Comments by "" (@charlesmartin1121) on "Task & Purpose" channel.

  1.  Russia Documented  I have heard other reliable sources say there are far fewer.
    1
  2.  @tomhenry897  Trump was Russia's, India's and Brazil's best friend. Duh.
    1
  3.  @xkavarsmith9322  The AR-10 or one of it’s many variants (SR-25, LMT308, OBR) would have been an excellent option with a 16 inch barrel. Combined with a decent 8-10 power optic, it would have given every rifleman in the squad (not just the DM) the ability to reach out to half a mile (800 meters). However, it was still compact enough to still get the job done up close in confined spaces.
    1
  4.  @josephrogers8213  Gotta go with Nightforce variable.
    1
  5.  @balung  Yes indeed.
    1
  6. https://youtu.be/l4liWsxhHzc This is the older model Hagglunds in the video. But somebody tell me which wheeled service vehicle could pull this shit off. And one which can be fitted with armor protection (the video example is unarmored).   Note: please don't tell me a swamp buggy with gigantic tires--thats not a service vehicle.
    1
  7. "The 30mm projectiles from the BTR can penetrate just over 8 inches of armor?" I don't have references in front of me. But that sounds wrong. Anybody got the actual specs out there?
    1
  8. The training which normally takes 3 months, the Ukainians will reduce to 3 weeks. Believe it.
    1
  9. Yes. I scanned down through the comments to see if somebody else caught that. This channel makes mistakes like that too often in my opinion.
    1
  10. The Baltic states ARE part of NATO.
    1
  11. Should have a short version for tankers, aviation and sundry.
    1
  12.  @davem2369  True.
    1
  13.  @aclown36  Yes...but that was NATO in UN costume.
    1
  14.  @Slavic_Goblin  Explain please?
    1
  15.  @royhuang9715  Exactly.
    1
  16.  @TylerMarkRichardson  Yeah. But that again was really the US and it's allies in a fight against Chinese and North Korean communism. And idiotically the Russians voted for it in the Security Council.
    1
  17.  @travismckinnon7649  Pulled pork. Yum.
    1
  18. @Anon Ymous Ok. Thanks.
    1
  19.  @Slavic_Goblin  I thought the SFOR and KFOR were mostly made up of US, Canadian and European contingents.
    1
  20. Better choice in the mountains than the BTR? How about the BAE/Hagglunds articulated tracked armored carrier. In any terrain.
    1
  21.  @vencdee  The BvS 10, also known in British service as the Viking.
    1
  22.  @CGplay186  Oh boy.
    1
  23.  @SaultoPaul  I think that is a dumb analogy.
    1
  24.  @mrkiplingreallywasanexceed8311  Perhaps that last bit was a little harsh I grant you.
    1
  25.  @celebrim1  Exactly.
    1
  26. Not 'we'! Freakin' greedy businessmen and corporations did that!
    1
  27. Oh I might also add had NATO intervened in Crimea in 2014 (same as the rest of Ukraine right now)...IT WOULD MEAN WAR WITH RUSSIA!
    1
  28.  @krisrhebergen  Are you a Marine?
    1
  29.  @rogermcbadlad2812  The guy at SmallArmsSolutions says he and Jeff Hoffman (owner of Black Hills Ammunition) were plinging targets at a 1,000 yards using a Mk12 (18" match barrel) with Mk262 ammunition. Check it out at 11:12 on this video: https://youtu.be/BMVvVL9QeC4
    1
  30.  @charlesm.2756  I may have commented rashly, as the M4 would work well for troops fighting in the so-called verdant or agricultural zones in Afghanistan, especially if it involved a lot of house clearing missions. Optimally we should have left the close in fighting to the Afghan Security Forces, as they had the legitimacy to be in those environs which we did not. Our role should have mostly been provision of overwatch to the ANA, using long range precision small arms. As for caliber comparisons, please check this video out: https://youtu.be/jH7Q2oG-rW0
    1
  31.  @rogermcbadlad2812  He knows a shit ton about modern military small arms. Though warning if you are an M14 fan he will make you cry in your cereal.
    1
  32.  @rogermcbadlad2812  Agree.
    1
  33.  @bnolsen  Good enough is a relative term. It is less salient how reliable your weapon is if it cannot penetrate the body armor of an advanced opponent or in another scenario it gives an insurgent enemy a significant range advantage over you and your team. The Army is finally making the M4 more reliable. About time. Now how about looking at giving it better ammunition (=a new caliber).
    1
  34.  @sluggak1363  I wish those US units assigned to the mountainous areas of Afghanistan had been assigned Mk17’s to go along with the Mk48’s the regular infantry received as an expedient system.
    1
  35.  @amistrophy  Thats a good way of putting it.
    1
  36.  @DefaultProphet  One more thing the kind of anti-drone systems that are only recently starting to deploy, could double as anti-ATGM systems as well, for taking out relatively slow flying missiles like the Javelin and NLAW at some distance away.
    1
  37.  @DefaultProphet  Nothing is 100% effective. However, I think most AFV crew going in harms way would be glad to have them.
    1
  38.  @DefaultProphet  I didn't say 'single handedly', only they would be key. I think if you make a bet that mobile firepower and protection are over, just based on recent combat operations in Ukraine, you will lose that wager. The pendulum swings back and forth over time, and at the moment the ATGM seems to have the ascendancy, but who knows about tomorrow.
    1
  39. Here is a good video on the subject: https://youtu.be/QPth_xqBXGY
    1
  40.  @jwb1227  True.
    1
  41.  @u2beuser714  Good point. However, I think our 120mm DU rounds would have also penetrated the T-72B. And once penetrated the results would have been the same.
    1
  42.  @rostokk2706  I was only comparing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the T-72 against NATO anti-armor systems, not expanding the argument to whether or not the Warsaw Pact would have prevailed in a conflict with NATO. Meh.
    1
  43.  @Elatenl  They would definitely help, assuming they could be based where the Russians could not get at them. But I don't believe they would be the difference that wins the war for Ukraine.
    1
  44. If the Taiwanese were really serious about defending their country at all costs, they should exploit a strategy to increase the relative area---BY TUNNELING UNDERGROUND THROUGHOUT THEIR ISLAND.
    1
  45.  @GUNNER67akaKelt  Two words: Iwo Jima.
    1
  46.  @GUNNER67akaKelt  Agreed.
    1
  47.  @nellyfrittata8319  That will certainly be true if Donald Trump is reelected.
    1
  48. Let me qualify that statement a bit. That is 2/3rds of the assigned forces, not the entire Russian Army.
    1
  49. If the Russians rubble a city in the face of determined resistance they could get a second Battle of Monte Casino.
    1
  50.  @moonasha  The Trio (Australia/Japan/USA) will definitely be tight. India is too obtuse to place any reliance upon. They do their own thing. And we should leave them to it.
    1