That's strange. I don't recall a single day flying over Vietnam that equates to any games. That's both North and South Vietnam, doing medevacs, CSAR, insertions and extractions. Almost invariably under fire.
My kids are not prepared for any kind of war. One is a 2 dan black belt karate, if I recall correctly. He decided he was hot shit, much better trained than his old man. Being a h2h instructor myself, he didn't last 30 seconds. And he played games much of his previous life. Neither son was able to put a bullet into a beer can without major practice. Both are or were gamers.
Tactics? There is no chance the games prepare anyone for tactics. That, unfortunately for many, has to include such military instruction as "The Art of War", which becomes meaningless when faced with a foe that doesn't follow Tsu. You can say it's like chess: there are rules, there are books and books of the various chess tactics the masters have used. What if someone comes along and breaks those standards? Equate that with the Vietcong tactics - they didn't really have many. VC just raised hell, did some raids on cities, raised hell with villages, and did little ambush things along with laying booby traps and such. When 1968 came, with Tet, and the NVA recruited the VC into the regulars, they got their skinny little asses kicked; at the end of Tet, the VC were no longer viable and were effectively abandoned, with the assaults on RVN villages etc becoming NVA operations.
It is certainly true that the operators of drones and the like are better equipped to do those things if games were played, there is NO substitute for actually being under fire and doing the things we did.
Depends on the training. No 'basic' training is really training. However, the training my group went through was thorough, very few of us made it all the way, and we were definitely prepared for Vietnam. The four of us that did complete already had some small time there, but not necessarily doing what the SOG did.
Flight school dealt with the aircraft and duties of the crew. To get our wings, we had to know that helo better than the pilots. NATOPS is not a little book. The H-3 Sikorsky isn't simple, like the Huey.
The other stuff is different. Just as thorough. In some cases, such as SERE (all three we did), unless you keep in mind where you really are, and many don't, you'll be convinced you're in a POW camp, at least during Vietnam. The current crop seems to have no idea about that, beginning in the mid 70s, when standards were lowered to increase recruitment. And mommies could call MCRD or other and complain about the treatment of their kiddies. We didn't have that luxury.
One can put this into some small perspective with respect to Q's version of the globalist 16 year plan: the effective castration of the military was included, except the globs thought their programs wouldn't quite as effective as they were. That's something you can track easily.
As to basic, even back then (in the 60s), when the average recruit was in far better physical condition, it's necessary to prep them for the physical stresses, but you're right - NO training will prep them for going under fire.
Video games are war's book learning. Once you trmper it with experience, you are significantly better equipped to deal with the reality.
He probably got experience by hunting.
That's strange. I don't recall a single day flying over Vietnam that equates to any games. That's both North and South Vietnam, doing medevacs, CSAR, insertions and extractions. Almost invariably under fire. My kids are not prepared for any kind of war. One is a 2 dan black belt karate, if I recall correctly. He decided he was hot shit, much better trained than his old man. Being a h2h instructor myself, he didn't last 30 seconds. And he played games much of his previous life. Neither son was able to put a bullet into a beer can without major practice. Both are or were gamers. Tactics? There is no chance the games prepare anyone for tactics. That, unfortunately for many, has to include such military instruction as "The Art of War", which becomes meaningless when faced with a foe that doesn't follow Tsu. You can say it's like chess: there are rules, there are books and books of the various chess tactics the masters have used. What if someone comes along and breaks those standards? Equate that with the Vietcong tactics - they didn't really have many. VC just raised hell, did some raids on cities, raised hell with villages, and did little ambush things along with laying booby traps and such. When 1968 came, with Tet, and the NVA recruited the VC into the regulars, they got their skinny little asses kicked; at the end of Tet, the VC were no longer viable and were effectively abandoned, with the assaults on RVN villages etc becoming NVA operations. It is certainly true that the operators of drones and the like are better equipped to do those things if games were played, there is NO substitute for actually being under fire and doing the things we did.
You could just as easily say " I don't recall a single day flying over Vietnam that equates to any basic training."
How about, " I don't recall a single day flying over Vietnam that equates to any flight school." ?
Funny how learning needs to be tempered with experience. I wish someone could have pointed that out directly or something.
But, no, you're probably right. We shouldn't train troops at all. Nothing will ever prepare them. Especially a game.
https://www.wired.com/2008/01/americas-army-t/
Depends on the training. No 'basic' training is really training. However, the training my group went through was thorough, very few of us made it all the way, and we were definitely prepared for Vietnam. The four of us that did complete already had some small time there, but not necessarily doing what the SOG did. Flight school dealt with the aircraft and duties of the crew. To get our wings, we had to know that helo better than the pilots. NATOPS is not a little book. The H-3 Sikorsky isn't simple, like the Huey. The other stuff is different. Just as thorough. In some cases, such as SERE (all three we did), unless you keep in mind where you really are, and many don't, you'll be convinced you're in a POW camp, at least during Vietnam. The current crop seems to have no idea about that, beginning in the mid 70s, when standards were lowered to increase recruitment. And mommies could call MCRD or other and complain about the treatment of their kiddies. We didn't have that luxury.
One can put this into some small perspective with respect to Q's version of the globalist 16 year plan: the effective castration of the military was included, except the globs thought their programs wouldn't quite as effective as they were. That's something you can track easily.
As to basic, even back then (in the 60s), when the average recruit was in far better physical condition, it's necessary to prep them for the physical stresses, but you're right - NO training will prep them for going under fire.
Mental gymnastics aren't your strong suit. Were I you, Id give it up and instead see what was said instead of what I want to argue about.