• Jumbie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Uhuh. “When I visited . . . “

    So tell us why you only lasted 15 years.

    EDIT: Just so we’re clear, I’m not pettifogging the fuckups but you’re using them to paint the entire thing as inefficient, which is untrue.

      • Jumbie@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        You know what, dude? I’m a dick. I’m sorry I pushed the issue the way I did, even if I disagree on the point you tried to make.

        Thank you for your service and cheers. Hope you’re well and stay that way.

        Have a good day.

    • TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      They are indeed inefficient. Their command structure is too large, people have little to no responsibilities which causes actions to go slow and wrong as there are too many people involved. For example, changing course requires many people, where as with us it’s only 2. We’re trained to think ahaid, instead of just performing a single task without questioning.

      The US has the highest blue on blue actions in general, percentage wise. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq for example. This isn’t because they are so efficient.

      Many lack proper training, they don’t know how to use their own systems, they don’t know how to cooperate or perform procedures properly. The strength of the US military is quantity, not quality. Also their ships are really old, including their sensors. For example, they have a missile to shoot down ballistic missiles (SM3) but they don’t have a radar capable of tracking them, so they need Dutch, German, UK, Danish, Italian ships to be able to track ballistic missiles.