204
Russians are employing this dastardly new technology called "mines" which no army on earth has encountered before, least of all those of the NATO members like France, Germany and the UK.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
204 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15988 readers
1 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Who are we dunking on here? That lemming or NATO? Because the lemming is absolutely correct.
The lemming is characterizing the NATO training as "superior" despite it being clearly worse for the actual situation.
I think you're missing their point. IDK how good NATO training is but it doesnt matter. Mine fields and lack of air superiority aren't "training" issues. They are high level strategic issues that NATO has no answer for.
If your training assumes conditions that are counter to the situation, you don't have superior training in anything but a highly idealist sense. Training is essentially ingraining in the trainee an algorithm of responses to different scenarios and the ability to reliably execute those responses. If someone is trained to be a world-leading expert in archery-based warfare in tropical rain forests (and just that), characterizing them as "better trained" than a Russian soldier in the context of this war is about as true as saying that a boxer or even a chef is "better trained." We can theoretically say that there are things that they have more extensive knowledge on than the Russian has on military tactics, etc. but that training has very little actual application and the Russian's training is completely applicable.
Bruv you're over thinking this. There's no "training" solution to minefields. That's the whole point of minefields. You can be the most elite soldier in the world. The mine doesnt care.
Mine fields are high level strategic problem. I dont know why you can't accept that Russia used an effective strategy.
"Assume air superiority" come on
I'm mean yeah thats probably the NATO solution to minefields. Which is an incredible self own because they should know drones and missiles are effective and cheap way to negate fighter jets. But we gotta justify multi billion dollar contracts to Lockheed.
Yes there are, you can literally Google "anti-minefield training" to find out about it.
Training on how to spot and avoid mines doesnt solve the fact that you still have to tiptoe through the mine field while hoping enemy artillery doesnt spot you. You're movement is still hampered and you will still take losses.
If you cover your entire front line in minefields, that is a strategic measure that requires a strategic counter measure which NATO had no answer to.
I'm not going to spend anymore time trying to explain the difference between training and strategy.