/k/ - Weapons

Are you stupid on purpose or does it come naturally?

>>522808

>this

US troops fought half starved against Chinks with better clothing and gear and yet they still BTFOed them.

Saudis arguably have better gear than even US special forces but they got their teeth kicked in by Houthis in sandals. It's all about the training and the motivation. No expensive gear can replace that.

Hell, with even less gear it makes you fight harder because you're desperate.

>>522808

All this stupid 'chest rig' shit makes it harder to use cover as you can't get as low down on the ground plus the weight makes standing back up too tiring.

Armour: https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/hard-body-armour-possible-compromise.html

>>522810

You're right, still a thousand less niggers to infest Europe so their deaths are not in vain.

>I might make a halfway sensible and intelligent post tomorrow but I'm a bit tipsy at the moment.

It's 8chan the shitpit of the interwebs i don't think you need to put that much effort in here hahaha

>>522808

I also recommend you check out this thread:

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/7050/1

And some of the other threads there about infantry weight. Can't find the others atm.

>>522813

Literal armchair generals who circlejerks in AC rooms snorting coke doesn't know the simple fact that a poor Joe has to carry all of that shit for hours or even days on end.

If I ever get shot and die I at least want to die comfortably not with kilos of steel pressing against my chest.

>>522815

Thanks kiwibro

>>522803

>If we treat soldiers as more expendable then each of their deaths won't be as impactful as the enemy always want them to be

In a professional army you'd get less volunteers, you can only really pull that off with conscription.

You always have to think, what is the culture of your force, the influence of that culture, the motivations etc.

This is kind of why you can't really pull this off in a western nation, and why US Troops have such advanced technology but can't work with insurgencies.

The US always thinks they're better than everyone else when it comes to military tech (to the point where they just use brute force on enemies even though a likely comparable force they would see a 60% loss of life).

tl;dr shitloads of different things that don't have to do with gear but why they still use all that gear anyway

Some countries aren't trained as a team, so every guy carries everything.

In Canada we share equipment with fireteam buddy. Less load per soldier when you don't need two copies of everything.

Also retards that bring toothbrushes and toilet paper to a fight.

>>522852

It's true that vascular wounds to the gut are deadly, but I'd say that most of those fatalities were due to not having modern medicine and dying from an infection as abdominal matter spills into your bloodstream.

But otherwise, fuck taking a gutshot or going in to the battlefield without a plate carrier for "muh mobility, just don't get shot lulz xD". Most of of the weight is due to carrying other crap besides armour, and if you're actually expecting combat you go lighter. And besides, half the job of a grunt is to haul heavy shit around, it's in the job description.

>>522859

Stupid design. Angled bullets will just bypass the spine armour memery and hit the spine any way. You need armour for the upper chest AND the lower chest,

>>522861

>half the job of a grunt is to haul heavy shit around, it's in the job description

That couldn't be more wrong, and this kind of mindset is the reason the problem exists.

>Angled bullets

Hard armor is used on the spine because the deformation of soft armor from shrapnel impacts would be enough to damage it. The point isn't to provide 7n24 coverage for the spine. Same for belly armor, it's there to protect against shrapnel popping your spleen, kidney or liver. Vid related what happens when even a very malleable projectile hits soft body armor with high enough energy. His >>522813 entire idea of medevac or saline is garbage brought about by too much experience with insurgencies, in a real war there is no medevac until the battle is over and that may last days. Can anyone survive with a broken spine or scrambled organs for 16 hours?

The only protections against actual bullets would be the helmet, spaulders and a gun shield. Because if there's a gunfight happening, you should be lying on your belly and shooting at the enemy.

>You need armour for the upper chest AND the lower chest,

Hard armor? Good job now you can't bend over, take cover, run, and you have so much weight your spine will deform by the end of your tour (if you survive).

>>522866

Yeah, because even in a little hard armour renders one into an immobile slug who can't so much as stand up if he falls over right?

>>522866

>That couldn't be more wrong, and this kind of mindset is the reason the problem exists.

Yeah, because an army having insufficient supplies/being cut off from supply lines has NEVER been a problem right? Clearly soldiers' gymnastic capabilities are more important.

>>522875

I guess king of the hill isn't terribly well known outside the US

For example I know by regs we carry three IMP in the pack. But we're never going to be more than a few hours walk away from the nearest vehicle which can carry a haybox or hundreds of IMPs so what's the fucking point. That's around seven pounds that just gets carried there and back.

I'd rather have four or five more mags, thank you very much.

>>522892

>There's a reason everyone who wore that shit had a fucking horse

Show me an infantryman that doesn't have a vehicle.

That's the reason our infantry is bulky. It's heavy mounted infantry.

De facto no infantry unit can stay away from their vehicle more than 12H simply because if they do so they will lose comms. And let's not even mention the ammo… most of it stays in the vehicles a soldier combat load isn't anywhere near sufficient for even a firefight of ONE HOUR. It's half an hour… It's literally enough to get back to the vehicles or have them come back (or send runners to them, etc…)

The whole idea of a forced march with full kit is BULLYING at that point, it's shit that will only happen if everything else has gone wrong. At which point the infantrymen WILL DUMP EVERYTHING, save weapon, ammo (well ammo will be spent) and water (would be drank), etc… And it's log companies and POGs jobs to figure out how to refit them…

Now of course it doesn't change the fact that you need to adapt to the theater.

Meaning in Afghanistan they should have only issued soft plates (7.62x39mm and shrapnel is the only real threat) except for sentinel duties, issued everyone with 7.62 NATO weapons (need for range and penetration), reduce comms load to commercial GSM (no risk of enemy intercepts), DOUBLE the ammo load (for more fire autonomy because it's necessary in mountain patrol), dump all accessory gear (Gas mask, NVGs if no night ops, food, shelters, etc… unless doing actual OPs that might last a full 24h, but there was only a handful of those) and not send anyone there before a full 6 to 9 month mountain warfare training regimen at +2000m for body acclimatization.

I fully agree that it wasn't doable in 2001… but fuck we're in 2017, the war in Afghanistan has lasted SIXTEEN YEARS and god only knows how much money was poured for it!

And yet NATO still rolls around with little to no change to it's gear and tactics (that haven't worked since day one)…

>>522901

>The whole idea of a forced march with full kit is BULLYING at that point

Yep.

It's the Wests version of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedovshchina

Remember that knights rode the horses directly into combat, our soldiers are mounted infantry while on truck, when they dismount they're just infantry. Burdening them with stuff becomes unjustifiable especially considering nearness of trucks, which is more of an argument to reduce their kit, not increase it.

>Meaning in Afghanistan they should have only issued soft plates (7.62x39mm and shrapnel is the only real threat) except for sentinel duties, issued everyone with 7.62 NATO weapons (need for range and penetration), reduce comms load to commercial GSM (no risk of enemy intercepts), DOUBLE the ammo load (for more fire autonomy because it's necessary in mountain patrol), dump all accessory gear (Gas mask, NVGs if no night ops, food, shelters, etc… unless doing actual OPs that might last a full 24h, but there was only a handful of those) and not send anyone there before a full 6 to 9 month mountain warfare training regimen at +2000m for body acclimatization.

QFT

Also keep in mind all those useless never-gonna-be-used equipment has to be shipped to Afghanistan, half a world away worth of oceans, through Pakistans territory. It costs us billions in bribes to Pakistan for them to allow resupply Russia actually let us fly over their territory for free, keep that in mind when someone says Pakistan is an "ally".

>>522903

>Which war are we talking about, WWI, WWII?

Is this a serious post? You think combat is fireteam centered? Not squad? Not section? Not platoon? Not company? Not battalion? Not brigade? Not division?

Currently America is division centered, they have been trying to switch to battalion centered, but this isn't really happening. Either way we're talking 5-15k people.

>Here's a thought: you need armour because something went wrong and you're getting shot at from a direction you didn't expect from an adversary you aren't directly engaging.

Ok the ring of scouts around your group of 500 soldiers noticed an enemy to your east, 5km away. How does having your chest and belly covered with a plate that stops assault rifle bullets at point blank range help. At all.

I'm seriously sick of this shit.

The only time body armor makes sense is when doing raids on suspected terrorists houses. And the only reason you'd ever do such a raid is if your president is too much of a fucking pussy to approve ROE where you tell suspected terrorists they have 5 minutes to surrender, then put half a dozen SMAWs into the place.

This is not an equipments issue at all, it's a dogma issue.

>Hard armour is great at preventing fatalities [1] and the main reason it's not effective it because it's not comprehensive enough [2]

Communism is great at reducing poverty and the only reason it's not effective is that we don't have enough communism.

>>522907

I'm going to stop replying to you, because you're obviously out of touch and completely retarded, but the fact is, as my links that you completely ignored show, in warfare soldiers tend to GET SHOT and if that's the case it makes sense to give them some fucking armour so they don't die all the time. Fucking leafs I tell you.

>>522911

I'm starting to think it's one leaf that does this shit.

He gets extremely hostile within a few posts too, regardless of how polite the strelok he's talking too is. It's almost a "how dare you doubt ME" kind of reaction. Completely childish.

I think we found ourselves a replacement for spergkraut tbh.

>>522903

>Wearing 10KG is not too much to ask when it objectively decreases fatalities.

The problems are

(1) Armour weighs more than 10 kg. There's the helmet, the vest or plate carrier, the plate inserts. It's more like 15 kg. Go shop some beverages, then try to run with 15 litres. That's before taking into account the weight of weapons, munitions and other necessities.

(2) Armour does not objectively save lives in many scenarios. It did in Iraq and Afghanistan where the threat to dismounted troops was little more than harassing fires.

Yet armour is largely useless deadweight when you face a modern army that does 80+ % of the killing with support fires.

This is especially troublesome when you take into account that heavily laden infantry moves around less and will thus be caught in a mortar or arty strike sooner.

(3) To keep fatalities low is pointless in itself unless it means to seek peace. Soldiers are sent onto a battlefield to accomplish a mission. What we see in Afghanistan with all that casualty aversion is perpetual failure at the strategic mission. All-too often medical evacuation of wounded troops becomes the mission rather than pursuing the original mission that was supposed to justify exposing troops to risks in the first place.>>522903

>>522934

>It did in Iraq and Afghanistan

Oh, so it does objectively save lives.

>Yet armour is largely useless deadweight when you face a modern army that does 80+ % of the killing with support fires.

Gonna need a source on that.

>>522934

>(2)

Surely infantry are not a mobility based asset in a conventional engagement and would be placed primarily on the defensive except when supporting a push.

>(3)

Claiming that keeping fatalities low is pointless in itself just seems like nonsense to me. the massive benefits of having soldiers survive a battle should be logically self evident.

what strategic objective would be accomplished by taking more risks with infantry in afghanistan when the only strategic objective is to deny afghanistan as a risk free staging post for islamic terrorists?

the big advantage of armour is allowing a soldier to learn from a mistake. Not only that but you say it yourself, casualty evacuation often delays or aborts a mission and hinders tactical objectives, therefore armouring troops reduces the likelyhood of injury and increases mission success rate.

>>522934

I think you'll have a hard time explaining to your soldiers that the reason they don't get as much armor compared to other when they inevitably raise the question is because "you're meant to die or at the very least get mutilated, silly billy, now get out there and take one for the team!" At best, you'll have drastically falling recruitment rates, in which case you'll end up having to treat your soldiers as if their lives do matter because your low troop numbers genuinely mean each soldier is worth more and you've just defeated your own philosophy. At worst, you'll have to resort to conscription to fill army ranks, which brings along all the problems of conscription (low troop morale, increased desertion rates, traitors, possible rebellions…) Soldiers aren't going to want to fight for a general whose tactics and supply logistics make it explicitly clear he couldn't give less of a shit if they live, die, or are permanently crippled for life.

>>522803

The amount of equipment is determined by the mission, your task in the team (if you have one) and by your resources.

>>522892

>Food - 3 months

I think you mean 3 weeks. Either way, you're not going to be in top fighting condition after 48 hours of not eating. Have you ever seen people who haven't eaten for a couple days? They are demoralized, weak, unaware of their surroundings, and make terrible decisions. Now combine that with the mental capacity of your average grunt.

A small, dense emergency ration is needed at the very least no matter what the mission. Something far smaller than an MRE and edible on the go, but still useful when things go tits up.

>>522954

When any soldier can just go on the internet to discover that virtually every other army that isn't a guerilla rebellion is giving their soldiers more protection and wound treatment equipment than their own generals, that is going to have a massive morale effect on them, no matter how hard you try to sell the idea that soldiers don't care about their own lives.

This whole thread reeks of armchairs and inexperience. Anecdotal but when I deployed we only wore kevlar, glasses, and IOTV and that was fine, you don't notice it after a while. It's also really nice to have protection of vital parts when the inevitable IED throws shrapnel out fuckin everywhere.

you forget that entire companies take 'roids out there.

>>522971

Aside from the fact that having more muscle mass reduces endurance rather than increasing it:

My point is that conventional warfare is different than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A couple level IV inserts are not going to help when 16 120 mm mortar HE bombs drop on your position in a 150x100 m pattern, nor does it help when 16 152 mm HE shells arrive in a MRSI.

What helps is not being where these fires are aimed at, which requires fieldcraft, self-discipline and movement.

Troops weighed down by 28 kg of kit are not moving much. They cannot regardless of muscle mass simply because their lungs are the real limiter.

They're not moving enough, especially not after the first 15 minutes of contact.

Infantry that faces very capable opposing forces needs to hide & observe much of the time, hit, break line of sight to the opposing forces and relocate. Rinse and repeat.

Level IV plates may make sense in buildings where blast and bullets are the main problems, but those plates matter little against indirect fires HE or ICM.

>tfw spergook was right

>>522996

The soviets were playing to win, m8. They gave zero fucks about winning hearts and minds and shit. NATO was just seeking a reason to keep itself relevant after the demise of the scary red menace, and the US bureaucrats were just looking for a reason to give more juicy contracts to their friends.

>>522803

Stop eating soy and work out. You are lazy and weak.If you weren't such a pussy you might be able to handle carrying more than a jug of milk without having a heart attack.

>>522907

>Currently America is division centered, they have been trying to switch to battalion centered, but this isn't really happening. Either way we're talking 5-15k people.

What? The US is brigade-centric, it hasn't been division-centric since the early 2000's. The Army started implementing it's "Future Force" transformation back in 2004.

>The only time body armor makes sense is when doing raids on suspected terrorists houses. And the only reason you'd ever do such a raid is if your president is too much of a fucking pussy to approve ROE where you tell suspected terrorists they have 5 minutes to surrender, then put half a dozen SMAWs into the place.

President's don't determine ROE. Body armor is a TO&E issue and issued as a force multiplier to prevent shrapnel and small arms injuries. Collateral damage is a great way to destroy your influence in a country and create more insurgents.

Man you're fucking retarded, but then again you are a leaf.

>>523027

If that were true they'd carry flak vests not plate armor, which is clearly made to stop rifle rounds at close ranges. Basic PASGT for shrapnel protection was only 3lb, but PASGT with plates was 25lb.

>Man you're fucking retarded

>President's

>>522869

>drop for cover

>shield gets fucked

>>522803

>If we treat soldiers as more expendable then each of their deaths won't be as impactful as the enemy always want them to be

oh hey is eastern and western philosophies colliding again.

Dear all riceniggers and antpeople,

westerners have and always will value human life more than you. if this were to change we would no longer be western, but antpeople like you. is this an issue? not really. real problem is media jews overexaggerating to demoralize whites.

your friend,

Burgerniggers

>>522803

> Especially in counter insurgent warfare where mobility is key.

I think today it's more about pinning goatfuckers in a fixed position so that an A-10 can shower them with depleted uranium.

clearly the answer is to have flak jackets with possibility of placing plates inside and reducing weight by removing useless balast from the soldier. ammo and armor only

>>522996

I don't think there's any soft body armour rated for protection against AKM. AKM with steel core bullets requires hard body armour, about as heavy as level III.

>>523029

please show me one military issue plate armour system that does not also include shrapnel/handgun protection.

>>523107

The fragmentation protection is limited.

It's limited to the skull, torso and sometimes groin, shoulders and/or lower neck.

Even these areas are not protected against all fragments. Keep in mind even some armoured vehicles are only rated for fragmentation protection against 152 mm HE at 50 m distance from the explosion.

Body armour can stop about 80-99% of fragments of normal HE on the protected areas, depending on distance, HE type and area weight.

Infantrymen caught by HE in conventional warfare may survive with rapid MEDEVAC&CASEVAC, but they wouldn't return to duty for weeks, maybe never.

For the purpose of national defence that's worse than dying right away.

>>523081

There are no goatfuckers, and if there were they would be shot at with HE because DU shells are meant to be used against APCs and IFVs and would not be loaded.

>>523109

>Infantrymen caught by HE in conventional warfare may survive with rapid MEDEVAC&CASEVAC, but they wouldn't return to duty for weeks, maybe never.

>For the purpose of national defence that's worse than dying right away.

dont be retarded, these men can go back to work after the war is over. you dont want to fuck your economy like a retard

>>523109

please enlighten me how you will build an experienced fighting force when you would rather your soldiers die than be wounded. what specific war are you preparing this non-existent army for that you need soldiers to be attrition drones rather than skilled veteran combatants.

even the largest possible wars that could be fought would not have anything like the combat density to justify this death over wound nonesense, and even then it completely ignores the reproduction situation in western nations and the various labours even a crippled man can perform in the homefront.

what more, where is this assumption that infantry units will be perpetually making themselves vulnerable to artillery coming from? and what more where is the data to back up these claims, some people are suggesting less armour will increase survivability and others that it will improve combat effectiveness. The only data suggesting an increase in fatalities during the modern status quo that i have seen is the increase in casualty rates in patrol vehicles, and not for infantry.

>>523111

Any soldier that needed armor plates to survive a wound would not be returning to active duty.

>>523112

and?

>>523107

Most of them do, but what does that have to do with my post? They're eight fucking times heavier than a flak vest, which is all that's needed. If you keep your enemy at a range of 500m-1km with your guns, you don't need it anyway. The only people who should be using hard body armor are people defusing bombs or walking into a terrorists house, which I already explained is fucking dumb.

Our soldiers are carrying 90-140lb of equipment on forced marches, about 80lbs burden on top of normal weight is the long term limit for human spines, beyond that you're getting scoliosis. If your soldiers are lugging around 100lb, they're going to be stationary enough to be hit by everything, doesn't that class as a net negative?

My opinion is… stop the "forced march on a whim" issue, it's hazing nonsense. Remove the retarded plate and you dump 20 lbs. You're already in the green. And there's an extra 15lbs of meals, accessories, tents, extra clothes and toiletries that won't be needed on any mission. Depending on the materials it's made of, the armor doesn't even have to be dumped, no one here is arguing people go into battle naked, just for a reduction in the fucking weight.

A combat bag plus some basic essentials, which I'm dubbing CB+, is the only kind of pack a soldier should ever put on his back. Everything else can be carried by truck which accompanies them on marches, or a dolly dragged behind someone. An average worker can push a 250lb two wheel cart or 500lb four wheel cart for an eight hour shift, this is from an OHSA source that includes 80lb women in "average worker"… The amount they can pull is likely higher for each because less force is used on controlling the cart, and the amount for a 200lb muscular soldier is going to be more as well of course. But certain folks in the military still haven't evolved to the point where they can invent the wheel.

ANYTHING TO REDUCE THE WEIGHT!

>>523116

if the aim is to keep the enemy at 500+ meters during infantry engagements, you have bigger problems with infantry equipment than the amount of shit they're carrying.

your entire argument is based on the long term medical effects of extreme weight carrying, but the first thing you want to dump is one of the main things soldiers like having with them. sure the shit they carry is heavy, but armour + weaponry + ration is not at all unreasonable. seems to me like shaving ten pounds elsewhere or adding support systems would solve this problem without leaving anyone more vulnerable.

it's relevant in that you're talking about them as if they're at all seperate. even if you didn't issue plates it would make no sense not sowing on a few pockets for said plates.

>>522934

>armour weights more than 10KG

The average a soldier carries in Afghanistan is basically identical to the weight carried by any historical warrior that wasn't dirt poor. It's the happy medium of protection vs encumbrance. If you want to strip weight off soldiers you work on logistics, you don't strip of the armour covering your vitals as the first thing to do to lighten your load.

>Armour does not objectively save lives in many scenarios.

Yes, it saves lives in any scenario in which infantry is engaging other infantry, such as in urban combat, which is basically the only time infantry is relevant. Even in conventional warfare (don't know why anons are bringing this up because it's completely irrelevant outside of some fantasy scenario) the battle is decided in the air, it's not WWI where the battles are decided by mortars and artillery, and the idea that stripping of plates would make the difference and allow you to outrun fire support is fucking stupid. What woulds really happen is that if infantry was caught out in the open without airsupport they would be fucked up even if they were running around butt naked. You are right in saying that most deaths are done by support fire but infantry having armour is complete irrelevant to that.

> To keep fatalities low is pointless in itself unless it means to seek peace

(one of) the most retarded statements in this thread. That is saying that human life has no intrinsic value. You obviously adore eastern military doctrine of throwing bodies at your enemy until you overwhelm them but what you fail to understand is that the West could not adapt to this even if it wanted to and it's a stupid idea anyway. Western military doctrine of quality over quantity is superior otherwise the chinks would have taken over the world by now.

And no, we didn't "win" Afghanistan because we didn't throw enough bodies at the enemy, we didn't win because the aim was never to win and winning is impossible. The only way we could "win" would be to do scorched earth and genocide the entire fucking middle east, but that would go against the pretense that we're the good guys trying to help.

>>523054

this

>>523119

>it's not WWI where the battles are decided by mortars and artillery,

ukraine.

>>523117

100% of the soldiers job is doing things he doesn't like. If you want to keep them completely safe just disband your military and never go to war, small island.

>armour (MTB plus LWH 50lb)

>ration (5-10lb MRE that never gets used)

>mask (4lb)

>batteries (15lb)

>electronics (15lb)

>not counting weapon and ammo

>not counting specialist equipment

>not counting weather gear and other miscellaneous shit

>for 16+ hr a day

>is not at all unreasonable

This is extremely fucking unreasonable.

There are three classes of essentials. A small radio, weapon and ammunition is one class of essentials. Countermeasures against things you can't take cover from (mainly airbursting shells and fire) are the second class of essentials, and include helmet, flak suit, flame retardant uniform and a medkit for anything that leaks through. And last essential is a countermeasure against the environment, tailored to the environment, usually a canteen.

There is literally nothing else that has to be carried by the soldier, nothing else that can't be carried on a dolly or truck.

>it's relevant in that you're talking about them as if they're at all seperate. even if you didn't issue plates it would make no sense not sowing on a few pockets for said plates.

Who said that there shouldn't be pockets for plates? You seem to want to strawman everyone into being against armor, instead of against overburden.

>>523119

>Yes, it saves lives in any scenario in which infantry is engaging other infantry, such as in urban combat, which is basically the only time infantry is relevant.

This is why the west can't win a war.

>Even in conventional warfare (don't know why anons are bringing this up because it's completely irrelevant outside of some fantasy scenario) the battle is decided in the air, it's not WWI where the battles are decided by mortars and artillery.

This is why the west can't win a war.

>and the idea that stripping of plates would make the difference and allow you to outrun fire support is fucking stupid. What woulds really happen is that if infantry was caught out in the open without airsupport they would be fucked up even if they were running around butt naked.

Stripping plates would allow a more full flak protection, and it's completely possible to outrun fire support. Ever see an apache take on durkas? If they're fast enough in spreading out, the apache has to expend it's whole munitions to take out a half dozen guys, if that. If the durkas had flak armor that apache would have no effect. It's also possible to be fast enough in ducking into a hole to escape an artillery strike.

But I think he's talking about operational, not tactical mobility. Such as infantry support that's quick enough won't be there by the time an artillery ambush is set up.

>>523110

There's hardly any infantry (maybe 10% of Western land forces personnel are infantry), and production capacity to equip mobilised armies with ceramic plates doesn't exist.

If and when conventional war happens the fate of the infantry is among the least concerns. We would need to get over with the war ASAP and avoid nuclear escalation at all costs.

People are too much used to think about war as if war was always like Iraq and Afghanistan. If you want to save lives and limbs, avoid war. Once you fail to avoid conventional war you better go all-in on getting the job done ASAP (which would ideally be a white peace, for all else is too expensive).

>>523119

>Even in conventional warfare (don't know why anons are bringing this up because it's completely irrelevant outside of some fantasy scenario)

It's the ONLY justification for defence expenditures. Some warbands and militias on some other continent are never going to bombard, blockade or invade your country. To fight them is not defence, it's pointless stupid great power gaming that costs a lot and yields practically no benefits.

>(one of) the most retarded statements in this thread. That is saying that human life has no intrinsic value.

Not at all, but I see you didn't understand because I didn't elaborate.

To strive to keep casualties low at the expense of mission accomplishment means to fail the mission and still suffer some casualties. That's pointless, for mission accomplishment is the only justification for casualties..

To avoid war in the first place is the best casualty-avoiding strategy. Once you're in a conventional war you should focus on mission accomplishment, obviously within affordable attrition.

The only decent course of action in a non-conventional war abroad is to get out ASAP, for those are all plain stupid and unnecessary wars.

>>523147

Outside of a few proxy wars, conventional warfare has largely fallen out of relevant since the advent of nuclear weapons. I agree that blasting sandniggers halfway across the world isn't a justifiable use of the defence forces, but what you don't realise is that there's nothing stopping similar tactics being used in one's own homeland. The Chinese nationalist had a far superior conventional army but they still got BTFO by the Communist guerilla and subversion tactics.

>>523147

B-but anon, they hate our freedom! Just look at how they shot up our nightclub after we spent 15+ years bombing them and subverting their homeland! Clearly we're the victims here!

>>523151

I did explicitly write "abroad".

>>523154

Much. That's why one should AVOID war.

Yet once you're in a war it's a fools' errand to try to minimise casualties for this sabotages the own missions which only prolongs the war (=more casualties) and ultimately risks avoidable defeat.

>>523157

or you could censor your media.

>>523154

Guess we should put every fucking soldier in a steel can permanently, that way no one will die.

>>523109

>There are no goatfuckers

Pretty obvious, Mehmet.

>and if there were they would be shot at with HE because DU shells are meant to be used against APCs and IFVs and would not be loaded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Design

>The standard ammunition mixture for anti-armor use is a five-to-one mix of PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary, with a projectile weight of about 14.0 oz (395 grams or 6,096 grains) and PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) rounds, with a projectile weight of about 13.3 oz (378 grams or 5,833 grains).[7] The PGU-14/B's projectile incorporates a lightweight aluminum body, cast around a smaller caliber depleted uranium penetrating core.[8]

>>522968

>on the market

>other armies having it

One of these things is not like the other.

>>522978

>Aside from the fact that having more muscle mass reduces endurance rather than increasing it

It doesn't work black or white like that.

>Troops weighed down by 28 kg of kit are not moving much.

If they are out of shape they won't. Artillery isn't fucking omniscient, or sanic

>Infantry that faces very capable opposing forces needs to hide & observe much of the time, hit, break line of sight to the opposing forces and relocate. Rinse and repeat.

Wouldn't they have transports and be able to carry less rations and shit with them, leaving them on the vehicle, and allowing them to carry more armor?

>>522996

>No one is really backing them.

NATO is. Which explains why they don't even try. It's just another (((NWO))) game.

>>523002

This.

>>523023

Can you provide more tangible assessments? You're being too vague for me to believe you.

>>523168

Sorry to give you the news, but you are utterly stupid if you think that A-10s get loaded with a mix of DU and HEI shells when they face light infantry targets only.

The Cold War ratio mentioned in Wikipedia doesn't matter.

>>523197

In the end the lung cannot be grown by training. It can only be protected from pollution like tobacco smoke. More muscle m,ass = more weight to carry = less endurance ceteris paribus.

>>523157

>Much. That's why one should AVOID war.

>Yet once you're in a war it's a fools' errand to try to minimise casualties for this sabotages the own missions which only prolongs the war (=more casualties) and ultimately risks avoidable defeat

QFT

That there are people even questioning this boggles the mind.

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, "safe" wars with almost nil casualties. But nothing is accomplished, the Taliban are stronger, and Iraqi insurgents turned into ISIS and set the middle east on fire kill millions. The "few" people who died, died for absolutely nothing! If Bush and Obama each took a knife and personally slit the throats of 6000 soldiers it would have been a better result.

And now we're likely going to have to re-invade half the middle east, even more countries.

>>523205

>In the end the lung cannot be grown by training.

Depends on your definition, it's an organ you can train. I had shitty effort induced asma when I was younger. Started running and lifting in my late teens and stopped having respiratory issues. I actually enjoy cardio now, while in the beginning it was really difficult, and I forced myself.

>More muscle m,ass = more weight to carry = less endurance

More muscle = the more weight you can carry. It's about the weight/muscle/speed sweet spot.

>>522803

Gee the yankclapistanis have some cool kit.

>>523128

>>armour (MTB plus LWH 50lb)

50lbs fairly evenly distributed. You can shave that down if you take off unnecessary shit like the dick guard, like all of us did. If you're fit, you don't notice it. The only time this stuff actually sucks is when you're standing in one spot for hours, but if you want to stand post, fairly exposed, with no armor on, be my guest

>ration (5-10lb MRE that never gets used)

We do this thing called rat fucking. You can fit all the stuff you need in one MRE bag. As in all the stuff you will actually use. Also, I dunno what the fuck you leafs use, but American MRE's do not weigh 5-10 fucking lbs.

>mask (4lb)

Never carried that shit anywhere. Nobody did after the initial invasion.

>batteries (15lb)

Maybe for your vibrator. We carried tiny, normal ass batteries for our PEQ and our NVGs. We'd have a few extra radio batteries here and there, but those don't weigh much more than a full mag, i.e., you don't notice it

>electronics (15lb)

That factors in the NVG's and the PEQ, which you again, don't notice. If you're stuck with a radio, you're sure as shit using it, meaning the weight doesn't matter.

>not counting weapon and ammo

Things you need. So much so that we would literally steal ammo from the Army so that we could carry more of it. Not a single motherfucker minds carrying as much ammo as physically possible.

>not counting specialist equipment

Which is taken out on a mission by mission basis. As in it's essential, meaning nobody minds, because it means we are that much more likely to succeed and come home.

>not counting weather gear and other miscellaneous shit

Which you bring purely on a voluntary basis. I.e., you knew it would weigh extra and didn't care.

Seriously, you need to stop talking. You are a fucking idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm telling you as a veteran. We fucking love having armor. You are a fighting fit man, you barely notice it. We know what to bring and not bring. None of the shit we lug around is useless. If it is, we don't lug the useless shit around. This is our job. We are generally pretty good at it.

>>523128

>>523331

Forgot to mention:

>There is literally nothing else that has to be carried by the soldier, nothing else that can't be carried on a dolly or truck.

This is already done, you colossal retard. Like I said, the infantry man knows what he needs to carry and not to carry. You are issued two separate packs for a reason. The big one is almost always left behind in a vehicle or the FOB and has all the shit in it that you don't need. Ever see footage of Fallujah? Notice that most of the guys are only hauling around what they need? Or that the vehicles have packs and shit in or on them?

If you're carrying everything, that means you're unlucky enough to be moving to a new semi-long term position that you will be operating out of (where you will leave your shit when actually on a mission) or for some reason are on a really long mission on foot, where you are essentially on your own, logistics wise.

Plus, you can't take a dolly or truck everywhere. By the very nature of infantry in modern warfare, we are often used to fight people in terrain that vehicles cannot get to. After all, why send guys in in the first place if you can blow them up with a tank?

>If the durkas had flak armor that apache would have no effect

I don't know how you don't know this, but US plate carriers are equivalent to level IIIA without plates, and IV with them in. You will be hard pressed to find straight up level III soft armor. So we're already wearing the stuff you keep going on about. I know plenty of dudes, myself included, that were saved by those extra "pointless" plates. Ever take a round from a Kar98 to the chest? I did, and I'm damned glad I was able to get back up and help kill the guy that did it, because I had "Extremely fucking unreasonable" plates in.

>>523224

Lung volume cannot be trained,and lung volume defines how much oxygen can be taken in per minute. The only thing you can do about that is keep the lung healthy (do not smoke).

To carry more isn't the same as more endurance. Hence I wrote that more muscle mass doesn't improve endurance.

>>523331

> I'm telling you as a veteran. We fucking love having armor.

Yeah, and you haven't won a single war, right? Which means that the sacrifice of comrades was pretty much for nothing.

Grunts are not supposed to make decisions. Leadership is supposed make decisions. The problem is that the junior leadership gets in trouble if it accomplishes missions with casualties, so they turn towards casualty avoidance which ends up failing the mission which is normal, so hardly any trouble.

That's wasteful in a small war, but it could be mortal to entire nations in conventional warfare. If NATO got into a war with Russia and lost no less than three NATO members would lose their sovereignty and become oppressed by Moscow again. That shouldn't be the path to follow by Western defence policy.

>>522892

>March in it for a few weeks in rough terrain, sand, water, mud, snow, jungle…

People did, and it worked pretty well. That's why it was so popular for so long. Sure there were cases where knights got fucked over by their armor, but incidents like that were far, far, from common.

>simply walking up a hill would get you winded enough that you wouldn't be able to fight on the other side.

Maybe if you're a low T beta male who never lifts. Most knights trained from childhood to fight with heavy armor, both on horseback and on foot.

>>523335

>Yeah, and you haven't won a single war, right? Which means that the sacrifice of comrades was pretty much for nothing.

Nice bait, but we only lost one dude. Bled out because his legs got blown off by an IED. We did, however, have a lot of dudes saved from shrapnel and gunfire because of our armor.

As for "Not winning a single war", sure. But that's politics and overall mission, not actual combat. I couldn't tell you how many dudes my tiny ass reserve unit wasted in the short time we were deployed. Same goes with most of the wars that we havn't won. Our body count is always high, we just can't seal the deal on a political or overall strategic level, which I freely admit.

>The problem is that the junior leadership gets in trouble if it accomplishes missions with casualties, so they turn towards casualty avoidance which ends up failing the mission which is normal, so hardly any trouble.

Maybe for your military. Maybe for the American Army, which I can't speak for. My only experience is in the Marines, and this was certainly not the case with us. Over all, I would say you are mostly correct in that we are used improperly for overall victory, but that and combat performance are two entirely separate animals. I highly doubt you've served, let alone in the US military, This is a problem endemic of /k/. You have actual people who have actually experienced and lived through this shit, yet you autistic fucks still somehow have the audacity to think you know better than they do.

As for your shit about lungs, I'll throw in my two cents. No, you cannot change your lung volume, but you can train your heart, which is one half of the two part cardio-vascular system. Hence why "cardio-vascular" is a thing. And you damned well know that's what he means. You're just being a fucking autistic kraut and taking him super literally for the sake of being pedantic. You can most certainly train your body when it comes to oxygen use, and you damned well know it.

Muscle mass also is tied into endurance, similar to the way your heart is tied to oxygen use. They develop alongside one another. If you are a massive, strong dude, you probably have a decent amount of endurance, built up by carrying your own bodyweight all the time, as well as the exercise and diet needed to gain that mass. Yes, having more mass in the most literal sense means more work to move that mass, but as he said, it isn't black and white like that. It's not an isolated variable, and again, you damned well know it. You're just indulging in the autism inherent of your race. It serves you well economically and in the machine shop, but goddamn is it annoying otherwise. The only problems with having a lot of muscle mass in a combat context is that you tend to retain more heat and are more likely to be a heat case, and it can be difficult to carry you when you are incapacitated. In my experience, bigger dudes tended to be more likely to go hyponatremic as well, but I don't know exactly why that is other than bro-science level speculation.

>>523333 (Checked)

How effectively did the plates spread or dissipate the force? Did you break/rupture anything?

>>523343

It was from across a valley/canyon. I got a small hairline fracture on one of my ribs, but it was lined up pretty much with the edge of my plate, so it was more the plate itself pushing into me than the round impact itself transferring through the place and into me. I had a grapefruit sized bruise on the bottom of my ribcage that was damned near eggplant dark. SAPI plates are pretty good at dispersing force, at least from my limited experience.

I'll tell you what though. When we killed the guy and swept the area he was in, I was giddy as a fucking school girl when I saw what he shot me with.

>>523344

Well I'm glad you made it out alright. A K98 was my first centerfire rifle so it holds a special place in my heart.

>>523331

> I'm telling you as a veteran. We fucking love having armor.

And I'm telling you as a canadian veteran, don't expect us at your next useless war that you're going to lose because you can't enter theater without looking like a pack mule. I don't want to stand next to the guy that voluntarily decided he didn't care he was carrying 100lb because the only thing your fat ass is good for is cover.

Enjoy losing sandhurst again.

>>523341

>As for "Not winning a single war", sure. But that's politics and overall mission, not actual combat.

No it's your fat ass and your fat vehicles not being fast enough to get into Baghdad, giving Saddam time to escape. It's your fat ass not being able to catch a few goatfuckers on honda bikes.

Your military's a fucking joke and while you have our government cucked, the general population here is seriously talking about allying with China or Russia or getting our own nukes. ESPECIALLY since your nuclear missile force retards in Colorado Springs told our visiting general that US policy is not to defend Canada in case of attack. Can you even imagine how big a hole in your defense that's going to leave fatboy?

>>523355

See >>523222

If Americans lined up 6000 of their soldiers against a wall and executed them, it wouldn't have led to the collapse of middle eastern governments, migrant crisis, rise of ISIS or rise of Iran.

Caring about your soldiers life more than winning the war leads you to lose the war.

Why are Canadians so retarded?

>>523335

Ok, it's clear you don't exercise. You are being absurd.

You can, and do, train your lungs with cardio, otherwise I would have not mitigated my asma. But literally when you do cardio you train you heart, lungs, legs and overall cardiologic system.

How does a kraut not know this? Lungs and etc, can be conditioned to the point that professional athletes like to train in high altitude to train their lungs more than usual.

>To carry more isn't the same as more endurance. Hence I wrote that more muscle mass doesn't improve endurance.

You are making no sense, more lean mass does increase endurance until a certain personal metabolic point after which it might slow you down.

>>523362

Leaf poisoning.

>>522803

>If we treat soldiers as more expendable then each of their deaths won't be as impactful as the enemy always want them to be.

I dunno if you are being uninformed or straight up retarded.

One of the reasons why modern militaries invest in armoring up their troops is because of the low replacement rate that first world nations have. The illusion/bubble of "prosperity" (read: ignorance and naivety) bought by the advances in food production, medicine, as well as the hookup, party, and drug culture, has made the military "irrelevant" to the people as a whole.

Another reason is that the way wars have been conducted has differed since WW2. No more battle lines, no uniforms, no nations, and most importantly, the distinction between civvies and combatants are blurred. Do not get me wrong, the concept of war hs and will never change but the manner that war is being conducted has significantly change to the point that you have a high chance of being killed even though you are inside a FOB taking a dump on the shitter.

This is just a practical and wise decision/investment by the military. They have probably predicted this dip in recruitment as well as the quality of recruits many years ago. Why spend millions to replace when you can spend just 10-30K dollarydoos on armor per soldier? Equipment lost can be replaced; A soldier's experience gained via combat can't.

Mind you, this phenomena will happen to all nations once they raised and improved the standards and quality of living. It is not an "isolated case" per se.

>Just like at the Battle of Mogadishu, somehow it was a US defeat even though they BTFOed up to a thousand Somalis and only lost a couple dozen.

Well, they were there for an AID MISSION not WAR. Hence, the hissyfit thrown to TFR is justifiable to an extent. TFR got cocky, this is what happened.

And heck, they are the cream of the crop of the U.S. Military. And they got rekt by skinnies with RPGs. Remember, they lost two advanced, specced-up helos and damaged one (or two, IIRC) plus their crew members, dead civvies, (bad PR), 12 SF killed, and lot of wounded… all the while being in a "supposed" humanitarian mission. Heads will undoubtedly roll, and a lot of eyebrows will rise at this fuck-up. Knowing the fact that this happened under all the while under the command of US specops.

>>523364

"Improvement in cardio-respiratory function does not result from changes in the lung's ability to expand, however. In general regular exercise does not substantially change measures of pulmonary function such as total lung capacity, the volume of air in the lungs after taking the largest breath possible (TLC), and forced vital capacity, the amount of air able to be blown out after taking the largest breath possible (FVC). Studies comparing TLC and FVC show little difference between regular exercisers and nonexercisers, in fact."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-a-persons-lung-size-ca/

>>523369

BETTER DEAD THAN RED

>>523335

>Yeah, and you haven't won a single war, right?

reminder that last war your country won was in 1864

>>523359

>Caring about your soldiers life more than winning the war leads you to lose the war.

no. bad leadership and lack of set goals leads you to it.

>>523405

Caring about your soldiers life more than winning the war is a lack of set goals, because "winning the war" is clearly not a set goal for you. It's also bad leadership, long term.

>>523396

Russians are more capitalist than America at this point, and Hong Kong is the most free market satrapy in the world - practically libertarian. Doing business with either of them would be preferable as they would rob us less often.

>>523382

1. Americans already buy up Canadian businesses and shut them down all the time, it's called NAFTA. We've lost so many retailers like Zellers that most of our malls are empty, and major corporations like Gulf Canada Resources are all evaporated… I used to order stuff from Grimco but now they've moved across the border and I'm out of business. Why do you think so many people work trans border?

2. Being allied to someone doesn't mean they rule you, our ally isn't our daddy, cuck. This kind of mindset is only to be found in absolute dongheads. We can even be allied to America, China and Russia at the same time.

>I can tell you've never left a city in your life, the rural folk would have kicked your teeth in with a comment like that.

And I can tell you're a prairie rat because you've lived your whole life as a welfare queen getting your life paid for you by tax subsidies and tax breaks, but you don't even notice that no one else is getting help. The rest of us are dying while you're completely insulated from the problem, you would be crying the loudest if you got taxed at the same rate and didn't get a dime from the cities.

Also did you pass the literacy test? My response is based on an absolute guess as to what you're saying.

If Canada is to survive to 2150 we need to leave NAFTA and NATO.

>>523414

>You are implying that somebody who doesn't exercise is as good of an athlete as someone who exercises and that is quite retarded.

>

Maybe you should read the thread.

I pointed out the lungs as limiter when someone began writing about how troops take steroids.

"Working out" isn't nearly the same as building up much muscle mass. Additional muscle mass does not improve endurance. It is additional mass that burdens you respiration-wise, and it allows you to spend more energy in a short time, thus exhausting you quicker because the effective oxygen intake doesn't grow in proportion to your ability to burn oxygen.

You should also read what you quoted there. "cardio-respiratory" is NOT the same as "respiratory". "cardio-respiratory" is about the blood flow through the lungs. The blood transports more oxygen from the lungs as the heart pumps better, which doesn't mean anything about "train lungs". The lungs have a large but limited surface to absorb oxygen and they have a limited volume. There is no muscle serving as critical limiter of what the lungs can do in regard to oxygen absorption.

The most important muscle for breathing is the diaphragm, which isn't even part of the lungs - the lungs have no muscle tissue themselves whatsoever.

Now again:

- lungs cannot be grown by training

- lungs cannot be cleaned from smoke pollution by training

- lungs cannot have their surface enlarged by training

- the diaphragm has enough strength and endurance for breathing without any extra training

- it's practically only the blood flow (size of heart, cross section of veins) that can be improved a little to improve oxygen supply

More important is that you need less oxygen to release the same chemical energy if your body runs on sugar instead of fats. That's why endurance sportsmen like tour bicyclists eat or drink some sweet stuff.

So in the end, the design of the foods in MRE packages is MUCH more important than roids for endurance.

>>523399

>reminder that last war your country won was in 1864

Try again, but read a history book first.

Also, learn to understand what the words "irrelevant" and the term "ad hominem B.S." mean.

>>523420

Ah, there was a misunderstanding here. I do not advise the use of roids in war/survival situations. And the maintenance of excess muscle in such situations isn't really possible (unless you are in a very controlled conflict like in Afghanistan).

But you spoke in a blanket manner as if someone in great natural shape would be seriously weighed down by a healthy, strong, proportional muscle mass.

>That's why endurance sportsmen like tour bicyclists eat or drink some sweet stuff.

They also eat a lot of other carbs (tons of pasta, and the like) for long duration fuel, being that they loose plenty of weight during each cycling stage/race.

>>523344

I'm almost afraid to ask what you did with the rifle. I'm pretty sure you guys aren't allowed to loot, so what happens to captured enemy equipment?

>>523359

>Canadian veteran

Kek no the fuck you aren't. If you actually are, there is no way in fuck you were anything but the POGest of POGs and probably never even saw a grunt throughout your entire term of service. This is made abundantly clear by your hilarious lack of knowledge. And I'm not talking equipment.

>group of 500 troops in one spot in the field

>"ring of scouts"

>scouts with bionic eyes can spot someone 5km away

>Thinks a dude 5km away is any sort of problem to worry about in the first place

>doesn't know that grunts already do half the shit involving vehicles that he suggests

>thinks soft flak will make you invincible against an attack chopper

>thinks there are just holes lying around for you to dive into

>thinks you can just always carry shit for grunts in trucks, obviously not knowing what terrain grunts commonly work in

>Thinks combat in buildings would never happen if we had better ROE

I could go on. If somehow you were a legit combat veteran, the Canadian military is on an astronomically different level of fucked than the US military is.

You're so obvious you're not even worth posting the Navy SEAL pasta over.

>>523413

>Caring about your soldiers life more than winning the war is a lack of set goals, because "winning the war" is clearly not a set goal for you. It's also bad leadership, long term.

Listen here leaf, it's been explained 50 god damn times before. What you are proposing would require conscription. Burger.gov is wise to avoid conscription. With a volunteer military, the government can wage all the shady wars it does, because 1% volunteers for a fat paycheck to go do it while the 99% can be rampant degenerates that don't give a fuck.

The only real debate is why we aren't sending pablo and jose up north with a rake, instead of deporting them back to beanerland.

>>523116

>Our soldiers

wew a leaf saying that

>carrying 90-140lb of equipment on forced marches

First yall need to show everyone in this thread these "forced marches" the only time I marched in the military was in training and that maxed out at 9 miles. If the distance was further than that we had 8 tons show up we piled in them and went for a ride and a nap. We also had SAPI plates which only weighed 4 pounds each and we typically didn't run the side plates. and the plate carrier had kevlar woven into it. the closest we'd get to 90 LB would be with our ILBE packs and those could get up to 70 LB drop that and the only thing on you is you're helmet carrier rifle ammo and hydration pouch. all of which is well under 40 rounds. This isn't WWII where the troops are out in the field for months

>>523450

oh and IFAK but my point is that it wasn't that heavy for the value my gear brought. My plates provided a very nice comfort despite being 8 LBs for 2 of them.

>>523128

>is extremely fucking unreasonable.

ITS CALLED WAR YOU STUPID FUCKING MAPLE SYRUP DRIP. BEFORE YOU START BITCHING ABOUT TECHNOLOGY THAT KEPT MY AS AND OTHER PEOPLES ASS IN ONE PIECE AND GOD DAMN ALIVE. WHY DON'T YOU TAKE ALL THIS AUTISTIC ENERGY AND FOCUS IT ON GETTING YOUR WHOLE FUCKING CUCKED COUNTRY UNCUCKED?

>>523444

>What you are proposing would require conscription

No, it would just require public schools to have military education mixed in with retarded subjects like art and home economics.

Or even just introducing military curriculum in classes we ALREADY have like shop class, gym, science, or history. Instead of running burpees, run a military grade obstacle course. Instead of making a birdhouse, learn how to fix tank tracks.

No conscription is necessary, kids will chose military more often because it's what they know. Right now our entire educational structure (including media) is designed to get kids to hate the military, no fucking shit it's hard to find good recruits.

>>523444

Oh and since you want to bring the discussion so low.

>The only real debate is why we aren't sending pablo and jose up north with a rake, instead of deporting them back to beanerland.

Because your wives and girlfriends keep convincing you to keep the lawn guy around just one. more. week.

>>523469

>since you want to bring the discussion so low

you were the first person itt to bring up flagshittery, how does it feel to be the pot?

>>523474

Can you name a single country that tried that approach? Education from cradle coupled with volunteer army?

Don't knock it till you try it.

>>523475

>ctrl+f leaf

>>523477

yeah, obviously you're the slighted one here pal. one upside down poster calling you a leaf makes it okay to start blathering on about amerifats and killing 6000 burgers and all sorts of other shit.

no no, i fully understand that a "mexicans do yardwork and your flag is a leaf" joke is a defilement to the sanctity of the thread.

if you don't like being called a leaf maybe you shouldn't have picked such a stupid fucking flag.

>>523479

>killing 6000 burgers

I never said I wanted to kill burgers, that wasn't even a national thing, it was a fucking ARGUMENT.

For all their deaths accomplished in Afghanistan, they might as well have been killed stateside.

You are such a disingenuous lying faggot.

>>523482

im highly confused, are you threatening me to apologise by what… saying i have a toothpaste flag? are you actually being serious right now?????

>>523484

Do you seriously think I have fewer insults for your country than the reverse? All you have is leaf, which has never bothered us other than the fact that you're clearly trying to start a fight.

>>523468

We already largely do that. At least where i went to school, we had recruiters shilling all the time. I remember being in school, plenty of kids were talking about joining the military. Almost none of them were considering combatant jobs. Making combat jobs more fatal certainly wouldn't help that.

Not to mention, the military you are talking about is one people are a lot less eager to join.

The tl;dr being: you want a greater demand for infantry recruit numbers, while reducing the supply.

>>523469

>we keep them around because chaim judenberg likes his cheap labor, and richfags like their cheap products and services

FTFY. The only thing stopping canada from looking like sweden is the ocean's distance from the land of africa, home of your people's favorite bulls.

>>523538

> stopping canada from looking like sweden

The cities already look like Malmö in some places.

>>523477

Maybe it hasn't happened yet for a reason.

>>523491

good. if there are less insults for canadians then you should care about them even less than i care about mine. thicken your skin. also post the it'll be funny.

>>523558

Can you not see the titties

>>523600

Uh not that exact model. I would obviously protect the toes and sides, and otherwise give them flame and projectile resistant dyneema full-leg stockings.

>>523600

>>523589

>>523554

>>523547

Future Canadian soldiers will look like bdsm rave sluts and will be carrying that ridiculously massive nerf rifle with integrated grenade launcher and shotgun.

>>523618

>Imagine how embarrassed Netherlands will be to get conquered by Canada in the future.

Here in the West most major cities look like a mix of Hong Kong, Baghdad, and New Delhi. I'm sure it's much worse in the east. But you are right about us conquering Europe; Canada will be split and a portion will be the first western country to join the new Caliphate, which Europe will join soon after. our country is fucked, we don't even have a right wing party. The New Nationalist Party of Canada only wants to limit immigration to 20,000 a year. Right now Trudeau is bringing in shitskins, while at the same time hundreds of Arabs and Africans cross the border from the US. 1 in 5 Canadians aren't white

>>523591

There actually are armoured boots that attenuate the blast of an AP mine well enough to save the foot for reconstructive surgery.

But the feet are one of the worst places for adding weight. That's why our lower legs are so much thinner by evolution than our upper legs, and marathon runners have especially thin calves. Heavy boots are really bad for endurance, similar to weight on the head (need be supported by neck, torso muscles and leg muscles) and on the hands (need be supported by arm muscles instead of neck muscles, otherwise just as bad).

The best place for storing mass is at the hips. That's why evolution made women store so much fat there, and men store a lot not much higher in the belly.

http://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/m98a1-achilles-combat-boots-infantrywith-anti-personnel-contact-mine-protection-capability

http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsus-army-tests-new-mine-protective-boots-for-soldiers-4264064

http://www.bundesheer.at/truppendienst/ausgaben/artikel.php?id=1388

>>523627

I was pretty much shocked facing how the boots' weight difference reduces running capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia

>>523693

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

>any year whatsoever

>valuing what normalfags might think

>taking life saving equipment choices based on normalfag fashion sense

Why must it be like this.

>>523702

Because muh psychological effect. Same reason why sicarios sometimes wear camo in urban scenarios, just because it looks more badass.

>>522871

That armor is way thinner than steel trauma plates. If it was as thick as ar500 plates you wouldn't be able to walk

>>523691

Holy shit its exactly what I said! MMMMOOOOORREEE INFO!!!

>>523726

It's early FELIN uniforms prototypes from the 90's, there is only a couple of photos of it from the same set AFAIK (and I remember the snarky comment in the magazine I first saw it) and it's fairly self explaining, it's a light (it's Dyneema not Kevlar IIRC) anti-shrapnel hauberk. I think they wanted them mostly for crews.

I remember that the flaps were kept for a much longer while (nearly all the french soldiers dead/grievously injured in ex-yugoslavia had neck injuries)

>>523589

>>523691

If you are going to look back at armors of past empire's militaries, those same armoring concepts re-occur with different execution (and materials used) but the same expected outcome has been achieved nonetheless (which is protection of over 60-80% of the entire body).

>>523789

> look back at armors of past empire's militaries

I'm not a historian, I'm a biologist. I just looked at areas of the body that need to be protected from six classes of threat:

1. Small, high energy shrapnel. Built in tourniquets. This type of shrapnel is killer and can't really be protected against except by range and cover. It's kind of like #5 but it's the equivalent of someone shooting an AP rifle at point blank range.

2. Large, high energy shrapnel. Hard armor protecting head, back, and heart area, built in tourniquets. If a soldier gets hit by such shrapnel they're mostly going to be out of the fight and minus a limb, so the maximum we can do is give medics a single piece of a human to work on.

3. Small, low energy shrapnel. Tightly woven, near rigid armor, inner leg, back, belly skirt, neck skirt. This is the majority of battlefield wounds due to fragmentation bombs, small bits of shrapnel sneaking past at extreme ranges where people think they're safe and don't take cover.

4. Large, low energy shrapnel. Corselette/waist cincher and helmet. Prevents head being bashed in, back broken, or kidneys/spleen crushed. These damages are most significant in urban or forest scenario, where an explosion sends about a thousand tree pieces or bricks flying around.

5. AP rifle ammo This is range dependent, essentially I'm hoping whoever is wearing my armor is smart enough to shoot at the enemy and keep them back a few hundred meters. In such a position only pauldrons, helmet, and gunshield should be exposed. Protecting stupid soldiers is cost-prohibitive.

6. Fire As much of body as possible covered with flame retardant body sock.

>>523731

http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2009/11/body-armour-update.html

>>523791

>I'm not a historian, I'm a biologist. I just looked at areas of the body that need to be protected from six classes of threat:

I am not disagreeing with you, it is just that if you were to look back on the armors of past militaries and their layouts, pretty much you and the people who armor up people in the past are in the same page.

>>523791

>1. Small, high energy shrapnel.

Is the Domb Disposal Suit effective against this? Do EOD personnel that get caught in bomb blasts while defusing survive?

>2. Large, high energy shrapnel.

> If a soldier gets hit by such shrapnel they're mostly going to be out of the fight and minus a limb, so the maximum we can do is give medics a single piece of a human to work on.

Dismemberment? Bodies being cut/ripped in half?

>4. Large, low energy shrapnel.

>These damages are most significant in urban or forest scenario, where an explosion sends about a thousand tree pieces or bricks flying around.

So, blunt force trauma of the worst kind?

>>523783

why even live?

>>523839

Yeah that's why it feels so good to see these images, it means I'm not crazy and someone else was having the same train of thought. Nah I'm not arguing either, sorry if it seems that way, I have a curt way of writing because dysfucksia.

>>523841

Yes the EOD guys have the only suit built to deal with that. It also mitigates overpressure somewhat, and it's flame retardant. Large fragments I'm mentally classifying as stuff that's basically the size of the explosive mass or larger. This could be splinters from an exploded APC, a house, or a tree, or even a person turned into shrapnel by the explosive. You can imagine what happens if a large warhead penetrates the outer part of a HMMWV and explodes inside… the entire vehicle becomes shrapnel. Well a few thousand meters away a guy might get hit with a large piece of a HMMWV, which is slow or fast. He's either going to get crushed or have an important part of him broken/ripped off.

>>523851

>>All this talk of pauldrons and skirts

It's not skirts. It's more like pteryges or the lower part of long mail shirts.

>>523642

>>523624

I remember when Canada imposed the Visa to mexicans, everyone was asshurt as fuck.

When Trudeau got elected and removed those restrictions, everyone was happy. It was so shameless that even the main media outlets gave advice on how migrate there.

I would never step a foot there, though. God forbid it!

>>523929

Your people have no idea how cold it gets here, it's a shock that keeps us 80-90% white despite encouraging immigration from non-european nations.

This is why Victoria Vancouver corridor is full of browns, it's the warmest place in Canada.

There was a tortilla shop here opened spring break and ran by a family of Mexicans, it lasted until the end of the winter and then it shut down and they went back. Hot daughter.

There are literal survival courses for black people, they turn grey and die without it.

>globeandmail garbage link

>Ms. Perrotte works for a community group called the Assistance Crossroads for Newcomers and offered winter preparedness classes in two multicultural Montreal neighbourhoods in recent weeks. Immigrants from countries as varied as Morocco, India, the Dominican Republic and Syria sat in rows, some with notepads on their laps, a few bundled in tuques and parkas even though they were in a heated room indoors.

>Patrick Dumont, a native of Mauritius, off the coast of Africa, had already been through a few Montreal winters. "I thought it would be as cold as a refrigerator," he said. "It's colder."

>Winter is rarely the reason newcomers say they love their adopted country. In a 2007 survey, Statistics Canada asked new immigrants what they disliked the most about living in Canada; 27 per cent said the climate, ahead of lack of job opportunities and high taxes. Asked the greatest challenge they faced, 16 per cent said it was Canada's weather.

>"Always check the weather before heading out for the day," she tells her class. Take the wind chill into account. Always have a hat, scarf and gloves. A picture of a pair of mittens connected by a string pops up on the screen. This will save your children from losing mittens, she explains. A woman in the front row raises her eyebrows and nods approvingly at the sight of the ingenious invention.

>A photo appears showing a pair of hands with swollen fingers. "I'm sorry for this picture," Ms. Perrotte says. "When your hands are too exposed to the cold, you won't feel your fingers any more." A look of alarm passes over some faces.

Article paints a rosy picture but the fact is most immigrants leave, and new ones come, just to leave again… It's a large turnover. Since immigration was opened there were ~15 million immigrant applicants, 5 million left before becoming citizens, 3 million became citizens but left anyway, 7 million immigrants stay.

All I've learned from this thread is that the day of the rake cannot come soon enough.

>>523558

Tiddies.

>>523939

>muh cold

I'll take your cold over the nigger ridden, mosquito infested, sizzling heat of the super deep south any day.

>>523954

Depending on where you are, you get Finnish/Russian tier mosquito swarms in the summer with heat that likes to go from humid to dry at a whim with niggers injuns running amok looking for easy to nab alcohol or whatever.

>>522851

>basically what British troops look like

Dat ass

Oh, and of course ballistic kilts would not protect against pressure-triggered AP mines.

>>524052

Look at the post below and you'll see that there are many mine resistant boots, and the just recently shown ballistic underpants do protect to some degree against fragments moving up.

>>523628

>>524085

You're completely right. We should make sure the soldier isn't completely naked with his cock hanging out under the kilt.

The dumbest thing they have to carry is a rape whistle.

Thanks feminism.

>>522907

>Ok the ring of scouts around your group of 500 soldiers noticed an enemy to your east

Isn't this really the crux of the issue?

Armor is useful when you don't really know where the enemy is, or where you'll be attacked. If you know the general direction of the threat, you can shed the armor and be more quick on your ass.

I'd say Pentagon is covering its ass with armor because they won't use enough force to ensure that any given place won't have Hajjis in it. Still, those situations will come up even in a good military.

>>523197

>Wouldn't they have transports and be able to carry less rations and shit with them, leaving them on the vehicle, and allowing them to carry more armor?

This too. Shouldn't it make a huge difference whether you intend moving a significant distance on foot?

t. not knower

>>524383

True but things like knowing where your enemy is are operational problems, not equipment. If you start solving operational problems with equipment solutions, you end up with something like the F-35 which can't do anything well.

If anything, only a very tiny portion of your troops needs body armor, those that do unnecessary dumb jobs like:

>The only time body armor makes sense is when doing raids on suspected terrorists houses. And the only reason you'd ever do such a raid is if your president is too much of a fucking pussy to approve ROE where you tell suspected terrorists they have 5 minutes to surrender, then put half a dozen SMAWs into the place.

Also

>If you know the general direction of the threat, you can shed the armor and be more quick on your ass.

In practice we know this is never actually done.

>>524383

>This too. Shouldn't it make a huge difference whether you intend moving a significant distance on foot?

Well, yes.

That's why there is a distinction between Light infantry and Heavy infantry.

>>524435

>In practice we know this is never actually done.

It's easy, just take it off. It's better than needing the armor and not having it.

>>522996

You already know the reason deep down inside like most of the fagits over at /pol/ do, but refuse to really acknowledge: for most of the Western world, modern war is a business. A very profitable one. Perpetual warfare is good because it keeps the procurement funds flowing - hell, as the West gets more and more paranoid, you will notice that even your fattest autistic civvies have become customers of milspec shit to prepare for the coming muzznigger invasion or some other zombie apocalypse tier shit. In the end it's all about the money, and your foreign policies up to your shitty ROEs and overpriced crap equipment are just some of the ways (((they))) continue to make money. NATO etc does not want to win any of the wars you are currently involved in; if they had really wanted to, they would employ a lot more artillery strikes and much less infantry action. Or at least give you permission to be much more aggressive.

In short, >>523002

>>524561

I was gonna ask why you were yelling at a pole but then i realized i'm retarded

>>524093

But that will ruin morale.

>>525209

You're right, we should make an armored cocksheath.

From now on I'm just agreeing with the nitpickers.

>>525383

>He defend

>He protect

>But most importantly, HE BAKE

I deserve the firing squad for this

>>525383

10/10 would take Crimea with

>>524306

> It would work against shrapnel even without a helmet

Show me one product that has been accepted into service after a technical evaluation by a OECD army that has one of these

- soft body armour not backed up by anything but air

- soft body armour backed up by the skull (and its skin) directly

I looked and looked because I wondered why there's no foldable soft fabric alternative to helmets and I never found any example.

It seems as if soft body armour has to be backed up by soft tissue to be satisfactory.

>>525717

I do admit that I'm hardly an exper here, but I meant that this cowl is made from a similar material than what the canuck wants for the skirt and other soft armour parts. After all, if you can really make a shrapnel kilt, then a cowl shouldn't be that hard either.

>>525922

Yep, pair of tubes in the neck, each side.

Also pair on each side of the spine. One in each leg, coming near the surface near the inner thigh. Smaller branches under the shoulder, and down each arm.

Limbs (arms and legs) can be left largely unarmored, if you put in built-in tourniquets on each limb. Only basic shrapnel protection is needed.

Neck can't be tourniqueted to stop bloodflow. Neither can the spine, below-shoulder area where every action hero gets shot yet somehow survives or the very inner thigh (too much muscle/fat).

Unfortunately armor now only protects lungs and heart, for far more weight. That's about it. This scheme of body protection comes from law enforcement NIJ reasoning.

It's flawed for warfare, because a cop isn't likely to get 100s of grenade fragments peppering his entire body, and they usually get shot standing up. A soldier gets shot while on his belly, when only his head and shoulders are exposed.

>>525922

>>525999

Forgive me for sounding ignorant, but would something like a neck guard made of nylon/kevlar possibly be a better fit?

More like is that even possible without restricting FOV in an urban environment and being ridiculously bad for neck strain? ?

>>526071

Would the chance of shrapnel be greater directly from the front? Or would it be more possible at a large angle from below the neck?

>>523600

>sandals

>What is Russian winter

>what are tiny rocks

>what is fire

>what is deep cold mud all over your feet

>what is wind

>what is rain

>what is snow

>what is ants

>what are scorpions

>what is brass getting caught in your fucking sandal

The brass boogie will quickly turn into the hot step if you aren't careful with your shitposting!

>>523642

>>526240

Stop treating this place as your personal facebook, Germano-Leaf. You are worse than a name fag.

>>526370

Those are all things that are not a factor in the video games that I get my expertise from.

>>526095

The majority of combat positions should be crouching or lying down to minimize profile. Back of neck is most vulnerable in that case.

Arrangement like >>525383 can protect the front of the neck.

>>526370

>breast implants

>cock sheath

I may not have been fully serious.

See >>523693 for closer to what I want. Armored boots are fine, as is simply turning a bdu into a full body flak protection, with harder portions in crucial spots (if possible).

>>526474

i bet that germans did it

>>526474

>vision of the future soldier gear

>real

com on now magyar you know better than that, plus if you look at the belt line theres what looks like an artists rendition of exosuit legs attatched at his hips.

>>523691

No one will ever take you seriously if you go into battle in a literal armoured dress. Even if it is more protective.

>>526590

>but it means they still want to waste money in expensive programs that yield no results

Welcome to everything made by the government ever.

>>526597

>implying commieblock R&D didn't result in at least acceptable gear 90% of the time

Something went seriously wrong in the West, especially in the USA.

>>526599

R&D cared more about pocketing the money given to them than actually saving lives with good equipment.

>>526599

Getting ahead vs catching up. When the US has to catch up, it consistently produces good results because there's something concrete to strive against. Getting ahead requires imagination guided by level heads, but few people have the temperament for that and the US's systems aren't good at promoting or retaining them, so you get Bradley_design_process.webm

>>526592

They will die laughing.

>>526599

The decision makers, in this case generals, were allowed to retire in advisory jobs held by massive corporations.

This meant the corporation could PROMISE a post-retirement cash flow for the general, in exchange for… greasing wheels.

The entire acquisition progress degenerated from there.

>>526071

>wesamurainao.mpeg

The only thing left to do is to find a suitable material/s for use.

IIRC, the French PTUs, SWAT, and Gendarme use something akin to your second pic that covers the back and sides of their neck that overlaps an armored collar on their body armor for when the situation calls for it.

>>523589

>>523691

>>523693

Seriously now, could someone please tell me more about this armor. Even a source on these pictures would be helpful.

>>524022

Fuck those things.

>>527125

Weren't flechettes discarded because they could be deflected by shrubbery and rain?

>>527193

That's true of literally 99% of assault rifle ammunition in service.

Most bullets are weighed to the rear, which makes them unbalanced, so that they can yaw once they hit flesh. Well a tree branch, even a tiny one, is a lot tougher than flesh. So guess what a bullet does when it hits such an object? A higher mass such bullet might have enough momentum to power through, but not a low mass one.

Anything under 100 grains, such as 5mm (chink), 5.45mm (east bloc), and 5.56 (everyone else) all deviate when hitting minor branches, and stronk leaves. It's why bush guns are .30 cal and usually very fat. Try shooting .223 at a target through some bushes at a range of 300m, you'll have a MOA about 10 times that of an AK with everything that hits keyholing anyway. It's hilarious.

Granted…. at grand total 10 grains… the flechettes were way too light even by those standards…. but still.

>>527198

5.8mm chink

I fixed that why didn't it post first time.

>>527198

Then the answer would be more massive flechettes or just switch to intermediate calibers?

>>526727

>>527079

See >>523731

>>523222

1. do you have any numbers on how many civilians have been killed in the ME in the past 20 years

2. The real casualty to the US is economic

>>529898

those might be nice for running track but a 200lb soldier with 150lb of gear needs stable footing

>>530774

All together since the war on terror started over a million people in the middle east died as a result of violence. Way more are displaced.

Now most of that will be the terrorists killing those who don't pay a tithe, but it's possible hundreds of thousands were killed directly by American weapons.

>The real casualty to the US is economic

This is mostly due to obsession with soldier safety. American soldier safety is placed above mission completion, victory in war, or economic efficiency. This is why the number of Americans that died are in the low thousands, while number of dead terrorists are in the tens of thousands.

Problem is that this philosophy doesn't win wars, so no matter how few people die, the people who died ended up dying for nothing. It's like deciding to explode a rock with gunpowder. If you're stingy with your gunpowder, all you get is a puff, and then you've lost a portion of your gunpowder to nothing. You have to fill the hole in the rock to capacity, generously, so no gunpowder is wasted.

>>522907

>>522892

>There's a reason everyone who wore that shit had a fucking horse

False, idiot. English knights fought on foot and their armor was specifically designed for ground fighting and wouldn't even fit on a saddle. If you tallied all the people who fought in plate armor through history the minority would have ridden a horse into battle.

>>526071

>>526052

The problem isn't neck strain, the main problem is prone position/standing position transition, which have drastically different neck/head position.

You can design some neck armor if you're supposed to stay standing (pre-modern war soldiers, riot troops, SWAT-type troops, etc…) but it's way harder to make some that isn't a pain if you have to stand up->run->go prone->stand-up->run->go prone.

Just making helmets that can do that is already a challenge (PASGT helmets + vest are notoriously horrible when prone).

>>527125

How much tissue damage do those little darts cause?

>>531745

They turn sideways in 1 inch of ballistics gel, and they're longer than normal bullets and contain more kinetic energy. Also they're so thin that they often fragment. Tissue damage is ridiculous, a three shot hit can tear off a limb.

Problem is that if they hit the slightest cover, such as grass, leaves, twigs, foliage or even cloth from a tent, they completely unbalance themselves and fragment as well. They're heavily affected by wind as well, because they're often very light only a few grain.

This is why they're unpopular.

I think flechettes should be adopted for pistols though. The close range of pistol fire means cover and wind deviations aren't an issue. And because they're so compact, you could have 50+ rounds in a standard pistol.

>>522811

>Saudis arguably have better gear than even US special forces

Hi Thomas, what are you doing posting here? Are you trying to learn how guns work?

>>531898

if youre concerned with weight and you only intend to be using your pistol at close range, check out this guys test loads. the entire assemble round weighs less than the guys preffered 9mm bullet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBU3Xf1WNHc

>>532038

9mm is actually huge for what I'm thinking of.

>>531954

>city

Talibans don't have cities, even their bases are mostly just dumping grounds.

That's the major problem in Afghanistan, they attack at extreme range, do almost nil damage but still somoe. The moment we approach close enough to do battle, they escape on bikes across valleys and mountain goat paths faster than we can follow. Tomorrow they attack again, repeat ad nauseum.

This is why everyone is pissed at the 5.56, the standard Taliban round is the rimmed 7.62 which has twice the range of 5.56. Lets them take potshots and be loooong gone by the time we arrive. Guys get wounded/killed this way all the time.

If they had a single solid base they had to defend, we wouldn't have a problem wrecking it in minutes. They don't.

>>532051

yeah, but for your round, you need probably a different case design and sabots and assorted other crap. the round i linked reloads the same as any other, and can be put into brass just fine, you dont even need the fancy 2-part cases the bloke used.

>>532053

>Talibans don't have cities, even their bases are mostly just dumping grounds.

then get creative, burn down whole steppe, drown mountains in pig blood, destroy random mountain roads just for fun of it, capture a fuckton of people and force them to work at camps and make it that these camps are only place where commerce is allowed. target people.

they are mongols, to fight mongols you must out mongol the mongol. hearts and minds never worked

Said it back then, still says it now.

Modern soldier carries way too much fucking shit.

And they are useless shit to boot.

>>522803

>even though they BTFOed up to a thousand Somalis and only lost a couple dozen.

if you kill your enemies they win

>>532124

fair enough.

Call me crazy, but it seems to me like infantry could do well with some rolling luggage.

>big gear bag

>large all-terrain wheels

>armor plating to provide cover

>MOLLE webbing all over that shit

>guys just fucking roll them around

Or here's another idea: quadricycles. All that cardio in basic will finally pay off when troops are rolling around on Squadricycles.

>>532189

already discuseditt and in bike thread. bicycle won that

>>532198

No wonder the army wants those robot mules

>>532210

By the way if you do this do you have any idea how much faster your squad weapon teams will be in east Russia? You'll win the urban war for sure.

But last I heard your government is Ziobait so they don't actually want to win, they want it to drag out so they can get steal the western gibs meant for the average Ukrainian.

>>532204

Yeah but I don't see that being a thing even ten years down the line. It's a bit too expensive to let every fireteam have one.

>>532210

Having done some prospecting, small wheels like that suck

>>532211

>Ziobait

Yep, I hate those damned Jewish Nazis.

>don't actually want to win

Sure, we'd retake Donbas in 3 hours and conquer the entire world in just few weeks if only they weren't such a fags.

>>532198

>>532189

Two words:

Pack mules.

>>532220

>>532220

Specifically goats.

>>532232

The dual effect of weight carrying and demoralisation when they see their wives being pressganged to carry the americunts gear.

>>532220

Llamas would provide warmth on those lonely nights

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but have you ever tried to maneuver with a suitcase that rolls behind you? It doesn't work very well. Wagons are great when you can travel in a straight line, but when you have to turn a corner and duck for cover, the last thing you want is a wagon pulling your momentum out form behind the wall, or spilling its contents in a battle zone. It would ultimately get in the way unless used in specific circumstances. You'd be better off servicing infantry with an armored vehicle dedicated to carrying everyone's shit, and just make it light enough that it can be towed by people if it loses a wheel or something happens to the engine, like a "giant" motorized skateboard that's low to the ground and armored, but could theoretically be "pulled" if the motor dies.

>>532253

Every American child would be traumatized and forever hear these sounds in their nightmares.

You're right, we better use donkeys or llamas, their screams of terror sound hilarious.

>>532242

But there's going to be a lot more walking around than actual tactical maneuvering. You're not somersaulting 10km to your rendezvous point, you're marching.

What I'm saying is that using a cart:

A.) Allows you to make long marches much easier

B.) Allows for unimpeded emergency maneuverability (i.e. oh shit, ditch the cart, I can come back for it once the threat is gone)

C.) Gives you a place to store anything unnecessary for the current tactical goal (i.e. we have to do X, which only requires equipment A and B, so we can leave the rest back 10m and increase our mobility during the operation)

I totally get what you're saying, but I don't think it would be a problem once they worked out how to execute it properly.

>>532253

>not eating the goat before it's captured to gain it's lifting powers.

It's like protein can't into you.

>>532397

Nice job don't seeing the obvious sarcasm.

>>532429

From those 4 only Groysman is a legit Jew. Info about the next 3, as well as about Porky and some others were fake news produced by Kremlin in 2013.

Usual sage for offtopic.

>>532445

>hurr you dont like x so you must be y

Keep your butthurt belt logic to yourself, I'm not in Russia, I don't even know those four. Literally googled the leaders of Ukraine and ctrl+f jew in their wiki and media pages. Four out of nine names I found were jews.

>>532492

Jewish grandmother = Jew. Rabbi says you're not a jew = Jew. Also I always believe the opposite of what Israel wants me to believe, and considering Israeli authorities are on the side of Kiev…. Kiev is Jews.

>>532480

It's the smell from the heat, the aroma, not the flavor. I've only eaten goat once, and it's much better when its cold and salty. Taste of goat when cold is superior to average cut of beef when warm.

>>532564

>just listing capitals

>none in civil war

>not remotely related to discussion

Wut? Dude… it's not about the city… I was talking about the civil war in Ukraine and have no name for the Western side of the fight other than "Kiev".

>The only thing I haven't figured out is how to reduce weight of boots, while still maintaining rudimentary protection against some types of mines (toe poppers). Maybe some kind of hard armor sandal.

Non-Newtonian fluids.

>>522803

I think the idea is to survive the first contact , get into cover and bunker down, besides they're usually in mobile vehicles and troops carry less shit over time by their own choice, still all depends on the mission or military training.

in theory it's simply

>get shot

>stop rounds

>get to cover

>return fire

>>532625

The other way around would be better. Like a book that's solid, but when something explodes under it, it turns into a semi-fluid semi-gas.

That way the "boot" would inflate and blow away in the explosion, absorbing away most of the energy, leaving a naked foot that might be broken but otherwise unharmed.

>>534823

i guess mole on vests was supposed to replace that (for no reason)

>>534823

Im just gonna assume its because longer mags became the new standard. Having a 7 and a half inch long magazine digging into your lower stomach even though youre used to having 7 inches probing your intestines would be fairly uncomfortable.

>>534837

They dont give a shit how crippled you are in 20 years, they really only care about how much work they can wring out of you in 10.

>>534828

Well, 7 inches is ~177,8mm, and Walther P38 is 216mm long. And I take that is the pistol on the SS uniform's belt. Of course stacking 8 of those on one belt might be indeed uncomfortable, but you could try something like this: >>522851

>>534824

>>534837

So it's a case of pure INNOVATION!

I'll just get some of these and buy my own tank, ftw:

http://xdjm5vlwe4xbbpjg.onion/

>>534838

Some beancounter somewhere figured out that a soldiers reflexes start going at 30, and cardiovascular starts going at 40. That's why SAS/SBS mandatory retirement age is 40, no matter how good you are. So the brass hats just figured they might as well use an enlisted while the using is good, and just adjust the recruitment influx to compensate.

Of course what the beancounter didn't tell them is that:

A) He was working with average people, who eat unhealthy and don't train, so they age quicker than a soldier would.

B) "Starting to go bad" at an age doesn't mean his health is bad, just that it started to go bad. He might have another two decades of frontline military service in him, or even more with modern tech.

C) A healthy dude at 60 still has 90-95% of the reflexes and eyesight of the dude at 20, so the drop is nowhere near significant enough to justify abusing your 20 year olds and discharging them at 30.

>>523153

>B-but anon, they hate our freedom! Just look at how they shot up our nightclub after we spent 15+ years bombing them and subverting their homeland! Clearly we're the victims here!

Yeah because the peaceful Islamic world just kept itself to itself and hasn't been attacking, raping and pillaging the West and the Mediterranean since its bloody, repulsive inception. The ZOG wars were pointless and misinformed, just like your idiotic muslims dindu nuffin, 'muh blowback' attitude.

>>523371

>Mind you, this phenomena will happen to all nations once they raised and improved the standards and quality of living. It is not an "isolated case" per se.

Wrong. This presupposes an equality of intelligence, structure and culture between races/nations/civilizations that does not exist. Providing Saudi Arabia with cutting edge Western equipment does not cause it to magically start functioning like a Western military.

>>537306

It's cheaper to yell louder.

>>525766

>breast implants

Might as well just put them in the dreadnought, already, you sick fuck.