People involved in post secondary education have seen huge raises in their income at the expense of their students. Go to a European university and you won't see this massive spending, so it costs less to go there.
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
-
1
-
1
-
@deriznohappehquite
Not for anything less than brigade level. That would be a very large and specialized vehicle. A missile would always outrage it, as it doesn't need line of sight like a laser does.
Anti-drone warfare includes electronic warfare, air defense radars, manpads, airburst autocannon smart rounds, and interceptor counter drones. It's an entire effort.
To small teams on the ground, there's not a lot of options for something that is light, easy to use, with a higher hit probability and range than a guided missile like the stinger. It's still incredibly effective.. Maybe a loitering drone could be designed to do a similar job with less weight and cost. Use the Carl Gustaf as a universal launcher for HE, HEAT, Guided HEAT/ airburst for antitank and anti-aircraft, and a kamikaze drone launcher for long range precision strikes with a 2 Kg warhead.
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
-
@PhantomM16
I'm again going back to a cartridge similar in size and weight to 7.62x51. I'm specifically speaking about the SIG offering. Now, if the other composite ammo offerings can be proven to be just as reliable, that's a different story. As of now, the SIG 6.8 round is pushing a 135 grain bullet at 3000 fps from a 16" barrel, while the current M80A1 is pushing a 130 grain bullet at 2950 from the same barrel. Sure, the 6.8 has a longer, higher bc bullet, but it's not exactly a game changer. Out if the 13" carbine they presented, the MV is 2850 fps.
The "extended ranges in Afghanistan" mostly comprise PKMs shooting at us at 1000 meters, completely missing us. I know because I've experienced it. These guys don't have tripods, spotters, or a zeroed weapon, which are all necessary for making hits at those ranges.
Same applies for riflemen hitting enemy troops at that range- it will require a spotter and a highly skilled shooter. In other words, a sniper team.
You won't get that performance from a line rifleman. In fact, they won't hit any further than their current weapon systems.
What you will get is troops carrying twice the weight in ammo for diminishing returns, and a higher chance of running out in a high intensity fight.
These 6.8 rounds, at present, aren't all that much better than our current M80A1, and I'm doubting that a carbine with a 13" barrel is going to penetrate armor at the ranges they want it to (600 meters).
1
-
1
-
@PhantomM16
I'm not even saying that 5.56 is the best round ever, but pound for pound it is more effective at the 0-300 meter range. Especially with m855a1.
We already know the ballistic capabilities of the army 6.8 round. They're published, and are based on the requirement the army already out out. And it's not much better than our current 7.62 round, other than a higher BC.
It's not just a matter of the US having more money to spend. Which , btw, isn't true. We already have a 125% debt to GDP ratio and have a national debt of nearly 23 trillion
Were broke but aren't acting accordingly.
It's not that other countries are looking for a replacment to their assault rifle calibers like the 6.8x51, but can't afford it
They aren't even searching for one.
The US is the country that fields the most level 4 body armor on the planet, yet nobody else seems to care about penetrating it at nearly 700 yards.
You know why? Because they don't have a General Milley pushing a program from the top down. Other peer nations already know the direction 21st century combat is going, and it's not backwards to long range rifle fire from line soldiers. It's drones.
Wanna see a glimpse of the future? Look to the conflicts in Yemen, the Donbass, and the Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. Soldiers will need to be light, fast, and camouflaged from attack from the air.
If you wanna see where combat isn't going, look to the west in Afghanistan the past decade. Western soldiers have become do overburdened with weight to the point they can no longer approach march or manuever.
We're just overloaded pack mules carrying ever high speed gadget the MIC can think up.
A modern army has two have a two cartridge strategy. Light, fast carbines for squads to manuever and close with the enemy, and heavier and more powerful support machine guns for long range and suppressive fires. Combining both will be a disaster. The answer to incoming long range machine gun fire is an M240 on a tripod, with an AG. Not issuing DMRs to every soldier.
Not only will the average rifleman be incapable of taking advantage of the larger round and fragile optic that goes along with it, but he will be doing something he's not supposed to- task saturate on long range targets and ignoring security that keeps him from being flanked.
You need layered capabilities, with specialization, not a one size fits all approach. Anyone who spends more than two decades in this profession says the same thing. There's a reason you don't see SOCOM issuing SCARs to every troop. It's why you don't see Russian FSB fielding SVDs to every man. This program us just the cancelled ICSR program tweaked to keep the money flowing.
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
-
@markzuckergecko621
First, begin to read up on the true attributes of a leader. Not seif help books, but actual books written by leaders. Find out what successful leaders do and don't.
Rise above nonsense and be the teacher who doesn't look down on his students for their ignorance. See then for what they are- ideologically captured, as if under a powerful spell. Be thoutful and composed instead of driving on emotion and saying whatever just comes to mind
Lead by example and shun addictions, both external and internal. Life is all about habits, both good and bad. That's where most of these MGTOW/manosphere/alpha male types fall by the way side. They're just as addicted as those they criticize and don't follow their own advice and ideology.
The strong aren't the ones with flashy cars, thots on their arms, taking Instagram pictures of selfies. The strong are the men holding society together, leading their families from the front.
I've said it for a long time that behind every "boss b*tch" and masculine woman, there is a weak man who screwed up and lost his legitimate leadership role. If the one who's supposed to be in charge shows himself to be incompetent, someone else will take that role from him.
1
-
@CoolPapaJMagik
Leftists seem to be really pushing for anti natalism and depopulation. They want less people born, period. Whether it be from sterilization, abortion, materialism, wars between the sexes, or social pressure towards homosexuality, they care not. Big tech approves of MGTOW as much as any of the others I listed. If not, they wouldn't be promoting it so hard on the algorithm, they'd be shutting it down.
Those in power want you demoralized, hopeless, unmarried and childless, buying their products and drugs. Hopefully working overtime in a job you don't want for a life full of things that don't bring you happiness, only distractions to numb you.
The best way to keep you from fighting is to convince you that the war is over and you already lost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeywheelerii9136
I'm raising my children as christians in a Christian home. Are you?
What will killing and dying do? Is that your plan, then? All that will do is give the left fuel to crack down. It helps them. If they can't get people to do that on their own, they will infiltrate and provoke it from inside. We have a ton of examples of this just recently.
Do you really want to amplify the "dangerous incel" trope?
I don't believe you, at any rate. More than likely, you will instead overeat, consume porn and materialism, and smoke pot while you continue to complain about degeneracy.
Meanwhile, guys like me will continue to work hard, build long lasting and fulfilling relationships, and help those around me to achieve success.
You have to get off the couch and make a difference. It's not easy and it's not quick.
All you will achieve through violence is to prove those you hate correct.
If an ex-girlfriend did you wrong, what is the best path? Live a happier and better life than she has and get far away from her , or stalk her and threaten her with violence? Don't fall into that trap.
It's what they want you to do.
What they don't want you to do is teach and show that traditional values are the right path. That's why they spend so much effort to indoctrinate and propagandize young children. Without you to do it, they get 100% of their message out.
1
-
1
-
@joeywheelerii9136
YOUR kids? How many do you have? If you have none, it surely isn't "ours", now is it?
I seriously doubt you are married or have children. What do you think happens to kids when dad decides to go shoot up a place and either ends up dead or in prison?
You sound like an Antifa communist revolutionary larper. You're not going to do anything but succumb to your addictions, and you know it. That's why you talk about "revolutions". You've run out of ideas.
If you decide to combat an enemy with violence, you become his brother in spirit.
What do you think will replace this broken society if you do manage to bring it all down? Quite possibly something worse.
I've seen firsthand how that plays out.
You don't fight criminals by becoming criminals, you only feed into the same chaos. There's a time, a place, and a manner to fight, and you're nowhere near the mark.
Of course, you will do nothing that you claim you will. You'll just virtue signal online and do nothing to help anyone around you. You sound like you would fit in with BLM.
If you truly were concerned about the diminishment of christian values, you would know all about living IN the world, but not of the world. Guess who said that?
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
-
@lowlevel9448
I'm not saying they do. I'm saying ANYONE who does. If the Russians do in a fight, they will have an advantage. If the Ukrainians do, then they will. Complete penetration and a kill don't necessarily have to be the highest priority if the initial hit severity degrades the target vehicle and makes it vulnerable to successive hits. In many armored fights, it takes multiple shots to disable and kill. It's not rare at all.
The majority of tank kills in this fight, on both sides, have been accomplished with guided or spotted artillery and ATGMs, both fired outside the maximum range of MBT main guns. The tank is rarely the ideal weapon to engage other tanks in the 21st century.
Both sides have increasingly used them as indirect assets with HE rounds due to their vulnerability.
Non line of sight missiles, drones, and artillery are safer to crews and offer the same offensive power, but with standoff capabilities. Many nations are watching and analyzing this conflict, though I don't expect the inertia of the defense industry will allow it to make drastic and rapid changes no matter what data is presented to them.
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
-
@davitdavid7165
You really are out of your league, here. Nobody who's shot these guns would choose the wire stock on the sten, grease gun, or MP40 over the fixed stock of a Tommy. They're pretty unusable and miserable.
A Tommy, by 1942 was CHEAPER to produce than an M1 Garand.
They're also VERY controllable.
You watch too many movies.
All automatic weapons are going to be used in controlled bursts. Usually 3 to 5 rounds.
.45 also punches through trees, houses, and cars much better than 9mm.
Yes, I'd much rather be using the heavier Thompson in combat. Heavy ,well built magazines, solid wood stock with great cheek hold, a real hand guard rather than a heat shield or magazine, and the ability to punch through thicker brick and plaster walls/wood.
It was also much easier to hit at over 100, as it is select fire and could also fire in semi auto which was rare in WW2 for SMGs.
They were coveted for a reason, and they are legendary for a reason.
1
-
@davitdavid7165
Why are you using a reductio ad absurdum fallacy?
Nobody is talking about 1000 yard shots.
And nobody is talking about weighing a soldier down with ridiculous amounts of weight.
An M1A1 is 10.5 pounds unloaded.
An M1 rifle is 9.5 pounds, unloaded, but is harder to carry because it's longer and has more of its weight forward.
A basic load of 5 mags for the Tommy, once they went to 30 rnd mags (150 RDS), weighs
10 pounds.
Base load for the M1 rifle was 88 rounds, weighs about 7 pounds.
That means a rifleman was carrying 17.5 pounds of ammo and weapon as a base load, while the squad leader with the Tommy was carrying 20.5 pounds.
That's 3 pounds extra.
How did guys survive????
And guys carried way more than that in ammo in actual combat.
Most riflemen were carrying 300 rounds, as well as belts for the MG, or mags for the BAR, rifle grenades, hand grenades, mortars, or rockets for the bazooka.
Guys carrying the Tommy weren't just loading up on tons of ammo, though. They were usually squad leaders or platoon leaders, not pack mules.
Most guys carrying the Tommy would be the least encumbered in the company, moving light. They might carry a pistol and a few grenades, but that's it.
Why would I worry about the recoil? An SMG is the LEAST recoiling weapon in an infantry company. A Garand or BAR has more recoil than a Tommy. You should should shoot one, sometime. They're pussy cats.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnisaacfelipe6357
Depends on where you live. Someone in New York is going to have a different experience than someone in say, North Carolina or Montana, with no mega cities.
I personally don't want to live in a huge city anywhere, whether it be London, DC, Shanghai, Tokyo, or Moscow.
They may not have identical problems, but big problems they all still have.
As far as immigration is concerned, and the influx of foreigners, I care more about why it's being done. Overall, I think mass immigration has a good chance of backfiring on those pushing for it. These people have gambled on a false premise- that your race or ethnicity guarantees people will vote a certain way.
I live in the US because I was born here, my family is here, and I'm connected to this land. No different than most people around the world.
If I had a large fortune, I'd probably want to live in Zurich, but I'm sure someone who lives there would probably be able to list problems there, as well.
I do feel that anywhere becomes better when you're rich, and anywhere can suck if you're poor.
My biggest problem with western countries is the emergence of the tech surveillance apparatus and our intelligence agencies spying on everyone. Unfortunately, it's a global problem, not a western one. Countries around the world are doing it too.
The west took advice and techniques to control the population from China during the pandemic, and they are most assuredly moving to use the same tools the Chinese are. The globe is quickly moving toward totalitarianism, and it would be a grave mistake to pretend that non western countries are better just to take a dig on the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andresospina1561
Again, it's foolish to take sides. It's like being gangr*ped and you're picking the r*post you like the best. Canada, Russia, UK, France, Israel, Iran, Germany, China, Iran, etc. All of them have corrupt politicians and evil secret police and intelligence agencies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@megavox7895
Remember, it's not that western women are inherently bad. They've just been programmed and captured by a culture designed to destroy western man. That same force will attack any woman living within it and poison her mind against her own people. It wasn't always this way, it doesn't have to remain so. This is a war, as destructive as any of our people have ever faced. We have been hypnotized and deceived. We need to be fighting for our people and rescuing whomever we can from destruction, instead of discarding them as garbage. That's been the aim of our enemies for a long time- to convince us to turn on our own, burn down our homes, and kill our children. We fight this with truth and the light, not by running away and accepting defeat. Even the weakest of us is enormously powerful, if we have purpose.
And a quiet, comfortable life with a woman is fine, but not for all of us. Same with wealth. Without a larger purpose for living besides those, we are all lost. Our world is collapsing, and we should be fighting to save her.
1
-
@megavox7895
And thus, through the inaction of demoralized men, goes our future. I didn't say fight for this culture and I would never suggest that. This society is evil and needs to die a quick death. It was never natural and goes against every fiber in our body. Allowing it to win is suicide, and is just following the programming, as well.
Women have been lied to that men are their enemy, and men have been told to surrender and lay down their arms. We need strong men and strong leaders ready to defend the walls, not broken men sneaking out the back door to watch our world burn from a distance.
Where do you think you will run to? Do you really think those who plot against western man will really let you do that? What attacks us here are busy everywhere else, also. It's just a matter of time.
All of those eastern countries will fall, as well. Look at Russia and Ukraine- who will really win that war? I can tell you. Muslims from central Asia. They will inherit the lands of the Slavs and claim it for their own. Europe isn't having children, as they have been fooled into believing that it's better to not have generations after them. Meanwhile, their mortal enemies for 1500 years have the highest birthrate in the world. Will you learn Arabic and pray to Mecca? That's what awaits you in the east. London is already 75% foreigners.
We should be doing exactly what our enemies are doing- infiltrate their institutions, propagandize their children, steal their wealth, and single them out for destruction wherever we can. Frame them for crimes, terrorize their neighborhoods and place the fear in their hearts that if they speak their thoughts out loud, men with masks will carry them off in the night never to be heard of again.
If not, you will die landless, rootless, childless, and destitute working for the system that enslaves you no matter where you run to.
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
-
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
-
@letstalk.5334
You never researched it all, did you? I can tell you're trying to wing it without even bothering to see if you're wrong.
No, the PPP isn't designed to be paid back, as long as it is used to pay workers salaries.
Same deal that TYT made. They don't have to pay it back, either. Would you rather we had a 70% unemployment rate in the middle of the pandemic?
You're the perfect example of an uninformed voter, getting their politics from their Facebook page.
Amazing that you blame the banks for student loans. The US government has been the major lender for over a decade.
And you didn't stop to think for even a second that it could be the actual colleges scamming people, because they know the young idiots will take out massive loans to pay for their product, regardless of its worth.
If college is so expensive that you can't pay off the cost rather quickly, maybe the product is too expensive for what it's worth.
Massive student loan programs, guaranteed by the US government, subsidize colleges so they can continue to rip their customers off.
Have you ever had an original thought?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The best stealth tank going forward is going to be something a scout car with Stanag LVL 4 armor, an ATGM or loitering munitions launcher, and an RWS for self defense. It needs to have a low profile, a huge battery APU for extended use of electronics without firing up the motor, and low ground pressure. This will mean wheeled, preferably 6x6, as a mine can take out a wheel but the vehicle can still move. If it's tracked, it will be stopped and need hours to repair.
Anything that chews up the ground like a tracked vehicle will be able to be tracked by air. A sophisticated thermal dampening camouflage "ghillie suit" covering the entire vehicle will be necessary to hide from being spotted by scout drones. All weapons need to be dismountable by the crew and scouts in order to stow the vehicle and fight from hidden and prepared fighting positions with thermal overhead cover. It also needs to be able to be operated remotely via cable do if it's targetted, the crew is tucked in a hide nearby.
It needs to be fast. The longer it takes to bound to its next position is more time to be acquired, targetted, and engaged. Gone are the days of heavy armored assaults. Even logistics will get smaller, and much of it will be accomplished with UGVs.
1
-
1
-
@TheGreatAmphibian
Lol. What? If war fighting was just about destruction, you'd just carpet bomb the entire country from 100,000 feet. You have a deep misunderstanding of combat.
If that were true, why even have a military at all? Just disband the infantry and armor branches completely. That's not the case, at all. It IS still about taking and holding objectives, which means infantry.
All else is ultimately, support.
Something like a JLTV or a Pamdur ticks most of the boxes for less than a million. I don't get where you get the idea that light armor is more expensive. The stealth portion mostly comes from a smaller and lighter vehicle, fuel efficiency, a larger APU, and camouflaged netting with thermal shielding. All of these are pretty low cost.
It's a dilemma regarding drones. They're integrated,. You're not choosing one over the other, but rather what has a higher chance of survival and being effective in that environment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheGreatAmphibian
Because you can't just fly drones all day. Especially smaller group 1 and group 2 drones. Anything group 3 or higher is a priority for every fighter and SAM battery in the area. Smaller class 1 and 2 drones have limited use in rough weather and short sortie times. The average lifespan of a drone in Ukraine is 3 flights, and it's destroyed.
Armies are rushing to field AAA systems more capable and more economical to counter them. It's not economical to fire a $40,000 stinger to shoot a small drone down, so airburst autocannon with optical suites are being rushed into service, paired with manpads and ATGMs on one turret.
Every army is doing this.
Eyes on the ground, whether it be an infantry squad, a manned vehicle, or a UGV, are needed to observe a space on the ground.
Flying aircraft around searching for targets is a quick way to get shot down.
Think about this- every major army in the world is going the direction that I'm discussing. Every, single, one. You can't name a country that isn't. Much more time, energy, and money is being spent on cracking this nut than designing the next large MBT.
If I told you 25 years ago that scout helicopters and planes would be replaced with drones, you would have called them "toys" and laughed it off. Instead, they are changing warfare by the year.
You will also notice the trend of mortars and low recoil artillery mounted on trucks, capable of firing a quick 5 it 6 rounds and then dispersing within 60 seconds to avoid counter battery fire. Towed artillery firing from a prepared position for hours at a time is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Shoot ahf scoot. Even attack helicopters are avoiding passing lines, as they quickly get targetted and eliminated.
None of this is fantasy. This is the direction armies are going right now. Yes, quick and agile truck mounted missile systems like HIMARS are important, but they're only one layer. An important one for sure, as they can wipe out C4 assets and ammo and fuel points, starving heavy vehicle assets. After all, the best way to "kill" a tank force is to destroy his resupply.
What IS a fantasy is to think that long range, multimillion dollar missiles can win wars, or that drones can fly around all day unmolested. Combined arms warfare still applies, it's just getting more advanced.
1
-
1
-
@TheGreatAmphibian
Why does a light vehicle sound expensive to you, but a tank that's a dozen times more expensive sounds cheap to you? How does that make sense to you?
Battleships don't exist anymore. Why does the navy still have ships? Even the aircraft carrier is being rethought. Doesn't make armed vessels obsolete, just because aircraft and missiles exist. Still have to have ships in the area to recognize a threat.
Why not have heavy armor? You haven't been listening at all. Too heavy, requires too much support, too easily targeted, and can't fire without a massive flash and noise signature, just to name a few.
What missions will future armor be intended for? The same missions they're used for now.
Fire support for ground troops, deep penetration and exploitation of enemy lines, destroying enemy heavy weapons as they appear, and holding ground in defensive ops.
The Russians and Ukrainians have both lost thousands of pieces of heavy armor. Other armies are looking at how to avoid this. Your solution of just firing missiles at area targets or saturating the area with targets for AAA to shoot down isn't useful. THOSE are your expensive assets you can't afford to throw away. A HIMARS GMRLS missile costs 150k per round. A tomahawk cruise missile costs about 2 million a shot.
The basis of warfare is thus-
1. Find the enemy
2. Fix the enemy
3. Destroy the enemy
Air assets with heavy artillery can do a lot, but not everything. Why have automatic weapons, ATGMs, mortars, grenade machine guns, autocannons, and support guns when you can "just" fire missiles from miles away?
Because the enemy is trying NOT to get shot, just like you are. He has a vote. He's not going to stand out in the open waving his arms for your drones to spot him.
However, vehicles that stand out like a sore thumb like a 70 ton, 8 foot tall and 25 foot tall tank has a pretty tough job of avoiding detection. The US Army just bought the Griffin Ii light tank, but I think at 28 tons it's still going to be too heavy and big.
1
-
@TheGreatAmphibian
Who said "a single one"? You sure love to fight strawman arguments. I never said one drone. I said "you can't fly drones all day".
As in, anything you put in the air for too long will get downed. They have to be up for a purpose, and not stay up for long. Between direction finding, EM, AAA and manpads, they will get shot down often. Like I said, it's got maybe 3 flights in it. We're even using switchblade 300s to shoot them down.
All these weapons are used to support the ground troops, not being used instead of them. Unless you also have a fantasy that troops will walk everywhere, they will ride in vehicles. All vehicles have weaknesses, whether it be mines, direct fire, missiles, or indirect fire. It's all a balance as to what you're willing to accept as far as vulnerabilities. Most vehicles in a combat zone dont have the protection that a tank or heavy IFV do, but we still employ them.
You might think that's crazy, but we do.
We've come a long way from the m113 abd the unarmored Humvee, but even vehicles like that have their place. We also use MRZRs, the ISV, and the Flyer 72, all of which have absolutely no armor, just roll bars.
Why? You tell me.
1
-
1
-
@TheGreatAmphibian
You're so arrogant that you don't understand just what it is you don't understand.
Do you know what a camo net is? Do you know how it's employed? If not, go ahead and read up on it before you reply. The blanket doesn't touch the vehicle. It's used to camouflage it when it's sitting still.
You just don't understand combat, and it shows glaringly.
Every single thing I'm talking about is already in the US inventory. Did you realize that? . Obviously not, huh?
You'd really freak out if you realized we have these things called light infantry brigades and Stryker Brigades and..... GASP! No tanks! What do they ride around in? Is it..... light armored vehicles? No way! TheGreatAmphibian said that's suicidal, fellas . Just stop that right now. He said you can't do that.
And whatever you do, don't look up the Stryker Dragoon or the Shorad. Don't bother researching the JLTV with the protector RWS . Don't want to accidentally get an education, would you?
Yeah, the Army and USMC are just wasting money on those systems, according to you. Same with Stryker Brigades outfitting 50% of their vehicles with the CROWS-J.
TheGreatAmphibian says those weapons are obsolete, already. We should be spending the whole budget on long range missiles. He said it, it must be so.
1
-
@TheGreatAmphibian
You think missiles are just "flying around searching for targets with radar", huh? That's not how that works, kid.
Armored vehicles don't have to be radar absorbing, as ground radars are very limited and rare. THOSE would be a potential target, as they're emitting a radar signal. And a drone using search radar to find ground targets would be a beacon for everything within miles to shoot it down. The last thing you want it to be doing is sending out an active signal. Drones use passive sensors, usually day cameras or FlIR. You don't want a search radar trying to ping off of vehicles.
A drone large enough to carry a radar or brimstones is going to be large and expensive like a Group 4 UCAV, at least $5 million. That's an expensive drone to just fly around and look for targets of opportunity. Everything for miles would love to shoot that down. You can't count on something like that unless your enemy has no AAA network to speak of. Otherwise, you're just flushing your expensive drones down the toilet..
The brimstone is just like a hellfire- a laser guided missile. You have to see a target to use it. All the more reason for that vehicle to be small and harder to see. That's not the own you think it is.
You really don't know where you're going with this, do you?
I say we should continue the route we're already going with smaller armored vehicles and remote weapon systems and you lose your mind. Look at yourself. The thought of the military retiring the MBT and going with something smaller and more agile really eats you up inside. You just can't stand the thought, can you? You've been arguing fir hours up one dude and down the other that it's heavy tank or nothing at all, then you claim there's nowhere to hide because drones with search radars will be scouring the ground for anything they can shoot a $200,000 missile at. At the same time claiming a 10 million dollar tank or firijg if $200k/ missle is worth it, yet spending a million on a light armored vehicle is wasteful. And at the SAME time claiming ground troops aren't needed at ALl since we can just blow the whole place up with huge amounts of ordinance from hundreds of miles away with hundreds of millions in missiles. You claimed we don't ANY vehicles, or men in a war. Just missiles.
You're all over the place, man. You can't get a clear thought out before you're bouncing to the next. You're arguing with your prior comments! 🤡
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
-
I've trained many Bradley crews over the years. I spent 7 years in the 3rd ID
-1 week of Bradley gunnery Skills testing (learning maintenance of weapon systems)
-1 week of PMCS of hull and turret (operator level maintenance)
- 1 week of COFT (simulator training involving fire commands and shooting practice)
- 2 weeks of gunnery (moving and shooting at plywood targets in offense and defense)
- 2 weeks of maneuver training, involving TTPs, formations, communications, recovery, coordination with dismounts, and assembly operations
7 weeks to train crews.
Simultaneously, select NCOs should attend Master Gunnery Course (13 weeks) to have guys who can train additional troops, administer practice gunnery, and address weapons maintenance issues.
You will also need to train mechanics for 12 weeks, as well as have refuelers and ammo supply truck drivers.
A mechanized battalion could train to proficiency in about 4 months time, if you did it by the numbers.
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
-
"tanks" is a large category.
It's more accurate to say that old main battle tanks and their current force structure needs updating.
We will see a return to light cavalry. The heavy 55-70 ton main battle tanks could see less use in the future, as lighter, smaller, quieter, and stealthier light tanks become more common.
It's the way fighters and bombers evolved. Less of an emphasis on brute speed and maximum bomb load for stealth and precision.
The future light cavalry tank may very well be the size of an SUV, weigh less than 10 tons, have a crew of 2 sitting in an armored cockpit. Engine in front, the driver behind the second road wheel, with a low slung vehicle no taller than 6 feet at the top of the remote turret.
A large main gun would be unappealing, as it would require a much larger vehicle. Instead, arm it with a mix of a 30x137mm chain gun, a radar and optical suite for target detection and the APS, and a 70mm APKWS 7 shot missile launcher on each side of the main gun.
With 10 tons, you can get a vehicle with the protection level of a Bradley (STANAG 4 all around and 6 along the front arc. Enough to survive anything other than a direct hit from arty or AT.
Small and fast enough to avoiding getting hit, with enough firepower to wreak havoc in a breach.
As far as the fire support role of tanks, those jobs can be accomplished by guided arty/mortars/missiles/FPV drones/loitering munitions without exposing the assets to return fire.
As former armored columns relied on attack chopper support, from now on they will have to have attack drone support with instant indirect fire and air defense on the move. Many of the roles that have historically fallen on dismounted infantry will now be accomplished by search and destroy drone teams in forward positions.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ColonelSandersLite
M855 and M855A1, as currently used, also have the same muzzle velocity and BC.
The main differences are an updated powder type, and a new bullet construction.
The bullet construction allows the M855A1 from a 14.5" to have 50% greater fragmentation range, which is the most important factor of terminal performance in 5.56. 350 meters in a handy M4 beats out 225 in a long 20" gun.
The problem with this 6.8 program is that it's exactly what we don't need in the 21st century battlefield, especially in peer warfare.
Infantry will now have to contend with constantly hiding from ISR drones, moving quickly, and concealing their positions.
Under cover and concealment,, they will utilize their own manned and unmanned ISR to detect the enemy first. If they do, they will call for artillery support, fire guided mortars, missiles,or kamikaze drones, without being detected.
If the squad is discovered, they will either receive similar fire to what they were delivering, or be discovered at relatively close range.
What the modern infantry really needs is the most compact, lightest, handiest firearm they can get, with performance similar to 5.56/5.45/5.8. They can tuck them out of the way while driving, carrying and operating those heavier and more effective weapon systems.
If you engage an enemy with long range small arms fire in that environment, you will have your head blown off by guided high explosives.
That's not an environment condusive to long range small arms use. If anything, having long and heavy small arms and ammunition means you will be less effective with your best weapons.
This 6.8 is the weapon the army wanted to fight the Taliban. It's fighting the last war.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ghostrider-ul7xn
It's not a narrow definition of attractiveness.
Obviously, guys of very varying looks get women. May not be their first choice of women, but they get them, nonetheless.
Isn't being sexy more than being well groomed and fit? That would be a very shallow list, indeed.
You wouldn't only list fit and well groomed when describing a desirable woman, would you? Theres other qualities. Nice isn't one, either. A woman can be sexy without being nice.
It's really not that complicated.
Both women and men will, in fact, be influenced largely by sexiness. If the sex isn't good, and doesn't get better, they will stray and look elsewhere. Let's not pretend men don't do it, too.
No matter the other qualities, a woman with a healthy sexual appetite will always want to be with the guy she sexually hungers for.
The guy who gets her off the best. She will only not want to be with that guy if there's too much other baggage. It's rarely about money.
Be honest. Look around you.
What percentage of men, if you were a woman, would you find sexy? You don't have to be gay to answer that.
Now look at the average man you see around town. Would you really care if they tried to talk to you, if you were a woman?
From what I've seen, a ton of guys struggle with even being able to relate with women, let alone be good in bed.
That's why a guy who hits it the way she needs is the one she can't get out her head.
There's so few guys who know how to.
Experienced women can tell if you're good in bed before they ever ask for it. They will friendzone guys they don't think are.
It's nothing new. It's always been this way.
Happens everyday in the animal world.
Even worse with some animals, where only a small percentage of males mate at all.
Listen to the women who are chasing guys better looking than them. They talk a lot about the same complaints you have.
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
-
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
-
@reckonerwheel5336
Single family homes don't breed crime, though. People being on top of each other can, though. The most dangerous cities in the world are in Mexico and Brazil, where people are stacked on top of each other.
The safest places in the world have very low population densities.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter though. It's WHO is in those cities. If they are peaceful, value law and order, and value life, the city will be peaceful no matter what. London hasn't changed their layout at all I'm decades, but the demographics sure did. And when it did, the violent crime skyrocketed. Detroit used to be the richest city in the US, and it's city streets haven't changed much either. But after southern blacks moved there and crime started rising, the whites and their money moved out.
A city isn't the building or streets, it's the people who reside there. If you move tens of thousands of Africans to Tokyo, within a few years you will have drive by shootings.
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
-
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
-
@Ghastly_Grinner
Lol, that doesn't mean anything. If the tracks had enough armor to withstand antitank mines, they would have been too heavy to be in most of the terrain in Vietnam, in the first place.
Lighter vehicles can go places that heavy vehicles can't. That means more guns, ammo, and supplies in a place that heavy vehicles can't even go. Quite often, it doesn't matter if you ride in it at all, as long as it has your ruck, chow, water, commo, extra ammo and a support weapon. It's not the main element, the dismounted infantry are.
Lots of these basic vehicle designs can really be improved for a long time going forward because the basic profile, shape, configuration, and materials make the most logical sense. Designs that look similar to the BTR, Abrams, BMP, M113, BRDM, and HMMWV will continue to be produced for a long time.
The M113 is well designed for the current Ukrainian conflict. If a protector RWS .50/Javelin were to be installed, it's a great home for an infantry squad armed with drones, ATGMs, and GPMGs, conducting as ambushes while their track stays to their rear in overwatch and in a camouflaged position. Additional armor wouldn't help much. The light weight does.
They make great mortar carriers, too. A 120mm mortar carriers paired with drone recon is nasty, and the m113 is small enough to tuck into some narrow spots to hide them.
1
-
@Ghastly_Grinner
When did they ever fail at what they were designed to do? They didn't. They were only designed to protect against small arms fire and shell splinters.
Today, we have the M113A3, with V Hull to protect from buried IEDs, new armor protects up to 14.5mm AP, turbo charged V6, cage armor to protect against rockets, RWS turrets with thermals, and advanced communications suites.
Even in the 60s in Vietnam, these things were loved. Mech infantry plowed through huge swaths of the jungle there, constantly resupplying, conducting fire missions, evacuating casualties, and keeping communications running in very austere and expeditionary environments.
I would no more call an M113 variant a failure than I would the BTR. Both are fantastic and successful vehicles with a list of wars under their belts a mile long.
I actually think that the US Army would benefit from having a lightly armored 6 wheel vehicle resembling a BTR-80. Something light enough to go anywhere fast like an ATV, just enough armor to protect against 7.62, with a remote turret. Put a Mk19 40mm, 7.62minigun, .50 call HMG, whatever you want, paired with a couple ATGMs. Enough HP to push it 70/mph on the highway and 50mph off-road. Kinda like an armored version of the iSV squad vehicle.
Lighter vehicles use a lot less fuel, which means you need less fuelers and fuel points. They can be self sufficient longer. Perfect for OP/LPs, Mortar fire missions, drone recon, Shorad, kamikaze drone launch vehicle, medical evacuation, electronic warfare, counter battery radars, light refuel vehicles, resupply vehicles, etc.
Every army needs a support vehicle. Something reliable, mobile, and decently protected. In an active warzone, they're much better than riding in a truck, which is the alternative. APCs aren't apex predators in war, they're mules, and damn good ones too..You still have the tanks, aircraft, and artillery to do the real killing and these are for the multitude of guys that support those efforts that still have to be very near the fight.
The US army operates way more M113 APCs than M2 Bradley's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the US, it takes roughly 6 months of basic training + 18 months experience to master skill level 1 infantry tactics. That does involve large exercises at least brigade level, in that time frame.
If he joined at 18, he's nearing 21 about the time he's qualified for the first nco promotion and probably is going to be entering his prime for a good 10 years.
If I focused on company tactics and below, I could shorten that time from 2 years to 1. Of course, a soldier doesn't need to be a master unless he's a leader. He just has to be competent, fit, intelligent, motivated, and recently well equipped. With the right training command in charge, you can raise a very good army in a year, but you have to start with good stock to begin with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonhenry8268
You mean when the doors were unlocked and opened by police, while they oversaw people line up and walk into the building? The people talking to cops and taking selfies?
Man, that was soooooo violent.
I was talking about the people who caused 2 billion in damages, killed dozens of people, took over police precincts, tried to storm the white house, lit St. John's on fire, seized parts of downtown cities, ripped people out of their cars and murdered them, and tried to burn down federal courthouses.
Ya know, those people
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheJdmartinjax
Here's the entire quote that the MSM hid from you-
"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
Do you like being lied to?
Anything to say?
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