4 ms·

To be fair... The guys in those Harriers were Marines. The guys in those F/A-18s were Marines. There are really good reasons for not allowing suppression over

by bilbo0s 12y ago

To be fair... The guys in those Harriers were Marines. The guys in those F/A-18s were Marines. There are really good reasons for not allowing suppression over ingress routes with those platforms. Think about it... the BEST guys in aviation were slated for Harriers... because you just couldn't have nuggetheads flying Harriers. For a lot of really good reasons. We don't need us against them type arguments. We need only solve problems. And problem solving requires employing different tools, with different strengths and weaknesses at different times.

rdxm 12y ago
it comes down to this: you should be training like you are gonna have to fight (i.e. in real world you won't always have the luxury of having suppression assets perfectly positioned. and yes, I am blowing a little shit at my brothers in the air wing side of the house but, everything in the Marine Corps exists to support the infantry (that's why MC pilots wear cammo covers on their helmets), and frankly I was disappointed at the time they didn't have a go at it...
- bdunbar 12y ago
  "We promise SkyStrider 6 - no short rounds this time."
- kiiski 12y ago
  > you should be training like you are gonna have to fight Maybe I misunderstood what you mean, but that sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do. When you practice advancing under direct/indirect fire, do you actually have machine guns/mortars firing towards you? I would guess that you don't (we certainly never did in the Finnish Defence Forces).