How Many BCTs can the US Army Form for a Large Scale War?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2024
- Click this link to make some cash for giving your opinion! www.influencerlink.org/SHDC6 Thanks YouGov for sponsoring!
Check Out Project Owl on Discord
/ discord
For Business Inquiries - CovertCabal@Ellify.com
Amazon Prime 30 Free Trial - amzn.to/2AiNfvJ
Microphone I use = amzn.to/2zYFz1D
Video Editor = amzn.to/2JLqX5o
Military Aircraft Models = amzn.to/2A3NPxu
Military Strategy Book = amzn.to/2AaqwST
----------------------------------
Credits:
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
The NATO Channel
Ministry of Defence of Estonia
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
KCNA - North Korea State Media
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
Hope you guys liked the video! I love using YouGov to make easy cash! Click my link: www.influencerlink.org/SHDC6 #YouGovPartner
Great content in this video and to the point.
Too busy killing goat herpes last 20 years .
3D is always good it makes a video more interesting to look at.....Thanks....Shoe🇺🇸
Heads up that I've been unsubscribed from your channel by UA-cam
please keep up the 3D looks really good
just keep in mind to have some marshmallows at hand for your pc
If the WW taught us anything, it’s that when counties want to do something for a war they can make it happen incredibly fast. If it’s national survival required everything happens at a pace we can’t recognize now.
yeah it's called cutting corners. and lets get real here you will never see a national patriotism today like you did in ww2. because no one would be sneak attacking peral harbor now. also americans now are not like of old. 1960s vietnam draft dodgers anyone? and that was 50-60 years ago.
A large party of that is all the long and drawn out tenders, all the losing companies lawsuits, all the having to re-tender and re-evaluate... All that gets passed up in favour of one design having it's blueprints dropped on all the different manufacturers desks with a blunt order "build this or be shot for treason"...
yeah there are limitations on that.
as said in the video, a modern MBT or IFV (like Puma IFV of Germany for example) is extremely complex and requires very high skilled workers and a flawlessly functioning parts supply for production.
Due to this the new production of Lynx IFV for Hungary, wich had ordered 200, will take 4-5 years if everything runs smoothly, meaning 50 vehicles per year.
And Lynx is alot less complex and less sofisticated than Puma
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 I'd counter that with the fact that how many of the smartest people do you think we have working in the defense industry? Part of what made WW2 the most innovative times ever is the choices were work for the war or be in the war. ALL of the smartest people in the country all focused on the same problems. Think about how many smart people's talents are wasted in places like wall st or building video games. I think we could develop weapons alot faster if the government suddenly siezed control of the factories and put our best and brightest on the job
Things can happen quickly in a war, but only what people already know how to do, or can learn to do quickly. Also it depends on the definition of "quickly." The USA started gearing up for war more than a year before entering WWII, but it still took about two years to build up a Pacific Fleet capable of major offensive operations. And about 18 months to build a reliable torpedo. And three and half years to build a handful of atomic bombs, with no guarantee at the outset they were going to work. The USA was lucky to have the luxury of so much time to get its act together, given the Axis inability to strike the US mainland. A modern peer conflict seems unlikely to provide the same luxury. The USA probably won't have two years to build a fleet to go attack China after a war starts, while all the fighting stays far away.
Have you considered doing a series about the arms industries of different nations and talking about their specialties, pros, cons, ect.? Its super fascinating that small countries like Sweden, Israel, Singapore and South Korea have such well developed defense industries. Im sure other people would be interested in their histories and expertise. Great video btw!
The Turkish defense industry has also been particularly interesting
@@ELYELYELroy why dont u research yourself? Its also fun, more than waiting for someone else to research for you.
China has the worlds largest commercial ship building industry :/
@@nemiw4429 It is, but he might not have the know-how how to do this. Understandable. I hope Perun does make couple videos like this. He is very good at it. But it would be nice if Covert Cabal did it as well.
Medium sized countries. At least when it comes to Population (Singapore being small, but is very militarized - and has been for many decades, which is the most important part).
We haven't really seen what a G20 nation at full war time economy mode looks like and what it can do since WW2. My hyphothesis is that much lower tech equipment would get produced initially in order to get more boots on the ground: infantry weapons, mortars, towed artillery, trucks, APC's etc.
@@wesdonovan821 german defense industry clearly said, that if they had to switch over to wartime production, they would need about 5-6 years to reach full capacity. Currently they are running at about 25% due to low demand (they have reduced to 25% over the last 30 years, letting personnel go to retirement without replacement etc)
I'm pretty Germany had similar problems before WW2 began before crazy mustache man decided to invade several countries and actually fking win.
@@imperialguardsman5929 the german industry needed 5-6 years in warmup prior to effectively starting wartime production.
They begun preparations in 34-35, production peaked in mid to late 44 and required millions of slave laborers.
The US had an undisturbed warmup of about 5 years too.
In 37 they begun major rearmament of the military with more modern equipment and restructuring of the industry for higher production quotas.
And american production was not really that friendly to their employees either.
There was not slave labor but up to the 60´s there were large populations of indentured workers living in "worker towns" on "Campus" of the Factorys. They were payed with extremely low wages in fake money dispensed by the owner of the factory town and could only pay the services of the town with the fake money, turning them more into bonded servs than free citizens.
During the 30´s and 40´s the US was hit with several civil insurrections vs these indentured servitudes for example the Coal Miners Strikes in Harlan County.
Here the US Government and Law Enforcement sided with the Factory Owners (like they did always).
So again, not really comparable to current day....
on the other hand, Amazon Employees and others are treated like indentured servs too... well the US is fcked anyways.
@@imperialguardsman5929 Crazy mustache man helped Germany at first, then destroyed it. Sad isn't it.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Don't know if it was the same strike war. But at some point the mining companies used airplanes and bombed the workers.
The old phrase "two days a month, 2 weeks a year" for the US Army Reserves is completely outdated. It is not uncommon for reservists to end up with 3-4 days per month plus an additional entire month for training (NTC, JRTC, OCONUS rotations, mass unit training events, etc.). Then supplementary schools (BLC, ALC, comms school, gunnery, MFTC, EO, SHARP, and so on) or other classes like CLS and whatnot added on top. I would never say all reservists are as prepared as active duty, but a lot more training goes on than some acknowledge.
Thanks for the video! I love this subject and would greatly enjoy more videos on the logistics of modern warfare!
JRTC = Joint Readiness Torture Center … especially in August (spent 2 training rotations there). I have seen things no man should see. Done things no man should do.
This was I think an effect of the end of the draft and due to recruitment constraints
I don't know man. Whenever I see NG conducting training, they always look like complete ass. Always.
@@baahcusegamer4530 "I have seen things no man should see. Done things no man should do." Then that's good training. Because that pretty much sums up combat.
Lumping EO and SHARP training with actual schools is very funny
The 3d animations were good. Helps boost the production quality. It’s great to actively see these videos getting better and better.
Where? I didn’t notice. Are they animated?
yah it also show the scale of unit reall well.
@@TheBooban 1:47 these are all drawn, animated. I wonder how long it took and what CPU/GPU setup he's got.
@@Google_Does_Evil_Now animated, i thought the wheels would be rolling. Those are still models and since they don’t move, might as well be 2D. You can paste a picture in power point and have it sweep in that and he can record his screen.
@@TheBooban I think each one has a lot of detail, you could zoom in on a model with high magnification and see a lot on every model. I think if they are copies of each other then the software should handle them more efficiently for human visual use.
I think his computer will be drawing every single polygon/data for every part in every vehicle in every frame. There could be 60-120+ frames a second depending on settings.
I think it looks good, and it's good for him he's learning more techniques. Probably he is researching a more efficient way of drawing since he mentioned how long it takes.
There's a respected computer UA-cam channel called Gamers Nexus and they have an icon animation at the start of each video and they said that takes a long time for the computer to draw. If you're interested you can see it in one of their videos.
They do research on which are the best computer parts, best efficiency, performance, cooling, quietness etc. Some of their testing equipment costs $100,000 each.
They actually are taken very seriously by computer manufacturers. If Gamers Nexus give something a high rating it will often sell out quickly.
Anyway that's some background info for you.
The hard part for the US would be personnel. We have thousands of aircraft, tanks, apc's, etc... in storage right now. The problem lies in the fact that, especially within the Guard and Reserve units (they are separate entities), many of the brigades are currently understrength by varying degrees, and have been for years. The current recruiting and retention issues have not helped the issue. On top of that, the US Army Reserve is comprised almost purely of non-combat personnel (cooks, mp's, engineers, etc...) that are attached to active brigades when needed. So their numbers, while usable for logistics and support, are not able to fill the slots needed to man the line companies and troops. This is part of why the National Guard was leaned on so heavily during GWOT; because it could provide not only the logistics and support personnel, but was also able to field combat arms units that the Reserve simply could not provide.
To be fair MP's and Engineers are both capable of combat missions
The morale of American conscript youngsters too may be compromised. Not as effective as volunteers...
@@luigidisanpietro3720 Above morale, I'd expect American conscripts to physically and mentally be unfit for service at a high rate. Physically, from obesity, mentally... Well. Acceptance of discipline, for one.
I do MMA and if there's a draft I'll hide all history of my IBS just to fight for my country and home
@@JukemDrawles87 bad plan. the only way for the USA to get involved in a global war is if the criminals at the top push for one. let their sons die for their pocketbook and leave the average american out of it.
In 1991/92 for Desert Shield/Storm we deployed over 750,000 troops (counting all branches of the military) in less than six months. Our military is much smaller now but we have made WWII size deployments within the memory of most Americans.
Except that in WW2 the US deployed 10 million troops
@@ms3862 ww stands for World War there were many theaters all over the world. At its longest point Kuwait is about 120 miles long and you can drive across it in a couple hours. Desert Storm was a much larger concentration of American troops than anywhere in wwii with the possible exception of d day and I would have to research that
I think it was about 8 million
@@ms3862 at the end of the war yes... in the beginning there was no 10million troops avaible for quite some time ... also depends on how you count troops ... with rotations or not
I really enjoyed the breakdown of the BCT structures; I think the 3D models were great and really give a sense of scale that numbers just can’t. Great video!
Always a good discussion. During the 70's when my father was in an F4 squadron on carrier, their expectation for their carrier in a proper "hot" war was about one month. By that time they expected all of their planes to be shot down, and/or be down for heavy maintenance which would be very time consuming. The effectiveness of modern combat vehicles/munitions would result in an exceptionally violent "opening" to the war with a drop off pretty quick - unfortunately encouraging the use of nukes or similar thereafter.
lucky us that soldiers arent bean counters. honestly, the Pentagon isnt blind, and theyve been well aware of the possibilities during a hot war. which is why theyve been investing so heavily in advanced deep strike craft and then a massive fleet of drones. with seed missions taking out AA and airfields, then GA drones can be used since theyre relatively cheap, effective, and can be produced far faster, not to mention their maintenance is almost nothing
@@theduke7539 pentagon is so smart we lose every war
@@willl7780 Politics. Weve yet to lose on the field of battle. the absolute brutality American bombs deliver speak for themselves.
@@willl7780 Uhhh are you unfamiliar with history? The only war the US can say it lost is Vietnam, and we never declared war during it. Stupid comment
@@willl7780 If you put garbage victory conditions into a war that the army cannot reach by its own nature (invading army is not a tool for forming stable government or indoctrinating the local populace into supporting this or that political party in a state, for example. Army also aren't teachers nor are they investors to fix a country's society or economy) you get out garbage results. If you ask yourself "what were the conditions under which US could declare end of the Afghanistan campaign?" you get out either nothing or things that cannot be reached by millitary means.
The Army reserves (which I assume included the National Guard) actually train more than advertised. I would say that unit training is more like 3 - 4 days per month plus 1 month of training a year. Soldiers get some more training in their MOS (often 1 week per year) plus there are classes that are required for promotion like the Basic Leadership Course (or BLC) that is on top of all of that.
During the Obama administration for some reason the majority of the national guard units lost there tanks and armor fighting vehicles
@@edl617 There is a real challenge for countries as a whole to structure reserve forces. If you think of the National Guard, what should they be doing? Why would you want your average National Guard Brigade Combat Team to be Armored? I have been discussing with friends of mine that I think the US Army National Guard is structured very poorly for what it is. The current structure makes more sense during the time of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In that period, National Guard units were rotated into theater to replace Active units. I would say that there is a huge question in that as a good idea or not and many National Guard members were angered by it.
Technically Army/USMC/Airforce Reserves are different from Army/Air National Guard. There are exceptions, but National Guards are more combat orientated MOS' and are supposed to be under the command of their respective State Governors until mobilized by the Federal government. Reserve units are always under the purview of the Federal government and generally have more support MOS'. This is coming from a former active duty Army who did another contract with the Reserves.
It's a little bit different than NG and reserve being lumped in together. NG have their own command structure and the reserves end up falling under active duty posts. Coming from someone who's in the Guard we would for sure be pissed if we end up fighting near peer and getting deployed. Not because we're unprepared but because our component since it's inception in the late 1600s has been to protect each respective state not to go overseas.
@@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344 I live North of you(USA) and I always thought of the National Guard as a militia and extra help when there's a disaster. And sure if there's a war, Reserves.
Also, the scale of US WW2 weapons production was the fact that US had a lead time with the lend lease act and could scale volume production of weapons without the factories being bombed. The US had a peak of 720,000 coal jobs in the late 1920's plus discovered the most oil by decade in their 1930's. Hugoton gas field, 8th largest globally, was discovered in 1922. So the perfect storm of US energy production being matured by the start of WW2 meant the US could ramp up production of analog weapons faster then than the digital weapons of today and that producing 5-5.5 million barrels per day of oil during the war.
Also we didn’t have people whining that they can’t be whatever gender they want on any given day.
@@thatcarguydom266 Exactly. I'm a contractor doing business analysis at one of the big US Air Force depots. Every time a biological man says they're a woman a random part disappears from our inventory. Another little known fact is that whenever a biologically male mechanic says they're a female they instantly lose all of their mechanical skills and knowledge and have to be retrained, it's a huge burden on the Air Force.
@@monkemode8128 seriously?
@@thatcarguydom266 No I'm not serious
I've always appreciated your channel for such realistic and objective takes, one way or the other, your videos are some of the most informative I've encountered. I just wanted to say I wholeheartedly appreciated the 3D models you added. Aside from the increased production value they add to the video, they REALLY helped with visualizing what those numbers actually look like. It's one thing to see "806 other trucks", it's a whole other thing to see 806 trucks arrayed alongside the full equipment for an ABCT. The numbers are large enough to just be numbers at that point, but the visualization really drives it home. :)
Every generation has thought the sophistication of the technology of their time would make it much more difficult than with previous generations to mobilize troops and production, yet they somehow managed to do it. Total war is an incredibly motivating force. I have a couple buds in the Reserves and, unless theirs are special circumstances, they sure spend more time training than just the few weekends and a couple weeks per year.
I agree that this is a poor analysis. You learn everything in basic/OUST and it gets refined at your unit. So new soldiers wouldn't take that long and the entirety of the reserves are ready right now. You also have the national guard and inactive ready reserve. I don't think he mentioned the clause that the US government can and has used to mobilize civilian companies to make military equipment. Lastly any country that shot nukes off would end up worse than north Korea they would be condemned by everyone on the planet.
@@92powerdiesel61 Yep, and he also didn't mention the fact that if someone preemptively attacks America, then good luck to them because the whole nation will be out for blood and playing to win. There'd probably be a swarm of recruits for the military and the defense contractors would find some way to ramp up production
Yeah that few weekends and once a year thing was a lie lol especially if you're in a ready force unit.
@@92powerdiesel61 not to mention 360+ million registered guns on American soil some with hours/months/years of training. With only 30% of all Americans owning those guns we’d definitely have more guns than hands during a full scale invasion.
@@92powerdiesel61 People watch too many action movies idolizing special forces. In real all out war people go through a couple of weeks to a month of training and they're good to go. Mass mobilization in ww2 increased the number of US service members by a literal ten fold. Military personnel were a quarter of a million pre war and 2 mil during the war. Same can be said about other European armies
My guess is the expensive weapon systems will likely cancel themselves out and the hardware will devolve into easy to manufacture weapons of war.
if public will not demand end of war before that happens...
Fucking mindless reformers.
There would probably be big changes in a peer to peer war. Also some optimisation for mass production as some systems are more or less manufactured. But no devolution. What even is this argument? If one side starts to go full ww2 style the weapon systems would not cancel out. One side would get fucking obliterated because it now has inferior systems.
@@jebise1126 public will support the war because their leaders would tell them the enemy is crumbling, we just need to make one more push to make it happen.
Yeah, I think this is clearly the option if the hight tech systems cancel each other out. But if there is a winner in the high tech war, those system will make minced meat of anything lower tech and mass produced. This can even happen in just one key area.
More likely if a large scale war happens the hardware will not devolve but be simplified and existing civil technologies for which production capacity already exists will be adapted for use in creating that hardware. Many of the computing systems on an M1 series tank are primitive compared to your smartphone. I would not be surprised to see high durability smartphones and tablets or components of them converted into guidance systems and fire control computers. It is often taken for granted that modern weaponry is so sophisticated that proprietary parts are the only way to go. The fact that soldiers can and have Jerry rigged their tanks to charge smartphones and play music from their cell phones is only the tip of the iceberg of what is theoretically possible.
I have been following your astute video offerings for a few years. I grew up following military stories, making models, and playing board games with my high school friends…You are indeed a source of reliable info and I thank you
Loved the models, and love your videos!
It's the time you take to put relevant imagery with your narration that makes all the difference. Your knowledge is a big plus too 😊
A question I had for some time now:
Modern equipment takes time and much rarer resources to build and maintain. So at what point would you start using less modern equipment?
WWII had tons of improvements over the war because they were able. But sometimes they werent able, such as some factories simply not being large enough for the intended armored vehicle to be produced so a smaller vehicle was made instead. Most tank destroyers were also a poor man's choice: the tank you had isnt adequate anymore but building a new one is too time consuming, so you place a bigger gun on it and accept things like open turrets or having to remove the turret and place the gun in the hull.
So with no real improvement possible on the modern end since those are too expensive and too time consuming as a war drags on, wouldnt countries opt for using less advanced vehicles and weapons? And how much further back would it be?
The Duran guys, I think Alexander, did a video months ago on the industrial base needed in today’s wars, how certain country needs a huge industrial base to easily swap to producing military equipment, that’s where Russia and China come into their own. They’ve got the base so they can keep producing what ever is needed, the west on the other hand, we’ve set our industrial base to them, the west can’t compete in this side of things which puts us in big trouble.
@@peppipoohductionswakashunt3157 Wasn't this the same way during the second world war, when war struck the US somehow was able to rapidly retool for military production when its production capacity had been lagging behind beforehand?
@@rixille all countries had their own industry back then, it’s completely different today, everything is made overseas to save/make more money, corporatism and greed could be the biggest mistake ever.
@@rixille all countries had their own industry back then, it’s completely different today, everything is made overseas to save/make more money, corporatism and greed could be the biggest mistake ever.
@@peppipoohductionswakashunt3157 China sure, but since when does Russia have a better industrial base than western countries? Nobody ever outsourced manufacturing to them.
This was quite simply one of your most phenomenal videos ever. I hope you continue to work with these graphics, the statistics and above all with visualizing all these things. That's damn impressive and shows in its own way what it would mean if our countries made the collusive effort of a major war. I think the world needs pictures like this to be able to imagine it. Keep it up! Definitely with the animations!
Awesome video as always! Really loved the 3D models. Labor intensive as they might be, they illustrate the points you're trying to convey very well, in addition to giving your videos that real professional look.
Being a pilot in Army Aviation for 10 years, i was sad that Combat Aviation Brigades were not mentioned...considering Army has the largest amount of helicopters over any other branch
How was your experience being an Army aviator? I’m 16 and trying to decide what I want to do and flying helicopters in the army seems like a good option. Also thank you for your service 10 years is more than half the time I’ve even been alive.
@@angeloc1340 well it was a dream of mine to be a military aviator. I got involved in the "street to seat" program where you apply to fly helicopter directly from being a civilian. I highly recommend this route. I joined at 21 and was fully qualified at 23. 2.5 years of training. I flew Blackhawks. It's a great experience and I got to travel the world. From Hondorus, to Afghanistan, to Egypt, to Germany. Hondorus is a blast, loved living there. Army aviation is sometimes called "the air force of the army" because it can be quite a bit more laid back and casual than other branches of the army. You are not camping out in the mud near as much as the other branches. You work on a flightline. Warrant officer is the route you want to go if you want to truly focus on flying throughout your whole career. But flying is not the only thing you will do and you will have additional duties that you must manage as well. The smaller the unit the more duties you have. You have to accept feeling judgement alot. Your free time at the office consist of studying your academics. The operators manual for your helicopter is your bible and you'll reference it near daily. Every new duty station you have to prove you are a capable pilot through a readiness progression program with an instructor pilot. Your goal is to make pilot in command and to do that, the command has to feel you are academically, mentally and tactically competent and also mature enough that the commander can trust you to be in command of a 13.5 million dollar piece of equipment. The pay is decent enough. Although alot of guys get out to get into commercial aviation because they get to fly more and the pay is better. But as a warrant officer, you'll start around 4500/month I think? By the time I was getting out I was making about 6000/month
If you want to join the Army, army aviation is probably the best place you can go. Youll get your private, commercial, and instrument ratings for free and start a career flying helicopters or get into fixed wing flying as well. Yes army has fixed wing aircraft too...that is an awesome job, flying citations and leer jets.
the 3rd largest air force
The title even said BCT not CAB!
CABs are not BCTs, they're essentially like a Fires BDE, although the command/support relationship differs a bit but they're still meant to support the BCT/div... whichever one that is
I'm sure in a large scale world conflict, most countries would dial back the complexity for the sake of mass production. Cut out or dial back systems to keep things cheaper and faster to produce. Some of those administrative limits would probably be cut back too, like changing training for new recruits from 12 to 6 weeks or whatever.
If we learned anything in the last 70 years, it's that tech trumps numbers, your cheap tank is useless as the one "advanced" tank with interconnection to localized intel will be able to straight up destroy those cheap tanks before the cheap tanks can open fire
@@quantuman100 thats true, thats why you produce even more numbers to overwhelm, quantity has a quality of its own
You couldn't be more wrong.
@@prospecops ah, no. Quantity has its merits, but unsustainable loses is no bueno. Lives manning those tanks are not cheap, inflation is making economy struggle making those tanks, and sending a technologically inferior force to fight an advance one will have too much losses. Unless you're a totalitarian regimes with a massive pull on your media the public will be mad at the losses.
@@prospecops every war since 1970 proves you wrong
Loved the 3d work, would definitely like to see more of that.
I like the 3D, especially as I feel I'm a better visual learner than audio, although I will also applaud your telling of facts, because it's clear, articulate, well informed, and it's easy for dummies like me to follow!🙃
Keep up the good work, I've been subbed for many months now, and am never disappointed!
Love the graphics
Excellent detailed video
Thank you for making these great, entertaining military videos !
I really appreciate the 3D animations the give a visual indication of the size of the BTGs in your video.
I love your channel, thank you
I like the 3d animations a lot since it really helps show how many units are involved. Hearing 100 tanks or 180 artillery pieces is hard to imagine but seeing it all in one spot is much easier to understand. Keep up the good work.
You're definitely progressing really well with your animation I think it's worth while thank you for constantly putting out videos of such great quality!
The 3D animations are a useful visual reference. We appreciate your hard work and the video was informative, interesting and not too long. Good job and keep up the good work.
Excellent video! I appreciate the work you put into videos like these !!
Great video, thank you. Animations are worth it 100% to understand the scale. Awesome job!
the 3d animations put things into perspective, seeing is much more impactant than just hearing, so yeah, i think it is worth the time
I would say that when referring to reserve forces; separating the National Guard from the Reserves and taking a closer look at the capabilities and structure of the National Guard will give you a better idea of our ability to deploy in place of and to augment AD units. Additionally, with near peer competition, I believe that while numbers are important, the combined arms approach and strategies used during the conflict will contribute more to the outcomes either in favor or against us. Plus, the use of Allies and partnerships opens a completely different conversation.
REally clear and in depth explanation. The modelling did help to visualise it, the tables and maps to underscore what's being said.
I’ve been subscribed to you for a long time and really appreciate your content. It good to see you post content more frequently. Hopefully you’ll get the amount of subscribers you deserve!
US Army: "We've got 13 support vehicles per combat vehicle" Russian Army: "Our BGT has a stolen minivan, 3 Ladas and a donkey assigned to logistics"
That's the Ukrainians.
@@chiron13 cope, cry, maybe even seethe
@@multidoor6928 And you go party, because the "Ukrainians are winning".
@@multidoor6928 triggered.
I love the 3D imagery, its well worth the time and effort as far as I see it. Thanks!
This was a really great video. Amazing amount of information in here. The 3D animation was awesome. Thank you for your time.
Wasn't a division historically the "smallest" self-contained unit in the nation's army? One that had "everything" and could operate autonomously?
I do realize that even in WW2 there were Brigades that worked independently, but I'm talking more about how the size of such autonomous force has become smaller over time. And also BTG's or BCT's might not have "everything" like Divisions used to.
The division formation is sort of dropped. Sort of! But, the names and patches are still carried. The 82nd Airborne is still an Airborne Division, and so is the 101st. 101st remains to be Air Assault Division. I remember back when the Strykers were being formed there was talk of bringing back fancy traditional names such as Hussars, and Dragoons.
Just so everyone is tracking the US Army is moving back to the Division & Corps for LSCO (Large Scale Combat Operations). It would be great to see a video or two on those larger formations. For example V Corps is being stood up as we speak. Also Multidomain Operations 2028 is a good primer on where the US Army is going in the near future.
The BCT can conduct self contained tactical operations, but require Divisio/Corp for stratigic operations i.e. the use of rotary assets are usually attached to the division and so is stratigic artillery
@@BenjaminTroxell Just curious, What is the difference between (Corps from Army) and (Regiment from Brigade), and their deployment in the battlefield. Thanks.
@@neiljasonvillanueva1864 Not OP but might be able to respond. Corps, Army, Regiment, and Brigade are all different units. Corps number around 40,000-60,000 men while a (Field) Army number over ten times around 600,000 men. These two, Corps and Field Army, are the top echelons of military organisation with the corps being the highest operational unit (as in making strategic decisions and so on) while a field army is more administrative. I can't say much about those two, but I think I can say more about regiments and brigades. Regiments originated from Europe when they would form units by origin or when a royal or noble person raised them. AFAIK regiments in the United States are mostly there for historical purposes. A regiment (1,000 men) is divided further into battalions (600-800 men) and it's these battalions that get used by brigades which are one level higher than regiments. Brigades number 3,000-5,000 men and contain multiple battalions. For example, 3rd BCT, 1st Division, is composed of 2nd Battalion from 63rd Armor Regiment, 2nd Battalion from 2nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Battalion from 26th Infantry Regiment, and so on.
In the British Army, every regiment has a unique name (e.g. The Rifles, the Royal Regiment of Scotland, Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, etc) and they field battalions to be used in brigades. An example would be the 4th Brigade which contains the 1st Battalion from the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, 2nd Battalion from the Mercian Regiment, and so on.
The Inactive Ready Reserve wasn't mentioned.
The National Guard was also not mentioned.
Former combat soldiers who are experts in armored ground battles weren't mentioned. There are at least a million of us since the Vietnam war who could take an 8 week refresher course and go right to a battlefield. (Ages 30 to 80).
Most tankers run in sections of three, with OH58d, or BFVs in front picking targets depending on your kind of ABCT... an ACR like 11th ACR, had a huge artillery attachment, but a Cavalry Regiment like 1/1 CAV has an air element, and mortars/fisters in 113s running with BFVs and Tankers.
"Death Before Dismount!"
There are also many who were REMFs who could take over those jobs in days or weeks to relieve the existing REMFs for combatant roles. The former's combat skills could be worked with a modified refresher to cover combat skills...16 weeks. During the Vietnam war, many of my peers worked 12 on-12 off. 8 could be the skilled job and 4 could be the training job.
Great video.. thanks for providing quality content.
Good Job! I like the animation alot. It really helps to see what numbers and words alone, struggle to convey.
Good video! As a former Bradley Master Gunner and Infantryman of 21 years, we need to discuss the difference between Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV) and Armored Personnel Carriers (APC). A Stryker is not an IFV :)
It would be pretty cool to see these 3d rendering to learn more about past wars like WW2 or foreign wars like the Falkland's Island campaign or the 7 day war.
Great video. Thanks. Very informative.
First time here....what an AMAZING job you did with this!!
I haven´t seen many videos this well researched in a long, long time.
Congrats on an epic job.
New sub won of course!
Excellent analysis. Note the Navy, Marines and USAF would be competing for the same critical resources computer chips, missile systems (cruise missiles, javelins type, stingers), replacement manpower, and strategic metals. If production lines are up now, *long* lead times will follow.
The US had 28 Aircraft Carriers at the end of WW2, trying to field 28 Supercarriers today at the span of WW2 (about 4 years) would be a nightmare 😂
@@MrOiram46 So true!
I think the 1973 Yom Kippur War offered the world's first-class armies an idea at just how fast munitions and equipment would be consumed by modern armies facing other modern, peer armies. If Israel had not ended the war when it did, both sides may have run out of weapons in a matter of weeks.
Highly Unlikely
Production in wartime is way larger than peacetime.
@@abdellah7879 but for countries like those, production is very small if not non existent, with most stuff being imported
Great breakdown and the visuals were great and gave a real nice perspective! I’m looking forward to watching your previous videos!
Great job dude, keep it up, vieos are awesome
Would be an interesting video on your view on what thr Air Force is doing. The Air Force is currently incorporating ACE (Agile Combat Employment). This is where they take a fighter aircraft unit of 24 or so aircraft and forward deploy up to 6 of those aircraft on short notice to an unknown location. This is to allow flexibility and decrease the footprint a fighter squadron creates.
To me (and I'm biased being retired AF) is that will be the difference in a major war. Our airpower and sea power. Combined, no other country has both like we do.
@@teleguy5699 being that I am still active myself and seeing these events take place. I think we are headed in the right direction and making ourselves a more adaptive force.
@@brandonelmore6484 Good to hear. I did my 30 years, carry on Airman!
I like the 3d animations. People don't realize how much time it take to make and process
love the 3D Animations - helps visualize the sheer amount of personell and machinery on different org. levels! Great work :D
Very interesting topic. Outlined and communicated exceptionally graphically well. Well done sir!
3D animations are nifty, but if they're a lot of effort, I'd say 2D graphics can get a point across just as well or even better.
I think perhaps a more relevant angle to look at this from would be how many planes and ships along with their crews could the US generate, since China has been identified as the pacing threat and that would be in the Pacific. I suspect that would be more difficult than BCTs in the army, especially with any older ships in reserve.
US would never plan to land in China, if Us really want to stop China it need to double carrier number
Great video. The animations were a good addition. Appreciate all the hard work!
great work man. loved it. eye opening
FYI: The US Army is changing the IBCT substantially and creating two distinct versions of the IBCT. IBCT-M(mobile) and IBCT-L(light).
The difference is the Mobile IBCT will have hundreds of squad tactical vehicles and 100% of personnel in IBCT-M will have a dedicated seat on a vehicle. Great for large generally flat terrain
The IBCT-L is nearly a pure dismount infantry fighting force for dense urban, mountain or jungle force.
I noticed your profile picture. Texas independence first of is not support by majority of Texans. Majority are against it. When a Democrat holds oval office lot of angry conservatives will yell about Texas independence but they don't mean it. The same thing with the liberals yelling they would go to Canada. When a Republican holds office 99% are against independence, when a Democrat holds office 70% - 80% are against. Also Texas independence would be horrible for the Texas economy and not great for America. Also it would go against everything Sam Houston dud for Texas. I am a proud Texan and a proud American and I already did the research on all this. I am only saying this because I noticed your profile picture.
@RobertDole What source is that from? Have a link please?
@@vyros.3234 I rather have all 50 states in this Union. We bicker and fight, but at the end of the day, Americans will always come together, stronger than ever.
@@vyros.3234 did anyone ask
@@username_3715 He's a Texan, likely loves his state and country, noticed one of his neighbors is ..."not smart."
The concept itself has been judged by SCOTUS to be illegal (which I respect, despite the fact I don't like the court very much for various reasons, such as basing legal decisions exclusively on personal religious beliefs). Support for this concept via anonymous polling exists on both sides of the political spectrum, and both sides are equally dumb for believing this to be a good idea, as they certainly haven't given it much thought. I suggest anyone seriously thinking it's a good idea to sit down for 15-minutes or so and actually think about the timeline of events which would occur, and determine if it would be even close to worth all of the pain and suffering.
It's not patriotic in some backwards way, it would hurt the person wishing to be independent and everyone in the respective state in an insurmountable life-changing manner (for the worse without any doubt whatsoever). It would hurt both the state leaving and the remaining states in the union in virtually every aspect possible, but most importantly concerning the national and global economy, your individual finances in present and future, the culture you subscribe to and wish to retain would actually be irreparably damaged forever, reputations would be destroyed, and security of the country as a whole would come under immediate assault (how do you think China would react to such a shit-show?).
It would also extend to virtually everyone you know and love, negatively impacting all of one's local friends and family for the rest of their lives, and it would result in a very poor future as no break-away state would have any prospects for consistent application/equity of law or any sort of personal economic security. In fact, the idea is so short-sighted and ignorant, I can confidently conclude it goes straight from "an ignorant idea" and right into the stupid box.
Not to mention, it would likely result in a whole bunch of "former" US citizens (Texans in this case) being killed, and any federal forces they manage to actually kill would result in a particular lifelong hatred towards the citizens of that state who murdered a family member or friend. It wouldn't be a peaceful event, so I don't know what to say to anyone who genuinely thinks the federal government is just going to let a state walk away (it would be categorized as treasonous for anyone taking up arms if one attempted to "defend" the supposed vote to secede). Then, once that ugliness is finally over, the end-result is you're straight back to being a Texan in the United States of America.
The difference being tens of thousands of dead US citizens, millions with no wealth of any kind or prospects for the future, a global recession resulting from the US going 100% idiot, the US losing its status as a superpower (the US would likely have huge debt problems and it would likely result in losing our benefit of the USD being the international currency of record with a virtual license to print money, and subsequently result in all of the many trillions of debt becoming a factor overnight). For all of those reasons and more, I hope people who think about this concept are just joking/trolling or never seriously gave it some thought as to how it would play out.
Short Answer: No, we gave all our factories away in exchange for cheap labor.
No industry, no army.
Excellent analysis and research. Great video.
Thank you for the video! Much appreciated!
You said you can't just send tanks out into the battlefield alone. Someone might want to tell the Russians that 😆.
You're 3D animation is very good. Keep it up.
The purpose of tank supporting troops is to take out enemy anti-tank troops. Russia does this with overwhelming, city bulldozing artillery barrages. 80% of Ukrainian deaths are from Russian artillery, as Russian artillery outnumbers Ukrainian artillery by more than 10 to 1. So Russians do have tank support. It's their artillery.
@@Fierysaint1 That is true today but at the beginning of Vladimir Putin's blitzkrieg, his battalions of tanks and BMTs were destroyed. Putin's Special Military Operation was supposed to last a week, two maximum. So he thought, "I will send my tanks to scare the president of Ukraine to flee the country.". And close to six-months later this is where we are.
@@Marc_Gagne Send this main to the Pentagon, he knows what Putin is thinking.
@@adr8 I'll get my suit pressed and my bags packed.
@@Fierysaint1 No. You need close cooperation between infantry and armor. Artillery in any quantity is no substitute for infantry.
Ive seen some folks doing updates on twitter about Russian military equipment quantities based on satellite images. You did a great video about Russian tank claims vs. numbers that can be seen from space. Maybe its time to do an update on some of these storage yards with updated images?
You can see em from space, but its difficult to understand what type of tank it is, and even harder what country it is from: especially if they’re both using the same tanks
@@HOTSHTMAN53 Yeah, really hard if they are in a fucking storage yard in Russia.
ua-cam.com/video/eHhgVrKJJoA/v-deo.html
@@HOTSHTMAN53 I'm specifically referencing his previous video where he looked at Russian storage depots in Siberia and other locations. Not on the battlefield or in Ukraine.
I think satellite images of Russian equipment in storage are virtually worthless bearing in mind what we've learned about corruption preventing maintenance.
@@HOTSHTMAN53 We can definitely understand they're probably trashed from the elements. As the Russian government could only afford outdoor storage, in sub-standard environments.
If they had deserts like the former Central Asian Republics, then I would be more considered. As the hulls wouldn't be damaged by freeze-thraw cycles. Granted warehousing the internals would still be a major issue for them.
Love the animations! Thanks for the time in making them.
Fantastic video. Great effort, keep up the good work. Thanks!
8:04 me and my alt accounts on our way to win the argument
6:13
Damn, 13 support/logisticals vehicles per combat vehicle.
That's pretty crazy.
I would have thought it's way less than that.
The Russians tried to invade without that level of logistical support. 3 days in, Ukrainian farmers were towing away tanks and even mutli-million dollar ADA vehichles .... out of fuel, and out of food, the Russian crews walked home ....
@@danieparriott265 lmao
@@danieparriott265 their ego must have been up with the stars. when they invaded with the dire circumstances the Russian armed forces must have been in. or maybe it was American media propaganda which has the tendency off overblowing the strength of her enemies while downplaying her's
@@enlightthehermit It's always best to prepare for a competent, deadly enemy and when they turn out to be a paper tiger, you roll over them in 100 hours. Those kind of surprises are not nearly so nasty as writing off your potential opponent as weak, poorly equipped and disorganized, and fail to prepare for him being tenacious and resourceful and willing to fight until you get tired, no matter the cost. The US has taken both approaches in the last few decades.
I enjoyed the 3D animation in this one! It helped to visualize the numbers you were talking about. Keep it up! :)
You did good on the animation. Your videos are always good and informative. Keep up the good work!
The M1 Abrams in storage are mostly the original M1, with a 105mm gun and no depleted uranium armor. The overhaul required for them to be on par with the M1A2 is insane.
More info?
I’d say that the current high cost and complexity of arms would be quickly ditched in a world war situation. Even back in WWII, most designs were streamlined and non-essential features dropped fast. We’d have quick tweaks to reduce production time, materials and such would be swapped with whatever available. We’d see whatever works being made in greater numbers than the absolute best that can be made. A somewhat equipped military will be preferred to one with cutting edge stuff that cannot be replaced easily. World wars have been great to find out what works for the least cost. I imagine stuff like massive aircraft carriers and manned aircraft would become obsolete fast in a world war if happened today. We have been deceived by cavemen against post-modern conflicts like early WWI commanders were deceived by Zulu vs English and the like when they should have observed last stages of ACW.
You show that you don't know anything, take the Sherman for example, they didn't just not remove anything, they ADDED an extra sight, radio, and advances in engine/transmission!
In reality, tech trumps mass since the dawn of the cartridge loaded gun.
@@quantuman100 You show that you know nothing, Soviets rushed T-34s to the frontline without even painting it sometimes. When mass production is required, 'good enough' solutions will be preferred or you'll lose the war like Germany who got outproduced massively. Expensive stuff will sit back because once they're lost, they can't be replaced like battleship fleets of WWI which only saw action once. In peacetime countries fall to the same mistake always.
@@sapphyrus so, these T-34s that "rushed to the front line without paint" did so because the front lines were literally in front of the factory, and it's still the same story, Russian tank designs did not get simpler as the war progressed.
As for the whole "but Germany was so much better in technology" that pop-historical opinion came from a few of the former Nazi military and scientists who went to try and blame something else for why they lost the war
Your level of edition is amazing!
Fantastic video quality my friend, keep it up!
Are there any developments in the area of active protection for vehicles? Have any countries adopted one or developed a reliable version of one?
Israel’s Trophy has a good track record. I’ve always been skeptical of APS but Israel’s made it work pretty well.
There are many, such as Drozd, Zaslon, Arena, Afghanit etc, but the most notable one would be the field-tested TROPHY from Israel Military Industries, which is a combination of Hostile Fire Detection (HFD) and Active Protection System (APS), and comes in more than one configuration, manufactured by Rafael or Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. of Israel.
IDF Tank Brigades have seen extensive use and success with TROPHY.
4 U.S.Army ABCTs have been equipped with TROPHY HV.
17 Bundeswehr Heer Leopard 2A7s are currently in process of being equipped with TROPHY HV for NATO’s Very High Readiness Joint Task Force.
The Challenger 3 will also be equipped with TROPHY MV.
BAE Systems’ Black Night Challenger 2, featured an Israeli APS, Iron Fist.
@@Gridlocked oh I didn't know countries actually adopted trophy I thought it was still in testing/development, I read somewhere that south korea made one but it was too expensive. According to reports from syria apparently russian active protection is very unreliable. Haven't seen information about it being used in Ukraine, could be due to its unadoption.
I suspect strongly in a WW3 situation they would start making tanks/ planes/ equipment with less electronics allowing them to be mass produced faster and cutting down on the time needed to learn how to use them. It would be interesting to know what systems are listed for being first on the chopping block.
Russian/China can since they still produce basic older models. America cant because their basic models are all tech heavy. They would need to develop a new model for faster production.
Very good job indeed. The animations definitely lend a nice flavor. So keep up the good work.
This was an amazing video. Thank you
The US can assemble just the right amount of BTCs to get the job done as efficiently and as practical for the condition(s) as needed. Period.
Wut
@@chris3325 You heard him! He said period. Don't question it and move on. This is America.
@@CastilloinaSpeedo Point made Sir, Period.
Great video! I personally enjoyed the animations but if they are time consuming/stressful perhaps you should only use them sparingly, quality over quantity!
Yes, they are not strictly necessary. Look after yourself first ❤️
Good stuff, and I definitely appreciate the visualizations
Amazing video, keep up the great work!
Any large scale conventional warfare between two major powers would inevitably turn into a nuclear one. So in some ways nuclear weapons have saved more lives than anything else.
This hypothesis has never been tested. It is true that doctrine suggests it's likely, but it's easy to write something like that on paper. Who would be willing to take that step for real?
@@dark7element A mad man or someone desperate not to lose a war would be the most likely to push the nuclear button.
Pretty much every case by now that we have, where both sides did know that they both had chemical, biological or atomic weapons ended up without use of any of those. So no, nuclear war is not guarantide in case of large scale conventinal war.
I don't think its inevitable unless (1) tactical nukes are on the table without clear policy as to whether/when their use would be regarded like strategic nukes, (2) a nuclear power lacks good centralized control of its nukes, or (3) a nuclear power believes its enemy is seeking to annihilate it or a vital ally, rather than to merely obtain its surrender.
@@PrezVeto In my opinion Russia meets at least 2 of those 3 conditions already. They consider use of tactical nukes in battlefield and also interpret NATO expansion as an existential threat. Putin desperately needs to claim some sort of victory to justify the immense strategic failures of his war, and I don't see how he could accomplish so without the use of WMDs
The world hasn't seen a major power build up. It would be insane to seen the US or China dedicate it's production to military equipment. There are numerous heavy factories building excavator, trains that could change. Small armories for small arms. Car factories for light vehicles. Yes the chips would be a large factor but the US still builds harden chips, just no consumer. It would be wild.
Yea....except the US doesn’t have factories anymore. If fast food restaurants could make tanks, then the US would win.
@@TheBooban except it does. The US is a major manufacturing nation. It holds thousands upon thousands of factories that could in times of war be tasked with producing parts for equipment or equipment itself. Not to mention defense industry doesn't always work at full capacity. Mass production of modern weapons is possible for the US and large part of the west.
@@TheBooban The US doesn't make many consumer good but heavy equipment like CAT, Deere, Locomotives, Aircraft are American made. It wouldn't be easy but could be done.
@@kordellswoffer1520the US doesn’t have the workforce. The whole economy is geared to inflate asset prices.
@@CraigTheBrute-yf7no the us does have the workforce. It’s the got the second largest on the planet and the most productive large scale workforce.
great video! Love tne 3d animation and the real world analysis
Excellent video, very well researched and presented!
There are problems with the statement that Russia is losing "0.25%" of its tanks every day. First of all, that's based on visually confirmed numbers, which are certainly lower than the actual numbers. It also ignores the fact that they likely aren't being used as much now because they've been attrited heavily and the artillery warfare that's going on now doesn't favour armour as much. You're also assuming the US would lose more than 0.25% a day compared to a military that is far less competent
He must have forgot to add in the made up US/ Ukraine propaganda numbers to, he should fix that🙄
Or maybe he just looks at it from a neutral aspect because he doesn’t think the sun shines out of the US ass
@@peppipoohductionswakashunt3157 I'm in love with you
@@marza339 thanks darling love you to
US would lose that much as well if their air force was grounded against someone using infantry operated top attack munitions. All this talk about competence imagines fighting cavemen with RPG-7s with constant air bombardment.
@@sapphyrus Russia lost tons of armour at the start of the war because they didn't wage combined arms effectively - they advanced armour without cover of air defense or infantry - that is not a mistake the Americans would make. Also, if the USAF were grounded for whatever reason then so would the PLAAF.
I think the vast majority of a ww3 woukd fall on the air force and navy, at least initially. The US would almost certainly win any naval conflict in time, its just a matter of how long and how much damage can china and russia do before they lose it. Then it would probably devolve into 3 major land areas. Tiawan, the Korean peninsula, and western europe. The rest of the NATO powers can probably fight off russia in the west without too much US assistance, so that leaves the other two theaters. We would probably rush reinforcements to both, and they would likely be able to hold off any invasion attempts. Then its just a matter of grinding the enemy down until they call it quits. Their economies would be straned too, they would eventually wither away and starve to death without foreign trade,and the US would also attain air superiority in time, i could see constant stealth bombing missions deep inside russian and chinese territory, targeting critical infrustructure, production, leadership, cyber centers, food and supplies. Ect. While the US would probably stay mostly safe from such attacks. In the end, a total war can only really end 1 way. In a, albeit costly, but inevetable, US and NATO victory.
US and NATO VICTORY?
You realize if only a 100 nukes hit their targets in the US mainland, the US economy is destroyed, no more stock exchange for the rich to rob the poor, all nuclear reactors in total meltdown, EMP.
America is done. Afterwards a civil war will start killing even more people in the US.
Sorry for the bad news.
Well with how intertwined our economy has become I am quite certain that a war would absolutely destroy the living standards of the populus on both sides. That combined with the risk of it escalating to all out nukes makes me pray that the leaders of this world will eventually manage to stop measuring dicks and actually start doing some diplomacy instead of feeding the frenzy.
@@SkeeNnN Russia have nuclear shelters for 1/3 of their whole population.
The US?
@@useryggfdcc honestly I would rather die than spend the rest of my life in a post apolyptic world. A shelter may help you in 14 days but after that good luck finding food that is not contaminated with radioactive decay. Besides if the nuclear shelters in Russia are of the same quality as their military equipment I am not sure I would feel quite as confident as you in their protection against radiation 😅 Let's just for argument sake assume you would be able to survive, what the fuck would you be able to do? According to your own numbers (which are quite generous, knowing the Russian ability to organize I am quite doubtful a third of the Russian population would be evacuated in time) what would there be to live for? Statistically 2/3 of your family and friends would be gone, there may be a permanent nuclear winter, I wouldn't wish such a Destiny upon my worst enemy. Can we all just agree that nuking eachother into oblivion would be absolutely horrific?
@@SkeeNnN I'm in Canada, the world is about to be END , I'm at peace with it.
I've spent my whole career as an enlisted dude in an ABCT and never really thought about the broader scale until reading up on specifics of WW2 and WW1 strategy and tactics, great compact video I really enjoy putting numbers to modern strategy and tactics and its right up my alley!
the animations were very illustrative and much appreciated, thank you
Even in WWIII I'm not sure where all those BCT would go. Russia has 85% of it's active military in Ukraine, and they have their hands full. I think the Army only plans to send a core-sized deployment to Taiwan in case of an invasion and S Korea can handle a N Korean Invasion with minimal support. Unless you want to try something insane like actually invade the home soil of a nuclear power what would all those land forces do?
That's the real question. In the event of a conflict on Taiwan and US intervention, the US would ultimately have to invade mainland China. China's missile corps number over 2700 launchers capable of hitting the island from well within mainland China and that 2700 is based largely off data from 2008. The only way to actually effectively defend Taiwan would be to invade a nuclear power. Which is something that seems to get left out of these conversations.
Limiting factors for the US to raise a large scale army is,
A; The obesity crisis
B; A lack of allegiance to the country from its imported residents and left wing rhetoric.
Sure Mr. racist guy.
C: The utter stupidity of racist idiots who would be useless in the military or anywhere else to be honest.
Fair enough.
Beautiful. I’m obsessed with your videos. I drop everything when I get an alert. Bravo man. Also I’m dying to see what you look like
Loved the 3D animations ! awesome video thank you
If a war begun, Africa will be the nxt superpower and I will be the leader of that
The US military is more concerned about Rainbow Flags and Pronouns than actually training soldiers how to fight. The US is fucked.
Sure.
@@teleguy5699 Do live under a rock?
@@mountainmanmike1014 You're right, our military is "more concerned about Rainbow Flags and Pronouns". What was I thinking? Ask "Speaks the Truth" YT channel guy if that is true. But, you can listen to Alex Jones if you like.
Totally
It's been said on UA-cam many times before but I'll say it again; I still can't believe we get videos with the production quality and levels of research shown here, for free. Fantastic video to watch with my bowl of midnight cereal
Love the effort and research done. Keep up the good work!
1st af