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.
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.
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.
I'm merely stating that Ukraine shouldn't be doing an offensive against mined areas without air superiority. "NATO tactics" apparently seems to be code for "having more jets and drones and fighting poor unarmed militias"
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.
oh dang the enemy used mines! my one weakness!
You seem to be under the delusion thats there's well known solution to mine fields. Russia did a good strategy.
I'm merely stating that Ukraine shouldn't be doing an offensive against mined areas without air superiority. "NATO tactics" apparently seems to be code for "having more jets and drones and fighting poor unarmed militias"
also just ignoring the fact there are mines in training and planning is not a good counter
Absolutely correct and basically my point. The dunk is on NATO. The lemmy is correct.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator