not always
experience is not a replacement for training, as even if you have tons of experience you lack decades of institutional knowledge of people who came before and wrote down what they experienced so future people will know to do better
its why self-taught fighters rarely make it to the top of MMA tournaments and often get displaced by formally trained fighters
even with lots of real-world experience, if you are learning bad habits in your fights and only ever fighting other amateurs, you will hit a ceilling in how much your potential can grow
ANA lowers everyone else's k/d so not really fair to lump them all together. ANA was comprised largely of opium addicts for a while. NATO completely btfo Taliban in terms of k/d
Additionally they spent their entire lives running around the mountains as goat shepherds and getting into tribal wars. They didn't commute in a car to their 9-5 in an air conditioned building every weekday.
I mention this because a lot of LARPer8tors like to use the Taliban and VC as examples of successful insurgencies with the implication that Americans could do the same thing despite the vastly different lifestyles of asiatic rice farmers and afghan shepherds compared to the typical American.
That little sandBlack person kid top right is holding the biggest gun in the group.
For some reason those morons let him hold the biggest gun.
Is this pic trying to be ironic?
But they’re not. Taliban/AQ/ISIS/whatever African warlord tribe routinely get blown out in tactical engagements by trained and motivated troops. The only advantage they have is the ability to hide among the local populace and wait until the pressure is off.
That and a strong motivational advantage compared to most local national troops, but I wouldn’t call them highly motivated.
>50,000 Taliban killed vs 3500 coalition
Even if you assume a full 2/3 of the Taliban kills were from ANA (lol) it'd be hugely lopsided. Similar casualty ratios were seen in Vietnam against the Viet Cong. Insurgents only have strength in numbers.
Yes but considering the average rural Afghani or Pakistani woman pops out 10 children while the average woman from a coalition country has less than two children, this is no problem for them, especially considering you don't have problems conscripting new insurgents from a population that is continuously being bombed to shit, and if they do they just forcefully conscript people by threatening their families.
Why are ESLs more englishly incompetent than and moronic than average school-taught white people?
>critiques OP's B+ English with execution-worthy grammatical errors
Neck your fricking self.
Pic unrelated
not always
experience is not a replacement for training, as even if you have tons of experience you lack decades of institutional knowledge of people who came before and wrote down what they experienced so future people will know to do better
its why self-taught fighters rarely make it to the top of MMA tournaments and often get displaced by formally trained fighters
even with lots of real-world experience, if you are learning bad habits in your fights and only ever fighting other amateurs, you will hit a ceilling in how much your potential can grow
Post a pic of an example of said self taught soldiers.
Because the group in your OP is not that.
Daily reminder Talibans had a higher k:d ratio than NATO + ANA + ANP + Contractors
ANA lowers everyone else's k/d so not really fair to lump them all together. ANA was comprised largely of opium addicts for a while. NATO completely btfo Taliban in terms of k/d
Training is about bestowing confidence to the creed of "cool heads prevail."
If you're confident by way of training, you are less likely to choke/flip out/panic when the bullets fly.
However, when you're an absolute moron, like the inbred Taliban, there's no concern of panic because there's no thought process involved.
This is why militaries around the world prefer idiots.
Think about it.
>why motivated people are more effective than unmotivated people who are there just to pass time and get some pocket money?
Additionally they spent their entire lives running around the mountains as goat shepherds and getting into tribal wars. They didn't commute in a car to their 9-5 in an air conditioned building every weekday.
I mention this because a lot of LARPer8tors like to use the Taliban and VC as examples of successful insurgencies with the implication that Americans could do the same thing despite the vastly different lifestyles of asiatic rice farmers and afghan shepherds compared to the typical American.
>why is defense easier than offense
Natural selection
>trained by the CIA
>self taught
Lol, lmao even
That little sandBlack person kid top right is holding the biggest gun in the group.
For some reason those morons let him hold the biggest gun.
Is this pic trying to be ironic?
because it is a bolt action rifle and the least useful firearm, he is probably expected to just hide somewhere with it like a sniper
The bigger the gun, the harder it will be for the chai boy to defend his tea hole.
But they’re not. Taliban/AQ/ISIS/whatever African warlord tribe routinely get blown out in tactical engagements by trained and motivated troops. The only advantage they have is the ability to hide among the local populace and wait until the pressure is off.
That and a strong motivational advantage compared to most local national troops, but I wouldn’t call them highly motivated.
>50,000 Taliban killed vs 3500 coalition
Even if you assume a full 2/3 of the Taliban kills were from ANA (lol) it'd be hugely lopsided. Similar casualty ratios were seen in Vietnam against the Viet Cong. Insurgents only have strength in numbers.
Yes but considering the average rural Afghani or Pakistani woman pops out 10 children while the average woman from a coalition country has less than two children, this is no problem for them, especially considering you don't have problems conscripting new insurgents from a population that is continuously being bombed to shit, and if they do they just forcefully conscript people by threatening their families.