Comments by "josh fritz" (@joshfritz5345) on "Task & Purpose" channel.

  1. The M113 is a great vehicle, it's just outdated and doesn't fit with the more firepower heavy doctrine for modern infantry transports.
    2
  2. Army: well trained and equipped professionals ready to take the fight to the enemy. Marines: Ooga booga crayon eating cavemen with guns who charge guns blazing at anything that dares fire a shot in their general direction. Navy special forces: hardcore badasses with guns who are some of the most elite assassins and saboteurs on the planet. Army special forces: Organizes coups and uprisings to topple entire nations, ten men doing what ten thousand soldiers could never hope to.
    1
  3. It's a good vehicle, but it's nearing the end of it's operational life. It's one of the older IFVs in service today, and while quite good for the time it was designed, it's behind the curve now. It doesn't quite match up to the latest generation of IFVs, and like the Abrams, it might be time to start designing its replacement.
    1
  4. Karl Gustav is better. It's a much more versatile weapon system suitable to engage a wide variety of targets, soft and hard. The RPG-7 is an anti-tank weapon first and foremost, and it suffers from drawbacks such as a limited range and poor anti-structure capability. The Karl Gustav has a tool (round type) for nearly any situation, essentially being a portable field gun compact enough to be carried and operated by a team of two. It's only disadvantage is that it's a bit heavier and more expensive, although it's still easily man portable. Even a single soldier can carry and fire the Karl Gustav if necessary, although teams of two are more effective. For something more analogous to the RPG-7, there is the AT-4. Its improved range and velocity over the RPG-7 give it a leg up, only being held back by it's single shot capability.
    1
  5. The AT-4 is designed to be mobile enough to be carried by standard infantry, and effective enough to knock out hardened targets up to but not including modern MBTs. That being said, the AT-4 isn't actually useless against a modern tank. A lucky hit could easily mission kill one, so in the absence of a better solution, an AT-4 is a decent fallback option. Hell, a hit to the turret side might even kill a T-72 outright. It always struck me as strange why people act like not having a guaranteed penetration on the first shot means a weapon is completely ineffective against armor. There are so many things that can break on a modern armored vehicle, even if you don't kill it outright, a direct hit from an 84mm HEAT round is likely to knock out something important to the fighting capability of said vehicle.
    1
  6. A-10 pilots have to be physically restrained to stop them from taking to the skies to strafe and bomb these convoys without authorization.
    1
  7. Marines are ooga booga with guns
    1
  8. There goes my tax dollars...
    1
  9. I'd like to see the Ripsaw's alternative payloads. A dedicated drone/ ATGM carrier would be nice, maybe one that's a dedicated recon drone carrier, one with an anti-aircraft loadout, high angle autocannon and stinger missiles.
    1