You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Nornagest comments on Open thread, Dec. 1 - Dec. 7, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 01 December 2014 08:29AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (346)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Nornagest 08 December 2014 05:41:33PM *  0 points [-]

It's been more than twenty years, but the first Gulf War was a conventional war waged against an opponent that was serious about fighting conventionally. The strategic outcome wasn't really in doubt, and the Iraqis at the time were largely running old and/or downgraded export versions of Russian equipment, but it still gives us good tactical data; the current reputation of American armor, for example, largely rides on the Battle of 73 Easting.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 08 December 2014 09:25:58PM 0 points [-]

This depends whether the advantage of american combat experience is proof of abilities, or experience gained.

My understanding is that having seen combat, veterans are then less scared by future engagements. But what proportion of Gulf war vets are still serving now - wouldn't they be getting a bit old?

Anyway, yes the Gulf war shows the massive superiority of US/UK tanks over T-72s.