[jessupjonesjnr87]

This is nonsense. There is no "backbone" of any Army. The combined arms team is what wins wars. The infantry is one part of that team.

I disagree, backbone, foundation whatever you want to call it the infantry are the most versatile and essential aspect of most armies. They fight on the front lines with the tanks and war planes but as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan along with countless other engagements wars aren't always won on the battlefield, the infantries role continues on long after the tanks and war planes have served their purpose aside from minor roles.

We did not defeat Iraq with a "proxy Army". Quite the opposite. We are not fielding our infantry in the ME right now simply because it is not in our best interest to do it. The Iraqi army is not a "proxy army" it is the army of the recognized country doing the fighting.

I was talking about groups like ISIS or the new Ukraine army.

The US Army is the best in the world. There is no question about that. It could, and might some day, impose our will on the Middle East. That would not be a hard task at all. What IS important, and what you seem incapable of understanding is that the way to a lasting peace in the Middle East is to raise up countries that can impose peace on the region. We have no desire to occupy the ME for decades. We don't even like those people.

and we don't like you either

The Yanks just have more expensive toys. That's it. The commonwealth armies and of course the glorious party army of the DPRK are far better than the yanks.

Unfortunately the UN was giving the DPRK and it's armed forces a good hiding until the Chinese showed up with a massive infantry army(take note drlee) that sent the US and its allies into one of the fastest retreats in modern history.

[Demosthenes]

There are actually two or three serious issues with US armed forces that compromise their effectiveness. Anyone saying the troops on the ground aren't formidable just has an axe to grind. The fact is, the troops are largely good enough to overcome the two-three issues I'm talking about, so that's saying something.

1) Leadership. By and large US forces are led by political appointees and their ilk. This is more than just a nitpicking distinction, and this issue has been systemic all the way back to the American civil war where the vastly larger, and far more advanced union army kept losing battles it shouldn't have because all the military minds of note were in the south.

2) The Business of the military is a serious hindrance to force projection. This is pretty obvious and goes back to the excesses of the MIC, and the far over appropriated budget. Unfortunately US military forces are giant cash cows to a host of parasitic corporate entities and other assorted hangers-on.

3) This harkens back to one, but it's a structural issue in that the military is headed by what is almost always a career civilian. Some will take this as a plus, others not. In my view the issue is less the lack of military experience by itself more than it is by combining that fact along with the vastly over politicized nature of military "needs" in the US. This results in our military being used poorly for dubious reasons and benefit, as directed by civilians who don't understand the military very well, and as such use it largely to assuage their own deficits of leadership both domestically and on the world stage.



This is off the topic of marksmanship btw.

[Decky]

If it was lead by an ex bank robber it would be far better.

[Pants-of-dog]

On topic, I have been thinking I should get a 22 bolt action to start, and use that to practice technique until I get good, then move up to bolt action 30-06 (is that how you write it?).

From what I have read on the internet, this will keep me from tensing up before the recoil.

[Godstud]

You can start iwth a 30-06, Pants of dog. Don't be afraid just because of the higher calibre. No need to buy a puny calibre rifle just to practice to get a bigger one.

[Pants-of-dog]

Fortunately, my stepfather grew up in rural Canada, so you can imagine how many guns they have.

I am certain I will be able to test out different rifles before I choose one.

[Godstud]

Good stuff! Have fun!

[Pants-of-dog]

Sorry for the necroposting (not really) but my father in law wants us to go shoot his 1942 Mosun Nagant (probably an 1891/30) now that we live here in the rurals.

Oh yes, it was used to shoot Nazis. Oh yes.

From what I understand, it is the AK-47 of sniper rifles.

[anasawad]

Try cheytac or one of the Ms. they're the best. screw hunting rifles, they're pieces of shit.

[Red_Army]

Unless you want to... I don't know... hunt or something.

[anasawad]

You can hunt with those. Just not the small animals.
And ofcourse its much more fun using them.

[Red_Army]

Fair enough, but not everyone lives in a war zone. Hunting rifles serve a purpose even if the mosin nagant is in fact a piece of shit

[ViljenFjerstad]

im trying to find a shooting club near in Oslo, Norway...

[DrSteveBrule]

In the US reserves have a bad rep for being what people sign up for to not actually go to war. It's basically something you do on weekends.

Kind of a holdover from Vietnam. Nowadays, even the reserves are being tapped to fight because the number of rotations that a person can take is quite limited.

[Drlee]

Kind of a holdover from Vietnam. Nowadays, even the reserves are being tapped to fight because the number of rotations that a person can take is quite limited.

This is a fascinating subject for another thread. The current reliance on National Guard combat troops and USAR support troops was a careful construction. One more or less secretly designed by some generals, to make it more difficult for politicians to get the military involved in another debacle like the Vietnam war. It has not worked as well as its designer hoped but it has not altogether failed either.




[Nonsense]

Cheater.[/quote]
Now, that specimen would make for good 'target practice' , I could hit him every time, even behind a closed bathroom door.

[Glen]

[youtube]BEG-ly9tQGk[/youtube]

More fun, keeps you fit and you (probably) won't need a licence.

I find that video hard to believe. Just as you cannot compare the tactics of ultra-light sabre fencing to those of any historical soldier, I doubt modern sporting archery can be compared with ancient combat techniques.

If you look at ancient illustrations of short bows, almost every archer is aiming downwards, and this is consistent with my limited experience. I have used traditionally hand-made bows with the guidance of indigenous hunters, and the materials are not very strong. Weak materials means the bows are easily overdrawn causing damage. If you aim too high the arrow veers off course because they cannot be fired with great power. Of course materials differ by region, but the ancient illustrations do not depict particularly powerful archers or particularly ingenious bow designs. What the ancient illustrations do show is archers aiming downwards. In my limited experience, using weak short bows requires you to wait until the target is close enough to shoot at a downward angle. The distance is a few metres, which provides sufficient advantage and would work well from horseback. The sharp tips penetrate easily enough to maim, but death is more likely by knives.

Historical records describing relatively modern longbows (almost 2m long) are very informative. Longbow archers are not depicted as being especially agile, and skeletal remains show that longbow archers were physically deformed due to the extra power they needed to apply when using the weapons. Modern materials are on a completely different level and current sporting bows permit an entirely different manner of use.

I agree the video is raising the standard of modern archery, but I struggle with the idea that ancient techniques are contributing to this.

[Godstud]

He's not exactly using a 100 lb pull longbow. That's probably around 40 lb pull. It's fine for close range, but not at 100 yards.

[SolarCross]

I agree the video is raising the standard of modern archery, but I struggle with the idea that ancient techniques are contributing to this.

Believe as you will but sporting archery is not warfare archery. Better bows from modern materials does not equal better archers, just better bows.

The sporting archer does not need to fire fast, at moving targets, whilst moving himself. He will not die if he gets it wrong.