why do soldiers carry so much useless shit nowadays? armor, huge

If you know anything than you must understand that whenever you actually plan to do any fighting, the giant bags get left behind in a checkpoint

File: 1450263798305.png (132KB, 212x240px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 212x240px

>looting food from the locals instead of carrying rations
>drinking random water that could be teeming with cholera or lead to dysentery instead of carrying purification equipment
>freezing to death or getting soaked because no cold/foul weather gear
>or shelter
>not carrying a little spare MG ammo as a helpful favor to the machinegunner in case the firefight takes a long time and burns through his normal supply
>not carrying spare medical supplies as a favor to the medic for the same reason
>backpacks are loaded into vehicles for long distance movement anyway and left in camp during patrols

File: Somme_2996031b.jpg (73KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 620x387px

>>34949746
>soldiers managed fine for hundreds of years with just a bedroll, a haversack of rations and essentials, a knife, a gun and ammo.
when what that old boy?

File: 1409829306379.jpg (54KB, 580x361px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 580x361px

>>34949746
go on lad, tell me when a soldiers kit was ever less than 60 pounds, ill wait

>armchair general thread #50343838838
Fuck off and kill yourself retard.

File: 149962002342.jpg (184KB, 1124x635px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1124x635px

>>34949746

File: 41.jpg (76KB, 725x483px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 725x483px

>>34949807

File: 1462296026263.jpg (107KB, 433x664px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 433x664px

>>34949813
>>34949807
>>34949788
>>34949797
>>34949799
you do realise that all of that kit is lighter than what modern """"""""""soldiers""""""""""" carry today?
mouthbreather.


>>34949784
1.live off the land
2. boil the water or just get used to it, if you've ever been outdoors you'd know that drinking water doesn't immediatly give cholera
3. cold weather gear doesn't require an oversized backpack
4. a simple tarp and a blanket
5. muh machinegunner, extra mg ammo doesn't require a huge backpack.
6. extra medical supplies don't require a huge backpack
7. muh vehicles, muh patrol

>>34949912
>the average ww1 soldier carried 60lb of kit
>the average soldier today carries 25lb of kit

>>34949912
Like that guy said, armchair kommando. You have no idea how retarded you just sounded.

File: vietcong.jpg (61KB, 496x650px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 496x650px

>>34949918
>>34949919
are americunts this dependent on other resources? don't they know how to live off the land?

you haven't presented any arguments.


this is why guirrella forces are superior. a vietcong soldier is 10x better than muh navy seals because the vietcong aren't carrying a ton of gear

File: kitdetail.jpg (87KB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 500x363px

>>34949934
>"but, but, you need to carry lots of gear, stop being an armchair commander"

File: mujahideen.jpg (780KB, 2048x1367px) Image search: [Google]

780KB, 2048x1367px

>>34949938
"you need lots of gear or you'll die"

>>34949934
seals and other specops dudes actually do know how to operate with less equipment. this applies to all countries. the problem lies in dropping regular infantry - mostly city-raised with minimal survival training - into a foreign country,

File: vietcongg.jpg (281KB, 519x636px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 519x636px

>>34949950
vietcong are still better.

There are many good things to say about Viet Cong as soldiers. But they were also on the side of most of the local population who helped feed them. Which made the US target the villages, which helped the VC recruitment and loyalty rise to no end.

Viet Cong were just local guerrilla though, and local is the keyword. The regular North Vietnamese Army was much better equipped and supplied.

Wtf; Seriously that guy is trying to comprehent that he is a poor fag wo can't afford Gear. If you need to drop that Gear you still can. But you can't have a alternative to all these Things.

>>34949934
>he still thinks he has any idea what he is talking about

File: IMG_5128.jpg (63KB, 680x722px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 680x722px

>>34949912
>unironically using the """"""""""excess quote to put scrutiny on thing""""""""""" meme

Wew, get a load of this fag.

>>34949965
They got butt raped by China almost immediately after the fight. Also 'nam GI load =/= modern load ya dingus.

File: 1484451212347.jpg (1MB, 3872x2592px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3872x2592px

>>34949996
>>34950449
>>34950485
>americucks butthurt itt

I agree somewhat OP. In a vehicle I don't see the problem with the extra gear. When on foot I always hated the extra shit.

Durr live off the arid land i am OP and i am a faggot

>>34949912
> "live off the land"
Yea cuz hunting for animals and finding a water source that isn't already used by locals as a toilet takes precedence over completing the mission at hand.

We don't. I was a marine but I get to play too right, like a soldier?

We typically don't carry anything we don't need.

>>34949912

You`re one dense motherfucker

File: 1503341800121.jpg (91KB, 640x932px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 640x932px

>>34949912
>you do realise that all of that kit is lighter than what modern """"""""""soldiers""""""""""" carry today?
British WW1 pack: up to 70 lbs.
Knight: 30-50lbs for the armor alone, kit could easily weigh 70-100+lbs
1815 Brit troop: Gun alone weighs 10+lbs. Kit could be anywhere from 20 to 60lbs.
German WW1: Kit looks like 20 to 50lbs, however looks fairly light for a German WW1 soldier, there's no pack or anything.

>1.live off the land
We don't control the farming there, troops don't settle down. Stealing from the locals make them hate you even more and the war go to shit.

>2. boil the water or just get used to it, if you've ever been outdoors you'd know that drinking water doesn't immediatly give cholera
On the move? You're going to fucking set up a fire on the move? There's something called a filter. Fil-ter. Dingus. Also, do you drink river or swamp water straight?

>3. cold weather gear doesn't require an oversized backpack
>4. a simple tarp and a blanket
>5. muh machinegunner, extra mg ammo doesn't require a huge backpack.
>6. extra medical supplies don't require a huge backpack
Carry that all at the same time.

>7. muh vehicles, muh patrol
Not an argument, just shows you're too autistic or retarded to make a counterargument.

>>34949934
>>34949965
>>34949946
>>34952552
>guirrella forces are superior
>usually ten times the amount of deaths
>usually has to get outside support from foreign powers
>can get rekt by something as simple as mercenaries with helicopters
No.

1/10 made me reply.

File: Gah wtf.jpg (67KB, 470x643px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 470x643px

>>34952794
Woops wrong image.

Also
>guirrella forces
Dah fuck, are you dyslexic or just learned English?

>>>/bant/

Infantryman with 3 combat deployments here.

I absolutely agree. Plates are fucking completely useless and a hindrance unless you are a doorkicker.

The thing that infuriated me about fighting Afghans was how maneuverable they were. Those fuckers would wear sweatpants and a tshirt, empty their weapons at us, and run like he'll. If they planned to have a sustained engagement (which they almost never did) they would stuff some mags in their pockets, and maybe carry a belt for the PKM. We were very rarely able to close with and engage the enemy because we were laden with so much bullshit.

A very harsh reality is that some illiterate teenager with a rusty AKM and 2 magazines stuffed in his back jeans pocket is usually a more effective fighter than a man who spent 18 months in a military academy, has $1,000,000 worth of training, carrying $40,000 worth of gear, and the most advanced body armor money can buy.

>>34949746
> useless shit

What youre forgetting is that from roman eras up to napoleonic times they had huge horse drawn baggage trains following combat units around. In the napoleonic era they figured that the most efficient weight carried by a soldier was 60lbs, as he could march twenty miles a day carrying that for a long amount of time without serious fatigue.
During WW2 and after these baggage trains became motorised and as soldiers started carrying more kit there wasnt the need for a huge train of trucks to follow them. As unit sizes got smaller and kit got lighter it became even more practical logistically for the men to carry more, and now you had trucks or helicopters delivering boxes of ammo and tins of beans, not horse drawn carts bringing tons of bread and meat like in previous centuries.

Furthermore, due to the nature of warfare, it became unecessary to have convoys following every combat unit, to the point where nowadays a platoon can go out for a week long patrol and not need any logistical support.

Also, because the nature of combat has changed, infantry are a lot more versatile in the taskings they might have and threats they might face. So on top of carrying their shelter, food, ammo, personal admin kit, weapons and so on, they have to carry task specific equipment, be it metal detectors, ladders, anti tank rockets, CBRN kit, you name it. As such, none of it is useless - only a bad soldier packs something which he does not absolutely need - but you have to cater to mission taskings and probabilities of occurrence, and this dictates your kit. Everything you take is something you might need, and as such, none of it is useless.

File: 1478222095537.jpg (60KB, 450x613px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 450x613px

I love these threads. I don't bother replying to them but they're fun to lurk. Hey op, should we bring back AT guns and battleships too?


>>34952803
Your original image worked pretty well m8.

>>34949746
>with just a bedroll, a haversack of rations and essentials, a knife, a gun and ammo.
And a train of camp followers equal the size of the army...

Modern packs are much easier to carry overall and they need to be prepared for any situation. Survival tactics are a last resort. Why rely on what you can theoretically find in the wild when you can just bring whatever you might need?

>>34952833
please expand on these ideas, i would like to know how you would have liked to operate, and what changes, in your opinion, would have made you the most effective

If soldiers carry less today then why do vets always cry about fucked up backs and blown out knees by 30? I know a number of dudes that weren't blown up that still have knee and back issues after a few deployments.

>>34953860
Are you implying that vets from previous generations didn't have back problems and blown out knees?

>>34949746
Keep in mind female marines are useless so your best guys carry your dead weights dead weight.

>>34953860
Soldiers dont carry less today. Theyve been carrying gradually more and more since WW2. Light infantry is a meme

Troops wear too much garbage. Infantry should be equipped with a singular front chest plate optimized for mobility. Four plates is idiotic for manuever warfare outside the wire.

>>34949918
>the average ww1 soldier carried 60lb of kit

The average WW1 soldier sat in a trench and got shelled. They weren't walking around with their full kit.

>>34953811
Our most effective killing toll was artillery, but of course that had limited range, and we often patrolled outside that range.

The other option was air, but calling in air isn't like in a videogame where you stuff a JDAM in someone's corn hole in 2 seconds. Air takes easily 45 minutes to get on station, if not hours.

In my ideal world, we would have vehicles to transport us and supply us with ammunition medical, food ect(however this has it's own set of complications, terrain, IEDs, ect...)... And our rifleman would be very light and mobile, only carrying weapons and ammunition, and bare essentials of medical and comms gear. We would also have a gunship and medevac on station. Of coirse this isnt realistic, this is a perfect scenerio,that requires a huge amount of logistics.
But I'm telling you, getting sprayed by some sand monkeys and having to deal with a casualty while they hit the road like a bat out of hell was infuriating. We wanted to kill oir enemy, but instead we winded up being target practice for them. We weren't mobile enough to pursue them

File: G1JOUMZ.jpg (277KB, 648x1330px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 648x1330px

>>34952794
you're dense as fuck

1. british www1 soldier sat in a trench
2. knight went onto a battlefield, he had a baggage train, he didn't need to carry everything to help him survive
3.ww1 german stayed in a trench.


all of these soldiers didn't go on long hikes and scouts, they had a battle in a battlefield. they usually didn't have skirmishes or took potshots, they had battles.


>thinking living off the land is just farming

have you never heard of hunting, fishing or foraging?

2. i never said you need to set up a fire on the move. additionally, as long as you don't have a weak immune system like most americunts, you can drink from almost all water sources and be fine. i've done it for years.


3.
4.
5.
6.
i've carried all that shit. it doesn't require a huge backpack, it's not that heavy.
7. it is a counter agument though. soldiers carry too much shit, i don't care whether they have vehicles or put their packs down, their knees get fucked.


i could easily make a list of what a soldier should carry, and it would be better than anything most soldiers today carry.


>>34952794
guirrela forces are inferior, i suppose that's why they lost the vietnam war, the wars in afghanistan, etc


you don't have an argument, faggot. enjoy your fucked up knees.


>>34952803
not an argument


>>34952833
exactly. but all the armchair generals will disagree with my point.


>>34953133
yes. but for skirmisher troops, and for guirrella troops in those times, they went incredibly light. the saxons who went guirrella against the normans lived off the land, carried little, etc.
>>34953264
not an argument. i'm not a silly nostalgiafag, just making a point that it's better for a soldier to know skills and be able to run fast and take cover fast than to carry a shitload of gear and get shot by a raghead 400yards away.


>>34953741
you can still have food, you don't need a fuckhuge backpack

>>34954697
hunting and fishing to survive is just an adolescent jerk-off fantasy... most waterways are either polluted to shit or else overfished to the point that they need to stock it.

habitat destruction is having a similar effect on land. a year or two after SHTF all of the deer in north america (boars in the south) will be gone and you'll be reduced to boiling your shoes.

it's the same situation in every non-street-shitting country in the world.

File: 243.png (33KB, 899x547px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 899x547px

>>34954697
>you're dense as fuck
See Rule 2. Civility is requested.

>1. british www1 soldier sat in a trench
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfKUd8bvQfc

>2. knight went onto a battlefield, he had a baggage train, he didn't need to carry everything to help him survive
Still carrying anywhere between 30-50lbs in terms of plate armor, then another 5-10lbs in chain/gambeson then another 10-20lbs in weapons.

>3.ww1 german stayed in a trench.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsSxBSYdlsA

>have you never heard of hunting, fishing or foraging?
Do you think soldiers can reliably feed an entire platoon, no less an army, on all that alone without stealing or getting logistics? You're assuming there will be food to fish and hunt at ease.

>i never said you need to set up a fire on the move. additionally, as long as you don't have a weak immune system like most americunts, you can drink from almost all water sources and be fine. i've done it for years.

One, proof that you drank water like that for years. Two, please check the disease rates in third world countries. Third, strawman argument with Americans. Fourth, we stated carrying water and then you said boil it. Does that make any fucking sense in somewhere like say, mountainous parts of Afghanistan? No, no it doesn't.

>i've carried all that shit. it doesn't require a huge backpack, it's not that heavy.
Post proof again, and show stuff that is heavy duty. Don't throw a child's blanket in and claim it as proof.

>it is a counter agument though. soldiers carry too much shit, i don't care whether they have vehicles or put their packs down, their knees get fucked.
Unless they leave their packs in their and reduce the weight.

>i could easily make a list of what a soldier should carry, and it would be better than anything most soldiers today carry.
Make it and prove that it is better.

(1/2)

File: US_Army_patrol_in_Badula_Qulp_2010-02-15.jpg (3MB, 3026x2017px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3026x2017px

>>34954697
>>34954880
(2/2)
>guirrela forces are inferior, i suppose that's why they lost the vietnam war, the wars in afghanistan, etc

Did you ever read or any historical studies as to why the US or Soviets lost in 'nam and Afghanistan respectively? Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

>you don't have an argument, faggot. enjoy your fucked up knees.
>your argument is invalid cause I say so, reeeeeeee the argument

Got more straw here than a hay bale.

>photo of k:d of 5:1 to 10:1
>not an argument

>not an argument. i'm not a silly nostalgiafag, just making a point that it's better for a soldier to know skills and be able to run fast and take cover fast than to carry a shitload of gear and get shot by a raghead 400yards away.

Cause that's what happens. Do you know what the current load out is? If so post proof.

>you can still have food, you don't need a fuckhuge backpack
>bookbag sized backpacks with extra MOLLE and sand

Also learn how to spell and punctuate. Somehow you're even worse than the supposedly bad "americunts" you blurt off about.

2/10 for giving me the advantage.

Because more things let you survive longer without support.

Your mommy isn't going to bring tendies to you in the middle of the fucking warzone.

File: 1446642210148.jpg (68KB, 880x594px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 880x594px

>>34954880
1. Trench raiders didn't raid other trenches in full gear, with backpacks. they'd go with grenades, weapons, and some ammunition, and NOTHING ELSE. they were a light shock force, they didn't carry rations or canteens.


2. no. I've worn armor before ,it's not that heavy. armor is spread across your body, unlike backpacks and modern body armor, and after getting used to it you don't feel the weight at all. and no, weapons did not weight that much. learn some medieval history

3. see my response to point 1

4. Are you that stupid and braindead to think that i'm saying that a whole army should hunt and gather their own food?

When I say live off the land, I mean when soldiers on patrol, they should supplement rations with food they have hunted, fished or gathered from the landscape.

5. you really believe that I've recorded myself drinking from a stream everytime i've gone outdoors? There's no way to prove that i've done it, but I know I have. Most people who live in remote areas in third world countries do it today, and they're fine.

6. Proof? Firstly, I don't own a camera or a cellphone, so i don't have anything to post pictures with. secondly, I don't tend to take pictures of myself when i'm going hiking or whatever i'm doing, so no, i won't provide proof.


7. reduce the weight, by removing all the useless shit, like I just said.


8. soldier needs:

gun, spare parts and cleaning kit, ammunition, two water canteens, a water filter, a flashlight with spare batteries, enough rations for three days, depending on the climate some extra clothing and bedding (blankets, etc), a helmet, a knife and depending on the climate a machete, a survival kit, a compass, a map, a sharpening stone, binoculars, a tarp, extra cordage, grenades, smoke and fragmentation and that's all. of course if the enemy is using chemical weapons you will need NBC s, but that's a different matter

File: 1448226493253.jpg (64KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 620x400px

>>34955155
>>34955834
part 2
are you one of the americunts who complains that "muh hippies lost us the vietnam" war? Not an argument. Guerrilla forces almost always win.
yeah, enjoy your heavy gear fucking your knees up. Additionally, casualties and kd don't mattter if you win the war.
and no, english is not my first language, and i don't have to correct all my spelling to americunts like you.


next time, try not to strawman or exagerrate, and read up on some history.

>>34955834
bro the shit you all described is exactly what goes inside a soldiers ruck sack, if you pack smart and roll your shit correctly you won't use all the space in the ruck and you could prolly use a smaller bag but that depends on the units SOP. Also, extra clothing would be 1 change of boots, at least 2-4 pairs of socks, 1 uniform blouse, Uniform pants, 2-3 undershirts, and your soft cap but to be fair that fits in your pocket.

>2 canteens, not 1 camelbak get gud.

File: file.jpg (143KB, 680x1024px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 680x1024px

>>34955834
>no tent
>no entrenching tool
>no radio/night optics/GPS/laser pointer
>no spare batteries for aforementioned
>no demolitions
>I don't know the difference between a large rucksack filled with everything to set up camp which is carried on vehicles and occasionally hiked from vehicle to camp and a smaller assault pack/patrol pack that actually stays with the soldier during patrols outside camp

>>34956040
To be fair you can use your poncho to set up a hooch.

ITT: Super POG with a little bit of armchair general

>>34956034
>camelbaks

can get punctured.


>>34956040
>tents

big, heavy and a tarp or a bivouac bag is easier to set up.

the comms can use the radio.

you don't need an enthrenching tool when you're a highly mobile agile force


you only take demolitions if you need them.

File: c399df82927e090a20d36d39385956f5.jpg (9KB, 236x180px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 236x180px

>>34956101
Tell me your hardest hump you ever did, then I'll tell you mine. You're calling dudes pogs, let's hear it 'fellow infantryman'

>>34956135
Also a POG cause i am not a retard but thanks for making yourself look like a sprung little faggot that you really are, i will be warmly waiting for your 300 kill certificate pic and such.

>>34956162
Congratulations. Tell your mom to go buy you a bra.

>soldiers should hunt, fish, filter poop water and pick berries instead of focusing on the mission
great idea
>>34955834
>gun, spare parts and cleaning kit, ammunition, two water canteens, a water filter, a flashlight with spare batteries, enough rations for three days, depending on the climate some extra clothing and bedding (blankets, etc), a helmet, a knife and depending on the climate a machete, a survival kit, a compass, a map, a sharpening stone, binoculars, a tarp, extra cordage, grenades, smoke and fragmentation and that's all. of course if the enemy is using chemical weapons you will need NBC s, but that's a different matter
>no AT
>no rockets for said AT
>no night vision
>only 2 quarts of water
>no medical

>>34956190
>>34956162
>>34956135
Rekt

>>34955861

Not the guy who you were arguing with but the reason insurgents are able to get away with having such little gear is because they usually have the advantage of numbers, they're operating in their home territory, and they have the support of the local populous.

They don't have to worry about the possibility of getting stuck away from resupply for an extended period of time since they pretty much can always just drop their weapons and pretend to be a civilian and go off to the home of the nearest sympathizer and find food and lodging, whereas if the invading force would attempt to do the same they're more likely to get a knife to the throat.

The difference between historical troop equipment and now is because in the past you often had well defined lines and territories, you don't need to carry much if you've got friendly troops to your rear who ensure that supplies keep making it to the front, whereas nowadays when your fighting an insurgency there is no front line, one day could walk around unopposed on patrol and the next you could be cut off and pinned down for a week by dedicated insurgents. Nowadays troops need to be prepared for that possibility and that's where the weight comes from, insurgents don't have to worry about it since it's not too different from daily life.

>>34956104
>you only take demolitions if you need them.
>you don't need an enthrenching tool when you're a highly mobile agile force


The thing is that you can't exactly predict what your going to need for a specific time period and in most cases it's better to have it and not need it than need it than not have it.

File: 1503342631170.png (138KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 375x375px

>>34955834
>1. Trench raiders didn't raid other trenches in full gear, with backpacks. they'd go with grenades, weapons, and some ammunition, and NOTHING ELSE. they were a light shock force, they didn't carry rations or canteens.

Pardoning the weapon specialists who carried the flamethrower, trench mortar, the MG, extra grenades etc? Also what about the gas mask and filter, extra bandages, possibly a home made melee weapon for tight quarters, etc etc.?

>2. no. I've worn armor before ,it's not that heavy. armor is spread across your body, unlike backpacks and modern body armor, and after getting used to it you don't feel the weight at all. and no, weapons did not weight that much. learn some medieval history

Oh, then you can please introduce me to some medieval history by providing solid sources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw

>3. see my response to point 1
See my response to point 1.

>When I say live off the land, I mean when soldiers on patrol, they should supplement rations with food they have hunted, fished or gathered from the landscape.

Instead of focusing on the mission? You also didn't answer my question; where will you find animals or plants in Afghani mountains? You know what, why not we include some other areas! Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya. Getting to hot, lets cool off. Siberia, alpine mountains, Bosnia comes to mind.

>5. you really believe that I've recorded myself drinking from a stream everytime i've gone outdoors? There's no way to prove that i've done it, but I know I have. Most people who live in remote areas in third world countries do it today, and they're fine.

You're talking out of your ass, though if you provide sources to counter please do.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/combating_diseasepart1lowres.pdf
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/waterforlife.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterborne_diseases

(1/?)

File: 03.jpg (68KB, 800x401px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x401px

>>34955834
>>34956334
>6. Proof? Firstly, I don't own a camera or a cellphone, so i don't have anything to post pictures with. secondly, I don't tend to take pictures of myself when i'm going hiking or whatever i'm doing, so no, i won't provide proof.

Congrats, thanks for outing yourself mo-ron. Burden of proof is upon you. Also no phone? I thought you were a phone poster and just too lazy to properly use punctuation and capitalization. Dammmmmmmnnnnnnn.

>7. reduce the weight, by removing all the useless shit, like I just said.
Define useless shit and prove it is useless.

>gun, spare parts and cleaning kit, ammunition, two water canteens, a water filter, a flashlight with spare batteries, enough rations for three days, depending on the climate some extra clothing and bedding (blankets, etc), a helmet, a knife and depending on the climate a machete, a survival kit, a compass, a map, a sharpening stone, binoculars, a tarp, extra cordage, grenades, smoke and fragmentation and that's all. of course if the enemy is using chemical weapons you will need NBC s, but that's a different matter

You just described what they have with reduced tech. Also where's body armor and what >>34956212
mentioned?

>>34955861
>are you one of the americunts who complains that "muh hippies lost us the vietnam" war? Not an argument.

Saying not an argument doesn't make it not an argument. It just shows you're too autistic to fight it. Did you seriously not look at the political situation?

>Guerrilla forces almost always win.
Got ramrodded in Afghanistan and Bosnia. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_guerrilla_warfare#Unsuccessful_guerrilla_campaigns

>next time, try not to strawman or exagerrate, and read up on some history.

Then stop casually associating gear weight with losing war. You read up on history, as you both are unable to provide good sources nor be able to give any logical reasoning as to why it is superior without being countered by facts and reality.

File: 1501577592857.gif (2MB, 400x206px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x206px

>>34956544
>You read up on history
Haven't read up on your history that is.

So honestly, are you here just to argue or do you sincerly believe you know better than an entire military force. As you say americunts like America is a bad incompetent place who is poor and failing. Maybe you're just jelly that it has the highest technological advances as well as highest GDP and most powerful army and alliances.

File: 1503521246702.jpg (44KB, 958x960px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 958x960px

>>34956597
Come anon, he's a foreigner, of course he thinks he knows better.

>>34949746
#1 Your full of shit
#2 Read a book