Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

Rockaman    

Rank #9546 on Comments
Rockaman Avatar Level 261 Comments: Pure Win
Offline
Send mail to Rockaman Block Rockaman Invite Rockaman to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 23
Date Signed Up:9/04/2010
Last Login:10/28/2014
Location:New Eden
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#9546
Highest Content Rank:#10723
Highest Comment Rank:#2286
Content Thumbs: 300 total,  366 ,  66
Comment Thumbs: 6446 total,  9130 ,  2684
Content Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 30 Content: Peasant → Level 31 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 37% (37/100)
Level 261 Comments: Pure Win → Level 262 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:1
Content Views:14244
Times Content Favorited:49 times
Total Comments Made:2811
FJ Points:6447

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny text/links

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

  • Views: 829
    Thumbs Up 8 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +5
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 04/29/11
    Nyan Dubsteb Nyan Dubsteb

latest user's comments

#41 - The VC had such a decent network of spies and informants that …  [+] (1 new reply) 10/28/2014 on 'murica 0
User avatar #51 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
Combat patrols are not tactical mistakes.
Conducting a proper patrol without enemy getting intel of your whereabouts may be difficult, but quite necessary.
If the US had siezed conducting patrols all together where do you think that would have lead them? (By the way, in Vietnam they almost stopped their patrols during the Tet Offensive)

Also I think the casualty statistics speak for themselves when it comes to who was the superior military power and strategies. It is estimated that 1.1 million NVAs and Viet Congs died during the vietnam war, as opposed to US KIAs numbering around 58.000
#32 - It is, but as a tactic to destroy your enemy it is highly inef…  [+] (3 new replies) 10/28/2014 on 'murica 0
#34 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
No. Patrols can be about leading the enemy into an ambush aswell. The only way the enemy gets to choose when and where to fight is if you don't do patrols. Then they know where to hit with artillery and lay siege.

Vietnam is a complicated defeat really. I blame the lack of political support of course. But also their cavalry tactics. You remember watching movies of american landing with helicopters in the middle of a firefight? That's just about the dumbest way to engage an enemy. Imagine the enemy being in entrenched positions and then landing on top of them, that could EASILY lead to 1:10 casualty rates.
User avatar #41 - Rockaman (10/28/2014) [-]
The VC had such a decent network of spies and informants that they knew where the patrols would be coming from, so were almost always the ambushers. On top of being on home turf where it was easy to slip away, they could then disappear once their enemie's reinforcements arrive. Also, combat patrols are really bad in booby-trapped locations, IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan have also amounted to large numbers of casualties.

Yes they are good at securing your lines and keeping supplies coming, but as an offensive tactic they are really quite poor.

I'd say that Vietnam was pretty complicated, but I think tactical error plus the effective Vietnamese tactics were more to blame for the defeat than political support as the war had plenty of support to start with and that support dwindled after failures and large scale offenses by the VC and NVA when the US public believed they were winning. If the failures had never happened then support would have probably stayed high.
User avatar #51 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
Combat patrols are not tactical mistakes.
Conducting a proper patrol without enemy getting intel of your whereabouts may be difficult, but quite necessary.
If the US had siezed conducting patrols all together where do you think that would have lead them? (By the way, in Vietnam they almost stopped their patrols during the Tet Offensive)

Also I think the casualty statistics speak for themselves when it comes to who was the superior military power and strategies. It is estimated that 1.1 million NVAs and Viet Congs died during the vietnam war, as opposed to US KIAs numbering around 58.000
#28 - Think you misread- I was on about Vietnam, not Afganistan  [+] (5 new replies) 10/28/2014 on 'murica 0
User avatar #30 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
No no. I was just pointing out the genius strategy behind combat patrols. Since a siege is probably the worst situation you can be in, it is not only genius it is also vital to maintain supply routes etc.
User avatar #32 - Rockaman (10/28/2014) [-]
It is, but as a tactic to destroy your enemy it is highly ineffective, as you'll only ever fight them when they want to fight, so if they have plenty of numbers, they'll attack regularly, but as soon as they start to dwindle, they can hide and wait for reinforcements / new recruits, meaning you'll never be able to destroy them.
#34 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
No. Patrols can be about leading the enemy into an ambush aswell. The only way the enemy gets to choose when and where to fight is if you don't do patrols. Then they know where to hit with artillery and lay siege.

Vietnam is a complicated defeat really. I blame the lack of political support of course. But also their cavalry tactics. You remember watching movies of american landing with helicopters in the middle of a firefight? That's just about the dumbest way to engage an enemy. Imagine the enemy being in entrenched positions and then landing on top of them, that could EASILY lead to 1:10 casualty rates.
User avatar #41 - Rockaman (10/28/2014) [-]
The VC had such a decent network of spies and informants that they knew where the patrols would be coming from, so were almost always the ambushers. On top of being on home turf where it was easy to slip away, they could then disappear once their enemie's reinforcements arrive. Also, combat patrols are really bad in booby-trapped locations, IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan have also amounted to large numbers of casualties.

Yes they are good at securing your lines and keeping supplies coming, but as an offensive tactic they are really quite poor.

I'd say that Vietnam was pretty complicated, but I think tactical error plus the effective Vietnamese tactics were more to blame for the defeat than political support as the war had plenty of support to start with and that support dwindled after failures and large scale offenses by the VC and NVA when the US public believed they were winning. If the failures had never happened then support would have probably stayed high.
User avatar #51 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
Combat patrols are not tactical mistakes.
Conducting a proper patrol without enemy getting intel of your whereabouts may be difficult, but quite necessary.
If the US had siezed conducting patrols all together where do you think that would have lead them? (By the way, in Vietnam they almost stopped their patrols during the Tet Offensive)

Also I think the casualty statistics speak for themselves when it comes to who was the superior military power and strategies. It is estimated that 1.1 million NVAs and Viet Congs died during the vietnam war, as opposed to US KIAs numbering around 58.000
#12 - Not really, the war dragged on for a long time without any big…  [+] (10 new replies) 10/28/2014 on 'murica +3
User avatar #65 - biebergotswag (10/28/2014) [-]
actually after the tet offensive, the NVA lost a fifth of it's soldiers, and their rank was thrown in absolute chaos. it's was pretty much as bad for the north vietnamese, as it was bad for the romans during the battle of Cannae. just one major offensive is pretty much sure to break them. but instead the media described the great south Vietnam victory into a american defeat and further destroyed war efforts.

also, remember that the north vietnamese were also supported by the soviet and chinese military, thus the scale of the war is much larger than most people realize. and by withdrawing support from the war. it allowed the soviets to restore the viet cong and massacre the south vietnamese.
if the americans just pushed against the broken NVA, they would have crushed it and stopped the war.
#26 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
I disagree. I served 6 months in FOB keenan in Helmand a few years back. The danish company I served with replaced a british company.
The Brits had lost so much ground around Keenan due to the fact that they stayed in their FOB, and refused to do patrols to engage the enemy. This resulted in the taleban pushing them back and basically laying siege to the FOB.
When we got there, we had this impressive Company leader (Captain Storrud) As he said during a ceremony of our first casualty"Tomorrow we fight again". Despite of heavy losses we went on daily patrols to bring the fight to enemy. We almost had our entire AO secured after just 6 months. It was really impressive what combat patrols can do.
User avatar #76 - rheago (10/28/2014) [-]
My friend was in the military and he told me that going out in small groups on patrol is the only way to fight guerilla warfare

Not sure if it's true but it seems to be working
#81 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
Well, yes and no. The size of a patrol is hard to master. Never go on a patrol with so few men that you may find yourself outgunned and outmanned by superior enemy forces. Go out with a patrol too big and you'd find yourself at risk of ambushes.

We never went on combat patrols with less than 30 men during the day. At night we'd send out smaller sniper teams, special forces patrols etc, in cover of the darkness they would sneak out and gather intel / take out high value targets.

There's obviously no fact list on how to fight Guerillas, and it is way harder to avoid ambushes when you're fighting enemies that could be any random civilian. But our tactics involving daily combat patrols proved effective. We had some trouble avoiding IEDs and boobytraps, but we'd try and be as unpredictable as possible in our movement.
User avatar #28 - Rockaman (10/28/2014) [-]
Think you misread- I was on about Vietnam, not Afganistan
User avatar #30 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
No no. I was just pointing out the genius strategy behind combat patrols. Since a siege is probably the worst situation you can be in, it is not only genius it is also vital to maintain supply routes etc.
User avatar #32 - Rockaman (10/28/2014) [-]
It is, but as a tactic to destroy your enemy it is highly ineffective, as you'll only ever fight them when they want to fight, so if they have plenty of numbers, they'll attack regularly, but as soon as they start to dwindle, they can hide and wait for reinforcements / new recruits, meaning you'll never be able to destroy them.
#34 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
No. Patrols can be about leading the enemy into an ambush aswell. The only way the enemy gets to choose when and where to fight is if you don't do patrols. Then they know where to hit with artillery and lay siege.

Vietnam is a complicated defeat really. I blame the lack of political support of course. But also their cavalry tactics. You remember watching movies of american landing with helicopters in the middle of a firefight? That's just about the dumbest way to engage an enemy. Imagine the enemy being in entrenched positions and then landing on top of them, that could EASILY lead to 1:10 casualty rates.
User avatar #41 - Rockaman (10/28/2014) [-]
The VC had such a decent network of spies and informants that they knew where the patrols would be coming from, so were almost always the ambushers. On top of being on home turf where it was easy to slip away, they could then disappear once their enemie's reinforcements arrive. Also, combat patrols are really bad in booby-trapped locations, IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan have also amounted to large numbers of casualties.

Yes they are good at securing your lines and keeping supplies coming, but as an offensive tactic they are really quite poor.

I'd say that Vietnam was pretty complicated, but I think tactical error plus the effective Vietnamese tactics were more to blame for the defeat than political support as the war had plenty of support to start with and that support dwindled after failures and large scale offenses by the VC and NVA when the US public believed they were winning. If the failures had never happened then support would have probably stayed high.
User avatar #51 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
Combat patrols are not tactical mistakes.
Conducting a proper patrol without enemy getting intel of your whereabouts may be difficult, but quite necessary.
If the US had siezed conducting patrols all together where do you think that would have lead them? (By the way, in Vietnam they almost stopped their patrols during the Tet Offensive)

Also I think the casualty statistics speak for themselves when it comes to who was the superior military power and strategies. It is estimated that 1.1 million NVAs and Viet Congs died during the vietnam war, as opposed to US KIAs numbering around 58.000
#9 - Extra Bonus points: Stick the Space Jam theme on your car stereo! 10/28/2014 on Going Out in Style +18
#4 - Give them a good listen to, I've got quite a lot of people int… 10/26/2014 on You Are a Pirate - Metal... 0
#2 - Dude, there's an awesome band called Alestorm that do just tha…  [+] (2 new replies) 10/26/2014 on You Are a Pirate - Metal... +1
User avatar #3 - gittons (10/26/2014) [-]
thank you for the info.
User avatar #4 - Rockaman (10/26/2014) [-]
Give them a good listen to, I've got quite a lot of people into this band as they are so likable!
#51 - **Rockaman rolls 383,995,848** 10/26/2014 on Payday 1 free steam gift! 0
#88 - **Rockaman rolls 085** soooo close! 10/26/2014 on Help me name my kid 0
#87 - **Rockaman rolls 443** dickbutt  [+] (1 new reply) 10/26/2014 on Help me name my kid 0
User avatar #88 - Rockaman (10/26/2014) [-]
**Rockaman rolls 085** soooo close!

user's channels

Join Subscribe metal-time

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #21 - hotpost (01/22/2014) [-]
gay
#20 - Darkreview **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#8 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
If you hate ponies so much, skip GLORIOUS FAGGOT content. The site isn't made only for you.
User avatar #9 to #8 - Rockaman (08/28/2011) [-]
problem is is that I wasn't expecting anything to do with ponies so I watched it and now the matrix feels ruined. Thats why I say **** PONIES.
User avatar #10 to #9 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
-_-
1. See title
2. See it has something pony related
3. Skip
4. ????
5. Stop bitching
User avatar #11 to #10 - Rockaman (08/28/2011) [-]
Funnily enough I don't know ponies well and had no clue it was ponies from the title.
User avatar #12 to #11 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
1. See ponies in the comments
2. ?????
3. Discover the internet
User avatar #13 to #12 - Rockaman (08/28/2011) [-]
like most people, I look at the content b4 the comments section. I normally skip MLP crap but this snuck up on me. Also every comments section has stupid ponies on it so that won't exactly work.
User avatar #14 to #13 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
All you haters say that.
I, on the other hand, hardly ever see any ponies in the comments.
Also since I'm not a gigantic faggot, here's a list of the things to look out for:
Gay Pony
pinkie poo
Flutter Shy
Rarity
Luna
Equestria
Celestia
Twilight

^ see any of these, skip.
User avatar #16 to #14 - Rockaman (08/28/2011) [-]
Nice to know. Will do in the future. Think I get it when I see gay pony tho lol!
User avatar #17 to #16 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
Heh yea probably :d
User avatar #15 to #14 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
rawr damn ad­min
First was Rain­bow Dash and second was Pin­kie Pie
User avatar #18 to #15 - Rockaman (08/28/2011) [-]
lol, think Red Spy agrees that ponies are gay!
User avatar #19 to #18 - spior (08/28/2011) [-]
Nah, he just did it to mess around with us. A bro­nie made some video and well, we got new word filters.
User avatar #6 - KingOfLulz (05/02/2011) [-]
Thanks for the compliment on my profile bro.
User avatar #7 to #6 - Rockaman (05/03/2011) [-]
np, your genuinely funny!
User avatar #3 - ThankYouComeAgain (04/14/2011) [-]
bigger
User avatar #4 to #3 - ThankYouComeAgain (04/14/2011) [-]
haha whoops, silly me

don't take any offense to that "bigger" comment

i meant to say

******
User avatar #5 to #4 - Rockaman (04/14/2011) [-]
lol wut???
#1 - wolfiethepirate **User deleted account** (11/03/2010) [-]
I shall haunt your comment section
User avatar #2 to #1 - Rockaman (11/03/2010) [-]
lol
 Friends (0)