ThisIsIt wrote:
H- wrote:
Crank wrote:
Adults playing Army, using very realistic kit and
simulated weapons. I don't get it.
Does anyone here engage in such things? If so, why? Not a flame, just a sincere attempt to understand.
I can see why former military types don't do it. They have been there done that. Former MLB baseball players don't join softball leagues. Former formula one drivers don't go to the amusement park and ride the go carts.
But for regular folks, why can't it be fun? I did paintball once in college in the 80s. Being in the woods being hunted and hunting was a real thrill. My heart was racing. Very much fun.
Would someone please explain triathlon to me?? Or better yet, spending hours reading and composing statements about current politics which are dust in the wind 24 hours later?
Do guys in the military get to play these sorts of war games where they actually shoot one another?
If not I would think the actual percentage of people in the military who have actually seen much if any combat along these lines would be pretty small?
There are varying degrees of military training, depending on your service branch as well as career field (MOS, NEC, designator, etc.), that would deliver far more realistic training than what these Airsoft/MilSim folks are seeing. These include live-fire exercises (for example, on occasion, we used to crawl on our backs under barb wire, all while crew-served automatic weapons (Ma Deuce and M60s) were cooking off rounds inches over our heads. Then there were other simulations that used MILES ("Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System") gear, which was of a less-intensive aspect when it came to preparing for war. Immediate action drills were still another way to get ready for when it was time to grab your war bag and go.
From what I remember, artillery folks had TOT or "time on target" stuff they would work through, along with the troops on the ground. Same for live-fire tank exercises (also with infantry and other ground troops moving around them). Air power was the same thing. You can't move out in the field in a combat-effective manner, in the real thing, unless you're exposed to it in training. This may even include walking between a stream of rounds fired from a ground support aircraft during a strafing run (that was actually in our field training manual, by the way).
As to how many military folks are actually exposed to the real-deal combat thing, that all depends on the nature of the conflict and the size of it. Folks like Mr. Brandon and Mr. Hawley, I'm guessing, saw quite a bit of it, as have many Marine Corps (and their Navy Hospital Corps sailors) and Army troops and Air Force PJs (Pararescue) and CJs (combat air controllers) and Navy SEALs and Special Boat and SEAL delivery vehicle troops, especially if they're part of one of the combat arms branches (infantry/SOF/specwar/special operations, armor, artillery... leaving aside air, because it's so diverse).
The traditional ratio of infantry-type troop to support troops was 6 support troops to every infantry troop, meaning it took six non-infantry soldiers (supply, admin, intelligence, etc.) to support the in-field efforts of one infantryman. The nature of today's modern battlefield (which often isn't even on what we think of as a battlefield), however, where the "rear" can become the "front" at any time, may mean that far more or far less troops are seeing at least low-intensity combat than ever before. But I'll leave it up to the current Soldiers, Marines and others to fill in the gaps on this one.
"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
