Posted on 04/16/2022 10:56:11 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
To make it realistic they make sure it is “one shot, one general”, just like in the Ukraine. Lol
I agree that tanks are so...yesterday. I would not get rid of helicopters.
When are we getting Ironman suits for soldiers?
.
I hope they are learning to lose the woke crap.
A hot area of R&D would be anti missile missiles - protection against missile attacks of all sizes and speeds.
I find it humorous that we are supposedly learning a lesson about war from a rag tag group of “combatants” that are using our equipment to fight a competitor for the local oil and gas reserves along with the steel factories that they really want, thus won’t destroy, so we can learn to protect ourselves from a threat that will not be walking on US soil until it cools off.
wy69
Good question.
Not only is armor obsolete against a technologically sophisticated opponent, but stealthy drones and stealthy missiles have made surface naval combatants obsolete as well. Yet many soldiers and sailors will die before today’s “battleship admirals” and “hidebound generals” come to understand the new realities.
The biggest lesson learned is that America will probably also need its own brand of "de-nazification" of DC deep-state, woke, neocon, elites who will sacrifice you and everyone else for their insane political schemes.
Not sure how effective flares are against stingers.
You can use helicopters to transport troops and evacuate the wounded behind the front lines but that's about it.
You would need many drones to protect each ship. For a destroyer, you would have 1,000 drones on patrol to protect against kamikaze drones and missiles.
I’m confused. They are training the soldiers to listen to enemy propaganda and ignore it while watching the enemy use standoff weapons to destroy a city?
I guess the D.o D. forgot about Tokyo Rose and now has to develop a new training strategy to overcome battlefield propaganda.
Training on dying their hair pink?
“I would not get rid of helicopters.”
For quick transportation they are useful, but close air support is the challenge in any future war. It’s essential to how the US Army fights, but if every infantry platoon has AA missiles then copters and low flying aircraft are very vulnerable.
Yep, just bring back WW2 era deuce and a halfs to move the infantry forward then let them fight with small arms. What we are seeing in the performance or lack of in the Rus army is what happens when soldiers are not trained to think for themselves and to take the initiative, but to wait for orders; are not confident in their leaders; do not maintain their equipment; and there is a complete absence of a core of professional NCOs. Also that tanks and infantry fight as a team, without infantry support tanks are especially vulnerable in towns and wooded areas. However, I do not think the day of the tank is over.
The Rus army wasn’t trained to fight, but merely to go through the steps to perform good enough in a pre-planned exercise to look like they were competent and combat ready.
I recommend reading former USAEUR commander LTG (ret) Mark Hertling’s article comparing the Russian and Ukrainian armies. One thing I got from it, is that the old Soviet army was probably as bad as the current Russian army and that it may have not been the well trained force as we gave them credit to be back during my two tours in Germany with the 3d Armored Division, “Spearhead”.
Assume the battlefield is like Mogadishu.
One of Pootey-Poot’s mistakes (among many) was to give the US (et Al) a ringside seat for a display of how combat effective (or not) his equipment is, as well as how effective the Ukrainians have been in defeating his hardware.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.