Mans posted:There's a goon in Goons in Platoons that talked about his time spent on a military position in Western Germany that was considered to be destroyed in less than half an hour if the cold war went hot. They were considered to be mere objects because who the gently caress cares about the well being of a unit that is meant to die, yet they were forced to be the cream of the crop in pretty much every single aspect, from military to administrative and technical work. It's 50 Foot Ant and his stories are likely bullshit. edit: Just so there is some content: Is "A Savage War of Peace" a decent history of the Algerian War of Independence? vains fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:46 |
|
steinrokkan posted:Isn't it the NATO powers that built their AFVs to withstand short burst of activity, but incapable of prolonged operations without maintenance? I though the Soviet design philosophy - at least in the Cold War - was to make sure that their tanks would survive on their own, without engineers for as long as possible - which would make sense, considering their tradition of strategic thinking. Maintenance sections are organic to pretty much every mounted/mechanized/armored unit. poo poo breaks, it gets fixed. Its the nature of the beast. The 'short bursts of activity vs prolonged operations' doesn't make much sense when you think about it. The same AFVs that were designed to fight WWIII are being used regularly in OIF/OEF.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 18:54
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Since surprise is out and there isn't enough allied troops until the AEF arrives for the superiority aspect, the best bet is to launch a front wide offensive to tie down as many German divisions as possible and then exploit local success as they occur. With enough speed and boldness the small success can be turned into strategic gains. That seems like the basis of WWII and later doctrines. Soviet Deep Battle, whatever the Chinese called theirs in the Korean War era, etc.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 01:33
|
|
Nenonen posted:Warsaw uprising was a similar attempt at liberating the city so Red Army couldn't take that honour, but it was a premature move. Didn't the Soviets pause outside the city for the duration or the Warsaw uprising?
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2013 01:20
|
|
Nenonen posted:This is still a point of contention. The Polish version goes that Stalin ordered his armies to halt to get rid of the Home Army, while the Russian version goes that the Red Army was forced to halt its advance for rest and refit after having spent all their energy advancing from Pripet to Vistula. The Red Army units approaching Warsaw were actually pushed back by German counter-attacks so I don't find the Russian version too unlikely. Could Soviets have saved the city if they really wanted to? Possibly, but Warsaw wasn't important enough strategically or politically for them to try it. That was my point of contention with your post. There was a distinct possibility that the Russians deliberately withheld aid in order to install their own government in Poland. Premature implies some screw-up on the part of the Polish Nationalists. I suppose in some sense there was. In that, they expected the same sort of assistance from the Russians that the French Resistance got in Paris and/or misjudged the ability of the Red Army to continue its advance. vains fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Nov 18, 2013 |
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2013 02:11
|
|
Flesnolk posted:Thanks, I'll check it out! I've been interested in their role in Korea for a while but hadn't had much luck. Dirt is good because it is all around you all the time. You can dig in it. You can put it in a bag. Modern armor isn't pointless because it stops bullets and fragmentation. There are a variety of levels of protection offered by ballistic armor. The real killer in Iraq/Afghanistan is IEDs and amputation of limbs due to the blast. Body armor is effective at protecting the torso against shrapnel(although, the insurgency in Afghanistan has moved away from using any metal due to our ability to detect it) but not very good at preventing an IED from tearing off a limb.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
"Armies of Snow and Sand" can be found on JSTOR. It describes the Syrian Army in '73 and the difficulty integrating Soviet tactics/doctrine with the Syrian Army.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 21:54
|
|
Slavvy posted:That makes me wonder: how did they correct for the tank not being on level ground, back before computers and poo poo? I'm not meaning just fire a few shots and see what happens, I mean was there any more sophisticated type of system to compensate for the tank not being parked level? Before the latest generation of sighting apparatus, you aimed using a glass sight with marks etched into it. You judged the elevation based on how the target appears in the sight(there are marks on the glass to assist). Judging the traverse left/right is done by eye. You fire a shot. If it hits, you're good. If it misses, you make a mental note of where the round impacted and adjust your sights. Fire and adjust. 
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 23:42
|
|
Lamadrid posted:How was the modern era targeting with artillery ? You know where your guns are, you know where the observer is and you know where your target is. Its simple math from there. The guys firing the guns aren't the ones observing the rounds. The biggest change, as EnsignExpendable noted, was the technology used to observe the target and precisely identify the location of your guns, observer and target.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 19:31
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Tigers were used primarily for infantry support. When you can lob a kilogram of HE at your target, that's a very nice gun. Compare that to the Panther, which got 30 more millimeters of armour penetration at the cost of nearly half of the HE payload. I don't think that 1 article really says anything about the manner in which Tigers were employed.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 20:35
|
|
Squalid posted:What really interests me is the government history. How the hell do you extend administrative control across territories larger than any European country in only couple decades? It's freaking me out. Indirect rule. Outsource the low level administration of the colony to local 'chiefs'.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2013 23:41
|
|
Davincie posted:The French thought it was impossible for the Vietnamese to haul artillery up there as there were no roads. What they did not count on was the Vietnamese dismantling the artillery and bring them piece by piece on foot for however far it was (quite a distance, forgot the exact length). They didn't think the Viet Minh could supply the guns with ammunition. Its been awhile since I've read Hell in a Small Place but I think the French also refused to patrol too far outside of the base and they ignored reports from outlying patrols(Montenegards?) that observed or came under fire from the Viet Minh moving these guns and men into position. When the barrage started, they didn't think the Viet Minh would be able to deliver sustained accurate fire and that French counter battery fires would be sufficient to knock out these guns. They were also hoping for an American intervention in the form of strategic/heavy bombers that never came about.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2013 20:45
|
|
Biffmotron posted:Some examples of 'going native' that were cut short were the Marines Combined Action Platoons, which partnered a Marine squad with a Regional Forces/Popular Force militia platoon at the village level for over a year, and appeared fairly effective at actually killing the VC and protecting villagers, but was shut down in favor of more big search and destroy sweeps. There's actually a pretty good book about this(http://www.amazon.com/Combined-Acti...action+platoons) which I don't have handy. The program ended after about 5 years of operation for a number of reasons: The US was beginning its drawdown from Vietnam, leaders became more risk averse, it didn't scale well(hard to find enough good NCOs/junior enlisted without gutting the infantry battalions; they eventually started taking NCOs from any MOS), the Army favored big unit sweeps. While they were responsible for a disproportionate number of kills, is that a good metric to use in a counter-insurgency? We killed a poo poo ton of Vietnamese in Vietnam, Arabs in Iraq and various ethnicities in Afghanistan and we didn't win any of those wars. Once the CAP platoons were gone, the villages reverted back to VC control quickly and not just because the Popular Force units weren't up to the task of fighting VC or NVA units.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 11:33
|
|
Biffmotron posted:Interesting book recommendation. I've basing my thoughts on Bing West's The Village, which is about CAP at it's most effective. One of the things that West mentions is that the CAP Marines were far less likely to use indiscriminate fire, because if they burnt down a hut or killed a civilian they'd have to deal with the moral opprobrium of the village for the rest of their tour. Night ambushes with grenade launchers and machine guns at the edges of the hamlets were the most useful tactic, since it screwed up VC logistics, recruiting, and propaganda, and had a decent shot of hitting political cadres or tactical leaders. Not that there weren't flaws with CAP, as you pointed out. The whole thing required exceptionally motivated soldiers and leaders to work, and those types were rather thin on the ground after a few years of lies and insanity in Vietnam. It was unclear if village forces could stand up after the Marines left. And distributing your forces in penny-packets across the countryside looks like a great way to get defeated in detail. Whatever the merits of CAP, programs like it can't be worse than big sweeps and air strikes, which are doing the guerrillas work for them. Its a very readable, more thorough and academic examination of the CAP program written by a former CAP Marine. 'The Village' is more pop history. Certainly worth reading, but far from the end all-be all. I don't think that COIN is a thing that is practicable for liberal first world democracies unless the deck is stacked immensely in their favor(ex. Brits in Malaysia). The RAND institute has some good stuff on the topic(ex http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG964z1.html) but I think they have a broader idea of 'victory' than most people would agree on. A properly conducted COIN campaign would probably take more men(there is some ideal ratio in COIN FM 3-24 that will never be reached, 1 COIN:100 locals I think), more time(decades as you note), and more money than any country could be reasonably expected to spend. The problems faced aren't always going to be the kind of things that you can just throw money at. ex. When I was in Afghanistan we had some Civil Affairs Marines on my COP. They were tasked with, amongst other things, distributing money to rebuild the local infrastructure. The Helmand River Valley has no infrastructure beyond dirt tracks and a serious of irrigation canals built with American money in the 60s. There aren't any paved roads, modern bridges, clinics, readily identifiable schools, electric plants, water treatment plants, etc. They had an unbelievably hard time identifying legitimate projects to disburse funds to because there simply wasn't anything there to rebuild. They rebuilt a few wells, opened a school, and then spent the rest of their deployment trying to determine if a farmers request for a foot/tractor bridge would enhance local infrastructure or just his own. https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=30.548439,63.78881&spn=0.026204,0.052314&t=h&z=15&lci=com.panoramio.all Bacarruda posted:COIN certainly be used in a colonial context, since many insurgent groups have been anti-colonial (see Algeria, Angola, Malaya and maybe even Rhodesia). But it isn't inherently colonial, even if an outside power in involved in the fighting. The French aren't going to recolonize Mali, but they're still engaged in counter-insurgent operations in support of the Malian government. And there are cases where insurgencies and counter-insurgencies have been waged almost entirely by internal players (e.g. Cuba or the Peruvian government's fight with the Shining Path and MRTA) I think you're taking a too narrow view of what he's trying to say. In general, COIN shares many of the same goals and same strategies of a colonizing power(perhaps the time scale is compressed). You could place them both on the same spectrum of civil-military actions. vains fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jan 2, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 21:40
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Okay let me be more specific since we had all this talk about cold war about the 1970's? I guess how long would it take to make a standard military unit, with no rush. 20 years
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 20:34
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Stavka did intervene. The penalty for committing rape was execution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany Wikipedia and such but the Rape of Berlin happened on a vast scale and continued to happen for several years after the surrender of Nazi Germany. None of the Allied powers have clean hands in this regard, the Russians least of all.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 06:25
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:My paperback copy of Ordinary Men has an appendix that is just the exchange of letters between Browning and Goldhagen about which of them was right. If you have a copy with that section or you can find one to borrow I can't think of a better resource for learning about that controversy. The second time I read through Ordinary Men it was for an assignment, and the prof said that rather than read Hitler's Willing Executioners, which he thought was a waste of time because of its scholarly inferiority, we would read the Goldhagen-Browning debate and discuss it. WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:Hitler's Willing Executioners explicitly states that the only reason the Nazis were able to do what they did is because German culture was uniquely anti-Semitic (as opposed to all other kinds of anti-Semitism, German culture had "eliminationist anti-Semitism," which is special because I still have a hard time believing that Hitler's Willing Executioners is the far more popular book in Germany.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 17:52
|
|
) and uniquely barbarous. Goldhagen also claims that only Germans would have been able to commit cold-blooded genocide of the sort you see in the Holocaust. He ignores genocides which were not due to anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism which did not lead to genocide, and non-Germans who committed genocide against Jews. As scholarship, it's very bad.
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:Well, it's heavy and it's rear end to shift around, yeah, but better than lifting a load of wet laundry. And I didn't have a pack, just my bedroll/tent half and a haversack with a bunch of poo poo in it. It's not easy, I got tired, but...that's normal, right? When you do something for a long time, you get tired. (Also, the longest campaign-style reenactment--which is where you march around and camp and whatnot--I was ever on lasted three days. I'm sure that if I had actually been in a real army I would have gotten much more fatigued.) Modern rifles weigh about 10lbs loaded, maybe 12 with optics/lasers/etc. My arms certainly got tired carrying that much around. Even a piece of paper can seem heavy after a while. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk0OuG6L84o&t=25s
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 10:08
|
|
Tekopo posted:Another question about pre-WW2 boats: What effect did the switch from coal to oil have? Is oil-burning that much more efficient than coal-burning? I know that coal was both difficult to bring into a ship and also required a lot of crew to work their rear end off in order to keep the fire stoked, as well as the entire process of coaling at sea being time-consuming and potentially dangerous, but apart from that, is oil an improvement? Turbines were available for both coal and oil-powered ship, so I'm not sure if there is any performance increase when switching from one to the other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought#Fuel I'd think you can also store more oil in a given volume than coal. I would imagine that there would be void spaces between the individual chunks of coal.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 18:29
|
|
Slavvy posted:Doesn't this reset the record for the longest period between a fortification first being built and it being last used for warfare? http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=67955 Allegedly built in some indeterminate time period between Alexander the Great and the 18th century.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 03:37
|
|
Panzeh posted:Not only that, these tanks are too expensive to dole out to infantry companies, anyway, so the support is not often available. Except, that's how they are sometimes used. The division tank battalion detaches sections and platoons to support rifle companies.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 18:46
|
|
Panzeh posted:Sometimes, but even if modern MBTs were great in this role, The US military's experience in Fallujah/Phantom Fury seems to indicate otherwise. quote:being doled out like this is not the same as being a part of the rifle company, because there's no training together. This was a problem encountered with the divisional tank battalions in WW2. I don't think I said that tanks are part of the rifle company. You said "They are too expensive to dole out to the infantry" and I said "But that is often how they are used". For every Battle of 79 Easting there is a Phantom Fury.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 05:50
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Really? Care to expound on that? I know gently caress all about the science behind it, but I was under the impression that oil quality really only affects the refining process, and that refineries can be (indeed need to be) tuned to work with the specific chemistry of whatever black sludge they're being shipped. I've always gathered that this is a giant pain in the rear end in today's economy because companies lose tons of money if they need to shut a refinery down for a few months to re-jigger it for oil from another source due to whatever reasons, but that seems like it would be less of a concern in the middle of a war for national survival. Oil 101 is a good book that describes the basics of the oil industry. http://www.amazon.com/Oil-101-Morgan-Downey/dp/0982039204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406779254&sr=8-1&keywords=oil+101
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 05:01
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:If I rammed a T-34 into a tree (a typical forest tree, not some humonguous sequoia), would it stop me? It would depend on the tree(how big, what kind, and ground composition) and the mass/velocity of your tank. In general, no. A tree isn't going to stop a tank.
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 16:35
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:You're not going to have enough ammunition to blast through a forest. That's what engineers are for.
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 09:34
|
|
Baloogan posted:Heheh, I have no idea for the actual use of the graffiti symbol, might be used as a landmark. They're symbols to denote insurgent activities.
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 13:55
|
|
Relevant
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 16:37
|
|
hogmartin posted:I agree the maps are awesome but I cannot read "Rump BEF" without thinking "gently caress yes, please Rump BEF on rye with horseradish" and then I get all hungry The Monitor's turret had a diameter of 20'. An 11in Dahlgren had an overall length of 13.5'. 
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 04:33
|
|
Legendary Ptarmigan posted:In particular, I can point to the British military's new generation of vehicles operating in Afghanistan. I believe that the British Cougar is fitted with night-vision systems from the Thales group. Here is a data sheet from one of their cameras. The sheet indicates that the camera can detect light from (8-12)micrometers - (8000-12000) nm as a comparison to the visible (400-700) nm. Those are thermal sensors. They detect minute differences in temperature and create an image. IR/night vision uses reflected light(IR, moonlight, etc) to generate an image. A thermal sensor will not pickup a beam of light emitted by an IR source, but it will pickup the source itself due to the heat that it generates while emitting the light. http://www.flir.com/cvs/americas/en/view/?id=30052
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 06:34
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I've heard the same about rounds from an M242 Bushmaster; not that it would rip your skin off, but that a near miss would still gently caress you up pretty badly from the shock wave. It sounds possible, but a little implausible. I've never heard anything like that and I was on a vehicle with a bushmaster. The petals from sabot rounds might gently caress you up.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 08:14
|
|
P-Mack posted:Question- is there a consensus emerging about why Soviet equipped armies in Middle East conflicts sucked so bad, or is that still in the process of frustratingly unproductive arguments about export models? 'Armies of Snow and Sand' https://www.scribd.com/doc/105643224/Armies-of-Snow-and-Sand?secret_password=zlcrkjq311abxta9b34
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 09:19
|
|
feedmegin posted:Also, the US and the USSR were the superpowers after World War 2 and neither of them had ever been big fans of colonialism (probably because neither historically had any overseas colonies to speak of, apart from the Philippines of course), so there was a lot of pressure from both to spur decolonisation. The Suez Crisis kind of put the nail in the coffin of any attempts by France or Britain to hold on to their empires for good. regarding the Suez Canal Crisis: I think you could make a far better argument that the US pretty much forced the Brits/French/Isrealis to end their invasion of the Suez in order to avoid war with the Soviet Union. Beyond that(decolonization), another few parts of it is: 1) The British/French/Dutch losing all of the Far East Colonies to the Japanese. The pysche of the colonized kind of changed when they saw their imperial masters get beat by 'little yellow men'. The image of the British general tendering the surrender of Singapore to a Japanese officer under a white flag was probably pretty powerful. 2) European colonial powers were forced to draft men from the colonies in both world wars. These draftees fought for the glory of the empire or whatever and they felt owed for spilling their blood. Beyond that, they got a taste of what the Europe was like. 3) Nature of the war itself; fight against Nazi Germany for freedom and democracy etc. Kind of hard to deny people the right to chose their own destiny. 4) India pretty much fought their war themselves. 5) Various resistance groups in occupied former colonies often composed solely of natives(a poor word choice but I can't remember the proper one) You forget that the United States didn't really care about colonies once the Cold War ramped up. In general, the US was more concerned with keeping the third world from falling in line with the second than a lot of other things. vains fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 11:58
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Not sure about some of the facts in this one, especially in the case of the United Kingdom. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere there was a lot of volunteers from all over the Commonwealth. Especially in the first one. The British Empire conscripted about 1million Africans to serve as porters in Africa. The French conscripted men from their colonies. In either case, 'draw men from their colonies' might be better. I wrote that without much sleep. The point wasn't brought up to show the empires requiring men to serve, but to point out that these men did serve and saw the rights that people in the metropole had. vains fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 16:31
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Hoho, they'd need to have lived somewhere where navies existed. Railroads used to employ like 10% of the American work force not engaged in farm labor or something. edit: Peak employment at 2.1mil in the US in 1920. The US population in 1920 was 100mil. 10% might be high but the railroad industry employed a lot of people until the mid 50s. vains fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 05:28
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:The railroad company (singular) was state owned until not so long ago. In Germany and other places in Europe too. Can't have something of such strategical and economic importance in private hands. Before private means of transportation took over, the railroad holds extreme importance. We tend to forget that nowadays. The only thing that would be worse than dealing with union labor would be having to deal with government employee labor.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 12:37
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I think I'd rather have a couple of more guys on a howitzer crew than drag around a ton of poo poo up the mountains that doesn't do anything except shoot a little faster. When you're fully mechanized, then I guess robots are fine. American artillery is fully motorized anyways so.... The people that don't understand the value of big dog have never carried 130lbs of poo poo on their back.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 17:54
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I don't understand the argument that strategic bombing didn't help the war effort or disrupt German industry? How could that be? The line that gets trotted out is for the direct/intended effect of strategic bombing(disrupt the enemy's ability/desire to wage war) 1- German production increased throughout the war (to which someone responds: Germany didn't get on a wartime production schedule until 43 or 44 because Hitler didn't want to curtail production of civilian goods) 2- Post war interviews of German civilians didn't indicate that strategic bombing swayed them against continuing the war or something like that Then someone brings up something about the decimation of the Luftwaffe as a result and the opportunity cost(men, materiel) of defending strategic bombing targets. Then someone else brings up how ineffective the norden bombsight was. Someone else points out that the men assigned to AA units were too old or young to fight as infantry. etc. This is like the third go around.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 06:18
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Why is that so? If you say veteran in the german sphere, you usually mean somebody who has combat experience or to a lesser extend, somebody who served in a combat zone. Hooch is also (US military, probably from the Vietnam War) slang for a small dwelling.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 11:02
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I've seen ad hoc combats much more frequently than formal duels. There are rules (don't fight indoors, if two guys are fighting you can yell at them to stop but you can't get involved physically), but my guys seem to be even more casual about it than the working-class Dutch knife fighters studied by Peter Spierenburg. Then again, those guys' identity seems to have been bound up in being knife fighters while my subjects don't seem to go out of their way to be known as duelists. Like, there's a whole knife fighting subculture in 17th century working class Amsterdam. 1 on 1 fights still happen now. Clifford M Woolrich Navy Cross citation posted:The President of the United States of America takes pleasure in presenting the Navy Cross to Corporal Clifford M. Wooldridge, United States Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as Vehicle Commander, Combined Anti-Armor Platoon White, Weapons Company, Third Battalion, Seventh Marines, Regimental Combat Team 2, FIRST Marine Division (Forward), I Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) Afghanistan, on 18 June 2010 in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. When their mounted patrol came under intense enemy fire, Corporal Wooldridge and his squad dismounted and maneuvered on the suspected enemy location. Spotting a group of fifteen enemy fighters preparing an ambush, Corporal Wooldridge led one of his fire teams across open ground to flank the enemy, killing or wounding at least eight and forcing the rest to scatter. As he held security alone to cover his fire team's withdrawal, he heard voices from behind an adjacent wall. Boldly rushing around the corner, he came face-to-face with two enemy fighters at close range, killing both of them with his M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon. As he crouched back behind the wall to reload, he saw the barrel of an enemy machine gun appear from around the wall. Without hesitation, he dropped his empty weapon and seized the machine gun barrel. He overwhelmed the enemy fighter in hand-to-hand combat, killing him with several blows to the head with the enemy's own machine gun. His audacious and fearless actions thwarted the enemy attack on his platoon. By his bold and decisive leadership, undaunted courage under fire, and total dedication to duty, Corporal Wooldridge reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service. Dude beat a man to death with his own machinegun.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
The 82nd made a 'combat drop' during OIF into an already secured drop zone. The jump served no purpose other than to say 'hey we did it'.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 19:39
|
|