Military discussion about troops

[Davi Meireles]

When it comes to fighters from various countries around the world, which are the best when it comes to aggression in one-on-one combat?

Say your top 3 below:

[Honkey_Kong]

When it comes to fighters from various countries around the world, which are the best when it comes to aggression in one-on-one combat?

Say your top 3 below:

Everybody is going to say their country's military is the toughest and whomever their enemies are is the weakest.

[Davi Meireles]

Everybody is going to say their country's military is the toughest and whomever their enemies are is the weakest.

I think they should be more sincere Bro, because it should be analyzed in a technical way...
I'm not going to list my country but I'm going to analyze others, my top 3 are


1-Chechens from Chechnya (these are evil people who like to cut their opponents' throats-
2- Belarus ((don't be a Stew near them as they will stab you mercilessly, very mean
3-Nigerians or Angolans (these are crazy guys, some are physically strong and can kill an opponent until they are hanged, they also cut the throat and stab the opponent mercilessly

[Davi Meireles]

Well, feel free to put together your top 3 most violent armies in the one-on-one!

[Davi Meireles]

@Honkey_Kong
Sorry for my lack of attention, I read quickly and didn't realize that you said that the majority here would choose Brazil. Brazilians are born into so much violence that they become accustomed to a scenario of fighting for their lives. But don’t be fooled by my “top 3”, the ones above are bad. Brazilians never tortured their opponents when capturing them, now don't let yourself be fooled by the Belarusian or Nigerian Chechens.

[Davi Meireles]

In fact @ Honkey_Kong the South American fighting countries almost all of them are good in one on one! The fighting in Colombia, Honduras, El Salvador, most countries that have a strong drug trafficking are good at combating . The name of this type of combat that makes them so good is low-intensity combat (guerrilla)... In guerrilla, anything goes , the weakest wins over the strongest.

[Davi Meireles]

We cannot forget that Iran has a great doctrine in guerrilla warfare, it has great guerrilla techniques. They are very accustomed to making homemade missiles, training "Ordinary" citizens, and terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah for guerrilla warfare. It's real hell to fight against them, you have to ambush them, it's planned low-intensity combat

[XnavyHMCS]

When it comes to fighters from various countries around the world, which are the best when it comes to aggression in one-on-one combat?

Say your top 3 below:

Thread Titled:

DICK MEASURING CONTEST

* There Davi; I fixed the thread title for you...

[XnavyHMCS]

My dick is bigger than yours...!!!

And my cousin's cock is even bigger...

[Davi Meireles]

My dick is bigger than yours...!!!

And my cousin's cock is even bigger...

At no point did I say that Brazilian troops were better than any other, I just said that they are used to a certain type of combat. Well then, let's go;your country is much more militarily superior than any army in the world. I'm very realistic man, I'm not glorifying myself here, just look at my top 3... If you're going to get mad, stay with @ Honkey_Kong! This is a topic for everyone to give their point of view, you can tell me; that the American army are violent one on one I will respect. I know that guys from Kansas City, Texas, and so on are pretty tough guys... Just your point on this topic. Tell me your top 3:

[Davi Meireles]

Regarding the dicks of our South American cousins, they are what they are due to the violence of drug traffickers... You would like to live in hell every day in an underdeveloped country, I bet...

[XnavyHMCS]

At no point did I say that Brazilian troops were better than any other, I just said that they are used to a certain type of combat. Well then, let's go;your country is much more militarily superior than any army in the world. I'm very realistic man, I'm not glorifying myself here, just look at my top 3... If you're going to get mad, stay with @ Honkey_Kong! This is a topic for everyone to give their point of view, you can tell me; that the American army are violent one on one I will respect. I know that guys from Kansas City, Texas, and so on are pretty tough guys... Just your point on this topic. Tell me your top 3:

Hey Davi, brother; slow down...!!!

Slow the fuck down, brother.

I see my error here, and it was a mistake. What I wrote "A dick measuring contest." is a term, a phrase that every American guy understands, especially military guys when there is talk about "whose forces are better" or "our country's military is better than yours", or especially when the comparison involves spec ops from the top players on the field. In these conversations, we say it is a dick measuring contest...

So cool your fucking jets, brother. My bad, that I just mistakenly took it for granted that you would understand...

Certainly, you didn't even bother to check the fucking phrase on Google... If you had; I wouldn't be writing this...

Here, let me Google it for you:

dick measuring contest
A conflict in which two parties (usually male) are vehemently disputing something of limited relevance. Generally, both parties are somewhat wrong, but each refuses to be back down for fear of being thought the have the smaller of their two penises. Similar to a pissing match, but generally, the conflict involved involves a larger element of machismo, and continues on only because neither side wants to be seen as the one who backs down.

I took the above from the Urban Dictionary...

Do a little research, check Google; get off your lazy fucking ass and crack a book... That, and stop letting the fucking roids run your cock holster (Google that one.).

I wasn't disrespecting you, man. Come on. I thought that you and I were beyond that...

[XnavyHMCS]

When it comes to fighters from various countries around the world, which are the best when it comes to aggression in one-on-one combat?

Say your top 3 below:

Now I will enter the fray here; this dick measuring contest has reared its ugly head (hey guys, I think I am onto something here...) here on the forum.

I guess that one would have to determine just what the esteemed TS meant when he wrote "one on one combat"... Frankly, I don't think he knows what he meant, but that is beside the point here...

Tier one forces, allied partners of the US military, do practically no hand to hand combat training; nothing. Why? Simply because they could see two things happening: firstly, you had a group of high speed, high testosterone guys playing Kung Fu, and operators ended up being out of commission, inoperable, nondeployable; due to injuries. Secondly, through battlefield, after-action reports, they could see that the chances of physically closing, hand to hand with an adversary was nearly never, on the modern day field of battle; we are quite far removed from the fields at Agincourt, gentlemen. On top of that; all of your current tier one and tier two operators are running a secondary weapon (automatic pistol) to accompany their primary. Therefore, no need to be Chuck Norris...

Again, the TS was a bit ambiguous (check it Davi, because I am referencing YOU); are the combatants armed or unarmed?

All the ambiguity aside; when CQB goes down, modern battlefield, my money is on the guys who are currently the world's leaders, to carry the contest to the podium.
I vote for:
CAG / Devgru (practically one and the same nowadays)
22 SAS / SBS
And then the rest of our NATO allies tier one Spec Ops

Again, I will repeat (sorry Davi, my mistake for not thinking that my words could be misinterpreted); this is just a "dick measuring contest question", the answer is probably all of them...

[Davi Meireles]

I'm calm my friend, I just didn't understand the phrase about dick measurement "I never considered Brazilian troops better than American troops, because the United States is a machine in high-intensity combat. What's the point of having good soldiers in X1 who are good at guerrilla warfare if they can be bombed if the country that attacks has good logistics! I confess that without a doubt, the United States and Russia are two great powers in high-intensity combat with the detonation of bombs, planes and so on, friend. ..Don't put the life of a combatant in your pistol in an irregular war, because in an irregular war you don't know where the enemy is, and a knife beats a pistol in an unconventional war. And sometimes war puts you in a situation where that you can't kill the enemy by making noise... You see a combatant in the middle of a forest lying down with his rifle, or what do you do? Are you going to shoot him? No, you don't do that' because there are 10 soldiers on each side from the forest waiting to ambush you.... If you fire, you will tell them where your position is and end up shot and killed! For example, you think you can insert a line of 100 soldiers into a forest; no my friend ! If you are a troop commander and guide this to your troop, your line of fighters will cut like a snake. Because around you there are 10 soldiers in every corner of the forest to ambush you, this is guerrilla warfare! Rest assured that this type of war is very violent and will be one on one in the end.

[XnavyHMCS]

I'm calm my friend, I just didn't understand the phrase about dick measurement "I never considered Brazilian troops better than American troops, because the United States is a machine in high-intensity combat. What's the point of having good soldiers in X1 who are good at guerrilla warfare if they can be bombed if the country that attacks has good logistics! I confess that without a doubt, the United States and Russia are two great powers in high-intensity combat with the detonation of bombs, planes and so on, friend. ..Don't put the life of a combatant in your pistol in an irregular war, because in an irregular war you don't know where the enemy is, and a knife beats a pistol in an unconventional war. And sometimes war puts you in a situation where that you can't kill the enemy by making noise... You see a combatant in the middle of a forest lying down with his rifle, or what do you do? Are you going to shoot him? No, you don't do that' because there are 10 soldiers on each side from the forest waiting to ambush you.... If you fire, you will tell them where your position is and end up shot and killed! For example, you think you can insert a line of 100 soldiers into a forest; no my friend ! If you are a troop commander and guide this to your troop, your line of fighters will cut like a snake. Because around you there are 10 soldiers in every corner of the forest to ambush you, this is guerrilla warfare! Rest assured that this type of war is very violent and will be one on one in the end.

Didn't want any problems with you, brother.

Prefer to stay cool, between you and I.

Guerilla warfare, some urban warfare scenarios and asymmetrical conflicts have proven to be the bane for modern forces (Americans in Vietnam, Stalingrad, Afghanistan...).

[Davi Meireles]

I respect you my brother! The American commanders' mistake was not dividing the American troops 10 by 10! The inexperience in this approach to war made it difficult for the United States to fight the Viet Cong ( not to mention that they used land tunnels that connected into the forest, and wicked traps to wage psychological warfare) , while in Afghanistan the geographical region was difficult as it was a region of mountains... The United States should have sent mercenaries to Afghanistan, like Russia's Wagner Group for example. The Americans should not have entered with their army... There are a very large number of losses my brother!

[Davi Meireles]

The Americans could have formed an American foreign legion to go and fight in Afghanistan

[Davi Meireles]

Bump!

[Cylon357]

dick measuring contest
A conflict in which two parties (usually male) are vehemently disputing something of limited relevance. Generally, both parties are somewhat wrong, but each refuses to be back down for fear of being thought the have the smaller of their two penises. Similar to a pissing match, but generally, the conflict involved involves a larger element of machismo, and continues on only because neither side wants to be seen as the one who backs down.

Alright, I'm going to say it: whoever wrote that definition is a f@cking poet, especially with that first sentence.

[Davi Meireles]

Alright, I'm going to say it: whoever wrote that definition is a f@cking poet, especially with that first sentence.

I'm so stupid I don't even know the true meaning! Lmao

In fact, now I know... But the fact that not for a moment did I feel like I was fighting with Xnavy, I swear to God... He may have thought that but I didn't take anything personally

[Davi Meireles]

Xnavy do you think Vietnam's tunnels and forest traps were terrible for the Americans? What do you think hurt the American military in Vietnam?

[wango]

Xnavy do you think Vietnam's tunnels and forest traps were terrible for the Americans? What do you think hurt the American military in Vietnam?

Sorry for the intrusion. If was a war we that could not win - that was established pretty early. However, once in it, it became more an issue of it’s more important that we don’t lose.

Talk about not wanting to lose the dick measuring contest & losing our military standing internationally.

[Cuz]

Xnavy do you think Vietnam's tunnels and forest traps were terrible for the Americans? What do you think hurt the American military in Vietnam?

We have rules of engagement . They dont. Yes they horrible, would be for any military. The jungle would be the hardest of any terrain to engage and clear. I personally wouldn’t. Id just blast artillery and bombs until it looked like an atomic bomb went off and even then it would be hard to distinguish the traps.

Absolutely ridiculous to send troops into that shit crawling for miles. Bug invested nightmare. The US most pointless war in history at that. Seems like we lost 58000 over that stupid shit

Anywho just my 2 cents, not answering for xnavy carry on

[Cylon357]

Sorry for the intrusion. If was a war we that could not win - that was established pretty early. However, once in it, it became more an issue of it’s more important that we don’t lose.

Talk about not wanting to lose the dick measuring contest & losing our military standing internationally.

I don't think it was that the US COULDN'T win the war. To Cuz's point, we weren't willing to kill everything and everyone with conventional warfare tactics (ie bomb the living hell out of everything)

We have rules of engagement . They dont. Yes they horrible, would be for any military. The jungle would be the hardest of any terrain to engage and clear. I personally wouldn’t. Id just blast artillery and bombs until it looked like an atomic bomb went off and even then it would be hard to distinguish the traps.

Absolutely ridiculous to send troops into that shit crawling for miles. Bug invested nightmare. The US most pointless war in history at that. Seems like we lost 58000 over that stupid shit

Anywho just my 2 cents, not answering for xnavy carry on

I believe your count is right. It was 58k and change US lives lost fighting a war no one in the US cared about except dick swinging politicians.

Our (the US) folly was thinking that an unconventional force, out gunned and facing an overwhelming conventional military force, would fight in a conventional fashion.

That's like the biggest kid on the playground punching the littlest kid over and over, then being surprised when the little kid kicks him in the balls. "You didn't fight fair! Wahh!" Well no shit Sherlock. You had 80 pounds and a foot of height on the kid. He would be a fool to trade punches. Especially if he didn't start it.

But, as I've said before, I think, Vietnam and Afghanistan serve as examples to any nation that would put boots on the ground in the US...

Final comment: I really do recommend the Ken Burns documentary on Vietnam. Unbiased like a good documentary should be. These things happened. These things were said, etc, not the infotainment we have come to expect out of other "documentary" makers like, idk, Michael Moore for example.

[wango]

I don't think it was that the US COULDN'T win the war. To Cuz's point, we weren't willing to kill everything and everyone with conventional warfare tactics (ie bomb the living hell out of everything)



I believe your count is right. It was 58k and change US lives lost fighting a war no one in the US cared about except dick swinging politicians.

Our (the US) folly was thinking that an unconventional force, out gunned and facing an overwhelming conventional military force, would fight in a conventional fashion.

That's like the biggest kid on the playground punching the littlest kid over and over, then being surprised when the little kid kicks him in the balls. "You didn't fight fair! Wahh!" Well no shit Sherlock. You had 80 pounds and a foot of height on the kid. He would be a fool to trade punches. Especially if he didn't start it.

But, as I've said before, I think, Vietnam and Afghanistan serve as examples to any nation that would put boots on the ground in the US...

Final comment: I really do recommend the Ken Burns documentary on Vietnam. Unbiased like a good documentary should be. These things happened. These things were said, etc, not the infotainment we have come to expect out of other "documentary" makers like, idk, Michael Moore for example.

Actually, Presidents, their advisors, the CIA & the Pentagon thought we couldn’t win. BUT, we couldn’t afford to lose.

I don’t like “documentaries” & particularly biased ones like Moore (for example). I prefer the actual words of the Presidents, their advisers & the Pentagon.

We bombed the fuck out of them. Nixon was thinking of going nuclear. It was a no-win.

[Honkey_Kong]

@Honkey_Kong
Sorry for my lack of attention, I read quickly and didn't realize that you said that the majority here would choose Brazil. Brazilians are born into so much violence that they become accustomed to a scenario of fighting for their lives. But don’t be fooled by my “top 3”, the ones above are bad. Brazilians never tortured their opponents when capturing them, now don't let yourself be fooled by the Belarusian or Nigerian Chechens.

Honestly, I really don't know much or give a fvuk about Brazil's military or their practices to have an opinion on them. And to be honest, most people are not spending their day evaluating their military and other countries' militaries in order to judge who is better and at what. We'll at most look at dollar amount invested and whatever propaganda we've been exposed to (and the people in these militaries are just as prone to the propaganda if not more).

[Cylon357]

Actually, Presidents, their advisors, the CIA & the Pentagon thought we couldn’t win. BUT, we couldn’t afford to lose.

I don’t like “documentaries” & particularly biased ones like Moore (for example). I prefer the actual words of the Presidents, their advisers & the Pentagon.

We bombed the fuck out of them. Nixon was thinking of going nuclear. It was a no-win.

You should take a hard look at Burns' Vietnam one, then let me know if you think it is as non biased as I do.

Not all of us are old enough to remember real time news coverage of Vietnam lol

[wango]

You should take a hard look at Burns' Vietnam one, then let me know if you think it is as non biased as I do.

Not all of us are old enough to remember real time news coverage of Vietnam lol

I generally like Burns’ documentaries; we just dug his latest on the American Buffaloes.

Ugh, those days of the evening news being your primary way of learning about what’s happening (although they were not so opinion based), always seemed to have something on Vietnam, be it the war itself or some protest or other in the states.

Though very frustrating reads, both the Pentagon Papers & the Afghanistan Papers were really eye opening. In both cases, year after year, high ranking government & military officials admitting that it wasn’t “winnable” (that term being debatable to its meaning), but that we couldn’t afford to back out despite the cost & lives lost

[Davi Meireles]

Where can I watch the documentary