In terms of toughness, are conventional western military forces more or less tough than non-conventional fighters like the Taliban or foreign fighters in Iraq, or maybe even irregulars like the Azov Batallion in Ukraine?I've never served myself, but i heard from some dude who served in Afghanistan that the taliban were living in far harsher conditions and were on average much more rugged than they themselves were.
>Toughnessdefine your terms> irregulars like the Azov BatallionBy what definition is Azov an irregular group?Anyways consider suicide
>>65162442In terms of what they were willing to put up with? Maybe i guessBut it's not like putting up with worse conditions suddenly makes them more capable of surviving a missile strike. And even then it's more a case of >If i'm being sent 10000 miles from home to fuck with a guy i better get AC and lunchables vs>These fucks are coming here from a world of luxury just to fuck with me, my already shitty life made even worse because they destroy any activity they see with near impunity forcing me to hide in a cave, I shall do so merely to do what i can against them.
>>65162447Azov started as irregulars but they ended up as regulars in 2022.Though i'd say the fighting they were subjected to in Mariupol wasn't much worse than what coalition forces faced in Iraq or Afghanistan.
>>65162442Regular army troops bitch more because there's a culture of bitching in the army, but they're actually held to a much higher physical standard than irregulars. Home terrain advantage does count for something, though, if you threw those Afghanis into Saskatchewan or Alaska they'd as bad or worse off than Canadians or Americans in the desert.
>>65162442Contrary to what some lefties might tell you, masculinity actually does still play a very important part in combat. The west still places some value in masculine virtues, particularly in the military, so its soldiers tend to be better trained and tougher than those of the 3rd world and Russia
>>65162442>In terms of toughnessWhich, outside of materials science, is subjective. May as well ask if a pirate or a ninja would win in a sword fight, it always comes down to the individuals with a degree of luck as well.
>>65162442That's just how conventional forces praise non-conventional forces. It's natural (for Westerners) to praise an enemy. Better than under-estimating them. Because you can't praise insurgents for much else except creativity. Making good quality infantry is something poor countries can successfully do because most infantry training is inexpensive and the human beings themselves vary by price, so to speak, according to a nation's gdp. But likewise, having a relatively cheaper pricetag doesn't make people better, either. Conventional forces tend to be staffed by volunteers who like this stuff, train for it a lot, understand it, and have lots of vitamins, protein, and dental plans in them. Realistically they're about the same in terms of 'toughness.' It's just different labels on the product.While the conventional forces match them in everything insurgents can do, then add all the organization, reliable logistics, heavy weapons, intel, etc. Think like this: conventional forces are the heavyweight boxer with a baseball bat and buddies, praising the featherweight guy unarmed and alone for not dying instantly when they hit him.
>>65162442OP, the Taliban spent 20 years being actively protected and supplied by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence while hiding in Pakistani territory, whose military efforts against the US consisted primarily of small-scale attacks that ended with a US casualty rate over the entire occupation period being functionally a rounding error. The Taliban were not some Central Asian superhumans living in caves and surviving off moss and drinking their own piss before crossing mountains and deserts to attack American outposts and disappearing into the night, they were getting housed and fed while largely being made up of politically and religiously radicalized normies who constantly got their shit rocked.
>>65162626>Though i'd say the fighting they were subjected to in Mariupol wasn't much worse than what coalition forces faced in Iraq or Afghanistan.You're right it was way tougher. Which western military or unit of a western military went through amything even remotely comporable in the last 50 years?
>>65162626>>65163810what's so bad about mariupol vs something like Fallujah
>>65164095Mariupol involved fighting a numerically and materially superior conventional force that was happy to warcrime you while having zero resupply.Fallujah was just a somewhat difficult counterinsurgency against people with little heavy weaponry, no air, artillery, or armor, inferior numbers, and you get infinite resupply, plus medevac a d casualties get replaced. What do you think is harder?
>>65164451Most of the difference between how bad Mariupol was and how bad Fallujah was, is due to Azov fighters being less trained/experienced than the marines at fallujah. Had they gotten some proper urban warfare training then they would've managed to break out.
