Comments by "" (@Cloud_Seeker) on "Dear Nigel Askey - Your Article about me is WRONG" video.

  1. Well. It wasn't the Red Army, so it just means that Rasputin was the literal devil and created the walking dead.
    2
  2. "The defender is always at a disadvantage" - Wait what? What the hell was WW1 about then? In WW1 it was clear the shovel was a better weapon then the rifle. Defense with heavy Machine guns caused a stalemate which the weapon of the time simply wasn't able to break. Defense might not be as strong as in WW1 but there clearly is an advantage in being in a prepared position then being attacked out in the open. There is a reason only 10% of the men survive an ambush.
    1
  3.  @piotrd.4850  I do not actually agree with that. I am by no means a military expert but there is a few problems that are fairly easy to spot. 1. It is hardly conservatism which keeps small arms fire in the military. You can not liberate a city by pounding it by artillery fire. Not even in WW1 artillery was able to win any combat. The mass shelling of a enemy did not help win the battle. You can not liberate a city with tanks. Tanks do not fight urban conflicts. Also. Tanks without infantry support is vulnerable. They are not unbeatable death machines. You can not liberate a city with Aircraft because at some point you must put people on the ground and occupy the city. The Navy can not get to a city because a battleship doesn't have any wheels. Urban combat and rooting out enemy resistance (such as ISIS) have to be done with infantry. 2. The kind of combat that we see today is mostly small scale fights without clear frontlines. This means that you fight convoys, defend convoys and fight skirmishes in and outside of cities. Often with the enemy repetitively close. To be able to unload a large volume of fire is indeed important but it must be done on the target in a accurate way. Ammo is very expensive when we talk about guns that can fire 50-70 rounds per second (Such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II made for close air support). If you just spray and pray you will have wasted thousands of dollars of ammo on not hitting the target. Wasting your ability to continue fighting a war, laying heavy pressures on the political establishment and your ability to actually fight the enemy. If you have to go back to base every 10 seconds your use very useful. Spray and pray without accuracy will also have the problem that you are just as likely to hit your own allies as your enemy. The people on the ground you are supposed to help do not want to die from the bullets of their own support. You need a large volume of fire for sure. But that volume of fire is worthless without accuracy. So as a conclusion. I do not buy the argument that infantry with rifles are not needed. Tanks, aircraft and artillery do not win wars. At someone point you do need infantry with regular small arms. Volume of fire is important but you can not do it without accuracy as you actually need to hit the target. I want to end by pointing out that the USA lost in Vietnam to a bunch of rebels with limited resources when they had total air and naval superiority. Dispute total air and naval superiority the USA failed defend several major cities in South Vietnam from attacks in zones considered safe from the Viet Cong. The Vietnam war should show you that any claim that a modern military will just roll over any inferior infantry army is not true and you should never consider any possibility impossible. The Viet Cong defeated the USA army in their airforce and Tank force without having any of their own.
    1