VladimirTarasov

The Russian air force wont go in on its own against the US air force ever, unless the advantages are our side in a limited engagement. That's why we've developed advanced SAM systems, so our air force can coordinate under aerial denial zones, so it isn't so lopsided. I think you said you played DCS? Set up a true to life Russian AD zone and try doing strike missions with those threats out. You cant. Until the USAF destroys aerial denial, it is very plausible for airborne drops to happen atleast 100 kilometers away from the objective. I honestly forgot how far the BMD units can go on their own after a drop, but depending on terrain I believe it was atleast 200 kilometers. I'm not saying the VDV is going to paradrop men right ontop of enemy lines, that doesn't work out so well. It can drop the forces a distance away and work to it. Secure routes, open up defensive positions, probes, and you know other headaches. I never said IL-76 stronk is going to drop troops over heavy AA threats.

BMD-4 is still better than the BMD-2 by alot. And it'd help the VDV out immensely. I don't like the BMD-2 at all, it's too old... In Afghanistan the armor was not coping well with the terrain there. BMD-2s were being jacked up by ambushes, especially since they had thinner armor than BMP-2s. Thing is, with the Stykers you guys have better sensors, and essentially better targeting. The good thing about BMD-2s is that they are amphibious, and have great firepower. For airborne forces the BMD-2 answers the firepower, but the armor is too weak. It has no thermals, and also it's outdated. Another plus to the BMD is it offers AT capabilities to the VDV, so in a defensive operation you have long range AT capabilities. You can dismount the ATGMs ontop of the BMDs and use those. However, those ATGMs in particular against US forces would only prove effective against your IFVs. Unless lucky side shots, or lucky shots period are achieved, against heavy armor such as the ones some NATO countries field. True to a certain extent. If used before the war gears off into the US starting large scale air missions it is still viable. Especially if it is deployed under our aerial denial zones, close to the area of operations. However, deploying the VDV outside of aerial denial zones is indeed suicide. Could still serve some mission objectives, against inferior enemies. Of course, light infantry can be a headache to even heavy forces. However keep in mind, the VDV could be used as "light infantry" in complex terrain. Quite true, but again the VDV can be used like this as well depending on the conflict. I wouldn't send the VDV in a death assault towards armored positions either. Light probes, harrasments, and setting up perimeters near such a objective so the army can advance without trouble. If we have a MLRS or artillery attachment nearby, FOs can call it in to unleash hell onto an objective if must be. Don't the Stryker battalions have ATGMs with them? What happened to the Javelins and TOWs? that's crazy how a armored platoon held off a Stryker battalion.

BMD-2 is definitely not modern by today's standards, that's why the BMD-4M is being brought into service. That's not to say the VDV still can't be used in its respective roll. The US airborne forces cannot be compared to the Russian VDV, we operate by totally different ideas. We have forces that can be paradropped where required, capable of mechanized operations. If I'm the high command and I have mechanized units capable of airdrop deploying on large scale, and then self moving 200-300 plus kilometers without needing to fuel, that provides me with more options, and gives me flexible units. On top of that, my vehicles are amphibious. Drawbacks of the VDV currently are the lack of armor, and lack of sensors on our BMDs. Until the BMD-4M enters in standard service, we will still lack in those regards in the VDV.

Hehe, being a gentleman. It's a TV-optical sight. It's not a thermal, maybe as Oleg said, it is black and white picture.

Before the locking of the thread comes, I'll move back to topic because this is really getting out of hand now. Yeah, in some cases the game over represents the Russian military. (T-90AMs, BMP-3Ms, BMP-2Ms) however it is fun to use those vehicles just to see how they would be if it were in service.

Here we go again with the false nit picking of what I wrote.

Legally, Russians are obliged to freedom of expression. However it is a reality that Russia is not known for having safe journalism in the world. This is a fact, and issue we must focus on. Murders and attacks on journalists happen, corruption is still out there. But in terms of not being able to curse Putin, this is totally wrong. I know many Putin haters that openly speak about his mistakes. There are many anti government outlets out there like Novaya Gazeta, Dozhd, and RBK. Imprisonment usually happens when social unrest is being sought out. And in those terms, yes Russia is strict when it comes to social unrest. Freedom of speech is not as free as in the US to say, but don't buy into the over exaggerations. The Russian government has indeed done wrongful things in terms of freedom of speech for unneeded social unrest. Sometimes, this power is abused by officials. But this is more of a corruption issue.

Don't quote me but I think it's like 10 or so still it is a very capable machine,.

Depending on the scenario. The Russian army will not be driving into Germany, or Poland trying to take on forces there. However, 135K plus forces 2K tanks and many other assets can be deployed into Ukraine. Under heavy defense bubbles, NATO will have to focus hardly on those assets, and in what time? How long will it take for NATO to be able to have the forces it needs to destroy this 135K plus Russian force. As NATO builds up, how much of Russia's reserves will be activated? What whataboutism are you talking about. Before the USSR signed the Molotov pact, the UK was already "appeasing" long before. Keep in mind, the Molotov pact is condemned in Russia. And Russia has officially apologized to Baltic nations for it. Anyways, my point was not if the Molotov pact is justified or not, but I'd like you to say the Brits deserved it as well, and not only say the 30 million Soviet people who've died in the war deserved it. Have you not read what I've said, the lend lease has provided tremendous help to us in terms of logistics, and even combat vehicles. I've even listed the help it has provided. The Red Army would have suffered from logistics without the lend lease by a considerable amount. Maybe misunderstandings?

Quite true, Oplots should be spotting equal to Russian tanks. Oplots are definitely more capable machines than T-72B3s.

The lend lease was very helpful indeed, and I'm grateful to the Western Allies for helping us in those regards, let's look at the facts: 58% of the USSR's high octane aviation fuel 33% of motor vehicles 53% of expended ordinance in terms of shells, mines, and explosive ordnance. 30% of military aircraft 90% of railroad equipment 50% rolled steal, coil, lead ect. 43% of garage facilities (blueprints) 12% Tanks and SPGs The lend lease provided this for us. The logistical boost it gave us is undeniable, however most of it was logistical help more so than combat vehicles. We could have beat the German army without it. But do not get me wrong, the lend lease helped us tremendously, logistics were hammered badly by the Germans in the start of the war. Without the lend lease, quite a few offensive operations might not have been achievable. In this regard, one cannot disrespect the Allies for helping us in such a manner. Before you start disrespecting Russians for the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, let's look at the agreements the UK, and France signed. Letting the Germans freely do whatever they pleased till the Germans arrived into their lands. At least Stalin signed the agreement in an attempt to build up his armed forces to get ready for the Germans. So PLEASE do not act like the USSR had a say in what the Germans were doing. Look up the term "appeasements" on wiki. Shall we discuss the murdering of tens of thousands of Soviet POWs by the Poles after the Polish-Soviet war? Should we discuss the Poles and the Imperial White armies crimes against Jews? Yes the USSR has committed crimes, however you are looking through the lenses of one side, please also look through our lenses for once. It's as if all of Europe's hate is adjusted against Russia. It is quite frustrating. I for one am not denying what is true, yes Katyn was very brutal. But you also look over other historical events, and automatically look at the atrocities committed by one side.

I know, that the entire population was mobilized and fanatical, I've studied on it. That's why I'm saying important people for example heads of states did not doubt the US forces when they came to the front. Germany was already being bogged down by summer of 1942, and their momentum on the Eastern front obviously was slowed down to a grinding scale. They had 80% of their army in the Eastern front, and throughout the war it just scaled down to 60%. However this does not belittle the western allies one bit, things went smoother for us because the Germans obviously had to concentrate also another portion of their army against the west. Foolish man. Well you know, Russia has supported the uprising against the pro-EU government since the start. But if you'd like to see who started this whole mess I'll provide you a quick link that might open up your eyes hopefully to how this conflict started. http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12 John McCain meeting Oleh Tyahnbok far right leader, his group is very racist especially against Russians. Also the good ole Yatsenyuk. Threating the Ukrainian government that there will be consequences if force against these violent protesters are used. And yet again, if we look at the sponsors for the EU image, you will western interfering everywhere. The media supporting the EU image, are all backed by European countries. You can't just blame Russia for countering this. Sure, we could have sit and watch as Ukraine is taken far away from us, leave all the loyal Ukrainians and Russians in Ukraine to their new government which they've had no say in. No you're right, If NATO breaks Russian aerial denial bubbles, logistics are screwed. And Russia has no hopes on being able to win the war, if NATO controls the air, it's game over. Attrition sure, however let's keep in mind NATO will have to break Russian area denial assets, and don't expect quick work done. Even if NATO achieves breakthrough (which is possible) they still have to worry about other factors. As in regards to NATO's second rate stuff being better than our first. That's not true at all, but of course countries like the US has more advanced tanks than ours in service, more advanced IFVs, ect. But Russia can still do some work even with BMP-2 forces, if used right. In Desert Storm however, Iraqi's got destroyed at the superior coalition forces. Our vehicles lack the advanced thermals you guys have, so indeed NATO does have great first rate stuff, compared to ours. But still, T-90As and T-72B3s can still pose a threat (well T-72B3 not as much as a T-90A) but we also have alot of non upgraded soviet vehicles like T-72Bs which obviously on a one on one engagement stands no chance against modern NATO tanks. I understand what you mean however, you guys do have more better first rate stuff, I cannot deny that. In combat mission, I never advance without making sure no pesky Javelins are somewhere. And even then I advance scared that my tank platoon is about to be teared up. Steve, you do understand that we can freely criticize Putin? Why do feel sorry for us, sure I understand our economy got hurt badly but don't worry we aren't under a dictatorship Steve, before we look at Russian intervention, we must look at the events prior to Russian involvement. For example, the coupe against the president of the time. Russia and Ukraine are tied to each other no matter what, well not so anymore. But whatever happened in Ukraine, effects us too. So imagine your ally being ripped away from you by western supported far right groups, that's a total geopolitical loss, and we basically lost our brothers our allies since Russian history. Quite true, but all of this wouldn't have started if the west did not support the coupe in Kiev, and basic international rights were not denied to the people of eastern Ukraine. If it hopefully makes you feel better, I'm glad no one got hurt by the incident. And I hope no one does. It would be shame if Russian and US pilots were to die from a unprofessional stunt. However, I'm impressed that the Russian pilot was skilled enough not to make a freak incident happen flying that close. Flying near our borders without a transponder on is not a smart move by the recon plane.

No friend you misunderstood me, I very well appreciate the contribution of our western allies of the time, especially for the lend lease. and the effort as Allies we've put together fighting a common enemy of the time. I just meant that the odds were in the US's favor when they came into Europe in the grand scheme of things, as a counter to you saying it was thought the US would not fair well in World War 2. You're probably right during the period of that time, but one who does research can see that all the odds were on the Allies side especially when the US came to the Western Front. I denied because I didn't do research like I should have. I have admitted that I was wrong, and I never did deny Russia at some point sending in advisors and training the DPR/LPR. You see, I've changed my mind on what forces were in Ukraine or not. If the US government can show evidence of Russian troops operating in Ukraine, I'd also like some critical piece of evidence that it was indeed the Russian government which was hacking. If provided, I will also change my mind. For the time being, I don't see any evidence other than someone hacked, and the blame is pivoted towards the Russian government. I'll agree. Of course this is true but you're still underestimating Russian capabilities, especially since we'd be so close to our borders in the hypothetical Ukrainian conflict of CMBS. In no means am I trying to convey the Russian military being able to swiftly crush a viable US force in Ukraine, I'm saying we wouldn't fair poorly either depending on the situation. I'm not in the mood for a further continuation of Ukrainian politics, however I have nothing that I haven't admitted already. Anyways, I have my trust in Putin. Just like alot of Russians. I know in the west he's viewed as our problem. But more so we consider the West to be a problem to us. Sanctions for doing something the countries in question have been doing on a more brutal and horrific scale than compared to events in Ukraine. And then putting the full blame onto the Russian government. I don't despise any western government or country, but it is totally unfair on what they do. A dictator to a chunk of Ukraine, but a elected leader to the other (smaller but viable) chunk. If the balance of power is removed from under Russia's grasp, and Russians in Ukraine which have been there, are being effected, it fully justifies Russian intervention. I personally wish Putin did not lie about there not being Russian troops in Ukraine, as it lowers credibility to folks like you. And it's understandable. But there's more to it than a Russian intervention. The Russian pilot IMO did get too close however. It wasn't very professional of him to do so. I can understand why NATO would be mad about that.

Roger that, looks cool anyways. Invite me over I'd like to participate in a training drill

I like what I'm seeing in that video, it is very impressive. Is it always desert environment?

Steve, I mean let's look at history. US helped the allies greatly in the first world war with the same type of isolationism it did during the second world war. Just by looking at the odds, with Germany already lost its momentum and taking losses, it was very plausible for US forces to add onto the hell that was given to the Nazis. (well atleast in the Eastern front, the western front wasn't doing so well till America came along) I consider evidence to provide atleast 80% back up, such as evidence of Russian troops at critical times being inserted into Ukraine. I didn't believe this based on the Russian government's denial of being in there. After doing some research on my own, I have personally come to believe that there were Russian troops in Ukraine, during critical times. If you can provide evidence the same way, you've brought forth against Russian troops being in Ukraine, I will gladly believe it. However, without any evidence being needed from my end, It to me looks very obvious that this is just another media frenzy, and just to blame Russia. It is insanely hard to figure out who hacked who. Let me rephrase what I've been saying. I'm saying that the Russian trooper will be more motivated, and feeling more at home, than US troops in Ukraine. I did not say US troops will coward at fighting Russian troops. Of course they wont, they're soldiers they are trained to kill, and follow orders for their country. Well I was being sarcastic in terms of the superior training, because Georgian forces were receiving training from NATO countries. I believe the US provided them with training too, if memory serves right. What I was getting at is, there are many factors that can play into a tactical scenario. I know you know this, I'm just saying btw. US troops on average are of course, receiving more advanced training than the Russian counterpart, however what I've been getting at this whole time is that Russian units can be equal to US troops as well, in tactical situations. Depending on other factors, the US unit will come on top, or the Russian unit will come out on top, or it could be a stalemate. But we cannot determine without maybe discussing a detailed scenario. Every country overestimates its capabilities IMO. Russia does have some cases in history where we have overestimated our capabilities in a war. The most recent one being the First Chechen war. But I'm very sure Russia knows its capabilities now, after a few recent wars. I also feel very bad for Ukrainian soldiers whom have to die because of that God forsaken maidan revolution. I feel bad for the state of Ukraine as whole, suffering through horrible economy, and no recovery in sight for a while. However, this is not Russia's fault. To see who is at fault, we must look at the videos where violent riots start chaos amongst the country. Where the president of the time rather let his government be toppled than to sign an order for the army to crack down on the riots. I blame not only the Ukrainian government, but also the supporters of the riot. Spending money on media to ensure riots go more bloody and violent. Steve, with respect, you have nothing to lose from this conflict. You look through the lenses of the US which is 100% for Ukraine being taken out of Russian influence. You will see the truth in some areas in which my government propagandas over. And I will see the truth where your government propagandas over. I am not comforting myself with any lies, I comfort myself with being Russian, and defending what is right to us as a people. In a sense, what Russia did in Ukraine is just as illegal, as the brutal riots in Maidan, which ousted the former president. You justify it, but you also know it is illegal. The same way I justify Russia taking Crimea. I know

Yes, T-destroyallnatoTanks will enter service in the expected numbers at a later date. Time to roll back the sanctions now, it's starting to hurt our tanks. This is crossing the line

Actually, we have academies that train soldiers even to the junior ranks in Russia. However you would not know about it, and assume that our troops are trained out of the air. Again, we've had this capability since the Soviet Union, just after the fall the standards weren't as good. Now it however, not knowing Russian can surely limit one's view of Russian related topics. And sometimes lead to bias views. LOL crazy. The Air Force will be conducting SEAD missions on the git go of such a war, it is very plausible for a VDV paradrop into safe zones in Ukraine. But anyways, we're just going back and forth. I'll just agree to disagree. Knowing many people from the the "Kavkaz" especially Chechnya, most of them tend to support the government. One lad however was very critical, so I'd like to think from my point of view that Chechens are okay being under the Russian Federation. Not like they're gonna be better off without. I know a Chechen lad when I was in the army, he was a contract guy, the dude was more of a patriotic Russian than me good lads they are. My bad, I should have said US led coalition instead of NATO. I just generalized because when I think of NATO, US, UK, France ect come to mind. I had a total slip, so apologies for bashing NATO for Iraq. I should have been more specific, that's what happens when you don't get enough sleep.

What did it do? Magically destroyed the Iraqi military, and alot of civilain infrastructure? EDIT: Freudian slip, NATO did not invade Iraq, coalition did my bad in that case you are correct.

I've explored and talked to many people there, however I did not participate in any form of battle. I did hear the grandmothers crying that their sons and daughters being killed by shells. I'm very convinced that a certain side of the war has been committing bloody murder. Of course we can sit here and shout out the evil Russian army was in Ukraine, and ignore totally other topics that show some interesting facts about a certain "legitimate" government. Eh of course reading articles that provide no actual evidence that Kadyrov was involved with any "murderous thug" things, are to be taken serious. Kadyrov is very much supported in Chechnya, and I won't change my mind about it, unless you have legitimate evidence of him being a "murderous thug". Or a Putin crony. Or whatever name calling you guys have to offer. Sorry, did I miss the hell NATO has brought to the world in the past 20 years???? I don't know for example, going to Afghanistan and causing massive damage to infrastructure there, going to Iraq killing a dictator but while at it destroying Iraqi infrastructure. Supporting illegitimate rebellions against "dictators" and making the country a worst place than when the Dictator was in charge? I for one believe that Russia is not to be blamed for threating world security. NATO calls us weak, then calls us strong? Can you please make up your minds? Are we really a threat, or are we just another way to get your propaganda off to yourselves. This is seriously ANNOYING. If what Putin is doing is saber rattling than I'm all for it. Atleast my country does not go half way across the world and destroy whole countries. Seriously comparing Putin to Hitler is the most ignorant thing to do, and I feel bad for people who think so.

Thanks This heritage and industrial ties with Germany did not effect the results US troops delivered in world war 1 for the allies. I am very confident everyone knew the US will be able to help the Brits and French in world war 2 after the huge losses they were taking in the Eastern front. I am very familiar with the US's isolationism during the period lol... There is obviously NO EVIDENCE to support that. You guys are the epitome of causing what is known as provocations, Show me evidence that we are waging a cyber war. Statements from the truthful US government does not count, if it is not backed up by any evidence. Again, I said the US can still face off against Russia in Ukraine, but I am more than damn sure they wouldn't be as motivated as a Russian soldier in Ukraine. As even the troops that may have fought in there fought dead motivated, we can look at the recent conflict, in Donbas. Inferior equipped Russian troops made very short work of "Superior" trained and equipped Georgian forces, without having the numerical superiority as said by some military experts. So until I actually see US troops fighting Russian troops, I'm not going to jump to conclusions like you other than compare what we can. That's to say if Russia's opposition isn't crippled enough to change their mind on a full scale attack onto Russian defenses. What the US does have to worry, Russian defense is Stealth planes. Of course, these planes are not as dangerous to advanced modern AD networks, they can still cause damage to exposed forces. However, I will not jump to conclusions rather just get points out on certain capabilities. We weren't defeated but we also didn't get the results we wanted, we got the territories we wanted, however the heavy losses we took were a defeat on its own. Many good men died because of poor leadership. Anyways the Soviet army of the 1930s is not comparable to the Russian army of 2016. Totally different leadership, different standards, and different era. To say Russia still suffers from the same issues it did during then is basically "pulling" a Napoleon about the Russian army. And I mean underestimating.

Infantry stuff first, for example squads peaking corners tossing grenades into rooms before storming it, squad formations. Second, MLRS please. I'd love to flatten a town before sending my troops to take whatever is left of it.

Again, we had drills like this even during the Soviet Union, however up until the 2008 modernization after the collapse of the "mighty" USSR training was poor. Now, we have advanced drills the same way you've tested your men. I mentioned the instructor spraying half his clip randomly a meter or so away from me in reference to being a cadet. We've had advanced drills, especially my unit. We were drilled day and night to be super soldiers, so president Putin can send us onto super scary communist missions, that threats world security. (joking of course) But that's crazy about a platoon defending against a battalion tactical group, I'm sure your men made quick work of the poor BTG. Exactly why I hate MOUT things. Well I wish he wouldn't hate everyone well those bullets was to get us use to being shot at I guess, you can't just compare that to advanced drills, Sir. Chechens I've spoken with are quite happy with mr.Kadyrov. Anyways he keeps things in check and so do we, we couldn't have asked for a better guy in office there. Better than the radicals in the 90s if you ask me. I never said that they are suicide, but no one is going to send a large scale air drops where long range AA possess a large threat. It is very plausible to large scale drop VDV units into regions in eastern Ukraine, where possible, or to reinforce the rear areas, or deploy in regions where the enemy does not have substantial defenses, in order to disrupt their lines. I will agree that the BMD-2 needs to be sent to hell, it's 2016, and BMD-4Ms are coming into service, so that is a huge boost, and best part about it is that they have thermals. So the VDV can still pose a threat to the enemy if used as a paradrop force, but no one is going to send IL-76s over AD, same as no one is going to send C-130s over AD.

True, you can't just have good motivation and horrible leadership. I never said I don't appreciate it. And if the squad's morale does not drop after a loss of a squad leader I'd say they can still function almost as good as if the sergeant was leading. I don't think many doubted US soldiers in world war 2, as they did in essence help the allies in world war 1 against the Germans. US troops did enjoy successes against the German army, without disrespect of course, there are many factors that also eased it for the US, in world war 2 against the Germans. But in terms of Ukraine, you can't motivate US forces against Russia in Ukraine, the same way you can motivate troops against Fascists killing millions in Europe. Anyways, I don't doubt US troops could engage in Ukraine against Russia, but if high casualties and stiff resistance is met, I don't think US troops would be as determined as Russian troops. I agree, they lack the training/experience to be effective in offensive operations, if there is a conscription majority, and the leadership is poor. I'd bet my money on the volunteer force of course if we were talking about a blunt comparison. However, Russia and the US slugging it out in Ukraine has many other factors that could tip the advantage towards Russia's side. First being that Russia will operate near our borders, infact very near. All our important assets like cruise missiles, long range AA, EW systems will be under a chain of security. Reserves can be deployed in the country to fill up gaps in our border defenses while we can use our active troops for other roles. We can deploy a larger force, and launch operations quicker than the US can (not capability wise, but look at the units in Europe and the time it would take to ship in enough troops to be a viable force) as you've said when I was new in the forum, the quicker Russia does operations in such a conflict the better chance it has at winning. And I agree with you on this. Also there are many other variables at play, which NATO countries will want to fight Russia? Will those countries' populace agree with it. As for our doctrine, if you've been following up on our modernization program, there are many changes in our doctrine. I am not familiar enough with it to be able to tell you enough to be able to compare to US doctrine, but we can assume it has improved just like everything else in the Russian Armed Forces. Of course don't get me wrong, I know the US has a flexible doctrine, and has exceptional command and control.

Well our training was good, I don't get why you think our training is inadequate. I'm not familiar with the training Company commanders and platoon commanders receive, but I led a squad at my peak. But being infantry, we were trained for our roles, and that's war. If you ordered my platoon to defend an objective, I'd know where to position my men, tell them to survey at, and communicate with. We'd be ready to engage the enemy, trigger discipline, radio discipline ect. We've done similar drills, in my unit. But you guys probably did other stuff, being an armor unit. Is there any interesting events that happened during such an exercise? Well we need to go into detail here, a company commander can make decisions for himself, if he needs to flank an enemy he doesn't need to ask the brigade commander. If the platoon leader needs to change positions after the recon unit sees a heavy attack forming, he can do so without asking the battalion commander. He can make decisions for himself, as long as he obviously communicates with his higher ups. In regards to jamming, our field is obviously advanced in jamming and we can do all sorts of limitations on enemy formations with it. Be it heavy EW or light EW. For example in counter battery tasks, jammers are set to work to deny the enemy the ability to counter-battery, and UAVs overhead work together with any artillery unit assigned to the task to deal with the enemy. So in essence, we can deny the enemy the ability to counter-battery, as long as our EW is up, and we can work on them while they are denied their role. There are many other things EW has that gives us advantages, however of course, no one is saying EW is God, other than say EW stronk fan boys. You're talking about totally eradicating terrorism? I don't think that is possible unless we set up a total police state in the region where the issues are happening. And as you can see, our intelligence picks these groups up fairly quickly before attacks can take place, and the units are taken out. In the counter-terrorism role, we have special units that take care of it. In the second Chechen war, fighting an asymmetrical enemy was done by the army, it was successful in the end and many experiences were picked up from it. We even have Chechens in rebel groups in Syria we are bombing. But that really isn't our fault to say, there are even Canadians in ISIS. As I've said, if the mission does not require a paradrop, we can be moved into the area as mechanized forces would. And we are trained to fight as mechanized forces as well, we aren't light infantry, we do have armor. Sounds cool, second platoon must have been overwhelmed.