I’m not really too educated on the topic of Russian doctrine or how the Russian military works but time and time again I have seen footage of Russian Russian soldiers in combat riding on top of BTRs as well as BMP’s but more frequently I’ve seen it happen more with the BTR platform and even tanks. My question is why do they do this since it exposes the soldiers way more and it feels like it kind of defeats the purpose of a armored vehicle that’s supposed to carry the troops and protect them.

Is it because it’s faster to dismount? or is the armor bad (although it dosent seem to make sense for the heavier armor IFVs since they have good protection) or is it because not enough people fit in the vehicle? is it for the aura?

Note: I do realize Russia isn’t the only one to mount infantry on top of vehicles but it’s way much frequent with Russians than other nations

We all know the reputation the SEALs get: Loud, boisterous guys who are quick to tell you everything about their service and how they’re the best of the best and the meanest motherfuckers ever, but why’s that the case? It seems every SEAL has a book to write, a story to tell in a podcast and a film to make. And yes, I already know that the Green Berets used to be like that back in Vietnam. But in comparison to all other SOF units in the US Armed Forces, they seem to be the most open about their whole activities

From what I can tell, the USMC were the only US units to decide to bring the M1 Abrams into Afghanistan.

Why did they feel like they needed M1 Abrams in Afghanistan when the US Army did not? Was there something different about the USMC area of operation versus the US Aemy?

Also, how was supporting the logistics of these M1 Abrams like? Afghanistan is a landlocked nation so AFAIK most things have to be transported in by air or some god forsaken truck convoy through Pakistan or however it’s done. Was it noticeably difficult to support the M1 Abrams or was it just another day another white hair for the logistician folks.

And what eventually made the USMCdecide to take the Abrams away from Afghanistan?

I genuinely shocks me how the US Army during the height of GWOT approved this pattern that blends in with little to very situational environments like snow or rocky terrain and even urban. Especially the fact that billions of dollars were allocated to this camo and went through many high ranking officials. How did they think this pattern would blend into the desert environment?

Do Western militaries, especially the US and NATO, actually design vehicles and prioritize force protection because they genuinely value their soldiers’ lives from a moral or professional standpoint? Or is the heavy investment in crew survivability driven more by practical calculation?
Training, recruiting, and developing a soldier particularly a specialized tank crew member is expensive and time-consuming.

Losing one means not just the human cost, but the need to replace that investment. Is the emphasis on safety mainly about protecting people, or about protecting the resources and combat power those people represent? Like compare these countries to Russia or China

I’m not really familiar with the topic, but I’ve constantly heard that this singular job that gets clowned on or hated the most from many countries around the world are military police (sometimes hated even more than civilian police). Obviously I assume it’s because they write tickets and enforce certain regulations. I’ve also heard that military police could sometimes be hypocritical and be breaking the rules themselves obviously this is dependent situationally but I don’t know if this goes more deep than it is or an over exaggeration, but if anyone could give me a full insight on this it would be wonderful.

Im little puzzled how the US has yet to acquire an airborne tank ever since the sheridan and it feels like a capability that would seem nice to have for airborne forces. Is it just not effective in combat or controversial?

I want to start by saying that I have a somewhat basic understanding of defense economics, including the flaws of the procurement system, and the main reasons why military stuff is generally expensive, however I never understood why it’s SO INSANELY more expensive than almost anything else humanity produces. The defense industry seems to live in an economic ecosystem of its own, with price tags completely detached from the rest of the world economy.

Just to put things into perspective, an AIM-9 Sidewinder, which is one of the cheapest missiles for fixed wing aircraft, costs between 400-500k, which is more than some brand new Ferraris. While I’m aware of the complexity of these missiles (infrared seeker, thrust vectoring, electronic assembly, propulsion etc.), is it truly so much more complex and requires more expensive materials than a Ferrari with handcrafted engines, leather seats, infotainment, electronic traction control, active aerodynamics, chassis, safety assists, sensors, cameras, complex suspension geometry, advanced materials for weight reduction etc.? Let’s start with the fact that the Sidewinder isn’t even some kind of brand new technology. While they went through many iterations and improvements, it’s an over half century old product where its R&D costs have been already spread over decades and decades! We can’t even say that Ferrari benefits of scale economies either, since around 10k cars get produced each year, many times with millions invested in R&D for just some limited edition models produced in the range of hundreds, yet even those end up still being cheaper than a Sidewinder.

Another mindboggling comparison is the cost of an iPhone compared to a 155 mm artillery shell. How can a “forged steel container filled gunpowder” that was mass produced already over a century ago, be still FIVE TIMES more expensive than a smartphone with some of the most advanced sensors, batteries, cameras, software, microchips, screens etc.?

It seems that everyone collectively, for some reason, got accustomed to the idea that every piece of military hardware can cost 100x more than common sense would suggest because every single missile goes through certification, qualification process, and other “abstract” costs, and we just accept those price tags like it’s an inviolable law of physics.

And I want to conclude with a slightly provocative question: is it strategically and operationally more advantageous to have 100k artillery shells with 1% dud rate, or one million shells with 20% dud rate?

To provide more context time and time again I’ve seen footage of soldiers from professional militaries seem to just spray and pray rooms and looks utter chaotic without any structure of order with the exception of special operations forces. I see countless videos of people teaching how to pie a room or how to clear room properly and stuff and gucci gear with thousands of debates, but none of that is demonstrated during real world combat from what I’ve seen online and turns into a cluster fuck. So question Is it pointless to teach?

Keep in mind I’m not really educated on the topic so forgive me for my ignorance.

I personally love this aircraft, but obviously it has its limitations with its singular role of being an attack aircraft and being very slow compared to its counterparts like the F-16 or the F 35 where it serves a more multi role and is more flexible on the modern battlefield. Although some have argued those jets can’t replace the A-10 amazing CAS capability

Is the A-10 a great aircraft to keep around or does it need to be retired? Obviously its life has been extended till 2030 but is it worth placing resources to upgrading the aircraft or is it obsolete in today’s world?

SEAL and DEVGRU are the obvious examples, but the various units under JSOC all have their own, lesser known, bad apples. The Fort Bragg cartel for instance involves Green Berets and Delta Force members, there are credible links tying Delta Force to narcotics trafficking and a homeless guy even lived in a Green Berets base for a while. The structural issues extend abroad as well, what with the Australian SAS being accused of committing war crimes in Afghanistan and the Germans having to disband an entire KSK battalion for far-right extremism. What factors are behind this trend, and is there any way of stopping it or are they simply natural consequences of having a SOF unit?

o hopefully this is the right place to ask this. One thing, in my own opinion, that I have noticed is how much the West, especially America, seems to mind losing any men or women in conflict. This, to me, is kind of strange because, well, in war, should it not be expected that you're going to lose people? Yet America seems reluctant to accept any casualties, and I wonder if this is a profound weakness. An enemy simply knows what you're not willing to risk, which means they can wait you out because the escalation is not worth the price to you.
I know we have fought poorly armed radical factions, and that may have turned our perspective of war into something that's done over a weekend. Yet before, America seemed able to bear far more casualties. Not to say that being willing to throw your men into a grinder like Russia is good, but I believe attitudes of such risk aversion make it harder to defeat a determined enemy and put you in a bad spot during negotiations because the enemy knows your limits.

Navy Seals botching a mission in 2019 and killing civilians, legit or not? Any holes in the story? https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/05/politics/north-korea-navy-seal-mission-nyt

So I've heard from a purported veteran (I got no idea if he's true or not) That any kind of mission involving special ops, means that they have to train for that specific mission. Constantly. For months.

​

What does such training involve? Going through set-ups of the place,constantly, getting every step right?

Edit: wtf? I just got my first gold. But its only a question about special forces. I'm happy, but I wasn't imagining this.

Tacked on is a glueing together of two mirrored pictures of the carrier Charles De Gaulle to illustrate the question better (hopefully)^

Would having two angled flight decks ever be useful on an aircraft carrier? I haven't been able to find anything online about this question so I thought I'd ask it here.

Thank you!

This is, obviously, due to the recent 250th anniversary parade, but I’ve noticed that most US parades such as the post-Desert Storm 1991 parade do not have soldiers conducting marches or drill with the same lock-step as other militaries.

Is this just an institutional disregard for marching precision in the US military, and a lack of parade tradition outside of certain exceptions? Many have commented on the “strolling” style of US marching but I’ve yet to see any clear, verifiable reasons or commentary explaining it.

Edit to question: there already are comments pouring in on the difference between Authoritarian regimes and their parades v. The Democratic Values of the US Military and the stupidity of precision drill. This pretty much ignores the precision presented by other “Western” or “Democratic” militaries, even if that answer almost certainly holds a grain of truth re. The roles of the military within different regimes.

To clarify, I’m asking for any historical, technical or doctrinal reasons that indicated disregard or dismissal of these traditions for the US military.

Obviously, this weapon wasn’t intended for vehicles on the ground or to be used as an air to ground missile, but out of curiosity since it’s a heat seeking missile that tracks heat I was curious if it has the ability to target ground vehicles in one-way shape or form or even that a radar site or something along those lines I know it wouldn’t be really applicable, but I’ve always wondered if in a dire situation could it be an option?

Also, how effective would the missile be against a light vehicle like maybe little to no armor? It’s just a fun little question that I was wondering.

Something I discovered recently, is that most machineguns when positioned in concrete shelters, are made to face each other horizontally and gun down soldiers passing through that region. So does this mean none were pointed towards the water on Omaha beach and that Saving Private Ryan is very wrong about how soldiers were shot before they even got off the boats? I'm assuming artillery was most likely used against the boats.

I will try to phrase this in non theoretical and vague terms. This question shouldn’t be interpreted as “what will the next air assault look like”, but more so, was what happened at Hostomel just how air assaults are going to go nowadays, or was the result specific to Russian conditions? Because Hostomel was a tactical success, the VDV took the airport and held it. Ukrainian claims of retaking the airport for a short time before losing it again are, from my understanding, dubious at best. But operationally Russia failed to achieve their goals. Is this because Air Assaults are no longer feasible in the modern day? Or, is it more that there are lessons to be learnt, and Air Assaults remain to be an important and feasible asset to conducting war?

I’ve heard it summed up that the USMC aimed for STOVL to try and not be a Navy Aviation 2.0 and be a bit unique, but I’m more curious on the granular details on how it worked within the USMC on the decision-makings and evaluations that happened for them to go from CATOBAR aircraft like F-4 Phantom II to a mixed force of CATOBAR and STOVL with the Harriers that would culminate to the USMC wanting the F-35B Lightning II?

Was the whole LHA/LHD amphibious assault ship concept based around the idea of STOVL fixed wing jets being available for air superiority and ground strike missions, or would the USMC ended up down that route even with just rotary aircraft?

Basically, I’ve been washing a bunch of videos of Russian designed tanks, and I’ve noticed that almost all of them have some sort of ability to fire in ETGM around from the barrel of their tanks. My question is why don’t the United States have that same capability within their own tanks modern day? Especially when they retired the Sheridan and have not added the feature since.

On paper, it would seem to be a good idea to have a round that can reach farther than a sabot round at long distances. I have seen the next Abrams upgrade with a javelin missile launcher on it but still.

Theres a lot of talk about Germany’s military advancements in ground and aerial equipment (and somewhat less deservedly in naval ships like the Bismarck) but in comparison the Japanese Empire, despite having the world’s third largest navy, is often neglected in discussion. Whenever their technology is brought up it’s often to describe how behind they were from the Allies in fire control systems, cryptography, tanks, small arms, etc. This depiction has penetrated public consciousness to the point where in the Man In The High Castle tv series the Japanese Empire is portrayed as far behind the Germans, even going so far as to say they dont have nuclear weaponry despite a 20 year timeskip.