/k/-related autism

File: 1405120963332.jpg (1MB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1680x1050px

>>31956000
>wounded soldiers are worse for the military than killed
Lovely are the times and nation if it can willingly throw away the lives of its men. Americans have such a goddamn twisted view on warfare, I almost wish they'd get to experience total war on their own soil for once.

>>31956013
Not Murican, the idea was that a wounded soldier on the battlefield is out of action and takes a few more with him (evacuation), while requiring more maintenance (Food, medical attention) than a healthy guy.

>>31956013
That concept is as old as guerrilla warfare you idiot.

>>31956024
And after that he can either return to combat as an experienced soldier or a life after war and contribute to society. All a dead guy can do is fill a hole. Dead people on your side have absolutely no value, whilst wounded can still do whatever they are physically capable of.
You should also take note of the fact that the enemy's wounded are most often treated by your own medical troops after combat has occured. You don't just leave the wounded there screaming for mercy, making your own troops listen to his pitiful whines making them imagine them and their buddies in that situation. You don't (legally) execute them either.
A dead enemy is by far a better prospect for you and yours than a wounded one, ignoring interrogation for intelligence.

If you plan on causing the enemy more trouble by wounding them, you're pretty much fighting with the prospect that you're going to lose the battle, because in any other situation they'd be your trouble.
>takes a few more with him (evacuation),
This is what combat lifesavers and medics are for. The immediate surrounding soldiers perform cABC, report and leave him there if possible.

>>31956065
Yes, for guerilla fighters it has as prospect, since they're not engaging in actual combat. They're not trying to hold ground or fight in a symmetric fashion.

>>31956081
I'm >>31956024
I agree, and said as much. I also said that when you're the guy behind the rifle, what you want is to get the other guy to stop shooting back, not wound him, because then he can still shoot back.

File: 1475097669684.png (428KB, 558x744px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 558x744px

>>31956118
Pretty much, yeah. Even if he can't shoot back, he might pull some shenanigans with a grenade when your team comes to strip him off his weapons.
Fittingly enough, this exact situation is tested inna FDF when looking for prospective leader candidates.
>lone enemy troop wounds one on your team
>is shot and wounded himself
>tries to blow you up with a grenade but fails because of his wounds
What do?

>>31956141
Make sex on him

>>31956157
Well, you're on patrol so the objective takes presedence. You'd lose points for that.

>>31956000
The logic behind 5.56 is that it's light and effective for modern combat. You can fire off multiple bullets compared to heavier cartridges with the same amount of recoil.

>>31956141
Treat the wounded soldier after disarming the wounded enemy? That would be the answer I give though I'd probably just kill him and then treat the soldier so I don't have to worry about him pulling a pistol or something

>>31956169
yes, I know. That was going to be part of my spergout before it was cut short. As would the relative ineffectiveness of 9mm vs 5.56.

>>31956176
>Treat the wounded soldier after disarming the wounded enemy?
You can reliably do both at the same time in the test. Have your medic treat your own guy and move forward to secure and disarm the enemy, then make a decision on whether to continue the patrol or bring the enemy back for interrogation.
>I'd probably just kill him
Congratulations, 0 points for you.

>>31956166
Whole squad makes sex on him. Bonus points awarded for Granada en el culo

>>31956000
>>31956166
>>31956188
>>31956177
Checked