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.
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.