Comments by "afcgeo" (@afcgeo882) on "Ryan McBeth"
channel.
-
34
-
16
-
Okay, so I’m half Ukrainian, 1/4 Russian and 1/4 Belarussian, but born and raised in Russia (US citizen for over 30 years now and a US veteran).
Russia DOES have combat medics, but they are considerably fewer than in the West and generally aren’t found in combat units. They are mostly women and their job is to provide CASEVAC whenever possible. They have pretty rudimentary medical training, akin to Western EMTs. Their job is simply to evacuate to a rear field hospital.
As far as private hospitals… no. They first evacuate to field hospitals, which do exist. Then, once the patient is ambulatory, he may be moved to a rear hospital, usually a civilian (not private) facility, as military hospitals are only in Russia itself. This is kind of how the US military works too. The wounded are CASEVAC’d into a field hospital, where they are hopefully stabilized, and then flown out to a regional military hospital in Germany (Landstuhl) or Japan (Yokosuka, Okinawa) or Korea (Yongsan), and when well enough to make a long journey, flown back to a military or civilian hospital in the US.
The difference is that Russia has no aeromedical evacuation platforms. They can’t fly patients anywhere.
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Great work, Ryan! All of this is VERY similar to the Coast Guard, although you should try and get underway with them at some point too. They even have the hamsters.
Officers are traditionally separated from the enlisted by a long-standing tradition. Naval officers were educated, upper class men, employed full-time by a royal commission (at least in Europe), and often held royal titles. Enlisted were usually very poor and often simply contracted for the voyage. By “contracted” I mean they were often grabbed on the docks, tricked into enlisting or even plucked from prisons. Only long-term enlisted sailors (Chiefs) were actual career men. Back in those days the enlisted got the scraps while the officers ate luxurious meals.
Today, despite eating in separate rooms, allowing for each group to discuss the other, they actually eat the same exact meals prepared in the same galley. The wardroom does, however, get proper cutlery and china, sometimes.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamessanders8895 No, YOU are incorrect. I spent 18 years in the Reserves and the National Guard. Learn not to speak when you’re ignorant.
National Guard units are activated for active duty, never part-time duty, by either the state (SAD) of federal (Title 10) governments. They DO NOT turn into Army or Air Force reserves. EVER! There is no process for it and all of our laws on the military expressly prohibit the federal government from taking away Guard units. They can only federalize them in time of need, and only on defined, limited basis.
Once under federal orders for active duty, the soldier or airman remain members of the National Guard and still belong to their home Guard unit, but are temporarily attached to other units or deploy as an entire Guard unit. They stay administratively and financially separate, ALWAYS. Even in basic and follow-on training, Guard units pay for their members’ training to the actual branches. The money comes out of their unit budgets. In return, the departments of the Army and Air Force transfer funds and equipment to State Divisions of Military and Naval Affairs or Military and Veterans Affairs, whatever each state decides to call them.
Again, Guard NEVER become federal reserves. Reserves are ENTIRELY separate things under separate commands and separate budgets. Reserves are covered by different policies and laws. For example, Army Reserves are not combat arms specialties, while Army National Guard can be. Reserves cannot enforce laws, but Guard members can. They receive different points and benefits too.
You are incorrect about the ownership of Guard units. They always have been and always will he owned by the states, but in return for some funding and equipment, may be appropriated by the federal government, TEMPORARILY. This is CLEARLY outlined in the National Defense Act of 1916. The Act expanded the President’s authority to mobilize the Guard during war or national emergencies here or for service in different parts of the world for the duration of the event that caused the mobilization. Previously, the 1908 Militia Act authorized the Guard’s use overseas and the 1903 Militia Act established the first National Guard. No law has ever stipulated that National Guards are owned by the federal government. In fact, that goes against the very mature of our Constitution and federal law!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Paladin1873 You’re wrong on three points.
First, the National Guard, by the law that created it, IS a militia.
Second, the National Guard is PARTIALLY funded by the federal government. Its day-to-day operations, routine training and state missions are funded by the states.
Third, the National Guards are not a part of the DoD. They are represented at the DoD by National Guard Bureaus, but each state’s National Guards are part of their states, so not the DoD, the same way as State Guards are not part of the DoD. National Guard units and personnel come under the command of the DoD once federally activated, but they are not owned by them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The A-10 is not unique in being solely a subsonic air to ground attack aircraft. The AV-8 had always filled that role for the Maritime services. The Russian equivalent us the SU-25 Grach. All three were developed for the Cold War, traditional European plains war.
What’s lost on most people is called Air War College. What does that mean? They’re missing all of the strategic pieces. The A-10 is absolutely an efficient destroyer of enemy vehicles. That’s what it was designed to do. However, for it to operate you must first gain FULL air superiority. And by that I mean FULL. No enemy SAMs, no MANPADS, no AAA, no attack helicopters, and certainly no foreign fighters. That’s because the A-10 was designed with little protection against these things. It was literally designed as, but a tiny piece of a much larger puzzle that includes JTACs, fighter aircraft, AWACS, air refueling, etc. You remove even one piece of that puzzle and it becomes useless. Oh and by the way, its attack capabilities are greatly reduced by poor weather as it heavily relies on visual contact with the enemy.
The modern MQ-9, Bayraktar TB-2 or Wing Loong Prerodactyl II are more than capable of delivering precision payloads for CAS and with FAR longer loiter times and much better visual observation to boot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ryan… you’re wrong on the Iran pronunciation thing, buddy. It has NOTHING to do with your accent either. You just learned to pronounce it wrong. In every word in English that starts with an I, the letter is pronounced as “ee”. Example: information, indigo, irrelevant, input, etc.
Iran is a proper name. It should be pronounced as intended. We don’t call you Reeean, even after you correct us, and blame it on an accent. It’s a simple matter of proper reading and respect. Passaic Co here, btw.
After all, there’s no “Eyendia” or “Eyesrael”, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rocketman1058 To be fair, what started WW2 for the West was Britain and France declaring war on Germany in response to its invasion of Poland. They did not declare war on the USSR for its involvement in invading Eastern Poland or Estonia, Latvia and Romania (today’s Moldova). One could also remind everyone that Poland was occupying Western Ukraine, Lithuania, part of Romania and Belarus until that point, as a remnant of the Austro-Hungarian empire (the Hapsburgs). i don’t know if I’d call that revisionism. Is a non-invasion pact the same as starting a war? Finland, Sweden and Norway had non-invasion pacts in place too. Every neutral nation does.
While the invasion of Finland was a real “war machine” act for sure, it really isn’t considered to be a part of WW2 at all. As for the others, there really was no military invasion because those areas were already aiming at communism, and many saw it as a liberation from Poland, not realizing that the USSR wouldn’t give them independence.
Every nation on earth calls itself the “good guy”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1