Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #95 - failtolawl (01/21/2013) [-]
that third guy with the claymore should not have been leading a squad.
User avatar #108 to #95 - cowboypony (01/21/2013) [-]
Why? Because he had a sword and not a gun? I've seen people do a lot more damage with a pocket knife than a .45.
User avatar #144 to #108 - failtolawl (01/21/2013) [-]
no, because he charged in and his squad died trying to catch up.
User avatar #339 to #144 - cowboypony (01/22/2013) [-]
How is it his fault if his squad dies? Russians charged in WW2 all the time.
User avatar #424 to #339 - failtolawl (01/23/2013) [-]
ok, apparently you aren't to military savvy. You don't charge in without your squad, leaving them behind to die. Russians in ww2 aren't the kind of guys you would try and base tactics on.
User avatar #425 to #424 - cowboypony (01/23/2013) [-]
I am military savvy. This is WW2 we are talking about. Everyone had the people that charged. Japs had the Bonzais, Russians just did it, Germans did too. So one person goes in with a CLAYMORE and kills a bunch and you say he shouldn't have been leading a squad? Ever heard of the saying "Fix Bayonets"?
User avatar #426 to #425 - failtolawl (01/23/2013) [-]
You are telling me that the Russians, Japanese, and Germans all charged, but we aren't even talking about them. and fixing bayonets? this isn't the Napoleonic Wars mate.

if he wasn't leading a squad, he would have been fine, but as squad leader you are in charge of ensuring your squad survives over any mission. I'm not doubting he was a badass, just a dumbass.
#107 to #95 - slipons (01/21/2013) [-]
master chief maybe?
 Friends (0)